ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

REMEDIAL LAW DEPARTMENT

SYLLABUS: SCHOOL YEAR 2020-2021

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

REMEDIAL LAW DEPARTMENT

S Y L L A B U S
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
SCHOOL YEAR 2020-2021
PROF. HENEDINO M. BRONDIAL

I. PROVISIONAL REMEDIES (Rules 57-61)

A. Preliminary Attachment (R-57)

1. Grounds (S-1)
2. Requirements (S-3)
3. Manner of Attaching (S-5)
4. Discharge of Attachment (S-5,12,13)
5. Third Party Claim (S-14)
6. Claim for damages (S-20)
Cases:
1. Lim Jr. Vs. Lazaro, 700 SCRA
2. Ligon vs. RTC of Makati, Br. 56, 717 SCRSA
3. Mangila vs. CA, 387 SCRA
4. Chuidian vs. Sandiganbayan, 349 SCRA
5. Alejandro Ng Wee vs. Tankiansee, 545 SCRA
6. Torres vs. Satsatin, 605 SCRA
7. Luzon Dev. Bank vs. Krishman, 755 SCRA, April 13, 201,
8. Northern Luzon Island Co. vs. Garcia, 753 SCRA 603
9. Watercraft Venture Corp. vs. Wolfe, 770 SCRA 179
10. Phil. Airconditioning Center vs. RCJ Lines, 775 SCRA 265

B. Preliminary Injunction (R-58)

1. Definition, Classes (S-1)
2. Grounds (S-3); TRO
3. Requirements (S-4)
4. Damages (S-8)
Cases:
1. Idolor vs. CA, 351 SCRA
2. Gustilo vs. Real, 353 SCRA
3. Lagrosas vs. Bristo-Myers, 565 SCRA
4. Jenosa vs. Delariarte, 630 SCRA
5. Solid Builders Inc. vs. China Bank, 695 SCRA, 4/3/13.
6. Knights of Rizal vs. DMCI Homes, Inc., 824 SCRA (2017)
7. Novecio vs. Lim, 754 SCRA 111
8. Cayabyab vs. Dimson, 830 SCRA 520

1
 9. Republic vs. Cortez, 769 SCRA 267
10. AMA Land, Inc. vs. Wack-Wack Residents’ Assoc., Inc.
831 SCRA 328 ( requisites for Injunction)

- What cases/subject matters proscribe injunctive relief?

C. Receivership (R-59)
1. When writ may issue (S-1)
2. Requirements (S-2)
3. Power of receiver (S-6)
4. Termination and Compensation (S-8)
Cases:
1. Larrobis, Jr. vs. Phil Veterans Bank, 440 SCRA
2. Chavez vs. CA, 610 SCRA
3. Koruga vs. Arcenas, 590 SCRA
4. Tantano vs. Espina-Caboverde, 702 SCRA – 7/29/13

D. Replevin (R-60)
1. When writ may issue (S-1)
2. Requirements (S-2)
3. Third Party Claim (S-7)
4. Judgment and Damages (S-9,10)
Cases:
1. Orosa vs. CA, 329 SCRA
2. Smart Communiations vs. Astorga, 542 SCRA
3. Hao vs. Andres, 555 SCRA
4. Navarro vs. Escobido, 606 SCRA
5. Agner vs. BPI Family Savings Bank, 697 SCRA, 6/3/13

E. Support (R-61)
1. Application for Support Pendente Lite (S-1)
2. Comment, Hearing, Order (S-2,3,4)
3. Enforcement of Order (S-5)
4. Restitution (S-7)
Cases:
1. De Asis vs. CA, 303 SCRA
2. People vs. Manahan, 315 SCRA
3. Lim vs. Lim, 604 SCRA
4. Gotardo vs. Buling, 678 SCRA
5. Republic vs. Yahon, 726 SCRA 438
6. Del Socorro vs. Van Wilsem, 744 SCRA516
7. Lim-Lua vs. Lua, 697 SCRA
8. Salas vs. Matusalem, 705 SCRA 560
9. Abella vs. Cabanero, 836 SCRA 453 (2017)

II. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS (Rules 62-71)

