Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty.
melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
November 13, 2017
CAMPANER, MARRIE ALLEXA 31-1.31
So this subject is Civil Procedure. It is part of Remedial Law. Remedial law is the
bar having the heaviest weight - 20%. And Civil Procedure is the subject in
Remedial Law that has the heaviest weight, thats why this is the most important
subject in the Bar.
What are Remedial Laws?
These are legislations providing means or methods, whereby causes of
actions may be effectuated, wrongs redressed, and reliefs obtained. These
statutes pertain to or affect a remedy, as distinguished from those which affect
or modify a substantive right or duty.
Property is a substantive law. So the question there is - is there
possession? Did the possessor acquire ownership of the land by prescription?
etc. Those are the kind of questions if it is a substantive law. But in Remedial
Law - how do you file the case? Where do you go? Its the procedure which is
being discussed; which is the most important thing. Because if you do not know
how to go about it, whats the use of knowing substantive law.
The principal sources of Remedial Law:
The Constitution
Laws creating the Judiciary
Laws allocating Jurisdiction
Rules promulgated by the Supreme Court (e.g. Rules of Court)
Supreme Court Circulars, Administrative Orders, Internal Rules
Jurisprudence
Basically, when we talk about procedure, we talk about what to do when one
files an action. In Civil Procedure, what is filed is an action in court.
What is a Court?
A Court is a body in the government to which the public administration of
justice is delegated. It is an entity or body vested with a portion of the judicial
power.
Judicial power is very broad, in the sense that it does not belong to only one
entity or one court. Each and every court only has a portion of that thing called
judicial power. The MTC has a portion, RTC has a portion, the CA has a
portion - they do not commingle their respective judicial power, their own
specific powers. (Lontok vs Batu 63 Phils 1054)
The above definition is based on Article VIII Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution
which states: Judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and such
other lower courts as may be established by law. So the SC is a constitutional
court (it was created by the Constitution), all the other courts are created by
law.
Distinguish a Court from a Judge:
A court is a body or entity, while a judge is a person, who is a public officer
lawfully appointed to preside over a court. Thus, each Court must have a
presiding judge for the purpose of administering the law. When it comes to
jurisdiction, it is vested in the court, and not in the judge.
What is Judicial Power?
It is the right to determine controversies arising between adverse
litigants duly instituted in courts of proper jurisdiction. So judicial power is
really a power, it is the right to determine who will win. There is really only one
party or side who will win, the other is the loser. That is the power of the court -
declare one a winner, the other a loser. We cannot have both parties win. Both
parties may actually end up losing, but on paper, there is one who wins. The
decision always says the Court rules in favor of the _____.
Classification of courts:
Constitutional and Statutory Courts (there is only one Constitutional
Court - the SC)
Superior and Inferior Courts
This is always relative. There is only one court which is always
superior and never inferior - the SC. And we only have one inferior
court, always inferior and never superior - the MTC. The RTC, CA,
Sandiganbayan, etc can be superior or inferior depending on the
situation.
Page 1 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
Original and Appellate Courts
All courts can be Original courts because we have Rule 65 - Petition
for Certiorari, Mandamus, etc, that is an original action and can be
filed anywhere - the RTC, CA, SC. In that sense, all courts are
original courts.
An original court is one where a case is commenced initially. You
can go directly to SC if you are an important person (like Delima).
An appellate court is the court which reviews the decision of the
lower court. So an RTC can be an appellate court insofar as an MTC
decision is concerned. But an MTC is always an original court. A
barangay is not a court, there is no such thing as a barangay decision
appealable to the MTC.
Civil and Criminal Courts
Civil courts are those that take cognisance of civil cases only.
Criminal courts, only criminal cases. But here in the Philippines, we
do not delineate. We have even have courts handling both Civil and
Criminal cases. There is no such thing as a 100% civil court.
Courts of Law and Courts of Equity
Bar question: Are our courts Courts of Law or Courts of Equity. This is
a bonus question.
We also have Land Registration Courts, Family Courts, Drugs Court, etc.
Those are specific courts. These are all RTCs na may mga specific
cases.
What is the function of Courts?
Basically, it is in charge of the administration of justice.
What is administration of justice?
It involves the ascertainment or determination of relevant facts of a
controversy and the application of the law. When a civil action is filed, there are
always two sets of facts - (1) as presented by plaintiffs and (2) those presented
by defendants. Most of the time they have different facts presented, if not, then
there is no controversy. So the court has the duty to ascertain the facts that are
relevant to the controversy that will help the court to decide on the issue. Upon
the determination of the relevant facts, then the court will look for the law that is
applicable. So the application of the law to those facts in order to resolve the
controversy. That is basically the function of the court.
Aside from the administration of justice, the courts also has what we call
inherent powers found in Rule 135 Section 5:

Courts of Law are administering only the law of the land; meaning all
the decisions are based on the law, bahala na if it is unfair. Courts of
Equity are tribunals which rule according to principles of equity and
justice and are sometimes called courts of conscience. Our courts
here are both courts of law and of equity. In a case of substantive
law, there is a thin line that divides the principle of law from the
principle of equity, because principles of equity are also found in the
principles of law. Equity is what is fair and just; generally, what is
legal is fair. Examples of principles of equity - latches, estoppel.
These are principles of equity but are also found in the law.

In our jurisdiction, there are also what we call Specific or Special Courts:
Example is probate courts. Probate is a proceeding wherein a last will
and testaments genuineness and due execution has to be proven.
There is a Special RTC which does that.
Page 2 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
Section 5. Inherent powers of court. Every court shall have power:
(a) To preserve and enforce order in its immediate presence;
(b) To enforce order in proceedings before it, or before a person or
persons empowered to conduct a judicial investigation under its
authority;
(c) To compel obedience to its judgments, orders and processes, and to
the lawful orders of a judge out of court, in a case pending therein;
(d) To control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial
officers, and of all other persons in any manner connected with a case
before it, in every manner appertaining thereto;
(e) To compel the attendance of persons to testify in a case pending
therein;
(f) To administer or cause to be administered oaths in a case pending
therein, and in all other cases where it may be necessary in the exercise
of its powers;
(g) To amend and control its process and orders so as to make them
conformable to law and justice;
(h) To authorize a copy of a lost or destroyed pleading or other paper to
be filed and used instead of the original, and to restore, and supply
deficiencies in its records and proceedings.
Aside from that, we also have to look at Section 6 of Rule 135:
Section 6. Means to carry jurisdiction into effect. When by law
jurisdiction is conferred on a court or judicial officer, all auxiliary writs,
processes and other means necessary to carry it into effect may be
employed by such court or officer; and if the procedure to be followed in
the exercise of such jurisdiction is not specifically pointed out by law or by
these rules, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted
which appears comfortable to the spirit of the said law or rules.
What if there is something which is not in the Rules of Procedure. Like
how do you catch an alien (from outer space)? Pagdating nang sheriff dun bigla
nalang nawala into thin air. So we dont have procedures relating to catching
those who disappear into thin air. Kung may maisip ang Judge (gamit tayo
nang net), wala sya sa Rules, but the judge can order that to be done because
of Section 6.
BP 129 Section 18. This is already related to Jurisdiction.
Section 18. Authority to define territory appurtenant to each branch.
The Supreme Court shall define the territory over which a branch of the
Regional Trial Court shall exercise its authority. The territory thus
defined shall be deemed to be the territorial area of the branch
concerned for purposes of determining the venue of all suits,
proceedings or actions, whether civil or criminal, as well as determining
the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts over the said branch may exercise appellate
jurisdiction. The power herein granted shall be exercised with a view to
making the courts readily accessible to the people of the different parts
of the region and making the attendance of litigants and witnesses as
inexpensive as possible.
There is really only one RTC, but it is divided into branches. Actually it
is divided into territorial jurisdictions first - RTC of Davao. It is still an RTC, the
same as an RTC of Manila. It is just one court divided according to judicial
jurisdiction. So our RTC of Davao is RTC Judicial Region XI. The SC shall define
the territory. It is distinct from political regions such as Region XI, ARMM, etc.
It is actually very easy here in Davao. All decisions of MTC here in
Davao are appealable to the RTC in Davao. Same as in Digos. Problema itong
Norte. The RTC of Tagum which also belongs to judicial region 11, sakop nito
ang IGACOS, Samal. There is no RTC in Samal, puro MTC. So where do you
appeal from there? Not in the RTC of Davao but in the RTC of Tagum.
Page 3 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
How many kinds of MTCs do we have?
1. METC - Metropolitan Trial Court in Manila.
2. MTC - Municipal Trial Courts in Municipalities
3. MTCC - Municipal Trial Court in Cities (here in Davao)
4. MCTC - Municipal Circuit Trial Court
Interim or Transitional Rules Relative to the Implementation of BP 129
Sec. 2. Territorial jurisdiction of courts. (a) Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise their
jurisdiction in the city, municipality or circuit for which the judge thereof is
appointed or designated.
(b) A regional trial court shall exercise its jurisdiction within the area defined
by the Supreme Court as the territory over which the particular branch
concerned shall exercise its authority, in accordance with Section 18 of B.P.
Blg. 129.
An RTC may have an MTC that is not part of its territory. Basta sabi nang SC -
all MTCs in Samal, go to Tagum.
The Davao RTC can issue a writ of injunction only over properties in Davao.
You want one which can be enforced nationwide, you go to the CA or SC. All
other processes issued by the RTC may be used wherever in the Philippines
(ex. Warrant of arrest).
Some doctrines:
Doctrine of Non-interference
Courts will not interfere in the internal affairs of an unincorporated
association in settling disputes between members about questions of
fact, policy and internal government.
CHANYEE, KATHIA KIERTSIN LAST 30 MINS
Cases involving ecclesiastical rights xxx
TARUC v Dela Cruz
In our jurisdiction, we hold the Church and the State to be separate and
distinct from each other. Give to Ceasar what is Ceasars and to God what is
Gods. We have, however, observed as early as 1928 that:
Upon the examination of the decisions it will be readily apparent that cases
involving questions relative to ecclesiastical rights have always received the
profoundest attention from the courts, not only because of their inherent
interest, but because of the far reaching effects of the decisions in human
society. [However,] courts have learned the lesson of conservatism in dealing
with such matters, it having been found that, in a form of government where the
complete separation of civil and ecclesiastical authority is insisted upon, the civil
courts must not allow themselves to intrude unduly in matters of an ecclesiastical
nature.
Case at bar
The expulsion/excommunication of members of a religious
institution/organization is a matter best left to the discretion of the officials, and
the laws and canons, of said institution/organization. It is not for the courts to
exercise control over church authorities in the performance of their
discretionary and official functions. Rather, it is for the members of religious
institutions/organizations to conform to just church regulations.
So when it comes to:
1. Discipline
2. Policy
3. Internal Government
Page 4 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
Walang paki-alam ang court jan. But take note, what must be involved here is
an unincorporated association because when it comes to Corporations (those
registered with the SEC) meaning that is an intra-corporate dispute that is
under the jurisdiction of the RTC acting as special court.
The courts can interfere if the association is registered. This doctrine of non-
interference applies only to those which are unincorporated association.
Like yung mga churches2.
(Nangasaba si Maam sa mga nagvolunteer )
Doctrine of Judicial Stability
No court has the power to interfere by in junction the decision of another
court or a court of coordinate jurisdiction.
Eg. RTC of Davao and RTC of Tagum. The RTC of Davao rendered a decision,
natalo si B. So B went to the RTC of Tagum. So what if sabi ng RTC of Davao
Hey A, you pay B this amount. Can you go to RTC of Tagum and get an
injunction to stop that order of the RTC of Davao? Pwede bay un? NO! The
doctrine of judicial stability refers to court of coordinate jurisdiction, meaning
magkalevel.
So what should B do? I-appeal nya yung decision sa appellate court, pwede
yun.
Upon the determination of relevant facts, the court will look at the law
applicable. So in order to resolve the controversy, the court looks at the
applicable law on the facts. So basically, that is the function of the courts.
The thing is, this term of judicial stability, is not being used in the cases. In the
cases what term is being used?
A: Doctrine of Non-Interference
Clark v Mondragon
G.R. No. 150986 March 2, 2007
The vexation to the courts in this case is evident. There is a high risk of
conflict between the decisions of the RTC Branches 58 and 60 regarding their
respective civil cases. A decision by one branch of court will constitute res
judicata is in the other case pending before the other branch of court.
Alternatively, if the RTC Branch 60 exercised its jurisdiction over the petition
for declaratory relief, then it would have to restrain the execution proceedings
in the RTC Branch 58. Thus, interference with the proceedings in another court
would ensue. Under the doctrine of non-interference, a trial court has no
authority to interfere with the proceedings of a court of equal jurisdiction,
much less to annul the final judgment of a co-equal court. In Paper
Industries Corporation of the Philippines v. Intermediate Appellate Court, we
declared that a court has no jurisdiction to restrain the execution proceedings
in another court with concurrent jurisdiction.
The consolidation of the two civil cases is also not possible in line with the
doctrine on non-interference. As observed by the CA:
In the matter of the consolidation of the two cases, Mondragon should be
reminded that the same is addressed to the sound discretion of the courts.
Neither of the judges in the two cases can impose upon the other the
consolidation of the cases. Additionally, consolidation is no longer practicable
because Civil Case No. 9242 is already terminated and is in the execution
stage, while in Civil Case No. 9596, the issues have not even been joined.
Here the SC used the term, Doctrine of Non-interference
Meaning this doctrine of non-interference is being used by the SC in cases
involving cases pertaining to the doctrine of judicial stability. So it is also a term
being used to take the place of judicial stability. So nagkakaroon na ng mixed
up. This is actually judicial stability.
So here there was a decision rendered by RTC Angeles, this is a judgment on
compromise. And Mondragon does not want to comply with the decision so
Page 5 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
gusto ipa-nullify. So he went to RTC 60 and filed the same case. Pwede bay un?
May decision na ang RTC 48 and then you go to RTC 60?
NO, that cannot be done. That is in violation of the doctrine of judicial stability.
But here it was called doctrine of non-interference.
November 15, 2017
DEPERALTA, ERIKA FIRST 30 MINS
So yesterday, we started looking at the doctrines involving jurisdiction and we
looked at the doctrine of Non-Interference as established by the Supreme Court
in the case of Taruc. However, we also looked at the case of Clark. So lets see
the other cases in these doctrines. Can you discuss the case of Go v Clerk of
Court.
Go v Clerk of Court
G.R. No. 154623
March 13, 2009
Issue: Whether RTC has jurisdiction in granting the injunction relief?
Ruling: No.
This doctrine of non-interference is premised on the principle that a judgment
of a court of competent jurisdiction may not be opened, modified or vacated
by any court of concurrent jurisdiction. As correctly ratiocinated by the CA,
cases wherein an execution order has been issued, are still pending, so that all
the proceedings on the execution are still proceedings in the suit.
Since the Bacolod RTC had already acquired jurisdiction over the collection
suit (Civil Case No. 98-10404) and rendered judgment in relation thereto, it
retained jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other coordinate courts over its
judgment, including all incidents relative to the control and conduct of its
ministerial officers, namely public respondent sheriffs. Thus, the issuance by
the Pasig RTC of the writ of preliminary injunction in Civil Case No. 68125 was
a clear act of interference with the judgment of Bacolod RTC in Civil Case No.
98-10404.
Atty S: So in the Go case, the Supreme Court called this doctrine the doctrine of
Non-Interference. Lets look at this other case.
Pacific Ace v Yanagisawa
G.R. No. 175303
Apr. 11, 2012
Issue: Whether or not the RTC of Paranaque can rule on the case despite the
fact that it was already ruled upon the RTC of Makati?
Ruling: No.
The issue of ownership and liquidation of properties acquired during the
cohabitation of Eiji and Evelyn has been submitted for the resolution of the
Makati RTC, and is pending appeal before the CA.
The doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference dictates that the
assumption by the Makati RTC over the issue operates as an "insurmountable
barrier" to the subsequent assumption by the Paraaque RTC. By insisting on
ruling on the same issue, the Paraaque RTC effectively interfered with the
Makati RTCs resolution of the issue and created the possibility of conflicting
decisions.
It has been held that "even in cases of concurrent jurisdiction, it is, also,
axiomatic that the court first acquiring jurisdiction excludes the other courts."
In addition, it is a familiar principle that when a court of competent
jurisdiction acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case, its
authority continues, subject only to the appellate authority, until the matter is
finally and completely disposed of, and that no court of co-ordinate authority
is at liberty to interfere with its action
Atty S: Okay so here, the Supreme Court used the two terms interchangeably.
So what is that doctrine of Non-Interference? Well, it could either be that
doctrine in the case of Taruc or it could be this one the Doctrine of Judicial
Stability. So theres no point in arguing and asking why. We dont know.
Okay so those are the cases on that doctrine.
Page 6 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
So now lets go to another doctrine in relation to jurisdiction and this is the
Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction.
If you have a cause of action, do you go straight to the court? Is it automatic that
you file your action with the court? The answer is not all the time because of this
doctrine. It says here courts will not determine a controversy involving a
question within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal where the
question demands exercise of sound administrative discretion, requiring
specialized expertise and knowledge of such administrative tribunal to
determine technical and matters of fact
We have a lot of administrative bodies like NLRC for Labor cases. You do not go
to court and file a labor case in court. You go to the proper administrative body
that has its own quasi-judicial office there or body inside the Department of
Labor. Same with the Intellectual Property cases noh. You will be taking up
Intellectual Property this semester and you will learn that we have the IPO, the
Intellectual Property Office that has different bureaus and there are times when
one who has an Intellectual Property issue cannot go straight to the special
commercial courts, such as the Intellectual Property Courts, but must first pass
through the IPO and its specific bureaus. And other bodies like HLURB, in
relation to subdivision issues, homeowners associations. You dont see the
homeowners associations go directly to the court. Okay, so that is the Doctrine
of Primary Jurisdiction.
Have you taken up Public Corporation? So you know this doctrine. Or is it under
Administrative Law? Second sem. So you have that so we dont have to expound
on this anymore.
So, lets look at some basic issues. What happens when one goes to court?
Theres a hearing or a trial. How do you distinguish the two? What is the
difference between a hearing and a trial?
Trial Hearing
-refers to the reception of evidence -not limited to trial but embraces
and other processes, embraces the several stages of litigation including
period between production of pre-trial. It does not necessarily imply
evidence between both parties. presentation of evidence in open court
but the parties are given opportunities
to be heard.
Atty S: So whats broader, hearing or trial?
A: Hearing
Definitely its hearing because a trial is also considered a hearing but a hearing
may not be a trial. You will understand this better as we go along. But basically,
trial means theres presentation of evidence. Meaning you have a witness there
in the stand and the lawyer will examine. Mr. Witness, do you have the
dadada and the other one will say I object!. Yan ang trial. Hearing is like for
example theres a motion, motion to suppress evidence. So a motion is filed by
one lawyer and the other will oppose. And there will be a hearing on the
motion. So the judge will say, Why did you file that motion? Because your
honor this and that And what can you say? Yun lang. Its informal. Theres
not witness there. The manner is informal. Just like a normal conversation. So
thats an example of a hearing of a motion.
So be very careful when using terms. When it comes to trial proper, use proper.
You can use hearing for trial but dont use trial for hearing, especially if its not
the trial itself. If its just a hearing of a motion, then use hearing dont use trial.
So it is better for you to appreciate and understand at this early stage the
different terms, legal terms. Because students usually tend to mix up. For
example, denied and dismissed. A motion is denied, a complaint is dismissed.
Dont say the motion was dismissed or the complaint was denied. Mali yun. So
you have to be very attentive when it comes to legal terms.
So we finished the introduction part. We now proceed to the next topic,
jurisdiction in general.
So again our topic is jurisdiction.
Where do this word jurisdiction come from? It is derived from two latin words:
Juris law
Dico to speak or to say
So when you say, I speak by the law, one does it in the name of the law. Means
you have power, authority. So when a court has jurisdiction over something,
that means that it has power or authority over that particular something.
Page 7 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
So when it comes to courts, jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear, try and substantive law. Venue is procedure. Where do you find venue? Rule 4. Rule 4
decide a case, and to enforce the judgment. So if the court does not have will tell us the venue for civil cases.
jurisdiction over something, it does not have the power to try, hear and decide
something. And therefore if a decision is rendered by the court, then the Jurisdiction is fixed by law. It cannot be conferred by the parties. It is the law
decision is void. Null and void. Thats why its very important to start with which says which court has jurisdiction. Just like in criminal cases, the law says
jurisdiction. Because theres no point going through the whole process if the more than 6 years penalty, RTC. 6 years and below, MTC. The parties cannot
court does not have jurisdiction. say sa ano nalang tayo, murder ito, MTC nalang Sige!. Di pwede yan. Its
conferred by law. Its the same thing in civil cases. But venue, in civil cases can
So what is the effect if the court has no jurisdiction? Then it has no power. be agreed upon. Pwedeng pag-usapan ng parties. So that is what you have to
keep in mind. The difference between criminal cases insofar as jurisdiction is
Atty S: So if remember in criminal cases, we have 3 kinds of jurisdiction. What concerned in civil cases. Because in criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional. But
are these? in civil cases, jurisdiction and venue are different from each other.
A: Lets go to another distinction. How do you distinguish jurisdiction from
1. Territorial jurisdiction exercise of jurisdiction?
2. Jurisdiction over the persons of the accused Jurisdiction the authority of the court to hear and decide the case
3. Jurisdiction over the subject matter
Exercise of jurisdiction the court which has the jurisdiction, what can it
So in criminal cases, when you talk about territorial jurisdictional, venue is only do having jurisdiction of the particular case.
jurisdictional because the court can only hear, try, decide a criminal case if a
crime was committed within its territorial jurisdiction. But in civil cases, So what will the court do, that is what we are going to discuss.
jurisdiction is different from venue.
Second, jurisdiction, as already mentioned, is conferred by substantive
Jurisdiction Venue law. The exercise by the court of its jurisdiction, that is what the Rules of Court
Authority to hear and determine a Place where the case is to be heard or provides. The steps, the procedure to be taken once the court exercises it
case tried jurisdiction.
Matter of substantive law Matter of procedural law
Establishes a relation between the Establishes relation between plaintiff
court and the subject matter and defendant, or petitioner or DELOS SANTOS,LARA 31-1 HR
respondent
Fixed by law and cannot be May be conferred by the parties How do you distinguish JURISDICTION from EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION?
conferred by the parties
First, Jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear, try, and decide a case.
Exercise, means, a court with jurisdiction, what can it do having jurisdiction
So if you ask which court has jurisdiction? RTC ba, MTC ba. But when you talk
already of a particular case.
about venue, the question is where do you file? What RTC would you file? Is it
the RTC of Davao? Is it the RTC of Baguio? Is it the RTC of Cebu? Yun and venue. Now what can the court do? That is what we are going to discuss.
Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law. So why are we taking it up in Second, Jurisdiction is conferred by substantive law.
procedural law? Because its related to procedure but the law, BP 129, is a

Page 8 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
The exercise of the Court when it already has jurisdiction, what can the court
do? That is what the Rules of Court provides. The steps, the procedure to be
taken once the court is exercising its jurisdiction.
Lastly, the court with jurisdiction can hear, try, and render judgment.
Exercise, it can try a case, render judgment, in accordance with the Rules. Just
because your Court has jurisdiction doesnt mean you can do what you want.
You have to exercise your jurisdiction in accordance with the Rules of Court.
In relation to what we have discussed, we have to look into the difference
between ERROR OF JURISDCITION from ERROR OF JUDGMENT.
What is an error of jurisdiction? It arises when a court hears, tries, and decides
a case when it has no jurisdiction from the beginning.
BP 22 cases, what court has jurisdiction over BP 22 cases? MTC.
Lets say, a BP 22 was filed in the RTC. The RTC tried and ruled on the case.
What kind of error is that? It is an error of jurisdiction. Wala siyang jurisdiction.
But it pretended or assumed that it had jurisdiction.
What is the effect of trying and deciding a case even if the court did not have
jurisdiction? The proceeding and judgment are null and void.
Now, what is this Error of Judgment?
A court makes an error of judgment only it has jurisdiction.
For example, there is a motion on the determination of probable cause and it
granted the motion not knowing there is an order or notice from the OCA
(Office of the Court Administrator) ordering all courts to deny all motions for
reconsideration of determination of probable cause. Eh hindi alam ng court, ng
judge, so granted. That is an error of judgment. Nagkamali siya.
So what happens? It is merely an error of judgment. It is a valid judgment even
if it is wrong. So if there is a rong judgment, if you are the aggrieved party,
what do you do? You appeal the wrong judgment invoking the lower court
erredblah blah blah because in appeals, you point out the errors of the
court.
Pero tong isa, Error of Jurisdiction, the court rendered judgment without
jurisdiction. Do you appeal that? No. That is not appealable because the
judgment is void. In appeal, the judgment will review the judgment of the trial
court and spot the errors and correct them. Ito, error of jurisdiction, the
judgment is void. There is nothing to review. Therefore the remedy of the party
is to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. That is not an appeal. It is an
original action. And the ground here is grave abuse of discretion for lack of or
in excess of jurisdiction.
Now, lets go to this question: When is jurisdiction determined?
In Criminal cases, its the same, because here, jurisdiction is determined by the
law enforced at the time of filing not at the time of the commission of the crime
or the act complained of.
So lets say, BP 22. Lets say today, jurisdiction of BP 22 cases is under the RTC
and then a checked bounce. D issued a check in favour of P and it bounced
today. Tapos hindi nagfile si P ng case because he wanted D to try to give him
the value of the check. Si D kept on delaying. So after 6 months, here comes a
new transferring the jurisdiction of BP 22 cases to the MTC.
So what court has jurisdiction? Where should the case be filed? It should be
filed in the MTC even though when the crime was committed, it was with the
jurisdiction of the RTC.
So its the same with Civil cases,
Therefore, the jurisdiction of cases being by a substantive law, the statue
enforced at the time of the commencement of the action determines
jurisdiction.
So we have the case of Yu Oh for that .
Lets now look at some issues on Retroactivity. It is actually very difficult to find
a case which is not a BP 22 case.
Cge, lets look first at the case of Aruego vs. CA
Page 9 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
ARUEGO VS COURT OF APPEALS
FACTS:
On March 7, 1983, Antonia F. Aruego & Evelyn F. Aruego, represented by their
mother Luz Fabian, filed a Complaint for Recognition and Enforcement of
Successional Rights before the RTC of Manila. They contended that
they open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate
children. They prayed to be declared the illegitimate children of the deceased
Jose M. Aruego, Sr.
The RTC of Manila, on June 15, 1992, declared Antonia F. Aruego as
illegitimate daughter of Jose M. Aruego and Luz M. Fabian.
Jose Aruego Jr. and others filed Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the
decision. They alleged that RTC of Manila lost jurisdiction over the
complaint by virtue of the passage of the Family Code of the Philippines which
took effect on August 3, 1988. Article 175 of the Family Code provides that
an action for compulsory recognition of illegitimate filiation, if based on the
"open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child," must be
brought during the lifetime of the alleged parent without any exception,
otherwise the action will be barred by prescription.
ISSUE: WHETHER THE FAMILY CODE MAY BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY IN
THIS CASE.
RULING: No.
Pursuant to Article 256 of the Family Code, the Code shall, have retroactive
effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in
accordance with the Civil Code or other laws.
In the case at bar, the complaint was filed on March 7, 1983, the prevailing law
was Article 285 of the New Civil Code which provides:
The action for the recognition of natural children may be brought only during
the lifetime of the presumed parents, except in the following cases:
1. If the father or mother died during the minority of the child, in
which case the latter may file the action before the expiration of four
years from the attainment of his majority.
In this case, the complaint was filed almost 1 year after the death of the putative
father but Antonia was still a minor. Thus, the exception under Art. 285 of the
New Civil Code was applicable. The retroactive application of the Family Code
in the case at bar will prejudice the vested right of Antonia to have her case
decided under the New Civil Code.
Therefore, the RTC of Manila never lost jurisdiction over the complaint despite
the passage of the Family Code of the Philippines.
So in other words, we have the Civil Code and the Family Code. What is the
effectivity of the FC? August 3, 1988.
So if we follow this rule, what determines jurisdiction If the action is filed
before Aug. 3, 1988, apply the Civil Code. If the action is filed after Aug. 3,
1988, apply the Family Code. But there are exceptions. That is when the new
law can be given retroactive effect. It means, it can apply to cases filed before it
took effect.
General Rule: Laws should not be given retroactive effect.
In the FC, there is a provision in the end saying when it can be given
retroactive effect.
Lets go tothe next case
SUBIDO VS SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS
Subido is a Commissiner of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation
(BID) and Parina is a special agent of the BID.
June 25, 1992: Subido and Parina caused the issuance and
implementation of a warrant of arrest against James Maksimuk despite
obviously knowing that the decision requiring Maksimuks deportation has
not yet become final and executory.
Page 10 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
February 1995: Subido was separated form office and has become a
private citizen.
May 16, 1995: RA 7975 (Act To Strengthen The Functional And
Structural Organization of the Sandiganbayan) took effect amending PD
1606 (Sandiganbayan Law)
July 28, 1995: Subido and Parina were charged by the prosecutors, in
compliance with the order of the Sandiganbayan, with arbitrary detention
for the unlawful issuance and implementation of the warrant of arrest
against Maksimuk which caused Maksimuks detention for 43 days, to his
injury.
August 28, 1995: Subido and PArina filed a Motion to Quash saying
that Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over both the offense charged and
the person of the accused in view of the effectivity of RA 7975, which
provides that to be liable, the crime must be committed by a public officer
in relation to his office.
Subido is saying that since he is no longer a public officer at the time of
the filing of the information for arbitrary detention, Sandiganbayan does not
have jurisdiction over him. As to Parina, he is saying that he does not
occupy a position of salary grade 27 or higher, thus Sandiganbayan does
not have jurisdiction over him, as well.
ISSUE
Whether Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the subject matter.
In the case at bar, the crime of arbitrary detention was clearly
committed by Subido and Parina were still public officers.
When did the Sandiganbayan Law take effect?
1995
When was the crime committed? 1992
When was the complaint filed? July 1995
So the issue here is what law shall apply? The law which is in effect at the time
of the filing or the law in effect at the time of the commission of the crime?
In this case, it is the law in effect at the commission of the crime.
GEN. RULE: Jurisdiction is determined by the law enforced at the time of filing.
Why is this not applied? Because the last clause of the Sandiganbayan Law, as
amended, provides that the reckoning point is the time of the commission of the
crime. Whether or not the crime was committed in relation to his office and
whether or not he was still a public officer at the time of the commission of the
crime.

RULING
YES, Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction.
[General rule: Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the law at
the time of the filing of the complaint.]
In this case, the court recognized an express exception to the general
rule. For purposes of the Sandiganbayan Law, as amended, the reckoning point
is the time of the commission of the crime.
So it is stated in the law that jurisdiction is determined at the time of the
commission of the crime. And another reason is RA 7975 is procedural and it is
a curative statute. Therefore by applying the law at the time of the commission
of the crime is favourable to the accused.
In other words, so there is a general rule and there are a lot of exceptions.
So, lets have the case of YU OH.

Under the Sandiganbayan Law, what matters is not the position or status
at the time of the filing of the complaint, but what matters is whether the
accused was a public officer at the time of the commission of the crime.

Page 11 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
YU OH VS COURT OF APPEALS
Facts:
On October 5, 1992, ten separate Informations were filed against Elvira before
the Regional Trial Court charging her with the violation of Batas Pambansa
Bilang 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law. The Regional Trial Court convicted
Elvira of the crime charged.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, Elvira argued that the case should be
remanded to the Municipal Trial Court due to the enactment of the Republic Act
No. 7691 on June 15, 1994 (An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Municipal
Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts and the Metropolitan Trial Court)
vesting the exclusive original jurisdiction with the MTC to hear and decide all
BP 22 cases. Furthermore, she argued that the said law should be given
retroactive effect in view of Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code which
provides that penal laws shall have retroactive effect in so far as they are
favorable to the accused.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court.
Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not granting retroactive
effect to R.A. No. 7691.
Held: No, the Court of Appeals properly held that R.A. No. 7691 does not have
retroactive effect.
R.A. No. 7691 is a substantive law since it vests jurisdiction on courts. It is not
penal law since it does not define a crime nor provide for its penalty. Therefore,
Article 22 does not apply in this case.
The general rule is that jurisdiction is conferred by the law enforced at the time
of the filing of the action. While R.A. No. 7691 expressly provides for its
retroactive application, the same only applies to pending civil cases that have
not yet reached the pre-trial stage.
In the case at bar, when the BP 22 cases were filed, it was the
Regional Trial Court which had jurisdiction as it depended on the amount of the
check involved. R.A No. 7691 took effect only during the pendency of the
appeal before the Court of Appeals.
Therefore, the contentions of Elvira are untenable.
________________________________________________________________
ENFECTANA, JAZZMIN 1-1.31
So lets now go to Lahum vs Sibulo
1972: Sps Lahum adopted John Melvin Sibulo.
March 1998: RA 8552: Domestic Adoption Act deleted right of adopters to
rescind decree of adoption
1999: Isabelita wanted to rescind adoption because Melvin refused to use
Lahum and continued to use Sibulo.
Melvin: court has no jurisdiction
Isabelita: RA 8552 should not apply retroactively to claims prior to 8552.
ISSUE: Whether RA 8552 may be retroactively applied.
Yes.
Question of vested right: No vested right in statutory privileges.
In this case, adoption is a privilege. Thus, it cannot be said that there is a
vested right.
Thus, the law to be enforced was what effective during the action was filed.
Here, the action for rescission cannot anymore be pursued.
This is an application of the general rule: the law enforced at the time of filing.
Exceptions: Jurisprudence. Case-to-case basis and law-to-law basis.
In relation to Yu-Oh, we have rule on adherence of jurisdiction. Remember in
Yu-Oh the BP22 cases filed against Alvira, the 10 cases were filed in RTC
because of the amount. At that time kasi it was not only the RTC that has
jurisdiction. RTC and MTC, but it really was dependent upon the amount of the
check. Since the amount of check fell upon the jurisdiction of RTC, then it was
RTC.
Under Rule on Adherence of Jurisdiction, once jurisdiction attaches, it cannot
be ousted by the happening of subsequent events of such character which
would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching from the first instance.
Page 12 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
So in the cases against Elvira Yu, the jurisdiction of RTC had already attached
and RTC can no longer be ousted just because of passage of RA 7691 which
conferred jurisdiction to MTC.
That is the rule on adherence of jurisdiction.
But again this rule is not without exceptions. They are provided by
jurisprudence.
1. When a subsequent statute expressly prohibits the exercise of
jurisdiction
2. When the law punishing the act is repealed by a subsequent law.
There could be many more.
Now lets look at types of jurisdiction.
TYPES OF JURISDICTION
General-Limited
First General vis--vis Limited.
What do you mean by General Jurisdiction?
- It is the authority of the court to hear and determine all actions and suits,
whether civil, criminal, administrative, real, personal or mixed.
All kinds of cases? RTC. It tries cases that do not belong to other courts.
SC. Practically all cases will go to Supreme Court.
Special Limited
We have courts like special limited jurisdiction, like MTC and
Sandiganbayan. Sandiganbayan Law is very specific. Particular person,
salary grade etc. kung hindi doon, RTC.
Original-Appellate
Original: the power of the court to take cognizance of a case at its
inception or commencement. One can file the case there for the first
time.
Appellate: the power vested in a superior court to review and revise the
judicial action of a lower court.
Exclusive-Concurrent
And then we have exclusive and concurrent.
Exclusive:
There are cases that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of a particular court.
And we have of course the BP22 casesexclusive jurisdiction of MTC. No other
court can try BP22. Itong original ah. But of course it can be appealed, but thats
a different story.
Now, forcible entry cases? MTC. You cannot file before the RTC. Appeal to RTC,
but originally noh thats exclusive.
Concurrent or coordinate:
There are also cases that the courts have concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction.
Concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction: It is that possessed by the court
together with or another or other courts over the same subject matter,
o Like petition for certiorari. You can file it with RTC, CA, or SC. But
once you file petition for certiorari with RTC, di mo na pwede ilipat
sa CA yan.
The court obtaining jurisdiction can maintain it to the
exclusion of others.
o The court obtaining jurisdiction first retaining it to the exclusion of
the others, but the choice of court is lodged in those persons duly
authorized to file the action.
ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION
Now we go to elements of jurisdiction in civil cases:
Now for criminal cases we have:
Page 13 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
1. Jurisdiction over subject matter
2. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused, and
3. territorial jurisdiction
Actually we only have the really important ones are first two:
1. jurisdiction over subject matter
2. jurisidiction over person of the parties (not only the parties kasi if
criminal cases accused lang. Sa civil cases dapat both plaintiff and
defendant)
3. jurisdiction over the res
4. jurisdiction over the issues
There are actually four, but the 1st two are the important ones. 3rd, sometimes di
kailangan. 4th, its already a given.
We will discuss them one by one.
JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER
What is jurisdiction over the subject matter?
It is the power of the court to hear and determine cases of the general class to
which the proceedings in question belong.
So jurisdiction over subject matter is conferred by law just like in criminal
cases. So the law will tell us what court has jurisdiction, like forcible entry, noh?
Unlawful detainer and Forcible Entry are under MTC. Who said so? The law.
What about itong ah actions for declarations of nullity of marriage. Can you file
it in MTC? No. It should be before Family Court which is still RTC.
In your Intellectual Property cases, there are actions of infringement. Can you
file that anywhere? You have to file that before the Special Commercial Court.
Who said so? The law.
For the subject matter, you only have to look at the law enforced at the time of
filing. Again, jurisdiction is conferred by the law enforced at the time of filing.
It is never acquired by consent or by submission of parties or by laches. This is
a matter of legislative enactment which only the legislature can change.
It cannot be acquired by waiver, estoppel or failure to object.
However, there is an exception to this rule, and it is a very very irritating
exception laid down in this case, which is older than us. Tijam v Sibonghanoy
April 15, 1968.
Tijam v Sibonghanoy
July 1948 one month after RA 296 took effect, SPS Tijam filed a case against
Sibonghanoy to recover a sum of 1, 908php.
CFI ruled against them, issued writ of execution ordering them to pay 1,
908php.
Sps failed to do so.
They moved for issuance for writ of execution against the surety bond, Manila
Surety. The surety company moved to deny, but it was denied by CFI.
CA affirmed.
On January 8, 1963, Manila Surety moved to dismiss the case because Sps Tijam
wrongfully filed the case before the CFI in 1948. A month before the filing of
the action, RA 296 took effect which conferred jurisdiction to MTC.
Issue: Whether CFI was conferred jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Ruling: Yes. On the principle of laches.
SC: Objection may be raised at any stage in the proceeding. Action was
commenced in 1948. It was 15 years before they filed a motion to dismiss. From
the time the surety company became a quasi-party in 1948, it could have raised
an objection. But the surety company objected belatedly.
Here, the MTC has jurisdiction. The law took effect one month before the filing
of complaint. Pero nafile sa RTC. So walang jurisdiction ang RTC. None.
General Rule: If the court has no jurisdiction, that can be questioned any
time even on appeal, because the court has no power, no authority. It
cannot even be waived by failure to object, waiver, or consent. You can
question the courts jurisdiction at any time.
Page 14 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
1948 na file ang kaso. Tapos naraise ang objection 1963.
Generally that can be raised and entertained. But in this very irritating case of
Tijam, the Court held na may estoppel by laches.
That case has been hanging over ever law students head. If not for that, it
would have been so easy.
Just take note of the general rule and the exception.
JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER
So how then is jurisdiction over the subject matter determined? It is determined
by the allegations of the complaint. It does not depend upon pleas of defendant
in his answer or motion to dismiss.
Example: Forcible entry. What are the allegations there? That the plaintiff was
the prior possessor and that he was ousted through FISTS.
If a complaint has those two, then it is definitely forcible entry. What court has
jurisdiction? MTC.
Here comes D. He says No! I am the prior possessor. You were never there. I
was the one in possession of property. So conflicting. If you look at the answer
of D, hindi forcible entry. Eh di walang mangyayari if you look at both.
So the rule is you do not look at the allegations of answer of the defendant. This
is only to determine jurisdiction. We are not talking of who is telling the truth.
We just want to know jurisdiction, and in doing so you only have to look at the
complaint. Yun lang. Okay?
Again, it is determined by allegations in the complaint. It does not depend
upon the pleas or defenses of defendant in his answer or motion to
dismiss.
JURISDICTION OVER PERSON OF THE PARTIES
If jurisdiction over subject matter is CONFERRED by law, jurisdiction over
parties is not conferred by law. It is ACQUIRED by the court by certain acts.
If you remember, how does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
accused in criminal cases? By his voluntary surrender or when he is arrested.
Two ways. So jurisdiction over the person is NOT CONFERRED. It is
ACQUIRED. In criminal cases, it is again, surrendering or arresting him.
Now in civil cases, there is jurisdiction over the persons of the parties.
We have two parties in a simple civil case: plaintiff and defendant.
When does the court acquire jurisdiction over
1. Plaintiff: Acquired upon filing of the complaint.
a. When he files complaint, he is automatically within the
jurisdiction of the court.
2. Defendant:
a. Voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the courthow can
the defendant voluntarily submit himself to the jurisdiction of
the court? Pag accused, magsurrender. Pag civil, there are
many ways to submit oneself.
i. For example, Plaintiff files complaint. Defendant files an
answer.
ii. Defendant files motion to dismiss on the ground of
improper venue.
iii. Any act that would make him appear before the court is
already submission of jurisdiction to the court.

Para ninyong awa. Kung sumagot kayo ng question, ikompleto ninyo. Kapag
sinagot ninyo na it is determined by allegations in the complaint lang, then that is
only 50% lang. Icomplete ninyo. Okay?
We will go to specifics later.
Let us look at the next kind of jurisdiction which is jurisdiction over the person
of the parties.

Page 15 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
procedure is complicated in a sense because it depends upon the
defendant.
DEL ROSARIO, INAH 1.31-2 HRS
How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiff?
Jurisdiction over the Subject Jurisdiction over the Parties
(1) Upon the filing of the complaint; Matter
When the plaintiff files a complaint he is automatically
conferred by law acquired by certain acts
within the jurisdiction of the court. The court
automatically acquires jurisdiction over his person. cannot be cured by failure to may be cured by waiver, consent,
object or by silence, waiver or silence or failure to object
consent
(2) Payment of the docket fees
(i.e. Despite of improper serving of
How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the defendant?
summons, defendant files his
(1) Voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court Answer this is tantamount to a
waiver as to the validity of the
Examples: When defendant files: service of the summons)
(a) an answer,
(b) a motion to dismiss (even for improper venue)
Any act that would make him appear before the court is Jurisdiction over the Subject Jurisdiction over the Defendant
submission of jurisdiction to the court. Matter
(2) Proper service of summons;
conferred by law acquired by proper service of
In civil cases, how will the defendant know that there is a case filed summons
against him? What the court will do is to serve what we call
cannot be cured by failure to may be cured by waiver, consent,
summons
object or by silence, waiver or silence or failure to object
Summons is a document issued by the Court addressed to the consent
defendant informing the him that there is a case filed against him;
and that he should read the complaint and file his answer within 15
days from the receipt. OVER THE RES
If the summons is properly served on the defendant, whether or What is RES? Latin word for thing. Jurisdiction over the res is that acquired
not the defendant appears the court, jurisdiction over the by the court over the property or the thing in contest and it is obtained by
defendant is acquired. But again, let me repeat, the service of seizure under legal process of the court whereby it is held to abide such order
summons must be proper. Because Rule 14 talks about service of as the court may make.
summons and there are a hundred and one ways to serve it. The
Page 16 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
OVER THE ISSUE

Ex. A and B are fighting over the parcel of land (accion publiciana). A
wants to recover possession from B. What is the res here or thing? The
land.
The res or the thing which is subject of the case need not be tangible.
Ex. An illegitimate child files an action for compulsory recognition
against her father. The res here is the status of the child. The status of
illegitimacy that she is asking for. That is the res.
It is the authority to try and decide the issues raised in the pleadings by the
parties.
Ex. B filed a case for declaration of nullity of marriage against D on the
ground of psychological incapacity. Court decided to nullify the
marriage on the ground that it is bigamous. Is it proper? No. Because
the only issue raised by B is psychological incapacity. Whether the
marriage is bigamous, was not raised in the complaint. Thus, the court
did not acquire jurisdiction over such issue. It must be raised by the
parties in the pleading.

