No.

Therefore, any question on whether the Secretary of

Rule 65 Justice committed grave abuse of discretion

Board of Trustees of GSIS v. Velasco: Respondents amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in affirming,
filed before the trial court a petition for prohibition reversing, or modifying the resolutions of

with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. prosecutors may be the subject of a petition for certiorari
Respondents claimed that they were denied the under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
benefits which GSIS employees were entitled under
In a preliminary investigation, the prosecutor does
Resolution No. 306. The trial court granted the not determine the guilt or innocence of an  accused.
preliminary injunction and prohibition. ISSUE: WON The prosecutor only determines "whether there is
a Special Civil Action for Prohibition against the sufficient ground to engender a well founded belief
that a crime has been committed and the respondent
GSIS Board or its President and General Manager is probably guilty thereof, and  should be held for
exercising quasi-legislative and administrative trial." As such, the prosecutor does not perform
functions in Pasay City is outside the territorial quasi-judicial functions. 
jurisdiction of RTC-Manila, Branch 19.
JOSON v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN:  Grave
RULING: No. Clearly, the RTC did not err when it abuse of discretion is such capricious and whimsical
took cognizance of respondents’ petition for exercise of judgment as is  equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be grave
prohibition because it had jurisdiction over the as where the power is  exercised in an arbitrary or
action and the venue was properly laid before it. despotic manner by reason of passion or personal
hostility, and must  be so patent and gross as to
Sec. 21. Original jurisdiction in other cases. - amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a
Regional Trial Courts shall exercise original virtual refusal to perform  the duty enjoined or to act
at all in contemplation of law. 
jurisdiction:
Not every error in the proceedings, or every
(1) In the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, erroneous conclusion of law or fact, constitutes
mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and grave  abuse of discretion. While the prosecutor, or
the investigating officers of the Office of the 
injunction, which may be enforced in any part of
Ombudsman may err or even abuse the discretion
their respective regions; lodged in them by law, such error or abuse alone 
does not render their act amenable to correction and
Rule 65 – CERTIORARI annulment by the extraordinary remedy  of
certiorari. 
SECRETARY LEILA DE LIMA v. MARIO JOEL T. REYES: Governor
Not every error in the proceedings, or every
Reyes filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition for
erroneous conclusion of law or fact, constitutes
Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for a Writ of
grave  abuse of discretion. While the prosecutor, or
Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order the investigating officers of the Office of the
assailing the creation of the Second Panel. In his Petition, he Ombudsman may err or even abuse the discretion
argued that the Secretary of Justice gravely abused her lodged in them by law, such error or abuse alone
discretion when she constituted a new panel. He also argued does not render their act amenable to correction and
that the parties were already afforded due process and that annulment by the extraordinary remedy  of
the evidence to be addressed by the reinvestigation was certiorari." (Agdeppa v. Ombudsman)
neither new nor material to the case.
Dagan vs. Office of the Ombudsman
Whether the issuance of Department Order No. 710 was an Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals
executive function beyond the scope of a petition for
via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The appellate court
certiorari or prohibition?
issued a Resolution dismissing the petition for
failure of petitioner to avail of the correct mode of Espiritu and Labor Secretary Bienvenido Laguesma
appeal.  Yes.  as functionaries of  the Task Force. Neither is there a
judgment, order, or resolution of either public
Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 or otherwise respondents  involved. Instead, what exists is a
known as "The Ombudsman Act of 1989 logically contract between a private firm and one of its labor
implies that where the respondent is absolved of the
unions, albeit  entered into with the assistance of the
charge, the decision shall be final and  unappealable.
Although the provision does not mention absolution, Task Force. The first and second requisites for
it can be inferred that since  decisions imposing light certiorari and  prohibition are therefore not present
penalties are final and unappealable, with greater in this case.
reason should decisions  absolving the respondent of
the charge be final and unappealable.  The essential requisites for a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 are: (1) the writ is directed  against a
tribunal, a board, or an officer exercising judicial or
However, petitioner is not left without any remedy. quasi-judicial functions; (2) such  tribunal, board,
In Republic v. Francisco, the SC ruled that  decisions or officer has acted without or in excess of
of administrative or quasi-administrative agencies jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of  discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3)
which are declared by law final and  unappealable are
there is no appeal or any plain,  speedy, and
subject to judicial review if they fail the test of adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. For
arbitrariness, or upon proof of  gross abuse of writs of prohibition, the requisites  are: (1) the
discretion, fraud or error of law. impugned act must be that of a "tribunal,
corporation, board, officer, or person, whether 
Estrada v Desierto et al., exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial
functions;" and (2) there is no plain, speedy, and 
Sec. 14. Restrictions. - . . .  adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." 

