8/10/2019 REM2 UPDATED CASES

1/4

University of ManilaRemedial Law Review II

Provisional Remedies:

A.Preliminary Attachment [Rule 57]

1.Onate vs. Abrogar, GR 107303, 23 February 1995[improper enforcement does

not affect the validity of the writ]

2.Pepperel vs. Taylor, 5 Phil 536[attachment allowed if the mortgagee abandons

security]

3.Delos Reyes vs. RTC Batangas, 55 Phil 408[attachment allowed if the mortgage

security is insufficient]

4.Cuartero vs. CA, GR 102448, 5 August 1992[Ground for discharge shld not be

ground to dismiss the main case on the merits]

B.Preliminary Injunction [Rule 58]

1.Hernandez vs. Napocor, GR 145328, 23 March 2006[Injunction against

government infrastructure project]

2.Hernandez vs. Albano, et al, GR L-19272, 25 January 1967[Injunction on CC to

afford protection of constitutional rights]

3.Spouses Democrito and Oliva Lago vs. Judeg Godfredo Abul, Jr, AM No. RTJ-

10-2255, 8 February 2012[72 hour TRO]

C.Receivership [Rule 59]

1.Phil Trust vs. Santamaria, 53 Phil 463 [appointment of receiver in cases of

disposal or concealment of property]

2.Pacific Merchandising vs. Consolacion Insurance and Surety, 73 SCRA 564

[receiver cannot enter into contract without court order]

D.Replevin [Rule 60]

1.Chua vs. CA, GR 79021, 17 May 1993[replevin not proper remedy if there are

conflicting claims]

2.Asian Terminals vs. Bautista-Ricafort, GR 166901, 27 October 2006[Replevin

not applicable to goods seized by the Bureau of Customs]

3.Terlyngrace Rivera vs. Florencio Vargas, GR 165895, 5 June 2009[Effect of

improper service of writ]

E.Support Pendente Lite [Rule 61]

1.Antonio Perla vs. Mirasol Baring, GR 172471, 12 November 2012[Paternity and

Filiation need to be established by clear and convincing evidence]

Special Civil Actions:

A.Interpleader [Rule 62]

1.Mesina vs. IAC, GR L-70145, 13 November 1986, 145 SCRA 497[proper remedy

against conflicting claims]

Page 1of 4

8/10/2019 REM2 UPDATED CASES

2/4

2.Arreza vs. Diaz, Jr, GR 133113, 30 August 2001[interpleading parties may file

counter-claim, cross-claims or third party complaint for complete adjudication of the

case]

B.Declaratory Relief [Rule 63]

1.Malana vs. Tappa, GR 181303, 17 September 2009[Proper party, three remedies

similar to declaratory relief, reformation, quieting of title and consolidation;

jurisdiction]

2.Ombudsman vs. Ibay, GR 137538, 3 September 2001 [relief incapable of

pecuniary estimation; jurisdiction]

3.Macasiano vs. NHA, GR 107921, 1 July 1993[treating declaratory relief as one

for prohibition]

4.Baguio Citizens Action Inc., et.al. vs. City Council of Baguio, GR L-27247, 20

April 1983[non-joinder of parties of interest who may be affected by declaratory

judgment is not a jurisdictional defect]

C.Review of Judgments and Final Orders or Resolution of the COMELEC and COA [Rule

64]

1.Esteves vs. Sarmiento, GR 182374, 11 November 2008[MR to COMELEC en

Banc is necessary before invoking review by the SC]

D.Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus [Rule 65]

Certiorari

1.Spouses Marcelo vs LBC Bank, GR 183575, 11 April 2011[Under rule 65 CA can

receive new evidence]2.Churchille Mari and People vs. Hon. Gonzales, GR 187728, 12 September 2011

[Rules 65 does not enjoin proceedings in the main case; TRO necessary]

3.Leyte Electric cooperative vs. LEYECO IV Employees Union, GR 157775, 19

October 2007[Gen. rule: Certiorari not substitute remedy for lost appeal if appeal

is available; except when the order amounts to oppressive exercise of judicial

authority]

4.Domdom vs. Sandiganbayan, GR 182382-83, 24 February 2010 [extension of

time to file the petition under rule 65 at the courts discretion]