Is the jurisdiction over the res really required for a case to continue? What is a pleading? The written allegation of the parties of their respective
claims and defenses submitted to the court for trial and judgement.
Not all the time. Because jurisdiction over the res is only important if the
court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. This usually The court cannot rule on an issue which was not raised in the pleadings
happens if the defendant is not in the Philippines. Mahirap mag serve ng by the parties.
summons if the defendant is abroad. Of course, we have the extraterritorial When does the court acquire jurisdiction upon the issues? It is acquired
service which we will take up. But it is really hard to acquire jurisdiction over upon the filing of an answer, because the issues are now joined. You have the
the person of a defendant who is out of the Philippines. Hence, if the action has issue raised by the plaintiff in his complaint and the defendant will file his
a res, then the court can just acquire jurisdiction over the res. So, jurisdiction Answer the issues are now joined. That is when the court acquires
over the res is important because it is sometimes a substitute for the jurisdiction jurisdiction over the issue.
over the person of the defendant.
Ex. P filed an action against D an accion publiciana for the recovery of a
land in Davao. The defendant is in Timbuktu. D is not a resident of the Jurisdiction over the Subject Jurisdiction over the Issue
Philippines but the subject of the case which is the parcel of land is Matter
here. Instead of grasping to acquire jurisdiction over D who is in
Timbuktu, the court can just acquire jurisdiction over the res. power of the court conferred by law power of the court to resolve legal
to hear and decide the case questions involved in the case
Kasi ano ba yung kaso? Recovery of possession. Nandito naman yung
lupa. We dont need the defendant who is not here. acquired by the court upon the filing acquired after the defendant files an
of the complaint answer which joins the issues involved
in a case
How is jurisdiction over the res acquired? According to the case of El Banco
Espaol Filipino vs. Palanca it is obtained through seizure under legal
process of the court. There is a particular procedure like when the court issues
a writ of seizure, or a writ of attachment. So it is a legal process. It has to be
some kind of court order for it to acquire jurisdiction over the res.

Page 17 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
NOVEMBER 16, 2017 FIRST 30 MINS
SINGANON, LEXI
Cases involving jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Barba vs CA
Issue: WON MTC has jurisdiction
Held: YES. In forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, jurisdiction is
determined by the nature of the action as pleaded in the complaint, a simple
allegation that defendant is unlawfully withholding possession from plaintiff is
sufficient. In an unlawful detainer case, the defendants possession was
originally lawful but ceased to be so by the expiration of his right to possess.
The allegations sufficiently make out a case for unlawful detainer. Petitioner
alleged ownership over the subject property as evidenced by a transfer
certificate of title in her name; she contended that upon the issuance of a
certificate of title in her name, she demanded, through counsel, that private
respondents vacate the premises within fifteen days from notice; and
notwithstanding such demand, private respondents refused to vacate the same.
The allegations therein amount to an unlawful withholding of the subject
property by private respondents because they continuously refused to vacate
the premises even after petitioners counsel had already sent them notices to
the effect.
Municipal trial courts, metropolitan trial courts and municipal circuit trial courts
now retain jurisdiction over ejectment cases even if the question of possession
cannot be resolved without passing upon the issue of ownership. In forcible
entry and unlawful detainer cases, even if the defendant raises the question of
ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved
without deciding the issue of ownership, inferior courts, nonetheless, have the
undoubted competence to provisionally resolve the issue of ownership for the
sole purpose of determining the issue of possession.
So if you remember we have two kinds of ejectment cases under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the MTC: forcible entry and unlawful detainer. For forcible entry,
it should be stated in the complaint that the plaintiff is in prior possession. Now
what was filed here was an ejectment case, and it was not specified if it was for
forcible entry and unlawful detainer. So how do you determine what is the
specific action? Lets look at the allegations in the complaint.
Here, clearly the complaint stated that the defendant was originally in lawful
possession and it became unlawful after the expiration of his right by virtue of a
contract, express or implied. So those allegations are sufficient to show that the
action is for unlawful detainer. Theres no need to look at the answer denying
this and denying that. Just look at the allegations in the complaint if they are
complete to determine the particular action as in this case, there is no need for
prior physical possession because there are already sufficient allegations to
prove that this is an action for unlawful detainer.
Capacete vs Baroro
Issue: Whether or not the writ of execution should be annulled for the alleged
lac k of jurisdiction of the RTC to issue such
Held: NO. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and
determined by the allegations of the complaint and the relief sought.
Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for annulment of decision refers to either lack of
jurisdiction over the person or the subject matter of the claim.
In the case at bar, the RTC was vested with jurisdiction over the subject matter
(annulment of judgment, quieting of title and accion reinvindicatoria) upon the
filing
of the complaint before it and over their persons.
RTC is not restricted to upholding or setting aside the judgment of the
Municipal Trial Court as there were other actions filed. The complaint of the Sps
Capacete was not only for annulment of judgment but they included quieting of
title and accion reinvindicatoria. There is no merit in the contention of the Sps
that the RTC is only confined in upholding or setting aside of a decision.
Does the court acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter? Is that acquired
when it comes to jurisdiction over the subject matter?
Page 18 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
RTC has acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter being accion Office
reinvindicatoria, annulment of decisions, and quieting of title. There is SC: substantial errors in a civil Effectively changed the nature of a
jurisdiction over the subject matter, its conferred by law. The SC also said that registry may be corrected through a proceeding under Rule 108.
the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the plaintiff when he/she filed the complaint petition filed under Rule 108, with the
and over the defendant when he/she participated or voluntarily appeared. true facts established and the parties Under this new law, "clerical or
aggrieved by the error availing typographical errors and change of
So how can you say that the RTC has no jurisdiction? Because the contention themselves of the appropriate first name or nickname" may now be
was that the RTC has no jurisdiction to issue the writ of execution. That is not adversarial proceeding. corrected or changed by the
proper anymore because issuance of the writ of execution is part of the action concerned city or municipal registrar
filed which is accion reinvindicatoria, annulment of judgment, and quieting of or consul general, without need of any
title. It is merely a part of the process. judicial order.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law, either the court has or
it does not. The court cant say that it has jurisdiction over this portion of the The obvious effect is to remove from
case and not over that portion of the case. That is what is being alleged here. the ambit of Rule 108 the correction or
Hanggang decision ka lang, wala ka lang jurisdiction over the execution. And that changing of such errors in entries of
is not the correct argument. Because when we talk about jurisdiction, we talk the civil register. Hence, what is left
about the jurisdiction over the subject matter, person of the parties, res, and for the scope of operation of Rule 108
issues. And what are they talking about here in this case? So that is a wrong are substantial changes and
argument. corrections in entries of the civil
register.
The alleged lack of jurisdiction of the RTC in issuing the writ of execution
cannot be considered lack of jurisdiction over the person or over the subject Substantial Innocuous (not harmful); Clerical
matter of the complaint. The RTC duly acquired jurisdiction over them upon mistakes
their filing of the complaint and the subject matter which is conferred by law. So Appropriate adversary Summary procedure; A
that argument does not hold water. proceeding; Judiciary hearing legalprocedureused for enforcing a
right that takes effect faster and more
Milagros Barco vs CA efficiently than ordinary methods.
Issue: WON the RTC has jurisdiction over the Subject Matter.
Substantial corrections to the civil status of persons recorded in the civil
Held: YES. registry may be effected through the filing of a petition under Rule 108 by filing
it before the court. Thus, RTC has jurisdiction.
What is being changed in the petition are substantial errors, that is, change in
the civil status and directly affects the filiation and legitimacy of June.
So how do you determine whether the court has jurisdiction? You look at the
As such, there are two ways in correcting dates of birth in ones certificate of allegations in the complaint and the law or rule that is involved.
live birth:
Rule 108, Rules of Court RA 9048
judicial process by filing a petition for administrative process by filing a
correction of entry before the court petition at the Local Civil Registry

Page 19 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
Before, if you have to change an entry in your birth certificate or marriage
contract, because there is an error (meaning the name is not your name, the
family name is not your family name, or there is a clerical/typographical error),
all errors whether simple or substantial (error in gender male or female is not a
simple error), to correct them you have to file a proper petition before the RTC.
Previously, the RTC has jurisdiction over all petitions for correction of entry.
But then here came RA 9048 which removed from the RTC certain corrections,
like clerical/typographical errors. So look at the law, ano pa bang naiwan sa
RTC? Complicated errors like in this case, the family name was sought to be
changed. Therefore, it still belongs to the jurisdiction of the RTC.
Laresma vs Abellana
Issue: Which court has jurisdiction, the RTC or the DARAB?
Held: NEITHER. It is the Municipal Trial Court which has jurisdiction over the
case. The jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the action is
conferred by law at the time the action commenced and determined by the
material allegations of the complaint.
RA 7691 applies in this case because the case was filed on May 24, 1994. It
provides:
Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value
of the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty Thousand Pesos
(P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value
does not exceed Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorneys fees, litigation expenses and
costs: Provided, That in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the
value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the
adjacent lots.
Abellana did not allege the assessed value of the subject property. The
assessed value is shown by the realty tax payment receipts which was P8,300.
The assessed value being less than P20,000, it is the Municipal Trial Court
which has jurisdiction over the present case.
The Supreme Court also held that in cases where there are allegations of
tenancy issues, the court must not dismiss the case right away. Instead, it has
the duty to receive evidence to determine whether tenancy is the real issue. If
the real issue is tenancy, the court must dismiss the case for lack of
jurisdiction.
The principles as to the jurisdiction over the subject matter, you have to look at
the allegations of the complaint. If the complaint has an allegation of tenancy,
definitely the jurisdiction will fall under the DARAB (Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board). But here, there was none. So the question is what
court has jurisdiction, RTC or MTC?
We will learn later that the assessed value of the property, if more than P20,000,
the jurisdiction is with the RTC. If it is less than or equal to P20,000, it is with the
MTC. So in this case there was an issue as to what was the value, so it fell under
the jurisdiction of the MTC. Therefore, the RTC had no jurisdiction over the
action that was filed.
So thats why you have to look at a lot of aspects to determine jurisdiction, the
allegations in the complaint and the governing law. In this case, we have the RA
6657 which is the CARL (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law).
Hilado vs Chavez
Issue: Whether the MTCC had exclusive jurisdiction over the action of the
respondent
Held: NO. MTCC has no jurisdiction.
Section 33, paragraph 2 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Section 3 of
Rep. Act No. 7691 provides that:
Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Circuit Trial Court and Metropolitan Trial
Court, have exclusive original jurisdiction over cases for unlawful detainer.
Page 20 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
However, such courts have no original jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate
agrarian disputes under Rep. Act No. 6657, as amended, and the Rules of
Procedure issued by the DARAB implementing said laws, which are within the
exclusive original and appellate jurisdiction of the DARAB.
The rule is that the DARAB has jurisdiction to try and decide any agrarian
dispute or any incident involving the implementation of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program.
In Tirona v. Alejo, we held that the MTCC has no jurisdiction over an ejectment
case where the issue of possession is inextricably interwoven with an agrarian
dispute.
The jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the action is determined
by the material allegations of the complaint and the law, irrespective of whether
or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover all or some of the claims or reliefs
sought therein.
In this case, based on the material allegations of the complaint, the DARAB, and
not the MTCC, had primary and original jurisdiction over the action of the
respondent.
MASANGUID, REMMON LAST 30 MINS
Its a case to case basis. In the previous case, the SC said that just look at the
complaint since we are only determining jurisdiction and since Jurisdiction is
determined by the allegations of the complaint. But in this case, the Supreme
Court said it is the duty of the Supreme Court to receive evidence to determine
the allegations of tenancy if AFTER hearing, tenancy has been shown, then the
Court may dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
Montaer vs Carpio
Issue: W/N the Sharia Court has acquired jurisdiction over the subject
matter
SC: Yes. The determination of the nature of an action or proceeding is
controlled by the averments and character of the relief sought in the complaint
or petition. The designation given by parties to their own pleadings does not
necessarily bind the courts to treat it according to the said designation. Rather
than rely on "a falsa descriptio or defective caption," courts are "guided by the
substantive averments of the pleadings."
Although private respondents designated the pleading filed before the Sharia
District Court as a "Complaint" for judicial partition of properties, it is a petition
for the issuance of letters of administration, settlement, and distribution of the
estate of the decedent. It contains sufficient jurisdictional facts required for the
settlement of the estate of a deceased Muslim,such as the fact of Alejandro
Montaer, Sr.s death as well as the allegation that he is a Muslim. The said
petition also contains an enumeration of the names of his legal heirs, so far as
known to the private respondents, and a probable list of the properties left by
the decedent, which are the very properties sought to be settled before a
probate court. Furthermore, the reliefs prayed for reveal that it is the intention
of the private respondents to seek judicial settlement of the estate of the
decedent.These include the following: (1) the prayer for the partition of the
estate of the decedent; and (2) the prayer for the appointment of an
administrator of the said estate.
We cannot agree with the contention of the petitioners that the district court
does not have jurisdiction over the case because of an allegation in their
answer with a motion to dismiss that Montaer, Sr. is not a Muslim. Jurisdiction
of a court over the nature of the action and its subject matter does not depend
upon the defenses set forth in an answer or a motion to dismiss. Otherwise,
jurisdiction would depend almost entirely on the defendant or result in having
"a case either thrown out of court or its proceedings unduly delayed by simple
stratagem.Indeed, the "defense of lack of jurisdiction which is dependent on a
question of fact does not render the court to lose or be deprived of its
jurisdiction."
The same rationale applies to an answer with a motion to dismiss. In the case at
bar, the Sharia District Court is not deprived of jurisdiction simply because
petitioners raised as a defense the allegation that the deceased is not a Muslim.
The Sharia District Court has the authority to hear and receive evidence to
determine whether it has jurisdiction, which requires an a priori determination
that the deceased is a Muslim. If after hearing, the Sharia District Court
determines that the deceased was not in fact a Muslim, the district court should
dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
Page 21 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
What we have here is Judicial Settlement of Estate. So be careful with the
proper use of legal terms. Dito hindi dapat Partition ha. So basically, how do
you determine the jurisdiction over the subject matter? You look at the law. The
law in force at the time of the filing of the complaint. Then look at the allegations
of the complaint- it will tell us what court will acquire jurisdiction. Again,
jurisdiction over the subject matter is a case-to-case basis it depends on the
particular law in force.
November 18, 2017 Make-up Class
CHANYEE , KATHIA KIERTSIN
Case on Jurisdiction over the Parties of the Case
Meat Packaging v SB
[G.R. No. 103068. June 22, 2001]
Issue
WON the court acquired jurisdiction over MPCP
Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in civil cases is acquired either by
his voluntary appearance in court and his submission to its authority or by
service of summons.[42] Furthermore, the active participation of a party in the
proceedings is tantamount to an invocation of the courts jurisdiction and a
willingness to abide by the resolution of the case, and will bar said party from
later on impugning the court or bodys jurisdiction.[43]
Case at Bar
In this case, petitioner MPCP is precluded from questioning the jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan over its person in Civil Case No. 0024, considering that, as
shown by the records, it actively participated in the discussion of the merits
of the said case, even going to the extent of seeking affirmative relief. The
Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in saying so.
So this is very simple. By actively participating that is already tantamount to
submission.
Ancheta v Ancheta
G.R. No. 145370
March 4, 2004
Issue
WON the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of Defendant?
NO
In Paramount Insurance Corporation v. Japzon,24 we held that jurisdiction
is acquired by a trial court over the person of the defendant either by his
voluntary appearance in court and his submission to its authority or by
service of summons. The service of summons and the complaint on the
defendant is to inform him that a case has been filed against him and, thus,
enable him to defend himself. He is, thus, put on guard as to the demands of
the plaintiff or the petitioner. Without such service in the absence of a valid
waiver renders the judgment of the court null and void.Jurisdiction cannot be
acquired by the court on the person of the defendant even if he knows of the
case against him unless he is validly served with summons.
In Miranda v. Court of Appeals,29 we held that the modes of service should
be strictly followed in order that the court may acquire jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant.
Clark v Mondragon
G.R. No. 150986 March 2, 2007
The vexation to the courts in this case is evident. There is a high risk
of conflict between the decisions of the RTC Branches 58 and 60 regarding
their respective civil cases. A decision by one branch of court will constitute
res judicata in the other case pending before the other branch of court.
Alternatively, if the RTC Branch 60 exercised its jurisdiction over the petition
for declaratory relief, then it would have to restrain the execution
proceedings in the RTC Branch 58. Thus, interference with the proceedings in
another court would ensue. Under the doctrine of non-interference, a trial
court has no authority to interfere with the proceedings of a court of equal
jurisdiction, much less to annul the final judgment of a co-equal court.1 In
Page 22 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines v. Intermediate Appellate
Court, we declared that a court has no jurisdiction to restrain the execution Art. 2037. A compromise has upon the parties the effect
proceedings in another court with concurrent jurisdiction.2 and authority of res judicata, but there shall be no
execution except in compliance with a judicial
compromise.

The consolidation of the two civil cases is also not possible in line with
the doctrine on non-interference. As observed by the CA:

In the matter of the consolidation of the two cases,

Mondragon should be reminded that the same is
Atty S: Why did court did not acquire jurisdiction here?
addressed to the sound discretion of the courts. Neither
of the judges in the two cases can impose upon the A: The court did not acquire jurisdiction over the party here because:
other the consolidation of the cases. Additionally,
consolidation is no longer practicable because Civil 1. There was improper service of summons
Case No. 9242 is already terminated and is in the
2. The defendant never appeared.(voluntary submission)
execution stage, while in Civil Case No. 9596, the issues
have not even been joined.3

So here, service of summons was improperly made and she never appeared
before the court at all until the decision came out, declaring the marriage null
and void. That was the only time that she found out. So there was no voluntary
Furthermore, if Civil Case No. 9596 was allowed to continue, the basic
submission to the jurisdiction of the court and there was improper service of
purpose of compromise agreements would be defeated. As defined by the
summons.
Civil Code:

Art. 2028. A compromise is a contract whereby the Rapid city v Villa

parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid a G.R. No. 184197
litigation or put an end to one already commenced.
And Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Spouses Wilson Dy Hong
Pi and Lolita Dy, et al. enlightens:

Preliminarily, jurisdiction over the defendant in a civil case is acquired

either by the coercive power of legal processes exerted over his person,
or his voluntary appearance in court. As a general proposition, one who
seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction
of the court. It is by reason of this rule that we have had occasion to declare

Page 23 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
that the filing of motions to admit answer, for additional time to file answer,
for reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift order of default with
motion for reconsideration, is considered voluntary submission to the
courts jurisdiction. This, however, is tempered by the concept of
conditional appearance, such that a party who makes a special appearance
to challenge, among others, the courts jurisdiction over his person cannot
be considered to have submitted to its authority.
Prescinding from the foregoing, it is thus clear that:
(1) Special appearance operates as an exception to the general rule on
voluntary appearance;
(2) Accordingly, objections to the jurisdiction of the court over the person
of the defendant must be explicitly made, i.e., set forth in an unequivocal
manner; and
(3) 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 submitted to the court for resolution.[7] (italics
and underscoring supplied)
Cases enumerated under the Rapid City case wherein the act of seeking
affirmative relief is tantamount to submission to the courts jurisdiction:
1. Filing of motions to admit answer
2. Motion for additional time to admit answer
3. MR of a default judgment
4. To lift order of default with MR
Atty S: So it is not 100% of the time that the defendant is deemed to have
submitted to the jurisdiction of the court because if there is improper service of
summons, that can be questioned by filing a motion to dismiss on the ground
that jurisdiction was not acquired over the person of the defendant because of
improper service of summons.
So if that is the only that is being question (pertaining to the improper service of
summons) then the defendant did not deem to have submitted to the
jurisdiction of the court. There are other exceptions but I will not mention it yet.
So a special appearance operates as an exception to the general rule on
voluntary appearance.
In this case, the motion is a motion to lift the order of default. What is the
purpose of that motion? When we reach Rule 9, we will learn that if a defendant
is declared in default for failure to file answer, he may file a motion to lift order
of default so that he can file his answer. So if you file that motion, it means that
you are already participating in the case. That was the first motion filed here. It
was only during the MR that the spouses raised the issue that the jurisdiction
was not acquired over their person. So wala na, they have already submitted
themselves.
Jurisdiction over the Issues
Lam v Chua
[G.R. No. 131286. March 18, 2004]
Issue
WON the court acquired jurisdiction over the issue?
NO
It is also a general principle of law that a court cannot set itself in motion, nor
has it power to decide questions except as presented by the parties in their
pleadings. Anything that is decided beyond them is coram non-judice and void.
Therefore where a court enters a judgment or awards relief beyond the prayer
of the complaint or the scope of its allegations the excessive relief is not merely
irregular but is void for want of jurisdiction, and is open to collateral attack.
The appellate court also ruled that a judgment of a court upon a subject within
its general jurisdiction, but which is not brought before it by any statement or
claim of the parties, and is foreign to the issues submitted for its determination,
is a nullity. (Emphasis supplied)
Pursuant to the foregoing principle, it is a serious error for the trial court to
Page 24 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
have rendered judgment on issues not presented in the pleadings as it was
beyond its jurisdiction to do so. The amendment of the petition to reflect the
new issues and claims against Jose was, therefore, indispensable so as to
authorize the court to act on the issue of whether the marriage of Jose and
Adriana was bigamous and the determination of the amount that should have
been awarded for the support of John Paul. When the trial court rendered
judgment beyond the allegations contained in the copy of the petition served
upon Jose, the Pasay RTC had acted in excess of its jurisdiction and deprived
petitioner Lam of due process.
Atty S: Was this an error of law or an error of Jurisdiction?
A: Error of Law
Atty S: Remember that I told you already that the most important is the
jurisdiction over:
1. Subject matter
2. Person of the Parties
Take note of the title of the case, its Lam v Chua, meaning this is an appealed
case. Hindi ito certiorari. The certiorari cases are Lam v CA. X v CA. but if you
have names of the parties, then it is an appealed case. An appeal is the remedy
only in cases of ERROR in LAW. For cases of error in jurisdiction, you don
not appeal that. You go on certiorari under Rule 65. But this is Lam v Chua.
The court committed an error when it rendered a decision based on Bigamy
because it had no jurisdiction over the issues.
Take note, a jurisdictional defect ONLY APPLIES TO:
1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter
2. Parties
Actually ang parties. If there are 3 defendants and there is only one whose
person the court has not acquired jurisdiction. Valid man ang decision. The
jurisdictional defect really, pertains to the jurisdiction over the subject
matter.
Itong jurisdiction over the issues, this is an error of law wherein the court
committed an error because it had no jurisdiction over that particular issue.
What if there are other issues involved, void din? NO. Only those issues not
raised by the parties. Do not generalize right away.
Jurisdiction over the Res
We already know that jurisdiction over the res need not be acquired. It is not
really important to have jurisdiction over the res. This will only be significant if
the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant maybe
because the defendant is out of the country. If there is a res here in the
Philippines, then the court can acquire jurisdiction over the res.
But is it automatic? That is the question.
Macahilig v Heirs of Magalit
[G.R. No. 141423. November 15, 2000]
Issue
WON the court acquired jurisdiction over the subject property (Lot 4417)
/Res
YES
Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either (a) by the seizure of the property
under legal process, whereby it is brought into actual custody of the law; or (b)
as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the
court is recognized and made effective.[29] In the latter condition, the
property, though at all times within the potential power of the court, may not be
in the actual custody of said court.
The trial court acquired jurisdiction over the disputed lot by virtue of the
institution of the Petition for a Writ of Execution filed by the respondents
predecessors in interest. Without taking actual physical control of the property,
it had an impliedly recognized potential jurisdiction or potential custody over
the res. This was the jurisdiction which it exercised when it issued the Writ of
Execution directing the surrender of Lot 4417 to Dr. Magalit.
Page 25 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
Atty S: The facts here are very complicated. The important thing is for you to
know how the jurisdiction over the res is acquired. So you just have to take note
of those 2 ways namely:
1. Seizure of property under legal process
So that court can issue a writ of seizure like yung mga search and seizure. So
kung drugs man yan, the drugs will be seized and brought before the court.
That is actual custody.
But for real property, seizure is not feasible. So there is another way.
2. As a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of
the court is recognized and made effective
That was what happened here. What was the legal proceeding? The issuance of
the writ of execution by the court giving it power and authority over the res.
So this case is not same the example that I gave earlier because the jurisdiction
over the res was actually acquired because of the res not because the court
could not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
RP v Herbierto
[G.R. No. 156117. May 26, 2005]
Issue
WON Jurisdiction over the Res was validly acquired
NO
A land registration case is a proceeding in rem,[28] and jurisdiction in rem
cannot be acquired unless there be constructive seizure of the land through
publication and service of notice.[29]
Section 23 of the Property Registration Decree requires that the public be
given Notice of the Initial Hearing of the application for land registration by
means of (1) publication; (2) mailing; and (3) posting. Publication of the
Notice of Initial Hearing shall be made in the following manner:
1. By publication.
Upon receipt of the order of the court setting the time for initial hearing, the
Commissioner of Land Registration shall cause a notice of initial hearing to
be published once in the Official Gazette and once in a newspaper of general
circulation in the Philippines: Provided, however, that the publication in the
Official Gazette shall be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court. Said
notice shall be addressed to all persons appearing to have an interest in the
land involved including the adjoining owners so far as known, and to all
whom it may concern. Said notice shall also require all persons concerned to
appear in court at a certain date and time to show cause why the prayer of
said application shall not be granted.
In these two case, what is involved are proceedings in rem.
What is an action in rem?
We have only a little bit of this in Civpro. This is in special proceedings. There
is no other party. Like here, the brothers were applying for registration over a
parcel of land. Sinong kalaban mo? Wala (diba against the whole world mani
lels). So if there is no defendant, the court must acquire jurisdiction over the res
which is the parcel of land sought to be registered.
This case explains the earlier case. In the earlier case, it gave us 2 ways to
acquiring jurisdiction over the res. This second case, specifies since this is a
property registration proceeding. And there are what you call under the rules
jurisdictional requirements. And part of these requirements, there must be:
1. Publication
2. Mailing
3. Posting
These are part of the jurisdictional requirement to acquire jurisdiction over the
res for this particular case lang ha. The general requirement is under the
Macahilig case. And here in RP v Herbierto, this provides for a specific
requirement in a land registration case.
Page 26 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
Jurisdiction of the res is acquired just like the jurisdiction over the person. And G.R. No. 130866 September 16, 1998
there is a proper procedure of acquiring jurisdiction over the res. It is not
automatic. xxx we add the further observations that there is a growing number of labor
cases being elevated to this Court which, not being a trier of fact, has at times
been constrained to remand the case to the NLRC for resolution of unclear or
JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS ambiguous factual findings; that the Court of Appeals is procedurally equipped
for that purpose, aside from the increased number of its component divisions;
and that there is undeniably an imperative need for expeditious action on labor
cases as a major aspect of constitutional protection to labor.
JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT
1. EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL (ART VIII Sec 5)
Therefore, all references in the amended Section 9 of B.P. No. 129 to
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: supposed appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme Court are interpreted and
hereby declared to mean and refer to petitions for certiorari under Rule 65.
Exercise original jurisdiction over cases Consequently, all such petitions should hence forth be initially filed in the Court
1. affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and of Appeals in strict observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts as the
2. over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, appropriate forum for the relief desired.
and habeas corpus.

But in the following cases/petitions, there are concurrent jurisdiction: This is due to the so many certiorari cases all over the place. So sabi ng SC,
pwede ba, decisions of the NLRC , dun nalang yan sa CA. Petitions are no
longer brought to the SC on Petitions for Certiorari but to the CA.
List of Tribunals wherein if decision is rendered with grave abuse of Take note that Petitions for Certiorari are original actions. Hindi yan appeal. So
discretion, there is nowhere else to go but the Supreme Court: among the 3 constitutional commissions, only COA and COMELEC may be
1. Court of Appeals bought to the SC on petitions for Certiorari.
2. Comelec
3. COA
4. Sandiganbayan
5. CBAA
6. NLRC
7. The Secretary of Labor

xxx especially CA and SB, where do you go for certiorari. However, there was
this case decided by the SC in 1998:
St. Michaels Funeral Homes v NLRC
Page 27 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
against the inferior court. Pero pwede rin naman sa CA or sa SC. But they will
not like it.

CONCURRENT JURISDICTION
We also have concurrent jurisdiction with the RTC.
This is because when it comes to CSC, those are brought to the CA. So petitions
for petitions for certiorari etc, that is concurrent.
Exercise original
jurisdiction over cases
1. affecting ambassadors,
other public ministers and
consuls, and

Petition for Certiorari,

Mandamus, Prohibition,
Mandamus, Quo Warranto,
Habeas Corpus

SUPREME COURT REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

REGIONAL TRIAL
SUPREME COURT COURT OF APPEALS COURT

So you can choose, if the Consul is just here in Davao , eg. Indonesian Consul,
dont go SC. You can file a case against the Consul here. Hindi ito petition for
certiorari. Example nito is a rape case against a consul with the RTC.

Take note: if the writ is issued by the by the RTC, it can be enforced only
within its jurisdiction unlike when it is issued by the CA and SC and is
enforceable worldwide.
When can you file a petition for certiorari with the RTC?

When the MTC commits grave abuse of discretion, like when it took cognizance
of the case which it has no jurisdiction. File a petition for certiorari with the RTC

Page 28 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018

APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

1. wRIT OF AMPARO
Sec 5. 2 Art VIII of the 1987 Constitution
2. WRIT OF HABEAS
DATA
2. Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the
law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of
lower courts in:

REGIONAL TRIAL (a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty,
SUPREME COURT SANDIGANBAYAN international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree,
COURT
proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in
question.

(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or
toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto.

(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.

Petition for Certiorari, (d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion
Mandamus, Prohibition, perpetua or higher.
Mandamus, Quo
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
Warranto, Habeas
Corpus *in these cases kay diretso na sa RTC, di na daan CA
*RTC-CA

You better stick this in your heads, when we talk about APPEAL, the court is
only:
SANDIGANBAYAN
SUPREME COURT 1. Review
(IN AID OF APPELLATE J.)
2. Revise
3. Reverse
4. Modify
5. Affirm

Page 29 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
The decision of the lower courts decision
WHY?
Because the lower court probably erred in doing this, such as in the case of
Lam v Chua. The RTC erred in rendering a decision in which it does not have
jurisdiction over the issues.
Appeals to the SC are governed by Rule 45.
So what are appealed to the supreme court?
Final judgments and orders of lower courts
So here there is already an order rendered by the lower court. Whats the
lower court? RTC,CA, SB, CTA and other bodies.
Cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international
or executive agreement xxx
So the situation here is example, the Paris Convention in Intellectual Property.
What if a person wants to have the treaty be declared unconstitutional, he goes
to the RTC. And when the RTC says na this treaty is unconstitutional, then you
appeal that decision to the Supreme Court.
In other words, if the decision involve the constitutionality of any of those and
the decision is rendered by the RTC, go directly to the Supreme Court.
All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or
any penalty imposed in relation thereto
Example there is a that you dont like and theres a penalty that is being
imposed on you, you file an action before the RTC questioning the legality of
this tax. The RTC rules against you where you can go directly to the SC.
All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
When you are questioning the jurisdiction of the lower court, go to the SC.
And the catch-all is letter (e) provision:
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
A B and C are all questions of law.
What are questions of fact?
Does A owe B? or B owe A
That is a question of fact. Ayaw ng Supreme Court yan.
But if the question is, is this law legal/Constitutional or does the court has
jurisdiction? Those are the issues before the SC [So these are examples of
questions of law]
This is what you call, appellate jurisdiction.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Sec 7(a) Art IX
SECTION 7. xxx Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any
decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme
Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a
copy thereof.
Thats what we were talking about earlier. How about the decisions of the
COMELEC and COA? You dont appeal. You bring it as a petition for certiorari.
Diba nga sa election law case, its always X v Comelec kasi certiorari yan.
But Congress has amended the judiciary law (BP 129) particularly section
9. So the CSC is now not included.
Now, did the Congress by removing the Civil Service Commission, violate
the constitutional provision?
Sec 30 Art VI
SECTION 30. No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and
concurrence.
Page 30 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
The answer is NO, unless otherwise provided, any provision. The law can
actually change that.
From Cutie: Note that what the Constitution prohibits is a law that increases the
appellate jurisdiction of the SC. By removing the SC from the appellate
jurisdiction of the CSC, Congress is decreasing the appellate jurisdiction of
the SC. That is allowed.
MARTIAL LAW CASES
Sec 18 Art VII
xxx The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any
citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or
the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and must
promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
When the President declares martial law and extends the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus, go to the Supreme Court. So take note, this is with respect to the
SUFFIENCY AND FACTUAL BASIS of the proclamation
Sec 2 Art VIII
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and
apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts but may not deprive the
Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.
Various Courts meaning other courts by enacting BP 129.
Under Sec 5 Ano yun? Those original and appellate.
Sec 5 Art VIII
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
1. Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other
public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.
2. Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as
the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders
of lower courts in:
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty,
international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree,
proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in
question.
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or
toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto.
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion
perpetua or higher.
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
3. Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public
interest may require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six
months without the consent of the judge concerned.
4. Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of
justice.
5. Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the
admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal
assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified
and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be
uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish,
increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special
Page 31 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless
disapproved by the Supreme Court.
6. Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with
the Civil Service Law.
That is why all cases involving questions of law(appellate) are brought before
the Supreme court because of that Constitutional provision.
SC sitting as PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL
Sec 4 Art VII
xxx
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests
relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-
President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose.
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
Right now, the name of the court is CA. But in your cases, you sometimes
encounter the term, IAC (Intermediate appellate court. In any case, BP 129 was
the one that created the Court of Appeals. When it was enacted in 1980,
pursuant to the Constitution (since under the Constitution, Congress can create
other courts).
But BP 129 abolished the old CA and created another court called the IAC. So
BP 129, is the Judicial Reorganization Act of 1980. So before 1980, it was the IAC
up to 1986. Then there was revolution and a new Constitution created. And
Cory as President pursuant to law making powers, created BP 129 and changed
the name of IAC to Court of Appeals.
Court of appeals is the NOT the same court as the IAC, this was already clarified
in the 1992 case, In re Letter of Associate Justice Puno
INRE Letter of Associate Justice Puno
The Court holds that the Court of Appeals and Intermediate Appellate Court
existing prior to Executive Order No. 33 phased out as part of the legal system
abolished by the revolution and that the Court of Appeals established under
Executive Order No. 33 was an entirely new court with appointments thereto
having no relation to earlier appointments to the abolished courts, and that the
reference to precedence in rank contained in the last sentence of Sec. 2, BP Blg.
No. 129 as amended by Executive Order No. 33 refers to prospective situations
as distinguished from retroactive ones..
They have the same ranking. They are both appellate courts. But they are not
the same. BP 129 Sec 9, which defines the second highest court of the land has
been amended twice.
We are looking at BP 129 as amended.
Under BP 129, which talks about the Court of Appeals, same.
BP 129 Sec 9 as amended by RA 7902
Sec. 9. Jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals shall exercise:
(1) Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari,
habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or
not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgment of
Regional Trial Courts; and
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
(1) Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari,
habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or
not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;
Page 32 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
Now what is included is the writ of amparo. This, as we already know is
concurrent(see previous diagrams) with the SC. But the CA has original
exclusive. KANYA LANG.
EXCLUSIVE ORINAL JURISDICTION OF THE CA
SEC 9.2 BP 129
"(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of
judgment of Regional Trial Courts; and
So later under Rule 47,you will learn that that is the rule on Annulment of
Judgments. RTCs decision is appealable to the CA as a general rule.
For questions of law, you go to the SC. If its a criminal case and it involves
public officers, Sandiganbayan. That is for appeal.
But if you want to nullify the decision of the RTC on a particular ground
provided by the rules, you GO ONLY TO THE CA. NO OTHER COURT.
By the way, with respect to the concurrent jurisdiction to the SC and RTC, you
already know that doctrine of adherence, to jurisdiction. Example if you file
petition for certiorari and the court already acquired jurisdiction, then you can
no longer file in another court. IT IS NOT ALLOWED.
INSERT SEC 17 OF THE INTERIM RULES
APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE CA
So again, the CA is an appellate court but it has original jurisdiction. Basically,
the role of the CA is appellate and this is provided in Sec 9.3 of BP 129
(3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions,
resolutions, orders or awards of:
a. Regional Trial Courts
b. Quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions,
c. Including the Securities and Exchange Commission
d. The Social Security Commission
e. The Employees Compensation Commission and
f. the Civil Service Commission,
Except those falling
1. within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance
with the Constitution
2. The Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442,
as amended
3. The provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third
paragraph and subparagraph
4. The fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.
Take note, exclusive ito. You have nowhere else to go. These are civil cases.
So in civil cases, unless it is a pure question of law, go to the CA on appeal. And
the mode of appeal is governed by Rule 41, 42 and 43.
Take note that the Rules of Court is a general rule. But we have specific rules
like the Intellectual Property Code. The decisions of the IPO (quasi-judicial
agency) are appealable to the BLA (Bureau of Legal Affairs). BLA, you go to
the DG.(Unsay DG?) haha
*so ito governed by special rules and not by the Rules of Court.
Except those falling
1. within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance
with the Constitution
What are those? Questions of law
The Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442, as
amended
*again, decisions of the NLRC are not appealable to the SC but on Petition for
Certiorari with the CA (St. Martin Funeral Homes v NLRC)
Page 33 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
Sec 9.3 BP 129 (second Par) When the CA decides to receive evidence then that does not necessarily mean
The Court of Appeals shall have the power to: additional evidence. You mga nangyari sa RTC and then the court will make
1. Try cases them testify again, no. This refers only to incidental facts which were not
2. Conduct hearings touched upon or overlooked in the trial court. There can be no repetitious
3. Receive evidence proceeding.
4. And perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised
in cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including JURISDICTION OF THE MTC
the power to grant and conduct new trials or further proceedings. We have 4 different kinds of MTC:
xxx 1. Metropolitan Trial Courts
2. Municipal Trial Courts,
3. Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
4. Unsa ang 4th?
In other words, the CA may be an appellate court. Normally when the court acts
as an appellate court, theres no more trial. The appellate court will just render We are still in BP 129 for the MTC Jurisdiction.
decision based on the documents submitted, the files of the case.
Sec 33 as amended BP 129

Section 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and
But despite being an appellate court, this provision authorizes the CA to
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in criminal cases. Except in cases falling within
conduct hearings. When the CA feels na kulang ang presentation of evidence
the exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the
sa trial court, the justices actually want to examine the parties to a case, then the
Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
CA can do that.
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
But in the case of:
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or municipal
Linger and Fisher v IAC ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction;
[G.R. No. L-63557. October 28, 1983.] and

REMEDIAL LAW; INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT; JURISDICTION;

(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with
EVIDENCE NECESSARY AS TO FACTUAL ISSUES ISSUES RAISED IN CASES
imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of
FALLING WITHIN APPELLATE COURTS ORIGINAL AND APPELLATE
fine, and regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties,
JURISDICTION. The Appellate Court acted correctly in denying the request
including the civil liability arising from such offenses or predicated
for an evidentiary hearing. Evidence necessary in regards to factual issues
thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value, or amount
raised in cases falling within the Appellate Courts original and appellate
thereof: Provided, however, That in offenses involving damage to
jurisdiction contemplates "incidental" facts which were not touched upon,
property through criminal negligence they shall have exclusive original
or fully heard by the trial or respondent Court. The law could not have
jurisdiction thereof. (as amended by R.A, No. 7691)
intended that the Appellate Court would hold an original and full trial of a main
factual issue in a case, which properly pertains to Trial Courts.
RA 7691 amends BP 129

Page 34 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
Section 3. Section 33 of the same law is hereby amended to read as follows: The amendment expanded the jurisdiction of the MTC.
EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL
"Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. Metropolitan Trial Courts, You cannot go anywhere>
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate
"(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings, proceedings, testate and intestate
testate and intestate, including the grant of provisional remedies in proper PROBATE PROCEEDINGS
cases, where the value of the personal property, estate, or amount of the Value of
demand does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) or, in 1. The personal property
Metro Manila where such personal property, estate, or amount of the demand 2. Estate
does not exceed Two hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), exclusive of 3. Amount of the demand(eg. collection)
interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and
costs, the amount of which must be specifically alleged: Provided, That interest, MTC RTC
damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs shall
be included in the determination of the filing fees: Provided, further, That Does not exceed Exceeding
where there are several claims or causes of actions between the same or
different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand 1. 300,000 outside MM 1. 300,000 outside MM
shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of 2. 400,000 MM 2. 400,000 MM
whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different
transactions;[TOTALITY RULE]
Make no mistake, some people think that you can only file probate proceedings
"(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful before the RTC. Mali yan. MTCs can actually do probate also. But the thing is
detainer: Provided, That when, in such cases, the defendant raises the wala ka nang makikita na estate na below 300,000 php. Kahit pa siguro lupa sa
questions of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot sementeryo. (lels)
be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership
shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession; and And yung mga indigent, wala naman sila probate. So normally, these cases are
filed before the RTC.
"(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value
of the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos PROBATE
(P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value
Proceeding wherein the genuineness and due execution of a will are
does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest,
proven
damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs:
Provided, That in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value of So if there is no will, there is no probate
such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots."

Take note, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees,

litigation expenses, and costs
Page 35 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
Lets say A owes B 300,000 php that he borrowed in 2015. And he did not paid *PRINCIPAL AMOUNT ONLY *PRINCIPAL +++
the 300k monthly. So may interest yan.
EXCLUDE: the interest, damages of INCLUDE: the interest, damages of
So a collection case was filed for the principal amount of 300,000 php plus whatever kind, attorney's fees, whatever kind, attorney's fees,
interest and damages litigation expenses, and costs litigation expenses, and costs

300,000 Principal amount

100, 000 Interest
100,000 Damages
50,000 Attorneys Fees
550, 000 TOTAL AMOUNT
So in this case, where shall you file the case?
MTC!! Because you only look at the principal amount which is 300,000. It should
be exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees,
litigation expenses, and costs.
When you file a complaint, remember, jurisdiction is determined by the
allegations in the complaint. If you are the plaintiff, and you say that the
defendant owes you, ilagay mo sa complaint kung magkano yung principal
amount.
And then here comes the defendant saying na hindi man 1M ang utang ko.
100,000 lang uy. Dinagdagan lang nya ng zero. MTC dapat uy. Dili RTC.
Is that correct??
NO!!!
Even if in truth and in fact, 100k lang talaga ang utang ni plaintiff but because
jurisdiction of the court is determined by the allegations of the complaint, dapat
MTC yan. SO walay labot kung unsa may ang defense sa defendant.
You have to specify the amount. I-itemize mo yan.
There are 2 things that you must determine
In determining the Jurisdiction In determining the Filing
fee/Docket Fees
In civil case, importante masyado ang docket fees. You have to pay. So the
higher the total amount, the higher the filing fees. That is for the filing fees.
TOTALITY RULE
1. That where there are several claims or causes of actions
2. Between the same or different parties,
3. Embodied in the same complaint
4. The amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the
causes of action
5. Irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or
different transactions;
You know what makes civil case so complicated, because in criminal case, weh
have a prohibition against duplicitous information. This is quashable. So you
must only have 1 crime.
In civil case, pwedeng compounded. Para kang Christmas tree. So kung
merong mga joinders etc.
Example 1
X borrowed 100k from Y four times embodied in 4 promissory notes. All PN are
due.So Y decided to file 1 complaint embodied on those 4 causes of action
because each promissory note is one cause of action.
So there is now a joinder of cause of action. Individually, 100k lang yan.So
dapat MTC yan. If separately filed, sa MTC to. But since Y decided to join the 4
causes of action and file one action, nagging 400,000 php.RTC nay an. Pwede
ba sabihin ni Y na sa MTC nalang?
Page 36 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
NO, because we have the Totality Rule. That means that if you have joinders,
compute the total, each are principal and therefore the case will fall under the
jurisdiction of the RTC na.
Actually pwede naman yan laruin ng plaintiff. If gusto nya sa MTC, eh di
ihiwalay nya. Kung sa RTC, eh di icombine nya.
Example 2
A B C and D rode a bus. The bus went down the cliff, and the 4 people were
injured. So 4 people were hospitalized. So they decided to fil an action for
damages against the bus company.
Individual Claims
A 250,000
B 150,000
C 190,000
D 150,000
740,000
So kung individually tingnan mo, MTC. So if they decide to join together,
pwede yun. In one action, you combine the 4 causes of action. Then you will
now go to the RTC.
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and
unlawful detainer
The amount does not matter. Remember, forcible entry and unlawful detainer
are REAL actions meaning involving real property.So ang mga value ng mga
building at lupa is nasa mga Bilyon na. So it doesnt matter kung magkano ang
property basta forcible entry or unlawful detainer, MTC.
deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved
only to determine the issue of possession
Ito yung finafile ng squatter against the owner. Sasabihin ng owner, teka sandal,
ako ang owner ng property na ito. If there is an issue there. That is still under
the MTC.
Sec 33.1 only talks about personal property in probate proceedings. When it
comes to real property, we have 33.3.
Sec 33.3 BP 129 as amended by RA 7691
(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value
of the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos
(P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value
does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs:
Provided, That in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value of
such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots
REAL PROPERTY
1. Title to
2. Possession of
3. Interest therein
MTC RTC
ASSESSED VALUE ASSESSED VALUE

In forcible entry and unlawful detainer, the issue is mere physical Does not exceed Exceeding
possession. Kaya nga even a squatter may bring a forcible entry case against
the real owner of the property if he was ejected through fists. So there is no 1. 20,000 outside MM 1. 20,000 outside MM
issue on ownership 2. 50,000 MM 2. 50,000 MM

BUT TAKE NOTE

xxx when, in such cases, the defendant raises the questions of ownership in
his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without

Page 37 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018

Even lupa sa cemetery wala nan gang worth 20, 000. Hehe So you look at the Under number 1:
assessed value.So now the city Government are now fixing the assessed value
of lands. So malaman wala ng maiwan sa MTC. Application for registration, walang makikialam. Pwede MTC, provided
merong assignment ng Supreme Court.
Assessed value: found sa tax declaration.
If the MTC renders decision in this kind of cases, where do you appeal?
So these are case for accion publiciana (recovery of possession), accion
reinvindicatory(recovery of ownership), you look at the assessed value of Court of Appeals
the adjacent lots. Look at their tax declarations.
Their decisions in these cases shall be appealable in the same manner as
DELEGATED JURISDICTION decisions of the Regional Trial Courts.
The jurisdiction here does not belong to the MTC but the RTC. You know very
well that land registration cases are filed before the RTC. So the decisions of the MTC in its delegated jurisdiction is appealable in the
same manner as the RTC, so dapat sa CA.
But there are certain land registration/cadastral cases that may be assigned to
the MTC by the SC.
Sec 34 BP 129 as amended by RA 7691
SPECIAL JURISDICTION
"Sec. 34. Delegated Jurisdiction in Cadastral and Land Registration Cases. Sec 35 BP 129 as amended by RA 7691
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts may be assigned by the Supreme Court to hear and determine Section 35. Special jurisdiction in certain cases. In the absence of all the
cadastral or land registration cases covering lots:
Regional Trial Judges in a province or city, any Metropolitan Trial Judge,
Municipal Trial Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Judge may hear and decide
1. where there is no controversy or opposition, petitions for:
2. or contested lots where the value of which does not exceed One
hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00), 1. a writ of habeas corpus or
2. applications for bail
such value to be ascertained by the affidavit of the claimant or by agreement
of the respective claimants if there are more than one, or from the in criminal cases in the province or city where the absent Regional Trial Judges
corresponding tax declaration of the real property. sit.