No court shall hear any appeal or application for

remedy against the decision or findings of the 
Ombudsman, except the Supreme Court, on pure UY VS. SANTIAGO 
question of law. DOCTRINE: It is the ministerial duty of the Regional
Trial Court, as appellate court, to immediately 
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals has execute its decision in ejectment proceedings.
jurisdiction to entertain original petitions for 
certiorari from decisions of the Office of the SEGOVIA vs. CLIMATE CHANGE COMMISSION
Ombudsman in criminal cases?

Ong vs. People

the rule generally prevailing is that "certiorari does

not lie to review a trial court's interlocutory  order
denying a motion to dismiss (or to acquit), which is
equivalent to a demurrer to evidence,  filed after the
prosecution had presented its evidence and rested its
case. An order denying a  demurrer to evidence is
interlocutory. It is not appealable. Neither can it be
the subject of a  petition for certiorari

Rivera v. Espiritu

The assailed agreement is clearly not the act of a

tribunal, board, officer, or person  exercising judicial,
quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions. It is not the
act of public respondents  Finance Secretary Edgardo
RULE 68: PARTITION
JURISDICTION:

Agarrado v. Librando-Agarrado: An action for partition

of real estate is at once an action for the determination of the
co-owners of the subject property and an action for the
eventual conveyance of specific portions thereof to the co-
owners. While this subject matter is incapable of pecuniary
estimation, the proper court which would have jurisdiction
over the action would still depend on the subject FIRST STAGE: DETERMINE CO-OWNERSHIP
property's assessed values in accordance with Secs. 19(2) EXIST
and 33(3) of The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as
amended.- FAILURE TO INDICATE MARKET VALUE: Heirs of Panfilo F. Abalos v. Bucal: In a complaint for
DISMISSAL DUE TO LACK OF JUSRISDICATION partition, the plaintiff seeks, first, a declaration that he is a co-
owner of the subject properties; and second, the conveyance
COLLATION FIRST BEFORE PARTITION of his lawful shares. An action for partition is at once an action
for declaration of co-ownership and for segregation and
Heirs of Ernesto Morales v. Agustin: ISSUE: If no conveyance of a determinate portion of the properties involved
settlement of estate, is the partition proper? The
petitioners argue that an administration proceeding for the PRESUMPTION ON PARTITION
settlement of the estate of the deceased is a
condition that has to be met before any partition of the estate Maglucot-Aw v. Maglucot: Thus, after a long
and any distribution thereof to the heirs could be effected. possession in severalty, a deed of partition may be presumed.
Court does not agree with this assertion by the petitioners, the It has been held that recitals in deeds, possession and
Court, nonetheless, agrees that the trial court occupation of land, improvements made thereon for a long
should have collated Jayme's other properties, if any, prior to series of years, and acquiescence for 60 years, furnish
the promulgation of any judgment of partition in accordance sufficient evidence that there was an actual partition of land
with the laws on Succession. either by deed or by proceedings in the probate court, which
had been lost and were not recorded.
FIRST STAGE: DETERMINATION OF CO-
OWNERSHIP

