ORDINARY CIVIL ACTIONS

Rule 02
CAUSE OF ACTION
SECTION 1. Ordinary civil actions, basis of. Every ordinary civil action must be based on a
cause of action. (n)
Section 1 of Rule 1 is entitled cause of action. Section 1 expresses
the principle that every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause
of action. In other words, there cannot be a case unless you have a
cause of action.
Under Rule 16, one of the grounds for a motion to dismiss is that your
pleading states no cause of action.
Sec. 1 makes no reference to a special civil action.
Sec. 2. Cause of action, defined. - A cause of
action is the act or omission by which a party
violates a right of another. (n)
1. Q: Define cause of action.
A: CAUSE OF ACTION is an act or omission by which a party violates
a right of another. And based on Sec. 1 hereof, it is required that every
ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action (Anchor
Savings Bank v. Furigay, 693 SCRA 384, 395, March 13, 2013).
2. Action v. Cause of action
An action is the suit filed in court or the remedy availed for the
enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or
redress of a wrong (Sec. 3a Rule 1).
The cause of action forms the basis or foundation of such
remedy.
3. Three Elements of a cause of action:

JBD

62

1. Existence of legal right in favor of the plaintiff by

whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created;
2. a correlative obligation on the part of the named
defendant to respect and not to violate such right; and
3. an act or omission on the part of such defendant in
violation of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a
breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for
which the latter may maintain action for recovery of damages or
other appropriate relief (Anchor Savings Bank v. Furigay).
Briefly stated, it is the reason why the litigation has come
about, it is the act or omission of defendant resulting in the
violation of someones right. (Phil. National Construction v CA,
514 SCRA 569; Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association v.
Nicolas GR No. 168394, Oct. 6, 2008)
Note that even a right that exists, which, is legal by itself, can result in
the violation of anothers right and become the source of liability, such
as when one in the exercise or performance of a duty, does not act
with justice, nor observe honesty and good faith thus, violating Art. 19
of the New Civil Code.
Fourth element
There is a fourth element added by some cases and commentators
the element of damage suffered by the plaintiff.
Even if there is violation, if there is no damage, then what relief are
you asking for? There can be no action where no damage is sustained.
As a matter of fact, in a recent case, the SC remarked that wrong or
injury without damage does not constitute a cause of action since
damages are merely part of the remedy allowed for the injury caused
by a breach or wrong.
Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right while damage is the
loss, hurt, or harm, which, results from the injury.
4. Cause of Action in Specific Cases
1. A borrows money from B promising to pay on a date certain. Upon
due date, A did not pay. Does B have a cause of action? Let us examine
whether the elements are present.
RIGHT - the right of the creditor to get back his money;
OBLIGATION The defendant has the obligation to pay back the
loan under the law on contracts;
JBD

63

VIOLATION or delict or wrong the account fell due and the

debtor is supposed to pay the creditor, but the former did
not pay the latter;
DAMAGE. the creditor cannot get back his money.
Where the cause of action rests on a promissory note, filing the
action before the due date of the obligation would be premature
because the obligation is one with a period. Whenever a period is
designated in an obligation, the obligation becomes
demandable only when the period arrives. Such period is
presumed to be for the benefit of both parties and of course, also of
the debtor. He cannot be charged before the due date (Art. 1196, Civil
Code) unless he loses the right to make use of the period (Art. 1198,
Civil Code).
D borrowed money from you last year payable in January2010 but
because you are in dire need of money you demanded payment.
Suppose D does not pay can you file an action to collect the amount
from him? Do you have a cause of action?
RIGHT the creditor has the right to collect;
OBLIGATION every debtor has the obligation to pay;
DAMAGE I have not recovered the money;
DELICT or wrong there is NO delict yet.
Why? There is no delict yet because the account is payable next
year. So, it is still premature to file a collection case now because one
element is missing. It is not based on a cause of action and is
dismissible under Rule 16.
2. In breach of contract cases, a cause of action does not require an
allegation of the negligence of the defendant but merely the following
elements:
a.)
The existence of a contract, and
b.)
The breach of the contract. (Calalas v. CA SCRA 356; FGU
Insurance Corp. v. GP Sarmeinto Trucking Corp. 386 SCRA 312)
Thus, if a carrier is sued based on a breach of contract of carriage,
negligence need not be proved by the plaintiff, negligence not being
an element of the cause of action of a suit predicated on a breach of
contract. This is true whether or not the defendant is a public or a
private carrier. However, where the defendant is a common carrier
there is an additional reason for dispensing with proof of negligence,
i.e., negligence of the common carrier is presumed. (Art. 1735 & Art.
1756 CC)

JBD

64

3. Damages arising from culpa aquiliana. You are crossing the street
and you are bumped by X who was driving a car causing you injuries
and being hospitalized. You also failed to report for work.
RIGHT it is the right of every person not to be molested. You
have the right to walk peacefully and not to be harmed;
OBLIGATION it is the obligation of every person driving to be
careful so that he will not bump other people. You do not
have to enter into a contract with a person saying you will
not bump him;
DELICT or wrong because of your recklessness, you violated his
right by injuring him;
DAMAGE I have to spend money in the hospital and I lost my
income.
In quasi delict, negligence, as an element, must be alleged and
proved. (Art. 2176 CC) but the negligence of those persons described
under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code, although based on quasi delict is
presumed.
Under Art. 2180, following the well-recognized doctrine of vicarious
liability, certain persons like the father, mother, guardian, owners and
managers of an establishment or enterprise, employee, the State, and
teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades are, under
specified conditions, liable for acts of persons for whom they are
responsible.
Thus, an employer for instance, is liable for the damage caused by his
employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their
assigned tasks. The employers negligence in the selection and
supervision of his employee is presumed and his liability shall only
cease if he successfully proves his observance of the diligence required
of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
When an injury is caused to another by the negligence of the employee
there instantly arises the juris tantum presumption of law that there
was negligence on the part of the employer either in the selection or in
the supervision, or both of the employee. The liability of the
employer is direct and immediate and is not conditioned upon
a prior recourse against the negligent employee and a prior
showing of the insolvency of such employee. Therefore, it is
incumbent upon the employer to prove his exercise of diligence of a
good father of a family in the selection and supervision of the
employee (Manliclic vs. Calaunan GR No. 150157 January 25, 2007)
4. In an unlawful detainer case, the cause of action does not
accrue unless there is a demand to vacate and is not complied
JBD