A. Interpleader (R-62)
1. What is an action in Interpleader (S-1)

2
 2. Requisites (S-1)
3. Procedure (S-2 to 7)
Cases:
1. Wack-Wack Golf and Country Club vs. Won, 70 SCRA
2. Eternal Gardens vs. IAC, 165 SCRA
3. Pasricha vs. Don Luis Dizon Realty, 548 SCRA
4. Bank of Commerce vs. Planters Dev. Bank, 681 SCRA

B. Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies (R-63)

1. Nature; Kinds (S-1)
2. Parties (S-2)
3. Conversion into ordinary action (S-6)
Cases:
1. Almeda vs. Bathala Marketing Ind.,542 SCRA
2. De Borja vs. Pinalakas na Ugnayan ng Maliliit na
Mangingisda ng L, M at V., 823 SCRA 550 (2017)
3. Malana vs. Tappa, 600 SCRA
4. Chavez vs. Judicial and Bar Council, 676 SCRA
5. Sabitsana vs.Muertegui, 703 SCRA (8/5/13)
6. Dept of Finance vs. De la Cruz, Jr., 768 SCRA 73
7. Erice vs. Sison, 846 SCRA (2017)

C. Review of Judgments and Final Orders of the COMELEC and COA (R-
64)
- The distinctive nature and procedure of this special civil action
Case: Alliance for Nationalism and Democracy vs. COMELEC
705 SCRA 340, September 10, 2013

D. Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus (R-65)

1. Certiorari (S-1)
a. grounds
b. requirements
c. procedure; parties and effects
Cases:
1. Ampil vs. Ombudsman, 703 SCRA, 7/31/13
2. A.L. Ang Network, Inc. vs. Mondejar, 714 SCRA, 1/28/14
3. Maglalang vs. PAGCOR, 712 SCRA, 12/11/13
4. People vs. Castaneda, 712 SCRA, 12/11/13
5. UP Board of Regents vs. Ligot-Teylan, 227 SCRA
6. Tuazon vs. RD of Caloocan, 157 SCRA
7. GSIS vs. CA, 867 SCRA (2018)
8. Reyes vs. Sandiganbayan SCRA, 868 SCRA (2018)

2. Prohibition (S-2)
a. grounds
b. requirements
c. procedure; parties and effects
Cases:

3
 1. Vivas vs. Monetary Board of BSP, 703 SCRA 8/7/13
2. Corales vs. Republic, 703 SCRA, 8/27/13
3. Javier vs. Gonzales, 815 SCRA (2017)
4. Career Executive Service Board vs. Civil Service
Commission, 819 SCRA 482 (2017)
3. Mandamus (S-3)
a. grounds
b. requisites
c. procedure; parties and effects
d. damages
Cases:
1. Hipos, Sr. vs. Bay, 581 SCRA 3/17/09
2. Sanchez vs. Lastimosa, 534 SCRA, 9/25/07
3. Social Justice Society vs. Atienza, 517 SCRA, 3/7/07
4. Laygo vs. Mun. Mayor of Solano, N.V., 814 SCRA (2017)
5. Cudia vs. Superintendent of PMA, February 24, 2015
6. Villanueva vs. JBC, 755 SCRA 182

E. Quo Warranto (R-66)

1. Parties (S-1 to 6)
2. Period (S-8)
3. Limitation (S-11)
4. Judgment for Cost (S-12)
Read for class discussion: Republic vs. Sereno, May 11, 2018, 863
SCRA 1
Cases:
1. Mendoza vs. Allas, 302 SCRA
2. Calleja vs. Panday, 483 SCRA.
3. Lokin, Jr. vs. COMELEC, 621 SCRA
4. Aratea vs. COMELEC, 683 SCRA
5. De Castro vs. Carlos, 696 SCRA, 4/16/13
6. Velasco vs. Belmonte, 779 SCRA 81 (1/12/16)

F. Expropriation (R-67)
1. The right of Eminent Domain
-Constitutional provision: “private property shall not be taken for
public use without just compensation”
- RA 7160: The Local Govt. Code, Sec. 19
2. Who may expropriate
3. Two stages in expropriation
1. determination of public use
2. just compensation
Cases:
1. City of Manila vs. Serrano, 359 SCRA
2. National Power Corp. vs. CA, 436 SCRA
3. Republic vs. Andaya, 524 SCRA
4. Asia’s Emerging Dragon vs. DOTC, 552 SCRA
5. Abad vs. Fil-homes Realty, 636 SCRA
6. NPC vs. YCLA Sugar Dev. Corp., 712 SCRA 550

