Last Minute Tips Remedial Law

1. HABEAS CORPUS
 Order of the court
 Produce the person alleged to be
restrained of his liberty or whose rightful
custody has been withheld
 Petition for writ of habeas corpus
 All cases of illegal confinement or
detention
 Any person is deprived of his liberty or by
which the rightful custody of any person
is withheld from the person entitled
thereto
 Concurred juris among SC, CA and
Sandiganbayan and the rtc
 Mtc has special juris in absence of rtc
judges
 Hc of custody of minors = family court
 No family court judge= regular courts
 Sandiganbayan appellate juris
 Rtc and mtc = judicial region where they
belong
 Any person may apply on behalf of
aggrieved party
 Hc prevails over others
 Command person detaining other to
produce the latter at a designated time
and date and show cause why he is
detaining another
 Determine if the detention is illegal or
not
 Mistaken identity= hc
 File a return of the writ ( hearing of
return of the writ if conducted)
 Return may be heard by another court
apart from which issued the writ
 Rightful custody was withheld
 Hc must be issued by the court in where
the petitioners are detained
 Minors= family court in where the
minors are detained
 Hc must be dismissed when a
subsequent criminal complaint is filed
 Hc defct in form not fata
 Court may still pass upon actions for hc
even if the alleged illegal detention has
ceased if the action is one that is capable
of repetition yet evading review
o There is a grave violation of the
consti
o Exceptional character of the
situation and paramount public
interest
o Cosnti issued raised req
formulation of controlling
principles to guide bench and
bar and public
o Capable of repetiton yet evading
review
 Mere allegation of violation of one’s
conti right is not enough, violation must
be sufficient to void the entire
proceedings
 Respondent must file a VERIFIED
RETURN together with supporting
affidavits within 5 working days from
service of the writ ( period may be
extended)
 Not req to produce when the party is too
sick or too infirm by reason which he
cannot without danger be brought
before the court or judge
 Mtc judge can issue writ in absence of rtc
judges in the judicial district where the
person is allegedly detained
 And entertain for a petition for bail of
persons arrested in the judicial district
 Hc may be a post judgment remedy
when the penalty imposed is excessive
 If information is filed in court cannot file
hc
 Exceptions
o Violation of the consti rights
which resulted to the
deprivation of rights
o Penalties excessive
o When court does not have
jurisidiction

2. o or in another case the court also
said that it is available remedy
when there was a law that was
passed which lowered the
penalty,
o Decrimininalizing an act which
has a retroactive effect
 Suspension of privilege of writ of hc=
cannot issue an order directing the
release of the person who has been
illegally confined or retrained
o Court can still inquire on the
legality of the retrained but
cannot as an effect order the
release
 Hc in relation to custody of minorsv =
persons right to custody of a person is
withheld and he is entitled to that
custody
o Person has right over the
custody of the minor
o Right was withheld from him
o Must be for the interest of the
child
 May be filed by person who has rightful
custody over the minor
 Filed by relatives within the th degree
either by consanguinity or affinity or any
other person interested or the dswd
 Produce the body of the child to
determine who has the better right over
the custody of the child
 Preliminary citation- order before the
writ purpose is also to direct the person
detaining another to explain why a writ
will not be issued – command to explain
 Hc= command to produce
Habeas Data
 Remedy available to any person whose
right to privacy in life, liberty or security
 is violated or threatened by unlawful act
or omission
 of a public official or employee or a
private individual or entity
 Engaged in the gathering, collecting or
storing of data or information
 Regarding the person, family home and
correspondence of the aggrieved party
 Transfer inside the penal institution do
not req any court authorization
 Movement outside of penal institution
must have prior court authorization
 May be filed by any member of the
immediate family of the aggrieved party
 Ascendants or descendants or collateral
within 4th
civ degree of consanguinity or
affinity
 Substantial evidence
 Rtc where the pet or res resides or which
ha jursi over the place where the data or
info is gathered collected or stored
option of pet
 Sc, ca, Sandiganbayan when action
concerns public data files of govt offices
 Writ enforceable anywhere in ph
 Nexus between the right to privacy on
the one hand and right to life, liberty or
security on the other
 No expectation of privacy in the first
place, did not resort to any unlawful
means of gathering the information
because voluntarily given

Writ of amparo
 Right to life, liberty and security of the
aggrieved party
 Covers only extralegal killings and
enforced disappearances
 Actual or threatened violations
 Public official or employee or private
individual or entity

3.  Disappearance alone is not enough=
essential to establish that such
disappearance was carried out with the
direct and indirect authorization,
support and acquiescence of the
government
 There be an arrest, detention, abduction
or any form of deprivation of liberty
 Carried out or with the authorization,
support or acquiscene of the state or
political organization
 Followed by the state or political
organizations refusal to acknowledge or
give information on the fate or
whereabours of the person subject of
the amparo petition
 Intention for such refusal is to remove
the person from the protection of the
law for a prolonged period of time
 Aggrieved party files, other person can
no longer file
 Within 72 hrs after service of writ, file a
written return together with supporting
affidavits
 Writ of amparo include the date and
time of the summary hearing and the
period within which the respondent filed
the return
 All defenses raised in return otherwise
shall be deemed waived
 MAY APPEAL TO THE SC UNDER RULE 45-
within 5 working days
 Mr is allowed
 Fresh period applies
 Substantial evidence- such evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion
 CAN BE ISSUED EVEN IF THERE IS MERELY
THREATENED TO VIOLATE HER RIGHT TO
LIFE, LIBERTY AND SECURITY OR COULD
BE APPRECIATED ONLY AS PREMILINARY
STEPS TO HER PROBABLY EXTRAJUDICIAL
KILLING OR ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE
 Hearsay testimony may be considered by
the amparo court provded such
testimony can lead to conclusioms
consistent with the admissible evidence
adduced.
 Inspection order interim relief designed
to give support or strengthen the claim
of a petitioner in an amparo proceeedin
 Doctrine of command responsibility
o Responsibility refer to the
participation of the respondents
by action or omission in in
enforced disappearance
o Accountability may attach to
respondents who are imputed
with knowledge relating to the
enforced disappearance and
who carry the burden of
disclosure or those who carry
but have failed to discharge the
burden of e.o diligence in the
investigation of the enforced
disappearance.
 Application of Command Responsibility.
- Any government official or superior
shall be responsible for the crimes or
offenses committed by their
subordinates in relation to their function
or office if the official or superior has
knowledge that a crime will be
committed or has been.
o Must be proved with substantial
evidence
Writ of kalikasan
 Available to a natural or juridical person ,
entity authorized by law, peoples
organization, non govt organization or
any public interest group accredited or
registered with any government agency