65

with. If, however, the suit is based on expiration of the lease,

notice and demand are not required. (Labastida v. CA, 287 SCRA
662)
5. Of course, when you file a complaint against somebody, you do not
prepare the complaint by enumerating the elements. In other words,
you just narrate the facts. It is up for the defendant to analyze. It is
the duty of the lawyer to analyze the complaint whether the 4
elements are present.
5. Cause of action must be unmistakably stated; failure to
state a cause of action is a ground for dismissalThe mere existence of a cause of action is not sufficient for a
complaint to prosper. Even if in reality the plaintiff has a cause of
action against the defendant, the complaint may be dismissed if the
complaint or the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of
action. (Sec. 1[g], Rule 16).
This means that the cause of action must unmistakably be stated or
alleged in the complaint or that all the elements of the cause of action
required by substantive law must clearly appear from the mere reading
of the complaint. To avoid an early dismissal of the complaint, the
simple dictum to be followed is: If you have a cause of action, then by
all means, state it! State all of its elements in your pleading!
Where there is a defect or an insufficiency in the statement of the
cause of action, a complaint may be dismissed not because of the
absence or a lack of a cause of action but because the complaint
states no cause of action. The dismissal will therefore, be anchored
on a failure to state a cause of action.
The failure to state a cause of action does not mean that the plaintiff
has no cause of action. It only means that the plaintiffs allegations
are insufficient for the court to know that the rights of the plaintiff were
violated by the defendant. Thus, even if indeed the plaintiff suffered
injury, if the same is not set forth in the complaint, the pleading will
state no cause of action even if factually or in reality the plaintiff has a
cause of action against the defendant.
Lack of cause of action v. failure to state a cause of action
In other words, failure to state a cause of action is not the same
as lack or absence of a cause of action. The ground for dismissal thru a
motion to dismiss under Rule 16, which the defendant can avail before
filing an answer, is not lack or absence of cause of action but failure to
state a cause of action. And whether this ground exists or not is
determined by the allegations in the complaint.
JBD

66

This is not to say the lack or absence of a cause of action cannot

lead to a dismissal of the action. It can, but whether that ground exists
or not can only be determined after the presentation of evidence
by the plaintiff. Hence, the remedy is a demurrer to evidence
under Rule 33 (Manila Banking Corporation v. University of Baguio,
516 SCRA 379-380).
Further, failure to state a cause of action is not the same as
failure to establish a cause of action. The latter is used in
connection with the factual basis of the cause of action.
In Luzon Development Bank v. Conquilla, 470 SCRA 533, 546-547,
the Court said that usually a declaration that the plaintiff failed to
establish a cause of action is postponed until after the parties are
given the opportunity to present all relevant evidence on
questions of fact. Hence, it would not be correct for a trial court to
dismiss a complaint on the ground of failure to establish its cause of
action without giving the parties an opportunity to present their
evidence.
Test to determine whether the plaintiff has sufficiently stated a
cause of actionIt is whether or not admitting the facts alleged, the court could render
a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer in the complaint
(Misamis Occidental II Cooperative Inc. v. David, 468 SCRA 63, 72)
6. Cause of Action not an issue in administrative cases
While the existence of a cause of action is one that is essential to
the existence of a civil action, in administrative cases however, the
issue is not whether the complainant has a cause of action against the
respondent, but whether the respondent has breached the norms and
standards of the office. (Mutia v. Purisima, 494 SCRA 448)
7. CAUSE OF ACTION vs. RIGHT OF ACTION
Another important subject in procedure is distinguishing a cause of
action from a right of action.
Q: Define right of action.
A: Right of action is the right of the plaintiff to bring an action and to
prosecute that action to final judgment. (Marquez vs. Varela, 92 Phil.
373)
It is the right of a person to commence and prosecute an action to
obtain the relief sought.
Q: What are the ELEMENTS of a right of action?
JBD

67

A: There are three elements:

1.) the plaintiff must have a good cause of action;
2.) must be instituted by the proper party; and,
3.) he/she must have performed all conditions precedent to the
filing of the action.
So, you cannot have a right of action unless you first have a cause of
action. That is why the SC said in the case of
DE GUZMAN, JR. vs. COURT OF APPEALS
192 SCRA 507
HELD: The right of action springs from the cause of action,
but does not accrue until all the facts which constitute the
cause of action have occurred. When there is an invasion of
primary rights, then and not until then does the adjective or
remedial law become operative, and under it arise rights of
action. There can be no right of action until there has been a
wrong a violation of a legal right and it is then given by the
adjective law.
So, there can be no right of action until there has been a wrong, a
violation of a legal right. There can be no right of action unless there is
first a cause of action.
And you must comply with the conditions precedent. You cannot file
a case unless you comply with certain conditions and the best
illustration of this element is the case of
PHIL. AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE CO. vs.
SWEETLINES
212 SCRA 194
FACTS: This involves shipped cargoes from Manila to Davao
but the goods were damaged while in transit. Based on the
damaged cargoes, the consignee filed a case against the
carrier. Actually, in the bill of lading, there is a stipulation that
if the consignee wants to file a case arising from the contract of
carriage against the carrier, the consignee must first send a
notice of loss to the carrier and then if the carrier will not honor
it, that is the time the consignee can file a case before the
court. Now, he went to court directly without filing a notice of
loss to the carrier.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is a right of action.

JBD

68

HELD: There is NO right of action because the consignee did

not comply with the conditions precedent.
The right of action does not arise until the performance of
all conditions precedent to the action. Performance or
fulfillment of all conditions precedent upon which a right of
action depends must be sufficiently alleged, considering that
the burden of proof to show that a party has a right of action is
upon the person initiating the suit.
More particularly, where the contract of shipment contains
a reasonable requirement of giving notice of loss of or injury to
the goods, the giving of such notice is a condition precedent to
the action for loss or injury or the right to enforce the carriers
liability.
BAR QUESTION:
Distinctions between a CAUSE OF ACTION and a RIGHT OF
ACTION
1.) Cause of action is the delict or wrong committed by the
defendant, whereas
Right of action refers to the right of the plaintiff to institute the
action;
2.)
Cause of action is created by substantive law (e.g. rights
under the Civil Code), whereas Right of action is regulated by
procedural law;
Right of action is a remedial right belonging to some
persons, while cause of action is a formal statement of the
operative facts that give rise to such remedial right. (De
Guzman vs. CA, supra)
3.)
Right of action may be taken away by the running of the
statute of limitations, by estoppel or other circumstances, which
do not affect at all the cause of action.
EXAMPLE: When a debtor borrows money and he does not
pay. His failure to pay is the cause of action. After 10 years, the
right to collect has prescribed and you cannot recover
anything. Actually, what is barred is his right of action, not the
cause of action because the moment he does not pay, there is
already a wrong and you cannot erase a wrong. The cause of
action is not affected by prescription. In fact, the Civil Code
provides that the obligation is converted into natural obligation,
which is based on equity rather than a right.
When we say that the action has prescribed we should mean that
what has prescribed is the right of action not the cause of action.
JBD