4
 7. Limkaichong vs. LBP, 799 SCRA 139 (8/2/16)
8. LBP vs. Dalauta, 835 SCRA (2017)

G. Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage (R-68)

1. The Complaint (S-1)
2. The Judgment (S-2)
3. Sale of foreclosed property (S-3)
- Equity of Redemption vs. Right of Redemption
4. Deficiency Judgment (S-6)
Read the law on extra-judicial foreclosure: RA 3135, 4118
Cases:
1. Ramirez vs. Manila Banking Corp., 712 SCRA, 12/2013
2. Marquez vs. Alindog, 714 SCRA, 1/2014
3. Ardiente vs. Provincial Sheriff, 436 SCRA
4. LZK Holdings vs. Planters Dev. Bank, 714 SCRA, 1/2014
5. Goldenway Merchandising Corp. vs. Equitable PCI
Bank, 693 SCRA, March 13, 2013
6. Solid Builders vs. CBC, 695 SCRA (also on injunction)
7. Robles vs. Yapcinco, 739 SCRA 75
8. MBTC vs. CPR Promotions and Marketing, Inc., 760 SCRA 59
9. Roldan vs. Barrios, 862 SCRA 318, April 23, 2018

H. Partition (R-69)
1. The Complaint (S-1)
2. The Order (S-2)
3. Stages of Partition:
4. Rule of Commissioners (S-3 to 7)
5. The Judgment (S-11)
Cases:
1. Balus vs. Balus, 610 SCRA
2. Feliciano vs. Canosa, 629 SCRA
3. Mangahas vs. Brobio, 634 SCRA
4. Vda. De Figuracion vs. Figuracion-Gerilla, 690 SCRA
5. Agarrado vs. Librando-Agarrado, 864 SCRA 582, June 6, 2018
I. Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer (R-70)
1. Parties (S-1)
2. Procedure: Summary (S-3 to 15)
3. Judgment (S-17)
4. Immediate Execution (S-19 vs S-21)
- preliminary injunction (S-20)
5. Appeals
Cases:
1. Prov. of Cam. Sur vs. Bodega Glassware, 821 SCRA (2017)
2. Santiago vs. Northbay Knitting, Inc., 842 SCRA (2017)
3. Regalado vs. De la Rama vda. De dela Pena, 848 SCRA (2017)
4. Ferrer vs. Rabaca, 632 SCRA
5. CGR Corp. vs. Treyes, 522 SCRA 765
6. Zacarias vs. Anacay, 736 SCRA 508, 9/24/14
7. Supapo vs. De Jesus, 756 SCRA 211, 4/20/15

5
 9. De Guzman-Fuerte vs. Estomo, 862 SCRA (2018)
10. Iglesia de Jesucristo Jerusalem Nueva of Manila, Phil. Inc.
Vs. De la Cruz, 862 SCRA (2018)

J. Contempt (R-71)
1. Kinds: direct (S-1); indirect (S-3)
2. Procedure (S-4 to 9)
3. Judgment and Review (S-11)
Cases:
1. Yasay vs. Recto, 313 SCRA
2. Sison vs. Caoibes, Jr., 429 SCRA 258
3. Espanol vs. Formoso, 525 SCRA
4. Marantan vs. Diokno, 716 SCRA 164, 2/2014
5. Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club vs. Sanchez, 717 SCRA
6. Tormis vs. Paredes, 749 SCRA 505, Feb. 4, 2015
7. Oca vs. Custodio, 832 SCRA (2017)
8. Causing vs. De la Rosa, 857 SCRA (2017)
9. Sps. Bayani & Myrna Partoza vs. Lilian Montano & Amelia
Solomon, 866 SCRA 35 (2018)

III. SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (Rules 72 to 109)

A. Settlement of Estate
1. Venue vs Jurisdiction (R-73)
2. Kinds of settlement
a. Extrajudicial
(1) By Agreement
(2) By self-adjudication
b. Judicial
(1) Summary (R-74)
(2) By Petition (R-75 to 90)
a. Intestate
b. Testate
(3) By partition (R-69)
3. The Administrator or Executor
(a) Special vs Regular (R-80)
(b) Bonds (R-81)
(c) Powers and Duties (R-84)
(d) Accountability (R-85)
4. Claims Against the Estate (R-86)
5. Actions by and against Executor and Administrator (R-87)
6. Distribution and Partition (R-90)