4.  On behalf of persons whose consti right
to a balance and healthful ecology is
violated
 Or threatened with violation
 By an unlawful at or omission
 Of a public official, employee or private
indv or entity
 Involving environmental damage of such
magnitude as to prejudice the life, health
or property of inhabitants in two or more
cities or provinces
 Inspection order
 CA any station of SC
 No payment of df is req
 No damages is awarded
 Rtc has no juris
 Mtd is a prohibited pleading
 No return = hear pet ex parte
 Ocular inspection and production or
inspection of documents and things
 Inspect order ( upon filing of pet)
 Ocular inspection ( damage is of
magnitude that will prejudice the life,
health, property of the inhabitants in 2
or more cities)
 TEPO
o Matter is of extreme urgency
o Applicant will suffer grave
injustice and irreparable injury
o Effective for only 72 hrs
(presiding judge of a single sala
court or ej or multi sala)
o Summary hearing determine
tepo be extended until
termination
 No summary hearing is req
 May be converted to writ of cont
manadums
 Extended until the case is terminate
Writ of continuing mandamus
 When any agency or instrumentality of
the govt or officer thereof unlawfully
neglects the performance of an act
 Which the law specifically enjoins
 As a duty resulting from an office, trust
or station in connection with the
enforcement or violation of an
environmental law rule or regulation
 When any agency or instrumentality of
the govt or officer thereof unlawfully
excludes another from the use or
enjoyment of such right
 There is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law
 Clear legal right or duty
 Ministerial duty
 Duty to act or to be performed must be
in connection with the enforcement or
violation of an environmental law rule or
regulation or right
o Based on environmental law
 Rtc exercising jurisdiction over the
territory where the actionable neglect or
omission occurred, ca or sc
 Hierarchy of courts do not apply
 Action for damages or tepo
 Filed by one who is personally aggrieved
 Exempted from payment of df
 Any person who is aggrieved or affected
may intervene
 Any person who has been affected by
reason of the malicious neglect of the
govt instrumentality or agency or officer
or employee to perfrom the duties or
responsibilities under the law
 Initiatory pleading- attaching or cert
against forum shopping but is exempt
from payment of df
SLAPP

5.  Action whether civil, criminal or admin
brought against any person, institution
or any govt agency or local government
unit or its officials and employees
 With the intent to harass, vex, exert
undue pressure or stifle any legal
recourse that such person, insti or govt
has taken or may take in the
environment or assesrtion of
envirconmental rights
 Defesne may be raised in answer
 Precautionary principle- mere
probability of injury that it was not
actually proven in the case
o Applicable in a citizens suit for
environmental case
CHANGE OF NAME AND CANCELLATION OF REG
Ra 9048
 Clerical or typographical error
 Misspelled name, misspelled place of
birth or the like
 Do not involve the change of nationality,
age, status or sex of the petitioner
 No substantial change
 Reference to another existing record
 Change of first name- city or municipality
civl reg or consult general
 Civ reg not rtc has juris, unless denied


RULE 103
 Change or surname and legal name
 Summary proceedings
o Name is ridiculous or
dishonorable or extreme
difficult to write or pronounce
o Chanfe is a legal consequence of
legitimation or adoption
o When change will avoid
confusion
o One has continuously used and
been known since childhood by
a filipino name and was unaware
of alien parentage
o Sincere desire to adopt a fil
name to erase signs of former
alienage all in good faith and
without prejudicing anybody
o Surname causes embarrassment
and there is no showing the
desired change of name would
prejudice public interest
 Name or aliases of he applicant
 Pet has been bona fide resident of the
province where the pet is filed for at
least 3 yrs prior to the date of filing
 Cause for which the change of the pet
name is sought
 New name asked for
 Substantive change
 Rtc of the province where the petitioner
has been residing for at least 3 yrs prior
to the filing of petition

RULE 108
 Adversarial proceeding
o Civil reg
o All persons who have or claim
interest which would be affected
thereby
 Affects civil status
o Upon good and valid grounds
 Change of surname which can affect his
status
o Publication once a week 3
consec week news paper of gen
in the province
 Show proof notice to persons interested,
effected by succession
 Change of sex- substantial change
 Civil status, cit and nationality

6.  Change of surname- affect on filiation
therefore no typographical
 Rtc of prov where the civ reg is located
 Summary or adversarial
 Cancelling the date of marriage
 Affidavit of legitimation
 Recognition of foreign judgment
 Attach the law to the foreign judgment,
proceeding is precisely to establish the
status or right of a party or a particular
fact
 Fact of divorce must be proven, party
pleading must prove the divorce as a fact
and demonstrate its conformity to the
foreign law allowing it
o Official publication
o Copy thereof attested by the
officer having legal custody of
the document.
o If not in ph, accompanied by a
certificate issued by proper
diplomatic or consular officer in
the ph foreign service stationed
in the foreign country in which
the record is kept and
authenticated by seal of his
office
 Foreign laws must be alleged and proved
CRIM PRO
 Law at the time the complaint is filed
prevails which court has juris
 Determine of juris- based on complaint
or info
 Depend on penalty PRESCRIBED BY LAW
NOT IMPOSED and or nature of the
offense charged
 Victim is minor- family court
 No juris- question under rule 65 ( juris
over sm and place)
 Court of the place where the crime was
committed or where any of its
ingredients or essential elements
occurred
 Cybercrime= rtc because it is expressly
provided by law
 Sandiganbayan – sg 27 and above
 Doctrine of adherence – court has juris
to the exclusion of other courts
 custody over accused – arrest or
voluntary surrender ( necessary only
when post bails or applies bail)
 juris over person of accused= arrest or
VA
 accused posted bail, court can continue
to proceed the case after he has already
been arraigned even if he does not
appear in court even if he jumps bail,
criminal prosec will continue
 must be arraigned before commencing
criminal prosec
 bail can only be approved when the
accused is actually inder detention
because bail is surety or guaranty while
person is being detained
 filed in court where any of the
ingredients is committed like continuing
crime, where any of the essential
ingredients occurred
 ship/plane/vehicle- any of the place
where it passed thru including departure
or arrival
 vawc place where offended party resides
 offenses where preliminary investigation
is required- filing complaint with the
proper officer for the purpose of
conducting PI
 other offenses= filing complaint or info
with mtx or mctc or prosec
 destierro- mtc
 cases req preliminary investigation- filing
the complaint with the office of city
prosec or office the prov prosec or office
of doj
 complaints in chartered cities or
metropolitan area= filed with the office