Ignacio v. Reyes: There must be first a determination of De Mesa v. Court of Appeals

whether or not a co-ownership in fact exists and a partition is
proper,that is, it is not otherwise legally proscribed and may The first stage of an action for judicial partition and/or
accounting is concerned with the determination of whether or
be made by voluntary agreement of all the parties interested in
not a co-ownership in fact exists and a partition is proper, that
theproperty is, it is not otherwise legally proscribed and may be made by
voluntary agreement of all the parties interested in the
Thus, the intestate court committed grave property. This phase may end in a declaration that plaintiff is
abuse of discretion when it asserted jurisdiction over the not entitled to the desired partition either because a co-
subject properties since its jurisdiction relates only to matters ownership does not exist or a partition is legally prohibited. It
having to do with the settlement of the estate of deceased may also end, on the other hand, with an adjudgment that a co-
persons. ownership does in truth exist, that partition is proper in the
premises, and that an accounting of rents and profits received
by the defendant from the real estate in question is in
INDISPENSABLE PARTY: PLAINTIFF ACTION order. In the latter case, "the parties may, if they are able to
agree, make partition among themselves by proper
instruments of conveyance, and the court shall confirm the
Quilatan v. Heirs of Quilatan: The defendants could not partition so agreed upon by all the parties." In either case,
be blamed if they did not raise the issue of failure to implead whether the action is dismissed or partition and/or accounting
indispensable parties in their Answer because in an action for is decreed, the order is a final one and may be appealed
partition of real estate, it is the plaintiff who is mandated by by any party aggrieved thereby.
the Rules to implead all the indispensable parties , considering
that the absence of one such party renders all subsequent The second stage commences when the parties are unable to
actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, agree upon the partition ordered by the court. In that event,
partition shall be effected for the parties by the court with the
not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present.
assistance of not more than three (3) commissioners. This
second phase may also deal with the rendition of the
In fine, the absence of an indispensable party renders all accounting itself and its approval by the Court after the parties
subsequent actions of the court null and void for want havebeen accorded the opportunity to be heard thereon, and an
of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even award for the recovery by the party or parties thereto entitled
as to those present. of their just shares in the rents and profits of the real estate in
question. Such an order is, to be sure, also final and
appealable
MINISTERIAL FUNCTION OF and Metropolitan Trial Court, have exclusive original
COMMISSIONER: jurisdiction over cases for unlawful detainer.

Dadizon v. Bernades: In partition proceedings, reference However, such courts have no original jurisdiction to
to commissioners is required as a procedural step in the action determine and adjudicate agrarian disputes under
and isnot discretionary on the part of the court. Rep. Act No. 6657, as amended, and the Rules of
Procedure issued by the DARAB implementing said
RULE 70: ACCION INTERDICTAL
laws, which are within the exclusive original and
Domagas vs Jensen: From the aforementioned appellate jurisdiction of the DARAB.
provisions of the Rules of Court and by its very nature
and purpose, an action for unlawful detainer or
forcible entry is a real action and in personam because
Espiritu v. Court of Appeals: Forcible entry must be
the plaintiff seeks to enforce a personal obligation or
ruled out as there was no allegation that petitioner was
liability on the defendant under Article 539 of the New
denied possession of the land in question through any
Civil Code, for the latter to vacate the property subject
of the means stated in Sec. 1, Rule 70, Rules of Court.
of the action, restore physical possession thereof to
Neither was the action one for unlawful detainer as
the plaintiff, and pay actual damages by way of
there was no lease agreement between the parties, and
reasonable compensation for his use or occupation of
the demand to vacate by petitioner on private
the property.
respondents did not make the latter tenants of the
Summons must be served personally to defendant. former. Petitioner should therefore avail of other
Jurisdiction over the person must be acquired since it is remedies provided for by law to recover possession of
both real action and in personam. subject property.