Cases:
1. San Luis vs. San Luis, 514 SCRA, February 2007
2. Garcia-Quiazon vs. Belen, 702 SCRA, 7/31/13
3. Agtarap vs. Agtarap, 651 SCRA, June 2011

6
 4. Suntay III vs. Cojuangco-Suntay, 683 SCRA, October 2012
5. Lee vs. RTC of Q.C., 423 SCRA, February 2004
6. Heirs of Hilario Ruiz vs. Edmond Ruiz, 252 SCRA, January 1996
7. Unionbank vs. Santibanez, 452 SCRA, February 2005 (R-86)
8. Heirs of Maglasang vs. MBC, 706 SCRA 235
9. Pilapil vs. Heirs of M. Briones, 514 SCRA, February 2007
10. Sabidong vs. Solas, 699 SCRA, June 2013
11. Aranas vs. Mercado, 713 SCRA
12. Silverio Sr. vs. Silverio Jr., 733 SCRA 183, (8/13/14)
13. Butiong vs. Plazo, 765 SCRA 227

B. Escheats (R-91)
1. Definition
2. Historical background and legal basis
3. Actions for Revisions (S-5)
Cases:
1. Alvarico vs Sola, 382 SCRA
2. Maltos vs. Heirs of Eusebio Borromeo, 770 SCRA 397

C. Guardians and Guardianship (R-92 to 97) as amended by

A.M. No. 03-02-05-SC, May 1, 2003

1. Venue vs Jurisdiction (S-92)

2. Appointment, kinds, Qualifications (S-93)
3. Requirement (S-94)
4. Power and Duties (S-96)
5. Termination (S-97)
Cases:
1. Goyena vs. Ledesma Gustilo, Jan. 13, 2003
2. Caniza vs. CA, Feb. 24, 1997
3. Neri vs. Heirs of Hadji Yusop Uy, 683 SCRA
4. Oropesa vs. Oropesa, 671 SCRA (4/2012)
5. Abad vs. Biazon, 687 SCRA (12/2012)

D. Trustees (R-98)
1. Parties
2. Kinds/Classes
Cases:
1. Advent Capital and Finance Corp. vs. Alcantara, 664 SCRA
2. Land Bank of the Phil. vs. Perez, 672 SCRA

E. Adoption and Custody of Minors (R-99-100)

1. The Domestic Adoption Act of 1998 (RA 8552)
2. Inter Country Adoption Act of 1995 (RA 8043)
3. Rule of Adoption (A.M. No. 02-6-02-SC dated July 31, 2002,
effective Aug. 22, 2002)

7
 a. Who may adopt (S-4)
b. Who may be adopted ( S-5)
c. Venue and Jurisdiction S.20)

Cases:
1. Cang vs CA – 296 SCRA 128
2. Vda de Jacob vs CA – 312 SCRA 772
3. Republic of the Phil. Vs Hon. Jose R. Hernandez- 253 SCRA 509
4. Republic vs CA – 255 SCRA 99
5. Reyes vs. Mauricio, 636 SCRA
6. In the Matter of Stephanie Nathy Astorga-Garcia, 454 SCRA
7. Petition for Adoption of Michelle and Michael Lim, 588 SCRA 98 (2007)
8. Nery vs. Sampana, 734 SCRA
9. Castro vs. Gregorio, 738 SCRA
10. Bartolome vs. SSS, 740 SCRA

F. Habeas Corpuz (R-102)

4. Definition and Nature or Scope (S-1)
5. Requisites for Application (S-3)
6. Disallowance or Discharge of Writ (S-4)
7. Preliminary citation vs writ (S-6)
8. The return: when evidence; when plea (S-10,12,13)
Cases:
1. Ilusorio vs Bildner, 332 SCRA 169
2. Serapio vs Sandiganbayan- 396 SCRA 443
3. Lacson vs. Perez, 357 SCRA 756
4. Sangca vs. City Prosecutor of Cebu, 524 SCRA 610
5. Mangila vs. Pangilinan, 701 SCRA 355
6. Tujan-Militante vs. Cada-Deapera, July 28, 2014
7. Datukan Malang Salibo vs. The Warden, 755 SCRA 296