7. of the city prosec not for the purpose of
conducting p.i but for the filiing of the
information report in court
 institution of criminal action shall
interrupt the running period or
prescription of the offense charged
unless otherwise provided in special
laws
 private prosec may participate when
authorized in writing by the office of the
prosecutor or prosec general
 crimes that cannot be prosecuted de
officio ( brought soley at the instance of
and upon complaint expressly filed by
the offended party)
o concubinage
o adultery
o seduction
o abduction
o acts of lasciviousness
 failure to timely file a motion to quash on
the ground of duplicity ( objecteion
deemed waived, can be tried and
convicted for as many offenses charged
and proved by the prosecution during
the trial , separate penalty for each
offense shall be imposed)
 2 or more offense = motion to quash on
the ground of duplicity in the offense
charge
 Substitution must always be with leave
of court
 Amended before plea= can be effected
without leave of court
 Amendment after the plea can be
effected only when there is leave of
court
 Amendment as to form will not cause
prejudice to the rights of the accused
and it will not result in the dj
 Offense proved less serious than offense
charge and is necessarily included =
convicted of the offense proved
 Offense proved is more serious than and
included offense charge= convicted in
offense charge
 When offense prove is neither included
nor does is include offense charge= court
dismiss the action and order the filiing of
the new info charging the proper offense
 Substantial amendment
o Consist of recital of facts
constituting the offense charge
and determinative of the
jurisdiction of the court
 Formal amendement
o New allegation which relate only
to the range of the penalty that
the court might impose in the
event of conviction
o Amendment which does not
charge another offense different
or distinct from that charged in
the original one
o Additional allegation which do
not alter the prosecutions
theory of the case so as to cause
surprise to the accused and
affect the form of defense he has
or will assume
o Amendement which does not
adversely affect any substantial
right of the accused
o Merely ads specificstions to
eliminate vagueness in the
information, and not to
introduce new and material
facts and merely states with
additional precision something
which is already contained in the
original info and which adds
nothing essential for conviction
for the crime charged
 Juidical determination of pc= made by
the judge to ascertain whether a warrant
of arrest should be issued against the
accused

8.  Formal amendement- amendment
which does not change the nature or
essence of the offense charge
 Amendment before plea which
downgrades the nature of the offense
charged in or excludes any accused from
complaint or info can be made only upon
MOTION BY THE PROSEC WITH NOTICE
TO THE OFFENDED PARTY AND WITH LOC
 Substantial amendment- seeks to change
the nature of the offense charged and
the accused had already pleaded since
the case had already reached the trial
stage
 No need to amend when the offense
proved is necessarily included in the
offense charge
 Substitution-if it appears at any time
before judgment that a mistake has been
made in charging the proper offense, the
court shall dismiss the original complaint
or info upon filing of a new one charging
the proper offense provided no dj
 Info shall be dismissed once and
dismissed only upon filing of new info
 If accused under detention then he will
not be released until after the filing of
new info charging the proper offense
 10 days, arraigned anew
RULE 111
 When criminal action is instituted, the
civil action for the recovery of civil
liablity arising from the offense shall be
deemed instituted with the criminal
action
o When offended party waives the
civil action
o When the offended party
reserves his right to institute a
separate civil action
o When the offended party
institute a civil action prior to
the criminal action
 Civil action will be suspended
 Violation of bp 22- deemed to include
the corresponding civil action, no
reservation is allowed
 Extinction of criminal liability does not
carry with it the extinction of the civil
liability
 Civil action based on delict shall be
deemed extinguished if there is a finding
in a final judgment in the criminal action
that the act or omission from which the
civil liability may arise did not exist
 Exceptions
o Court declares that the accused
was innocent
o Acts or omissions giving rise to
the civil liability in the criminal
actions does not exist
o Death of the accused
 Prejudicial qs – previously instituted civil
actiob
 Prej qs can be raised during p.i
 Prejudicial qs
o Civil action must be instituted
prior to the criminal action
o Involves an issue similar or
intimately related to the issue
raised in the sub sequent
criminal action
o Resolution of such issue
determines whether or not the
criminal action may proceed
o Juris to try said qs must be
lodged in another tribunal
RULE 112
 PI- Is an inquiry or proceeding to
determine whether there exist sufficient
ground to engender a well founded
belief that a crime has been commotted

9. and that the respondent is probably
guilty thereof and should be held for trial
o Req before filing of a complaint
or info
o Penalty prescribed by law is AT
LEAST 4 YEARS, 2 MOS AND 1
DAY WITHOUT REGARD TO FINE
 No pi id less than 4 yrs and 2 mos
 First level courts (attempted homicide,
aol, concubinage, adultery)
 File complainy with office of city prosec
or office of prov prosec for p.i
 Mtc determine within 10 days if
probable cause to issue warrant of arrest
 Commitment order if accused is already
detained
 No need of pi= file directly in the mtc or
mctc or in chartered cities and
metropolitan area, cannot file the
complaint directly with the mtc or mctc,
file sa office of prosec
 Summary prosecure= first level court
o No warrant of arrest
o If accused is under detention=
issue an order of arraignment
o Accused file his counter affidavit
– then arraignment
o Did not appear for arraignment=
warrant of arrest
o No motion to quash unless lack
of juris, no motion for
postponement and motion for
extension of time
RULE 113
 Lawful arrest without warrant
o When in his presence the person
to be arrested has committed is
actually committing or is
attempting to commit an offense
o An offense has just been
committed and he has pc to
believe based on personal
knowledge of facts and circ that
the person to be arrested has
committed it
o When the person to be arrested
is an escaped prisoner
 Flagrante delicto – peace officer or
private person
 Hot pursuit- pc based on personal
knowledge of facts and circ surrounding
the comm of the crime
 Arrest not valid= motion to quash
 Hearsay tip is not allowed in warrantless
arrest, did not conduct a personal
evaluation of the circ
 Search and seizure of moving vehicles=
limited to visual search only
 Inquest proceeding- determine whether
the arrest is valid, if arrest is not valid,
order the release or discharge of the
persons arrested and proceed with the
conduct of preliminary investigation
 Commitment order within 10 days
otherwise mtd on thr ground of violation
of speedy trial
 Pretrial conducted immediately after
arraignment so when we issue the
commitment order there is already a
setting for arraignment and pre trial
 Warrantless arrest- inquest-
commitment order -fix date of
arraignment and pre trial
o Accused before arraignment file
A MOTION TO AVAIL OF
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
WITHIN 5 DAYS FROM TIME HE
LEARNS OF THE FILING OF THE
INFO
o Refer pi if accused executes a
waiver in writing and duly
assisted by counsel, under art
125 delay in the delivery of the
detained persons to the proper
judicial authorities
o Sets Pi and put back in jail but
can post bail