69

8. Relief, Remedy and Subject Matter of the actionRelief (what you want) is the redress, protection, award or
coercive measure which the plaintiff prays the court to render in his
favor as consequence of the delict committed by the defendant while
remedy (how to get what you want) is the procedure or
appropriate legal form of relief of action which may be availed of by
the plaintiff as the means to obtain the desired relief.
Subject matter is the thing, wrongful act, contract or property,
which is directly involved in the action, concerning which the wrong
has been done and with respect to which the controversy has arisen.
SPLITTING A CAUSE OF ACTION
Sec. 3. One suit for a single cause of action. - A
party may not institute more than one suit for a single
cause of action. (3a)
Section 3 is known as the rule against splitting the cause of action.
1. Purpose:
To avoid the following:
1. Multiplicity of suits;
2.Conflicting decisions; and
3.Unnecessary vexation and harassment of defendants.
This applies not only to complaints but also to counterclaims and
cross-claims.
2. What is splitting a single cause of action?
A: Splitting a cause of action is the act of instituting two or more
suits for the same cause of action.
It is the practice of dividing one cause of action into different parts
and making each part a subject of a different complaint. (Bachrach vs.
Icarigal, 68 Phil. 287)
In splitting a cause of action, the pleader divides a single cause of
action, claim or demand into two or more parts, brings a suit for one of
such parts with the intent to reserve the rest for another separate
action. (Quadra v. CA 497 SCRA 221)
EXAMPLE: In a suit under a promissory note, you file a case to
collect the principal; another action to collect the interest; another
action to collect attorneys fees. So, there is only one note and you sue
me three times but there is only one cause of action. Now, under the
law, you have split your cause of action. You should file only one case
to recover the principal and the interest as well as the attorneys fees.
JBD

70

EXAMPLE: Damage (injury) suit: X, while walking, was bumped by

a vehicle. He filed one case against the owner of the vehicle for
reimbursement of hospital expenses; one case to recover his expenses
for medicine; another one for doctors fees; then another case for the
lost income.
3. The number of causes of action not determined by the
number of rights violatedA single act may sometimes violate several rights of a person.
Nevertheless the plaintiff has only one cause of action regardless of
the number of rights violated.
The reason lies on the definition of a cause of action as the act or
omission by which a party violates a right of another. It is not defined
on the basis of the right or rights violated but the act or omission in
violation of such right.
ExampleIf a car owner sustains injuries to his person and damage to his car as
a result of the negligent driving of the defendant, two rights of the
plaintiff have been violated, namely, his personal right to be safe in his
person and his property right to have his car intact and free from any
damage. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff can only file a single
action for the recovery of damages for both types of injuries. Filing an
action to recover damages to his person and later for damages to his
car would be splitting a single cause of action. This is because there
is one act of violation.
If, however, a passenger in the same car was also injured, the injuries
to the passenger gives rise to a cause of action separate and distinct
from those sustained by the car owner because distinct rights
belonging to different persons have been violated. The injured
passenger may file a suit against the defendant separate from the suit
filed by the car owner.
A cause of action for the reconveyance of title over property does
not include a cause of action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer.
They are distinct causes of action. What is involved in an ejectment
case is (the right to) possession de facto or material possession (and
the cause of action is the act of dispossession). In an action for
reconveyance, the issue is (right of) ownership, (the cause of action is
the act of depriving one of ownership). (Tecson v. Gutierez, 452 SCRA
781; de la Cruz v. CA, 133 SCRA 520).
The action for forcible entry should include not only the plea for
restoration of possession but also claims for damages arising out of the
JBD

71

forcible entry. The claim for damages cannot be filed separately

(Progressive Development Corporation, Inc. vs. CA 301 SCRA 637).
The same principle applies to an action to recover the possession of
a land. The action must also include the recovery of the fruits already
taken from the land and appropriated by the defendant. A suit for
recovery of the land and a separate suit to recover the fruits will not be
sustained. Also, when one files a complaint for unlawful detainer on the
ground of non-payment of rentals, the complaint must include the
recovery of the rentals in arrears, such recovery being an integral part
of the cause of action for unlawful detainer.
A tenant illegally ejected from the land is entitled to two reliefs one
for reinstatement and another for damages. Since both reliefs arose
from the same cause of action, they should be alleged in one
complaint (Gozon vs. Vda. De Barrameda 11 SCRA 376).
An action for the recovery of taxes should also include the demand
for surcharges resulting from the delinquency in the payment of said
taxes. The non-payment of taxes gave rise to two reliefs: (a) the
recovery of the unpaid taxes; and (b) the recovery of the surcharges
resulting from non-payment of the taxes. These two reliefs are results
of a single cause of action and which should be pursued in a single
complaint (City of Bacolod vs. San Miguel Brewery, Inc. 29 SCRA 819).
A bank cannot file a civil action against the debtor for the collection
of the debt and then subsequently file an action to foreclose the
mortgage. This would be splitting a single cause of action (Danao vs.
CA 154 SCRA 446; Industrial
Finance Corp. vs. Apostol 177 SCRA 521).
It has been held however, that an action to collect the amount of the
loan will not preclude a subsequent action for the rescission of the
mortgage based on violation of the conditions of the mortgage
(Enriquez vs. Ramos 7 SCRA 26).
4. Splitting a single cause of action prohibitedExamples of application of the rule against splitting a single cause of
action
May a lessee file with MeTC an action for forcible entry and damages against the lessor
and a separate suit with RTC for moral and exemplary damages plus actual and
compensatory damages based on the same forcible entry?
NO. Claims for damages sprung from the main incident being heard before MeTC.
Unlawful taking or detention of property of another is only one single cause of action
JBD