H. Change of Name vs. Correction/Cancellation of Entries, as amended

R.A. 9048 and 10172 (Rule 103 vs. Rule 108)

1. Venue vs Jurisdiction
2. Contents of Petition/Grounds
3. Hearing
4. Judgment
5. R.A. 9048 and its Implementing Rules
Cases:
1. Eleosida vs Civil Registrar of Q.C. – May 9, 2002
2. Republic vs. Kho – 526 SCRA
3. Petition for Change on Name of Julian Lim
Carulasan Wang – 454 SCRA
4. Braza vs. Civil Registrar of Neg. Occ. – 607 SCRA (2009)
5. Republic vs. Silverio – 537 SCRA
6. Republic vs. Cagandahan –565 SCRA

8
 7. Republic vs. Uy – 703 SCRA (August 12, 2013)
8. Minoru Fujiki vs. Marinay, June 26, 2013
9. People vs, Merlinda Olaybar, February 10, 2014
10. Onde vs. CR of Las Pinas, 734 SCRA, Sept. 2014

I. Prerogative Writs

A. Writ of Amparo

Cases:
1. Tapuz vs. Del Rosario, 554 SCRA
2. Canlas vs. Napico Homeowners Asso., 554 SCRA
3. Castillo vs. Cruz, 605 SCRA
4. Razon vs. Tagitis, 606 SCRA
5. Roxas vs. GMA, 630 SCRA
6. Burgos vs. Esperon, 715 SCRA, February 2014

B. Writ of Habeas Data

Cases:
1. Caram vs. Segui, August 5, 2014
2. Vivares et Al. vs. St. Therese College, Sept. 29, 2014
3. Meralco vs. Lim, 632 SCRA
4. Lee vs. Ilagan, 738 SCRA 59

C. Writ of Kalikasan

Cases:
1. Dolot vs. Paje, 703 SCRA (continuing Mandamus).
2. Paje vs. Casino, 749 SCRA 39 (Writ of Kalikasan)
3. Arigo vs. Swift, 735 SCRA 102
4. Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape
Tanon Strait vs. Angelo Reyes et Al., 756 SCRA 513,
April 21, 2015
5.West Tower Condominium vs. Phil. Ind. Corp., 758 SCRA

9
IV. E V I D E N C E (Rules 128-133)
(As amended by A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC effective May 1, 2020)*

A. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION
(Rule 128, Sections 1-4: General Provisions)

1. Definition/Meaning and Scope of E.

2. Kinds and Classifications of E.
3. Axioms of Admissibility
a. Relevancy
b. Competency
c. Authenticity
d. Offer
4. Kinds of admissibility
a. conditional
b. multiple
c. curative

Cases:
1. Ong Chia vs. Republic, 328 SCRA
- on naturalization
2. Zulueta vs. CA, 253 SCRA
- on privacy of communication & correspondence
3. People vs. Yatar, 428 SCRA
- on the right against self-incrimination (DNA)
4. Tating vs. Marcella, 519 SCRA
- on admissibility, weight and sufficiency of evidence
5. People vs. Salafranca, 666 SCRA
- multiple admissibility
6. SCC Chemicals Corp. vs. CA, 353 SCRA
- curative admissibility (hearsay evidence admissible
when not objected)

Sec. 3 inserted the words “the Constitution” *

B. WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED

(Rule 129, Sections 1-4))

1. Judicial Notice
a. mandatory and discretionary
b. when to take judicial notice
2. Judicial Admissions
a. when is there judicial admissions

10
 Cases:
1. LBP vs. Banal, 434 SCRA
- contents of the records of other cases
2. People vs. Kulais, 292 SCRA
- of testimonies in other cases
3. Laureano vs. CA, 324 SCRA
- admissibility of foreign laws
4. Maquiling vs. COMELEC, 700 SCRA
- admissibility of foreign laws/official records
5. People vs. Baharan, 639 SCRA
- admissibility of extrajudicial confession/plea of guilty
6. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, 662 SCRA
- exception to admissibility of testimonies in other cases
7. Ligtas vs. People, 767 SCRA 1
- admissibility of decisions and records in other cases