In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of

the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try
Sarona v. Villegas: The law and jurisprudence leave no
and decide the case. Jurisdiction over the person of a
doubt in our mind that what determines the cause of
resident defendant who does not voluntarily appear in
action is the nature of defendants' entry into the land. If
court can be acquired by personal service of summons
entry is illegal, then the cause of action which may be
as provided under Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of
filed against the intruder within one year therefrom is
Court. If he cannot be personally served with summons
forcible entry. If, on the other hand, entry is legal but
within a reasonable time, substituted service may be
thereafter possession became illegal, the case is one of
made in accordance with Section 8 of said Rule. If he is
illegal detainer which must be filed within one year
temporarily out of the country, any of the following
from the date of the last demand.
modes of service may be resorted to: (a) substituted
service set forth in Section 8; (2) personal service No Allegation of Jurisdictional Facts: Dismissal
outside the country, with leave of court; (3) service by
publication, also with leave of court; or (4) any other Espiritu v. Court of Appeals: In forcible entry the
manner the court may deem sufficient. Thus, any deprivation of physical possession of land or building is
judgment of the court which has no jurisdiction over the effected through force, intimidation, threat, strategy or
person of the defendant is null and void. stealth. In unlawful detainer the unlawful withholding
of possession is made after the expiration or
HILADO VS SANCHEZ: On the issue of jurisdiction, termination of the right to hold possession under any
Section 33, paragraph 2 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as contract, express or implied. In forcible entry the
amended by Section 3 of Rep. Act No. 7691 provides possession is illegal from the beginning and the issue
that Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Circuit Trial Court centers on who was in prior possession de facto. In
unlawful detainer the possession was originally lawful
but became unlawful upon the expiration or possession of the land from them is sufficient to make
termination of the right to possess the subject property. out a case for unlawful detainer.

Alviar v. Pampolina= ACTION FOR OWNERSHIP IS NOT

A BAR: DOCTRINE: An action for ownership is not a bar
Spouses Muñoz v. Court of Appeals to an action for forcible entry and detainer

When the complaint fails to aver facts constitutive of Javelosa v. Court of Appeals= PRIOR POSSESSION IS
forcible entry or unlawful detainer, as where it does not ONLY FOR FORCIBLE ENTRY DOCTRINE: Again, it is
state how entry was effected or how and when settled that prior physical possession is indispensable
dispossession started, the action should either be only in actions for forcible entry but not in unlawful
accion publiciana or reivindicatoria in the Regional Trial detainer. Since we have ruled that the MTC case filed
Court. against petitioner is one for unlawful detainer,
petitioner's prior possession of the land is of no
IMPLIED NEW LEASE
moment
Villegas v. Court of Appeals= UNLAWFUL DETAINER
SPRING NOT ONLY IN CONTRACT BUT ALSO WITH
COMPROMISE AGREEMENT. Under Article 1670 of the
Civil Code, a new lease is implied if the lessee continues
enjoying the thing leased for 15 days after the
termination of the original contract, unless notice to the
contrary has been previously given by either party.
Conversely, if a notice of the termination of the lease is
given, the fact that the lessee continues to stay for 15
more days is not a ground for inferring a new
lease.Thus, an implied new lease or tacita reconduccion
will set in when the following requisites are found to
exist: (a) the term of the original contract of lease has
expired; (b) the lessor has not given the lessee a notice
to vacate; and (c) the lessee continued enjoying the
thing leased for 15 days with the acquiescence of the
lessor.This implied renewal of the lease is not for the
original period of the contract, but for the periods
established by Article 1682 and 1687 of the Civil Code.

Javelosa v. Court of Appeals= WORD UNLAWFULLY

WITHHOLDING IS SUFFICIENT. DOCTRINE: We have
ruled in a long line of cases that "in an action for
unlawful detainer, a simple allegation that defendant is
unlawfully withholding possession from plaintiff is
sufficient for the words `unlawfully withholding' imply
possession on the part of defendant, which was legal in
the beginning, having no other source than a contract,
express or implied, possession which had later expired
as a right and is being withheld by defendant." Thus, in
the case at bar, private respondents' allegation in their
complaint that petitioner was unlawfully withholding