72

regardless of number of rights that may have been violated. All such rights should be
alleged in a single complaint as constituting one single cause of action (Progressive
Development Corp. vs. CA, 301 SCRA 637 [1999])
The cause of action in the earlier Annulment Case is the alleged nullity of the REM (due
to its allegedly falsified or spurious nature) which is allegedly violative of
Goodlands right to the mortgaged property. It serves as the basis for the prayer for
the nullification of the REM. The Injunction Case involves the same cause of action,
inasmuch as it also invokes the nullity of the REM as the basis for the prayer for the
nullification of the extrajudicial foreclosure and for injunction against consolidation of
title. While the main relief sought in the Annulment Case (nullification of the REM) is
ostensibly different from the main relief sought in the Injunction Case (nullification of
the extrajudicial foreclosure and injunction against consolidation of title), the cause of
action which serves as the basis for the said reliefs remains the same the alleged
nullity of the REM. Thus, what is involved here is the third way of committing forum
shopping, i.e., filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action, but with different
prayers. (Asia United Bank vs. Goodland Company, Inc ., G.R. No. 191388, March 9,
2011)
This rule applies not only to complaints but also to counterclaims
and cross-claims. (Mariscal v. CA, 311 SCRA 51)
Example: The act of a defendant in taking possession of the
plaintiffs land by means of force and intimidation constitutes a single
act of dispossession but gives rise to two reliefs to the plaintiff: (a)
recovery of possession, and (b) damages arising from the loss of
possession. Both of these reliefs result from a single wrong hence,
constitute but a single cause of action. Each of them cannot be
the subject of two separate actions. IT is procedurally erroneous for the
plaintiff to file an action to recover possession and another action for
damages. Both remedies must be alleged and claimed in only one
complaint. To file a separate action for each relief is to split a single
cause of action.
Now if the defendant denies plaintiffs allegations and avers by
way of counterclaim that the action is just plain harassment
and claims for damages, attorneys fees and litigation"
expenses, he cannot file 3 counterclaims. There is only one act of
violation, the filing of a baseless suit to harass.
Sec. 4. Splitting a single cause of action;
effect of. - If two or more suits are instituted on
the basis of the same cause of action, the filing
of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is
available as a ground for the dismissal of the
others. (4a)
JBD

73

1. Remedy of defendantThe remedy of the defendant is a motion to dismiss or if such motion is

not filed, to allege it in the answer as an affirmative defense.
2. Q: What are the effects of splitting a cause of action?
A: Under Section 4, the following are the effects:
1.)
The filing of one is available as a ground for the dismissal of
the other. This assumes a situation where there is already
another action pending between the same parties for the same
cause. This is one ground for dismissal of a case, LITIS
PENDENTIA. (Rule 16 Motion to Dismiss, Section 1 [e])
2.)
a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a
ground for the dismissal of the others. This refers to a judgment
that is final and executory. That is what you call barred by prior
judgment or RES ADJUDICATA, which is also a ground for
dismissal under Rule 16, Section 1 [f].
EXAMPLE: A collection case was already decided a long time
ago dismissing it because the court found that the promissory
note was a forgery. Now, you are reviving the same case you
are filing again. Under Section 4, the judgment in the first case
years ago would be cited as a basis for the dismissal of the
second case.
Note that if the ground is pendency of another action, the
phraseology of the rule (Sec. 4 R 2) no longer confines the dismissal to
the second action. As to which action should be dismissed would
depend upon judicial discretion and the prevailing circumstances of the
case.
3. Singleness of a cause of actionQ: How do you determine the singleness of a cause of action?
A: The singleness of a cause of action is determined by the
singleness of the delict or wrong committed by the defendant
and not by the number of remedies that the law grants the
injured party. Meaning, a single delict may give rise to two or more
possible remedies but it does not mean to say the injured party can
avail of all those remedies simultaneously or one after another.
(Bachrach vs. Icarigal, supra; David vs. De la Cruz, L-11656, April 18,
1958)
EXAMPLE: Obligations and Contracts: A violation or a breach of
contract could give rise to a civil action for specific performance or a
civil action for rescission of contract. However, it does not mean to say
JBD

74

that the injured party can file both or one after the other. Otherwise, he
will be splitting his cause of action.
EXAMPLE: There is the Recto Law (on Sales) which provides for 3
remedies of an unpaid seller of personal properties: (1) rescind the
contract of sale; (2) exact fulfillment of obligation; and (3) foreclosure
of mortgage. But even the law on Sales is very clear: the choice of one
automatically bars resort to the other because it will be against
splitting the cause of action.
EXAMPLE: Credit Transactions: A bank has two (2) possible remedies
against a debtor for non-payment of a loan secured by a mortgage say,
of a piece of land: (1) foreclose the mortgage on the land; or (2) file an
action to collect the loan. Here, the bank cannot file a case against the
debtor to collect the loan and at the same time file an action to
foreclose the mortgage for it will be splitting the cause of action. So it
is either you enforce the principal contract of loan, or, you enforce the
accessory contract of mortgage. This is what happened in the case of
DANAO vs. COURT OF APPEALS
154 SCRA 446
FACTS: The Danao spouses borrowed money from the bank,
mortgaged their property and then they failed to pay. The bank
filed a civil action to collect the loan. After filing a civil action to
collect the loan, the bank instituted an action to foreclose the
mortgage.
HELD: Anent real properties in particular, the Court has laid
down the rule that a mortgage creditor may institute against
the mortgage debtor either a personal action for debt or a real
action to foreclose the mortgage. In other words, he may
pursue either of the two remedies, but not both.
Evidently, the prior recourse of the creditor bank in filing a
civil action against the Danao spouses and subsequently
resorting to the complaint of foreclosure proceedings, are not
only a demonstration of the prohibited splitting up of a cause of
action but also of the resulting vexation and oppression to the
debtor.
4. In Umale v. Canoga Park Development Corporation, 654
SCRA 155, 162, the Court enumerated certain tests to
determine whether two suits relate to a single or common
cause of action, thus:

JBD

75

1.
2.
3.

whether the same evidence would support and sustain

both the first and second causes of action (also known
as the same evidence test;
whether the defenses in one case may used to
substantiate the complaint in the other;
whether the cause of action in the second case existed
at the time of the filing of the first complaint.