Their decisions in these cases shall be appealable in the same manner as

decisions of the Regional Trial Courts.

Meaning, lets say all the RTC judges are in a convention in Baguio, pwede ba
lahat ng kaso dalhin sa MTC? NO. only these cases, for emergency purposes
only ha!
Page 38 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
5. Rescission of contract
NOVEMBER 20, 2017
Wherein the plaintiff is not really asking for money or property which can be
CHANYEE, KATHIA KIERSTIN FIRST 30 MINS quantified but for something else. Included here is an action for specific
JURISDICTION OF THE RTC performance which is really subject to a lot of controversy, whether this is
really an action that is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
What is the governing law for the RTC?
"(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property,
A: BP 129 Sec 19 or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved
exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000,00) or, for civil actions in Metro
But first let us look at Sec 13 of BP 129 Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) except
Section 13. Creation of Regional Trial Courts. There are hereby created actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings,
thirteen (13) Regional Trial Courts, one for each of the following judicial regions original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
xxx Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts

This is actually the opposite of Sec 33 of BP 129.

So Davao City is for Judicial Region XI, so its very easy for us. This includes the
RTC of Tagum, all the Davao courts. (Davao Mati, Bansalan Digos etc) REAL PROPERTY
You know very well that RTCs nowadays are not just RTCs, there are some 1. Title to
particular branches of the RTC that are appointed as special courts. 2. Possession of
3. Interest therein

Except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer:

So lets start with EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
This the most controversial of jurisdiction because it says here: Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts

ACTIONS INCAPABLE OF PECUNIARY ESTIMATION MTC RTC

ASSESSED VALUE ASSESSED VALUE
"(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of
pecuniary estimation; Does not exceed Exceeding
You cannot quantify the value of the subject of litigation. So the subject of
litigation is not expressed in terms of peso or centavo. So examples of this kind 3. 20,000 outside MM 3. 20,000 outside MM
of action are: 4. 50,000 MM 4. 50,000 MM

1. Annulment
2. Action for declaratory relief
3. Action for permanent injunction Again we look at here the assessed value. So the cases that are usually involved
4. Action for specific performance here are:
Page 39 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
1. Action publiciana So this is just the opposite of 33.1. So for probate, just look at the value of estate.
2. Accion reinvindivacatoria
3. Quieting of Title MARRIAGE RELATIONS

ADMIRALTY & MARITIME ACTIONS "(5) In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations;

"(3) In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or So you do not see actions related to marriage in the MTC.
claim exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila, But what kind of RTC?
where such demand or claim exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000.00); RA 8369 Sec 5

Section 5. Jurisdiction offamily Courts. - The Family Courts shall have exclusive
original jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases:
This does not have a counterpart provision in the MTC provision. But if you can a) Criminal cases where one or more of the accused is below eighteen
see, RTC jurisdiction is only for cases where the demand or claim exceeds (18) years of age but not less than nine (9) years of age but not less than
300k. So when the demand is below 300k, you go to the MTC. nine (9) years of age or where one or more of the victims is a minor at
the time of the commission of the offense: Provided, That if the minor is
So these involve transportation cases, yung mga from injured passengers found guilty, the court shall promulgate sentence and ascertain any civil
injured while on board a vessel. It depends on the amount of the claim. liability which the accused may have incurred.
The sentence, however, shall be suspended without need of application
pursuant to Ptesidential Decree No. 603, otherwise known as the "Child
MATTERS OF PROBATE and Youth Welfare Code";
b) Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus in
"(4) In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value relation to the latter;
of the estate exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in probate c) Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation thereof;
matters in Metro Manila, where such gross value exceeds Two Hundred d) Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of
thousand pesos (P200,000.00); marriage and those relating to marital status and property relations of
husband and wife or those living together under different status and
agreements, and petitions for dissolution of conjugal partnership of
gains;
PROBATE PROCEEDINGS
e) Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment;
Value of
f) Summary judicial proceedings brought under the provisions of
1. The personal property
Executive Order No. 209, otherwise known as the "Family Code of the
2. Estate
Philippines";
3. Amount of the demand(eg. collection)
g) Petitions for declaration of status of children as abandoned,
MTC RTC
dependent o neglected children, petitions for voluntary or involuntary
Does not exceed Exceeding commitment of children; the suspension, termination, or restoration of
parental authority and other cases cognizable under Presidential
1. 300,000 outside MM 1. 300,000 outside MM Decree No. 603, Executive Order No. 56, (Series of 1986), and other
2. 400,000 MM 2. 400,000 MM related laws;

Page 40 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
h) Petitions for the constitution of the family home;
i) Cases against minors cognizable under the Dangerous Drugs Act, as
amended;
j) Violations of Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as the "Special
Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act," as amended by Republic Act No. 7658; and
k) Cases of domestic violence against:
1) Women - which are acts of gender based violence that
results, or are likely to result in physical, sexual or
psychological harm or suffering to women; and other forms of
physical abuse such as battering or threats and coercion which
violate a woman's personhood, integrity and freedom
movement; and
2) Children - which include the commission of all forms of
abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, violence, and
discrimination and all other conditions prejudicial to their
development.
If an act constitutes a criminal offense, the accused or batterer shall be subject
to criminal proceedings and the corresponding penalties.
If any question involving any of the above matters should arise as an incident in
any case pending in the regular courts, said incident shall be determined in
that court.
So here the RTC is designated as a family court. There are several family courts,
we have RTC Branch 8. RTC 12. Etc.
JUVENILE & DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT/ COURT OF AGRARIAN
REFORMS
So when we talk of juvenile, yan children yan. Cases regarding juvenile &
domestic relations are now under the jurisdiction of the family court. But still
RTC but the RTC designated as a family court.
And the second one, the court of agrarian relations is also an RTC. Under RA
6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, all agrarian disputes
involving landlord and tenants were transferred to the DAR, specifically the
DARAB( Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudicatory Board).
So the CAR(Court of Agrarian Relations) under BP 129 became an RTC but then
the RTC does not handle those case anymore. All those cases regarding
agrarian relations are now under the DARAB except for 2 cases which are
still under the jurisdiction of the RTC.
RA 6657
SEC. 57. Special Jurisdiction - The Special Agrarian Courts shall have original
and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for
1. the determination of just compensation to landowners
2. and the prosecution of all criminal offenses under this Act. The Rules of
Court shall apply to all proceedings before the Special Agrarian Courts
unless modified by this Act.
The Special Agrarian Courts shall decide all appropriate cases under their
special jurisdiction within thirty (30) days from submission of the case for
decision.

"(7) In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the Court
of Agrarian Relations as now provided by law; and
So in the 2 cases, that is under the SAC, Special Agrarian Court,that is Branch 15
here in Davao. So those are the only agrarian cases that are under the
So this particular Sec 7 has already been diluted, in a sense that we have, again jurisdiction of the RTC. The rest are now with the DARAB.
RA 8369 Sec 5 which says that the Family courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction
to hear and decide the ff. cases, xxx (see previous table on jurisdiction of
FC).

Page 41 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
No take note here that its not specified kung assessed value ba or market value
ba. So its more liberal when it comes to value of personal property.
PERSONAL PROPERTY
Now there are also instances where there is no principal amount involved.
"(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of Normally there is only principal amount when there is a loan. But when you start
whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the with Transpo Law, you will learn that a passenger of taxi if he is injured while
property in controversy exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) riding the taxi, he has a cause of action for damages.
or, in such other cases in Metro Manila, where the demand exclusive of the
abovementioned items exceeds Three Hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00)." If the passenger is injured and brought to the hospital and treated and he has to
pay fees, then that is actual damages, the amount that he has to pay the
hospital. So here when the action is purely for damages, then what do you mean
by Sec 19.8 ? Di naman kasama ang damages. So there is a supreme court
Personal property circular about this.
Where the demand exclusive of
1. interest DAMAGES OF WHATEVER KIND
2. damages of whatever kind
ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 09-94 June 14, 1994
3. attorneys fees
4. litigation expenses 2. The exclusion of the term "damages of whatever kind" in determining the
5. cost of property in controversy jurisdictional amount under Section 19 (8) and Section 33 (1) of B.P. Blg. 129, as
amended by R.A. No. 7691, applies to cases where the damages are merely
incidental to or a consequence of the main cause of action. However, in
MTC RTC
cases where the claim for damages is the main cause of action, or one of the
Does not exceed Exceeds
causes of action, the amount of such claim shall be considered in determining
1. 300,000 outside MM 1. 300,000 outside MM
the jurisdiction of the court.
2. 400,000 MM 2. 400,000 MM

Ito yung collection of sum of money. So how much is the loan? If the loan is
So example nito, yung mga loan, sum of money. If the damages is incidental,
Example 1 Example 2 you dont include the damages. But if the main cause of action is 100 %
Principal Amount of Loan= 300,000 Principal Amount of Loan=301,000 damages, then that is your basis.
(MTC) (RTC)
So example, you have a pedestrian whos crossing the street, and he is hit by a
Interest 200,000
jeepney. So this person had to pay for hospital bills etc in the amount of 250k.
So under the law on damages, if the cause of action is culpa aquiliana, and here
it is culpa aquiliana(kay no contractual relation between the pedestrian & the
So you do not add the interest and damages etc with the principal amount of the jeepney operator), if the person is injured, he is entitled to moral damages.
loan when you determine the jurisdiction of the court. So again, we are only
Pedestrian bumped by a jeepney
talking about personal property. (cellphone, car etc). The value of the personal
Actual damages (hospital fees etc)=200k
property so you look at the value of the property involve.
Moral damages(sleepless nights etc)=200k
Exemplary (to set an example)=100k

Page 42 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
So what court has jurisdiction, so you add all the damages. That is if the main
cause of action is damages.
If the injured person is passenger, the basis is culpa contractual(contract of
carriage) because the passenger has a contract of carriage with the operator.
But if the plaintiff is a pedestrian, there is no privity of contract so the action is
culpa aquiliana. The action is for damages. So the cause of action is culpa
aquiliana or tort under 2176 of the CC.
When the action is purely for damages, you add up all the damages stated in
the plaintiffs complaint. That is to determine the jurisdiction of the court.
Maam asks for an example of a common carrier. Mali mi tanan. Haha
Ang common carrier is not the common name(bus, jeep, airplane) haha. Gusto
si Maam og Brand name like Philippine airlines etc. ahha
COMMON CARRIER
an individual, a company, or a public utility (like municipal buses) which is in
the regular business of transporting people and/or freight. This is distinguished
from a private carrier which only transports occasionally or as a one-time-only
event
So lets go to the catch-all provision.
Section 20. Jurisdiction in criminal cases. Regional Trial Courts shall
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not within the
exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body, except those now falling
under the exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which
shall hereafter be exclusively taken cognizance of by the latter.
So that is why the RTC is the court of general jurisdiction because it is the
universal catcher of all other courts not within the jurisdiction of other courts.
So we have taken up the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC.
Now lets go to CONCURRENT JURISDICTION.
This is concurrent with SC and CA. see previous diagram
Section 21. Original jurisdiction in other cases. Regional Trial Courts shall
exercise original jurisdiction:
(1) In the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
habeas corpus and injunction which may be enforced in any part of their
respective regions; and (concurrent with SC and CA)
(2) In actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and
consuls(concurrent with SC)
RTC: writs etc is enforceable only in its territorial jurisdiction
Take note, that this provision is different with that of the CA and SC. Any writ,
certiorari etc can only be enforced in the particular judicial region of such RTC
unlike the CA and SC writs that are enforceable nationwide.
Of course you have to relate this with crimpro, because under the rules Rule
126 Sec 2, when it comes to warrants of arrest, it is enforceable nationwide. But
when it comes to search warrants, it can only be enforced within their territorial
jurisdiction, in special cases within the judicial region. But there are 2 RTCs,
Quezon City and Makati where the Executive judge can issue a search warrant
nationwide.
And I also discussed to you in crimpro, the special commercial court. So this
court can issue a writ enforceable nationwide as long as its a writ issue by the
special commercial court.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Section 22. Appellate jurisdiction. Regional Trial Courts shall exercise
appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective
territorial jurisdictions. Such cases shall be decided on the basis of the entire
record of the proceedings had in the court of origin and such memoranda
and/or briefs as may be submitted by the parties or required by the Regional
Trial Courts. The decision of the Regional Trial Courts in such cases shall be
appealable by petition for review to the Intermediate Appellate Court which
may give it due course only when the petition shows prima facie that the lower
court has committed an error of fact or law that will warrant a reversal or
Page 43 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
modification of the decision or judgment sought to be reviewed.
So appellate jurisdiction of the RTC over all cases decided by the MTC.
Meaning there is no other court that can to the RTC but the MTC because there
is no other court thats lower than the RTC.
But even in Sandiganbayan cases, have to go to the RTC first before they go to
the SB. Therefore all MTC cases are appealable to the RTC except those
exercised by the MTC in its delegated jurisdiction.
Such cases shall be decided on the basis of the entire record of the
proceedings
Meaning of the RTC, is acting as an appellate court, it does not have to conduct
trial. The cases must be decided based on the documents
submitted/transmitted to the RTC from MTC.
Example: record of case + memoranda or brief.
So that is the jurisdiction of the RTC.
CAMPANER, MARRIE ALLEXA 31-1HR
Just read the La Naval vs CA case, to the reporter, give your classmates a copy
because this is a landmark case. **note: insert the digest. Cannot open the
dropbox account to retrieve at the moment.
Barangay San Roque.
Russel vs. Vestil
Issue: WON the RTC has jurisdiction over the case
Ruling: YES. The complaint filed in the RTC is one incapable of pecuniary
estimation, thus within its jurisdiction.
SC established a criteria to determine if an action is one incapable of pecuniary
estimation. First, determine the nature of the principal action or the remedies
sought:
If it is only for the recovery of sum of money, that is capable of pecuniary
estimation and the jurisdiction would depend on the amount of the claim.
If the issue is something other than the right to recover sum of money, or
where the money claim is incidental to or a consequence of the principal
relief, then the action is incapable of pecuniary estimation. Such action is
exclusively within the jurisdiction of the RTC
In the case at bar, what was filed was a Declaration of Nullity and for Partition.
The allegations are:
- That by virtue of such document, the respondents divided among
themselves the property to the exclusion of Russel et al who are also
entitled to the said property.
- No oral partition of property has been actually made
- That the document is false
From the allegations, it is clear that the main purpose of filing the complaint was
to declare the document null and void. While the complaint also prays for the
partition of property, such is merely incidental to the principal action for
declaration of nullity. Applying the criterion, this case falls under the second
situation - this is action is other than an action for sum of money; hence, this is
incapable of pecuniary estimation and within the jurisdiction of RTC.
-
Barangay San Roque vs Pastor
Facts: Expropriation suit over properties of heirs of Pastor filed by the
MTC dismissed the complaint on lack of jurisdiction. While it is an action
involving real property, it is only incidental to the principal action which is
incapable of pecuniary estimation - hence the jurisdiction is with the RTC.
RTC dismissed action saying that the case involves title to real property - hence
jurisdiction (whether the RTC or MTC) will depend on the value of the property.
Since the assessed value is less than 20k, MTC has jurisdiction.
Issue: Which court has jurisdiction over the expropriation suit involving
property valued less than 20k?
Page 44 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
Ruling: RTC. Pursuant to BP 129 Sec. 19 (1) - the RTC has exclusive original
jurisdiction over matters incapable of pecuniary estimation.
SC applied a criterion. Assess the nature of the action and the remedies sought:
If the case is for the recovery of money, it is capable of pecuniary
estimation. The jurisdiction depends on the value of the property or the
amount claimed
If the basic issue is something other than the claim of money, or the claim
of money is only incident of or consequence of the principal action not
capable of being expressed in monetary claims, RTC has jurisdiction.
Since this is a case of expropriation not capable of pecuniary estimation, hence
RTC has jurisdiction. True it is about the value of the expropriated property
which is expressed in monetary terms. However, this is only after the court is
satisfied with the determination of the propriety of the expropriation suit.
- of MTC.
Huguete vs Sps Embudo
Facts: Sps Huguete filed a case against Sps Embudo in the RTC. The case was
captioned Annulment of TCT, tax declaration, deed of sale, for partion, etc.
Haguete alleges they acquired a piece of land from Embudo costing 15k. They
demanded from Embudo that the land be partitioned. Embudo refused.
Haguete went to the court for the annulment of these documents.
Embudo filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the
RTC. The total assessed value of the land is 15k, hence the MTC has jurisdiction.
Huguete opposed saying the case is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
Issue: Which court has jurisdiction?
Ruling: MTC has jurisdiction. What determines the nature of the action and
which court has jurisdiction are the allegations and the reliefs sought. The
nature of the action is not only determined by the title of the action. Although
the action is for annulment, if you look at the allegations - a piece of land valued
at 15k, and Huguete are really praying to be declared the owners of the
property. SC cited Sec 33(3) of BP 129, this case involves a title to, or interest
over a piece of real property. Since the amount did not exceed 20k, then it is
not cognizable by the RTC but the MTC.
Maam: Similar to the Russel case which was for annulment and partion. But the
SC said that this is capable of pecuniary estimation because of the allegations of
the complaint. So look at the allegations as well, dont just base on the caption
of the case.
Barangay Piapi vs Talip
Facts: Complaint for conveyance and damages against Talip. The complaint
alleges that Brgy Piapi have been in an actual, continuous and open possession
of a property for more than 30 years which has value of 15k. That Talip
fraudulently obtained a TCT in his name over said property.
Talip moved for dismissal on the ground that RTC has no jurisdiction citing Sec.
33(3) of BP 129 since the assessed value of the land is 6k thus within jurisdiction
Piapi argues that the total assessed value is 41k as shown by a real property
appraisal and assessment sheet issued by the Provincial Assessor. Hence RTC
has jurisdiction.
Issue: Which court has jurisdiction?
Ruling: MTC (in this case MCTC. sameshit). SC cited the case of Huguete vs
Embudo - where the ultimate objective of the case is to obtain title to real
property, it should be filed with the proper court having jurisdiction over the
assessed value of the properties subject thereof. Under Section 19(2) of BP 129.
Since what is alleged in the complaint is the market value which is 15k, Sec.
33(3) of BP129 applies - MTC has jurisdiction if the value does not exceed 20k.
-
In this case, it is an accion publiciana. There is no need to determine whether
capable or incapable of pecuniary estimation. Accion publiciana cases has
specific provisions in BP 129. In this case, it is Sec. 33(3).
Page 45 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
- 1994, made written demands to vacate. 1996, lot was sold to Melba Tan. The
Iniego vs. Purganan
Facts: A vehicular accident occured. A complaint for quasi-delict with damages
was filed against Pion and Iniego. Iniego is the owner of the truck and Pions
employer.
Iniego sought for dismissal, alleging that RTC has no jurisdiction. Actions for
damages based on quasi-delicts falls on jurisdiction of MTC or RTC depending
on the claimed amount. If the claim exceeds 400k, then RTC. He asserts that the
moral and exemplary damages should be excluded from the computation of
total sum for jurisdictional purposes since the moral and exemplary damages
did not arise from the quasi-delict itself but from the refusal to pay.
Judge Purganan denied the motion to dismiss. RTC has jurisdiction.
Issue: WON the RTC has jurisdiction.
Ruling: YES. Actions for damages based on quasi-delicts or actions for the
recovery of sum of money are capable of pecuniary estimation. Iniego was
correct that since the claimed value of the damages exceeds 400k, then
jurisdiction is with the RTC. However, he was wrong on his argument that moral
and exemplary damages should be excluded in the computation. All the value
of damages demanded should be included to determine the jurisdiction. Since
the damages demanded in this case exceeds 400k, then RTC has jurisdiction.
-
Actions purely for damages - apply the Totality Rule. Add all the value of
damages being demanded.
- Topic: Jurisdiction of RTC
Dela Cruz vs CA
Facts: Reyes family owns the property. Dela Cruz was one of the tenants for 4
decades by virtue of a contract with a specific period. A fire razed the premises
including the house of Dela Cruz. Reyes considered the lease terminated. Dela
Cruz wanted to continue occupying the same and to rebuild their house. Reyes
made several demands to vacate but Dela Cruz refused.
buyer also sent written demands to vacate but was also unheeded. Last demand
was on Jan1997.
Only on Sept1997 when Tan filed an ejectment suit with the MTC. However the
suit is not clear on whether it is for forcible entry or unlawful detainer.
Dela Cruz alleges that it is RTC which has jurisdiction because it is an accion
publiciana which is cognizable only in the RTC.
Issue: WON it is the RTC which has jurisdiction.
Ruling: NO. This is an unlawful detainer case which is under the jurisdiction of
MTC. Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of the complaint. Even if the
case is uncertain as to whether unlawful detainer or forcible entry, it was
established that Dela Cruz is a lessor of the property and the lease was
extinguished. It was also established that the case was filed within 1 year from
the last demand. Hence, the MTC has jurisdiction.
Thats why it is very important for the plaintiff to specify what kind of ejectment
case he is filing. Because if it was for accion publiciana then the MTC has no
jurisdiction.
ENFECTANA, JAZZMIN
This is a favorite case of mine.
VILLENA vs. PAYOYO
Facts:
Payoyo filed a complaint for recovery of a sum of money and damages
against Villena before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch
78.
Villenas contention: RTC should have dismissed the complaint for lack
of jurisdiction. He posits that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the
complaint since it is mainly for recovery of a sum of money in the
amount of 184,821.50 which is below the jurisdictional amount set for
RTCs.
Payoyos contention: RTC has jurisdiction over the complaint as the
Page 46 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
allegations therein show that it is actually a case for rescission of the
contracts. The recovery of a sum of money is merely a necessary
consequence of the cancellation of the contracts.
Issue: Whether or not the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the
complaint.
Ruling: Yes.
The pertinent portion of Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, as
amended by Republic Act No. 7691, provides:
SEC. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases.Regional Trial Courts shall exercise
exclusive original jurisdiction:
(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of
pecuniary estimation;
xxxx
(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorneys fees, litigation expenses, and
costs or the value of the property in controversy exceeds One Hundred
Thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in such other cases in Metro Manila,
where the demand, exclusive of the abovementioned items exceeds
Two Hundred Thousand pesos (P200,000.00).
In determining the jurisdiction of an action whose subject is incapable of
pecuniary estimation, the nature of the principal action or remedy sought
must first be ascertained.
If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is
considered capable of pecuniary estimation and the jurisdiction of the
court depends on the amount of the claim.
But, where the primary issue is something other than the right to
recover a sum of money, where the money claim is purely incidental to,
or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, such are actions whose
subjects are incapable of pecuniary estimation, hence cognizable by
the RTCs.
Verily, what determines the nature of the action and which court has
jurisdiction over it are the allegations of the complaint and the character of
the relief sought. In our considered view, the complaint, albeit entitled as
one for collection of a sum of money with damages, is one incapable of
pecuniary estimation; thus, one within the RTCs jurisdiction.
In the present case, the averments in the complaint show that Payoyo
sought the cancellation of the contracts and refund of the down payments
since Villena failed to comply with the obligation to deliver the appliances
and install the kitchen cabinets subject of the contracts.
The court then must examine the facts and the applicable law to determine
whether there is in fact substantial breach that would warrant rescission or
cancellation of the contracts and entitle the respondent for a refund. While
the respondent prayed for the refund, this is just incidental to the main
action, which is the rescission or cancellation of the contracts.
An action for rescission of contract, as a counterpart of an action for specific
performance, is incapable of pecuniary estimation, and therefore falls
under the jurisdiction of the RTC.
Definitely I do not agree with this ruling. The complaint was filed 1998 and it
was decided on 2007 for some stupid amount of 184, 821.00. This case has to go
all the way to the SC, and the SC says that an action for collection of sum of
money with the express amount of 184, 821.50 is not really not an action for
some money but something else and therefore incapable of pecuniary
estimation. I really do not agree. This is very confusing.
ATWEL vs. CONCEPCION
Jurisdiction of the RTC (Special Commercial Court)
Facts: CONCEPCION PROGRESSIVE ASSOCIATION (CPA) acquired, through
its President, a parcel of land which was later converted into a wet market
where agricultural, livestock and other farm products were sold. Rentals were
paid to CPA.
While CPA was in the process of registering as stock corporation, its other
elected officers and members formed their own group and registered
themselves in the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as officers and
members of CONCEPCION PROGRESSIVE ASSOCIATION, INC. (CPAI). Atwel,
Pilapil and Melgazo were not listed as officers or members of CPAI.
Thereafter, CPAI objected to Atwels collection of rentals from the wet market
vendors. CPAI filed a case in the SEC for mandatory injunction. With the
passage of RA 8799, the case was transferred to Branch 24 of the Southern Leyte
RTC and subsequently, to Branch 8 of the Tacloban City RTC. Both were special
commercial courts.
Atwel, Pilapil and Melgazo (CPA) went to the Court of Appeals and contested
the jurisdiction of the special commercial court over the case.
According to them, they were not CPAI members, hence the case did not
involve an intra-corporate dispute "between and among members" so as to
Page 47 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
warrant the special commercial court's jurisdiction over it.
Issue: WHETHER OR NOT THE SPECIAL COMMERCIAL COURT HAS
JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PRESENT CASE
Ruling: No, the Special Commercial Court has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the present case. It is the Regional Trial Court that has jurisdiction
over it.
Originally, Section 5 of Presidential Decree (PD) 902-A conferred on the SEC
original and exclusive jurisdiction over intra-corporate controversies. Upon the
enactment of RA 8799 in 2000, the jurisdiction of the SEC over intra-corporate
controversies and other cases enumerated in Section 5 of PD 902-A was
transferred to the courts of general jurisdiction, specifically the special
commercial court.
To determine whether a case involves an intra-corporate controversy to be
heard and decided by the special commercial court, two elements must concur:
(1) the status or relationship of the parties and
(2) the nature of the question that is subject of their controversy.
The first element requires that the controversy must arise out of intra-corporate
or partnership relations:
(a)between any or all of the parties and the corporation, partnership or
association of which they are stockholders, members or associates;
(b)between any or all of them and the corporation, partnership or
association of which they are stockholders, members or associates; and
(c)between such corporation, partnership or association and the State
insofar as it concerns their individual franchises.
On the other hand, the second element requires that the dispute among the
parties be intrinsically connected with the regulation of the corporation. If the
nature of the controversy involves matters that are purely civil in character,
necessarily, the case does not involve an intra-corporate controversy.
In the case at bar, these elements are not present. Atwel, Pilapil and Melgazo
were never officers nor members of CPAI.
Moreover, the issue in this case does not concern the regulation of CPAI (or
even CPA). The determination as to who is the true owner of the disputed
property entitled to the income generated therefrom is civil in nature and
should be threshed out in a regular court. Cases of this nature are cognizable
by the RTC under BP 129. Therefore, the conflict among the parties here was
outside the jurisdiction of the special commercial court.
So here we have question, what RTC has jurisdiction- the ordinary RTC or the
special commercial court. This intra-corporate dispute issue is very irritating
because they keep on transferring it- in the SEC, to the RTC and then back to
the SEC and then back to the RTC again. But I it is an intra-corporate dispute it
involves that happens within the corporation and among its stockholders or
officers, then that falls within the jurisdiction of the special commercial court
that handles intra-corporate dispute. But if it is not an intra-corporate, then it
falls under the jurisdiction of the ordinary RTC. Actually, same lang sila na RTC
but the question is what RTC they are talking about.
GARCIA vs EASTERN TELECOM (April 15, 2009)
Facts: Atty. Virgilio Garcia was the vice president and head business Support
Services and Human resource Department of the Eastern Telecommunications
Philippines, Inc.
He was dismissed by ETPI. This prompted him to file an illegal dismissal case
before the labor arbiter.
NLRC reversed the decision of the labor arbiter on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction. According to the NLRC, the dismissal partakes an intracorporate
controversy which is cognizable by the RTC.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the case?
RULING: Yes.
The Supreme Court, in a long line of cases, has decreed that a corporate
officers dismissal or removal is always a corporate act and/or an intra-
corporate controversy, over which the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC), now the Regional Trial Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction.
An INTRA-CORPORATE CONTROVERSY pertains to the following:
a) between the corporation, partnership or association and
the public;
b) between the corporation, partnership or association and
the State insofar as the formers franchise, permit or
license to operate is concerned;
c) between the corporation, partnership or association and
its stockholders, partners, members or officers; and
Page 48 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
d) among the stockholders partners or associates
themselves.
In the instant case, it is clear that Atty. Garcia, being the vice president of ETPI,
is a corporate officer. Thus, his case falls under the third category.
Consequently, the case is an intracorporate controversy to which the RTC has
jurisdiction.
So even the SC do not know where intra-corporate dispute should be filed.
Because according to Justice Corona, in the case of Atwel, it has to be special
commercial court. If not intra-corporate it is the RTC. Now in this case of Garcia
says that this is an intra-corporate dispute so it should be filed in the RTC. But it
did not specify what kind of RTC.
PEOPLE vs. BENIPAYO
Topic: Jurisdiction (SC, CA, RTC, MTC )
Facts: Benipayo was the Chairman of the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC). Because of the speech he delivered, information was filed
against him for Libel with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Benipayo
argued that he committed libel in relation to his office; hence the case
should be filed with the Sandiganbayan.
Issue: WON the Regional Trial Court has the jurisdiction over the case
of libel?
Ruling: YES.
Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code provides that jurisdiction over
libel cases is lodged with the Regional Trial Court. It does not matter
whether or not the crime of libel was committed in relation to
Benipayos office. The Regional Trial Court still has exclusive and
original jurisdiction to try libel and defamation cases regardless of
whether the offense is committed in relation to office.
There was also a discussion on RA 7691. RA 7691 (expanding the
jurisdiction of the MTC) did not divest the RTC of its exclusive and
original jurisdiction over libel and defamation cases.
Take note that it is not only BP 129 that confers jurisdiction on Courts knowing
there are a lot of laws, like the law on SEC in intra-corporate dispute as earlier
discussed. Now we have Art. 360, as amended by RA 4363 that states that, all
cases where defamation and libel, whether criminal or civil, are under the
jurisdiction of the RTC. And it doesnt matter if we have the Sandiganbayan Law
that tells us that if you are public officer of this particular grade and you commit
a crime in relation to your office, you are under the jurisdiction of SB.
Theres another case that just came out on October 2017, the case is De Lima v
Guerrero. Check it out. The issue here is the same as this. According to Leila De
Lima, the Ombudsman should investigate whatever it is because she is a
Senator and under the Sandiganbayan Law, crimes allegedly committed by
certain public officials with Salary Grade 27 and above in relation to their
public office fall under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and therefore she
should be investigated by the Ombudsman. But the Supreme Court already
dismissed. This was penned by Justice Presbitero Velasco but dissented by
Chief Justice Serenc wherein the majority ruled that the RTC has jurisdiction
because all drug cases, all violations under the Dangerous Drugs Act, because
she was being accused of that eh diba, dealing with drugs, or selling ano ba
yun, fall under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the RTC, designated as
a Dangerous Drugs Court. So that case is a Crim Pro case, also this one. But we
just want to emphasize that libel cases, may be civil or criminal
In the Sandiganbayan, you cannot file a purely civil case. If you want civil case
yung mga attached lang committed arising out from that criminal case lang ang
pwede sa Sandiganbayan nd administrative cases. But a purely civil case
cannot be filed with the Sandiganbayan. So if it a civil action for libel, definitely
it is with the RTC and same with criminal actions.
The Guerrero in the De Lima v Guerrero is the RTC judge that did not dismiss
the complaint against her for lack of jurisdiction.
Lets look at Bangko Filipino v Otake (note: not included the list but Maam
discussed the case)
BF Citiland v Otake
G.R. No. 173351
July 29, 2010
Under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as the Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980, the plenary action of accion publiciana must be
brought before regional trial courts. With the modifications introduced by
Republic Act No. 7691, the jurisdiction of regional trial courts has been limited
to real actions where the assessed value exceeds P20,000.00 or P50,000.00 if the
Page 49 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
action is filed in Metro Manila. If the assessed value is below the said amounts,
the action must be brought before first level courts. As so amended, BP 129 now
provides:
Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases.
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
xxxx
(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which
involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest
therein where the assessed value of the property or interest
therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00)
or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed
value does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorneys fees, litigation expenses, and costs: Provided, That in
cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value of
such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the
adjacent lots. (Emphasis supplied)
Under BP 129, as amended, jurisdiction even in accion publiciana cases is
determined by the assessed value of the property.
In the present case, the complaint, which was filed after the enactment of R.A.
7691, contained a statement that, based on the tax declaration filed in the Office
of the Assessor, the lot subject of the accion publiciana has an assessed value of
P48,000.00. A copy of the tax declaration was attached as Annex B of the
complaint. The subject lot, with an assessed value below the jurisdictional limit
of P50,000.00 for Metro Manila, comes within the exclusive original jurisdiction
of the MeTC under BP 129, as amended. Thus, the RTC erred in holding that the
MeTC had no jurisdiction in this case.
Lets go to RP v Bantigue Point.
RP v Bantigue Point
G. R. No. 162322
March 14, 2012
The delegated jurisdiction of the MTC over cadastral and land registration
cases is indeed set forth in the Judiciary Reorganization Act, which provides:
Sec. 34. Delegated Jurisdiction in Cadastral and Land Registration Cases. -
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts may be assigned by the Supreme Court to hear and determine cadastral
or land registration cases covering lots where there is no controversy or
opposition, or contested lots where the value of which does not exceed One
hundred thousand pesos (100,000.00), such value to be ascertained by the
affidavit of the claimant or by agreement of the respective claimants if there are
more than one, or from the corresponding tax declaration of the real property.
Their decision in these cases shall be appealable in the same manner as
decisions of the Regional Trial Courts. (As amended by R.A. No. 7691)
Thus, the MTC has delegated jurisdiction in cadastral and land registration
cases in two instances: first, where there is no controversy or opposition; or,
second, over contested lots, the value of which does not exceed 100,000.
The case at bar does not fall under the first instance, because petitioner
opposed respondent Corporations application for registration on 8 January
1998.
However, the MTC had jurisdiction under the second instance, because the
value of the lot in this case does not exceed 100,000.
Contrary to petitioners contention, the value of the land should not be
determined with reference to its selling price. Rather, Section 34 of the Judiciary
Reorganization Act provides that the value of the property sought to be
registered may be ascertained in three ways: first, by the affidavit of the
claimant; second, by agreement of the respective claimants, if there are more
than one; or, third, from the corresponding tax declaration of the real property.
In this case, the value of the property cannot be determined using the first
method, because the records are bereft of any affidavit executed by respondent
Page 50 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
as to the value of the property. Likewise, valuation cannot be done through the
second method, because this method finds application only where there are
multiple claimants who agree on and make a joint submission as to the value of
the property. Here, only respondent Bantigue Point Development Corporation
claims the property.
The value of the property must therefore be ascertained with reference to the
corresponding Tax Declarations submitted by respondent Corporation together
with its application for registration. From the records, we find that the assessed
value of the property is 4,330, 1,920 and 8,670, or a total assessed value of
14,920 for the entire property. Based on these Tax Declarations, it is evident
that the total value of the land in question does not exceed 100,000. Clearly,
the MTC may exercise its delegated jurisdiction under the Judiciary
Reorganization Act, as amended.
Atty S: Let me ask you a question. Its also in your case. Can you discuss that
issue regarding the questioning of the jurisdiction? When did the RP (Republic)
question the jurisdiction of the MTC?
A: When it was set into order in the RTC
Atty S: This case was filed with the RTC and it was transmitted to the MTC by the
RTC. And the MTC awarded the land to Bantigue. Where should the RP appeal?
A: Court of Appeals
Atty S: Whats your basis for saying that?
A: Sec. 34, last paragraph, of Judiciary Reorganization Act, as amended by RA
7691
xxx. Their decision in these cases shall be appealable in the same
manner as decisions of the Regional Trial Courts.
Atty S: There was an issue here related to the case of Tijam. Discuss. When or
where did the RP question the jurisdiction of the MTC?
A: Court of Appeals
Atty S: So according to Bantigue
A: According to Bantigue, the Government is estopped. But the Government is
not estopped because as a general rule, estoppel does not cover the
Government and the Tijam case is an exception wherein 15 years had already
lapsed and because of the doctrine of equity and laches, the land was awarded
to Tijam. But here it was only Court of Appeals and within a year. So the Tijam
case does not apply here.
Atty S: The general rule is what? When can you question the jurisdiction of the
court?
A: Anytime, even on appeal
Atty S: So thats the general rule. Thats what happened here. The RP did not
question the jurisdiction of the MTC while the proceedings were going on in the
MTC, only when the MTC ruled against it and then the RP appealed to the CA.
And Bantigue was saying, You cannot question the jurisdiction of the MTC
anymore because you are already in the CA and invoked the case of Tijam. But
the Supreme Court ruled that the Tijam case was an exception to the general
rule and applied only to the most exceptional cases whose facts are similar to
that of the latter case. But in this case, the MTC has jurisdiction.
So what I want to point out here is that this is delegated jurisdiction. It must be
delegated by the Supreme Court. So maybe there is already a standing
delegation because this is a case decided by Chief Justice Sereno and she did
not question the transmittal by the RTC to the MTC. So meron na sigurong
standing delegation. The important thing is it must not be either of the two: (1)
there is no controversy regarding the registration or application and if ever
there is a controversy, just like in this case there was because the RP was
opposing, (2) the value of the lots must not be more than 100,000. So for
delegated jurisdiction, there is a different value, not the 20,000 or 50,000
value because here we also talking about real property in land registration
cases. But the value must not be more than 100,000.
NOVEMBER 22, 2017
DEL ROSARIO, INAH FIRST 3O MINS
RULE 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS
The original Rules of Court was promulgated in 1964. In 1997, the Rules of Civil
Procedure, particularly Rule 1 - 56 was amended. After that, there has been no
amendment.. Rule 57 onwards have not yet been amended. Then we have
evidence amended. Crim pro was amended in 2000.
Page 51 of 147
 Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
Section 1. Title of the Rules. These Rules shall be known and cited as the
Rules of Court.
The title of the Rules under Sec. 1, Rule 1 is the Rules of Court, for the entire
thing. But as already mentioned, there are different sections of the Rules of
Court.
Sec. 2 says:
Section 2. In what courts applicable. These Rules shall apply in all the
courts, except as otherwise provided by the Supreme Court.
What do you mean by all the courts?
These Rules shall apply in all courts: MTC, RTC, SB, CA, SC.
EXCEPT: If there are special rules (i.e. IP we have the Rules governing
intellectual property rights. That is also founded by the SC. For IP cases, in the
Special Commercial Court that rule will be followed.)
What are other Rules that are not applicable? We have the Summary Rule
which is not part of the Rules of Court. It is a separate Rule.
Section 3. Cases governed. These Rules shall govern the procedure to be
observed in actions, civil or criminal and special proceedings.
a) A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the
enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of
a wrong.
A civil action may either be ordinary or special. Both are
governed by the rules for ordinary civil actions, subject to the
specific rules prescribed for a special civil action.
b) A criminal action is one by which the State prosecutes a person for
an act or omission punishable by law.
c) A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to
establish a status, a right, or a particular fact.
What are the cases governed by the Rules? These Rules shall govern the
procedure to be observed in actions, civil or criminal because Sec 3 talks
about the entire Rules of Court. So we have civil procedure, criminal law
procedure, special proceedings.
The more common used is case. As in Im going to file a case. But for our
purposes in remedial law, the proper term is action. Im going to file a civil
action or criminal action.
general term: case
proper term: action (i.e. going to file a civil action or criminal action)
What is a civil action? It is one by which a party sues another for the
enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong.
(1) there is always two or more parties (because one sues another)
(2) there must be a defendant (if youre talking about a civil action)
(3) purpose of suing the other person: to enforce or protect ones
right; to prevent or redress a wrong committed by the
defendant
KINDS OF CIVIL ACTIONS
(1) ORDINARY
Both civil actions are governed by the Rules for ordinary civil actions.
Even though there are 2 kinds of civil actions, they are covered by the
rules for ordinary civil actions, subject to the specific rules prescribed
for a civil action.
What are the civil actions?
1) Rules 1-56 govern:
Page 52 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
Action for collection of sum of money Special Proceding is not a civil action because in a special proceeding, a
party seeks to establish a status, a right or a particular fact. In a special
Accion Publiciana proceeding, there is no defendant.
Specific Performance
2) Rules 57-61 govern Provisional Remedies which remedies What is a special proceeding? is a remedy by which a party seeks to
available to a remedy to a case while a case is pending establish a status, a right, or a particular fact.
no defendant
(2) SPECIAL examples
1) Rule 62-71 a) petition for adoption to establish status as an adopted
child
Rule 62: Interpleader
b) petition for administration when a person dies intestate;
Rule 63: Declaratory Relief
petitioner her wants tto be given the right to adminsiter the
Rule 64: Review of Final Decisions or Resolutions of the properties of the decedent
Comelec or COA
someone here appears to oppose the petition as
Rule 65: Petitions for Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus, etc. distinguished from not to file against someone

Rule 66: Quo warranto

Rule 67: Expropriation For example, what is the most popular kind of special proceeding? A petition
for adoption wherein the petitioner wants the court to establish his status as an
Rule 68: Foreclosure of Mortgage adopted child. So, to establish a status. What else? Petition for administration.
When a person dies intestate, meaning with no will and he has properties
Rule 69: Partition
there is a need for an administrator to administer (i.e. pay the taxes, the debts
Rule 70: Forcible Entry and distribute the properties among the heirs.) A petition for administration is a
special proceeding where the petitioner wants to be given a right to administer
Rule 71: Unlawful detainer the properties of the deceased person. In these kinds of proceedings, there
could be an oppositor. This is not a party against whom the case is filed. Rather,
2) also governed by ordinary Rules 1-61 it is someone who appears in the case to oppose the petition. It is different from
a civil action.

Within Rule 65, there are certain procedures to be followed. But it doesnt
mean that the ordinary rules are not applicable. Ordinary rules are also Special Proceedings are governed by Rule 72-109. Just before Criminal
applicable such as petitions for certiorari, mandamus, because Rule 65 Procedure. This is taken up in 3rd year.
cannot tackle everything.

