Decisions penned by: a categorical finding that they had “no direct

participation in the anomalies”

Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa o Principle:
 GR: administrative and criminal
REMEDIAL LAW cases based on the same operative
 When there is forum shopping, the penalty is facts may proceed independently
dismissal of BOTH actions. It is wrong to say that  XPN: Principle of Conclusiveness of
only one of the actions is dismissible and that the judgment
litigant may choose which remedy to maintain [Heirs o Effect of exoneration:
of Mampo v. Morada, Nov. 3, 2020]  The criminal case filed against them
 Actionable document that needs to be specifically by OMB-Min must be dismissed
denied under oath =/= evidentiary document. As to based on the finding that the
latter, it need not be specifically denied and as such, petitioners were already found not to
the implied admission rule does not apply. Thus, have had any participation in the
evidentiary document still requires authentication of anomalies. In other words, this
such evidentiary document. On the other hand, if the finding merits their exoneration as
actionable document was NOT specifically denied well from the criminal case.
under oath by the defendant, there is an implied  Thus, relitigating the petitioner’s
admission. In that instance, the process of liability is barred by the principle of
authentication provided under the Rules is no longer conclusiveness of judgment.
required. Implied admission = judicial admission = [Pahkiat v. OMB, Nov. 3, 2020]
need not be proven. [Young Builders Corp. v. Benson  A summary judgment which did not make any
Industries, June 19, 2019] determination as to damages is a final judgment and
 Substitution of a sole proprietorship by the owner- thus appealable. [Trade & Investment Dev’t Corp. v.
operator is merely a formal amendment which may PH Veterans Bank, July 1, 2019]
be done at any stage of the action. [Yon Mitori Int’l  Principles:
Industries v. Union, Oct. 14, 2020] o An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal
 A registered owner of land is NOT barred by res is not subject to appeal. Remedy: SCA
judicata from filing second petition to replace under Rule 65
owner’s duplicate certificate of title. o Note:
o Ownership of land = evidenced by the Cert.  GR: MR is a condition precedent to
Of Title (indefeasible and incontrovertible); filing a SCA under Rule 65
o Proceedings for the Reconstitution of  XPN: when the challenged order is
original certificates of title; replacement of patently defective
owner’s duplicate certificate of title only o RTC may dismiss an appeal only on two (2)
involve re-issuance of a new owner’s grounds:
duplicate certificate of title lost or  Appeal is taken out of time; and
destroyed in its original form and  Non-payment of the docket and
condition; other lawful fees within the
o It does NOT pass upon the ownership of the reglementary period. [PH Bank of
land covered by the lost or destroyed title. Communications v. CA, Feb. 15, 2017]
o Conclusion: NO conclusive adjudication of  Appeals/Original Action, Rules:
rights between adversarial parties in a o Construction Industry Arbitration
proceeding for the replacement of a lost or Commission questioning its arbitral award
destroyed owner’s duplicate COT [Ph. Bank (only on questions of law) -> Supreme Court
of Communications v. Register of Deeds, March [Rule 45] (legal basis: Sec. 19 of EO 1008
11, 2020] as reiaterated in Sec. 34 of ADR [RA 9285
 Scenarios or the Alternative Dispute Resoltuion Act of
o #1: The petitioners were found 2004])
administratively liable by the OMB-Min for  EO 1008, being a special law,
falsification of disbursement vouchers. prevails over the Sec. 9[3] of BP
o #2: Based on the same factual 129, being a general provision/law.
circumstances and subject matter in the o CIAC (if parties will challenge the FACTUAL
administrative case, the petitioners were findings) -> CA thru Rule 65 (petition for
criminally charged with Malversation of certiorari) [Global Medical Center of Laguna,
Public Funds through Falsification of Public Inc. v. Ross Systems, Int’l Inc., May 11, 2021,
and Commercial Documents and violation of en banc]
Sec. 3[e] of RA 3019.  A judgment which did not implead an indispensable
o #3: They were subsequently absolved by party is void and may be annulled for lack of
the OMB-Min from administrative liability on jurisdiciton under R47.
 o Suit involving co-ownership: all the co- o GR: A prior determination of heirship in a
owners of such property are indispensable separate specpro is no longer required
parties. before an heir can file an ordinary civil action
o Appeal, not an adequate remedy since the to enforce ownership rights acquired by
indispensable party NOT impleaded was not virtue of succession,
a party to the suit for specific performance o XPN: Unless there is a pending special
[Fernando v. Paguyo, Sept. 18, 2019] proceeding for the settlement of the
 The annulment of the RTC under Rule 47 is proper decedent’s estate or for the determination of
because RTC was bereft of jurisdiction to rule with heirship.