5. Rules in determining the singleness of a cause of action in

contracts with several stipulationsRULE #1 (General Rule):
A contract embraces only one cause of
action because it may be violated only once,
even if it contains several but indivisible
stipulations. (Quioque vs. Bautista, L-13159,
Feb. 28, 1962)
EXAMPLE: P enters into a contract with N which contains 3
stipulations: (#1) that next month, P will deliver to N 100 sacks of rice;
(#2) on the same date, P will also deliver to N 100 sacks of corn; and
(#3) on the same date, P will also deliver to N 100 sacks of sugar.
When the day arrived, nothing was delivered. So three stipulations
were violated.
Q: How many causes of action does N have against P?
A: ONE. The contract is only one cause of action even if it contains
several stipulations. The cause of action is not based on the number of
paragraphs violated but on the contract itself.
RULE #2 (Exception to the General Rule):
A contract, which, provides for several
stipulations to be performed at different
times gives rise to as many causes of action
as
there
are
violations.
(Larena
vs.
Villanueva, 53 Phil. 923)
EXAMPLE: A loan with a promissory note where the principal amount
is payable in installment. The first installment is payable in 2008, the
second installment in this year, and the third installment is payable in
2010 without any acceleration clause. So, there is only one contract of
loan but the principal is payable in three installments at different
times.
JBD

76

For non- payment of the first installment, the creditor has a cause of
action and can file one case.
Q: Next year, he did not pay the second installment, can the
creditor file another case?
A: YES, because this time it is the exception. Every installment is one
cause of action even if there is only one note. Remember that they are
to be performed at different times.
RULE #3 (Exception to the exception):
All obligations, arising from one contract
which, have matured at the time of the suit
must be integrated as one cause of action in
one complaint, and those not so included
would be barred. (Larena vs. Villanueva, 53
Phil. 923)
EXAMPLE: In 2008, the debtor did not pay but the creditor did not
file any case. Then this year, the second installment was not also paid.
Q: Is the creditor correct if he files two separate actions?
A: He is wrong. When all the installment are already due and the
creditor has not filed any case for the collection of the first installment,
this time, when he files for collection of the unpaid second installment,
everything must be integrated. If you do not file a claim for one, it is
deemed barred.
So for example, if you will wait for the entire note to mature, you
cannot apply rule 2. You should only file one action and you go back to
the general rule.

6. Doctrine of Anticipatory Breach

RULE #4 (Exception to Rule #2)
An unqualified and positive refusal
to perform a contract, though the
performance thereof is not yet due, may, if
the renunciation goes into the whole
contract, be treated as a complete breach,
which will entitle the injured party to bring
the action at once. (Blossom & Co. vs. Manila
Gas Corp., 55 Phil. 226)
EXAMPLE: Let us suppose that in the preceding problems when the
first installment fell due the creditor demanded payment for the first
installment from the debtor but the latter refused to pay claiming that
JBD

77

there was no loan and the promissory note is a forgery how many
causes of action are there?
Now, in that kind of statement, he is not only repudiating the first
installment. He is repudiating the entire note. So under rule #4, the
creditor can file a case for the entire loan because it has been
repudiated. If you only file only one for the first installment which fell
due, then another for the others, it will be useless because he will still
maintain the same position. So you do not wait anymore for the 2nd
and 3rd installments to fall due. You file only one case for the entire
breach. There is a total breach for a continuing obligation and there is
now only one cause of action for the entire promissory note. (Blossoms
& Co. v. Manila Gas Corporation, 55 Phil. 226) The anticipatory breach
committed by the defendant entitles the plaintiff to only one cause of
action.

JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION

SEC. 5. Joinder of causes of action. - A party
may in one pleading assert, in the alternative or
otherwise, as many causes of action as he may have
against an opposing party, subject to the following
conditions:
x x x x x

1. Q: What do you mean by joinder of causes of action?

A: Joinder of causes of action is the provision of the Rules, which
allows a party to join in one pleading two or more causes of actions
against the opposing party.
It is the assertion of as many causes of action as a party may have
against another in one pleading. It is the process of uniting two or
more demands or rights of action in one action.
2. THE PRINCIPLE:
You cannot file or split into more than one case when you have only
one cause of action but the law allows you to file one case for several
causes of action.
Splitting a cause of action and joinder of causes of action
Splitting is prohibited because it causes multiplicity of
suits and double vexation on the part of the defendant while
JBD

78

joinder is encouraged because it minimizes multiplicity of

suits and inconvenience on the part of the parties.
Example:
D is the debtor of C for P350,000.00 due on January 5, 2008 with
interest. D likewise owes C P350,000.00 due on February 13, 2008 also
with interest. Both debts are evidenced by distinct promissory notes. D
did not pay both debts despite demand. How many causes of action
are there?
There are two because there are two contracts and therefore two
violations.
No splitting a single cause of actionSo C can file two separate actions for collection because there are two
separate acts of violation considering that there are two contracts or
transactions entered into.
A violation or splitting of a cause of action will be committed
however, if for each promissory note C will file one case to collect the
principal amount and another case to collect the interest. This is
because there can only be one violation for ach transaction. (In other
words, the number of transactions can indicate the number of
violations, thus, the number of causes of action.
Joinder of causes of actionBut can C file only one action by joining the two causes of action?
Yes under this Section 5. C may file a single suit against D for the
collection of both debts, despite the claims being actually separate
causes of actions and having arisen out of different transactions.
Whether or not the causes of action arose out of the same
transaction or series of transactions in order to join the causes
of action, when relevantWhen the causes of action accrue in favor of the same plaintiff
and against the same defendant, i.e., there is only one plaintiff
and one defendant, it is not necessary to ask whether or not
the causes of action arose out of the same transaction or
series of transactions in order to join the causes of action. This
question is only relevant when there are multiple plaintiffs or
multiple defendants.
Joinder in small claims casesSec. 6, of AM No. 08-8-7-SC, as amended provides that the plaintiff
may join, in a single statement of claim, one or more separate small
claims against a defendant provided that the total amount claimed,
exclusive of interests and costs, does not exceed P100,000.00.
JBD