Amended Sections 1, 3 and 4 by inserting certain words *

C. RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY
(Rule 130, Sections 1-54)

1. Object/Real Evidence (Section 1)

Cases:
1. Salas vs. Matusalem, 705 SCRA
-how to establish paternity and filiation
2. People vs. Mercury de la Curz, 802 SCRA, Sept. 7, 2016
3. People vs. Manuel De la Rosa, Dec. 13, 2017
4. People vs. Sanchez, March 7, 2018
5. People vs. Emmanuel Oliva, January 7, 2019
- on chain of custody rule

2. Documentary Evidence (Sections 2-10)

Cases:
1. St. Martin Polyclinic, Inc. vs. LWV Const. Corp. 847 SCRA
2. People vs. Vibar, 858 SCRA
- on admissibility of private documents

a. The Best Evidence Rule

Cases:
1. MCMP Const. vs. Monark, Nove. 10, 2014
2. Loon vs. Power Master, Inc., 712 SCRA
3. Dimaguila vs. Monteiro, 714 SCRA
4. Republic vs. Mupas, 769 SCRA
5. Robinol vs. Bassig, 845 SCRA

b. Secondary Evidence

c. Parole Evidence

11
 Cases:
1. Leoveras vs. Valdez, 652 SCRA
2. Paras vs. Kimwa Const., 755 SCRA
3. PNB vs. Pasimio, 769 SCRA
4. Mancol vs. DBP, 846 SCRA
Amendments are found in Sections 2, 3, 3(b), 3(c), 4 (a)(b)(c), 7 {9 is now 10}

d. Electronic Evidence
- A.M. 01-7-01-SC, Rules on Electronic Evidence
- R.A. 8792, E-Commerce Law
Cases:
1. Heirs of Sabanpan vs. Comorposa, 408 SCRA
2. Torres vs. PAGCOR, 661 SCRA
3. Ang vs. Republic,618 SCRA
4. People vs. Enojas
5. Syhunliong vs. Rivera, June 4, 2014
6. Bartolome vs. Maranan, 740 SCRA
7. BBB vs. AAA, 750 SCRA
8. Astorga & Repol Law Offices vs.
Villanueva, 751 SCRA

Section 4 of Rule 130 incorporated Electronic Evidence rule

Sections 11-20 remain: Interpretation of Documents

3. Testimonial Evidence (Sections 21-54)

a. Qualifications: “one who can perceive and perceiving can

make known his perception”
i. ability to observe/perceive
ii. ability to recall/remember
iii. ability to relate/communicate

b. Disqualifications:
Case: Marcos vs. Heirs of Andres Navarro, 700 SCRA
Note: mental incapacity or immaturity in Section 21 has been deleted.
Is it no longer a disqualification?
Case: People vs. Golimlim, 427 SCRA

i. marital disqualification (Sec. 23)

Cases:
1 Alvarez vs. Ramirez, 473 SCRA.
2.People vs. Castaneda, 88 SCRA
ii. privileged communication (Sec. 24)
Cases:
1. Chan vs. Chan, 702 SCRA
2. Lacurom vs. Jacoba, 484 SCRA
3. Samala vs. Valencia, 514 SCRA
4. Almonte vs. Vasquez, 244 SCRA
5. Syhunliong vs. Rivera,725 SCRA

12
 iii. death or insanity/dead man’s statute (Section 39)
Cases:
1. Razon vs. CA, 207 SCRA
2. Sunga-Chan vs. Chua, 363 SCRA
3. Bordalba vs. CA, 374 SCRA
Discuss Executive Privilege under the doctrines laid down in Senate of the
Philippines vs. Ermita (488 SCRA) and Neri vs. Senate Committees (435 SCRA)

c. Testimonial Privilege
i. Parental and filial privilege (Section 25)
ii. Privilege relating to trade secrets (Section 26)

d. Admission of a Party (Section 27)

- by third parties (S-29)
- by partners (S-30)
- by conspirators (S-31)
- by privies (S-32)
- by silence (S-33)
Cases:
1. Constantino vs. Heirs of Pedro Constantino, Jr.
706 SCRA
2. Cambe vs. Ombudsman, 812 SCRA Dec. 6, 2016
3. Ocampo vs. Ocampo, 830 SCRA

e. Offer of Compromise (Section 28)

f. Confessions (Section 34)