10. o At court of place where he is
detained
 Can still file a motion to quash and qs the
illegality of his arrest even if he has
already posted bail
 Motion for judicial determination of pc is
prohibited
 Bailable offense
o He was convicted before or after
conviction in the mtc or before
conviction in the rtc regarding
crimes that are not punishable
by rp, li or death
 No warrant of arrest summary
procedure and juris under mtc
 Reckless imprudence resulting to
serous/ slight pi and damage to
property= summary procedure
 Summary procedure= damage not
exceed 150k
RULE 114
 Bail as a matter of right
o Before conviction of the inferior
courts
o After conviction of the inferior
courts
o Before conviction by the rtc of
an offense not punishable by
death, rp, or life imprisonment
o Before conviction by the rtc
when the imposable penalty is
death, rp or LI and the evidence
of guilt is not strong
 Bail as a matter of discretion
o Upon conviction by the rtc of an
offense not punishable by death,
rp or li
o After conviction by the rtc
wherein a penalty of
imprisonment EXCEEDING 6
YEARS BUT NO MORE THAN 20
YRS AND NOT ONE OF THE CIRC
IS PRESENT
 Recidivist, quasi
recidivist or habitual
delinquency comm of
crime aggravated by the
circ of reiteracion
 Previous escape from
legal
confinement,evasion of
sentence or violaton of
bail without valid
justification
 Comm of an offense
while on probation,
parole or under
conditional pardon
 Circ of the accused or his
case indicates the
probability of flight if
released on bail
 Undue risk of comm of
another crime by the
accused during
pendency of appeal
 Certiorari will issue only to correct errors
of juris and not to correct errors of
procedure or mistakes in the courts
findings and conclusions
 Cash bond, surety bond, property bond
subject to approval of the board
 Motion to quash must be filed before
arraignment otherwise waived to qs the
illegality of his arrest
o But can present evid illegality of
arrest
 Did not acquire juris over (sec 5 rule 113)
 Suppress admission of evid
 Quash
o Facts do not cosnti an offense
( can file a new info)
o Court trying case no juris
o Court trying no jurs over person
of accused
o Officer has no authorty to do
o Does not prescribed to form

11. o More than offense is charge
o Criminal action extinguished
o Contains avernments which is
true would constitute legal
excuse or justification
o Double jeopardy
 Motion to quash anytime before enter
plea
 Can be raised even after arraignment
o Lack of juris over the sm
o Dj
o Prescription (extinguishment of
a crime)
o That the facts do not constitute
an offense
 Prosecution may amend the complaint
so as to constitute an offense in the info
RULE 116
 Must be assisted by a counsel of his own
choice, de parte or de officio
 Where the accused enters a plea of
guilty to a capital offense, trial court are
mandated to conduct a searching inquiry
otherwise improvident plea of guilty
 Plea of guilty alone can never be
sufficient to produce guilty beyond
reasonable doubt
 Accused free to waive his right to present
evidence if he so desires to protect the
consti right to due process of every
accused in a capital offense and to avoid
any confusion about the proper steps to
be taken
 Accused pleads guilty to capital offense
judge must direct prosecution to present
evidence as if no plea was made, to
determine the degree of penalty to be
imposed and the culpability of the
accused based on the presented
 Arraignment shall be 30 days from the
date the court acquire jurisidiction over
the person of the accused ( if he is not
under detention) and 10 days if
detained= file a motion to dismiss,
violayon of right of speedy trial
 Allowed to plead to lesser offense with
consent of the offended party and
prosecution
o Anytime prosec starts to present
evidence
o During the trial there must be an
inquiry of the voluntariness of
him pleading guilty to a lesser
offense
o Cannot plead guilty to lesser
offense when prosec already
commenced the presentation of
evidence but can still plead
guilty to offense charge
 Withdraw plead of guilty= anytime
before promulgation of judgment
 Bill of particulars- allowed if the info do
not specify with particularity the acts or
omission complained of
o Motion to quash on the ground
that the facts does not
constitute an offense
 Arraignment suspended
o Accused appears to be suffering
from an unsound mental
condition which effectively
renders him unable to fully
understand the charge against
him and to plead intelligently
o Prejudicial qs
o Pet for review of the resolution
of the prosec is pending at doj or
office of the president
(suspension shall not exceed 60
days)
 Plea bargaining
o Consent from the offended
party
 DJ

12. o First jeopardy must have
attached prior to the second
o First jeopardu must have been
validly terminated
o Second jeopardy must be for the
same offense as that included in
the first or the second offense is
necessarily included in the first
o Convicted, acquitted or
dismissed witout the consent of
the accused
 Dj can no longer invoke even if there is
previous dismissal
o Graver offense developed due to
the supervening facts arising
from the same act or omission
constituting the former charge
o Facts constituting the graver
charge where only known or
discovered when the plea was
entered
o If the plea of guilty for the lesser
offense was made without the
consent of the prosecutor of the
offended party
 Provisional dismissal- can revive case
anytime ( failure to prosecute)
o If expires, case automatixally
expires no need for a motion
automatic
o Offenses punishable by
imprisonment not exceeding 6
yrs or a fine = 1 yr after issusance
of the order of prov dismissal
o Offenses punishable by
imprisonment of more than 6 yrs
= 2 yrs after issuance of the
order of prov dismissal
 Osg conformity to appeal or file a pet for
certiorari, osg conformity, otherwise
allege in appeal pendency of req,
dismissal appeal lack of personality
o Osg file comment 30 daysm
questioning
RULE 118
 Pre trial must be signed by the accused
assisted by the counsel
 Plea of guilty of lesser offense
 Setting civil aspect
 Limitatiob of the issues
 Marking of exhibits
 Mandatory
 Presence of offended party not req but
req in arraignment, plea bargaining,
determination of the civil liability and
other matters req his presence
 Victimless crimes= arresting officer or
public prosecutor
 Plea barganining
o Stipulations of facts and or
limitations of the issues
o Mark or Premark their
corresponding object and or
documentary pieces of evidence
RULE 119
 Trial can be postponed if based on acts
of god, force majeure or physical inability
to appear and testify
 Paying of postponement fee
 Dying declaration-
 Trial in absentia- court trying the case
even if the accused is absent, provided
that the accused is duly notified and his
failure to appear is justifiable
o Accused has been arraigned,
assisted by counsel
o Duly notified of the schedule of
trial
o Failure to appear is unjustifiable
 Time he received pre trial order, accused
is notified of the schedule for trial more
so he is present during pre trial
 Notice sent to Last known address
( jumped bail or escape for prision)