79

3. Joinder is not mandatoryQ: Under Section 5, is the creditor obliged to file one complaint for
the 2 promissory notes?
A: NO. Joinder of causes of action is permissive. He may or may not.
In the example, is C obliged to join the causes of action against D?
No. He may file a single suit for each of the claims if he desires
because each debt is a separate cause of action. Joinder of causes of
action is not compulsory. It is merely permissive.
4. Modes of joinder Alternative or cumulative
Q: How may causes of action be joined?
A: Causes of action may be joined either: (a) alternatively or (b)
cumulatively.
A CUMULATIVE JOINDER exists when you are seeking relief for all your
causes of action. This is illustrated in the examples above involving
two promissory notes.
An ALTERNATIVE JOINDER exists when your cause of action is either
one or the other. You are not seeking relief from both but from either
one.
Examples:
1. A is the importer of the goods that were shipped on board a
carrier. Upon reaching Cebu City, they were unloaded by the
arrastre or stevedoring operator. But when the goods were
delivered to A they were already in a damaged condition. A
complained to the arrastre, which denied liability claiming that
the goods were damaged already before unloading. Then when A
went to the carrier, it passed the blame to the arrastre.
A here has two (2) possible causes of action: (1) an action
against the stevedoring operator under the contract of depositary
under the law on Credit Transaction; Or, (2) an action against the
carrier under the Law on Transportation. So there are 2 possible
causes of action.
Q: Can A file a complaint incorporating the two (arrastre and
the carrier) both as defendants?
A: YES, that is allowed. This is alternative joinder because A is
not claiming from both of them, but either one or the other.
2. C is a passenger riding on a public utility vehicle, which collided
with another vehicle and she is not sure who is at fault. If the fault
JBD

80

lies with the other vehicle, and the driver of the bus where C was
riding is not at fault, then her cause of action against the other
vehicle is quasi-delict. But if the fault lies with the driver of the
bus where she was riding, her cause of action is culpa contractual.
So she has 2 possible causes of action.
Q: Is it possible for C to file one complaint naming both, the
drivers, or both operators as defendants?
A: YES. Either of them is liable to her. That is alternative joinder
of causes of action.
That is why the manner of joining the defendants alternatively or
otherwise should be correlated with Rule 3, Section 13 and Rule 8,
Section 2:
RULE 3, SEC. 13. Alternative defendants. - Where
the plaintiff is uncertain against who of several
persons he is entitled to relief, he may join any
or all of them as defendants in the alternative,
although a right to relief against one may be
inconsistent with a right of relief against the
other. (13a)
RULE 8, SEC. 2.
Alternative causes of action
or defenses. - A party may set forth two or more
statements of a claim or defense alternatively or
hypothetically, either in one cause of action or
defense or in separate causes of action or
defenses. When two or more statements are made in
the
alternative
and
one
of
them
if
made
independently would be sufficient, the pleading is
not made insufficient by the insufficiency of one
or more of the alternative statements. (2)
5. Conditions for proper joinder of causes of actionUnder Section 5, joinder of causes of action is allowed under the
following conditions:
a.) The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the
rules on joinder of parties;
b.) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions
governed by special rules;
c.)Where the causes of action are between the same parties but
pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may be
allowed in the Regional Trial Court provided one of the causes
of action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and the venue
lies therein; and
JBD

81

d.) Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally
for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be
the test of jurisdiction. (5a)
a.) The party joining the causes of action shall comply
with the rules on joinder of parties
Joinder of causes of action when there are several partiesThe rule on joinder of parties is Rule 3, Section 6 which provides
that two (2) or more persons can join as plaintiffs in one complaint or
can be joined as defendants in one complaint, provided there is a
common question of fact or law involved in that case. In other
words, before there can be a proper joinder of causes of action
there must be a proper joinder of parties. Proper joinder of
parties requires that the right to relief should arise out of the
same transaction or series of transactions and that there
exists a common question of law or fact. (A more extensive
discussion on joinder of parties in Sec. 6, Rule 3)
When the causes of action accrue in favor of the same plaintiff and
against the same defendant, i.e., there is only one plaintiff and one
defendant, it is not necessary to ask whether or not the causes of
actions arose of the same transaction or series of transactions as
stated beforehand. This question is only relevant when there are
multiple plaintiffs or multiple defendants. So in our hypothetical case
where D borrowed from C two separate amounts of P350,000.00 each
covered by two separate promissory notes, C can opt to file one
complaint joining together the two causes of action arising from the
violations of the promissory notes.
EXAMPLE: Two or more passengers riding on the same bus met an
accident. All of them were injured. Every passenger who gets injured
has a cause of action separate and distinct from each other because
there are separate contracts of carriage violated. So they decided to
file a damage suit.
Q: Can they be joined in one complaint?
A: YES because there is a common question of fact or law. They are
riding on the same bus, meeting the same accident, against the same
operator. So there is a joinder of parties under Rule 3. And if the joinder
of parties under Rule 3 is proper, then their causes of action can also
be joined under Rule 2 because the condition is: shall comply with the
rules on joinder of parties.
Q: Suppose these passengers were riding on different buses owned
by the same operator. All of them met an accident. Well of course the
JBD

82

same kind of case: damage suit, breach of contract against the same
operator. Now, can their causes of action be joined?
A: NO. They cannot be joined because there are several transactions
and there is no common question of fact or law. The defense of the
operator here is different from his defense there. Meaning, passenger A
has nothing to do with the complaint of passenger B because there is
no common denominator between them. So if you cannot join them
under Rule 3, the joinder of causes of action under Rule 2 is also
improper.
Distinguish joinder of causes of actions from joinder of partiesJoinder of causes of action refers to the procedural device
whereby a party who asserts various claims against the same
or several parties, files all his claims against them in a single
complaint. The joinder will not involve a joinder of parties when the
causes of action joined accrued in favor of the same plaintiff against
the same defendant, i.e., there is only one plaintiff against the same
defendant. This means that a joinder of causes of action will not
necessarily involve a joinder of parties.
Joinder of parties is a procedural device that may be
employed when there are various causes of actions that accrue
in favor of one or more plaintiffs against one or more
defendants, i.e., there is a plurality of parties. A joinder of
parties requires that before parties can be joined under a single
complaint the right to relief must arise out of the same
transaction or series of transactions and there must be a
common question of law or fact. A joinder of parties may or may
not be involved in a joinder of causes of action.
b.) The joinder shall not include special civil actions
or actions governed by special rules
The special civil actions:
Rule 62 Interpleader;
Rule 63 Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies;
Rule 64 Review of Judgments and Final Orders or Resolutions of the
Comelec and COA;
Rule 65 Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus;
Rule 66 Quo Warranto;
Rule 67 Expropriation;
Rule 68 Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage;
Rule 69 Partition;
Rule 70 Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer and
Rule 71 Contempt

JBD

83

Assume that aside from the above claims of C against D, C who

happens to be the lessor of D wants to eject D from the apartment
occupied by D as lessee. May the action be joined with the claims for
money?
No. An action for ejectment is a special action which cannot be
joined with ordinary action. The joinder does not include special civil
actions or those governed by special rules. The reason is confusion in
the application of procedural rules would certainly arise from the
joinder of ordinary and special civil actions in a single complaint.
Assume that C has the following causes of action against D: (a) P1M
based on a PN; (b) P1M based on torts; and (c) foreclosure of real
estate mortgage. May the causes of action be joined?
Yes, except the foreclosure of real estate mortgage, which is a
special civil action.
UNION GLASS AND CONTAINER CORP. vs. SEC
126 SCRA 31
FACTS: (This is still a good ruling) A stockholder of a
corporation who is also the creditor of the corporation decided
to file one complaint against the corporation asserting several
causes of action, among them is his right as a stockholder
under the Corporation Code and also his right as a creditor
under the Civil Code.
HELD: The joinder is improper. In the first place, one is
governed by a quasi-judicial body (SEC). So how can the RTC
try a case when the cause of action is pertaining to the SEC
and it is governed by the special rules of the SEC? So you
cannot join that.
c.) Where the causes of action are between the same
parties but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the
joinder may be allowed in the Regional Trial Court
provided one of the causes of action falls within the
jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein
Examples of but pertain to different venues or different
jurisdictions
1. Different jurisdictions but one is with the RTC and common venue
ProblemJBD

84

M encroached on two parcels of land belonging to me both located IN

Cebu City. In one parcel of land, the assessed value is only P20,000. In
another parcel of land, the assessed value is P1 million. I would like to
file a case of accion publiciana against him. The first accion publiciana
is triable by the MTC (P20,000). The other accion publiciana is triable
by the RTC.
Q: Can I join them?
A: YES, and it must be filed it in the RTC. The jurisdiction of the RTC
will prevail. Venue, of course, is Cebu City.
PROBLEM: M encroached on my land in Lapulapu with an assessed
value of P20,000. And then he encroached in another land of mine in
Cebu City with an assessed value of P1 million. You will notice that in
the Lapulapu land, the jurisdiction is in the MTC for the case accion
publiciana and the venue is Lapulapu because the property is situated
there. In the other case, the jurisdiction is in the RTC and the venue is
Cebu City.
Q: Can I file a case against M joining the 2 cases?
A: YES.
Q: Where is now the governing venue?
A: The venue of the RTC case prevails. Therefore, the case must be
filed in Cebu City.
2. Common RTC jurisdiction but different venuesPROBLEM: M encroached on my land in Lapulapu with an assessed
value of P1 million. And then he encroached in another land of mine in
Cebu City with an assessed value of P1 million also. You will notice that
in the Lapulapu land, the jurisdiction is RTC for the case accion
publiciana. In the other case, the jurisdiction is also in the RTC of Cebu
City. So both actions, RTC.
Q: In which RTC will you file the case joining the causes of action?
A: Either Lapulapu or Cebu City because both are RTCs.
3. Same MTC jurisdictionPROBLEM: M encroached on my land in Lapulapu with an assessed
value of P20,000. And then he encroached in another land of mine in
Cebu City with an assessed value of P20,000 also. In the Lapulapu
land, the jurisdiction is MTC for the case accion publiciana. In the other
case, the jurisdiction is also in the MTC. So both actions, MTC.
Q: Can I join in one complaint the 2 actions?
A: NO, because the law says provided one of the causes of action
falls within the jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein.
One of them belongs to the RTC. In the example, both belong to the
MTC.
JBD

85

4. Different parties and no common transaction or question of fact and

lawPROBLEM: M encroached on my land more than one year ago and the land has
an assessed value of only P20,000. So if I will file an accion publiciana, it has to
be filed with the MTC. On the other hand, A encroached my other parcel of land
more than one year ago and the assessed value of the land is P1 million. So my
cause of action there is also accion publiciana but triable by the RTC. So I
decided to file a case naming both of them as defendants.
Q: Can they be joined under Section 5?
A: NO. The law allows only if it is between the same parties. This
time the parties are not the same. Plus the fact that you might violate
paragraph [a] there is no common question of fact and law between
them.
6. Where a special civil action is involvedPROBLEM: M encroached on my land in Cebu City one month ago
and then he encroached on another land of mine (assessed value of P1
million) also located in Cebu City two years ago. Therefore, one case is
forcible entry triable by the MTC and the latter is accion publiciana
triable by the RTC.
Q: Can I join them under paragraph [c] although they belong to MTC
and RTC?
A: NO, you cannot join them because of paragraph [b] a forcible
entry is special civil action which is also governed by the Summary
Procedure. You cannot join a special civil action. So what is violated
here is not paragraph [c] but paragraph [b].
d.) where the claims in all the causes of action are principally
for recovery of money,
the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction
The last is only a repetition of the old rule: TOTALITY RULE. There is
nothing new here. So judiciary law, totality rule, basta sums of money.
As can be gleaned from Sec. 6(a) and (c) of the Truth in Lending Act,
the violation of the said Act gives rise to both criminal and civil
liabilities. Rule 2, Section 5 of the Rules of Court allows these actions to
be joined in one petition. (UCPB vs. Sps. Samuel and Odette Beluso, GR
No. 159912, Aug. 17, 2007).