Page 53 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
How do you distinguish a civil action from a special proceeding? You have
the definitions there in Sec. 3.
There are 2 definite adverse parties:
Plaintiff one who demands a right
Defendants from whom the right is sought.
In Special Proceedings, there is a definite petitioner who petitions the court for
something but there is no definite adverse party. It may be that no one will
oppose the petition.
Civil actions are governed by pleadings while a special proceeding is initiated
by a petition.
By the way, regarding ordinary civil actions, and special civil actions, as
already mentioned for special civil actions, in every rule that you encounter,
there are specific rules to follow. But these rules in special civil actions cannot
cover everything. In cases where these rules are silent, the ordinary rules
apply.
What if there is conflict between a rule in an ordinary civil action and a
special civil action?
In case of conflict with a specific rule, follow the specific provision.
Ex. In an ordinary civil action, if the plaintiff files a complaint, the
defendant has 15 days to file an Answer. For petitions for certiorari, you
have a petitioner filing for certiorari. The respondent has, according to
Rule 65, 30/60 (Maam unsure) days to file the Im not sure kasi with
Special Civil Actions. Anyway, since there is a special rule there, then
follow that. If there is conflict as to the days, since it is a petition for
certiorari, you follow the rule on certiorari.
But if the Rules on Special Civil Actions are silent, then that is when you apply
the Ordinary Rules.
Ambeti vs. CA (159 SCRA 659) X filed a petition for certiorari before the
court a special civil action. Before Y could answer, X withdrew the petition.
Later on, X changed his mind, and re-filed the petitoin. Can he re-file the
petition? Is this allowed? When he withdrew, is this with prejudice or without?
There is nothing in Rule 65 which talks about withdrawing, re-filing. So, is it not
allowed? SC said one must apply the ordinary rules.
GABATAN VS. CA
Facts: An ordinary civil action was filed by Lourdes Pacana an action for
recovery of ownership and possession against the heirs of Teofilo Gabatan
(brother of Juan Gabatan.) During the pendency of the case, here comes 2
parties, X and Y, they are claiming to be the heirs of Juan Gabatan under
whose name the lot was declared for tax purposes.
Issue: Can the RTC, where the ordinary civil action was filed, rule on
whether or not X and Y are heirs?
Ruling: NO. To determine heirship, there has to be a special proceeding
which seeks to establish a right, and status. They cannot be combined in one
case. However, since the parites have already presented their evidence
before the RTC, the SC ruled that there is no need for a special proceeding.
Note: An Ordinary Civil Action cannot be combined with a Special Proceeding
because it is different. A Civil Action is governed by a different set of rules: the
rules on ordinary civil actions. A Special Proceeding is governed by its own
rules under Rule 72-109. As you can see here, the Ordinary Civil action here
was accion reinvindicatoria and accion publiciana where the plaintiff wants to
recover ownership and possession of this land from the defendant. Here come
X and Y alleging that they are the heirs of the owner of the land. The RTC that is
handling the ordinary civil action cannot rule on that. Since it is a special
proceeding, it must be filed separately. But, that is the general rule. Since in
this case, the RTC had already made a determination, the SC said that it would
be costly and would be a waste of time and effort and remand it and separated.
Sige na lang but you did it. But as a general rule, it must be done in a separate
proceeding.
Page 54 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
SUNTAY VS. COJUANGCO-SUNTAY
Facts: Isabel filed a special proceeding of Petition for Issuance of Letters of
Administration of the Intestate Estate of her late grandmother. Federico,
(widower-grandfather) filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition.
Issue: Whether the motion to dismiss in a special proceeding is
inappropriate.
Ruling: YES. The Motion to Dismiss at this junction is inappropriate.
Must consider the nature of special proceeding. A remedy in a special
proceeding is not against a specific defendant. In this case, if there is no
qualified heir. While Special Proceedings are governed by Rules of Civil
Procedure, it pertains specfically to the Rules 72-109. However, examining
these Rules, there is no procedure as to the filing of the motion to dismiss.
Thus, Court applied the rule on Ordinary Civil Action, particularly, Sec. 1,
Rule 16, which provides that a motion to dismiss may be filed within the time
for but on or before filing of the complaint. In an ordinary civil action, it is
called an Answer. In special proceedings it is called an opposition. In a
Special Proceeding, a motion to dismiss is supposed to be filed on or before
the filing of the opposition. In this case, the motion to dismiss was filed almost
two years after the opposition. The motion to dismiss is not allowed.
Note: Here you have a motion to dismiss in a special proceeding that is
covered by the Rules on Special Proceeding which is Rule 72-109. But there is
nothing in Rule 72-109 about a motion to dismiss. So does that mean that a
motion to dismiss is not allowed in Special Proceedings? NO. One may use
the Ordinary Rules suppletorily or by analogy. What is considered an answer in
a special proceeding? It is a opposition. Under the Ordinary Rules, one must file
Motion to Dismiss before the filing of the answer. So, in this case, the motion to
dismiss was filed after the opposition. That is not the correct procedure. By
applying the Rules on Motion to Dismiss it should be filed before the responsive
pleading. The motion to dismiss was considered to have been filed out of
time by applying the ordinary rules.
DEIPARINE, ANGEL 31-1 HR
Atty S: Here, we have a special proceeding. It is governed by the Rules on
Special Proceedings Rule 72-109, but there is nothing there about a Motion to
Dismiss. Does that mean that a Motion to Dismiss is not allowed in a special
proceeding?
Accdg to the Supreme Court, there is nothing there from 72-109. You may use
the ordinary rules suppletorily. Use it by analogy. What is considered the
Answer in a special proceeding? The Opposition.
Under the Ordinary Rules, if you want to file a Motion to Dismiss you have to file
it before you file your Answer.You cannot file your Answer then Motion to
Dismiss. Baliktad.
In this case, the Motion to Dismiss was filed after the Opposition. That is not the
correct procedure. By applying the rules on Motion, this should be filed before
the responsive pleading. The Motion to Dismiss is considered to have been
filed out of time, by applying the Ordinary Rules.
So even though not directly applicable, it can be applied suppletorily.
Pilar vda de Manalo vs CA
Eight children filed a petition, which is a special proceeding, for the judicial
settlement of the estate and for the appointment of their brother as
administrator.
The wife, Pilar vda de Manalo, filed their opposition to said petition. They
contended that:
1. The complaint contains certain averments which are adversarial in nature.
2. Pilar was an adverse party.
3. Absence of earnest efforts towards a compromise among members of the
family which is required in civil actions.
ISSUE
Whether the petition is a special proceeding or a civil action.
RULING
It is a special proceeding.
Page 55 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
It is a fundamental rule that, in the determination of the nature of an action or
proceeding, the averments and the character of the relief sought in the
complaint or petition shall be controlling.
In this case, the petition contains sufficient jurisdictional facts required in the
judicial settlement of an estate.
Further, earnest efforts towards a compromise among members of the family is
not applicable in the case at bar because it only applies to ordinary civil
actions.
Pilar vda de Manalo was not sued here. Although the petition contains certain
averments which are typical of an ordinary civil action, Pilar merely took
advantage and filed an opposition. The eight children here only seek to
establish a status, right or seek to establish the fact of death of their father and
be duly recognized among the heirs of their father.
Natcher vs CA
(reported by Atty S)
Graciano and his wife Graciana owned a lot. When Graciana died, Graciano
and his 6 children entered into extra-judicial settlement of Gracianas estate.
They partitioned the lot. Now, Graciano had his share of the lot.
Graciano married Patricia Natcher. In 1980, he sold his share of the lot to
Patricia. In 1985, Graciano died leaving as his heirs Patricia and his 6 children
with Graciana.
Now, the 6 children filed a civil action for reconveyance before the RTC against
Patricia. The 6 heirs contend that the lot sold to Patricia is not valid because
H&W cannot sell to each other.
Patricia claims that even if the sale is void, she is an heir. RTC ruled in favor of
Patricia. Patricia has rights because she is an heir.
ISSUE:
Is the RTC correct in ruling that Patricia has a right as an heir?
RULING:
No. The action that was filed was an ordinary civil action for reconveyance of a
parcel of land.
Whether or not Patricia is an heir of Graciano, that is supposed to be threshed
out in a special proceeding. That cannot be done in an Ordinary Civil Action.
So, the RTC was not correct in ruling that Patricia is an heir of Graciano.
Montaner vs Carpio
1956- Risa Kho married Alejandro Montaner. Sr. 1995- Alejandro Sr died.
In 2005, one Liling and daughter Alma filed a complaint for the judicial partition
of properties before the Sharia district courts which is a special civil action.
Liling alleged that she is the first wife. Liling prayed for the partition of the
estate and that she be appointed as the administrator.
ISSUE
Whether the complaint filed is a special civil action or a special proceeding.
RULING:
Unlike a civil action which has adverse parties, a special proceeding does not
have adverse parties. It only has one party.
In the case at bar, the estate is not sued for any cause of action. The purpose of
the settlement of the estate is to determine all the assets of the estate and its
liabilities and to distribute its residual to those that are entitled to the same.
Even if the title is a complaint for judicial partition, it treated the case as a
special proceeding because what is controlling is the body and not the title.
Atty S: Here, the lawyer of Liling filed a Complaint. When you see the word
Complaint, it is a civil action. Because if it is a special proceeding, it is called a
petition.
Not only that, the complaint was for judicial partition of properties. Partition is
under Rule 69. Co-owners ang mag-kalaban.
Page 56 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
But when you talk about somebody who died and leaving an estate, that is
settlement. That is a special proceeding. And there is no kalaban here. None.
The petitioner is only asking for the estate to be settled. Walang kalaban. But
then, because of the error committed by the counsel in filing Complaint for
Partition, it seemed like a civil action. But in truth and in fact, what Liling was
asking for was the settlement of the estate and her appointment as
administrator because she is claiming that she is the first wife of Montaner. So,
in truth and in fact, it is a special proceeding.
Can it still be filed in the Sharia District Courts? Yes, but the Sharia District
Court will now be a court of limited jurisdiction. Hanggang doon lang siya sa
settlement and administration. It cannot rule on other issues.
Section 4. In what case not applicable. These Rules shall not apply to election
cases, land registration, cadastral, naturalization and insolvency proceedings,
and other cases not herein provided for, except by analogy or in a suppletory
character and whenever practicable and convenient.
They have their own rules. But this is not an exclusive list. There are other cases
and proceedings that have their own rules. But the Rules may be applied by
analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient.
Example: Violation of the Election Code. Thats a criminal offense. WON a party
may go to jail. This is governed by the Rules on Criminal Procedure, but
sometimes the Rules (CivPro) may be applied.
What rules are not normally applied in these cases are the Rules on Evidence.
Because in ordinary actions, there is a specific weight of presenting evidence,
but of these other cases, there is a different way of presenting evidence.
Lets go to Section 5. Section 5 is very simple.
Section 5. Commencement of action. A civil action is commenced by the
filing of the original complaint in court. If an additional defendant is impleaded
in a later pleading, the action is commenced with regard to him on the dated of
the filing of such later pleading, irrespective of whether the motion for its
admission, if necessary, is denied by the court.
The plaintiff is the one who files the complaint. We already know that the courts
acquire the jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff upon filing of the
complaint. At the same time, the civil action is commenced.
A complaint is always P vs D.
Examp: Lets say, on June 10, P filed a civil action against D(debtor). June 15, P
amends his complain and includes D2 (Surety). So, as to D2, the action was only
filed in June 15. This is very important because of PRESCRIPTION.
ENFECTANA, JAZZMIN 1.1-1.31
Started:
This is very important because of prescription. You will learn under Maritime
Commerce that we have ship owner and ship agent.
The ship agent is very significant entity in Maritime Commerce.
Yang mga shipping lines coming to Philippines. They dont have offices here.
They are not registered. They just bring goods.
These foreign shipping lines are represented by agents. Under COGSA, the
prescriptive period is one year from arrival of goods. So if you are the shipper
or consignee, the goods are lost or destroyed, then you have to file within one
year.
Say shipper is d1. The goods arrived June 11, 2016. June 10 fi-nile-lan si ship-
owner. Ay sabi ni consignee Nakalimutan ko si ship agent! Siya ang nasa
Pinas! Filed June 15.
In many cases in Transpo, the ship agent can no longer be included.
Nagprescribe na.
That is why when you file, you better make sure you include all the parties.
Otherwise, it might be subject of a motion to dismiss on the ground of
prescription.
So Section 5 is very very simple.
Ang problema nito is jurisprudence, and this issue is sooooo convoluted and
controversial. Where it came from? I dont know. Why it became an issue? I
have no idea.
Page 57 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
Not even mentioned in Section 5, the SC via jurisprudence is telling us that it is
not only the filing of the complaint that commences an action.
There has to be payment of docket fees.
So what is the effect of non-payment? What is the effect of filing complaint tapos
kulang?
That is what we will discuss because there are actually two schools of thought
when it comes to the non-payment or the payment was improper or inexact
amount.
The first school of thought was established in 1987 case of Manchester vs CA
Manchester v CA
Manchester filed a complaint for damages and specific performance vs Civil
Land for certain property and there is also forfeiture of payment from
Manchester by Civil Land which led to damages being asked by Manchester.
In the body of complaint, the total damages suffered was over 78m pesos. This
amount was not specified in the prayer of complaint.
Manchester paid docket fee of 410 pesos because the action filed was for
specific performance.
Manchester filed an amended complaint. They eliminated the amount of
damages.
TC ordered to state damages. Manchester complied and reduced amount to
10m as damages, but this was only in the body of complaint and not specified in
prayer.
ISSUE
Whether TC erred in admitting amended complaint despite the failure of
Manchester to pay appropriate docket fee
RULING
AMENDED COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED
TC should not have admitted amended complaint. Case is deemed filed only
upon payment of docket fee. The basis of assessment should be the amount of
damages sought in the original complaint and not the damages found in the
amended complaint.
Because if you pay the docket fee based on amended complaint, it will no
longer vest jurisdiction anymore.
In this case, the TC did not acquire jurisdiction. Manchester paid 410 pesos and
it was based an action for specific performance. But the action that was filed was
for specific performance and damages.
In the original complaint, the amount of damages sought by Manchester was
specified in the body. This should have been the basis of assessment of filing
fee.
The amendment of complaint does not vest jurisdiction over the court.
In this case, it is as if no original complaint was filed which could be amended.
The order given by the court as well as in subsequent proceeding was all null
and void.
Manchesters act in continuous omission of damages in the prayer of complaint,
was actually a design to avoid payment of required docket fee. To stop this
irregularity, the SC ordered that all complaints, petitions and answers must
specify the amount of damages not only in the body but also in the prayer of the
complaint. These damages will be considered in assessing the filing fees.
The failure to comply with this rule, then the pleading would not be accepted,
admitted , and it will be expunged from the record.
This case gives us this particular phrase: The court acquired no jurisdiction
over the case What do you mean by that? I have no idea.
We only have four elements of jurisdiction in civil cases. This and that. May
bago nap ala, the case. Jurisdiction over the case was acquired pala. Where
did it come from? Jurisprudence. It did not specify.
Forget about that part.
This case is saying, you file a complaint you pay the proper docket fees.
Who computes the docket fees? Clerk of Court. You go there and he will look
and (interruption sa ppt presentation)
This is a very simple complaint. (shows sample complaint in class)
Page 58 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
You have the body which says that the loan is 350k. Then you have the prayer
where the amount is repeated. That is what the plaintiff wants the court to award
him, 350k. So when a complaint is filed before the Clerk of Court, it will not
read the body. Di yan sila lawyer. Diretso na yan sa likod, sa prayer. Ay 350k.
Okay compute siya. This is what you will pay.
What happened here? The complaint was very long. The amount in the body
was 78m, but the prayer was different. It was only for specific performance.
Incapable of pecuniary estimation, so standard fee of 410 pesos.
The Supreme Court here said that you file the complaint and you do not pay the
proper docket fees because you hid the amount in the body, the complaint is
not considered filed.
I agree with that.
Ang problema sa akin yung acquired jurisdiction over the case. Anong case???
Thats not provided by our Rules.
Focus na lang tayo sa the complaint not being considered filed.
So if you file an amended complaint, anong ina-amend mo? Ano yun? The court
did not acquire jurisdiction kasi he did not pay the proper docket fees in the
first place eh.
So what is the effect if you do not state the amount of damages? An amendment
will not cure a defect. A complaint was not considered filed. So you file another
complaint. Re-file it. Pay ka ulit ng docket fees. Proper and complete docket
fees.
Now, unfortunately not all justices think this way. Because two years later here
comes a case where the SC says Ahhh. Pwede yan
Sun Insurance v CA
FACTS
Original complaint Manuel v Sun Insurance for fire insurance policy.
Basically the same thing happened.
Prayer: no amount. Body: damages was pegged at 50m
Basically same. Amount lang different.
He paid 210php as docket fee. Amended complaint, this time meron
nang damages. He paid docket fees.
RTC admitted amended complaint. Sun Insurance: Motion to Dismiss.
Manchester was decided in 1987. CA denied motion to dismiss. Ordered TC to
re-assess docket fee. Manuel paid docket fees.
Sun Insurance: 257k should have been the docket fee
ISSUE:
Whether the RTC has jurisdiction.
YES RTC HAS JURISDICTION; LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION
A more liberal interpretation is to be applied in this case.
Manchester does not apply. There is no factor of defrauding the government.
In Manchester, there was no payment until the case was decided. Here,
Manuel demonstrated willingness to abide by the rules.
RTC had jurisdiction.
The Court summarized the rules.
1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory
pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court
with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action.
2. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by
payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a
reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or
reglementary period.
3. The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third party claims
and similar pleadings, which shall not be considered filed until and unless the
filing fee prescribed therefor is paid. The court may also allow payment of said
fee within a reasonable time but also in no case beyond its applicable
prescriptive or reglementary period.
4. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the filing of
the appropriate pleading and payment of the prescribed filing fee but,
subsequently, the judgment awards a claim not specified in the pleading, or if
specified the same has been left for determination by the court, the additional
filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the judgment.
5. It shall be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized
deputy to enforce said lien and assess and collect the additional fee.
Page 59 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
So okay. This issue noh of acquiring jurisdiction is making a mockery of rules
on jurisdiction. Kasi meron na naming acquire jurisdiction over nature of action.
Pero ditto meron dawng acquired jurisdiction.
Anywaaaaayyyy
Do you remember the winged wall? Justice Gangcayco. Same justice here. The
winged wall justice, the one who did not want to give the pedestrian space to
walk in EDSA.
Ang problema kasi I dont want to discuss jurisdiction pero baka lumabas sa
bar. So you have to take note of what these justices are saying. Well. They are
the SC justices.
This is even an en banc decision.
Wala akong problema sa decision. Pero.. hay.
Anywaaaay. What is the rule in Sun Insurance?
What is the difference?
In Sun Insurance, nagbayad ng instalment. Sabi ng SC, walang blatant attempt
to defraud the government. Sa Manchester, 410 pesos lang siya. Hindi talaga
nagbayad. Nabwiset ang Supreme Court.
So what is the rule? It is relaxed.
2. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied
by payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee
within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable
prescriptive or reglementary period.
This means that if you file a complaint, the running of prescriptive period will
not stop. It could continue. If you managed to pay before the action prescribed,
then that is fine. Pay additional.
What if nagprescribe na? 10 years na lumipas. You have to re-file.
4. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the
filing of the appropriate pleading and payment of the prescribed filing
fee but, subsequently, the judgment awards a claim not specified in the
pleading, or if specified the same has been left for determination by the
court, the additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the
judgment.
The Court is not supposed to award something that is not specified. That is
jurisdiction over the issue. If not brought up, then the court has no business to
tackle that.
In any case if it does, for example the plaintiff is only asking for moral damages
pero ang court nainis talaga sa defendant so nag-award ng exemplary
damages, may counterpart docket fees yan. That will be a lien on the judgment.
1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate
initiatory pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket fee, that
vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of
the action.
Okay.
5. It shall be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly
authorized deputy to enforce said lien and assess and collect the
additional fee.
Okay.
There is another case where the Supreme Court en banc penned by former CJ
Narvasa in the same year, 1989, clarified Sun Insurance.
SINGANON, LEXI 1.31-2 HRS
Tacay vs RTC of Tagum
Issue: Whether or not the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case
by not specifying the amounts of damages prayed for and for not filing the
docket fees required
Held: NO. The court acquired jurisdiction over the case but with qualifications.
Where the action is purely for the recovery of money or damages:
1. The docket fees are assessed on the basis of the aggregate amount claimed,
exclusive only of interests and costs. In this case, the complaint according to
Page 60 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
Circular No. 7 of this Court, "specify the amount of damages being prayed for
not only in the body of the pleading but also in the prayer, and said damages
shall be considered in the assessment of the filing fees in any case."
Two (2) situations may arise:
1. Where the complaint or similar pleading sets out a claim purely for money or
damages and there is no precise statement of the amounts being claimed.
(a) The complaint or pleading may be dismissed, or the claims as to
which the amounts are unspecified may be expunged; or
(b) The Court may permit amendment of the complaint and payment of
the fees provided the claim has not in the meantime become time-barred.
2. The other is where the pleading does specify the amount of every claim, but
the fees paid are insufficient;
The rule now is that the court may allow a reasonable time for
the payment of the prescribed fees, or the balance thereof, and upon such
payment, the defect is cured and the court may properly take cognizance of
the action, unless in the meantime prescription has set in and consequently
barred the right of action.
Where the action involves real property and a related claim for damages
as well,
The legal fees shall be assessed on the basis of both
(a) the value of the property
(b) the total amount of related damages sought.
The Court acquires jurisdiction over the action if the filing of the initiatory
pleading is accompanied by the payment of the requisite fees OR as of the
time of full payment of the fees within such reasonable time as the court
may grant, unless, of course, prescription has set in the meantime.
In the case at bar, the fees prescribed for an action involving real property
have been paid, but the amounts of certain of the related damages (actual,
moral and nominal) being demanded are unspecified, the action may not be
dismissed.
(a) The Court has jurisdiction over the action involving the real
property, acquiring it upon the filing of the complaint or similar pleading
and payment of the prescribed fee.
(b) As for the claims for damages because of lack of specification
thereof, the court has option whether to simply to expunge those claims for
damages or to allow filing of an amendment. In this case, the Courts did
expunge those claims for damages as to which no amounts are stated.
So thats why it is very important to specify. If its accion publiciana, you should
state the assessed value of the land you want to recover. And if you want
damages in addition to the recovery, you have to specify actual damages in the
amount of P100,000 involving the amounts paid for the security guard, mga
ganun noh. Specify moral damages in the amount of P100,000. Dito, what did the
plaintiff ask? Damages as proven and as the court may award. No value. So that
is to escape the payment of docket fees. But the Supreme Court said no, you
cannot do that. You have to specify and pay the docket fees within reasonable
time as the court may order or until prescription sets in.
So these two rules are really contradicting each other. Because in Manchester:
No, dismiss the case. You cannot even amend. While in Sun Insurance and
Tacay: Allow them to pay within reasonable time or until prescription sets in.
Now how do you know what doctrine to apply? You have to read the cases. You
have to look at the facts. Thats the problem with this issue. Sana isa na lang,
strikto na lang sila or liberal na lang sila. Why is it that the Supreme Court has to
have two opposing views when it comes to the nonpayment or incomplete
payment of the docket fees?
Lets just go to some other issues.
Filipinas Shell says there is no such things as File now, pay later. You have to
pay the docket fees. That will be the date of filing, upon the payment of the
complete docket fees.
In Lacson vs Reyes, the court held that docket fees must be paid when it comes
to the filing of a motion asking the court to direct his client to pay attorneys
fees.
Lets say X is the lawyer of P and P files an action for collection of money. Hindi
nag-bayad ng lawyers fees. X here would in that case file a motion asking the
court to order his client to pay him. Sabi ng court, Magbayad ka muna ng
Page 61 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
docket fees sa motion mo because youre also asking the court to award you
money. Your attorneys fees also have a corresponding docket fee.
In Suson, the court held that docket fees cannot be recycled. If a dismissed case
is re-filed, another set of docket fees have to be paid.
You cannot say, Ay, nagbayad na man ako ng docket fees. Dismissed na yung
kaso mo. Wala na, thats it. Forget your docket fees.
In Korea Technologies, kasi in the case of Sun Insurance, in compulsory
counterclaims, theres no need to pay docket fees. However, in this case of
Korea Technologies, the Supreme Court reminded everyone of AM-04-2-04,
that all counterclaims require docket fees to be paid.
NOVEMEBER 23, 2017
DEIPARINE, ANGEL FIRST 30 MINS
PROTON vs BANQUE NATIONAL PARIS
BNP filed before the RTC a complaint against Proton praying they be ordered to
pay $1.5M. The clerk of court assessed the docket fees which BNP also paid.
Proton filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the RTC did not have
jurisdiction since there was payment of the incorrect amount of docket fees. It
based its contention on Administrative Circular 11-94, the assessment of the
docket fees must include the interest and other related charges thereon. In the
this case, the computation did not include the interest.
Another is as to the conversion of the amount into pesos, Proton is claiming that
there is insufficient payment of docket fees since in the computation of the clerk
of court, the conversion rate is $1=P43. However, the correct conversion rate at
the time of the filing of the complaint is P43.21.
RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss ruling that there was a presumption of
regularity in the performance of the duty of the clerk of court when it applied
the conversion rate. CA affirmed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not BNP paid the correct docket fees.
Whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the complaint.
RULING:
No, BNP did not pay the correct docket fees since at the time of the filing of the
complaint, Administrative Circular 11-94 was already in effect. It states there
that in the assessment of the docket fees, it must include the interest claimed,
the damages, attorneys fees, expenses and other costs.
Here, when BNP filed the complaint, they did not specifically allege the amount
of interest they are claiming. That is why in the computation of the docket fees,
it was not included.
Another is that, CA erred when they said that there was presumption of
regularity. It was just a presumption. It was rebutted by documentary evidence
when it was proven that at the time of the filing of the complaint, the correct
conversion rate was $1=P43.21. Clearly, there was insufficient docket fees that
was paid.
As to its effect, the SC that the ruling in Manchester vs CA, wherein the RTC did
not acquire jurisdiction over the case since there was insufficient payment of
docket fees, such rule did not apply here. In that case, there was clearly an
effort to defraud the government in avoiding the correct payment of the docket
fees. Whereas here, there was no such intention to defraud the government.
In the case at bar, BNP merely relied on the assessment made by the clerk of
court which turned out to be incorrect. So here, the SC ordered the clerk of
court to assess the correct docket fees which BNP must pay within a reasonable
time provided that prescription will not set in.
Here, a more liberal interpretation of the rules was applied.
Atty S: The clerk of court computes the amount of docket fees. Here, the
amounts must be specified so that the clerk of court will not have difficulty.
What you have to take note here is the WON there is intention to defraud the
government. If so, the Manchester ruling shall apply.
MONTANER VS CARPIO
(supra)
Atty S: When do these issues arise: the nonpayment or incomplete payment of
docket fees? When the defendant complains, and files a Motion to Dismiss.
Page 62 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
If you are the defendant, and you complain that there is incomplete payment or
nonpayment of the docket fees, you need to show proof and basis. So if you are
saying that the docket fees should be in this amount, you need to show proof. It
is not enough that you say Plaintiff did not pay the correct docket fees.
RSBRDC vs FORMARAN
RSB obtained a P95M loan in from Tan and Obiedo, secured by REM over five
parcels of land located in Naga City. RSB failed to pay the loan despite being
granted several extensions. It was agreed that RSB should execute deeds of
absolute sale over the five parcel of lands in lieu of payment (i.e. dacion en
pago).
Without payment having been made by RSB, Tan and Obiedo presented the
Deeds of Absolute Sale, as a result of which, they were able to secure TCTs
over the five parcels of land in their names.
RSB filed before the RTC a Complaint against respondents Tan and Obiedo for
declaration of nullity of deeds of sales and damages. RSBs causes of actions
were: (a) pactum commissorium; and (b) bad faith by Tan and Obediedo.
Upon filing its Complaint with the RTC, RSB paid the sum of P13,644.25 for
docket and other legal fees, as assessed by the Office of the Clerk of Court. The
Clerk of Court initially considered the case as an action incapable of pecuniary
estimation and computed the docket and other legal fees due thereon
according to Section 7(b)(1), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court.
Tan filed before the RTC an Omnibus Motion in which he contended that the
civil case involved real properties, the docket fees for which should be
computed in accordance with Section 7(a), not Section 7(b)(1), of Rule 141 of
the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC which took effect on 16
August 2004. Since petitioner did not pay the appropriate docket fees for the
civil case, the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the said case. Hence,
respondent Tan asked the RTC to issue an order requiring RSB to pay the
correct and accurate docket fees and should RSB fail to do so, to deny and
dismiss the case.
RTC ordered RSB to pay additional filing fee and Tan was also ordered to pay
docket and filing fees on his counterclaim.
CA upheld RTC, saying that the objectives of RSB in filing the complaint were to
cancel the deeds of sale and ultimately, to recover possession of the same. It is
therefore a real action. Consequently, the additional docket fees that must be
paid cannot be assessed in accordance with Section 7(b). As a real action,
Section 7(a) must be applied in the assessment and payment of the proper
docket fee.
RTC, instead of dismissing outright RSBs Complaint, granted RSB time to pay
the additional docket fees. Despite the seeming munificence of the RTC,
petitioner refused to pay the additional docket fees assessed against it,
believing that it had already paid the correct amount before, pursuant to
Section 7(b)(1), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended.
ISSUE
For the purposes of paying the correct amount of docket fees, whether or not
the annulment of deed of sale involving a real property is incapable of
pecuniary estimation.
RULING
No. Case is a real action.
After Tan and Obiedo had the Deeds of Absolute Sale presented to the Register
of Deeds, they were already issued TCTs over the real properties in question,
in their own names. No matter how fastidiously RSB attempts to conceal them,
the allegations and reliefs it sought in its Complaint appears to be ultimately a
real action, involving as they do the recovery by RSM of its title to and
possession of the five parcels of land from Tan and Obiedo.
While it is true that RSB does not directly seek the recovery of title or
possession of the property in question, his action for annulment of sale and his
claim for damages are closely intertwined with the issue of ownership of the
building which, under the law, is considered immovable property, the recovery
of which is RSB's primary objective. The prevalent doctrine is that an action for
the annulment or rescission of a sale of real property does not operate to efface
the fundamental and prime objective and nature of the case, which is to recover
said real property. It is a real action.
Page 63 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
Considering that the complaint is a real action, the Rule requires that the
assessed value of the property, or if there is none, the estimated value thereof
shall be alleged by the claimant and shall be the basis in computing the fees.
A real action indisputably involves real property. The docket fees for a real
action would still be determined in accordance with the value of the real
property involved therein; the only difference is in what constitutes the
acceptable value. In computing the docket fees for cases involving real
properties, the courts, instead of relying on the assessed or estimated value,
would now be using the fair market value of the real properties (as stated in the
Tax Declaration or the Zonal Valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue,
whichever is higher) or, in the absence thereof, the stated value of the same.
Lets say you have real property, a parcel of land. Look at the
assessed value. If the AV is Php20,000, it is the MTC which has jurisdiction.
What if the plaintiff is asking for damages, interests, etc. of Php300,000, saan
ang jurisdiction? MTC parin. Because you only have to look at the assessed
value to determine jurisdiction.
To determine the amount of docket fees to be paid:
You do not only look at the assessed value. If the assessed value is only
Php20,000 but the FMV is 2M, then where do you file that? MTC pa rin. But the
docket fees will not be based on the 20,000. It will be based on the 2M, plus all
the damages, interests which the plaintiff claims. The total amount will be the
basis for the computation of the docket/ filing fees.

CAMPANER, MARRIE ALLEXA 31-1 HR

For the determination of the amount of docket fees, look at the market value of
the property involved.

We have two columns on the board:

Assessed Value Fair Market Value

Exclusive Totality

- Use the assessed value in order
to determine jurisdiction
(whether MTC, RTC)
- Claims for damages and interest
will not be included. Thus, only
the assessed value is
considered.
- use the FMV for assessing the
amount of docket fee to be paid
- Totality Rule will apply, so include the
amount for damages and interest in
addition to the fair market value

If you want to determine what court has jurisdiction:

Page 64 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
In the case of RSBRDC vs. Formaran, the SC said apply Section 7(a).
Lets also look at De Ungria vs. CA. De Ungria vs CA
Facts: Rosario with her children filed a complaint for ownership, possession
and damages before the RTC. Such complaint was with alternative causes of
action. Apart from the complaint, she also would like the documents as null
and void, and in case it is adjudged valid, to recover her share in the conjugal
property.
Ciferina, the defendant, filed a motion to dismiss arhuing that RTC has no
jurisdiction due to failure of paying the docket fee in full. In determining the
amount of docket fees to be paid, the basis is the assessed value. Given that
AV is 12,780, it should have been the basis.
Issue:
WON RTC has jurisdiction. YES
WON there is proper payment of docket fees. YES
Ruling:
At first glance, MTC has jurisdiction since it appears to be real property, and
12k assessed value. However, Rosario has other alternative causes of action
- to declare nullity of documents or the recovery of her conjugal share.
According to the SC, this constitutes a joinder of causes of action which
comprehends more than the issue of possession but includes an action to
annul. Thus, it is incapable of pecuniary estimation (Sec. 19(1), BP 129), and it
is the RTC which has jurisdiction.
There was proper payment of docket fee pursuant to Rule 141 Section 7(b)(1)
which should be applied since it is not capable of pecuniary estimation.
Hence, the 410 docket fee paid (fixed for incapable of pecuniary estimation)
was correct.
So it has a different resolution to the previous case of RSBRDC. It just really
depends on the SCs mood. As to why, I have no idea. I am just showing to you
the different sides.
NOVEMBER 27, 2017
BALGOA,PATRICIA FIRST 30 MINS
Sec. 6 Construction. These rules shall be liberally construed in order to
promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition
of every action and proceeding. (2a)
How should we construe the rules?
Section 6 says liberally.
Whats the purpose for this liberal construction?
To promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive
disposition of every action and proceeding.
Every action must be just, speedy, and inexpensive. The rules should be used
to promote that; to ensure that that will happen.
DE GUZMAN V. SANDIGANBAYAN
The rules were conceived and promulgated to set forth guidelines in the
dispensation of justice, but not to bind and chain the hand that dispenses it.
To start to zero, to go back to the very beginning, just because of a mere
technicality will not serve to promote the objective. Otherwise, courts will be
mere slaves or robots of technical rule, shorn of judicial discretion. Its always
substantive law that will prevail over rules of technicality.
When may lapses in the literal observance of the rules be excused?
(Hugo case) We can overlook all these literal lapses
(1) if they do not involve public policy;
(2) if they arose from an honest mistake or unforeseen accident;
(3) if they do not prejudice the adverse party;
(4) if they have not deprived the court of its authority; and
(5) others provided by the jurisprudence.
Construction of the rules will always depend on the individual circumstances,
like in the case of payment of docket fees.
Page 65 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
LIMPOT V. CA (170 SCRA 367) Examples:
Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non- Accion publiciana
observance may have resulted in prejudice to a partys substantive rights, as in Forcible entry
this case. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only when for Unlawful detainer
the most persuasive of reasons they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an Foreclosure of mortgage
injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not Partition of real property
complying with the procedure prescribed. Accion reindivicatoria

Rules are rules. They have to be followed even if nobody will get hur; even if
nobody will get prejudiced.
The cases under sec. 6 discuss technicalities. We will not be able to discuss
them. We will just skip the cases on construction. Just note whether the court
ruled liberally or strictly.
What is the title of Rule 1?
General provisions. Section 3 talks about actions. Rule 2 talks about cause of
action. So what I want you to understand right now is that there is a BIG
difference between action and cause of action.
Actions are what you filecould be civil action, criminal action.
Different Kinds of Civil Actions
(1) As to Nature
Ordinary Civil Action
Special Civil Actions
What makes one ordinary, what makes one special, we dont even have
to know why. Just look at the rules. If the action is under special civil action,
then it is a special civil action. Theres no need to think about it.
(2) As to Cause or Foundation
If you take note of accion publiciana, it is a personal action but it
is a real action. Sum of money is an ordinary civil action but it is not a
real ation. Forcible entry is a special civil action and is also a real action.
So you have to know the difference.
Personal Action: an action where the issue is founded on
privity of contract or on quasi-delict. (Founded on, thus
breach of contract is not an action. Quasi-delict or tort is not an
action. The action is founded on that.)
Examples:
Sum of money (Theres a contract of loan entered into
and a debtor breached the contract by not paying the
monthly installment. So the action is for collection of
sum of money.
Damages (Most popular personal action. Here, what
youre asking for is money.)
Enforcement or resolution of a contract
Specific performance
Recovery of personal property (replevin)
Personal actions do not involve real property, but personal property like
money, cars, etc.
Mixed Action:
Case of Tacay v. RTC of Tagum involves a mixed action. There is a real
action (accion publiciana) and a personal action (recovery of money).
Examples:
Accion publiciana with damages

Real Action: an action where the issue or the subject involved is (3) As to the Place of Filing
title, ownership, possession, or interest over real property.