13.  Accused is perpertrator and committed
the crime
 A void judgment no legality
 Arraignment is indispensable before trial
in absentia otherwise convition void
 Discharge of the accused as a state
witness= must be availed of before the
prosecution resting its case
o File a motion to discharge an
accused and use him as state
witness
o File a motion in writing
o Append of attach the sworn
statement of accused
o Present evidence that testimony
is indispenble
o No other evidence aviable
o Can be corroborated
o Not most guilty
o Not convicted of offense
involving turpitude ( rafe,
estafam oerjury, false testimony,
falsification)
o Other cussed may file an
opposition stating that there are
other evidence available
 Death of state witness not render his
testimony inadmissible
 If court denies the accused as state
witness his sworn statement shall be
inadmissible in evidence
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
 No need to ask loc
 File a demurrer to evidence if it is upon
motion or court will declare in open
court or to the parties that the court
finds that there is insufficiency of
evidence
 Accused has non extendible period of 10
days to file a demurrer to evidence
 Prosecution cannot file MR, appeal or
certiorari
 Denied demurrer witout loc no chance
to present evidence
 Order denying demurrer of evidence
cannot be appealed or certiorari
JUDGMENT
 Personally rendered by the judge
 Clearly and distinctly state the facts nd
law upon which is it based
 Accused failed to appear during
promulgation of judgment- trial absentia
 Recording the dispositive portion in the
book of entries of judgment
o Loose right to avail remedies
against judgment and court shall
order his arrest to serve
sentence (no mr, mnt, reopeing,
appeal)
o Accused must surrender within
15 days
o File reopeing if there is a
miscarriage of justice
o Judgment was recorded in the
criminal docket
o Copy thereof was served upon
the accused or counsel
 Notice of appeal within period of 15 days
MR
 MR- there is an error of fact or error of
law in the judgment which do not req
further proceedings so they will just
point out the findings of the court which
they believe to be an error committed in
the judgment
 Mr and nt are motions
 No appealable or certiorari
 Only the judgment is appealable
APPEAL

14.  Mtc to rtc- ordinary appeal by filing
notice of appeal within 15 days
 Throw the whole case for review
 Failure to file memorandum rtc will still
resolve the appeal
 Ca to sc= pet for review on certiotari
under rule 45
 Appeal deemed abandoned
o Accused fails to file his
appellants brief within the
period
o He flees to another country
during the pendency of the
appeal
o Ca can motu proprio dismiss the
appeal
 Can withdraw his appeal
RULE 126
 An order
 Made in wrtting
 Signed by the judge in the name of the
people of the Philippines
 Commanding peace officer to search
personal property and to bring it before
the court
 Valid for only 10 days
 Daytime only
 May be filed within any court within
territorai juris
o Unless criminal action has been
filed then doon lang
 Req
o Issued upon probable cause
o Determined by the issuing judge
personally
o Judge must personally examined
in the form of searching qs and
answer in writing and under
oath
o Warrant issued must particulary
describe the place to be seized
and the persons or things to be
seized
o Must in connection with one
specific offense
o Sworn statements together with
the affidavits submitted by
witnesses must be attached to
the record
 Cybercrime warrants
o Warrant to disclose computer
data
o Warrant to intercept computer
data
o Warrant to search, seize and
examine computer data
o Warrant to examine computer
data
 Lawful search without warrant
o Search incidental to a lawful
arrest
o Stop and frisk
o Check points, body checks in
airport
o Consented search
o Seizure of moving vehicles
o Plain view
o Wartime operations
o Enforcement of custom laws
o Emergency based in probably
cause under extraordinary
circumstances
 Search in public conveyance is valid
 Lawful arrest must precede the
preventive search to be lawful
o Ground to quash info
o After arraignemtn cannot raise
issue juris, deemed to have
waived
 ENVI COURTS NOT RTC
 Offense or any of its elements is
committed
 Any part of the computer system used is
situated

15.  Where the damage caused to a natural
or juridical person took place
 Residence of the offended party which is
actually interwined to where any of the
damages caused
EVIDENCE
 Relevant and competwnt
 Relevant- has a relation to the fact in
issue
 Competency- when it is not excluded by
the law or by the rules
 Object evidence will be considered
relevant if presented by a witness
 Photocopy are admissible unless
o There is a qs raised as to the
authenticity of the original
o In circumstances it is unjust or
inequitable to admit the
duplicate in lieu of the orginal
 Parol evid
o Validity of a writte agreement
o Failure of the written agreement
to express the true intent of the
paties thereto
o Subsequent agreements or the
existence of other term
o Ambiguity, imperfection or
mistake in the written
agreement
 Res inter alios acta
o Right of a party cannot be
prejudiced by an act, declaration,
or omission of another
o Evidence that one did or did not
do a certain thing at one time is
not admissible to prove that he
or she did or did not do the same
or similar thing at another time
 Exceptions
o Admissions by a co psrtner or
agent
o Admission by a joint owner, joint
debtor or other person jointly
interested with the party
o Admission by privies
o Interlocking confession
o Admission by conspiratorv
o Admissiob by silence
o Adoptive admission
Heirs of ancieto
Documentary
evidence prevails
over testimonial
evidence.
Section 5, Rule 130 the ROC allows the
presentation of secondary evidence when the
original document has been lost or destroyed
and its unavailability has been duly established.
In such a case, a party "may prove its contents by
a copy or by a recital of its contents in some
authentic document, or by the testimony
witnesses the order stated."62
In this case, respondents as witness the Registrar
of Deeds of South Cotabato to testify that the
original OCT No. V-2423 as well as the copy of the
Deed of Sale executed by Anastacio in favor of
Eliseo had been lost and could no longer be
produced, identify the Primary Entry Book as
secondary evidence, and prove that the Deed of
Sale was executed on November 28, 1956.
To refute the date of execution stated in the
Primary Entry Book, petitioners presented
testimonies declaring that the Deed of Sale was
notarized by Judge Rendon on November 28,
1958 and that purchase price was used by
Anastacio to defray the wedding expenses of his
son, respondent Meregildo, in June 1958. To
corroborate these testimonies, petitioners
submitted as evidence the Marriage Contract of
respondent Meregildo to show that his marriage
was celebrated on June 6, 1958 and the bio-data
of Judge Rendon to show that he was admitted