- judicial vs. extra-judicial
Cases:
a. People vs. Dacanay, 807 SCRA, (2016)
b. People vs. Opiniano, 832 (2017)
c. Cruz vs. People, 846 SCRA

g. Previous Conduct (Section 35)

Cases:
1. People vs. Santos, 221 SCRA 715
2. People vs. Nardo, 353 SCRA 339
3. RP vs. Heirs of Alejaga, Sr., 393 SCRA 361

h. Hearsay Evidence Rule (Sections 37-49)

Cases: Patula vs. People, 669 SCRA
People vs. Aguirre, 845 (independently relevant statement)
i. Exceptions:
i. Dying Declaration: Pp vs. Calinawan, 817 SCRA 424
ii. Statement of decedent or person of unsound mind
iii. Declaration against interest: Pp vs. Bernal, 274 SCRA
iv Declaration about pedigree: Tizon vs. CA, 276 SCRA
v. Family Reputation or tradition: Jison vs. CA, 286 SCRA

13
 vi. Common reputation
vii. Res gestae: Pp vs. Dimapilit, 836 SCRA;Pp vs. Santillan
837 SCRA 71
viii. Records of regularly conducted business activity
(formerly, entries in the course of business)
Phil. Airlines vs Ramos, 207 SCRA 461
ix. Entries in Official Records: Pp vs. Corpuz, 856 SCRA 610;
Sabili vs. COMELEC, 670 SCRA; Cercado-Siga, 752 SCRA
x. Commercial lists: Meralco vs. Quisumbing, 336 SCRA
xi. Learned treatises
xii. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding: Pp vs.
Ortiz-Miyako, 279 SCRA; Go vs. People, 677 SCRA
xiii. Child Witness Rule: People vs. Ibanez, 706 SCRA
People vs. Esugon, 759
xiv. Residual exception (Section 50)

j. Opinion Rule Sections 51-53)

i. Expert Witness: Lavarez vs. Guevarra, 822 SCRA 130
Avelino vs. People, 701 SCRA
ii. Ordinary Witness: Pp vs. Duranan, 349 SCRA

k. Character Evidence (Section 54)

People vs. Deopita, 436 SCRA 794

D. BURDEN OF PROOF, BURDEN OF EVIDENCE AND PRESUMPTIONS

(Rule 131, Sections 1-6)

1. Burden of Proof vs. Burden of Evidence

Case: FEBTC vs. Chante, 707 SCRA

2. Presumptions
a. Conclusive presumptions
i. Ibaan Rural bank vs. CA, 321 SCRA
ii. Alcaraz vs. Tangga-an, 401 SCRA
iii. University of Mindanao vs. PSP, 778 SCRA (1/11/16)
b. Disputable presumptions
i. Rosaroso vs. Soria, 699 SCRA
ii. Heirs of Trazona vs. Heirs of Canada, 712 SCRA
iii.Uy vs. Lacsamana, 767 SCRA
iv. Diaz vs. People, 776 SCRA 43

- suppression of testimony: People vs. Padrigone, 382 SCRA

Metrobank vs. CA, 333 SCRA
- official duty: De los Santos vs. COA, 703 SCRA; Pp vs. Barte, 819 SCRA
People vs. Candidia, 707 SCRA
- cohabitation: People vs. Edualino, 271 SCRA

14
 - survivorship; absence

3. Legitimacy or Illegitimacy (Section 4)

4. Presumptions in civil actions/criminal actions (Sections 5 & 6)

E. PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
(Rule 132, Sections 1-40)

1. Examination of Witnesses (Sections 1-18)

- Order of Presentation of Evidence. People vs Fabre, 385 SCRA
- Leading and Misleading Questions. People vs. Perez, 397 SCRA
- Impeachment. People vs. Castellano, 400 SCRA
- Reference to Memorandum
- Present Memory Revived, People vs. Plasencia, 249 SCRA
- Past Recollection Recorded, Canque vs. CA, 305 SCRA

Note: Former Section 14 transposed to Section 54 of 130

2. Authentication and Proof of Documents (Sections 19-33)

- Classes of Documents
- Public Documents
Cases: 1. Iwasawa vs. Gangan, 705 SCRA
2. Asian Terminals vs. Philam Insurance, 702 SCRA
- Private Documents
- Offer of Evidence. Aludos vs. Suerte, 673 SCRA; Westmont
Investment Corporation vs. Francia, Jr., 661 SCRA

(What is the Apostille Convention?)

