Los Baños Rural Bank vs Africa

Petitioner Los Baños questioned the decision of the Court of Appeals in granting respondent Pacita Africa's application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain petitioner from proceeding with the foreclosure and consolidation of the title over the subject property after such property was allegedly sold to Macy Africa by forging Pacita Africa's signature.

Los Baños argued that they should not be enjoined from foreclosing hte property because the foreclosure sale has long been effected and since it is a consummated act, it can no longer be restrained.

The SC held that in the instant case, the status quo was the situation of the parties at the time of filing the Amended Complaint, at the poin where the property was already foreclosed. But, the last actual uncontested status that preceeded the conroversy was when the property in dispute was still registered int he name of Macy Africa, petitioner not having consolidated in its name the title thereto.

Moreover, the court also held that the requisites for the issuance of a preliminary injunction are present and established by Pacita Africa. A writ of preliminary injunction is issued to preserve the status quo ante, upon an applican't showing of two important requisites; namely: (1) the right to be protected exists prima facie, and (2) the acts sought to be enjoined are violative of that right. It must be proven that the violation sought to be prevented would cause an irreparable injustice.

The issuance of the wirt of preliminary injuction would no doubt preserve the status quo.

Provisional Remedies

List of Cases
July 15, 2008


1. Los Baños Rural Bank vs Africa 384 SCRA 535
2. Mabayo Farms Inc. cs Court of Appeals
3. Dayrit vs Philippine Bank of Communications 386 scra 117 (murag wala jud ni labot bah)
4. G & S Transport vs Court of Appeals 382 SCRA 262
5. Bustamante vs Court of Appeals 381 SCRA 171
6. Rosario Textile Mills Inc. vs Court of Appeals 409 SCRA 515


Receivership:

1. Commodities Storage & Ice Plant Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 274 SCRA 439
2. Francisco vs Rodriguez 6 SCRA 443
3. Alcantara vs Abbas 9 SCRA 54
4. Philtrust vs Ata. Maria 53 P 463

Delta Ventures Resources Inc. vs Hon. Cabato

Petitioner Dela Ventures filed a third-party claim before the NLRC prior to the auction sale, and the Labor Arbiter issued an order directing the suspension of the auction sale until the merits of petitioner's claim has been resolved, But barely a month after, the petitioner filed with the RTC a complaint for injuction and damages with a prayer for TRO, reiterating the same allegations in the third-party claim.

Whether or not a complaint filed at the Regional Trial Court to quash the writ of execution issued by the Labor Arbiter may prosper?

No. Jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost upon the instance of the parties but continues until the case is terminated. Whatever irregularities attended the issuance and execution of the writ of execution should be referred to the same administrative tribunal who rendered the decision. This is because any court which issued a writ of execution has the inherent power for the advancement of justice, to correct errors of its ministerial officers and to control its own processes.

Petitioner should have filed its third-party claim before the Labor Arbiter, from whom the writ of execution originated before instituting the civil case at RTC.

Phil. Sinter vs Cagayan Electric Light and Power Company

Whether or not an injunction lies against the final and executory judgment of the Energy Regulatory Board?

No. After a judgment has gained finality, it becomes the ministerial duty of the court to order its execution. No court, perforce, should interfere by injunction or otherwise to restrain such execution. The rule, however, concededly admits of exceptions; hence, when facts and circumstances later transpire that would render execution inequitable or unjust, the interested party may ask a competent court to stay its execution or prevent its enforcement. So, also, a change int he situation of parties can warrant an injunctive relief.

Taxation

List of Cases:

1. Commissioner vs Algue, Inc. GR No. L-28896, February 17, 1988
2. Tio vs Videogram Regulatory Board
3. Meralco vs Province of Laguna
4. Yutivo vs Court of Tax Appeals
   

Evidence

List of Cases:

1. Pp vs Nardo 278 SCRA 393
   
2. Pp vs Dadles 353 SCRA 339
3. Pp vs Santos 1993
   

Provsional Remedies

List of Cases:

1. Heirs of the late Ex-Justice Jose B.L. Reyes, et. al. represented by Adoracion Reyes, et al. vs. Court of Appeals and Metro Manila Builders, Inc.
2. National Mines and Allied Workers Union vs Vera 133 scra 259
3. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee vs. Majaducon 407 SCRA 356
4. Phil Sinter Corp. vs Cagayan Electric Light and Power Co. Inc. 381 SCRA 582
5. Dela Ventures Resources Inc. vs. Cabato 327 SCRA 521
6. Yupangco Cotton Mills Inc. vs. Court of Appeals 373 SCRA 451
   

Taxation

Coverage:

1. General Principles
2. Court of Tax Appeals
3. Customs and Tariff Laws
4. Local Taxation
   

Evidence

I don't have much notes lately because of my ONE DAY absence. I didn't notice that missing a day in class could lead to a disaster!

Rule 130 Sec 24 (e): Public interest - something in which the public, the community at large, has some peucliar interest by which their legal rights and liabilities are affected. Of all the disqualifications mentioned in Sec. 24, only paragraph (e) is non-waivable.