finalty on the issue of ownership and was also  Adoptee’s petition to change surname from Santos
without power to order the reconveyance of the to Revilla is NOT a compelling reason for change of
usbject land to petitioners because the orgiinal surname (Santos v. Republic, May 5, 2021, Caguioa, J.)
complaint was only accion publiciana.  Petition to change or prayer to enter a person’s
o The order of reconveyance of the land middle name which is a mere clerical error, which
amounted to may be corredted by referring to existing records is
 conclusive determination of covered by RA 9048 (Bartolome v. RP, Aug. 28, 2019,
ownership which can only be done Caguioa, J.)
in an accion reinvindcatoria; and  A party can file a NOA even if there is a pending
 To a proscribed collateral atatck on motion for reconsideration by adverse party
the certiifcate of title. [Heirs of (Bernardo v. Soriano, June 19, 2019)
Cullado v. Gutierrez, July 30, 2019]  Situation:
 A transferee in a deed of sale filed with the RTCa o P v. D in RTC
petition for issuane of duplicate certificate of title. o RTC dismissed for failure to pay docket fee
However, no notice of hearing was given to the heirs o P filed NOA. It was disallowed by RTC on
of the registered owner. the ground that it is not a proper remedy
o Ruling: The remedy of the heirs of the o SC: The order of RTC is NOT correct. Under
regisered owner is annulment of judgment Sec. 13, Rule 41, the RTC may dismiss only
under Rule 47 with the Court of Appeals. on two (2) grounds:
Notice to the interested parties is  Appeal filed out of time; and
jurisdictional and non-compliance therewith  Non payment and other lawful
means the court did not acquire jurisdiction fees within the reglementary
over the petition [Heirs of Ramirez v. Abon, period.
July 24, 2019] o Subsequently, P filed a petition for certiorari
 Order dismissing a case for failure to state a COA and mandmus with CA questioning the order
o Remedy: R65 since dismissal is without of the RTC dislloawing the appeal on the
prejudice pursuant to Sec. 1[g], Rule 41. ground that it is NOT a proper remedy. CA
(Sadhwani v. Sadhwani, Aug. 14, 2019) dismissed stating that appeal is not certiorari
 If the ground relied upon is unconscionable interest , was proper.
to be entitled to a TRO/WPI, debtor is required to o SC: CA is not correct. Under Sec. 1, Rule
pay at least 6% p.a . interest* on the principal 41, an order disallowing an appeal is NOT
obligation as stated in the application for foreclosure appealable, the remedy being Rule 65.
sale, which shall be updated monthly. (Tumon v.  Judgment of court granting petition for issuance of
Radiowealth Co., 18 Mar 2021, Caguioa , J.) duplicate cert of title filed by transferee in deed of
 Award of capital gains tax and transfer taxes to sale, it is void where no notice given to heirs of
landowner as consequential damages in an registered owner. Judgment may be nullified under
expropriation case is IMPROPER (RP v. Bunsay, Dec. Rule 47 (Heirs of Ramirez v. Abon, July 24, 2019,
10, 2019, J. Caguioa) Caguioa, J.)
 In case of disregard of the HLURB’s Cease and  Judgment which did not implead indispensable party
desist order, the contempt charge should be filed may be nulliefied under Rule 47 on the gorund of
with the RTC where the contumacious acts have lack of juris (Fernando v. Paguyo, Sept. 18, 2019)
been committed, not with the SC, even if the case is  Order of SB dismissing the info for lack of PC is
pending appeal at the SC (Rodriguez v. HLURB, June appeal NOT certiorari since the dismissal is a final
19, 2019, Caguioa, J.) order (People v. SB, Nov. 18, 2020, Caguioa, J.)
 Actions by buyers in CTS over land (seller died) was  The Court held that the requirement in the Rules of
properly filed against the heirs of the seller and not Criminal Procedure that the civil case be instituted
against the estate of the seller. Sec. 8, Rule 89 is ahead of the criminal action in order to raise a
NOT applicable since there is NO PENDING prejudicial question is merely directory and not
PROBATE PROCEEDING (Heirs fo Villeza v. mandatory. (People v. June 2021, Caguioa , J.).
Aliangan, Dec. 2, 2020, Caguioa, J.)
 Treyes v. Larlar, Sept. 8, 2020, Caguioa, J.: