Doctrines in Civpro

Sante vs Claravall- Where the principal relief sought are damages, the totality of the claims must
determine jurisdiction.

Barrido vs Nonato The MTCC has jurisdiction to take cognizance of real actions or those affecting title
to real property or for the partitition or condemnation of or foreclosure of a mortgage on real property
as long as the assessed value does not exceed 20 k or 50k in Metro Manila.

Alonso vs Villamor
The court allowed the substitution of plaintiff as party in interest . No judgement shal be reserved on
formal or technical grounds ofr fo such error as has not prejudiced real rights of excepting party The
court is empowered to amend any pleading or proceeding at any stage of the action. There is nothing
sacred about processes or pleadings, their forms or contents. Their sole purpose is to facilitate the
application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties. Tey were created, not to hinder and delay,
but to facilitate and promote the administration of Justice.

Larena vs Villanueva
A party will not be permitted to split up a single cause of action and make it the basis for serveral suits.
When a lease provides for the payment of the rentin separate instalments, each instalment is an
independent cause of ction, though it has been held and is good law, that in action upon such a lease for
the recovery of rent, the instalments due at the time the action brought must be included in the
complaint and that the failure to do so will constitute a bar to subsequent action for the payment of that
rent.

Blossom &Co vs Manila Gas

A contract to do several things at several times is divisible . A judgemet for a single breach of a
continuing contract is not a bar to a suit for subsequent breatch. When the contract is indivible and the
breach is total there can only be one action in which the plaintiff must recover all damages.
In the case at bar, there is anticipatory breach as when the plaintiff has threatened to not honor their
contract, thus giving a cause of action.

Swagman vs CA

It is only upon the occurrence of the last element (act or omission) that a cause of action arises giving
the plaintiff the right to maintain an action in court for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief.
Ada vs Baylon
While parties to an action may assert in one pleading, in the alternative or otherwise as many causes of
action as they may have against an opposing party,such joinder of cause of action is subject to the
condition, inter-alia, that the joinder shall not include special civil actions governed by special rules.
Misjoinder, however is not a ground for dismissal. If there is no objection to the improper joinder or the
court did not motu propio direct a severance, then there exists no bar in the simultaneous adjudication
of all the erronesouly joined causes of action. But this only applies if the court trying the case has
jurisdiction over all the causes of action notwithstanding the misjoinder. If not, the causes must be
severed.

Banda vs Ermita
An action does not become a class suitmerely because it is designated as such in the pleadings. When
the subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general interest to many persons so
numerous that it is impracticableto join all as parties, the number of them which the court finds to be
sufficiently numerous and representative as to fully protect the interests of all concerned may sue or
defend for the benefit of all. Any party in interest shall have the right to intervene to protect his
idnivuidual interest.

Navarro vs Escobido
Only one of the co-owners are indispensable parties. The other co-owners are not indispensable
parties. They are not even necessary parties for a complete relief can be accorded even without their
participation since the suit is presumed to have been filed for the benefit of all co-owners .

Bacalso vs Padigos
Even a registered owner of a property may be barred from recovering possession of property by virtue
of laches.

Tallorin vs Tarona
The oinder of indispensable parties is mandated. The absence of an indispensable party renders all
subsequent actions of the court null and void. It will have no authority to act not only to the absent
party but as to those present as well.

Crisologo vs JEWM
In an action for the cancellation of memorandum annotated at the back of a certificate of title, the
persons considered as indispensable parties include those whose liens appear as annotations to the
title.

Macawadib vs Police
When an indispensable party is not before the court an action should be dismissed. The absence of an
indispensable party renders all subsequent action s of the court null and void for want of authority to
act. The burden of procuring the presence of all indispensable parties is on the plaintiff. The failure of
implead the OSG has no bearing on the validity of the appeal which the petitioner filed before the CA.
Neither can the state, as represented by the government be considered in estoppel due to the
petitioners seeming acquiescence to the judgement of the RTC . Absence of opposition from
government agencies of of no controlling significance because the State cannot be estopped by the
omission, mistake or error f its officials and agents. Nor is the Republic barred from assailing the decision
granting the petition if on the basis of the law and evidence on record, such petition has no merit.

Traveno vs Bobongon
As to verification, non compliance or a defect does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective.
The court may order its submission or correction or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances
are such that strict compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice be
served thereby. V erification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample
knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegtions in the complaint or petition signs the verification, and
when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith and are true and correct.

As to certification against form shopping, non compliance or a defect therein is generally not curable by
its subsequent submission or correction unless there is a need to relax the rule on the ground of
substantial compliance. The cert against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or pets in a
case, otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to the case. However, as when all the
plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, the
signature of only one of them in the cert substantially complies with the rule. It must be executed by the
party-pleader, not by his counsel. If he cannot sign, he must execute a SPA designating his counsel to
sign on his behalf.

PPA vs GoThong
A second amendment should be admitted. Amendments may now substantially alter the cause of action
or defense. This will only be allowed if the substantial change or alteration in the cause of action or
defense shall serve the higher interests of substantial justice and prevent delay and equally promote the
laudable objective ot he rules which is to secure a just speedy and inexpensive disposition of every
action and proceeding.
EB Villarosa vs Benito
A strict compliance with the mode of service is necessary to confer jurisdiction of the court over a
corporation. The officer upon whom service is made must be one who is named in the statute,
otherwise the service is insufficient. The liberal construction rule cannot be invoked and utilized as a
substitute for the plain legal requirements as to the manner in which summons should be served on a
domestic corporation.

Galura vs Math Agro

Server needs to state the facts why personal service cannot be had. The requisites of a valid substituted
service

1. Service of summons within a reasonale time is impossible

2. The person serving the summons exerted efforts to tlocate the defendant
3. The person whom the summons is served is of sufficient age and discretion
4. The person to whom the summons is served resides at the defendants place of residence
5. Pertinent facdts showing the enumerated circumstances are stated in the return of service.

The summons must be served to the defendant in person, It is only when the defendant cannot be
served personally within a reasonable time that a substituted service may be made. This is necessary
because substituted service is in derogation of the usual method of service.

Citizens Surety Vs Melencio-Herrera

IN an action strictly in personam, personal service of summons, within the forum , is essential to the
acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant who does not voluntarily submit himself to
the authority of the court. Summons by publication cannot confer upon the court jurisdiction over said
defendants (this has been overruled by Santos vs PNOC)

Santos vs PNOC
Since petitioner could not be personally served with summons despite diligent efforts to locate his
whereabouts, respondent was granted leave of court to effect service by publication ina a newspaper of
general circulation. The petitioner was properly served with summons by publication
In rem/ In personam distinction was significant under the old rule because it was silent as to the kind of
action to which the rule was applicable. Because of this silence, the court limited the application of the
old rule to in rem actions only. This has been changed. The present rule expressly states that it applies
in any action where the defendant is designated as an unknown owner or the like, or wherever his
whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry. Thus now applies to any
action, whether in personam, in rem or quasi in rem.
Rapid City vs Villa
If there is no valid service of summons, the court can still acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant by virtue of the latters voluntary appearance. This will be the equivalent of service of
summons. A person who makes a special appearance to challenge the courts jurisdiction over his person
connot be considered to have submitted to its authority. These objections must be explicitly made and
failure to do so constitutes voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court especially in instances
where a pleading or motion seeking affirmative relief is filed and submittied to the court for resolution.

Palma vs Galvez
Because Section 16 of Rule 14 uses the words may and also it is not mandatory. Other methods of
service of summons allowed under the rules may also be availed of by the serving officer ona defendant-
resident who is temporarily out of the Philippines. Thus if a resident defendatnt is temporarily out of the
country any of the following modes of service may be resotrted to 1. Substituted service in section 7 2.
Personal service outside the country, with leave of court 3. Service by publication also with leave of
court or 4. In any other manner the court may deem sufficient.

Chu vs Mach-Asia
As a rule, summons should be personally served on the defendant. It is only when summons cannot be
served personally within a reasonable period that substituted service may be resorted to. It may be
effected

a. By leaving copies of the summons at the defendants residence with some person of suitable age
and discretion then residing therein or
b. B. leaving the copies at defendants office or regular place of business with some competent
person in charge thereof.

Rule 16 Motion to dismiss

Figueroa vs People
The general rule is that the issue of jurisdiction may be raised at any astage of the proceedings even on
appeal and is not lost by waiver or by estoppel. Estoppel by laches may be invoked only in cases in which
the factual milieu is analogous to that of Tijam vs Sibonghanoy.

Soliven vs Fastforms
While jurisdiction may be assailed at any stage, a litigants participation in all stages of the case including
the invocation of its authority in asking for affirmative relief, bars such party from challenging the
courts jurisdiction.

HSBC vs Aldecoa
A plea of pendency of a prior action is not available unless the prior action is of such a character that,
had a judgement been rendered therein on the merits, such a judgement would be conclusive between
the parties and could be pleaded in bar of the second action.

Tijam vs Sibonghanoy
The doctrine of laches or stale demands is based upon grounds of public policy which requires, for the
peace of society, the discouragement of stale claims and, unlike the statute of limitations, is not a mere
question of time but is principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim
to be enforced or asserted. A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to sure affirmative relief
against his opponent and after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same
jurisdiction.

Santos vs Santos-Gran
Failure to state a cause of action and lack of cause of action are distinct grounds to dismiss a particular
action. The former refers to the insufficiency of the allegations in the pleading, while the latter to the
insufficiency of the factual basis for the action. Dismissal for failure to state a cause of action maby be
raised at the earlies stages of the proceedings through a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 while dismissal
for lack of cause of action may be raised any time after the questions of fact have been resolved on the
basis of stipulations, admissions or evidence presented by the plaintiff.

RULE 17 & 36
Shimizu vs Magsalin
(woo hoo pangit ng digest consult full text)

RULE 18
Soliman vs Fernandez
The question of whether a case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute is mainly addressed to the
sound discretion of the tgrial court. The true test for the exercise of the power to dismiss a case on the
ground of failure to prosecute is if the the plaintiff is culpable for want of due diligence in failing to
proceed with reasonable promptitude.
Asian Construction vs Sannaedle
Judgement on the pleadings is proper when an answer fails to tender an issue or otherwise admits the
material allegations of the adverse partys pleading. An answer fails to tender an issue if it does not
comply with the requirements of a specific denial as set out in Sections 8 and 10 , Rule 8 of the RoC
resulting in the admission of the material allegations of the adverse partys pleadings.

Neypes vs CA
Neypes Rule or Fresh Period Rule- A party litigant may either file his notice of appeal within 15 days
from receipt of the RTCs decision or file it within 15 days from receipt of the final order denying his
motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration.

Dinglasan vs CA
The threshold question in resolving a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence is
whether the proferred evidence isin fact a newly discovered evidence which could not have been
discovered by due diligence. The question of whether evidence is newly discovered has two aspects : a
temporal one i.e. when was the evidence discovered, and a predictive one i.e. when should or could it
have been discovered.

PCIB vs Sps Wison Dy Hong Pi and Lolita Dy