3. Offer and Objection (Sections 34-40)

-Tender of Excluded Evidence
Fortune Tabacco Corp. vs. Com of Int. Rev.,761 SCRA 173

F. WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE

(Rule 133, Sections 1-8)

The Hierarchy of Evidence:

i. Overwhelming Evidence

ii. Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt. “ That degree of proof which

produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind”
1. People vs. Caliso – 659 SCRA

15
 2. People vs. Patentes – 716 SCRA
3. People vs. Arcenal – 821 SCRA 549
4. People vs. Alboka – 856 SCRA 252

iii. Clear and Convincing

1. Supreme Court vs. Delgado – 658 SCRA
2. Govt of Hongkong Special Adm. Region
Vs. Olalia, Jr. – 521 SCRA
3. People vs. Fontanilla – 664 SCRA
4. People vs. Cabiles, 827 SCRA

iv. Preponderance of Evidence

1. PCIB vs. Balmaceda – 658 SCRA

2. De la Llana vs. Biong – 711 SCRAi
3..Canlao vs. People – 659 SCRA (equipoise doctrine)

v. Substantial Evidence

1. Office of the Ombudsman vs. Reyes – 658 SCRA

2. Ramos vs. BPI Family Savings Bank – 711 SCRA

vi. Prima facie evidence

1. Lucas vs. Lucas – 650 SCRA

2. Estate of Marcos vs. Republic – 814 SCRA 600
3. Marcos vs. Cabrera-Faller – 815 SCRA 285

vii. Probable Cause

1. PNB vs. Tria - 671 SCRA

2. Del Castillo vs. People – 664 SCRA

viii. Iota of Evidence (circumstantial)

1.. People vs. Anticamara – 651 SCRA
2 . People vs. Deocampo 666 SCRA
3. Celedonio vs. People, 761 SCRA 363
4. Bacerra vs. People, 828 SCRA 525

By: Henedino M. Brondial, Sr.

Chair, Remedial Law Department
Arellano University School of Law

16
 PRAYER BEFORE CLASS

ALMIGHTY GOD AND LOVING FATHER, WE STAND BEFORE YOU

IMPLORING YOUR GUIDANCE IN CONDUCTING THIS CLASS TODAY.

HELP ME TO ALWAYS ACT FAIRLY AND JUSTLY COUPLED WITH

MERCIFUL UNDERSTANDING AND COMPASSION. GUIDE ME TO

ENFORCE DISCIPLINE AND NEVER TO BE PREJUDICED AGAINST ANY

STUDENT. KEEP ME FROM ABUSING MY AUTHORITY AND TEACH ME TO

EXERCISE IT WITH CONVICTION.

DEAR LORD, YOU HAVE CHOSEN THESE STUDENTS TO BE YOUR

INSTRUMENTS IN PROMOTING JUSTICE, HONESTY AND INTEGRITY.

ENLIGHTEN THEIR MINDS; STRENGTHEN THEIR SPIRITS; FILL THEIR

HEARTS WITH COURGAGE AND DETERMINATION. GRANT THEM YOUR

WISDOM AND ASSISTANCE IN ALL THEIR ACTIONS AND DECISIONS,

SPECIALLY IN THEIR STUDY OF LAW. TO YOU, THE SUPREME MASTER

AND PERFECT TEACHER, I COMMEND THEM TO YOUR LOVING CARE.

A M E N.

PRAYER AFTER CLASS

DEAR LORD, WE HAVE COMPLETED THE TASK YOU HAVE

DESIGNED FOR US TODAY. THANK YOU FOR LEADING US THROUGH.
KEEP US ALWAYS MEEK AND HUMBLE, KNOWING THAT WITHOUT YOU
WE ARE NOTHING. CONTINUE TO GUIDE US, AND HELP US NOT BE
DISCOURAGED IN OUR SEARCH FOR KNOWLEDGE, WISDOM AND

17
UNDERSTANDING. WE LOOK FORWARD TO OUR NEXT MEETING UNDER
YOUR EVER-ABIDING GUIDANCE AND INSPIRATION. KEEP US SAFE AND
SECURE, EVER FREE FROM ANY ARM AND INJURY. A M E N.

18