Page 66 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
Transitory Action: an action which follows the party wherever he may
reside.
Examples:
Personal actions
(M is plaintiff. Mr. D owes money to M. He borrowed money in Davao
but hes already in Manila. Do I have to file the action here in Davao
kasi ditto siya nangutang? NO. This is a ivil case. Unlike criminal cases
where the criminal action is to be filed at the place where the crime was
committed, it is different in civil cases. So, I can file the action in Manila
because he is there. Its easier.)
Local action: an action which can be instituted only in a
particular place. The general rule is that if it involves land, it can
only be filed where the property is situated.
Example:
Real action (automatically local actions)
Unlawful detainer
Forcible entry
(4) As to object
Action in personam: (DO NOT CONFUSE THIS WITH
PERSONAL ACTIONS because the SC itself is confused) Any
action wherein the judgment rendered by the court will bind
only the parties to the action and their privies or their
successors in interest. It is directed against a specific person
and seeks a personal judgment.
Examples:
Collection of Sum of Money
(P vs. D. P wants the court to order D to pay him the
loan. Lets say 1M pesos, only D is obliged to pay, not E
or F or G or the entire world.)
Accion publiciana
(P seeks to recover possession of a parcel of land from
D (or his heirs, assigns, etc.). Sila lang ang involved. If
the court orders D to vacate, D should vacate. )
Action in rem: any action wherein the judgment rendered by
the court binds not only the parties to the case but the whole
world.
Examples:
Annulment of marriage
Declaration of nullity
(If the court says that the marriage of H and W is null
and void, it is null and void not only as to H and W, but s
to the whole world.)
Status of Illegitimacy
(If an illegitimate child is declared as such by the court,
then he is. Hindi pwedeng sabihin ng wife na hindi siya
anak ni husband. The wife is bound by that decision.)
Action quasi in rem: Quasi means almost. Thus quasi in rem
means almost in rem. It is actually an action in personam and
something is done to make it an action almost in rem but not
quite. It is in personam because it is directed only against a
particular individual, but the purpose of the proceeding is to
subject this property to the obligation of a lien burdening it. We
already know that when it comes to jurisdiction that jurisdiction
over the res is required in special proceedings BUT for ordinary
civil actions or special civil action, jurisdiction over the res is
only required if the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant. In this case, the best thing to do is to
convert the action into quasi in rem and the court can acquire
jurisdiction over the res and can validly decide the case.
Examples:
Foreclosure of mortgage
(D borrowed money from BDO. His collateral is his house and lot in
Robinsons highland where lots of OFWs buy houses. D is an OFW who
comes home to the Philippines only once a year. So padala siya ng pera
sa kanyang kapatid para bayaran ang installment. But anong ginawa ng
kapatid? Ginamit ang pera sa konsumo. So hindi nabayaran ang
bangko. Because the borrower is D, he mortgaged the property under
his name, nag file ang bangko ng foreclosure because the installment
payments were not made. But D is abroad, will not come back until 2
years later. How will you file an action against him? Its difficult to
acquire jurisdiction over his person. So the court can actually acquire
Page 67 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
jurisdiction over the resover his property that is the subject of
foreclosure. The action of foreclosure can be converted from an action
in personam to an action quasi in rem by performing certain acts. What
act can be performed by the court? To issue a writ of preliminary
attachment to attach that property that is the subject of the foreclosure.)
(CAMPANER, MA. & CASTRO, SS.)
CASES
Viaco vs. PCRB (2007)
FACTS: The husband of Teresa, Ernesto, was an employee of PCRB. During his
employment he obtained several loans and as a security he executed a real
estate mortgage in favor of the bank. He failed to pay the loans. Therefore,
PCRB decided to obtain a foreclosure of mortgage against the spouses. The
mortgage property was auction for 150K. but it was not sufficient to cover the
debt of Ernesto which was 1M. thereafter, the Court issue a Notice of Levy
against the personal properties of Teresa to satisfy the deficiency.
ISSUE: WON the action is an action personam, in rem, or quasi in rem? And
WON Teresas properties are attached?
RULING: The judicial foreclosure proceeding is an action quasi in rem. An
action quasi in rem is almost in rem but it is personam because it is directed
against a particular party. In this case the judicial foreclosure was directed
against Ernesto as the mortgagor or the debtor but by virtue of the foreclosure
of the property. The subject property was attached therefore it becomes the res
which converts it to an action quasi in rem.
On the second issue, the deficiency judgment or when the Notice of Levy was
issued, according to the SC it is an action in personam. Because the principal
action was primarily directed against the husband. Teresa is not made as party-
defendant here, so here personal properties cannot be attached.
Jurisprudence is telling us that when it comes to foreclosure it is really an action
in personam because it is directed towards a particular person- mortgagor. BUT
it is already considered an action quasi in rem by filing, kasi meron tayong
extrajudicial foreclosure, but this one is judicial foreclosure so this is already an
action quasi in rem. Because there are 2 ways of acquiring the jurisdiction over
the res by: seizure of the property under legal process where it is brought
under actual custody of the law which is actual OR as a result of the institution of
legal proceedings. And if you institute an action for judicial foreclosure of
mortgage in which the power of the court is recognized and made effective it is
an action quasi in rem as established by the SC in jurisprudence. Take note of
that.
Cabutihan vs Land Center
FACTS: Cabutihan filed an action for specific performance against Land Center
in the RTC of Pasig City. In the action of specific performance, she is praying
that Land Center Corporation performs its obligation under its Deed of
Undertaking to convey the property that was promised to her in compensation
of the assistance she rendered in favor of Land Center. However, despite her
assistance or performance in part of the agreement, Land Center failed to
convey the property that was promised as embodied in their Deed of
Undertaking. Thats why Cabutihan filed an action for Specific Performance. It
was alleged by Land Center Corporation that the main objective of Cabutihans
action was to recover the real property and since its objective is to recover real
property, its action should be filed where the property is located which is in
Paranaque and not in Pasig City. In Cabutihans defense she said that the
recovery of real property is merely a consequence of her main purpose of the
action which is to enforce the contract which is the action for specific
performance.
ISSUE: WON the case is a personal action or a real action?
RULING: It is personal action. The court said that the basis why Cabutihan filed
this specific case is for the enforcement of the contract which provides that
Land Center will convey to her the property once she was able to assist them in
the recovery of real property in favor of Land Center.
SC said that the contract gives rise to a cause of action for specific performance
or rescission. In this case Cabutihan shows the action for specific performance
for the enforcement of the contract. Cabutihans 6 payments of her services in
accordance with the Undertaking of the party, it is based on the contract which
is described as a personal action. Since it is a personal action it can be filed
wherever the Court is and not necessarily where the property is located.
This is an example of the confusion caused by the terms action in rem, in
personam and personal action and real action. Clearly what the issue here is
Page 68 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
WON the action is personal or real. Wherein Cabutihan was hired to recover
certain properties, and she was promised a percentage of the properties that
she will recover, sabihin nalang natin 20%. When she was able to recover the
properties, ayaw magbayad. And so she sued for specific for specific
performance saying give me the 20% of the properties that I should recover as
per our contract. Where did she file the case? Filed it in Pasig. Sabi naman ng
Land Center, teka sandali. The properties you want to recover are not in Pasig,
but they are in Paranaque. You should have filed it in Paranaque. What is it? Is it
a personal action or real action? Because if it is a real action it should be filed in
Paranaque. So if there is already a headache as to WON the action is capable of
pecuniary estimation to determine the jurisdiction of the Court, dito to
determine the venue, meron na namang issue ano ba talaga ito real action or
personal action. Kasi it involves a real property. But what shes asking for is her
share, her share based on the contract that was entered into. Therefore, it is
specific performance with damages and is a personal action.
Although obviously ang nakalagay dito Justice Panganiban- in personam. I will
not attribute this to Justice Panganiban but to his staff. Because sometimes that
Justices dont have the time to read the entire decision, yung dulo nalang. So
the staff will write the decision ito yung ruling ganyan ganyan. Because Justice
Panganiban is very particular. I dont know what happened to this case.
Sps. Jose vs Sps. Boyon
FACTS: Patrick and Rafela Jose filed a complaint for specific performance
against Helen and Romeo Boyon, in order to compel the Boyons to execute the
documents to transfer ownership of the parcel of land subject of a supposed
sale. So summons were issued because of failure to serve the summons
personally to the Boyons, the Sps. Jose filed a motion to serve the summons by
publication which was granted by the Court. The Boyons were declared in
default for failure to file their answer and the judge ruled in favor of Jose and
order the Boyons to execute the necessary documents to transfer the title of the
lands to the Sps. Jose. When Helen Boyon found out, she was in the US and was
shocked. So she filed a motion to question the validity of the service of
summons effected by the court and she argued that the action for specific
performance is an action in personam, therefore summons by publication
cannot be applied and insufficient to enable the RTC to acquire jurisdiction
over the Boyons.
ISSUE: WON an action for specific performance is an action in rem or in
personam?
RULING: the SC noted that extra-territorial service of summons or summons by
publication is only applicable to actions in rem or quasi in rem. It is an action in
rem, is an action against the thing itself instead against the defendants persons.
While an action quasi in rem, where the individual is name as defendant and
the purpose is to subject that individuals interest in a piece of property to the
obligation or loan. What was filed in the case was an action for specific
performance which is an action in personam and therefore the service of
summons was improper and the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the
Boyons and the proceedings are null and void.
You will learn later when we reach Summons under Rule 14 specifically Section
15 on extraterritorial service that extraterritorial service is not allowed if the
action is in personam.
Can this be converted to quasi in rem? NO, because what was prayed for by the
Sps. Jose was for the Sps. Boyon to facilitate the transfer of ownership of a
parcel of land.
The Sps. Jose were already the owners. You know in Sales that what transfer
ownership is delivery. Andun na yung ownership kay Sps. Jose wala lang yung
titulo sa pangalan nila. Because the proper document that will transfer title was
not executed by the Boyons. So, if you convert something to quasi in rem you
will learn to attach that the property has to be used to settle the obligation,
hindi naman yung property ang kailangan ni Sps. Jose, but for the document to
be executed. So this cannot be. Not all cases can be converted to quasi in rem
because the property that is attached in quasi in rem is used to fulfill the
obligation. Just like in foreclosure. Kukunin yung property ni defendant to fulfill
the obligation. But not here the situation here is different.
Page 69 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
Domagas vs. Jense
FACTS: Filomena Domagas filed a forcible entry case against Vivian Jensen
before the MTC. Now the summons and the complaint were not served to Vivian
because she was out of the country. She was in Norway. So, what the sheriff did
she left the summons and the complaint to the brother of Vivian. The MTC ruled
in favor of Filomena and a Writ of Execution was issued. Vivian filed before the
RTC for the annulment of the said decision because she contends that the MTC
never acquired jurisdiction over her person. The complaint was not served
upon her because she was in Norway. And the RTC ruled in favor of Vivian
stating that there was no valid summons. The CA affirmed the RTC ruling that an
ejectment is an action quasi in rem.
So if you would look at it, this issue on being a quasi in rem and in personam is
actually intertwined with the validity of summons and the acquisition of the
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Why is that so? Because
according to the contentions of the parties, if it is in personam, according to
Felomena, then it would be substituted the service of the summons which is
valid. Because as we could recall it was sent to the brother of Vivian. However,
according to Vivian there should be an extraterritorial service, a different
provision of summons will apply. But it is enough to know as of now that there is
difference in the validity of summons if the action is quasi in rem or in
personam.
ISSUE: WON the action is in personam or quasi in rem
RULING: it is an action personam. Why is the CA confused as to why it is a
quasi in rem? Because it involves as a real property. But the Court actually
clarified here that an ejectment case such as forcible entry is a real action but it
is an action in personam. So the Court actually said, that whether a proceeding
is in rem, quasi in rem, in personam, is determined by the nature and purpose
and by these only.
So, the nature of both in persom and quasi in rem is it is directed against
specific person and binds only to parties to actions as privies or successors-in-
interest. However, as to the purpose they are different. Because in personam
case it seeks to enforce personal rights and obligations and seeks personal
judgment. While in quasi in rem the purpose is to subject the property of the
defendant to the obligation to a lien burdening it and the real property is used
to satisfy the judgement.
If you look at the nature and purpose of the case, it is clearly an in personam
case. Because in the nature, it is given that it is against a specific person who is
Vivian. However, the purpose of the case is not actually to subject the property
of the defendant of an obligation of the lien burdening it rather it seeks to
enforce personal rights and obligation. Specifically, to seek personal obligation
and liability under Art 539 in the Civil Code. In property every possessor has
the right to be respected on his possession and those who are the right of action
as established by law and the Rules of Court.
Also, it seeks personal judgment because she wants Vivian to vacate the
property subject of the action and she also wants the physical possession
restored to her. In the facts of the case there is nothing there that states that she
wants the real property to be used to satisfy the judgment. Hence it is an action
in perosnam and not quasi in rem.
RULE 2: CAUSE OF ACTION
Section 1. Ordinary civil actions, basis of. Every ordinary civil action must be
based on a cause of action.
The cause of action is the basis for filing an ordinary civil action. So now we
are focused on ordinary actions, forget about special actions. Because we only
discuss them for comparison. But from Rule 2 onwards- ordinary civil actions.
Sometimes special proceedings, special civil actions are mentioned but we are
talking about ordinary civil actions.
Section 2. Cause of action, defined. A cause of action is the act or
omission by which a party violates a right of another.
Lets say P and D entered into a contract of loan. Whereby D promises to pay P,
120K loan in 12 months. 10K/month installment. If D fails to pay the promise
monthly installment, he committed an act which violated the right of P- which is
Page 70 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
to enjoy or to collect the monthly installment from the loan. That act of D of not Elements of a right of action:
paying the monthly installment is the cause why P will file an action for
collection. So, please know the difference an action from a cause of action. 1. Plaintiff must have a cause of action (because if he doesnt have a
cause of action, he has no right); and
In your transportation, what kind of action is filed in Transportation cases. It is 2. Plaintiff must have performed other conditions precedent to the filing
an action for damages. And the cause of action can either be culpa-contractual of the action.
or the breach of contract of carriage. Which happens when under common
carrier of goods, the goods are lost, destroyed, or deteriorated. That the cause Lets distinguish
of action of culpa-contractual, breach of contract of carriage, and the action
Cause of action Right of action
filed is an action for damages.
Delict or wrong committed by the Right of the plaintiff to institute the
Lets say, X is walking down the street and he is hit by a taxi. There is no privity defendant action
of contract between X and the taxi operator. But because of the act of the driver Reason for the action Remedy, means afforded or
of hitting X while walking down the street that is culpa-aquiliana or tort. Thats consequent relief
the cause of action. The action is not culpa-aquiliana but it is the cause of action, Created by substantive law Regulated by procedural law
the action is for damages. A formal statement of operative facts A remedial right belonging to some
that give rise to some right persons
Lets break down the elements of a Cause of Action:
1. A right pertaining to the plaintiff; So do not confuse. Lets see examples. In the case of De Guzman vs CA, this is
2. A correlative obligation of the defendant; a Transpo case, the right of action springs from the cause of action. But does not
3. A violation of the plaintiffs right by the defendant; accrue on the facts which constitute the cause of action have occurred.
4. Damage suffered by the plaintiff
In Transpo, you will learn in Maritime Commerce, there is this condition
Lets go back to IP, when there is an application for patent. What happens? That precedent in filing of a Notice Loss. In a case, X ships cargo on Ys vessel from
application is published. And then, they will check the drawings of the patent Manila to Davao and the goods were destroyed and damage. Hence, X filed an
application. And somebody copies that invention and manufactured that action for damages for breach contract against Y carrier. Under the Code of
invention. That is that act of Mr. X, the infringer, he copied the invention of the Commerce, there is this condition precedent, in filing a Notice of Los against
applicant Mr. P. The right of Mr. P when he applies for patent is to be protected. the carrier before you can file. You inform the carrier that my goods were
His invention should be protected. But Mr. X violated the right of Mr. P and did damage and maybe the carrier will pay. That is before filing an action in court.
not comply with the obligation under the law. And so Mr. P suffered damage. So But what did X do, instead of filing this Notice of Loss to the carrier. Informing
Mr. P has a cause of action for infringement against Mr. X. But the problem is the carrier that this is what happened to the goods, dumeretso sa court.
even though he has a cause of action, he does not have a right of action yet.
Why? Because in order to have a right of action, he must be issued a right of The issue, WON X has a cause of action? Definitely, he has a cause of
patent. When can he file? Within 4 years of the commission of the act. Do not action for the damages. The carrier breached the contract of carriage by
throwback the facts at me. You give me a legal basis. Thats the legal basis. You delivering goods that are already damage. But did X have a right of action
already have the reason to file because of the act of Mr. X in copying the against the carrier? NO! because he did not comply with the condition
invention of P, so P has a reason to file an action for infringement. But he has precedent. There is a procedure under the law, under the Code of Commerce
no right to file because he has not yet been issued a patent. That is the the Notice of Loss, which was not followed by X.
difference of cause of action and right of action.

Page 71 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
How do you distinguish Cause of Action from the Subject matter of the
Action?
Cause of action Subject matter of the Action
Reason for filing the action. The act Item with respect to which the
or omission, as defined in Section 2, of controversy has arisen; the thing, the
one party of violating the legal right act, the contract, or the property which
of another directly involved in the action
concerning to which the controversy
has risen.
In an action for damages based on breach of contract. The action is for
damages, the cause of action is breach of contract. The subject matter is the
contract that was breached. So do not confuse those terms with one another.
There are other terms here, RELIEF. What is relief? It is the redress,
protection of coercive measure which the plaintiff prays the court to render in
his favor as a consequence of the delict or the wrong committed by the
defendant.
So in an action for damages based on breach of contract of carriage, what is the
relief that the plaintiff is asking for? The relief is for the defendant to pay this
certain amount of money in actual damages, moral damages, etc.
What does the plaintiff want the Court to do? To grant him relief because his
right was violated.
REMEDY- it is the procedure or type of action which may be availed of by
the plaintiff and the means to obtain the desire relief. It is more or less similar
to action.
What are you going to file against him? What remedy? What action? Accion
publiciana, accion reinvindicatoria.
Prescription plays a big factor in right of action. Even though what we
discussed earlier, upon publication for patent. Lets say publication was made
on June 10, 2010. And X copied the invention and came out with it on
September 10, 2010. Nagbenta na siya nung invention ni P and make money out
of it. And the patent is still pending, so P has no right of action. When did the
patent come out? June 10, 2017, so kailan yun 2010 so 7 years. When can P file
an action for infringement? Within 4 years from the act so nag prescribe na. But
the beauty of this is within 4 years from the last act not the first act. Kung
hanggang ngayon nagmanufacture pa din si X pwede pa siya maka file ng case
paglabas ng patent.
Prescription is also something that can bar. It can remove your right of action if
the action has prescribed.
Lets look at the cases if the elements are present.
CASES
Heirs of Tuazon vs. CA
FACTS: The subject property is parcels of land owned by Sps. Dario Guzman
and Maria Gonzaga. It was covered by a OCT No. 4331. Subsequently, it was
sold to Susana Guzman-Tuazon and here are the subsequent buyers of the
parcels of land.
The OCT was already cancelled. And a new TCT was transferred to Santos to
Jacinto Dela Cruz. From Jacinto Dela Cruz to Gabriel Dela Cruz, from Gabriel
Dela Cruz to Isidro Victorio.
Now, while there was a TCT of the subsequent sales, the heirs of Susana De
Guzman-Tuazon filed in the RTC of Antipolo Rizal the issuance of 2nd owners
duplicate copy of OCT No. 4331, which was committed by fraudulent
misrepresentation. They said that the OCT was lost in the possession of their
mother. Maria Luisa Victoria et. al. filed with the same court an action for
quieting of title and nullification and cancellation of title.
ISSUE: WON heirs of Tuazon have a cause of action in quieting of title
RULING: this is a real action. However, as seen in the allegations of the
complaint of the Heirs of Tuazon it was quieting of title and nullification and
cancellation of title. Nowhere in the allegations of the complaint did they
say that it is a nullification for the judgment of the RTC from which the
RTC granted the issuance of duplicate of the OCT that was originally owned
by the original owners. Because the complaint must contain concise statement
of the ultimate facts, Victoria et al. asserted their right as true owners of the
Page 72 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
land. So, there was one of for quieting of title and one for nullification and
cancellation title.
So, to determine whether there is a cause of action for that remedy that you
want to avail of, like in this, the quieting of title you should look at the requisites
of that particular action. (Elements of Quieting of title)
1. The plaintiff has a legal or equitable title over the property.
- The original owners sold
2. There is a CLOUD in the title
- The cloud is the reconstituted title that was awarded to Heirs of
Susana. They were able to get a title, a reconstituted title, from
the court because they said it was lost.
3. But in truth and in fact it is not valid because it was acquired by
forgery, fraud etc. But it is prejudicial to the title of Victorio.
Therefore, there is a cause of action for quieting of title. This is the correct
remedy. So you look at the remedy, meron bang cause of action for us to find
out.
Portic vs. Cristobal
FACTS: Sps. Alcantara were the original owners of subject property, a parcel of
land and a 3-door apartment constructed therein. Sps. Alcantara sold the said
property to Sps. Portic and apart from the sale there was also an assumption for
mortgage. Portic here defaulted, so the property was foreclosed. However,
before the redemption period expired, Portic here sold the property to
Cristobal in consideration of that amount. And their agreement contained
conditions that if Cristobal here fails to pay the remaining balance the
agreement is to be considered void and whatever amounts she had paid to the
spouses shall be delivered to her. Despite that kind of sale, Sps. Alcanatara sold
same property to Cristobal. And by virtue of that sale the title that Alcantara
possess was cancelled and a new title was issued in the name of Cristobal
despite the sale that transpired between Cristobal and Sps. Portic.
According to Sps. Portic, Cristibal still failed to pay the remaining balance so
they demanded. When Cristobal refuses to pay, Sps. Portic filed an action
against Cristobal which is an action to quiet title. Because according to the
spouses the title issued to Cristobal was void because the nature of their
agreement was not a contract of sale but a contract to sell for there was a
suspensive condition that Cristobal should pay the remaining price. And when
he failed to do that there was no transfer of ownership, hence when Cristobal
acquired the title it should be considered void.
As a contention, Cristobal said that he had a valid title over the property. And
that the nature of the action that was filed here was not really a quieting of title
but an enforcement of the contract. And in ObliCon, if we would like to enforce
an action based on a written contract it is within 10 years. And since the action
to quiet title was filed on 1996, it was more than 10 years from the execution of
the contract between Cristobal and Sps. Portic. So according to Cristobal the
action has already prescribed and it was not for quieting of title.
ISSUE: WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF THE ACTION FILED BY SPS. PORTIC, WAS
IT FOR ENFORCEMENT OR QUIETING OF TITLE? And assuming that it would be
a quieting of title has the action prescribed?
RULING: It refers to a quieting of title and the action here did not
prescribed. So in ruling that it was a quieting of title, in Article 476 it gives us
the elements and whether the elements were satisfied. And here the elements
here were satisfied: Elements of Quieting of Title
1. the Sps. Portic has a title;
2. there was a cloud on it by virtue of the new title issued in favour of
Cristobal which is in a form of instrument
3. and apparently it can deem as valid but in truth and in fact invalid and
cause prejudice to the Sps. Portic.
And when the elements were complied, the SC ruled that the action filed here
by Sps. Portic was a quieting of title.
As to the issue of prescription, again as discussed, prescription is relevant
when it comes to the right of action. Here, although the cause of action by Sps.
Portic was a quieting of title, but according to Cristiba it would still not prosper
because it the action has prescribed. According to them, Sps. Portic was not in
possession of the property but here the SC was able to prove that Sps. Portic
was in possession of the property. And according to American jurisprudence
if the person or the plaintiff who filed an action to quiet title possesses the
property, such action is imprescriptible. Because such person may wait until
his possession is disturbed and that is the time that he takes steps to vindicate
his right.
Page 73 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
So this is always an issue, a certain action is filed and sabihin ng defendant it is
not that action it should be this action. And so the elements of the cause of
action has to be discussed and the elements of that particular remedy has to be
discussed also in relation to whether or not there is a cause of action particular
action. And the issue of right of action as stated in this case. All these things you
have to take note.
Lets go to this issue: IS A CAUSE OF ACTION IS REALLY IMPORTANT,
MEANING DO YOU NEED TO HAVE A CAUSE OF ACTION? NO!
Because what you need is that your complaint must state a cause of action.
That is different from having a cause of action. Kasi pwede naman
kasinungalingan lamang ang nasa complaint. They are all lies. In truth and in
fact walang cause of action, pero lulusot ang complaint if it states a cause of
action. When a complaint is crafted, the plaintiff must ensure that it states a
cause of action whether or not the allegations are true in order to pass the first
phase.
CASES
Alberto vs. CA
FACTS: The Sps. Alano retained the legal services of Atty. Alberto to represent
in a case before the SEC. Their SEC case was for the recovery of real property,
money, and other assets from Natalia Realty. The parties agreed that Sps. Alano
and Atty. Alberto had a retainer agreement which stated that Atty. Alberto shall
be paid on a contingent basis- which is 10% of whatever real estate may be
awarded and 200K. Atty. Alberto later found out that the Sps. Alano actually
entered into a settlement with Natalia Realty, therefore the Sps. Alano moved to
dismiss the SEC case. On the other hand, Atty. Alberto demanded the payment
of her fees as stipulated in their retainer agreement. However, Sps. Alano
refused to pay and Atty. Alberto later found out that Natalia Realty sold to
Yolanda Alano, the daughter of Sps. Alano, 23 hectares out of the 32.4 hectares
of the land involved in this case. Atty. Alberto filed a complaint for collection of
money that is her first case
The RTC ruled in favour of Atty. Alberto, saying that she is entitled to her
attorneys fees. Now when she found out, she filed another case, she filed a
complaint and a second amended complaint which seeks to declare the Deed of
Sale from Natalia Realty to Yolanda null and void for being simulated. And she
attached there in her amended complaint the Deed of Sale but she did not
allege in that second amended complaint was prejudicial to her collection of
attorneys fees. However, RTC dismissed the case for lack of cause of action and
also CA affirmed the dismissal due to the failure to state of cause of action and
she did not have a cause of action against Yolanda Alano. As well as because
there was no privy between Yolanda and Natalia Realty and as well as Atty.
Alberto.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Alberto has a sufficient cause of action
RULING: Yes, she actually had a sufficient cause of action because all
elements of the cause of action had been complied with. So the elements
are:
1. There was a right pertaining to the Atty. Atty. Albertos right was
based on the retainer agreement and as well as it was already
adjudged by the RTC that she was entitled to her attorneys fees.
2. The obligation on the part of the defendant. The Sps. Alano should
honor the retainer agreement.
3. And there was a violation when Sps. Alano breached the said
retainer agreement by refusing to pay.
4. Damage was suffered by Atty. Alberto because once the properties of
the Sps. Alano are levied, only 3,500.00 worth of the property was the
only left and available to the attorney. She was actually
prejudiced.(allegedly missing)
All these elements were complied with. However, the RTC and CA still dismiss
the case for lack of action for failure to state a cause of action because it did not
reflect on her complaint that she was prejudiced by such sale from Natalia to
Yolanda. So number 3 is missing.
According to the SC, it discussed that the general rule is that the averments of
the complaint should reflect and if it doesnt reflect then it is a ground to
dismiss the complaint filed by Atty. Alberto. However, there were exceptions to
the rule. And that when it falls under this exceptions, the Court may look
beyond the averments and the complaints because this factors may still be
considered so that the case may still prosper:
Page 74 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
1. DOCUMENTS ATTACHED The documents attached to the complaint must
be considered. Atty. Alberto attached the Deed of Sale and she is anchoring
her right upon the allegation that she was prejudiced by the simulated sale
to Yolanda of the lots in this case
2. OTHER PLEADINGS And other pleadings submitted in addition to the
complaint may be also considered. Because the Court should have
considered that the sale between Yolanda and Natalia Realty, prejudices
the attorney because it cannot be imagined by the Court that the spouses
wanted to collect from the Natalia then allow the corporation to sell the said
lands to their daughter without having obtained the land for themselves.
Therefore, the Court decided that it should be remanded to the RTC for
further trial.
So here, you can see the difference between having a cause of action which is
this. Definitely, she has a cause of action. But distinguish this from failing to
state the cause of action, because in her complaint she forgot to allege that
the sale was prejudicial to her. This is missing. And that makes her complaint
inadmissible if you fail to put all the elements of a cause of action. Even if she
has a cause of action, the complaint is kulang. The general rule, according to
the SC, to determine the sufficiency of the cause of action only the facts alleged
in the complaint and no other should be considered. Just look at the complaint.
But this case gave us the exceptions. This case is a proof of Rule 1, Sec. 6
[liberal interpretation]. na parang why you are so technical about it. Since
there was an attached Deed of Sale, and if you are a smart lawyer or judge, you
will know that this Deed of Sale will cause prejudice to the lawyer, Atty.
Alberto. So even if it did not sufficiently state the cause of action because there
was a missing element, the fact that there was an attachment, it cured the
defect. So please know the difference between having a cause of action and
stating sufficiently the cause of action in your complaint. What is the ground for
the dismissal of the complaint- it is not having the cause of action BUT failing to
state the cause of action.
NOVEMBER 29, 2017
DEPERALTA, ERIKA FIRST 30 MINS
Last meeting, I was asked a question: is insufficiency of cause of action is that
the same as failure to state a cause of action. The answer is no.
Insufficiency of cause of action theres an element missing or theres Generally, the court takes into account only the material allegations of the
no cause of action for one reason or another and it is a situation
Failure to state a cause of action has something to do with the
complaint. In the complaint, the plaintiff fails to state the cause of
action because theres a missing element in the complaint. (sa
complaint!!!)
So they are different from each other.
What is the ground for the dismissal of the complaint? Not the insufficiency
of the cause of action but the failure to state the cause of action. We will
discuss that further when we reach Rule 16, Motion to Dismiss. But from the case
that weve discussed, Alberto v CA, there was already a distinction here
between sufficiency of cause of action or complete cause of action from the
complaint. However, just like in actions in personam and personal actions,
there is also confusion between insufficiency of cause of action and failure to
state a cause of action. So be very careful.
Lets continue with the reports regarding this topic because you really have to
get the feel of it. Its not just one case and thats it. We have to analyze from the
cases. Lets go to Jimenez v Jordana.
Jimenez v Jordana
G.R. No. 152526
November 25, 2004
Issue: Whether Jordana has alleged a sufficient cause of action against
the Spouses Jimenez?
Ruling: Yes
Cause of action is defined as the act or omission by which a party violates a
right of another. It has the following elements: 1) the legal right of the plaintiff;
2) the correlative obligation of the defendant to respect that legal right; and 3)
an act or omission of the defendant that violates such right.
The nature of an action is determined by the material averments in the
complaint and the character of the relief sought, not by the defenses
asserted in the answer or motion to dismiss. Thus, the complaint must
contain a concise statement of the ultimate or essential facts constituting the
plaintiffs cause of action.
complaint, without considering extraneous facts and circumstances. In
Page 75 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
some cases, however, the court may also consider in addition to the
complaint annexes or documents appended to it, other pleadings of the
plaintiff, or admissions in the record. It must then bear in mind that the facts
proving the existence of a cause of action do not have to be established or
alleged by the complaint and/or the other pleadings at the outset but, under
exceptional circumstances, even during the trial on the merits of the case.
Atty S: So again, we are talking about the complaint here that for it not to be
dismissed, it must state a sufficient cause of action. How do you know? Look at
the action. What is the action here? Specific performance. And then you
relate this to the elements of the cause of action. So it was already discussed.
What if the right of the plaintiff? Contract. What is the obligation of the
defendant or the seller? To deliver the property or consummate the sale. What
was the violation by the defendant? Sold the property to somebody else and
the plaintiff suffered damages because of that.
Again as a general, a complaint has sufficiently stated its cause of action if it has
all the elements of a cause of action alleged in the complaint. But there are
times to court can look beyond the complaint, look at attachments, look at the
records to cover the insufficiency of the allegations. But this is not all the time.
General rule, you look at the complaint. Is it sufficient or not? If its not, then
dismiss. Its as simple as that.
Now we looked at the case yesterday, the quieting of title. When you have a
specific cause of action with requisites, then you look at the requisites. If its a
specific performance, then you look at the elements. But there are specific
cases like forcible entry. What are the elements? That the plaintiff was in prior
possession, that the defendant ousted the plaintiff through FISTS. Those are the
two important allegations for forcible entry. Lets go to Zepeda v China Bank.
Zepeda v China Banking
G.R. No. 172175
October 9, 2099
A cause of action is a formal statement of the operative facts that give rise to
a remedial right. The question of whether the complaint states a cause of
action is determined by its averments regarding the acts committed by the
defendant. Thus it "must contain a concise statement of the ultimate or
essential facts constituting the plaintiffs cause of action." Failure to make a
sufficient allegation of a cause of action in the complaint "warrants its
dismissal."
In the instant case, petitioners specifically alleged that respondent bank
acted in bad faith when it extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgaged
property notwithstanding the approval of the restructuring of their loan
obligation. They claimed that with such approval, respondent bank
made them believe that foreclosure would be held in abeyance. They
also alleged that the proceeding was conducted without complying with the
posting and publication requirements.
Assuming these allegations to be true, petitioners can validly seek the
nullification of the foreclosure since the alleged restructuring of their debt
would effectively modify the terms of the original loan obligations and
accordingly supersede the original mortgage thus making the subsequent
foreclosure void. Similarly, the allegation of lack of notice if subsequently
proven renders the foreclosure a nullity in line with prevailing
jurisprudence.
We find the allegations in the complaint sufficient to establish a cause of
action for nullifying the foreclosure of the mortgaged property. The fact that
petitioners admitted that they failed to redeem the property and that the title
was consolidated in respondent banks name did not preclude them from
seeking to nullify the extrajudicial foreclosure. Precisely, petitioners seek to
nullify the proceedings based on circumstances obtaining prior to and
during the foreclosure which render it void.
Fluor Daniel v EB Villarosa
G.R. No. 159648
July 27, 2007
We have ruled that a complaint should not be dismissed for
insufficiency of cause of action if it appears clearly from the complaint and its
attachments that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The converse is also true. The
complaint may be dismissed for lack of cause of action if it is obvious from
Page 76 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
the complaint and its annexes that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.
In this case, we note that annexed to the subject complaint are the
three contracts governing the rights and obligations between petitioner
and respondent, namely the contract for civil structure and architecture, the
contract for plumbing and fire protection, and the contract for millworks.
On their face, the said attached contracts, which define and delimit the
rights and obligations of the parties, clearly require a specific condition
before petitioner may be held liable for payment. The complaint, however,
failed to state that the said condition had been fulfilled. Without the said
condition having taken place, petitioner cannot be said to have breached its
obligation to pay.
We thus hold that respondents complaint, taken with the contracts
annexed to it, failed to pass the test of sufficiency of cause of action. Thus,
the said complaint should have been dismissed on the ground of failure to state
a cause of action.
Atty S: The complaint had all the three elements:
1. The right of EVB to demand from Fluor Daniel based on the contract
2. The obligation Fluor Daniel to pay EVB based on the contract
3. The failure of Fluor Daniel to pay EVB
The complaint was complete. It stated a cause of action. The problem is the
court looked beyond the complaint. This is the opposite of what we discussed
earlier. Sometimes the complaint is not complete, so sabihin ng court Oh we
will look beyond the complaint and check the records to make it complete.
Dito naman the complaint was complete, but what did the court do? It went
beyond the complaint. It looked at the attachments and found at that there is a
condition: VD will pay EVB if Fil Estate pays FD. Eh di man nag bayad ang Fil
Estate sa FD, so the court said FD did not violate the contract kasi di naman sila
nabayaran ng Fil Estate.
Atty S: What is the problem here? Failure to state a cause of action or
insufficiency of cause of action?
A: Insufficiency of cause of action (missing element of the cause of action
but the complaint is complete in itself)
Thats why insufficiency of cause of action is a situation. What is the situation
here? That FD did not violate the contract but it is stated in the complaint.
So you have to see the difference between the two. Thats why were looking at
the cases. And I want you to let it out. Spot the issue. Ano ba talaga pinag-
uusapan ng SC dito based on cause of action. Because were looking at the
cause of action and were looking at two aspects: cause of action as a fact, a
situation, whether or not there really is a cause of action and were looking at
the complaint that sufficiently states the cause of action. I want you to determine
what is the issue here. Is it the complaint sufficiently stating a cause of action or
not having a cause of action.
DEL ROSARIO, INAH 31- 1 HR
PIONEER VS. GUADIZ
FACTS: Todaro filed a complaint for sum of money and damages against PIL et
al. Todaro alleges that PIL et al did not fulfill their contractual obligation to
employ Todaro on a permanent basis in PILs Philippine office. PIL moved to
dismiss on the ground that the complaint does not state a cause of action
because there was no perfected contract. (failure to state cause of action)
ISSUE: Did the complaint fail to state a cause of action?
RULING: NO, the allegations are sufficient to establish a cause of action.
It is well-settled that the merits of a motion to dismiss a complaint for lack of
cause of action is tested on the strength of the allegations of fact contained in
the complaint and no other.
1. there was a valid contract entered into by Todaro and the Pioneer
Group
2. Pioneer group had the obligation to employ Todaro on a permanent
basis, to manage and operate the ready-mix concrete operations, if the
Pioneer Group decides to invest in the Philippines, which they did.
3. Pioneer group refused to comply with the undertaking to employ
Page 77 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
Todaro to manage their Philippine ready-mix operaitons, on a
permanent basis.
The presence of a cause of action rests on the sufficiency, and not on the
veracity, of the allegations of the complaint. The veracity of the allegations
will have to be examined during the trial on the merits. In resolving a motion to
dismiss based on lack of cause of action, the trial court is limited to the four
corners of the complaint and its annexes. It is not yet necessary for the trial
court to examine the truthfulness of the allegations in the complaint. Such
examination is proper during the trial on the merits.
Why did PIL say that the complaint failed to state a cause of action? Because
there was no contract. According to PIL the cause of action is based on an
alleged breach of contract to an obligation and an alleged violation of Art. 19
and 21. The issue here is: Did the complaint state a cause of action? YES.
Todaro alleged in his complaint that:
There was a contract.
Under the contract, PIL had an obligation to comply with that
agreement
PIL did not hire him as a permanent employee based on the
agreement and therefore PIL violated the terms and the
conditions of the agreement
The issue here is did the complaint sufficiently state a cause of action? YES.
The allegation of PIL was that there was a failure to state a cause of
action because there was no agreement. SC said We dont care whos
telling the truth at this point. What is important is that the complaint
sufficiently states a cause of action. As to who is telling the truth, we will find out
during the trial. But it is only for the complaint to proceed and not be dismissed.
As already mentioned earlier, it should be emphasized that the
presence of a cause of action rests on the sufficiency, and not on the
veracity, of the allegations of the complaint. Is your complaint sufficient?
Its enough. It is the truth? Who cares at this point. (Inah: Maam read from the
full text as copied and pasted and stopped where the SC said based on lack of
action. In this case, there was an alleged failure to state a cause of action and not
a lack of cause of action)
DOLLETON VS. FIL-ESTATE
FACTS: Heirs of Tomas Dolleton et al filed separate complaints for quieting of
title and/or recovery of ownership and possession against Fil-Estate, Spouses
Dy, Megatop Realty Devt. Fil-Estate et al alleged that the complaints should be
dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. Even assuming as true that the
subject properties have been in the possession of petitioners and their
predecessors-in-interest for 90 years; that petitioners have been paying the
realty taxes thereon; and that petitioners are able to submit a sketch plan of the
subject properties, respondents maintain that their ownership of the subject
properties, evidenced by certificates of title registered in their names, cannot
be defeated.
ISSUE: Did the complaint state a cause of action?
RULING: YES. The complaint alleged:
(4) that Heirs of Dolleton et al are the owners of the subject
properties by acquisitive prescription
(5) As owners, they have a right to remain in peaceful
possession of the said properties, and, if deprived thereof,
they may recover the same.
(6) Fil-Estate et al had violated their rights as owners of the subject
properties by evicting the former therefrom by means of
force and intimidation.
The prayer for the cancellation of the certificates of title owned by Fil Estate are
inconsistent with their allegations that the subject properties were not covered
by Fil-Estates certificates of title. Petitioners Complaints should not have been
dismissed despite the seeming error made by petitioners in their prayer. To
sustain a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action, the complaint must
show that the claim for relief does not exist, rather than that a claim has
been defectively stated, or is ambiguous, indefinite or uncertain.
Page 78 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
Lack of cause of action is not a ground to dismiss. When one files a motion to
dismiss, it is always because of the failure to state a cause of action. But,
when in truth and in fact, they are alleging lack of cause of action. Kasi ang sabi
is they are not entitled to the property because we are the owners.
This is for quieting of title. The plaintiff said that:
(2) they were in OCEAN possession of the land which is legal and
beneficial title.
(3) there is a doubt in the title the TCTs owned by Fil Estate which is an
instrument on its face appears to be valid but in truth it is not
(4) It is prejudicial the plaintiffs were evicted
The complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action. There was no ground to
attack that because it was complete. But they had to say something: we are
the registered owners of the property. That is attacking the cause of action
and not the complaint. So, as mentioned earlier: (from the full text)
The elementary test for failure to state a cause of action is whether the
complaint alleges facts which if true would justify the relief demanded.
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
defense that may be presented by the defendant.
MAKATI STOCK EXCHANGE VS. CAMPOS
FACTS: Campos filed with the Securities, Investigation and Clearing
Department (SICD) of the SEC, a Petition against Makati Stock Exchange and its
directors which sought the nullification of the resolution which deprived him of
his right to participate in the allocation if Initial Public Offering (IPO) of
corporations registered with the Makati Stock Exchange (among others.)
Makati Stock Exchange filed a motion to dismiss because the Petition failed to
state a cause of action. The Makati Stock Exchange want the SC to affirm the
dismissal by the SEC of Campos pettion for failure to state a cause of action.
ISSUE: Did the complaint state a cause of action?
RULING: NO. The Petition before the SEC asserts a right in favor of Campos
(alleged right to subscribe to the IPOs of corporations listed in the stock market
at their offering prices; and stipulates the correlative obligation of the Makati
Stock Exchange to respect Campos right (to allow him to subscribe to the IPOs
of corporations listed in the stock market at their offering prices.) However, the
terms right and obligation in the Petition are not magic words that make a
Petition sufficiently state a cause of action. An obligation imposed upon a
person and the corresponding right granted to another, must be rooted in at
least one of the 5 sources of obligations (i.e. law, contracts, quasi-contracts,
acts or omissions punished by law; and quasi-delicts.) A pleading should state
the ultimate facts essential to the rights of action or defense asserted, as
distinguished from mere conclusions of fact or conclusions of law. A complaint
filed by a person claiming a right to something but without stating the source of
his purported right, cannot be said to have sufficiently stated a cause of action.
Campos failed to state the source or basis of his right and Makati
Stock Exchanges obligation. The alleged right to subscribe to the IPOs of
corporations listed in the stock market at their offering prices is a practice or
custom which is not a source of a legally demandable or enforceable right.
There is no law in the case that converts the practice of allocating IPO shares to
MKSE members, for subscription at their offering prices, into an enforceable or
demandable right.
According to Sec. 1, every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of
action. An ordinary civil action must have a cause of action. What did
Campos file? A Petition for Nullification of Resolution of the MKSE. Is this an
ordinary civil action or is it something else? We dont know. Lets say it is an
ordinary civil action. Wheres the defendant? Yung Makati Stock Exchange?
Maybe. Even from the beginning, its kinda vague. What is it? What are you
filing? So, the SC here said that you say you have a right but you didnt really
have one. Hindi na yan sufficiency of the complaint but whether or not he has a
cause of action. In other words, ito, magulo.
Please read the case. I dont understand what he was filing. Maybe the SC did
not understand what he was filing and so the SC just tried to get out of it by
defining right and obligation and stated the sources of contract. But the
Page 79 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
argument of the SC has nothing to do with the sufficiency of the petition. Diba?
Pati sila nalilito. Dapat hindi kayo malito.
FORT DEVELOPMENT VS. CASTRO
FACTS: Castro alleged (1) That Maxco had an outstanding obligation to
respondent; (2) Maxco assigned to Fong its retention from petitioner in
payment of the said obligation,; (3) Petitioner as early as April 18, 2005 was
notified of the assignment; (4) Despite due notice of such assignment, petitioner
still refused to deliver the amount assigned to respondent, giving preference,
instead, to the 2 other creditors of Maxco; (5) At the time petitioner was notified
of the assignment, there were only one other notice of garnishment and there
were sufficient residual amounts to satisfy Fongs claim; and (6) uncertain over
which one between Maxco and petitioner he may resort to for payment,
respondent named them both as defendants in Civil Case No. 06-0200-CFM.
Fort Development alleges that Castro failed to state a cause of action.
ISSUE: Did the complaint state a cause of action?
RULING: YES. Failure to state a cause of action refers to the insufficiency of
allegation in the pleading. In resolving a motion to dismiss based on the failure
to state a cause of action only the facts alleged in the complaint must be
considered. The test is whether the court can render a valid judgment on the
complaint based on the facts alleged and the prayer asked for.
The complaint alleged that
At the time he served notice of assignment to defendant FBDC there was only
one notice of garnishment that the latter had received and there were still
sufficient residual amounts to pay that assigned by defendant Maxco to the
plaintiff. Subsequent notices of garnishment received by defendant FBDC could
not adversely affect the amounts already assigned to the plaintiff as they are
already his property, no longer that of defendant Maxco.
A cause of action is present in the complaint. Castro specifically alleged that the
undue preference given to other creditors of Maxco over the retention money
by Fort Bonifacio was to the prejudice of his rights.
DELOS SANTOS, LARA 31-1 HR
SANTIAGO VS. ONG
FACTS:
The brothers Jose Santiago and Juan Santiago were co-owners of a parcel of
land (31,853 sq.m.) at Bulacan. Subsequently, Jose died. Two (2) years after
Joses death, Juan also died. However, roughly four months prior to Juans
death, a Deed of Sale was executed by him in favor of a 2-year old child Mark
Vincent Ong over a portion of the parcel of land co-owned by Juan with Jose.
According to the Heirs of Jose, the signature of Juan in the said Deed of Sale
was forged. Thus, they filed an action for annulment of the said Deed of Sale.
ISSUE: Whether or not the heirs of Jose have a cause of action in questioning
the validity of the sale between Juan and Mark Vincent
RULING: NO, the heirs of Jose have no cause of action.
The heirs of Jose have no cause of action in filing this case since they are
not the real parties-in interest.
A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of
another. (Rule 2, Section 2) A real party-in-interest is the party who stands to
be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to
the avails of the suit. (Rule 3, Section 2)
The first element of a cause of action is absent in this case. There is no right
pertaining to the plaintiff (i.e. Heirs of Jose). They are not one of the
contracting parties in the sale between Juan and Mark Vincent. They are
also not the heirs of Juan since based on Juans probated will, he left all
his properties to his wife Aurea, excluding the heirs of his brother Jose.
Juans act of exercising his right to sell his undivided share could not have
possibly violated the rights of the heirs of Jose since there is no right to
speak of in the first place. Thus, the heirs of Jose cannot question the
validity of the sale between Juan and Mark Vincent.
Page 80 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
Okay. So this case illustrates the elements of cause of action. Clearly here, the
heirs of Jose, did not have a right of action to file that complaint because the
right belongs to the heirs of Juan, not to Jose, not to his heirs who were co-
owners of their ideal share. This also concerns real party in interest which we
will take up in Rule 3.
MIJARES VS. RANADA
FACTS:
Mijares, et al. are victims of human rights violations, who, deprived of the
opportunity to directly confront Marcos, have chosen to do battle instead
with his estate. They filed the complaint with the US District Court in Hawaii.
A jury rendered a verdict and an award of damages in favor of the
petitioners. They were awarded a total of $1.964 billion. This was affirmed by
the CA, and the CA decision became final and executory.
Mijares, et al. filed a complaint before RTC Makati to enforce the final
judgment. The Marcos Estate on the other hand questioned the complaint for
enforcement due to lack of cause of action.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the enforcement case should be dismissed for lack of cause
of action.
RULING: NO. The rules are silent as to what initiatory procedure must
be undertaken in order to enforce a foreign judgment in the Philippines.
But there is no question that the filing of a civil complaint is an appropriate
measure for such purpose. A civil action is one by which a party sues another
for the enforcement or protection of a right,[29] and clearly an action to
enforce a foreign judgment is in essence a vindication of a right prescinding
either from a conclusive judgment upon title or the presumptive evidence of
a right.
Absent perhaps a statutory grant of jurisdiction to a quasi-judicial body, the
claim for enforcement of judgment must be brought before the regular
courts.
There are distinctions, nuanced but discernible, between the cause of action
arising from the enforcement of a foreign judgment, and that arising from the
facts or allegations that occasioned the foreign judgment. They may pertain
to the same set of facts, but there is an essential difference in the right-duty
correlatives that are sought to be vindicated. For example, in a complaint for
damages against a tortfeasor, the cause of action emanates from the
violation of the right of the complainant through the act or omission of
the respondent. On the other hand, in a complaint for the enforcement of a
foreign judgment awarding damages from the same tortfeasor, for the
violation of the same right through the same manner of action, the cause of
action derives not from the tortious act but from the foreign judgment
itself.
A foreign judgment is a judgment rendered by a foreign court. When judgment
is rendered by a foreign court, it cannot be enforced in the Philippines
based on the judgment itself. For example the judgment says, Marcos, you
pay the victims Php 1M, it has to go to a proceeding called Enforcement of
Foreign Judgment. So this kind of action is an Ordinary Civil Action according
to the SC in this case. But Sec. 1 says, every civil action must be based on a
cause of action. What is the cause of action in this case? You do not have to put
in the elements anymore. Tapos nay un kasi may judgment na. So the cause of
action is derived from the judgment itself. So if you have a foreign judgment,
you have an automatic cause of action for enforcement of foreign judgment.
Thats it. You dont have to go back to zero because if you go back to zero,
you have to present the right, violation, etc., its like were beating all over
again the case that was already decied by a foreign court.
Okay, so this is a SUI GENERIS situation wherein there is no need for the
complaint to sufficiently state a cause of action in the sense that you have to look
at the elements, state the rights, obligations, because the cause of action is
derived from the foreign judgment itself. And the SC said:
If every judgment of a foreign court were reviewable on the merits, the plaintiff
would be forced back on his or her original cause of action rendering
immaterial the previously concluded litigation.
Page 81 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
Before we move on to the next section, there is an issue that I want you to take
note of. There is a discussion here regarding a fourth element which is
damage. This is not often mentioned in the cases because most of the time,
there are only three elements which are really important to establish a cause of
action. Meaning, if no damage is suffered, no injury is suffered by the plaintiff. It
doesnt necessarily follow that there is no violation or a violation does not
always result to injury. Okay, so there can be damage in a different sense, a
violation without injury.
There can be damage without injury in those instances in which the loss/ harm
was not the result of a violation of a legal duty. These situations are called
damnum absque injuria. Another latin maxim, accio non datur non
damnificato, which means there could be no action when there is no injury
sustained. So that is part of the definition of the cause of action. Damage
without injury does not create any cause of action. I really do not understand
what this is talking about because the terms, what do you mean by damage
here? Damage suffered? Damages? Or you know. But in any case, you can just
read up on thisdamnum absque injuria and relate it to cause of action. Okay?
That is your responsibility.
Lets go to Section 3.
Section 3. One suit for a single cause of action. A party may not institute
more than one suit for a single cause of action.
So you already know what a cause of action is. A cause of action is an act or
omission in which a party violates a right of another. So if there is only one
cause of action, you can only file one suit or one case for your single cause of
action.
So this rule, section 3, is the rule against SPLITTING THE CAUSE OF
ACTION.
What is SPLITTING THE CAUSE OF ACTION?
It is the practice of dividing one cause of action into different parts making each
part the subject of a different complain.
This is expressly prohibited by the rule. Okay? So if you have only one cause
of action, you only file one case. You cannot file 2,3,5 cases. Otherwise, you
will be splitting your single cause of action.
Example:
X filed a complaint against Y to collect the principal loan under a promissory
note. So, Y borrowed money from X and the promissory note says I promise to
pay X Php120,000 worth of borrowed money to be paid in 12 months. Thats
Php10,000 per month with interest of 6% per annum and I will pay damages in
case I do not payand attorynees fees
Okay, so eto na. Y did not pay. So here comes X. He files an action for collection
of the principal amount of Php 120, 000. And in another complaint, he files an
action to collect the interest of the principal. And in another complaint, he files
an action for damages. And then he files another complaint for attorneys
fees. How many causes of action does he have? Only onethe act of Y not
paying his loan. So he should file only one actioncollection of sum of money
with interest, damages, and attorneys fees.
Another example:
X while walking was bumped by a vehicle driven by Y and owned by Z. X filed
a complaint against Z, the owner of the vehicle, for reimbursement of hospital
expenses. And then he files another case to recover his medicalthe
purchase of medicine. And then he files another action for the payment of
doctors fees. And another action for compensatory damages because he
was not able to work for one month. This is again splitting of a single cause of
action. The single cause of action being the driver hitting him while he was
crossing the street. Thats only one cause of action. You cannot file several
cases based on that one act or omission. You file on action for damages you
include your actual, compensatory, etc. and all those others, doctors fees,
medicines, etc.
So if two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action,
only one case should remain and the others must be dismissed.
So what is the effect? Section 4.
Page 82 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
If you file two complaints based on the same cause of action, the effect madali
lang sana noh if they say one case will be dismissed, only one will remain. It
couldve been so easy. But, look how complicated it isthe filing of one or a
judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of
the others. So here we are already introducing the concept of Litis pendentia
and res judicata.
Section 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.
Okay, so if you look ha
-The filing of one
-The judgment upon the merits of another
So we have one case here, first action and then, ito yun the filing of one, and the
judgment of one, will be the basis for the dismissal of another.
So case 1 will be the basis for the dismissal of action 2.
A judgment in action 2, will be the basis for the dismissal of action 2.
Litis Pendentia is the filing. The filing of one shall be the basis for the
dismissal of another. Meaning there is another action pending with the same
parties and same cause. That is litis pendentia. Two pending cases based on
the same cause of action.
Res Judicata is the judgment upon the merits in any ony one is available as
ground for the dismissal of the others. Meaning there is already a decided
case based on this cause of action and then another one is filed based on
the same cause of action. That is Res Judicata. So for res judicata it is very easy
to determine which case shall be dismissed. Which one? Syempre yung finile
na sunod kasi the first one is already finished noh.
But for litis pendentia, there are two pending cases. Does it follow that the
second case will be the one to be dismissed? More or less, yes. The second
case will be dismissed as a general rule. But there are instances when the
first case is the one that it is dismissed. But we will not take that up now. We will
take that up in Rule 16.
This is what I want you to remember, if there is SPLITTING OF A CAUSE OF
ACTION, the ground for dismissal is not splitting of a single cause of
action. The ground for dismissal is either LITIS PENDENTIA or RES JUDICATA.
Just take note of this. We will not discuss, it is too complicated. Just remember
that the grounds for dismissal is either litis pendentia or res judicata if there is
splitting of a single cause of action.
What are the reasons for this rule against splitting?
1. To prevent repeated litigation between the same parties on the same
controversy.
2. To protect the defendant from unnecessary vexation.
3. To avoid the cost incident to numerous suits.
Hence the legal maxim nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa or no
one must be twiced vexed for one and the same cause.
So now we are going to look at this SINGLENESS OF A CAUSE OF ACTION.
How do you know if there is only one cause of action?
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.
Dont ever forget the meaning of a cause of action. It is an act or omission.
You look at the act. Ilang act ba? You look at the omission. How many times ba
did he not perform the act? Yan ang bilangin mo.
and not by the number of remedies that the law grants the injured party.
A single delict may have two or more remedies but it does not mean the party
can avail all the remedies or one after another.
So do not confuse the number of causes of action with the remedies
granted by law.
Page 83 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
Yung remedy yung action. Yung cause of action yung act or omission. Yung
remedy is the action filed in court.
Example:
A violation, breach of contract, could give rise to an action of specific
performance or a civil action for rescission. There is one breach made by
the defendant of the contract. The plaintiff can either file an action for specific
performance to coerce the defendant to perform his obligation or ayaw na niya,
magfile nalang siya ng rescission. Pwede bang dalawa? In one court specific
performce in another court rescission. NO. Pili siya. Otherwise he would be
splitting his cause of action. There is only one act but he filed so many actions.
In the Recto Law,in Sales. What are the remedies of the unpaid seller for
personal property? There are three remedies. Optional.
1. Rescission
2. Exact Fulfillment of the Obligation
3. Foreclosure of Mortgagre
Can you file all three? No. You will be splitting the cause of action.
Very popular, debtor obtains a loan from the bank and offers as collateral his
house and lot. So that is a loan with mortgage. He fails to pay the bank. The
bank files an action for collection of the loan. Pwede ba siya magfile ng
foreclosure? No.
Okay, so what are the rules in determining the singleness of a cause of action
when it comes to a contract?
DEIPARINE 1.31-2 HR
1. General Rule: A contract embraces only one cause of action because it
may be violated only once, even if it contains several stipulations.
Example: X enters into a contract with Y which contains 3
stipulations. That on June 10, 2010, X would deliver to Y 100
iphones. On the same day, he will deliver to Y 100 ipads. And
on the same day, he will deliver to Y 100 laptops. So 3
stipulations. Pagdating ng June 10, 2010, X did not deliver to Y
any iphone, ipad and laptop. He violated all 3 stipulations. How
many causes of action? There is only one. Even if there is
several stipulations in the contract, there is only one violation
because there is only 1 date of delivery: June 10, 2010.
2. Exception: A contract which provides for several stipulations to be
perforemed at different times gives rise to as many causes of action as
there are violations.
Example: X borrowed 1M from Y. There was only one
promissory note issued by X stating that he will pay the 1M in 10
installments of 100K a month. There is only 1 contract but there are 10
payment dates from January to October. So come January 10, X does not
pay. There is already a cause of action that arose. Pagdating ng Feb,
another cause of action. March, another cause of action. There are many
causes of action as there are violations. So every time there is a
violation, Y can file a collection case against X kasi due na every month.
How many possible actions for collections does Y have? 10, because
there 10 different dates.
What if dumaan na ang January 10 to October 10, then wala pa
ring binayad si X kahit singko. How many causes of action does Y have?
10. Di man siya nag file, pinalipas niya. That is Rule # 3.
3. Exception to the exception: All obligations 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.
So, if it is already November, Y must file one complaint for
collection. If isa lang i-file niya, barred na yung 9.
But this is only applicable if all obligations are due.
4. Exception to Rule #2- When the failure to comply with one of several
stipulations in a continuing contract constitutes a total breach.
So, example. Going back to our example, 10 installments. Kunyare January to
March, nagbayad. Pagdating ng April, din a nagbayad. He is repudiating the
entire promissory note, forgery daw ang kanyang signature. So the 6 payments
not paid for becomes due and demandable from that point onwards. So kahit
Page 84 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
hindi pa due yan, Y can file an action for the 600K unpaid because it has been
repudiated by X. Y does not have to wait for the due date of those installments.
NOVEMBER 30, 2017
ENFECTANA, JAZZMIN FIRST 30 MINS
Dont forget that for every cause of action, you cannot divide your remedies.
You can only file one action for every cause of action.
Section 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:
(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
(d) Where the claims in all the causes action are principally for recovery of
money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction. (5a)
Take note of what Section 5 says: he may have against an opposing
party. What does that mean? When is joinder of causes of action allowed? It
means many causes of action against the same party.
*meaning the same defendant
Example: A has cause of action against B. Then, another cause of action
arises with the same opposing party (B). A can join his causes of action against
B.
How causes of action joined together? In the first part of Section 5, it
says, in the ALTERNATIVE OR OTHERWISE. What is otherwise? It means
CUMULATIVE.
ALTERNATIVE [maski kinsa sa ila duha] means when the cause of
action of the plaintiff is either against one or the other defendant. He is not
seeking relief from both defendants but either of them. P has 2 remedies. The
cause of action could be a breach of contract, or it could be something else.
Example: P bought some goods from Hong Kong and the goods were loaded on
board vessel owned by carrier D1. If the vessels come from abroad, the rule is
that there must be arrastre operators who are in-charged of taking the
goods out of the vessel and bringing them to the customs warehouse. So we
have the arrastre operator, D2, here. When P received the goods from HK, they
were damaged. He doesnt know who is liable for the damage it could either
be the carrier or the arrastre operator.
He can file an action for damages based on breach of contract against the
carrier and he can also file an action for damages based on culpa aquiliana
against the arrastre operator. Why breach of contract against the carrier?
Because there is a contract of carriage between P and D1. There is no contract
between P and D2. An arrastre operator contracts with the government. It is
liable to the government.
Can P file an action against both? Yes. So P has two remedies against D1
or D2. There are also two causes of action because either of them or both of
them could have been negligent. So P can sue both of them for damages in one
complaint. P can only collect from the party who the court finds out as the
negligent party.
Another example: P was on board a bus. Suddenly, a truck hit the bus from
behind. P was injured. Now, he wasnt sure if it was the fault of the bus driver or
the truck driver. sue? He can sue both in the alternative. The cause of action
is culpa contractual against the bus company and quasi-delict or culpa
acquiliana against the truck driver. He can also include the owner of the truck
under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. There are three defendants here: 1. Bus
company 2. Driver of the truck 3. Owner of the truck. At the end of the day, one
of them will be held liable by the court (court will determine)after presentation
of evidences.
CUMULATIVE[sailing tanan!]- It means that the plaintiff seeks relief to all his
causes of action.
Page 85 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
Examples: P filed an action to collect three unpaid promissory notes from
D. All of them are due. The three causes of action are joined. P is not expecting
to be paid for only one promissory note but for the three notes. D borrowed 3
M. 1 M in each promissory note. So P files a joinder of causes of action in his
3 promissory notes against 1 defendant. (basta dapat isa langa ang
opposing party, bahala og daghang causes of action-3 promissory note)
Another example is P an illegitimate child of D files an action for Compulsory
acknowledgement and Support against D (father). Here he is asking for
both. That is Cumulative.
These Alternative Defendants are based on Section 13 of Rule 3.
Section 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.
Rule 8, Section 2 also says
Section 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.
Now, is joinder available all the time? No, because there are conditions of
proper joinder.
(a) The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the rules on
joinder of parties
Here, joinder of causes of action and parties is allowed as long as the rule on
joinder of parties is complied with. What is that rule? There must be a
common question of fact and law involved in that case.
Example: P1 and P2 ride the same bus. It is owned by D. The bus was met with
an accident. P1 and P2 are injured. So, when you talk about joinder of parties, it
can either mean 2 plaintiffs joined together or a plaintiff against 2 joined
defendants. Here, in this example, P1 and P2 each of them has a cause of action
against D. They have cause of action because both of them are injured. They
can file an action against D, the bus company. Can P1 and P2 be joined in one
complaint? Yes, there is a common question of fact- they are riding the
same bus, and they are suing the same entity- the bus operator. Since there
is a joinder of parties, it is automatic that there is joinder of causes of action.
Each party has cause of action so when they (parties) are joined, their causes of
action are also joined.
Another example: P1 is riding a bus owned by D going to Digos. P2 is also
riding a bus owned by D going to Kidapawan. Both buses were met with an
accident. And si P1 and P2 pala ay neighbors, nagkita sila sa hospital and they
found out that the owner of the bus is the same entity. So they decided to join in
one case para mura, and isang lawyer lang. Can they do that? No, because
there is no common question of fact or law. They rode different bus, so no
common question of fact. So there can be no proper joinder of parties and no
joinder causes of action. So they have to file separately.
(b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed by
special rules
An ordinary action can only be joined by another ordinary action. If
your action is Accion Publiciana, an ordinary civil action, you can join
it with an action of collection of money, another ordinary civil
action.
So P can file both ordinary civil actions against D even they are
inconsistent with each other. For example, recovery of land and
collection of money. BUT P cannot file Forcible entry and accion
Publiciana against D in the same action. Why? Because Forcible entry
is a special civil action. Thus, a special civil action cannot be joined
by an ordinary civil action.
Can you join a collection case with infringement of patent? No.
Infringement of patent is governed by the rules on Intellectual
Property cases.
(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
Page 86 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
Regional Trial Court provided one of the causes of action falls within the
jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein;
This pertains to the same parties but different venues. Let us say P vs D.
The first cause of action is accion publiciana for a parcel of land in
Davao City. And another accion publiciana for a parcel of land in
Tagum City with an assessed value of P50,000. So same parties but
different venues. According to the provision the joinder may be
allowed in the RTC, provided that one the causes of action falls within
the jurisdiction of the RTC and the venue lies therein.
D encroached on two parcels of land belonging to P. The assessed value of
the first lot is P20,000 in Mati and the second lot is P1M in Davao. P has two
causes of action for accion publiciana one falls within the jurisdiction of
MTC of Mati and RTC of Davao. The two actions can be joined but only in
the RTC of Davao. So P has 2 causes of action. Accion Publiciana against
D. Can P join the two? Yes, they can be joined in the RTC. First, they are
same parties. Second, they pertain to two different venues- RTC and MTC.
One of them falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC.
Next example:
Two encroachments. D encroached on two parcels of land belonging to P.
The assessed value of the first lot is P20,000 in Mati and the second lot is
P20,000 in Davao. P has two causes of action for accion publicianathe first one
falls under the jurisdiction of the MTC of Mati and the second one is MTC of
Davao.
Can they be joined together? No. If there are different venues, you cannot join
because joinder of action, when they pertain to different venues, can only be
done in the RTC. They have to proceed separately.
MASANGUID, REMMON 31- 1 HR
Dont forget that for every cause of action, you cannot divide your
remedies. You can only file one action for every cause of action.
Section 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:
(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
(d) Where the claims in all the causes action are principally for recovery of
money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction. (5a)
Take note of what Section 5 says: he may have against an opposing
party. What does that mean? When is joinder of causes of action allowed? It
means many causes of action against the same party.
Example: A has cause of action against B. Then, another cause of action
arises with the same opposing party (B). A can join his causes of action against
B.
How causes of action joined together? In the first part of Section 5, it
says, in the ALTERNATIVE OR OTHERWISE. What is otherwise? It means
CUMULATIVE.
ALTERNATIVE means when the cause of action of the plaintiff is either
against one or the other defendant. He is not seeking relief from both
defendants but either of them. P has 2 remedies. The cause of action could be a
breach of contract, or it could be something else.
Example: P bought some goods from Hong Kong and the goods were loaded on
board vessel owned by carrier D1. If the vessels come from abroad, the rule is
that there must be arrastre operators who are in-charged of taking the goods
out of the vessel and bringing them to the customs warehouse. So we have the
arrastre operator, D2, here. When P received the goods from HK, they were
damaged. He doesnt know who is liable for the damage it could either be the
carrier or the arrastre operator.
Page 87 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
He can file an action for damages based on breach of contract against the
carrier and he can also file an action for damages based on culpa aquiliana
against the arrastre operator. Why breach of contract against the carrier?
Because there is a contract of carriage between P and D1. There is no contract
between P and D2. An arrastre operator contracts with the government. It is
liable to the government.
Can P file an action against both? Yes. So P has two remedies against D1 or
D2. There are also two causes of action because either of them or both of them
could have been negligent. So P can sue both of them for damages in one
complaint. P can only collect from the party who the court finds out as the
negligent party.
Another example: P was on board a bus. Suddenly, a truck hit the bus from
behind. P was injured. Now, he wasnt sure if it was the fault of the bus driver or
the truck driver. sue? He can sue both in the alternative. The cause of action is
culpa contractual against the bus company and quasi-delict or culpa acquiliana
against the truck driver. He can also include the owner of the truck under
Article 2180 of the Civil Code. There are three defendants here: 1. Bus
company 2. Driver of the truck 3. Owner of the truck. At the end of the day, one
of them will be held liable by the court (court will determine)after presentation
of evidences.
CUMULATIVE- It means that the plaintiff seeks relief to all his causes of action.
Examples: P filed an action to collect three unpaid promissory notes from D. All
of them are due. The three causes of action are joined. P is not expecting to be
paid for only one promissory note but for the three notes. D borrowed 3 M. 1 M
in each promissory note. So P files a joinder of causes of action in his 3
promissory notes against 1 defendant.
Another example is P an illegitimate child of D files an action for Compulsory
acknowledgement and Support against D (father). Here he is asking for both.
That is Cumulative.
These Alternative Defendants are based on Section 13 of Rule 3.
Section 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.
Rule 8, Section 2 also says
Section 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.
Now, is joinder available all the time? No, because there are conditions of
proper joinder.
(a) The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the rules on
joinder of parties
Here, joinder of causes of action and parties is allowed as long as
the rule on joinder of parties is complied with. What is that rule?
There must be a common question of fact and law involved in that
case.
Example: P1 and P2 ride the same bus. It is owned by D. The bus
was met with an accident. P1 and P2 are injured. So, when you talk
about joinder of parties, it can either mean 2 plaintiffs joined
together or a plaintiff against 2 joined defendants. Here, in this
example, P1 and P2 each of them has a cause of action against D.
They have cause of action because both of them are injured. They
can file an action against D, the bus company. Can P1 and P2 be
joined in one complaint? Yes, there is a common question of fact-
they are riding the same bus, and they are suing the same entity-
the bus operator. Since there is a joinder of parties, it is automatic
that there is joinder of causes of action. Each party has cause of
action so when they (parties) are joined, their causes of action are
also joined.
Another example: P1 is riding a bus owned by D going to Digos. P2
is also riding a bus owned by D going to Kidapawan. Both buses
were met with an accident. And si P1 and P2 pala ay neighbors,
nagkita sila sa hospital and they found out that the owner of the bus
is the same entity. So they decided to join in one case para mura,
Page 88 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
and isang lawyer lang. Cana they do that? No, because there is no
common question of fact or law. They rode different bus, so no
common question of fact. So there can be no proper joinder of
parties and no joinder causes of action. So they have to file
separately.
(b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed
by special rules
An ordinary action can only be joined by another ordinary action. If
your action is Accion Publiciana, an ordinary civil action, you can
join it with an action of collection of money, another ordinary civil
action.
So P can file both ordinary civil actions against D even they are
inconsistent with each other. For example, recovery of land and
collection of money. BUT P cannot file Forcible entry and accion
Publiciana against D in the same action. Why? Because Forcible
entry is a special civil action. Thus, a special civil action cannot be
joined by an ordinary civil action.
Can you join a collection case with infringement of patent? No.
Infringement of patent is governed by the rules on Intellectual
Property cases.
(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;
This pertains to the same parties but different venues. Let us say P
vs D. The first cause of action is accion publiciana for a parcel of
land in Davao City. And another accion publiciana for a parcel of
land in Tagum City with an assessed value of P50,000. So same
parties but different venues. According to the provision the joinder
may be allowed in the RTC, provided that one the causes of action
falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC and the venue lies therein.
D encroached on two parcels of land belonging to P. The assessed
value of the first lot is P20,000 in Mati and the second lot is P1M in
Davao. P has two causes of action for accion publiciana one falls within
the jurisdiction of MTC of Mati and RTC of Davao. The two actions can
be joined but only in the RTC of Davao. So P has 2 causes of action.
Accion Publiciana against D. Can P join the two? Yes, they can be joined
in the RTC. First, they are same parties. Second, they pertain to two
different venues- RTC and MTC. One of them falls within the jurisdiction
of the RTC.
Next example:
Two encroachments. D encroached on two parcels of land belonging to P. The
assessed value of the first lot is P20,000 in Mati and the second lot is P20,000
in Davao. P has two causes of action for accion publicianathe first one falls
under the jurisdiction of the MTC of Mati and the second one is MTC of Davao.
*both MTC jurisdiction
Can they be joined together? No. If there are different venues, you cannot join
because joinder of action, when they pertain to different venues, can only be
done in the RTC. They have to proceed separately.
SINGANON-LEXI 1.1-1.30
Example #5:
In 2007, D1 through force deprived deprived P of his possession of lot X. The
assessed value of lot X is P20,000.
In 2008, another person D2 encroached on another lot, lot Y, also belonging
to P. The assessed value of lot Y is P1,000,000.
So there are 2 encroachers here, D1 and D2.
In 2009, P filed complaints to recover both lots from D1 and D2.
So with respect to lot X, P can no longer file an action for forcible entry because
of the lapse of the 1-year period because it was in 2007 when he was forcibly
ousted. Therefore, what is the option of P? He can file accion publiciana against
D1, and since the value of the lot is P20, 000 this is under the jurisdiction of the
MTC.
What about lot Y? The value of the lot encroached is P1, 000,000 so this is accion
publiciana under the jurisdiction of the RTC.
Page 89 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
Can P join the 2 causes of action? NO. Cases under Sec. 3:
Under the first requisite, there are 2 defendants D1 and D2. There is no Yap vs PDCP
common question of fact and law between them. It just so happened that the
lots they entered belong to P but the circumstances are different. So this is Issue: WON PDCP is guilty of splitting of cause of action, because it filed a
already violative of Sec. 5(a). B.P. 22 case and foreclosure of mortgage at the same time
Held: NO.