16. to the bar only in 1957, and thus, could not have
notarized the document in 1956.
Regrettably, the testimonial evidence of
petitioners prevail over the documentary
evidence presented by respondents. As a rule,
documentary evidence takes precedence over
testimonial evidence as the latter can easily be
fabricated.63
It also cannot be denied that the
human memory on dates is frail and thus, there
is no reasonable assurance of its correctness
unless the date is an extraordinary or unusual
one for the witness.64
In this case, as aptly observed by the CA, the
testimonies of petitioner Anecita and Anastacia
with respect to the date of execution cannot be
relied upon considering their age and the fact
that they could not even remember their own
birthdays.65
As to petitioners' claim that it was Judge Rendon
who notarized the Deed of Sale, the CA correctly
pointed out that such allegation not only lacks
material corroboration but is even self-serving.
In fact, except for the bare allegation of
petitioners and witnesses, no other evidence
was presented to show that it was indeed Judge
Rendon who notarized the said document.
Neither can petitioners rely on the date of
marriage of respondent Meregildo to prove their
claim that the sale took place on November 28,
1958 because assuming that Anastacio indeed
sold the land to defray the expenses for the
wedding of his son, this would mean that
Anastacio sold the land to Eliseo before June 6,
1958, the wedding day of his son, which is still
within the five-year prohibitory period.
In contrast, respondents presented as evidence
the Primary Entry Book66
of the Register of Deeds
of South Cotabato, which is an official record of
all instruments filed with the Register of Deeds.
As a public document, it is entitled to a
presumption of truth as to the recitals contained
therein pursuant to Section 44, Rule 130 of the
ROC, which provides that "entries in official
records made the performance of duty by a
public officer x x x are prima facie evidence of the
truth of the facts therein stated."
Thus, in the absence of strong, complete and
conclusive proof of its falsity, the evidentiary
nature of such document must sustained.67
For
unless there is evidence to the contrary, it is
presumed that official duty has been regularly
performed by the officer who entered the details
of the Deed of Sale pursuant to Section
3(m),68
Rule 131 of the ROC. Here, no sufficient
evidence was presented by petitioners to
overcome the presumption. Thus, the Court
finds no error on the part of the CA in upholding
the date of execution of the Deed of Sale as
appearing on the Primary Entry Book.
Republic vs Kikuchi
Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen
and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a
divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by
the alien spouse capacitating him or her to
remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have
capacity to remarry under Philippine
law. (Emphasis supplied)
Before a foreign divorce decree can be
recognized by the court, the party pleading it
must first prove the fact of divorce and its
conformity to the foreign law allowing it.[35]
As
both of these purport to be official acts of a
sovereign authority, the required proof are their
official publications or copies attested by the
officers having legal custody thereof, pursuant to
Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.[36]
Jocelyn was able to
establish the fact
of divorce
To prove the fact of divorce, Jocelyn submitted
the Acceptance Certificate stating that her and
Fumio's written notification of divorce had been
accepted, as certified by Kiyoshi Ishikawa, Mayor
of Sakado City, Saitama Prefecture. The
Acceptance Certificate was accompanied by an
Authentication from the Philippine Embassy in

17. Tokyo, Japan.
The Republic assails the Acceptance Certificate
for being insufficient to establish the fact of
divorce, arguing that the foreign judgment itself
should have been presented.[37]
Moraña v. Republic[38]
is instructive.
In that case, the petitioner submitted a Divorce
Report (not a judgment of divorce) to prove the
fact of divorce. While both the trial and appellate
courts rejected the document for not being a
"divorce judgment," the Court accepted it
considering that the divorce was coursed not
through Japanese courts, but through the Office
of the Mayor of Fukuyama City which issues such
document with respect to divorce filings, viz.:
The Court is not persuaded. Records show that
the Divorce Report is what the Government of
Japan issued to petitioner and her husband
when they applied for divorce. There was no
"divorce judgment" to speak of because the
divorce proceeding was not coursed through
Japanese courts but through the Office of the
Mayor of Fukuyama City in Hiroshima
Prefecture, Japan. In any event, since the
Divorce Report was issued by the Office of the
Mayor of Fukuyama City, the same is deemed
an act of an official body in Japan. By whatever
name it is called, the Divorce Report is clearly
the equivalent of the "Divorce Decree" in Japan,
hence, the best evidence of the fact of divorce
obtained by petitioner and her former
husband.[39]
(Emphasis supplied)
Similarly here, the divorce was coursed not
through Japanese courts but through the Mayor
of Sakado City, Saitama Prefecture. The
Acceptance Certificate was what was issued to
Jocelyn and Fumio when they filed their divorce
before the mayor. Hence, it already suffices as
proof of the fact of divorce.
The Republic nevertheless argues that the
Acceptance Certificate is insufficient because the
accompanying Authentication issued by the
Embassy of the Philippines in Tokyo, Japan does
not comply with the rules on authentication.[40]
We disagree.
In Racho v. Seiichi Tanaka,[41]
which involves a
similarly-worded Authentication from the
Embassy of the Philippines in Japan, the Court
held that the document was sufficient, viz.:
The Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of
Divorce was accompanied by an Authentication
issued by Consul Bryan Dexter B. Lao of the
Embassy of the Philippines in Tokyo, Japan,
certifying that Kazutoyo Oyabe, Consular Service
Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan was
an official in and for Japan. The Authentication
further certified that he was authorized to sign
the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of
Divorce and that his signature in it was
genuine. Applying Rule 132, Section 24, the
Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of
Divorce is admissible as evidence of the fact of
divorce between petitioner and
respondent.[42]
(Citation omitted, emphasis
supplied)
As in Racho, We rule that the Authentication
submitted by Jocelyn is also sufficient.
As to the issue on the admission of Edwin's
testimony (which the Republic assails for being
hearsay),[43]
jurisprudence teaches that evidence
not objected to is deemed admitted.[44]
Since the
Republic failed to object to the offer of evidence
and even manifested that the State will not
submit controverting evidence, Edwin's
testimony was properly admitted.
Further, while the Republic insists that it could
not have objected to the offer because it was not
served a copy of Jocelyn's formal offer of
evidence—implying that the OCP's failure to
object did not bind the Republic because the
authority conferred to it by the OSG is subject to
the reservation that the latter be furnished with
notices of "hearings, orders and other court
processes"[45]
—We still uphold the admission of
evidence because the reservation does not cover
pleadings of the parties. It is limited only to