Rule 130 Sec. 25: Testimonial privilege:

1. Parental Privilege - a parent may not be compelled to testify against his own child
   
2. Filial Privilege - a child may not be compelled to testify against his parents

What is prohibited in Sec. 25 is the compulsion of the witness. The witness cannot be barred from testifying if he does so voluntarily. Remember that this section is different from the matrimonial disqualification in Sec. 22.

Admissions and confessions
Admission - the act, declaration or omission of a party as to relevant facts, and which may be given in evidence against him

Self-Serving Evidence - an admission favorable to the party making it

*A person's own admission is evidence against him, but is not evidence for him

Classifications of Admission:

Rule 130 Sec. 27:
A. Civil Case: an offer of compromise is not an admission of liability
B. Criminal Case: an offer of compromise is admissible against the offeror except in quasi-offenses or criminal negligence, and those allowed by law to be compromised
C. Plea Bargaining/Withdrawal of plea
D. Humanitarian Gesture

Wills and Succession

Article 816 EXAMPLES

Situation 1: A Japanese resides in Indonesia. On his way to the Philippines, he makes a stop-over in Malaysia, where he made his will. What law should be followed in making the will?
Answer: In making the will, he may follow the laws of the following countries:

1. Indonesia (the place of residence)
2. Japan (his country)
3. Philippines (as provided by Civil Code)
4. Malaysia (under the doctrine of lex loci celebrationis)

Situation 2: The Japanese wants to revoke the will. What law should be followed in revoking the will?
Answer: In revoking the will, he may follow the laws of the following countries:

1. Malaysia (where the will was made)
2. Indonesia (where he resides)
3. Philippines (if the revocation is made in the Philippines)

NOTE: The Civil Code does not mention that the revocation may be done according to the law of the testator's country (in this case, Japan).

Probate - the act of proving before a competent court, the due execution of a will by a person possessed of testamentary capacity, as well as approval thereof by said court.

2 Kinds of Probate:

1. Ante-Mortem (initiated by the testator himself, during his lifetime)
   
2. Post-Mortem (after the testator's death)

Interested party - one who would be benefited by the estate
Distribution - the division, by order of the court having authority, among those entitled thereto, of the estate of a person, after the payment of debts and charges

When may a final judgment on a probate be set aside?

• By Petition for Relief brought within the legal period (on the ground of FAME). Legal period: (a) 60 days from receipt or notice of final order; or (b) 6 months from entry of order
• Should the period lapse, the judgment now really becomes FINALLY FINAL

Generally, a probate court has no jurisdiction to decide questions of ownership, except:

1. When the parties voluntarily submit this matter to the court
2. When provisionally, the ownership is passed upon to determine whether or not the property involved is part of the estate

Grounds for disallowance (ARt 839):

1. defective formalities
2. insanity at the time of execution
3. force, duress, fear or threat
4. undue and improper pressure and influence
5. fraud and forgery
6. mistake or lack of testamentary intent in so far as the document is concerned

Distinctions between revocation and disallowance:

1. Revocation is a voluntary act made by the testator while disallowance is given by a judicial order.
2. Revocation may be made by the testator with or without any cause while disallowance must always be for a legal cause.
3. Revocation may be partial or total while disallowance is always total except in cases of fraud and undue influence.

Institution of heir - an act whereby the testator designates in his will the person or persons who are to succeed him in his property and transmissible rights and obligations

Requisites for a valid institution:

1. the will must be extrinsically valid (valid as to form)
   
2. the institution must be intrinsically valid
3. the institution must be effective

"unknown person" - one who is known by the testator but cannot be identified from the will (Dean made us distinguish between an unknown person and an unidentified person... Nosebleed!)

Preterition - (or pretermission) is the omission, whether intentional or not, of a compulsory heir in the inheritance of a person. Requisites:

1. there is a TOTAL omission in the inheritance
2. the one omitted must be a compulsory heir
3. the compulsory heir omitted must be in the direct line

Distinguish Art. 848 from Art 1006:

1. Article 848 refers to testamentary succession while Art. 1006 refers to interstate succession.
2. In Art. 848, brothers and sisters of full or half blood shall receive equally, when the inheritance instituted does not specify the shares to be given.
3. In Art. 1006, brothers and sisters of full-blood will receive double the share of half-blood. (Remember, 1006 applies to intestate succession).

Preliminary Injunction

Cases July 8, 2008:

1. First Global Realty & Development vs San Agustin
2. Feranil vs Arcilla

The two cases above have discussed the requisites and purpose for the issuance of preliminary injunction.

Evidence: List of Cases June 2, 2008

G.R. No. 79094 June 22, 1988
MANOLO P. FULE vs. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. L-20264 January 30, 1971
CONSUELO S. DE GARCIA, ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

G.R. No. 152021. May 17, 2005
HEIRS OF ERNESTO V. CONAHAP vs. HEIRS OF PROSPERADOR REGAÑA

G.R. No. 119053 January 23, 1997
FLORENTINO ATILLO III vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 143783. December 9, 2002
DANTE SARRAGA, SR. and MARIA TERESA SARRAGA vs. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK

G.R. No. 110844 April 27, 2000
ALFREDO CHING vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

G.R. Nos. L-27860 and L-27896 March 29,1974
PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK vs. VENICIO ESCOLIN, ET AL.