Example #6:
The causes of action are forcible entry and accion publiciana. You cannot The Yaps anchor their position on Supreme Court Circular 57-97, which
join them together because one is a special civil action[forcible entry]. provides for the rules and guidelines in the filing and prosecution of criminal
cases under BP 22. Pertinent portions of Circular 57-97 provide:
Lets go to Sec. 5(d):
(1)The criminal action for violation of [BP] 22 shall be deemed to necessarily
Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for recovery of include the corresponding civil action, and no reservation to file such civil
money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction. action separately shall be allowed or recognized.
This is the TOTALITY RULE. Circular 57-97 has been institutionalized as Section 1(b), Rule 111 of the Rules of
Court:
Example:
Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions.xxx
P wants to file a collection case against D. Apparently, D issued 3 promisory
notes in favor of P for P200,000 each. They are all due. If P wants to file (b)The criminal action for violation of [BP] 22 shall be deemed to include the
collection cases, he should file it with the MTC. 1 action/promissory note, so 3 corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such civil action separately
actions for P200,000 each. shall be allowed.
But if P wants to join them together against the same defendant D, then he has to When a debtor is not able to pay his loan obligation that is secured by post-
add the amount due for the 3 promissory notes, so P600,000. Now, that is under dated checks that eventually bounced as mortgage, there are three remedies
the jurisdiction of the RTC. available to the creditor:
If you join 2 causes of action and you dont follow or you violate the conditions Action Cause of Action
under Sec. 5, is this a ground for dismissal? NO.
1. Collection of money The act of nonpayment of the loan
Sec. 6. Misjoinder of causes of action. obligation
Misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for dismissal of an action. A 2. Foreclosure of mortgage The act of nonpayment of the loan
misjoined cause of action may, on motion of a party or on the initiative of obligation
the court, be severed and proceeded with separately.
3. B.P. 22 case The act of issuing a worthless
So the effect of a misjoinder is not dismissal, but SEVERANCE of the misjoined (bouncing) check
causes of action and may be proceeded with separately.
However, based on Sec. 1(b) Rule 2 of the Rules of Court, the civil action is
Page 90 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
already deemed instituted in the criminal action. As such, upon the filing of
the B.P. 22 case, the action for collection of sum of money is already deemed
part of it. In effect, the exercise of 1 of the remedies will bar the filing of the
other 2.
Here, the PDCP still granted the 2 different motions/remedies because
PDCP filed the actions before the effectivity of the new rule thus such filing of
both actions was still allowed. Therefore, PDCP is not guilty of splitting of cause
of action.
In this situation, there is a mortgage and there are checks issued. So we have
the property subject of the mortgage and there are checks. If the debtor fails to
pay, the bank or the creditor has 3 options:
(2) Foreclosure of mortgage;
(3) Collection of sum of money; and
(4) Prosecution under B.P. 22 (for the checks that bounced)
However, the bank cannot file both foreclosure and collection at the same
time because that is tantamount to splitting a cause of action.
What is the act/omission here? The act is the nonpayment of the loan. Because
of the violation of the obligation, the creditor bank now has the right to
foreclose the mortgaged property or to file a collection case. Now in an action
for violation of BP 22, it cannot be said that the cause of action is the same
in a foreclosure or collection case because the act/omission involved in
BP 22 is the issuance of the worthless check.
Before, a creditor can file both a collection case and an action under BP 22 at
the same time because they have different causes of action. But as already
mentioned under your Criminal Procedure, the collection case is deemed
instituted in the BP 22 case. So if you file a BP 22 case, the collection case is
already included.
However, since the present action was filed before the said circular, then the
filing of both actions is still allowed.[ collection + BP 22 NOT ALLOWED
ANYMORE]
Flores vs Sps. Lindo
Issue: WON there was splitting of cause of action
Held: NO. The rule is that a mortgage-creditor has a single cause of action
against a mortgagor-debtor, that is, to recover the debt.
The mortgage-creditor has the option of either filing a personal action for
collection of sum of money or instituting a real action to foreclose on the
mortgage security. These remedies may be availed of in the alternative, an
election of the first bars recourse to the second.
The Court has ruled that if a creditor is allowed to file his separate complaints
simultaneously or successively, one to recover his credit and another to
foreclose his mortgage, he will, in effect, be authorized plural redress for a
single breach of contract at so much costs to the court and with so much
vexation and oppressiveness to the debtor.
In this case, however, there are circumstances that the Court takes into
consideration.
Considering the circumstances of this case, the principle against unjust
enrichment, being a substantive law, should prevail over the procedural
rule on multiplicity of suits. The Court of Appeals, in the assailed decision,
found that Edna admitted the loan, except that she claimed it only amounted to
340,000. Edna should not be allowed to unjustly enrich herself because of the
erroneous decisions of the two trial courts when she questioned the validity of
the Deed.
Here, the judicial foreclosure was dismissed. If she was able to collect from
the judicial foreclosure, the collection of sum of money will no longer be
allowed.
In other words, when it comes to this issue, pursuing several remedies for one
cause of action, the rule against splitting of cause of action is not the only basis
of the SC. There is also this principle against unjust
enrichment(SUBSTANTIVE LAW). But as already mentioned before, these
rules are technicalities. They are not substantive. Therefore, when you talk of
technicalities, you dont have justice and equity in mind.
And in this case, if the SC stuck through this issue about splitting of cause of
action, then there would be no remedy for the creditor because the judicial
foreclosure was dismissed. So she was not able to foreclose. Now what can she
do? If the rule on splitting was strictly applied by the SC, then there would be
no other remedy, and she can no longer pursue the remedy of collection. That
is why here, the SC used other basis instead.
Page 91 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
Catalina Chu vs Sps. Cunanan
Issue: WON Chu was guilty of splitting a single cause of action
Held: YES. Splitting a single cause of action is the act of dividing a single or
indivisible cause of action into several parts or claims and instituting two
or more actions upon them. A single cause of action or entire claim or
demand cannot be split up or divided in order to be made the subject of two or
more different actions.
Thus, Section 4, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court expressly prohibits splitting of a
single cause of action:
Section 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.
Here, there was actually just one contract which is the Deed of Absolute
Sale with assumption of mortgage. Even though the ownership of the properties
was later on transferred to other parties, it was still an indivisible cause of
action. All the actions stemmed from only one contract and when it was
breached, there was total breach of the entire obligation. Therefore, the
contract gave rise to only one cause of action. As such, the Chus can no longer
proceed with the second civil case, and the doctrine of res judicata applies by
virtue of the Compromise Agreement.
In other words, in the contract between Cunanan and Chu, the failure to pay
the amount due is the act that gave rise to the cause of action. The sale to
the other parties is not included, only the nonpayment. And that is what Chu
wanted in the first place, the enforcement of the obligation, that Cunanan pay
the balance of the agreed purchase price or the annulment of the entire
contract. And then they entered into a Compromise Agreement for that contract
which included only one lot. The other action was for the Cancellation or
Annulment of the sale of the other 2 lots. Because here, the original lot was
divided into different lots, there was splitting of the lot that was the basis of one
single contract. So that is an example of splitting of a single cause of action.
Agustin vs Mariano
Issue: WON there was splitting of a single cause of action
Held: NO. There was no single cause of action.
Under Section 4, Rule 2 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, 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.
Res judicata applies in the concept of "bar by prior judgment" if the following
requisites concur:
(1) the former judgment or order must be final;
(2) the judgment or order must be on the merits;
(3) the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over
the subject matter and the parties; and
(4) there must be, between the first and the second action, identity of
parties, of subject matter and of causes of action.
The subject matter in both cases is not the same.
In an unlawful detainer case, the subject matter is the contract of lease
between the parties while the breach thereof constitutes the suits cause of
action. In the present case, the lease contract subject of the controversy is
verbal and on a monthly basis. In these instances, it is well settled that the
lease is one with a definite period which expires after the last day of any given
thirty-day period.
Following this reasoning, it becomes apparent that what exists between the
parties is not just one continuous contract of lease, but a succession of lease
contracts, each spanning a period of one month. Hence, to be accurate, each
action for ejectmenteach referring to a unique thirty-day period of
occupation of respondents property by the petitionerdeals with a
separate and distinct lease contract corresponding to a separate and
distinct juridical relation between the parties.
Considering, therefore, that the subject matter of Civil Case No. 167142-CV is a
different contract of lease from the subject matter of the instant case, it is
Page 92 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
obvious that there is no identity of subject matter between the first ejectment
suit and the ejectment suit subject of the present action. Therefore, there is no
splitting of single cause of action.
So looking at this from a different angle, we have here a normal contract of
lease. Lets say the payment of the lease is on a monthly basis, so the lease
contract is from month to month. As long as theres payment, the lease will not
expire.
The first ejectment case was filed based on the reason that the daughter needed
to occupy the apartment. Did they have a cause of action? No. What was the
right and the obligation? The right in a lease contract is to collect the monthly
rentals on the part of the lessor and the obligation is to pay the monthly rentals
on the part of the lessee. Was there an allegation of nonpayment? None.
They just wanted to use the premises. So there exists no cause of action
because theres no violation by the lessee of the right of the lessor.
In the second case, before they filed the second ejectment case they sent a
notice of termination of the verbal lease that it be terminated from a
particular date. So from that time on, the contract is terminated. So the
obligation is for Agustin to vacate the premises because the contract has
been terminated. However, Agustin refused to vacate. As such, there was a
violation which gives rise to a cause of action. The act was the refusal of Agustin
to vacate the premises.
Between the first ejectment case and the second ejectment case, was there
similar cause of action? No. Thus, there was no splitting of cause of action.
Just because there was the same remedy of ejectment between the same
parties, doesnt mean that it involves the same cause of action. So if it not
the same cause of action, theres no splitting, and therefore there is no res
judicata.
BALGOA, PATRICIA
Last 20 minutes
Yung mga nireregister lang sa DTI yung mga ah cellphone what do you call
that yeah. Anyway.
So those are who may be parties in a civil action.
Now, the parties in a civil action are called according to Sec 1 are:
1. Plaintiff: one who is claiming, filing an action because his right was
violated, one who has a cause of action
2. Defendant
So it is normally na plaintiff is original claimant. So P v D P is the plaintiff (the
claimant)
In civil cases, counterclaims are allowed. Say D has cause of action against P.
He becomes counter-claimant. Insofar as the counterclaim is concerned, D
is the plaintiff, the counterclaimant.
What if P files an action against D1 and D2? So dalawa. Joinder of defendants.
Tapos sabi ni D1 Bakit ako ang finile-lan? Dapat si D2! Nagfile siya ng cross-
claim against d2. So he is the cross-claimant in this case. That is also considered
a plaintiff.
Ito naman si D2 Teka bakit ako finile-lan? Kasalanan ito ni X! This is what you
call third-party complaint. You bring in somebody new to the case. D2 becomes
third-party plaintiff.
Now itong si X Bakit ako finile-lan?! Kasalanan ni Y! He files against Y. X now
is the fourth party plaintiff
So the one who files; the one who claims against the other party is a
plaintiff.
So the defendant. The original defendant is D. P who was originally the
plaintiff is now the defendant in the counter-claim. D2 is the cross-
defendant and then X is the third-party defendant. Y is the fourth-party
defendant.
So they are all considered defendants.
Okay so now lets go to Section 2.
Section 2. Parties in interest. A real party in interest is the party who
stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party
entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these
Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real
party in interest. (2a)
Page 93 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
Remember that case of Juan and Jose? The heirs of sino nga ba yun? The ones
who filed were the heirs of other co-owner na hindi naman nabenta ang share
nila. Noh?
They were not real parties-in-interest because they will not be benefitted if that
sale made by Juan to some other party.
Hence, they are not considered real parties-in-interest.
Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be
prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest. (2a)
In the name ha? In the name. It does not say by. In other words, P is a real
party-in-interest, so his name should be there. The complaint must be in his
name. He is the plaintiff although somebody else is doing it. Baka may SPA.
Pwede naman yan eh.
Exception: Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules.
Example of real party-in-interest:
1. Accion publiciana: eh di the one who was dispossessed. One who
wants to recover possessionnot the caretaker.
2. Accion reinvidicatoria: This is commonly recovery of ownership. So
the original owner of property finds out that it is registered in
someone elses name. So not caretaker of land. It must be him.
3. Actions for damages based on breach of contract of carriage: very
very particular because the parties to the case must be the plaintiff who
is either the passenger or a shipper or consignee AGAINST the
common carrier.
a. You cannot file an action for damages based on breach of
contract of carriage against the driver. No. The driver is not a
contracting party in breach of contract of carriage.
b. So if it is an ordinary contract like contract of sale, then the real
parties-in-interest are those parties to the contract.
c. So in breach of contract, the real parties-in-interest are the
parties. Strangers have no business in the contract because
they are not real parties-in-interest.
d. Exception: When there is stipulation in the contract favourable
to a third person, a stipulation pour atrui.
e. Anyone who has a car na may TPL? (Third Party Liable) If you
bump somebody or injured somebody, then that person can
benefit from the insurance. Sino yan? Nobody knows. Even that
third person is not a party to the contract of insurance between
registered owner at ng insurance company, yang insurance is
for the benefit of the third party.
In the case Baliwag Transit v CAthis came out sa 1989 bar.
P was a passenger on board Baliwag bus, and Baliwag bus figured in an
accident. P was injured.
So there was a joinder wherein P and her parents filed an action for damages
against Baliwag Transit for the injury suffered suffered by P.
Are the parents real parties-in-interest? No.
There was a contract of carriage between P(the child) and Baliwag Transit.
The parents have nothing to do with the contract and there is no stipulation pour
atrui there.
It could be a different story had P died. If P died, then the parents could file
the action against the carrier.(heirs na sila?) But since P is alive, then it is P.
Salonga v Barnes
P is an OFW, but he has properties in the Philippines. May mga business siya.
So he executed an SPA to X which empowered X to administer his business
to collect his income, to deposit and withdraw his money in the bank, to sue
who violates any contract noh or those who do not pay, and even to hire a
lawyer, and even to enter into contracts.
Ang daming powers noh na binigay kay X.
So X managed the property of P. Here comes D, one of the tenants who failed to
pay the rentals because X is authorized by P.
He hired a lawyer to file an action for collection against X and it stated
there as caption na si X(kadtong gi-authorize through SPA/agent) is the
plaintiff D is the defendant.
Is this proper? No.
The real party-in-interest here is P, the owner of the property although the
contract was entered into by X. Who will eventually benefit if D is ordered to
pay? P. It is not X he is merely an agent. It is P, the real owner, the OFW out of
Page 94 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
the country. Therefore P is the real party-in-interest.
And therefore, the complaint must have the caption P v D
That is fine. P v D or if you want to be more specific, P represented by X by
virtue of special power of atty. Vs. D And X will be the one who will
participate sa case.
That is what it means na every action must be named sa real party-in-interest.
Republic v Agunoy
To qualify a person as real party-in-interest, he must appear to be the present
owner of the right sought to be enforced. A real party-in-interest is one who
stands to be benefitted or injured by judgment in the suit and entitled to the
avails of the suit. It means a present substantial interest as distinguished
from a mere expectancy, or a future, contingent, subordinate or
consequential interest.
MAKE-UP CLASS DECEMBER 2, 2017
CAMPANER, MARIA ALLEXA
Cases on Rule 3 Section 2:[PARTIES IN INTEREST]
________________________________________________________________
BPI FAMILY BANK vs. BUENAVENTURA
Facts: In 1989, Buenaventura accepted an amount from Franco in the amount of
500k. Buenaventura et al opened an account with the BPI Family Bank; the
check was credit to their account. Eventually they found out that their current
account was frozen on the ground that the source of their fund was illegal or
unauthorized. They demanded for the accounts reinstatement but BPI refused.
So they filed a complaint for reinstatement of their account or release of money
with damages.
RTC held that BPI has no right to unilaterally freeze the account since
Buenaventura et al has no participation in the alleged fraud.
On appeal, BPI asked for dismissal on the ground of lack of cause of action
(reporter: but we all know that it is failure to state cause of action which is a
ground for dismissal) since it is the International Baptist Academy which is the
owner of the accounts deposited with BPI, and is the real party-in-interest.
CA affirmed the RTC and stated that since it is Buenaventura et als name in the
account which was frozen by BPI, then they are the real parties-in-interest.
Issue: WON Buenaventura et al are real parties-in-interest who can properly
prosecute an action
Held: Yes.
SC referred to Sec. 2 of Rule 3 in defining who a real party-in-interest is.
To qualify as a real party-in-interest, the person must appear to be the present
real owner of the right sought to be enforced. Generally, in contracts, it may be
violated only by the parties within that contract, then the real parties-in-
interest, either as a plaintiff or as defendant, must necessarily be the parties
to the contract.
Applying the above to the facts, Buenaventura et al are real parties-in-
interest because they were the signatories of the check which was
dishonored by BPI. Consequently, they are the ones to be held liable for the
non-payment of the dishonored checks they issue. Hence, they are real parties-
in-interest who can enforce the contract of deposit with BPI.
________________________________________________________________
Here, the funds actually belonged to the International Baptist Academy.
But the account holders were Buenaventura et al, so they would be affected
by any judgment or ruling of the court, rather than IBA. Thus they are
considered real parties-in-interest who may prosecute the action.
________________________________________________________________
GODINEZ vs. CA
Facts: Delfina Village Subdivision Homeowners Association (DVSHA) filed a
case before the RTC for damages and injunction against the Godinez. The
Godinez are operating a mineral processing plant in the annex of their
residential house which is against the rules of the association.
Page 95 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
In their answer, Godinez claims that DVSHA has no capacity to sue and is not a
real party-in-interest (it is the homeowners who are the real parties-in-interest
because it is them who are directly affected by the foul odour, etc of the plant)
Issue: WON DVSHA is a real party-in-interest
Held: Yes.
Although DVSHA (the association itself) does not suffer any injury from the act
of Godinez, its members or homeowners may sustain such injury.
The SC said that in this jurisdiction, an association has a standing to file a suit
for its members despite lack of interest, if its members are directly
affected by the action.
________________________________________________________________
Is the association going to be affected by the fumes and vapours being
emitted? No, but its members will be. So if the decision of the court is against
the Homeowners Association, then the members will have to continue
breathing the foul air. Hence, as an entity, it can be considered the real party-
in-interest. This is because the association is composed of the people, the
residents of the subdivision.
________________________________________________________________
CONSUMIDO vs. ROS
Facts: Sps Ramon and Fatima Saura filed an ejectment complaint against
Consumido before MTC. They alleged that Consumido entered into 2 lease
agreements with them sometime in 1995 and subsequently, she started
defaulting in the payment of rent. That after demands, she still failed to pay the
accrued rentals as well as refused to vacate the premises.
In her defense, Consumido alleges that she entered into the lease contracts not
with the spouses but the late Ramon Saura Sr. who was acting as the
administrator of the leased premises in behalf of Governor Forbes Corporation.
That there was just and legal ground for her refusal to pay to the spouses as the
property was already sold to Sandalwood Real Estate Corporation from Forbes
Corp.
MTC dismissed the complaint on the founding that the spouses are not real
parties-in-interest because at the time of the lease contract, it was Forbes Corp
which owns the leased premises.
Issue: WON the Sps Saura are real parties-in-interest and are consequenly
entitled to file the ejectment complaint
Held: No.
In an action for unlawful detainer, the real parties-in-interest are the
landlord, the vendor, the vendee, and any other person against whom the
lawful possession of the land is unlawfully withheld after the expiration of
the right to hold possession by virtue of a contract.
This case is for unlawful detainer. There was however no written lease
agreement thus there is need for the court to determine who are the parties to
the contract. And as was rightly found by the trial court, it was Forbes Corp
which was the lessor or the landlord being the registered owner.
In an action for unlawful detainer, the burden of proof lies upon the
plaintiff to prove that he is a party to the lease contract. Here, the spouses
were not able to discharge such burden. They failed to show evidence that
they are indeed parties to the contract. What they established only was that
they are the ones accepting payment for the said rentals. That fact alone
does not prove that they are the landlords of the property but may be merely
administrators or representatives of Forbes. Being only such, they are not
allowed to file the ejectment suit without the authority to prosecute in the
name of the real party-in-interest, which is now Sandalwood Real Estate
Corp, being the present owner.
________________________________________________________________
When the action is based on a contract (such as in this case, a lease
contract), it is very easy to determine who the real parties-in-interest are - the
contacting parties. So if one files an action based on a contract, alleging that he
or she is the real party-in-interest, he must show his participation in the
contract in whatever way. In this case, they were not able to prove that they
had anything to do with the contract of lease.
________________________________________________________________
EXCELLENT QUALITY vs. VELASCO
Facts: Here there are two contracting parties in a construction contract
undertaken in 1996. The parties are Excellent Quality Apparel and Multi-Rich
Builders. Excellent was represented by its VP Mr. Ying, and MultiRich by Mr.
Page 96 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
Wilson Chua. Later, Win Multi-Rich applied for incorporation with the SEC. WIN
is a separate entity but represented by the same Mr. Chua.
A collection suit was filed against Mr Ying of Excellent by WIN. Later, the
counsel of WIN moved to change its name into Multi-Rich Builders (as name of
plaintiff in the collection suit). It was only then that Excellent noticed the
variance in the name, and it moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that
WIN is not the contractor nor a party to the construction contract. Hence, it
cannot institute the case.
WIN was incorporated in 1997, one year after the execution of the contract in
1996.
Note: Multi-Rich is a sole proprietorship, whereas WIN is a corporation.
Issue: WON WIN is a real party-in-interest
Held: No.
In essence, what WIN wanted to do was assume the assets and liabilities of the
sole proprietorship (Multi-Rich) and become a corporation (WIN).
The SC said that WIN is not a real party-in-interest because it is not privy to
the construction contract entered into by Excellent and Multi-Rich.
________________________________________________________________
So Multi-Rich Builders is a business name of Mr. Chua, it is registered
with the DTI. It is not a juridical person, so it cannot sue, but it can enter
into some kind of agreement. WIN on the other hand is a juridical person.
However, WIN was only incorporated after there was a problem between the
two parties. So it is not a real party-in-interest in the contract, it is Multi-
Rich represented by Mr. Chua. The personality of Multi-Rich is different from
that of WIN.
The one who should have filed the suit is Mr. Chua(natural person)
doing business in the name and style of Multi-Rich Builders.
CASTRO, SUSHMITHA
MANESE vs. VELASCO
FACTS: Velasco obtained an OCT over a foreshore land which he therefore
transferred to several other people. Menese filed for annulment of title with
damages alleging that the patent were obtained through fraud and
misrepresentation, therefore it was void.
Manese claimed that Velasco was issued a patent through misrepresentation
and should be awarded for he was the one in adverse possession of the
foreshore land. Velasco moved to dismiss stating that Manese is not the real
party in interest but the government.
ISSUE: WON Manese is the real party in interest involving the case of lands of
public domain
RULING: Manese is not the real party in interest.
CA 141 is the law governing the lands of public domain. CA 141 provides that
the Solicitor General in the name of the Philippines should be the real
party in interest in lands of public domain. Since the remedy sought for this
is an action for reversion meaning lands are transferred back to the
Government. The one who should institute this case for reversion should be
the Solicitor General.
Another issue raised by Manese is that he should be the real party in interest
through the principle of equity. The SC said that to be a real party in interest
based on principle of equity; it should not be against statutory law or judicial
rules of procedure but in absence thereof. Hence, he is not a real party in
interest.
So here we have a complaint for annulment of title. So in this case it should be
the government who should file the action.
SECTION 3
*exception to real party interest
Section 3. Representatives as parties. Where the action is allowed to be
prosecuted and defended by a representative or someone acting in a
fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and
shall be deemed to be the real property in interest. A representative may be a
Page 97 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
trustee of an expert trust, a guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party
authorized by law or these Rules. An agent acting in his own name and for the
benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without joining the
principal except when the contract involves things belonging to the principal.
(3a)
So we know that according to Section 2 every action should be prosecuted or
defended in the name of the real party in interest. So the name of the real
party in interest must always be there. But Section 3 allows an action to be
prosecuted or defended by a representative- this is the by. The real party
in interest need not even show her face but her name must be there.
It says here, that the beneficiary meaning the real party in interest must be
included in the title of the name case and shall be deemed as a real party
in interest. Section 3 is merely a continuation of Section 2. That the real party in
interest must be named, this representative must be authorized. Who are the
representatives that are allowed? A trustee of an express trust. What is that? I
dont know. I dont teach Trusts. Just take note of that.
A guardian of a minor or of an insane person can be a representative; an
executor or administrator of an estate of a deceased person; or a party
authorized by law or by this rules. Somebody who is authorized pursuant to
a special power of attorney if the real party in interest is a natural person.
If the real party in interest is a juridical person and it must be through a
Board Resolution.
Example: Guardian. A minor was injured and he wanted to file for an action
for damages against the person responsible for his injury. But a minor does
not have the capacity to sue. Only those who have the capacity can file
an action. He is the real party in interest. Who are the guardians of a
minor? Most of the time the parents, but no parents, it can be the
grandparents or some other Court appointed guardian called the guardian
ad litem. The name of the minor still has to be there represented by Mr.
X the guardian.
Estate of a deceased person. Estate of XYZ represented by its
administrator Mr. A.
The last part of the provision:
x x x An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an
undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without joining the principal
except when the contract involves things belonging to the principal.
Meron mga iba they dont really want to be exposed in a civil action. And if an
agent is given a special power to sue or be sued without disclosing the
principal, he may do so. EXCEPT when the contract involves things
belonging to the principal, that is the only exception.
In your transcription there is this case Ching vs CA (181 SCRA 9)
FACTS: The D owes P 1M. D disappeared and P has no idea if D is alive or
dead. P filed a collection case against D if he is alive or against the estate
of D if he is dead. P obtained a judgment against D or the estate of D.
Later on it was discovered that D was already dead but he left behind a
properties. So P started to get hold of the properties of D.
ISSUE: Was the judgment of the court, rendering judgment against D or the
estate of D valid?
RULING: NO. D as a dead person has no more personality to sue. He cannot
sue under Section 1 only a natural or juridical person can sue or be sued. So if
the defendant in a collection case is a dead person, there is no valid party.
And therefore if there is no valid party then there is no valid judgment.
SECTION 4
Section 4. Spouses as parties. Husband and wife shall sue or be sued
jointly, except as provided by law. (4a)
If you look at your cases it is always Spouses X, Spouses Y, spouses this and
spouses that. You hardly see in a civil case if it is a married person who sues
and he sues alone. It is always spouses because of Section 4, husband and wife
shall sue jointly.
*except if regime is complete separation of property
In the case of Sharon Cuneta and Kiko Pangilinan, they can sue separately
because there regime is complete separation of property. So Sharon can sue
on her own without including her husband in a civil case.
Page 98 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
In Article 111 of the Family Code in relation to the exclusive property of the
spouses no need to include the other spouse.
Art. 111. A spouse of age may mortgage, encumber, alienate or otherwise
dispose of his or her exclusive property, without the consent of the other
spouse, and appear alone in court to litigate with regard to the same. (n)
What is the effect if a husband sues and doesnt include his wife? According to
jurisprudence, if a spouse is not joined then the Court must order amendment
of the pleadings to join the other spouse because the other spouse is
considered a real party in interest.
But in the case of Cuyugan vs. Dizon, the non-inclusion of the other spouse is
not a fatal defect but merely formal. The complaint should not be dismissed
outright if the other spouse is not included. The order of the court should be
the amendment of the pleading to include the other spouse.
SECTION 5
Section 5. Minor or incompetent persons. A minor or a person alleged to
be incompetent, may sue or be sued with the assistance of his father, mother,
guardian, or if he has none, a guardian ad litem. (5a)
A minor cannot file an action and sign. He can be a real party in interest
but he cannot sign. He must be assisted by his mother or father or guardian.
In default of the guardian, it is the guardian ad litem who is the Court appointed
guardian. Do not be confused- the minor is the real party in interest but it
cannot sign any pleadings that need his signature. It must be the guardian,
either the parents or the guardian ad litem.
So the parents, the guardians are what we call representative parties.
JOINDER OF PARTIES
Under Rule 2 we look at Joinder of Causes of Action.
Section 6. Permissive joinder of parties. All persons in whom or against whom
any right to relief in respect to or arising out of the same transaction or series of
transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative,
may, except as otherwise provided in these Rules, join as plaintiffs or be joined
as defendants in one complaint, where any question of law or fact common to all
such plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in the action; but the court
may make such orders as may be just to prevent any plaintiff or defendant from
being embarrassed or put to expense in connection with any proceedings in
which he may have no interest. (6n)
How can the joinder be made? Either jointly, separately, or in the alternative.
What represents for Joinder- a statement of Section 6, there are two.
1. A right of relief arising out from a same transaction or series of
transaction
2. There is a question common to the parties joined in the action
The most common example here is transportation cases.
Examples:
- P1, P2, P3 rode a bus and the bus fell down in a cliff. And there were all
injured and hospitalized. All 3 of them filed an action for damages arising
out of breach of contract of carriage. Each of them can sue separately or
individually or they can join together as parties because the right of
relief in favor of P1, P2, P3 arose out in the same transaction meaning
the same bus ride. And there is a common question of fact because they
are all in the same bus; common question of law because here the law
applied to them is the same, the provisions on common carriers under 1732,
1734, 1756. And the defense of the bus company is the same for all 3
them and that is they exercise extraordinary diligence etc. So there is a
common question of law. Definitely this is an example a proper joinder of
parties.
But if they are riding different of buses, belonging to the same bus
company then there can be no joinder because the right of relief of
each them did not arise out from the same transaction or series but
different transaction.
Page 99 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
- D while driving a car bumped another car injuring the driver and causing
injury to other passengers. 3 offended parties: P1 the owner of the bumped
car; P2 the driver of the bumped car; P3 the passengers seated at the back
of the bumped car. Each of them has separate causes of action against
D. Can they be joined together?
YES, because it happened out of a single transaction. Can they file 3
separate cases? YES because this is Section 6. And this Section is a
permissive joinder they are not obliged to join together. This is not
mandatory.
Why does the law encourage joinder of parties? The same reason as the joinder
of causes of action.
1. To promote convenient in trial;
2. To prevent multiplicity of suits;
3. To expedite the termination of litigation;
4. To obtain equality of procedure under which several demands
arising from the same occurrence may be tried together, thus
avoiding repetition of evidence relating to facts common to the
general demands
When there is a joinder of parties, there is necessarily a joinder of causes
of action because each party has its own cause of action. Lets say there are
3 plaintiffs and 1 defendant, each plaintiff has a cause of action against 1
defendant. And if they are joined together, they are joined as parties and joined
there causes action.
How about joinder in the causes of action? Does it necessarily have a
joinder of parties? NO, no need. We have 1 plaintiff who wants to file a
collection of sum of money against B. And B is occupying his land, accion
publiciana. So there can be joinder of causes of action but there are only 2
parties, 1 plaintiff and 1 defendant. So it does not necessarily follow that
when there is joinder of causes of action, there is also a joinder of parties.
Also take note last part of Section 6:
x x x the court may make such orders as may be just to prevent any
plaintiff or defendant from being embarrassed or put to expense in
connection with any proceedings in which he may have no interest.
Lets now go to CASES.
CHANYEE, KATHIA KIERSTIN 1.1-1.30
Balayan Bay v National Livelihood Development
[ G.R. No. 194589, September 21, 2015 ]
As the fiduciary of the properties of a closed bank, the PDIC may prosecute or
defend the case by or against the said bank as a representative party while the
bank will remain as the real party in interest pursuant to Section 3, Rule 3 of the
Revised Rules of Court which provides:
SEC. 3. Representatives as parties.- Where the action is allowed to be
prosecuted or defended by a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary
capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and shall be
deemed to be the real party in interest. A representative may be a trustee of an
express trust, a guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party authorized by
law or these Rules. An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an
undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without joining the principal except
when the contract involves things belonging to the principal.
The inclusion of the PDIC as a representative party in the case is therefore
grounded on its statutory role as the fiduciary of the closed bank which,
under Section 30[16] of R.A. 7653 (New Central Bank Act), is authorized to
conserve the latter's property for the benefit of its creditors.
Yes, under Sec 3, if you look at the provision, it says, representative may
be, so this particular list is not exclusive. Like in this case, Balayan Bay was
under receivership and it is a fiduciary relationship between 2 entities that
give PDIC the right to continue the case in a representative capacity.
Philippine Numismatic and Antiquarian Society v Aquino(not in the
syllabus)
G.R. No. 206617, January 30, 2017
There is no question that a litigation should be disallowed immediately if it
involves a person without any interest at stake, for it would be futile and
meaningless to still proceed and render a judgment where there is no actual
controversy to be thereby determined. Courts of law in our judicial system are
Page 100 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
not allowed to delve on academic issues or to render advisory opinions. They
only resolve actual controversies involving rights that are legally demandable
and enforceable.18
The Rules of Court, specifically Section 2 of Rule 3 thereof, requires that unless
otherwise authorized by law or the Rules of Court, every action must be
prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest, thus:
Sec. 2. Parties-in-interest. A real party-in-interest is the party who stands to
be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the
avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every
action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest.
This provision has two requirements: (1) to institute an action, the plaintiff must
be the real party-in-interest; and (2) the action must be prosecuted in the name
of the real party-in-interest. Interest within the meaning of the Rules of Court
means material interest or an interest in issue to be affected by the decree or
judgment of the case, as distinguished from mere curiosity about the question
involved. One having no material interest to protect cannot invoke the
jurisdiction of the court as the plaintiff in an action.19
The Interim Rules of Procedure for Intra-Corporate Controversies under
Republic Act No. 8799 in A.M. No. 01-2-04-SC, effective on April 1, 2001
considers the suppletory application of the Rules of Court under Section 2, Rule
1, thus:
Section 2. Suppletory application of the Rules of Court. - The Rules of Court, in so
far as they may be applicable and are not inconsistent with these Rules, are
hereby adopted to form an integral part of these Rules.
Moreover, We consider the summary nature of the proceedings governed by
the Interim Rules which is premised on one objective which is the expeditious
disposition of cases.20
The purposes of the requirement for the real party in interest prosecuting or
defending an action at law are: (a) to prevent the prosecution of actions by
persons without any right, title or interest in the case; (b) to require that the
actual party entitled to legal relief be the one to prosecute the action; (c) to
avoid a multiplicity of suits; and (d) to discourage litigation and keep it within
certain bounds, pursuant to sound public policy.21
The rule on real party-in-interest ensures, therefore, that the party with the
legal right to sue brings the action, and this interest ends when a judgment
involving the nominal plaintiff will protect the defendant from a subsequent
identical action. Such a rule is intended to bring before the court the party
rightfully interested in the litigation so that only real controversies will be
presented and the judgment, when entered, will be binding and conclusive and
the defendant will be saved from further harassment and vexation at the hands
of other claimants to the same demand.22
In the case at bar, PNAS, as a corporation, is the real party-in-interest
because its personality is distinct and separate from the personalities of
its stockholders. A corporation has no power, except those expressly
conferred on it by the Corporation Code and those that are implied or
incidental to its existence. In turn, a corporation exercises said powers
through its board of directors and/or its duly-authorized officers and
agents. Thus, it has been observed that the power of a corporation to sue and
be sued in any court is lodged with the board of directors that exercises its
corporate powers. In turn, physical acts of the corporation, like the signing
of documents, can be performed only by natural persons duly authorized
for the purpose by corporate by-laws or by a specific act of the board of
directors. It necessarily follows that "an individual corporate officer cannot
solely exercise any corporate power pertaining to the corporation without
authority from the board of directors".24
Pantranco v Standard Insurance
[G.R. No. 140746. March 16, 2005]
Issue:
WON there may be a joinder of causes of action
CONTENTION OF PETITIONERS
Petitioners insist that the trial court has no jurisdiction over the case since the
cause of action of each respondent did not arise from the same transaction and
that there are no common questions of law and fact common to both parties.
Sec. 6. Permissive joinder of parties. All persons in whom or against whom any
right to relief in respect to or arising out of the same transaction or series of
transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative,
may, except as otherwise provided in these Rules, join as plaintiffs or be joined
as defendants in one complaint, where any question of law or fact common to all
such plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in the action; but the court
may make such orders as may be just to prevent any plaintiff or defendant from
Page 101 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
being embarrassed or put to expense in connection with any proceedings in
which he may have no interest.
Permissive joinder of parties requires that: (a) the right to relief arises out
of the same transaction or series of transactions; (b) there is a question of law or
fact common to all the plaintiffs or defendants; and (c) such joinder is not
otherwise proscribed by the provisions of the Rules on jurisdiction and
venue.[6]
In this case, there is a single transaction common to all, that is,
Pantrancos bus hitting the rear side of the jeepney. There is also a common
question of fact, that is, whether petitioners are negligent. There being a
single transaction common to both respondents, consequently, they have
the same cause of action against petitioners.
To determine identity of cause of action, it must be ascertained whether
the same evidence which is necessary to sustain the second cause of action
would have been sufficient to authorize a recovery in the first. Here, had
respondents filed separate suits against petitioners, the same evidence would
have been presented to sustain the same cause of action. Thus, the filing by
both respondents of the complaint with the court below is in order. Such joinder
of parties avoids multiplicity of suit and ensures the convenient, speedy and
orderly administration of justice.
Corollarily, Section 5(d), Rule 2 of the same Rules provides:
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:
xxx
(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 above provision presupposes that the different causes of action which
are joined accrue in favor of the same plaintiff/s and against the same
defendant/s and that no misjoinder of parties is involved.[8] The issue of
whether respondents claims shall be lumped together is determined by
paragraph (d) of the above provision. This paragraph embodies the totality rule
as exemplified by Section 33 (1) of B.P. Blg. 129[9] which states, among others,
that where there are several claims or causes of action between the same or
different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand
shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of
whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different
transactions.
As previously stated, respondents cause of action against petitioners arose
out of the same transaction. Thus, the amount of the demand shall be the
totality of the claims.
Respondent Standards claim is P8,000.00, while that of respondent Martina
Gicale is P13,415.00, or a total of P21,415.00. Section 19 of B.P. Blg. 129
provides that the RTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over all other cases, in
which the demand, exclusive of interest and cost or the value of the
property in controversy, amounts to more than twenty thousand pesos
(P20,000.00). Clearly, it is the RTC that has jurisdiction over the instant
case. It bears emphasis that when the complaint was filed, R.A. 7691 expanding
the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan, Municipal and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts had not yet taken effect. It became effective on April 15, 1994.
So the important thing is that even though we have the insurance company, and
then we have the victim, the carrier, the important thing is that the requisite of a
permissive joinder are present. Although there was a different contract,
contract of insurance and Gicale was hit by a bus, so its a different act or
omission, but they may be joined as parties because there causes of action
arose out of the same transaction.(the hitting of the bus/accident)
G.R. No. 173399, February 21, 2017
CENTRAL BANK BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS, Petitioner, v. BANCO
FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK, Respondent.
Issue
WON the amendment violates the rules on Joinder of Parties and Causes of
action
Ruling
Page 102 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
The amendment/supplement violates the rules on joinder of parties
and causes of action.
Moreover, the admission of the Second Amended/Supplemental Complaint is
inappropriate because it violates the rule on joinder of parties and causes of Maam,: the requisite for joinder of cause of action are?
action. If its admission is upheld, the causes of action set forth therein would be A: Common question of fact and law
joined with those in the original Complaint. The joinder of causes of action is
indeed allowed under Section 5, Rule 2 of the 1997 Rules of Court;62 but if there And?
are multiple parties, the joinder is made subject to the rules on joinder of
parties under Section 6, Rule 3.63 Specifically, before causes of action and A: the cause of action arose from a single transaction
parties can be joined in a complaint involving multiple parties, (1) the right to
So how do you relate that to the requisites? Because the question is whether the
relief must arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions and (2)
joinder of parties is proper?
there must be a question of law or fact common to all the parties.64
What was Banco Filipino asking for?
In the instant case, Banco Filipino is seeking to join the BSP and its MB as
parties to the complaint. However, they have different legal personalities See if you look at what Banco Filipino was asking in the supplemental
from those of the defunct CB and its MB: firstly, because the CB was complaint: prayer for damages etc for putting it under liquidation.
abolished by R.A. 7653, and the BSP created in its stead; and secondly,
And this one?
because the members of each MB are natural persons. These factors make
the BSP and its MB different from the CB and its MB. Since there are multiple A: to include BSP in its monetary board because they said that it is the
parties involved, the two requirements mentioned in the previous paragraph predecessor of central bank.
must be present before the causes of action and parties can be joined. Neither
of the two requirements for the joinder of causes of action and parties was So in other words, these are the acts that Banco Filipino are complaining about
met. with respect to central bank and its monetary board.
Different transactions, no common question of fact or law, so there is no valid
First, the reliefs for damages prayed for by respondent did not arise from the
joinder of parties here.
same transaction or series of transactions. While the damages prayed for in
the first Amended/Supplemental Complaint arose from the closure of Banco Sec 7 INDISPENSABLE PARTIES
Filipino by the defunct CB and its MB, the damages prayed for in the Second
Amended/Supplemental Complaint arose from the alleged acts of Section 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. Parties in
oppression committed by the BSP and its MB against respondent. interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be
joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. (7)
Second, there is no common question of fact or law between the parties So the joinder of an indispensable party is compulsory and not merely
involved. The acts attributed by Banco Filipino to the BSP and its MB pertain to permissive.
events that transpired after this Court ordered the respondent bank's
reopening in 1994. These acts bear no relation to those alleged in the And in the case of Borlaza v Polistico, this is the definition that is always used
original Complaint, which related to the propriety of the closure and by the SC.
liquidation of respondent as a banking institution way back in 1985. Borlaza v Polistico
The only common factor in all these allegations is respondent bank itself as the G.R. No. L-22909 January 28, 1925
alleged aggrieved party. Since the BSP and its MB cannot be joined as parties,
then neither can the causes of action against them be joined.
Page 103 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
The general rule with reference to the making of parties in a civil action
requires, of course, the joinder of all necessary parties wherever possible,
and the joinder of all indispensable parties under any and all conditions, the
presence of those latter[INDISPENSABLE PARTY] being a sine qua non of
the exercise of judicial power. The class suit contemplates an exceptional
situation where there are numerous persons all in the same plight and all
together constituting a constituency whose presence in the litigation is
absolutely indispensable to the administration of justice. Here the strict If A wants to get out of the co-ownership and wants to get his portion, he has to
application of the rule as to indispensable parties would require that each include the other co-owners to determine where his percentage will be coming
and every individual in the class should be present. But at this point the from in the entire parcel of land. That is a violation of the rule that indispensable
practice is so far relaxed as to permit the suit to proceed, when the class is parties must be joined as plaintiff or defendants.
sufficient represented to enable the court to deal properly and justly with that Miranda v Besa
interest and with all other interest involved in the suit. In the class suit, then,
representation of a class interest which will be affected by the judgment is
indispensable; but it is not indispensable to make each member of the class an
actual party.
G.R. No. 146513. July 30, 2004]