Prohibition

1.City Engineer of Baguio et.al vs. Rolando Baniqued, GR 150270, 26 November2008 [Prohibition; resort to administrative remedies necessary before judicial

intervention]

2.Delta Development and Management Services vs. HLURB, GR 146031, 19

February 2008[Prohibition will not be granted if there other remedy available]

Mandamus

1.Uy Liao Eng vs. Nixon Lee, GR 176831, 15 January 2010[Mandamus cannot be

used to enforce contractual obligation or to compel another to perform not his duty;

Grounds for filing]

2.Special People vs. Nestor Canda, GR 160932, 14 January 2013[Mandamus

remedy when there is no appeal, nor any other speedy and adequate remedy in theordinary course of law]

E.Quo Warranto [Rule 66]

Page 2of 4

8/10/2019 REM2 UPDATED CASES

3/4

1.Topacio vs. Ong, GR 179895, 18 December 2008[Quo warranto defined;

grounds]

2.Burguete vs. Mayor, 94 Phil 930[Mandamus vs. Quo warranto to remove usurper

of an office]

F.Expropriation [Rule 67]

1.City of Iloilo vs. Hon. Lolita Contreras, GR 168967, 12 February 2010[Nature

of expropriation proceedings; two stages of proceedings; when to determine just

compensation]

2.Republic vs. Gingoyon, GR 166429, 19 December 2005[Expropriation involving

government infrastructure project under RA 8974]

G.Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage [Rule 68]

1.Huerta Alba Resort vs. CA, GR 128567, 1 September 2000[equity of redemption

and right of redemption, defined; difference]

2.PSB vs. Spouses Geronimo, GR 170241, 19 April 2010[validity of extrajudicialforeclosure; proof of publication/notice of sale]

H.Partition [Rule 69]

1.Municipality of Binan vs. Garcia, GR 69260, 22 December 1989[co-ownership

is necessary in action for partition; procedure in two phases]

2.Betty B. Lacbayan vs. Bayani Samoy Jr., GR 165427, 21 March 2011[co-

ownership must be settled before partition]

I. Ejectment [Rule 70]

1.Sunflower Neighborhood Association vs. CA, GR 136274, 3 September 2003[action in personam; binding only to one properly impleaded; exceptions]

J.Contempt of Court [Rule 71]

1.BPI vs. Calanza GR 180699, 13 October 2010[act of contempt; exercised in a

preservative and not on vindictive manner and impose only when necessary]

2.Lipata vs. Tutaan, GR L-16643, September 1983[Contempt to whom order is

given]

3.Inonog vs. Ibay, AM RTJ-09-2715, 28 July 2009[act to delay the proceedings

must be with malice or bad faith for indirect contempt to lie]

Other provisional remedies:

1.Temporary Protection Order [RA 9262]

2.Temporary Visitation Rights [AM 02-11-12; Rule on Provisional Remedies]

3.Temporary Child Custody [AM 02-1-19 and AM 02-11-12]

4.Child Guardian Ad Litem [AM 02-1-19; Rule on Involuntary Commitment of Children]

5.Spousal and Child Support [AM 02-11-12; Rule on Provisional Remedies]

6.Administration of Common Property [AM 02-11-12; Rule on Provisional Remedies]

7.Stay Order [AM 00-8-10; Rules on Corporate Rehabilitation]

8.Witness Protection Order [RA 6981; Rule on Writ Amparo]

9.Inspection Order [RA 6981; Rule on Writ Amparo]

10.Production Order [RA 6981; Rule on Writ Amparo]

11.Freeze Order under Anti-Money Laundering Act [RA 9160 as amended]

12.Bank Inquiry Order under Anti-Money Laundering Act [RA 9160 as amended]

13.Freeze Order under Human Security Act [RA 9372 as amended]

Page 3of 4

8/10/2019 REM2 UPDATED CASES

4/4

14.Bank Inquiry Order [Inspection and examination] under Human Security Act [RA 9372

as amended]

15.Seizure and sequestration of Accounts and Assets under Human Security Act [RA 9372

as amended]

16.Order for Travel Restriction under Human Security Act [RA 9372 as amended]

17.Hold Departure Order [Department Circular for Criminal Cases 39-97, AM 02-11-12]

Atty. ROLAND YSRAEL R. ATIENZA

Page 4of 4