SEC. 6. Misjoinder of causes of action. Misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for
dismissal of an action.
A misjoined cause of
JBD

86

action may, on motion of a party or on the

initiative of the court, be severed and proceeded
with separately. (n)
There is misjoinder when two (2) or more causes of action were
joined in one complaint when they should no be joined.
EXAMPLE: A case joining an accion publiciana case and a forcible
entry case which is not proper because a special civil action (forcible
entry) cannot be joined. In this case there is misjoinder of causes of
action.
Example: If an action for forcible entry is joined in one complaint
with the causes of actions based on several promissory notes, the
complaint should not be dismissed based on the misjoinder of the
forcible entry case. Instead, the cause of action predicated on forcible
entry may be severed from the complaint upon motion of a party or by
the court motu proprio and proceeded with separately in another
action.
Under Section 6, if there is misjoinder, you do not dismiss the case.
The remedy is to ask the court that the misjoined case be severed and
tried separately. Now, the counterpart, which is still present is
misjoinder of parties under Rule 3, Section 11:
RULE 3, Sec. 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of
parties. - Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of
parties ground for dismissal of an action. Parties
may be dropped or added by order of the court on
motion of any party or on its own initiative at any
stage of the action and on such terms as are just.
A claim against a misjoined party may be severed
and proceeded with separately. (11a)
So misjoinder of parties and misjoinder of causes of action are not
grounds for dismissal of an action. Just remove the misjoined cause of
action or the misjoined party.
Reviewer
Cause of Action
1. Meaning of cause of action
Cause of action defined - a cause of action is the act or omission by which a party
violates a right of another (Rule 2, Sec. 2).
Elements of cause of action:
1. legal right of plaintiff
2. corresponding obligation of defendant to respect or not to violate such right
3. act or omission of defendant which violates the legal right of plaintiff constituting a
JBD

87

breach of the obligation of defendant to plaintiff

2. Right of Action versus Cause of action
1. Cause of action
a. reason for bringing an action
b. formal statement of the operative facts that give rise to remedial rights.
c. matter of procedure and is governed by the pleadings filed by the parties
d. not affected by affirmative defenses (fraud, prescription, estoppel, etc.)
2. Right of action
a. remedy for bringing an action
b. the remedial right to litigate because of the operative facts
c. matter of right and depends on substantive law
d. affected by affirmative defenses (fraud, prescription, estoppel, etc.)
3. Failure to state a cause of action
Elements of a Cause of Action
A cause of action exists if the following elements are present:
1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or
is created;
2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right;
and
3) act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or
constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter
may maintain an action for recovery of damages. (Paraaque Kings Enterprises, Inc. vs.
Court of Appeals , G.R. No. 11538; February 16, 1997.)
The fundamental test for failure to state a cause of action is whether, admitting the
veracity of what appears on the face and within the four corners of the complaint,
plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for. Stated otherwise, may the court render a valid
judgment upon the facts alleged therein? Indeed, the inquiry is into the
SUFFICIENCY, not the veracity of the material allegations. If the allegations in the
complaint furnish sufficient basis on which it can be maintained, it should not be
dismissed regardless of the defenses that may be presented by defendants. (AC Enterprise
vs. Frabelle Properties Corp ., G.R. No. 166744, November 2, 2006,).
4. Test of the sufficiency of a cause of action
How to determine cause of action by the FACTS ALLEGED in the complaint. Only
issue: ADMITTING such alleged facts TO BE TRUE, may the court render a VALID
JUDGMENT in accordance with the prayer in the complaint?
In determining whether the complaint states a cause of action, the ANNEXES
ATTACHED to the complaint may be considered, they being part of the complaint.
5. Splitting a single cause of action and its effects
Rule 2, Sec. 4. Splitting a single cause of action; effect of.
If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of
one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of
the others.
Basic rule in filing of action (Rule 2, Secs. 3-4)
88
JBD

1. For one cause of action (one delict or wrong), file only ONE ACTION or suit.
Generally, NO SPLITTING A SINGLE CAUSE OF ACTION. Reasons:
a. to avoid multiplicity of suits;
b. to minimize expenses, inconvenience and harassment.
2. Remedy against splitting a single cause of action (two complaints separately filed
for one action) - defendant may file:
a. motion to dismiss on the ground of
(1) litis pendentia , if first complaint is still pending (Rule 16, Sec. 1 [e])
(2) res judicata , if first complaint is terminated by final judgment (Rule 16, Sec. 1 [f])
b. answer alleging either of above grounds as affirmative defense (Rule 16, Sec. 6)
If defendant fails to raise ground on time, he is deemed to have WAIVED them. Splitting
must be questioned in the trial court; cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
Splitting a cause of action prohibited
6. Joinder and misjoinder of causes of action
Joinder of causes of action is the assertion of as many causes of action as a party may
have against an opposing party in one pleading alone. It is not compulsory, but merely
permissive.(Rule 2, Sec. 5)
What are the requisites for joinder of causes of action? (Rule 2, Sec. 5)
1. Compliance with the rule on permissive joinder of parties under Rule 3, Sec. 6.
Must arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions AND there is a common
question of law or fact.
Ex. A, owner of a property, can file an ejectment complaint against B, C and D who are
occupying his property without his consent..
2. A party cannot join in an ordinary action any of the special civil actions. Reason:
special civil actions are governed by special rules.
Ex. P500,000 collection cannot be joined with partition because the latter is a special civil
action.
3. Where the causes of action are between the SAME PARTIES but pertain to
DIFFERENT VENUES OR JURISDICTIONS, the joinder may be allowed in the RTC,
provided ONE OF THE CAUSES OF ACTION falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC
and the venue lies therein.
Exception: ejectment case may not be joined with an action within the jurisdiction of the
RTC as the same comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC.
Unless the defendant did not object thereto, answered the complaint, and went to trial
because he is precluded from assailing any judgment against him on the ground of
estoppel or laches (Valderrama vs. CA, 252 SCRA 406 [1996]).
N.B. An action for recovery of possession of property is a real action. Thus, it should be
filed in the place where the property is located, pursuant to Rule 4, Section 1.(Decena vs.
Piquero, G.R. No. 155736, March 31, 2005).
JBD

89

N.B. As to joinder in the MTC, it must have jurisdiction over ALL THE CAUSES OF
ACTION and must have common venue.
4. Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for recovery of money,
jurisdiction is determined by the AGGREGATE OR TOTAL AMOUNT claimed (totality
rule).
N.B. The totality rule applies only to the MTC totality of claims cannot exceed the
jurisdictional amount of the MTC.
There is no totality rule for the RTC because its jurisdictional amount is without limit.
ExceptionIn tax cases where the limit is below P1 million. Amounts of P1 million or more fall
within the jurisdiction of the CTA.
Misjoinder of causes of action not ground for dismissal of an action
A misjoined cause may, on motion of a party or on the initiative of the court, be severed
and proceeded with separately (Rule 2, Sec. 6).
Note: Unlike splitting of a cause of action, a misjoinder is NOT a ground for the
dismissal of an action.

JBD

90