So if there is an indispensable party who is supposed to be joined in an action,

if he is not joined then the court cannot make a final determination of the
LUCIA G. MIRANDA, petitioner, vs. ESPERANZA B. BESA, respondent.
action.

Examples,
Partition Issue: WON Mercedes is an indispensable party
In action for partition, all the co-owners thereof are indispensable parties. So
even though in the action,
Finally, the petitioners contention that the complaint was defective as it failed
to implead her husband and siblings, who are allegedly indispensable
parties, is untenable. Under Section 7, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil

A Procedure, indispensable parties are parties in interest without whom no final

determination can be had of an action.[25] A party is not indispensable to the
suit if his interest in the controversy or subject matter is distinct and
divisible from the interest of the other parties, and will not necessarily be
prejudiced by a judgment which does complete justice to the parties.[26] In

co-owned
B
land
C Page 104 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
this light, the ruling of the appellate court is apropos:
Clearly, this case is one of ejectment and respondent is ejecting petitioner from
the portion of the property being unlawfully withheld by her. Obviously, the
failure to implead her brother and sister did not bar the lower court from
making a final adjudication against her considering that her brother and
sister are also occupying another portion of the disputed land.
So a husband is normally an indispensable party when a civil action is filed
against the wife and under the rule of indispensable party, he must be joined in
the complaint. But in this case, the joining of the spouse is really not a fatal
defect, because, even if not joined, the spouse is bound by the decision.
Because a decision would not normally say, Lucia vacate! It is always Lucia and
her heirs, assigns and family members and etc. the husband or the spouse may
be an indispensable party but it will not affect the decision of the court like
other indispensable parties.
PNB v Heirs of Militar
Consolidated petitions G.R. No. 164801
G.R. No. 165165
ISSUE
whether or not the case was brought by all indispensable parties
RULING
An indispensable party is one whose interest will be affected by the
court's action in the litigation, and without whom no final determination of the
case can be had. The party's interest in the subject matter of the suit and in the
relief sought are so inextricably intertwined with the other parties' that his legal
presence as a party to the proceeding is an absolute necessity. In his absence
there cannot be a resolution of the dispute of the parties before the court which
is effective, complete, or equitable.[5]
Conversely, a party is not indispensable to the suit if his interest in the
controversy or subject matter is distinct and divisible from the interest of the
other parties and will not necessarily be prejudiced by a judgment which does
complete justice to the parties in court. He is not indispensable if his presence
would merely permit complete relief between him and those already parties to
the action or will simply avoid multiple litigation.[6]
There are two essential tests of an indispensable party:
(1) can relief be afforded the plaintiff without the presence of the other
party?; and,
(2) can the case be decided on the merits without prejudicing the rights
of the other party? There is, however, no fixed formula for determining who is
an indispensable party; this can only be determined in the context and by the
facts of the particular suit or litigation.
In the case at bar, the ultimate relief sought by the action is the
reconveyance of titles to their rightful owners. The records reveal that prior
to the forgery; the disputed properties were registered in the names of the co-
owners, Glicerio, Tomas and Caridad, whose interests remained undivided.
Thus, if reconveyance of the titles is granted, the titles will revert back to
the estates of the deceased co-owners and not to their individual heirs,
whose interests are divisible and may properly be ventilated in another
proceeding. Therefore, a co-heir may bring such action without necessarily
joining all the other co-heirs as co-plaintiffs because the suit is deemed to
be instituted for the benefit of all.
DEPERALTA, ERIKA
So your narration of the facts is 1 kilometer long and the explanation is only 10
meters. You dont have to narrate all the facts. You just have to say ABC filed an
action against DEFG. The application of the defendant is that. You dont have
to.. thats a property issue that youre talking about.
*CO-OWNERS AS PLAINTIFF-NOT INDISPENSABLE
So when you have co-owners filing an action for ejectment, thats what
happened here, if the co-owners are the plaintiffs, the other co-owners are not
indispensable parties and the reason is Article 487 of the Civil Code:
Art. 487. Any one of the co-owners may bring an action in
ejectment.(deemed to be for the benefit of all)
Page 105 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
*CO-OWNERS AS DEFENDANTS: INDISPENSABLE
But if it is the other way around, so if you have co-ownership, P1, P2, and P3 are
the co-owners and they want to eject D, P1 can do it alone, P2 and P3 are not
indispensable parties. But if we have P, trying to eject D1, D2, D3, and D4
from the lot, they all have to be impleaded. Otherwise if only D1 is in the
suit, only D1 can be ejected. Okay, so in this case, the plaintiffs are the co-
owners and therefore the other co-owners are not indispensable parties.
Now this one we already took up but lets discuss this. Regner v Logarta
Regner v Logarta
G.R. No. 168747
October 19, 2007
Issue: Whether or not a co-donee is an indispensable party in an
action to declare nullity in a deed of donation
Ruling: Yes
Thus, based on the Deed of Donation, Teresa and Cynthia are co-owners
of Proprietary Membership Certificate No. 0272 of Cebu Country Club,
Inc. The country club membership certificate is undivided and it is
impossible to pinpoint which specific portion of the property belongs
to either Teresa or Cynthia. Indeed, both Teresa and Cynthia are
indispensable parties in Civil Case No. CEB 23927.
Applying the foregoing definitions and principles to the present case, this
Court finds that any decision in Civil Case No. CEB 23927 cannot bind
Cynthia, and the Court cannot nullify the donation of the property she now
co-owns with Teresa, even if limited only to the portion belonging to
Teresa, to whom summons was properly served, since ownership of the
property is still pro indiviso. Obviously, Cynthia is an indispensable
party in Civil Case No. CEB 23927 without whom the lower court is
barred from making a final adjudication as to the validity of the entire
donation. Without the presence of indispensable parties to a suit or
proceeding, a judgment therein cannot attain finality
So we have a situation here where both Cynthia and Teresa were impleaded.
They were joined as defendants in this particular action for annulment of the
deed of donation filed by Victoria. So theres nothing wrong with the complaint
where both of them are included. But the problem was the other one who
was not validly served the summons. And therefore the court never acquired
jurisdiction over the persons of Cynthia. And jurisdiction could not be
acquired, then ejection of the court cannot bind her. But as already
mentioned, they are co-owners. They have shares over the Cebu Country Club
shares. Their shares are not specified[pro indiviso]. So its impossible for the
court to render decision only insofar as Teresa is concerned.
So we have a lot of cases on indispensable parties. But we dont really have
time to discuss all of them.
What is the effect if an indispensable party is not joined in the case of *not clear
and not in the syllabus. Sorry*? The Supreme Court said the absence of an
indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and
void for want of authority to act not only as to the absent parties(not
impleaded) but even as to those present.
So just submit your reports on indispensable parties so that your other
classmates can read it because the only way to find out if the party is
indispensable or not is to read the facts. If we go through different facts, we will
be wasting time. So you just do that yourselves while we continue our
discussion on the provisions. So lets look at Section 8.
Sec. 8. Necessary party.
A necessary party is one who is not indispensable but who ought to be
joined as a party if complete relief is to be accorded as to those
already parties, or for a complete determination or settlement of the
claim subject of the action.
Section 8 talks about necessary parties. It is one who is not indispensable but
who ought to be joined as a party if complete relief is to be accorded as to
those already parties, or for a complete determination or settlement of the
claim subject of the action.
So example, in action for collection of debt, instituted by the creditor againt
the surety, the principal debtor is a necessary party. Pwede naman ung
surety lang ang kasuhan ni creditor but it is better to include the debtor
because definitely if the court holds the surety liable, he will run after the
debtor. So might as well include the debtor so that there will be compete relief
Page 106 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
and complete determination, hindi yung half-baked yung decision and then The failure to comply with the order for his inclusion, without justifiable
another action will be filed. cause, shall be deemed a waiver of the claim against such party.
In an action for foreclosure of a real estate mortgage instituted by the first The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent the court from
mortgagee, the second mortgagee is merely a necessary party. proceeding in the action, and the judgment rendered therein shall be
without prejudice to the rights of such necessary party.
So what if there are joint debtors. Joint debtors, in your Obligation and
Contracts, if a A and B are joint debtors of 100,000, then A is only liable for the What if there is a necessary party and he is not joined? For example, creditor is
amount of 50,000 and B for 50,000. So each joint debtors are indispensable the plaintiff, the defendant is the surety. So the necessary party is the debtor.
parties with respect to his own share, but a necessary party with respect to According to Section 9, Whenever in any pleading in which a claim is asserted
the share of the other debtor. But what if the debt is solidary, solidary co- a necessary party is not joined, the pleader shall set forth his name, if
debtors are not indispensable but may be necessary parties because if the known, and shall state why he is omitted.
debt is solidary, then the creditor can sue any of the solidary debtors. But
might as well implead the other as necessary party. In other words, the plaintiff, who did not join the debtor as the defendant, must
explain to the court that this is the debtor and I did not join him because
So lets look at the distinctions between an indispensable party and a necessary blablabla. And the best reason is I did not join him because he is out of the
party. country. He cannot be properly served with summons.
Indispensable Party Necessary Party Should the court find the reason for the omission unmeritorious, it may
Action cannot proceed unless The action can proceed even in his order the inclusion of the omitted necessary party if jurisdiction over
joined absence his person may be obtained.
There can be no valid judgment if The judgment may resolve the
I did not join him in because he said that he has no money to pay me,that is
he is not joined entire controversy if he is not
not a good enough reason. The court will always order him to be joined if
joined
jurisdiction over his person may be obtained.
One with such an interest in the One whose presence is necessary
controversy that a final decree to adjudicate the whole controversy Now what if the court orders the plaintiff: join him! He is a necessary party. File
would necessarily affect his rights but whose interest is so far separate an amended pleading, impleading him as a defendant. What if the plaintiff
so that the court cannot proceed that a final decree can be made in fails to comply with the order without justifiable cause? It shall be deemed a
without his presence. his absence without affecting the waiver of the claim against such necessary party. What if the plaintiff has to
lien. collect from the surety, talo sya, so kailangan niya habulin I debtor. Eh he did
not join the debtor. So he cannot file an action against the debtor
anymore.[kay wala man niya gi join-merese]
So last provision for today.
The non-inclusion of a necessary party what is its effect? It does not prevent
Sec. 9. Non-joinder of necessary parties to be pleaded.
the the court from proceeding in the action, and the judgment rendered
Whenever in any pleading in which a claim is asserted a necessary party therein shall be without prejudice to the rights of such necessary party.
is not joined, the pleader shall set forth his name, if known, and shall state
So a necessary party cannot destroy an action, unlike an indispensable
why he is omitted. Should the court find the reason for the omission
party where everything the court does is void. But for necessary party, the
unmeritorious, it may order the inclusion of the omitted necessary party if
court may go on and there can be an action which can be filed later against him.
jurisdiction over his person may be obtained.