18. issuances of the trial court.
Besides, the records show that the offer was
done orally.[46]
Since objection to evidence
offered orally must be made immediately after
the offer,[47]
the OSG, even if served a copy of all
court processes and pleadings of the parties, still
could not have personally made the objection
because it was not present during the hearing
and was instead duly represented by the OCP.
Nevertheless,
Jocelyn was
unable to establish
the law of Japan
on divorce
To prove that the divorce was valid under
Japanese laws, Jocelyn submitted a photocopy of
the English translation of the Civil Code of Japan,
published by Eibun-Horei-Sha, Inc. and stamped
with "LIBRARY, Japan Information and Culture
Center, Embassy of Japan, 2627 Roxas Boulevard,
Pasay City."[48]
The Republic assails the
document for being insufficient to prove the law
of Japan on divorce.[49]
We agree with the Republic. Following
jurisprudence, the document is devoid of any
probative value.[50]
In Nullada v. Civil Registrar of Manila,[51]
the
Court held that the submission of the same
document does not constitute sufficient
compliance with the rules on proof of Japan's law
on divorce, viz.:
Marlyn failed to satisfy the foregoing
requirements. The records only include a
photocopy of excerpts of The Civil Code of
Japan, merely stamped LIBRARY, Japan
Information and Culture Center, Embassy of
Japan, 2627 Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City 1300.
This clearly does not constitute sufficient
compliance with the rules on proof of Japan's
law on divorce. In any case, similar to the
remedy that was allowed by the Court
in Manalo to resolve such failure, a remand of
the case to the RTC for further proceedings and
reception of evidence on the laws of Japan on
divorce is allowed, as it is hereby ordered by the
Court. (Citation omitted, emphasis supplied)
Further, in Arreza v. Toyo,[52]
the Court noted
that the translations by Eibun-Horei-Sha, Inc.
(the publisher of the document submitted by
Jocelyn) are not advertised as a source of official
translations of Japanese laws.[53]
Not being an official translation, the document
submitted by Jocelyn does not prove the existing
law on divorce in Japan. Unfortunately, without
such evidence, there is nothing on record to
establish that the divorce between Jocelyn and
Fumio was validly obtained and is consistent
with the Japanese law on divorce.
Given that Jocelyn was able to prove the fact of
divorce but not the Japanese law on divorce, a
remand of the case rather than its outright
dismissal is proper. This is consistent with the
policy of liberality that the Court has adopted in
cases involving the recognition of foreign
decrees to Filipinos in mixed marriages.[54]
lopez vs saludo
Questions of fact, which would require a re-
evaluation of the evidence, are inappropriate
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.14
The
jurisdiction of the Court under Rule 45, Section
115
is limited only to errors of law as the Court is
not a trier of facts. While Rule 45, Section 1 is not
absolute, none of the recognized
exceptions,16
which allow the Court to review
factual issues, is present in the instant case. Miro
v. Vda. de Erederos17
is particularly instructive on
this matter:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Parameters of a judicial review under a Rule 45
petition
a. Rule 45 petition is limited to questions of law

19. Before proceeding to the merits of the case, this
Court deems it necessary to emphasize that a
petition for review under Rule 45 is limited only
to questions of law. Factual questions are not the
proper subject of an appeal by certiorari.� This
Court will not review facts, as it is not our
function to analyze or weigh all over again
evidence already considered in the proceedings
below. As held in Diokno v. Hon. Cacdac, a
reexamination of factual findings is outside the
province of a petition for review on certiorari, to
wit:
It is aphoristic that a re-examination of factual
findings cannot be done through a petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court because as earlier stated, this Court is not
a trier of fa.cts[.] x x x. The Supreme Court is not
duty-bound to analyze and weigh again the
evidence considered in the proceedings below.
This is already outside the province of the instant
Petition for Certiorari.
There is a question of law when the doubt or
difference arises as to what the law is on a
certain set of facts; a question of fact, on the
other hand, exists when the doubt or difference
arises as to the truth or falsehood of the alleged
facts. Unless the case falls under any of the
recognized exceptions, we are limited solely to
the review of legal questions.
b. Rule 45 petition is limited to errors of the
appellate court
Furthermore, the "errors" which we may review
in a petition for review on certiorari are those of
the C A, and not directly those of the trial court
or the quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, or officer
which rendered the decision in the first instance.
It is imperative that we refrain from conducting
further scrutiny of the findings of fact made by
trial courts, lest we convert this Court into a trier
of facts. As held in Reman Recio v. Heirs of the
Spouses Agueda and Maria Altamirano, etc., et
al., our review is limited only to the errors of law
committed by the appellate court, to
wit:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, jurisdiction
is generally limited to the review of errors of law
committed by the appellate court. The Supreme
Court is not obliged to review all over again the
evidence which the parties adduced in the
court a quo. Of course, the general rule admits of
exceptions, such as where die factual findings of
the CA and the trial court are conflicting or
contradictory.18
(Citations omitted.)
Nevertheless, We find that petitioner was able to
prove his ownership over the subject properties.
Trust is the legal relationship between one
person having an equitable ownership in
property and another person owning the legal
title to such property, the equitable ownership
of the former entitling him to the performance
of certain duties and the exercise of certain
powers by the latter,19
The Civil Code provides that an implied trust is
created when a property is sold to one party but
paid for by another for the purpose of having
beneficial interest in said
property:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Article 1448. There is an implied trust when
property is sold, and the legal estate is granted
to one party but the price is paid by another for
the purpose of having the beneficial interest of
the property. The former is the trustee, while the
latter is the beneficiary. However, if the person
to whom the title is conveyed is a child,
legitimate or illegitimate, of the one paying the
price of the sale, no trust is implied by law, it
being disputably presumed that there is a gift in
favor of the child.
Moreover, Article 1456 of the-Civil Code
pertinently provides:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Art. 1456. If property is acquired through
mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by
force of law, considered a trustee of an implied
trust for the benefit of the person from whom
the property comes.
An implied trust arises, not from any presumed
intention of the parties, but by operation of law

20. in order to satisfy the demands of justice and
equity and to protect against unfair dealing or
downright fraud.20
The burden of proving the existence of a trust is
on the party asserting its existence, and such
proof must be clear and satisfactorily, show the
existence of the trust and its elements. While
implied trusts may be proven by oral evidence,
the evidence must be trustworthy and received
by the courts with extreme caution, and should
not be made to rest on loose, equivocal or
indefinite declarations. Trustworthy evidence is
required because oral evidence can easily be
fabricated.21
In the case at bar, both the CA and the RTC
declared that based on the evidence on record,
an implied trust relation arose between
respondent and petitioner. Respondent had
actually adduced, evidence to prove his intention
to purchase the subject properties by paying the
purchase price thereof, through petitioner, with
the attendant expectation that petitioner would
later on reconvey the same to him. This Court
sees no cogent reason to revisit these well-
supported conclusions of the lower courts.
According to the RTC:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Plaintiff was able to prove that he bought the
properties with his own money and he was also
able to establish that he issued checks (Exhibits
P, Q, R & S) to complete the full payment of the
purchase price of the properties amounting to
Fifteen Million (Php 15,000,000.00) Pesos. His
clear ownership over the properties is confined
by living in or in (sic) actual possession of the
properties from the very moment the properties
were fully paid. And these pieces of evidence
were not rebutted by the defendant and in fact
the latter admitted that it was the plaintiff who
gave her the money in purchasing the subject
properties.22
Likewise, the CA
ratiocinated, viz.:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
From what We examined from the record,
plaintiff-appellee sat on the witness stand to
adduce testimonial and documentary
evidence, i.e., copies of the various checks issued
by the plaintiff-appellee for payment of the
realty; receipts issued in the name of plaintiff-
appellee for the materials purchased and used
for the renovation of the house on the subject
property; payroll of the laborers showing the
amounts plaintiff-appellee paid for the
construction and renovation thereof; his
payment of real property taxes; and
homeowner's dues.23
The preponderance of evidence established
positive acts of respondent indicating, without
doubt, that he considered the subject properties
as his exclusive properties. First, he entered into
actual possession of the properties in question
immediately after his full payment of the
purchase price and remained in possession
thereof until the filing of the Complaint before
the lower court. Second, he spent millions for the
renovation of the house constructed on the
premises. Finally, he had the tax declarations
transferred in his name and faithfully paid the
realty taxes thereon.
From the foregoing, this Court is convinced that
an implied resulting trust existed between the
parties. The pieces of evidence presented
demonstrate respondent's intention to acquire
the subject properties for his own account and
benefit. The surrounding circumstances as to its
acquisition speak of the intent that the equitable
or beneficial ownership of the properties should
belong to respondent.
Indeed, it is settled that when the factual
findings of the trial court are confirmed by the
CA, said facts are final and conclusive on this
Court, unless the same are not supported by the
evidence on record.24
Petitioner nevertheless insists that the purchase
money for the properties was gratuitously given
to her by respondent on account of their special
relationship as boyfriend and girlfriend. This is

21. not so. On this score, We find the ruling of the
Court in the recent case of Spouses Devisfruto v.
Greenfell25
worth
mentioning, viz.:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
As to the second issue, the parties admit that
respondent supplied the purchase money for the
properties. Thus, assuming that neither an
implied nor an express trust was created, the
facts, as presented by petitioners, require the
application of the laws on donation. If, as insisted
by petitioners, the purchase money for the
properties was gratuitously given to them, the
law relevant to this transaction would be Article
748 of the Civil Code, which requires that
donations of personal property exceeding
P5,000.00 must be in
writing:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Article 748. The donation of a movable may be
made orally or in writing. �
An oral donation requires the simultaneous
delivery of the thing or of the document
representing the right donated.
If the value of the personal property donated
exceeds five thousand pesos, the donation and
the acceptance shall be made in writing,
otherwise, the donation shall be void.
If the acceptance is made in a separate
instrument, the donor shall be notified thereof in
an authentic form, and this step shall be noted in
both instruments.
In Carinan v. Spouses Cueto, where it was argued
that the respondent therein had gratuitously
paid the purchase money for property as a
donation, this Court noted that donations of
purchase money must follow the formal
requirements mandated by law.
In order to sufficiently substantiate her claim
that the money paid by the respondents was
actually a donation, Esperanza should have also
submitted in court a copy of their written
contract evincing such agreement. Article 748 of
the New Civil Code (NCC), which applies to
donations of money, is explicit on this point as it
reads:
Art. 748. The donation of a movable may be
made orally or in writing. �
An oral donation requires the simultaneous
delivery of the thing or of the document
representing the right donated.
If the value of the personal property donated
exceeds five thousand pesos, the donation and
the acceptance shall be made in writing.
Otherwise, the donation shall be void.
As the Court ruled in More�o-Lentfer v. Wolff,
a donation must comply with the mandatory
formal requirements set forth by law for its
validity. When the subject of donation is
purchase money, Article 748 of the NCC is
applicable. Accordingly, the donation of money
as well as its acceptance should be in writing.
Otherwise, the donation is invalid for non-
compliance with the formal requisites prescribed
by law.
Although petitioners repeatedly insisted that the
purchase money for the properties was
gratuitously given, it appears that they did not,
at any stage, present evidence that this donation
complied with the formal requirements under
Article 748 of the Civil Code. Thus, this Court sees
no reason to consider this argument any
further.26
(Citations omitted)
Similarly, since petitioner, in this case, insists
that the purchase money for the properties was
gratuitously furnished by respondent, the
formalities of a valid donation under Article 748
of the Civil Code should have been complied with,
failing which, there could be no donation to
speak of. As in Carinan v. Spouses
Cueto,27
petitioner never adduced evidence in
support of said argument. Thus, her claim of an
alleged donation should necessarily fail.
All told, We find that the CA did not err when it
rendered its assailed ruling.

22. The decision in
the forcible entry
case does not
constitute res
judicata on the
issue of prior
possession as
there is no
identity of subject
matter.
Res judicata literally means "a matter adjudged;
a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing
or matter settled by judgment."95
Res
judicata lays the rule that an existing final
judgment or decree rendered on the merits, and
without fraud or collusion, by a court of
competent jurisdiction, upon any matter within
its jurisdiction, is conclusive of the rights of the
parties or their privies, in all other actions or suits
in the same or any other judicial tribunal of
concurrent jurisdiction on the points and
matters in issue in the first suit.96
The elements of res judicata are:
(1) the judgment sought to bar the new action
must be final;
(2) the decision must have been rendered by a
court having jurisdiction over the subject matter
and the parties;
(3) the disposition of the case must be a
judgment on the merits; and
(4) there must be as between the first and
second action identity of parties, subject matter,
and causes of action.97
As applied in this case, there is no identity of
subject matter. While the decision in the forcible
entry case adjudicated prior possession to
petitioners to a certain land, nowhere was it
mentioned that the portion of land which the
respondents were ordered to vacate from was
the same portion of land that was subject of the
administrative proceedings with the DENR and
eventually titled under respondents' names. It is
entirely possible that respondents Sps. Rosca
may have indeed overstepped into the bounds of
petitioners' land, but it does not follow that said
petitioners' land is one and the same with the
land that respondents subsequently applied for
titling to.
To reiterate what was extensively discussed
earlier, the property being claimed by
petitioners, as seen in the tax declarations
presented by them, is different from the one
titled under respondents' names.