Page 107 of 147

Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
Last, very easy
Sec. 10 Unwilling co-plaintiff.
If the consent of any party who should be joined as plaintiff cannot be
obtained, he may be made a defendant and the reason therefor shall be
stated in the complaint.
So example, P1, P2, and P3 are siblings and they have to file an action against D
for the recovery of a property which was previously owned by their parents.
But P3 does not want to join in the complaint. What is the remedy of P1 and P2 if
he is unwilling, then he can be made a defendant.
1. Made as defendant
2. Reason thereof shall be stated in the complaint
DECEMBER 4, 2017
DEL ROSARIO, INAH FIRST 30 MINS
MISJOINDER AND NON-JOINDER OF PARTIES
Section 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. Neither misjoinder nor
non-joinder of parties is 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. Any claim
against a misjoined party may be severed and proceeded with separately.
MISJOINDER two or more parties are joined but when in fact should not
have been joined
NON-JOINDER when a party or parties are not joined when they should
have been joined
Just like Rule 2, Sec 6, Sec 11 is saying that non-joinder or misjoinder is not a
ground for dismissal.
What is the remedy for misjoinder or non-joinder?
Misjoinder parties may be dropped
Non-joinder parites may be added; significant when there is an
indispensable party
When can the adding dropping may be done? At any stage of the action on
such terms as are just.
How? A party can file a motion or the court may motu proprio order the
adding or dropping of the parties.
A misjoined party who is dropped, any claim against him may be
proceeded with separately.
CABITUHAN VS. LANDCENTER
Facts: Landcenter entered into an agreement with Cabutihan wherein the latter
should recover the property belonging to Landcenter from certain squatters. A
deed of undertaking was executed between Landcenter and Cabutihan who
facilitated the recovery. It was stated therein that these people will be
compensated for their services in the amount representing 36% of the total
property recovered. Later, Cabutihan alone filed for specific performance
against Landcenter claiming that she had accomplished her part in the Deed of
Undertaking but Landcenter refused to pay her. She prayed that Landcenter be
execute documents to convey lots which represent the entire 36.5% of the
property in her favor. Landcenter filed a motion to dismiss citing Rule 3, Section
3 claiming that the other plaintiffs were not named and Cabutihan did not
have any special power of attorney to represent them.
Issue: Should the case be dismissed because of non-joinder of plaintiffs?
Ruling: No. Under Rule 3, Sec. 11, a mere misjoinder or non-joinder of
parties is not a ground for the dismissal of the action. There was a non-
joinder in the case because although the complaint asked only for 36.5% the
RTC could have separately proceeded the case as to Cabutihans 20% since
she was the only one who filed the case, without impleading others as
party-litigants. RTC could have made a judgement as to her right to the
20% independent of the 16.5%. In this case, the other parties were mere
necessary parties who did not need to be impleaded in order for the court
Page 108 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
to render an entire determination of the subject action. So, the non-inclusion
of the parties does not prevent the court from proceeding with the action and
the jugdement rendered shall not prejudice the rights of the other claims.
PAMPLONA VS. TINGHIL
Facts: Several employees claiming to be workers of Pamplona Plantation
Company filed cases before the NLRC. They failed to implead Pamplona
Plantation Leisure Corporation which was engaged in hotels and restaurant
operations. A hacienda owned by Pamplona Plantation housed a sugar
plantation. This was converted to a golf course, tourist spots, restaurants and
hotels. These employees are of that area of the hacienda. Pamplona Plantation
is saying that it is not the employer of the employees, but Pamplona Leisure
Corporation. Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the employees. However, NLRC
dismissed the complaint because Pamplona Leisure being an indispensable
party is not impleaded.
Issue: Should the case be dismissed for non-joinder of parties?
Ruling: NO. The general rule is that the non-joinder of indispensable
parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. Parties may be added
or dropped by order of the court at any stage of the judicial proceeding and/or
at times it is just and it is contemplated in a motion of a party or by the inititative
of the tribunal or court concerned. When is the non-joinder a ground for
dismissal? When the plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party
despite the order of the court. The reason is not the non-joinder but the
plaintiffs failure to comply with the order of the court. That is the only time
the judge can dismiss the case due to non-joinder. The remedy is to implead
the non-party claimed to be indispensable. Why is there a non-joinder of
parties in this case? Because the court found that the Pamplona Plantation
Company Incorporated and the Pamplona Plantation Leisure Corporation are
one and the same. There was an application of the piercing of the corporate
veil. It was found that the incorporators of the Plantation and the Leisure
are the same. The rules of non-joinder of parties is not applicable because
there are no 2 parties here.
HEIRS OF MESINA VS. HEIRS OF FIAN
Facts: Spouses Mesina bought from Spouses Fian 2 parcels of land in Leyte.
The heirs of Spouses Fian refused to recognize the sale between them. Heirs of
Mesina filed a complaint for quieting of title against the Heirs of Fian, they only
named Theresa Fian as the defendant representaing the Heirs of Fian. Theresa
Fian filed a motion to dismiss because the names of all the other heirs were not
named.
Issue: Should the complaint be dismissed because of non-joinder?
Ruling: NO. The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground to
dismiss an action. In this case, there were indispensable parties because they
are parties in interest without whom a final determination cannot be had. The
proper remedy when there is a non-joinder of indispensable parties is to
direct the plaintiff to implead them upon the initiative of the court or upon
motion of a party. To immediately dismiss the complaint on the ground the
defendants were not named in the complaint was improper.
Note: Here, Theresa said that there was failure to state a cause of action, but the
SC said no. The failure to state a cause of action is a ground for dismissal.
That is why it was used as a ground when in fact, what Theresa was referring to
was the non-joinder of the parties which we know that is not a ground for
dismissal. This was a kind of maneuvering done by the lawyer.
Lapanda vs. Espita not discussed
CAMERON VS. CHUA (GR 191170; not discussed but mentioned)
Facts: Chua and Filiden Realty obtained a loan from Metrobank worth P4M.
This was secured by a real estate mortgage over 3 parcels of land in Paraaque
City. Metrobank eventually sought for the foreclosure of the mortgage. Chua
and Filiden filed a motion for the annulment of the foreclosure and the
declaration of the nullity of the certificate of sale (property was sold in a public
auction.) Cameron filed a Motion for Joinder of Party and/or Substitution
alleging that the Deed of Absolute Sale, absolutely sold its credits including
the rights to foreclose the mortgages against Chua and Filiden to Asia
Page 109 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
Recovery Corp (ARC). RTC allowed the motion for substitution of ARC
because it was an indispensable party. CA annulled this ruling. RTC should
have ordered the exclusion of Metrobank if it was true that Metrobank had
indeed divested itself of any interest in Chua et als debt. RTC should have
provided for a provisional joinder/substitution of the parties. Thus ARC cannot
substitute Metrobank in the proceedings before the RTC without first disclosing
the consideration paid by Cameron for the transfer of interest.
Issue: Should ARC be joined as party-defendant in the case?
Ruling: YES. The Rules provide that in case of a transfer of interest, the court,
upon motion, may direct the person to whom the interest is transferred to
be substituted in the action or joined with the original party. A transferee
pendente lite is a proper party that stands exactly in the shoes of the
transferor, the original party. Transferees are bound by the proceedings
and judgment in the case, such that there is no need for them to be
included or impleaded by name. The transferee is joined or substituted in the
pending action by operation of law from the exact moment when the transfer of
interest is perfected between the original party and the transferee. Whether the
transferee should be substituted for, or should be joined with, the original party
is largely a matter of discretion. That discretion is exercised in pursuance of the
paramount consideration that must be afforded for the protection of the parties'
interests and right to due process.
Contrary to the finding of the CA, there is enough evidence in the
records to support the fact of the transfer of interest between Metrobank
and petitioner. The CA highlights only that it was not clear whether
respondents' debt was included in the portfolio of nonperforming loans sold to
ARC. The appellate court then turned a blind eye to the representations of
Metrobank before the trial court confirming the fact of the transfer of interest to
ARC and then later to petitioner. The admission by Metrobank sufficiently
supplied whatever was omitted by the non-presentation of the entire portfolio
of nonperforming loans. The non-presentation may be understandable in view
of the sensitive nature of the portfolio and its contents. At any rate, the Deed of
Assignment clearly spelled out that all of the rights, title, and interest over
respondents' loan, which had an outstanding principal balance of
P88,101,093.98, had been transferred by ARC to petitioner.
The parties that a disclosure of the consideration for the transfer of
interest is not among the following requirements for a party to be joined in a
proceeding: (1) the right to relief arises out of the same transaction or series of
transactions; (2) there is a question of law or fact common to all the parties; and
(3) the joinder is not otherwise prohibited by the rules on jurisdiction and
venue.
Thus, CA erred. Under the rules, the trial court is given wide discretion and
enough leeway to determine who may be joined in a proceeding, or whether a
party may properly be substituted by another due to a transfer of interest.
Within the premises, the trial court's grant of the joinder cannot be seriously
assailed.
CLASS SUIT
Section 12. Class suit. When the subject matter of the controversy is one of
common or general interest to many persons so numerous that it is
impracticable to join all as parties, a 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 individual interest.
This is one of the more popular provisions in the Rules. This talks about class
suit. A class suit may be filed provided that the conditions for a valid class suit
are satisfied.
Conditions for a valid class suit:
(1) subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general interest
to many persons
(2) the parties are so numerous that it is impracticable to join all as
parties
numerous = thousands or millions
What is the procedure ?
Page 110 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
(7) A 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
in a class suit it could be that the numerous parties are the plaintiffs
or a single entity is suing numerous parties as defendants
* so pwede ang numerous is either plaintiff or defendant
this class suit is also a representative suit in a sense (but not really)
that sufficient number of representatives will be the one to file
a class suit is not normally filed by one because Sec.12 says a
number of them not one person representing millions but many
of them which the court sufficiently numerous and representative
Any party in interest shall have the right to intervene to protect his
individual interest.
if you think that your interest will be prejudiced by a class suit, then
you can enter or join in to protect your interest
CLASS SUIT IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULE THAT ALL PARTIES IN
INTEREST MUST BE NAMED
A class suit is actually an exception to the rule that every action must be
prosecuted or defendant in the name of the real party in interest. If there are 10
real parties in interest, put all the 10 names of interest. If there are 100 names,
put all the names there. What if there are 1000 or 1M? Can you put all the
names? Probably, but it will waste the whole SCRA. Only the names of the
representatives will be contained in the pleading, complaint or the answer.
DOCTRINE OF VIRTUAL REPRESENTATION
This class suit also called the Doctrine of Virtual Representation. This
concept was first enunciated in Boralza vs. Polistico. We have here a group of
people who formed an association called Tulungang Polistiko. They all
contirbuted to a certian pot and accumulated a sum of money. Every Sunday
after mass, 1/2 of the collection went to the raffle and the other 1/2 was kept by
the treasurer. Eventually, the funds became big.
DELOS SANTOS, LARA
(continuation of Boralza vs. Polistico)
So the members questioned the officers who were holding the funds and asked
an accounting from them. However, the officers refused and it just so happened
that the group who started as a handful were now already thousands of people.
And all of these thousands of people were interested as to what happened with
their money. So only 10- 15 of them actually filed the case for accounting
against the officers. They did not include the thousands but claimed they
represented the others. Is this proper? Yes because of the two conditions.
1. Subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general interest
to many persons
-They are all interested in what happened to the money? The half that didnt go
to the raffle?
2. The parties are so numerous that it is impracticable to join all as parties
So the object of a class suit is to obtain relief for or against numerous
persons as a group and not as separate individuals.
Another example of a class suit is a Taxpayers Suit. This is filed in behalf of
all the taxpayers in the country. There is no specific number of persons
here. A taxpayers suit may be/can be filed by one taxpayer alone. Maybe it
can be found in the NIRC. But if you go to Section 12, there must be a number of
them but they are not so strict about that.
Lets go to the cases involving class suit.
SULO NG BAYAN VS. ARANETA
FACTS: Sulo ng Bayan, Inc. a corporation whose members are claiming
that they are the owners of a vast tract of land. They filed an accion de
revindicacion with the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, against Gregorio
Page 111 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
Araneta Inc. (GAI), Paradise Farms Inc., National Waterworks & Sewerage
Authority (NAWASA), Hacienda Caretas Inc., and the Register of Deeds of
Bulacan to recover the ownership and possession of a large tract of land in
San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, containing an area of 27,982,250 sq. ms., more
or less, registered under the Torrens System in the name of GAI, et. al.'s
predecessors-in-interest (who are members of the corporation). GAI filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint on the grounds that (1) the
complaint states no cause of action; and (2) the cause of action, if any, is
barred by prescription and laches. Paradise Farms, Inc. and Hacienda
Caretas, Inc. filed motions to dismiss based on the same grounds. NAWASA
did not file any motion to dismiss. However, it pleaded in its answer as
special and affirmative defenses lack of cause of action by Sulo ng Bayan Inc.
and the barring of such action by prescription and laches. The trial court
issued an Order dismissing the (amended) complaint. On 14 February 1967,
Sulo ng Bayan filed a motion to reconsider the Order of dismissal, arguing
among others that the complaint states a sufficient cause of action because
the subject matter of the controversy in one of common interest to the
members of the corporation who are so numerous that the present complaint
should be treated as a class suit. The motion was denied by the trial court in
its Order dated 22 February 1967.
Sulo ng Bayan appealed to the Court of Appeals. On 3 September 1969, the
Court of Appeals, upon finding that no question of fact was involved in the
appeal but only questions of law and jurisdiction, certified the case to the
Supreme Court for resolution of the legal issues involved in the controversy.
ISSUE: Whether the complaint filed by the corporation in behalf of its
members may be treated as a class suit
RULING: In order that a class suit may prosper, the following requisites
must be present: (1) that the subject matter of the controversy is one of
common or general interest to many persons; and (2) that the parties are so
numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the court.
Here, there is only one party plaintiff, and the corporation does not even
have an interest in the subject matter of the controversy, and cannot,
therefore, represent its members or stockholders who claim to own in
their individual capacities ownership of the said property. Moreover, a class
suit does not lie in actions for the recovery of property where several
persons claim partnership of their respective portions of the property, as
each one could alleged and prove his respective right in a different way for
each portion of the land, so that they cannot all be held to have identical title
through acquisition/prescription.
What requisite was lacking? The first requisite. They had their own separate
interest.
MIAA VS RIVERA VILLAGE
FACTS: The then Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) was entrusted with
the administration, operation, management, control, maintenance and
development of the Manila International Airport (MIA), now the Ninoy Aquino
International Airport.
The CAA entered into individual lease contracts with its employees (lessees)
for the lease of portions of a four (4)-hectare lot situated in what is now known
as Rivera Village located in Pasay City. The leases were for a twenty-five
(25)-year period/
Executive Order No. (EO) 778 was issued (later amended by EO 903),
creating petitioner MIAA, transferring existing assets of the MIA to MIAA,
and vesting the latter with the power to administer and operate the MIA.
MIAA stopped issuing accrued rental bills and refused to accept rental
payments from the lessees. As a result, respondent Rivera Village Lessee
Homeowners Association, Inc. (homeowners association), purportedly
representing the lessees, requested MIAA to sell the subject property to its
members, invoking the provisions of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1517 or
the Urban Land Reform Act and PD 2016.
The MIAA denied the request, claiming that the subject property is included
in its Conceptual Development Plan intended for airport-related activities.
Rivera Vill. Homeowners then filed a petition for mandamus and prohibition
with prayer for the issuance of a preliminary injunction against MIAA and the
National Housing Authority (NHA). The petition, sought to restrain the MIAA
from implementing its Conceptual Development Plan insofar as Rivera
Page 112 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
Village is concerned. It also sought to compel MIAA to segregate Rivera
Village from the scope of the Conceptual Development Plan and the NHA to
take the necessary steps for the disposition of the property in favor of the
members of the homeowners association.
MIAA filed an answer alleging that the petition fails to state a cause of and
that the respondents Homeowners did not have a personality to sue.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petition is a class suit
RULING: The petition cannot be considered a class suit under Sec. 12,
Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, the requisites therefor not being present in the
case, notably because the petition does not allege the existence and prove
the requisites of a class suit, i.e., that the subject matter of the controversy
is one of common or general interest to many persons and the parties are so
numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the court, and
because it was brought only by one party.
It lacks the first requisite because each co-owner has a separate interest
over the lot on which their houses were standing on.
In this case, the petition filed with the trial court sufficiently avers that the
homeowners association, through its President, is suing in a representative
capacity as authorized under the Board Resolution attached to the petition.
Although the names of the individual members of the homeowners
association who are the beneficiaries and real parties-in-interest in the suit
were not indicated in the title of the petition, this defect can be cured by the
simple expedient of requiring the association to disclose the names of the
principals and to amend the title and averments of the petition accordingly.
Essentially, the purpose of the rule that actions should be brought or
defended in the name of the real party-in-interest is to protect against undue
and unnecessary litigation and to ensure that the court will have the benefit
of having before it the real adverse parties in the consideration of a case.
This rule, however, is not to be narrowly and restrictively construed, and its
application should be neither dogmatic nor rigid at all times but viewed in
consonance with extant realities and practicalities. As correctly noted by the
Court of Appeals, the dismissal of this case based on the lack of
personality to sue of petitioner-association will only result in the filing
of multiple suits by the individual members of the association.(liberal
construction)
JUANA COMPLEX VS. FIL-ESTATE
FACTS: Juana Complex I Homeowners Association, Inc. (JCHA), together
with individual residents of Juana Complex I and other neighboring
subdivisions, instituted a complaint for damages, in its own behalf and as a
class suit representing the regular commuters and motorists of Juana
Complex I and neighboring subdivisions who were deprived of the use of La
Paz Road, against Fil-Estate Land, Inc.
Accordingly, JCHA, et al. also prayed for the immediate issuance of a
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or a writ of preliminary injunction (WPI)
to enjoin Fil-Estate, et al. from stopping and intimidating them in their use of
La Paz Road. Fil-Estate, et al. filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the
complaint failed to state a cause of action and that it was improperly filed as a
class suit.
They claim that the excavation of La Paz Road would not necessarily give rise
to a common right or cause of action for JCHA, et al. against them since each
of them has a separate and distinct purpose and each may be affected
differently than the others. With regard to the issuance of the WPI, the
defendants averred that JCHA, et al. failed to show that they had a clear and
unmistakable right to the use of La Paz Road; and further claimed that La Paz
Road was a torrens registered private road and there was neither a voluntary
nor legal easement constituted over it.
ISSUE: Whether or not the complaint was properly filed as a class suit
RULING: YES. This classifies as a class suit.
The necessary elements for the maintenance of a class suit are:
1) the subject matter of controversy is one of common or general interest to
many persons;
2) the parties affected are so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them
all to court; and
3) the parties bringing the class suit are sufficiently numerous or
representative of the class and can fully protect the interests of all
Page 113 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
concerned.
In this case, the suit is clearly one that benefits all commuters and
motorists who use La Paz Road. The individuals sought to be represented
by private respondents in the suit are so numerous that it is impracticable to
join them all as parties and be named individually as plaintiffs in the
complaint.
Yes, there is common interest. They all wanted the same thing. Thats it. O
individual interest was present maybe just different time some pass in the
morning some in the afternoon, but its practically the same.
OPOSA VS FACTORAN
FACTS: The controversy has its genesis in Civil Case filed by minors duly
represented and joined by their respective parents vs Factoran, Jr., then
Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
The complaint was instituted as a taxpayers' class suit and alleges that the
plaintiffs "are all citizens of the Republic of the Philippines, taxpayers, and
entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural resource treasure
that is the country's virgin tropical forests." The same was filed for
themselves and others who are equally concerned about the preservation of
said resource but are "so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all
before the Court."
The minors further asseverate that they "represent their generation as well as
generations yet unborn." Consequently, it is prayed for that judgment be
rendered:. . . ordering defendant, his agents, representatives and other
persons acting in his behalf
to
(1) Cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country;
(2) Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or
approving new timber license agreements and granting the plaintiffs ". . .
such other reliefs just and equitable under the premises."
OPOSA et al filed a complaint invoking their right to a sound environment
based on statutory and constitutional provisions recognizing the right of the
people to a balanced and healthful ecology. Likewise, they invoke the
correlative obligation of the proper government agencies to safeguard
peoples right to a healthful environment
.
ISSUE: Whether or not the case is a class suit.
RULING: We hereby rule that the said civil case is indeed a class suit.
The
1. subject matter of the complaint is of common and general interest not just
to several, but to all citizens of the Philippines.
2. Consequently, since the parties are so numerous, it, becomes
impracticable, if not totally impossible, to bring all of them before the
court.
3. We likewise declare that the plaintiffs therein are numerous and
representative enough to ensure the full protection of all concerned
interests.
Hence, all the requisites for the filing of a valid class suit under Section 12,
Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court are present both in the said civil case
and in the instant petition, the latter being but an incident to the former.
This case, however, has a special and novel element. Minors assert that they
represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn, they can, for
themselves, for others of their generation and for the succeeding
generations, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of the
succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of
intergenerational responsibility
Who is the ponente of the case? Former Chief Justice Davide. He was the one
who coined the term intergenerational responsibility, because really, in a
class suit, the named parties represent existing natural persons. Remember?
Section 1 Rule 3only natural or juridical persons. What do you call the
generations yet unborn? Are they persons? They are not. But why? Because
they are the Supreme Court. Davide was chief justice. I do not know if he was at
that time he wrote this decision but this is really an exception to the rule under
Rule 3, Section 1.
Page 114 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
DEIPARINE, ANGEL Those representing the class must be The representative chosen nneed not
real parties in interest. be a real party in interest.
Class Suits are not really encouraged because when you are in a class suit, you
are not really sure if the representatives really represent the numerous number
of people. What if those people are not really interested? What if they dont Section 13. Alternative defendants.- Where the plaintiff is uncertain against
want to be part of that? So, that is why we have the last sentence of Section 12. who of several persons he is entitled to relief, he may join any or all of them as
Any party in interest shall have the right to intervene to protect his individual defendants in the alternative although a right to relief against one may be
interest. inconsistent with a right of relief against the other.
The SC in this case of Cadalin vs POEA Administrator, the SC said that in an
This is related to alternative cause s of action.
improperly instituted class suit, there will be no problem if the decision is
favorable to the plaintiffs. However, the problem arises if the decision is Example: P is a passenger of a taxi The taxi collided with the bus. Both taxi
adverse to them. Xxx operator and bus operator was sued by P, because P did not know who caused
the accident. So, P was injured. So he sues both of them for damages: the cause
LIANAS SUPERMARKET VS NLRC
of action against the taxi operator is culpa contractual and as against the bus
Here, a labor union filed a complaint against the employer in behave of 100 operator is culpa aquiliana. Inconsistent from each other. They are sued in the
employees. alternative. But remember that sometimes the SC holds the parties solidarily
liable.
Issue: Is this a class suit?
Q: May plaintiffs be joined in the alternative?
Ruling: No. It is a representative suit.
A: In the case of Pajota vs Jante, YES. The plaintiffs may join in the alternative
When a labor union files a suit, it merely is a representative. under the same principle as alternative joinder of defendants. When several
persons are uncertain as to who among them is entitled to relief from a certain
What makes a proper class suit is the circumstance that there is only one righ or
defendant, they may join as plaintiffs in the alternative. This is also sanctioned
cause of action pertaining or belonging in common to many persons, not
by the rule on permissive joinder of parties.
separately or serverally to distinct individuals. In a representative suit, there
are several cause s of action pertaining to several persons. Each employee So example, the principal and his agent may join as plaintiffs in the alternative
wants his own 13th month pay or that the service incentive leave be converted against a defendant. If the agency is proved, the relief is awarded to the
to cash. principal. If not, award Is then made to the agent.
The applicable rule here is Rule 3 on Representative Parties. In Section 14, what if you dont know the name of the defendant?
Lets distinguish class suit from a representative suit. Section 14. Unknown identity or name of defendant. Whenever the identity or
name of a defendant is unknown, he may be sued as the unknown owner heir
Class Suit Representative Suit
devisee, or by such other designation as the case may require, when his
There is only one cause of action There are many causes of action
identity or true name is discovered, the pleading must be amended
belonging to many persons. pertaining separately to several
accordingly.
people (as a group, not as distinct
individuals) If you are a hit and run victim, the first thing you would look at is the plate
Only the names of those representing All the names of the beneficiaries must number. That is the only way, you dont know the driver eh.
the class appear in the title. be included in the title
Page 115 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
What should be done when his identity or true name is discovered, the
pleading must be amended accordingly.
Section 15. Entity without juridical personality as defendant. When two or
more persons not organized as an entity with juridical personality enter into a
transaction, they may be sued under the name by which they are generally or
commonly known.
In the answer of such defendant, the name and addresses of the persons
composing said entity must all be revealed.
We know under Section 1 that Only natural or juridical persons, or entities
authorized by law may be parties in a civil action. Now what about an entity
without juridical personality like ABC sari-sari store. You dont know the owner
of ABC Sari-sari store, but you want to sue ABC for non-payment. Supplier ka ng
mga goods, then ABC did not pay. Who do you sue?
Xxx they may be sued under the name by which they are generally or
commonly known. Sue ABC sari-sari store.
In the answer of such defendant, the name and addresses of the persons
composing said entity must all be revealed.
So, when may an action be filed without naming all the parties involved? First,
Section 12 Class Suit. 2nd, Section 15 entity without juridical personality. 3rd, any
co-owner filing an action fo ejectment.
Section 16. Death of party; duty of counsel. Whenever a party to a pending
action dies, and the claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of his
counsel to inform the court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact
thereof, and to give the name and address of his legal representative or
representatives. Failure of counsel to comply with his duty shall be a ground for
disciplinary action.
The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased,
without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court
may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.
The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to
appear and be substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice.
If no legal representative is named by the counsel for the deceased party, or if
the one so named shall fail to appear within the specified period, the court may
order the opposing party, within a specified time to procure the appointment of
an executor or administrator for the estate of the deceased and the latter shall
immediately appear for and on behalf of the deceased. The court charges in
procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may be
recovered as costs.
This is a very popular provision. Very easy.
What is the situation? A party with a pending action dies and the claim is not
extinguished.
If you go back to your crimpro, if the accused dies the criminal liability is
extinguished, what else? The civil liability arising out of the crime is also
extinguished. But other kinds of liabilities arising out of other obligations, like
contracts and culpa aquiliana, are not extinguished.
For civil action, there are times that the claim is extinguished by the death of
the party. But here in our situation, the claim is not extinguished.
So, whether it is the plaintiff or the defendant who dies, the duty of the dead
partys counsel is to inform the court within 30 days after such death of the fact
thereof. Fact of death. And to give the name and address if the dead partys
legal representative or representatives. Now, this is a ground for disciplinary
action if the lawyer of the dead party does not inform the court.
So it is just the lawyer who will be reprimanded or sanctioned. Nothing will
happen to the case. It could go on.
What are the rules?
Normally, when a person dies and he has property, either he has a last will and
testament or he has none. If he has a last will and testament, he will name an
executor or may be he will not. If he names an executor, automatically the
executor will take his place. Will represent his estate.
If he does not name an executor, there must be an administrator. Its the same
with a person who dies without a will. Somebody must apply for administration,
and it takes time. That is why, the heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be
substituted. No need to wait for the appointment of an administrator.
Page 116 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
Eto pa, yung executor. Ganun ba kadali? No. Every last will and testament has
to go through a probate proceedings. Matagal din yan. So, that is why you have
this. The heirs may be the substitute. The lawyer can just assign an heir to be
the substitute.
What if the heirs are all minors? Then, they cannot substitute. The court may
appoint a guardian ad litem. This is what we call a court appointed guardian. He
can now represent the minors.
If the name of the legal representative have already been submitted to the
court, he must appear within 30 days from notice.
What if the lawyer does not name any legal representative? Or the one so
named shall fail to appear within the specified period? What will court do? The
court may order the opposite party to procure the appointment of an executor
or administrator of the estate of the deceased. The case will have to be
archived. Said appointee shall immediately appear for or on behalf of the
deceased.
Court charges maybe recovered as costs.
Lawas vs CA
(discussed by Atty S.)
The SC said that the priority is given to the legal representative of the
deceased, that is, the executor or administrator of his estate, and not the heirs.
The heirs will only be allowed to be substituted if there is an unreasonable
delay in the appointment or when the heirs resort to extrajudicial partition.
Kung nag partition, wala na administrator.
Cases:
Duano vs xxx
Before the court acquitted him, he already died.
Issue
WON the Rule also applies in criminal actions.
Ruling
Yes. R3S16 that the counsel must inform the court of the death of the party
applies in criminal actions.
He died in 2015. His counsel continued to file pleadings on his behalf even after
his death. The SC found out about his death only 1year 4 months and 15 days
after its occurrence. Thus, the SC issued a resolution even after his death.
The PAO have shown inefficiency in the performance of their duties. Duanos
death pending appeal extinguished the liability and civil liability. So the SC set
aside its resolution in 2016, and dismissed the case since there is no defendant
in this case.
The court cannot be assumed to know the death of the parties. That is why it is
really the duty of the lawyer to inform, whether it is criminal or a civil case.
Pacific Rehouse vs Ngo
Bautista is the owner of parcel of land. He entered into a deed of conditional
sale with Pacific Rehouse.
Bautista failed to deliver the parcel of land. So, Pacific Rehouse filed a
complaint for specific performance with damages.
Before trial, a notice of death was submitted by the counsel of Bautista. The
counsel could not locate the heirs. Despite the order of the court, Pacific also
failed to implead the Sps of Bautista.
Issue:
WON Section 16 Rule 3 applies.
Ruling:
Yes, there must be substitution of party litigants.
The SC ruled that the determination of whether the action survives depends on
the nature of the action and the damages sued for. The cause of action
principally affects the person if it is a personal action. The property rights are
merely incidental. The claim will not survive the death of the party---
extinguished.
Page 117 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
However, if the cause of action primarily affects property or property rights, or
it is a real action, and the interest to the person are merely incidental, the claim
then survives the death of the party. Meaning, it is not extinguished.
Here, the SC found that the case for specific performance but the prayer is the
pursuant to a deed of sale for a parcel of land which is primarily, the objective
is to recover a parcel of land. Therefore, it is a real action. It survives the death
of the party. Substitution is necessary.
Atty S: yes, but there are also actions that do not survive. Example, Rain was
supposed to have a concert in Manila. But he cancelled. That is something that
will not survive if the contracting party dies.
Another: Annulment, Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. Actions for support (the
father died). Diba? It will not survive. There will be no substitution anymore.
DECEMBER 6, 2017
MASANGUID, REMMON
ATTORNEY CELSO D. LAVIA, REMEDIOS M. MUYOT, SPOUSES
VIRGILIO D. CEBRERO and SEGUNDINA MAGNO-CEBRERO, petitioners,
vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and JOSEFINA C. GABRIEL,
respondents.
Issue: whether or not Attorney Celso Lavia's authority as counsel for Carmen
P. Gabriel was extinguished upon her death
Held: The Court of Appeals held that Attorney Lavia may not appear "as
counsel for the estate of Carmen P. Gabriel because his authority as her
counsel was extinguished upon Carmen's death" (Art. 1919, Civil Code). It
also held that "respondent Remedios Muyot was not capacitated to receive
summons for the estate because the general power of attorney constituting
her as agent of the deceased became inoperative upon the death of the
principal." The service of summons upon her was void. The petitioners'
argument that service of the summons on Remedios Muyot was valid and
sufficient to vest jurisdiction in the Court over the Estate of Carmen P. Gabriel,
because Muyot was Carmen's attorney-in-fact, is not correct. The estate of a
dead person may only be summoned through the executor or administrator of
his estate for it is the executor or administrator who may sue or be sued (Sec. 3,
Rule 3, Rules of Court) and who may bring or defend actions for the recovery or
protection of the property or rights of the deceased (Sec. 2, Rule 87, Rules of
Court). The general power of attorney appointing Remedios as Carmen's agent
or attorney-in- fact was extinguished upon Carmen's demise (Art. 1919[3], Civil
Code; Ramos vs. Caoibes 94 Phil. 440; Hermosa vs. Longara 93 Phil. 977).
Thereafter, Remedios was bereft of authority to represent Carmen.
The petitioner's contention that the agency was "constituted in the common
interest of the principal and the agent" and that hence it was not extinguished
by the death of the principal (Art. 1930, Civil Code) is refuted by the instrument
itself which explicitly provided that the powers conferred on the agent were to
be exercised for the "sole benefit" of the principal, Carmen P. Gabriel (Annex
D, p. 61, Rollo, G.R. No. 79917).
Carmen's death likewise divested Attorney Lavia of authority to represent her
as counsel. A dead client has no personality and cannot be represented by an
attorney (Barrameda vs. Barbara, 90 Phil. 718, 723; Caisip vs. Hon. Cabangon,
109 Phil. 150).
Atty. Suarez: Section 16 only applies when there is pending action. The
lawyer who is representing a party and the party dies, the lawyer will not lose
his status as the counsel in the record of the case. But if the party dies before
filing an action, there is no lawyer to speak of.
HEIRS OF MAXIMO REGOSO, petitioners,
vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and BELEN CRUZ REGOSO, respondents.
Under the rules, it is the duty of the attorney for the deceased defendant to
inform the court of his client's death and to furnish the court with the names and
residences of the executor, administrator, or legal representative of the
deceased. Sections 16 and 17, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court provide:
Sec. 16. Duty of attorney upon death, incapacity, or incompetency of party.
Whenever a party to a pending case dies, becomes incapacitated or
incompetent, it shall be the duty of his attorney to inform the court promptly of
such death, incapacity or incompetency, and to give the name and residence of
Page 118 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
his executor, administrator, guardian or other legal representative.
Sec. 17. Death of party. After a party dies and the claim is not thereby
extinguished, the court shall order, upon proper notice, the legal
representative of the deceased to appear and to be substituted for the
deceased, within a period of thirty (30) days, or within such time as may be
granted. If the legal representative fails to appear within said time, the court
may order the opposing party to procure the appointment of a legal
representative of the deceased within a time to be specified by the court, and
the representative shall immediately appear for and on behalf of the interest of
the deceased. The court charges involved in procuring such appointment, if
defrayed by the opposing party, may be recovered as costs. The heirs of the
deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased, without requiring
the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court may appoint
guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.
The rules operate on the presumption that the attorney for the deceased party
is in a better position than the attorney for the adverse party to know about the
death of his client and to inform the court of the names and addresses of his
legal representative or representatives.
In the case at bar, no such notice of death, nor a motion for substitution of
the deceased defendant, was ever made. Hence, the trial court could not be
expected to know or take judicial notice of the death of defendant, Maximo
Regoso, without the proper manifestation from his counsel. It must be
remembered that the fault or negligence was Attorney Javier's alone (Llantero
vs. Court of Appeals, 105 SCRA 609; Chittick vs. Court of Appeals, 166 SCRA
219; Pulido vs. CA, 122 SCRA 63).
The supervening death of the defendant, Maximo Regoso, did not
extinguish his wife's action for partition of their conjugal assets, for it is an
action that survives. The trial of the case on the merits was already finished
before the defendant died. Since it was not informed about that event, the trial
court may not be faulted for proceeding to render judgment without ordering
the substitution of the deceased defendant. Its judgment is valid and binding
upon the defendant's legal representatives or successors-in-interest, insofar as
his interest in the property subject of the action is concerned (Florendo, et al.
vs. Coloma, et al., 129 SCRA 304).
Attorney Javier's appeal from the decision of the trial court was correctly
dismissed by the appellate court for upon the death of Maximo Regoso,
Attorney Javier's authority to represent him also expired. Then notice of
appeal, which Attorney Javier filed on behalf of the decedent was an
unauthorized pleading, hence, invalid (Barrameda, et al. vs. Barbara, et al., 90
Phil. 718; Caseas vs. Rosales, 19 SCRA 462).
However, the validity of the judgment of the trial court was not affected by
the defendant's demise for the action survived. The decision is binding and
enforceable against the successors-in-interest of the deceased litigant by
title subsequent to the commencement of the action [Section 49(b) Rule 39,
Rules of Court; Florendo, et al. vs. Coloma, et al., 129 SCRA 304].
This is in line with the following provisions of the Rules of Court:
Sec. 49. EFFECT OF JUDGMENTS.The effect of a judgment or final order
rendered by a court or judge of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to
pronounce the judgment or order, maybe as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
(b) In other cases the judgment or order is, with respect to the matter
directly adjudged or as to any other matter that could have been raised in
relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and their successors-in-interest
by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special proceeding,
litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity.
(Section 49(b), Rule 39, New Rules of Court.)
Thus, a judgment in an ejectment case may be enforced not only against
defendants therein but also against the members of their family, their
relatives, or privies who derived their right of possession from the
defendants (Ariem vs. De los Angeles, 49 SCRA 343). The same rule applies to
the successors-in-interest of a deceased party in an action that survives, if the
decision should go against the latter (Florendo, Jr. vs. Coloma, 129 SCRA 304,
305.)
Atty Suarez: If there was no substitution that took place, the trial is not
affected[apparently, the judgment rendered therein is also not affected].
The court can continue even if the parties are already dead. The judgment is
valid and binding upon the heirs of the deceased party.
Page 119 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
What is the effect of non-substitution?
The lawyer who did not perform his duty as required by Section 16, will be
sanctioned.
But there is no such thing that the judgment will be nullified because the
parties died and the court was not informed. It goes against the purpose to
experdite proccedings. [as long as the action survives]
G.R. No. 140954. April 12, 2005
HEIRS OF BERTULDO1 HINOG:,
vs.
HON. ACHILLES MELICOR
xxx
Moreover, no formal substitution of the parties was effected within thirty
days from date of death of Bertuldo, as required by Section 16, Rule 353 of
the Rules of Court. Needless to stress, the purpose behind the rule on
substitution is the protection of the right of every party to due process. It is
to ensure that the deceased party would continue to be properly represented in
the suit through the duly appointed legal representative of his estate. Non-
compliance with the rule on substitution would render the proceedings and
judgment of the trial court infirm because the court acquires no jurisdiction
over the persons of the legal representatives or of the heirs on whom the trial
and the judgment would be binding. Thus, proper substitution of heirs must be
effected for the trial court to acquire jurisdiction over their persons and to
obviate any future claim by any heir that he was not apprised of the litigation
against Bertuldo or that he did not authorize Atty. Petalcorin to represent him.
The list of names and addresses of the heirs was submitted sixteen months
after the death of Bertuldo and only when the trial court directed Atty.
Petalcorin to comply with the provisions of Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of
Court. Strictly speaking therefore, before said compliance, Atty. Petalcorin
had no standing in the court a quo when he filed his pleadings. Be that as it
may, the matter has been duly corrected by the Order of the trial court dated
October 15, 1999.
Atty. Suarez: The lawyer was supposedly Atty Tinampay, not Atty Petalcorin.
Even though he was hired by the heirs of Bertuldo, but the lawyer on record is
Atty Tinampay. Thus his motion to expunge has no effect at all.
ANG KEK CHEN, complainant,
vs.
JUDGE AMALIA R. ANDRADE, Branch 5, Regional Trial Court, Manila,
respondent.
Nor is there any basis for the charge of serious inefficiency against respondent
judge based on her alleged failure to take judicial notice of the death of
defendant Tui Hok despite manifestations of plaintiff's counsel.
Under 16, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, it is provided that:
Death of party; duty of counsel. Whenever a party to a pending action dies,
and the claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of his counsel to
inform the court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact thereof, and
to give the name and address of his legal representative or representatives.
Failure of a counsel to comply with this duty shall be a ground for disciplinary
action. . . .
Clearly, the duty of informing the court of the death of a party is on the
counsel of the deceased. 4 In Heirs of Maximo Regoso v. Court of Appeals, we
held:
Under the rules, it is the duty of the attorney for the deceased defendant to inform
the court of his client's death and to furnish the court with the names and
residences of the executor, administrator, or legal representative of the deceased.
..
The rules operate on the presumption that the attorney for the deceased party
is in a better position than the attorney for the adverse party to know about the
death of his client and to inform the court of the names and addresses of his
legal representative or representatives.
In the case at bar, no such notice of death, nor a motion for substitution of
the deceased defendant, was ever made. Hence, the trial court could not be
expected to know or take judicial notice of the death of defendant, Maximo
Regoso, without the proper manifestation from his counsel. It must be
remembered that the fault or negligence was Attorney Javier's alone.
Respondent judge cannot be blamed for sending copies of the orders and
Page 120 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
notices to defendant Tui Hok in the absence of proof of death or
manifestation to that effect from his counsel. Nor can she be faulted for not
resolving the Motion for Substitution filed by complainant as co-defendant in
the civil case, and opting instead to reset the case for trial.
Atty Suarez: The lawyer should inform the judge about the death of his client
though a manifestation. In that manifestation, he should put the names of the
substitutes of the dead party. It must be an Official Manifestation, meaning
in writing, not an informal one.
PURITA ALIPIO, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and ROMEO G. JARING, represented by his
Attorney-In-Fact RAMON G. JARING, respondents.
We hold that a creditor cannot sue the surviving spouse of a decedent in an
ordinary proceeding for the collection of a sum of money chargeable
against the conjugal partnership and that the proper remedy is for him to file a
claim in the settlement of estate of the decedent.
*party died even before the filing of the suit
First. Petitioner's husband died on December 1, 1988, more than ten
months before private respondent filed the collection suit in the trial court
on October 13, 1989. This case thus falls outside of the ambit of Rule 3, 21
which deals with dismissals of collection suits because of the death of the
defendant during the pendency of the case and the subsequent procedure to
be undertaken by the plaintiff, i.e., the filing of claim in the proceeding for the
settlement of the decedent's estate. As already noted, Rule 3, 20 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure now provides that the case will be allowed to continue
until entry of final judgment. A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff
therein will then be enforced in the manner especially provided in the Rules for
prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased person.
In many cases as in the instant one, even after the death of one of the spouses,
there is no liquidation of the conjugal partnership. This does not mean,
however, that the conjugal partnership continues. And private respondent
cannot be said to have no remedy. Under Sec. 6, Rule 78 of the Revised Rules
of Court, he may apply in court for letters of administration in his capacity as a
principal creditor of the deceased . . . if after thirty (30) days from his death,
petitioner failed to apply for administration or request that administration be
granted to some other person.
From the foregoing, it is clear that private respondent cannot maintain the
present suit against petitioner. Rather, his remedy is to file a claim against
the Alipios in the proceeding for the settlement of the estate of petitioner's
husband or, if none has been commenced, he can file a petition either for the
issuance of letters of administration or for the allowance of will, depending on
whether petitioner's husband died intestate or testate. Private respondent
cannot short-circuit this procedure by lumping his claim against the Alipios
with those against the Manuels considering that, aside from petitioner's lack of
authority to represent their conjugal estate, the inventory of the Alipios'
conjugal property is necessary before any claim chargeable against it can be
paid. Needless to say, such power exclusively pertains to the court having
jurisdiction over the settlement of the decedent's estate and not to any other
court.
MARIA MERCEDES NERY vs.
GABRIEL LEYSON
CONTENTION OF RESPONDENTS
Respondents, on the other hand, contend that the trial court acquired
jurisdiction over the petitioners when they failed to notify the lower court
of the death of Mercedes del Rio during the trial of Civil Case R-8646. We
disagree. Under Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, only in a pending
case is the counsel of a party required to inform the court in case the client
dies or becomes incapacitated or incompetent. A pending case necessarily
implies that the court has already acquired jurisdiction over the person of
the party who died or became incapacitated or incompetent. Prior to this
development, the trial court cannot impose such requirement on the counsel for
the defendants; Section 16 of Rule 3 thus finds no application to this case. On the
other hand, it is the duty of the plaintiff to implead all the necessary or
Page 121 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
indispensable parties for the complete determination of the action. OCT
RO-0083/15615 reveals that Mercedes del Rio was a registered co-owner of the
disputed lot, but she was not placed under the jurisdiction of the trial court in
Civil Case No. R-8646. Neither were her heirs.
Respondents also posit that the service of summons on the petitioners could be
dispensed with, since there is substantial identity between the mother and the
siblings of Mercedes del Rio, on the one hand, and the petitioners on the other.
The reason for this substantial identity is that the petitioners represent the same
interest as the other defendants in Civil Case R-8646. Again, we disagree. True,
res judicata is not defeated by a minor difference of parties, as it does not
require absolute but only substantial identity of parties.14 But there is
substantial identity only when the "additional" party acts in the same capacity
or is in privity with the parties in the former action.15 This is not so in the
present case. Co-owners are not parties inter se in relation to the property
owned in common.16 A subsequent action by a co-heir, who did not join the
earlier dismissed action for recovery of property, should not be barred by
prior judgment. Neither will conclusiveness of judgment apply because there
was no identity of parties.
Poe vs Macapagal-Arroyo
Plainly, the issue here is: May the widow substitute/intervene for the
protestant who died during the pendency of the latters protest case?
The fundamental rule applicable in a presidential election protest is Rule 14 of
the PET Rules. It provides,
Rule 14. Election Protest.Only the registered candidate for President or for
Vice-President of the Philippines who received the second or third highest
number of votes may contest the election of the President or the Vice-President,
as the case may be, by filing a verified petition with the Clerk of the
Presidential Electoral Tribunal within thirty (30) days after the proclamation of
the winner.
Pursuant to this rule, only two persons, the 2nd and 3rd placers, may
contest the election. By this express enumeration, the rule makers have in
effect determined the real parties in interest concerning an on-going
election contest. It envisioned a scenario where, if the declared winner had
not been truly voted upon by the electorate, the candidate who received that
2nd or the 3rd highest number of votes would be the legitimate beneficiary in a
successful election contest.
This Tribunal, however, does not have any rule on substitution nor intervention
but it does allow for the analogous and suppletory application of the Rules of
Court, decisions of the Supreme Court, and the decisions of the electoral
tribunals.7
Rule 3, Section 16 is the rule on substitution in the Rules of Court.8 This rule
allows substitution by a legal representative. It can be gleaned from the citation
of this rule that movant/intervenor seeks to appear before this Tribunal as the
legal representative/substitute of the late protestant prescribed by said Section
However, in our application of this rule to an election contest, we have every
time ruled that a public office is personal to the public officer and not a
property transmissible to the heirs upon death.9 Thus, we consistently rejected
substitution by the widow or the heirs in election contests where the protestant
dies during the pendency of the protest. In Vda. de De Mesa v. Mencias,10 we
recognized substitution upon the death of the protestee but denied
substitution by the widow or heirs since they are not the real parties in
interest. Similarly, in the later case of De la Victoria v. Commission on
Elections,11 we struck down the claim of the surviving spouse and children of
the protestee to the contested office for the same reason. Even in analogous
cases before other electoral tribunals,12 involving substitution by the widow of
a deceased protestant, in cases where the widow is not a real party in interest,
we denied substitution by the wife or heirs.
This is not to say that death of the protestant necessarily abates the pending
action. We have held as early as Vda. de De Mesa (1966) that while the right to
a public office is personal and exclusive to the public officer, an election
protest is not purely personal and exclusive to the protestant or to the protestee
such that the death of either would oust the court of all authority to continue the
protest proceedings.13 Hence, we have allowed substitution and intervention
but only by a real party in interest. A real party in interest is the party who
would be benefited or injured by the judgment, and the party who is
entitled to the avails of the suit. In Vda. de De Mesa v. Mencias and
Lomugdang v. Javier, we permitted substitution by the vice-mayor since the
vice-mayor is a real party in interest considering that if the protest succeeds
and the protestee is unseated, the vice-mayor succeeds to the office of the
Page 122 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
mayor that becomes vacant if the one duly elected cannot assume office. In
contrast, herein movant/intervenor, Mrs. FPJ, herself denies any claim to the
august office of President. Thus, given the circumstances of this case, we can
conclude that protestants widow is not a real party in interest to this election
protest.
Atty. Suarez: At this point, we are discussing about legal heirs as
representatives or the executor or administrator. But in this case, we have
election protest. So a widow cannot substitute. [since the widow is not the
Real Party in Interest]
Spouses JULITA DE LA CRUZ and FELIPE DE LA CRUZ, Petitioners,
vs.
PEDRO JOAQUIN, Respondents.
Rule on Substitution
When a party to a pending action dies and the claim is not extinguished, the
Rules of Court require a substitution of the deceased. The procedure is
specifically governed by Section 16 of Rule 3, which reads thus:
"Section 16. Death of a party; duty of counsel. Whenever a party to a
pending action dies, and the claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the
duty of his counsel to inform the court within thirty (30) days after such death of
the fact thereof, and to give the name and address of his legal representative or
representatives. Failure of counsel to comply with this duty shall be a ground
for disciplinary action.
"The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased,
without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court
may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.
"The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to
appear and be substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice.
"If no legal representative is named by the counsel for the deceased party, or if
the one so named shall fail to appear within the specified period, the court may
order the opposing party, within a specified time, to procure the appointment
of an executor or administrator for the estate of the deceased, and the latter
shall immediately appear for and on behalf of the deceased. The court charges
in procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may be
recovered as costs."
The rule on the substitution of parties was crafted to protect every partys
right to due process. The estate of the deceased party will continue to be
properly represented in the suit through the duly appointed legal
representative. Moreover, no adjudication can be made against the successor
of the deceased if the fundamental right to a day in court is denied.24
The Court has nullified not only trial proceedings conducted without the
appearance of the legal representatives of the deceased, but also the resulting
judgments. In those instances, the courts acquired no jurisdiction over the
persons of the legal representatives or the heirs upon whom no judgment was
binding.
This general rule notwithstanding, a formal substitution by heirs is not
necessary when they themselves voluntarily appear, participate in the
case, and present evidence in defense of the deceased. These actions negate
any claim that the right to due process was violated.
The Court is not unaware of Chittick v. Court of Appeals, in which the failure
of the heirs to substitute for the original plaintiff upon her death led to the
nullification of the trial courts Decision. The latter had sought to recover
support in arrears and her share in the conjugal partnership. The children who
allegedly substituted for her refused to continue the case against their father
and vehemently objected to their inclusion as parties. Moreover, because he
died during the pendency of the case, they were bound to substitute for the
defendant also. The substitution effectively merged the persons of the plaintiff
and the defendant and thus extinguished the obligation being sued upon.30
Clearly, the present case is not similar, much less identical, to the factual milieu
of Chittick.
Strictly speaking, the rule on the substitution by heirs is not a matter of
jurisdiction, but a requirement of due process. Thus, when due process is not
violated, as when the right of the representative or heir is recognized and
Page 123 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
protected, noncompliance or belated formal compliance with the Rules
cannot affect the validity of a promulgated decision. Mere failure to
substitute for a deceased plaintiff is not a sufficient ground to nullify a trial
courts decision. The alleging party must prove that there was an undeniable
violation of due process.
Substitution in the Instant Case
The records of the present case contain a "Motion for Substitution of Party
Plaintiff" dated February 15, 2002, filed before the CA. The prayer states as
follows:
"WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Heirs of the deceased plaintiff-
appellee as represented by his daughter Lourdes dela Cruz be substituted as
party-plaintiff for the said Pedro Joaquin.
"It is further prayed that henceforth the undersigned counsel32 for the heirs of
Pedro Joaquin be furnished with copies of notices, orders, resolutions and other
pleadings at its address below."
Evidently, the heirs of Pedro Joaquin voluntary appeared and participated
in the case. We stress that the appellate court had ordered his legal
representatives to appear and substitute for him. The substitution even on
appeal had been ordered correctly. In all proceedings, the legal
representatives must appear to protect the interests of the deceased.34 After
the rendition of judgment, further proceedings may be held, such as a motion
for reconsideration or a new trial, an appeal, or an execution.
Considering the foregoing circumstances, the Motion for Substitution may be
deemed to have been granted; and the heirs, to have substituted for the
deceased, Pedro Joaquin. There being no violation of due process, the issue of
substitution cannot be upheld as a ground to nullify the trial courts Decision.
Atty. Suarez: Even though there is a requirement under Section 16 that the
lawyer should inform the court about the death of his client, the names of the
legal heirs, and other material facts. Despite the absence thereof, it does not
mean that there is no substitution. There is still substitution when the heirs
actively participate in the proceedings (like filing a motion or an appeal).
When they actively participate, it is deemed that they submit themselves in
the jurisdiction of the court. The lack of formal substitution of the lawyer will
not render all the proceedings null and void. The only time when the
proceeding was null and void when the judge was accused that he did not do
his duties as judge thus making the proceedings null and void. In order for the
case to proceed, it is enough that the heirs participate in the proceedings.
Limbauan vs Acosta
Lastly, petitioner capitalizes on the failure of respondents counsel to inform the
court of the death of his client, Faustino Acosta, who passed away on October
22, 2000 while the case was pending appeal with the CA. He avers that such
failure rendered the case moot and academic as no proper substitution of a
party was effected in compliance with Rule 3, Section 16 of the Rules of Court.
Section 16, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that:
Sec. 16. Death of party; duty of counsel. Whenever a party to a pending
action dies, and the claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of his
counsel to inform the court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact
thereof, and to give the name and address of his legal representative or
representatives. Failure of counsel to comply with this duty shall be a ground
for disciplinary action.
The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased,
without first requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the
court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.
The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to
appear and be substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice. xxx.
It is well settled that the failure of counsel to comply with his duty under Section
16 to inform the court of the death of his client and no substitution of such party
is effected, will not invalidate the proceedings and the judgment thereon if
the action survives the death of such party. Moreover, the decision rendered
shall bind his successor-in-interest. The instant action for unlawful detainer, like
any action for recovery of real property, is a real action and as such survives
the death of Faustino Acosta. His heirs have taken his place and now represent
his interests in the instant petition. Hence, the present case cannot be rendered
moot despite the death of respondent.
Page 124 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
*the failure of the counsel to comply with Sec 16 will not invalidate the
proceedings thereon if the action survives the death of the party
Atty. Suarez: The earlier case (Dela Cruz), the heirs actively participated.
However, in this case, there was no participation. The lawyer of the dead
party can continue. Any decision shall bind the successors in interest. An
Unlawful detainer case is a real action and it survives even after death of
the party. If the judgment is rendered against the party who dies, the heirs
can file an appeal even if there is no formal substitution. Section 16 is
directory. It is only for the lawyer to take a particular step to inform the court.
But if that particular step is not taken, the case will go on. The successor-in-
interest steps into the shoes of the original party.
JOSE RAMILO O. REGALADO, Petitioner,
vs.
CHAUCER B. REGALADO and GERARD R. CUEVAS, Respondents
Petitioner argues that after the death of Hugo Regalado, he did not lose his right
or interest over the case since he is one of the compulsory heirs. As such, he
signed the petition before the CA, not as an agent of Hugo Regalado, but as a
compulsory heir.
The petition is meritorious.
The action that led to the present controversy was one for cancellation of title,
which is a real action affecting as it does title to or possession of real property.
It is an action that survives or is not extinguished upon the death of a party,
pursuant to Section 1, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court.
Section 16, Rule 3 lays down the procedure that must be observed when a
party dies in an action that survives, viz.:
SEC.16. Death of party; duty of counsel. Whenever a party to a pending
action dies, and the claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of his
counsel to inform the court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact
thereof, and to give the name and address of his legal representative or
representatives. Failure of counsel to comply with this duty shall be a ground
for disciplinary action.
The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased,
without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court
may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.
The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to
appear and be substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice.
If no legal representative is named by the counsel for the deceased party, or if
the one so named shall fail to appear within the specified period, the court may
order the opposing party, within a specified time, to procure the appointment
of an executor or administrator for the estate of the deceased and the latter
shall immediately appear for and on behalf of the deceased. The court charges
in procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may be
recovered as costs.
The rule is intended to protect every party's right to due process. The estate of
the deceased party will continue to be properly represented in the suit,
through the duly appointed legal representative. Moreover, no adjudication
can be made against the successor of the deceased if the fundamental right to a
day in court is denied.
Hugo Regalado passed away on April 23, 2008, but the notice of his death was
served to the CA by his counsel only on December 15, 2009. Although Hugo
Regalado died as early as the pendency of the proceedings before the RTC, the
non-fulfillment of the requirement before said court is excusable since the
RTC rendered a decision on May 15, 2008, or before the expiration of the
30-day period set by the rule.
However, it should not have taken Atty. Miguel B. Albar twenty (20) months
before notifying the CA, when the same ought to have been carried out at the
time of the filing of their appeal.
This notwithstanding, it was still error for the CA to dismiss the appeal. After
receiving the notice of Hugo Regalados death, together with a list of his
representatives, it was incumbent upon the appellate court to order the
latters appearance and cause their substitution as parties to the appeal.
The belated filing of the notice must not prejudice the deceased partys
legal representatives; the rules clearly provide that it is a mere ground for
a disciplinary action against the erring counsel. Instead of abiding by the
Page 125 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
course of action set forth by the rules, the CA adopted a myopic examination of
the procedural facts of the case. It focused simply on the validity of the Special
Power of Attorney, and completely disregarded the notice of Hugo Regalados
death. Indeed, nothing is more unfortunate in law than when a counsels
remedial faux pas is improperly addressed by a court.
Petitioner and the other legal representatives of Hugo Regalado were thus
deprived of due process, and, as such, the CA issuances rendered against them
were void.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ASSIGN
a regular docket number to this case, and thereafter REMAND the case to the
Court of Appeals.
Atty. Suarez: Here, there is automatic substitution. The heir was able to file
an appeal. The Supreme Court here said that the rule only provides sanction
against the erring counsel.
SPOUSES FLORENTINO AND CONSOLACION TABALNO, Petitioners, v.
PAULINO T. DINGAL, SR. AND JUANITA GALOLA VDA. DE DINGAL,
Respondents.
A forcible entry case survives the
death of a party; hence, Juanita
properly substituted for her
deceased husband Paulino.
In this jurisdiction, there are three kinds of actions available for the recovery of
possession of real property: (1) accion interdictal or ejectment case; (b) accion
publiciana; and (3) accion reivindicatoria. These actions survive the death of a
party. Under Section 16, Rule 319 of the Rules of Court, the heirs of a deceased
party may be substituted for the latter on a pending action where the claim is
not thereby extinguished.
Forcible entry, as well as unlawful detainer, belongs to the class of action
known as accion interdictal - where the issue is the right of physical or material
possession of the subject real property that, therefore, survives the death of a
party.
To be sure, forcible entry cases are actions in personam - affecting only the
particular person sought to be held liable - that generally do not survive a
party's death. Nonetheless, because it is a real action that primarily and
principally affects property and property rights, it survives the death of
either party.20
On this point, the Court in Cruz v. Cruz explained:
HOW TO DETERMINE IF ACTION SURVIVES
The question as to whether an action survives or not depends on the nature of
the action and the damage sued for. In the causes of action which survive, the
wrong complained [of] affects primarily and principally property and
property rights, the injuries to the person being merely incidental, while in the
causes of action which do not survive, the injury complained of is to the
person, the property, and rights of property affected being incidental.
Based on these considerations, the forcible entry case filed by Paulino
against the Sps. Tabalno, et al, survived Paulino's death. Hence, pursuant
to Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, Juanita, the surviving spouse and heir
of Paulino, could have and had properly been substituted for him in the forcible
entry case.
We are of course aware of Section 4, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court that requires
the husband and the wife to sue jointly, otherwise, the non-joining spouse is
deemed to have waived his or her participation in the proceeding.
We note, however, that Juanita did not join the proceeding pursuant to Section 4
of Rule 3 when she, as Paulino's wife, should have sued jointly with Paulino.
Rather, Juanita joined the proceeding pursuant to Section 16 of Rule 3
which allows her, as her husband's heir, to substitute for Paulino in the
case. In other words, she was merely taking over her husband's place, not
belatedly joining as an additional party, to protect Paulino's rights and
interests that the proceedings may affect.
In this regard, the Court explained in Edwino A. Torres (deceased) v. Rodellas:
the purpose for allowing the heirs to substitute for the deceased litigant
proceeds from "the right to due process of every party to a litigation who
may be affected by the intervening death. The deceased litigant is himself or
herself protected, as he/she continues to be properly represented in the suit
through the duly appointed legal representative of his estate. The spirit behind
Page 126 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
the general rule requiring a formal substitution of heirs is not really because
substitution of heirs is a jurisdictional requirement, but because noncompliance
therewith results in the undeniable violation of the right to due process of those
who, though not duly notified of the proceedings, are substantially affected by
the decision rendered therein."
Accordingly, the RTC correctly allowed Juanita to substitute for Paulino upon
the latter's death.
Atty Suarez: In actions that survive, the herirs of the deceased are deemed to
substitute the deceased in the case.
*IMPORTANT CASES
Cardenas vs Heirs of Aguilar
Even granting that petitioner was in good faith in assailing the execution of the
RTC Decision, his. argument that the RTC has no jurisdiction to issue the Writ of
Execiltion absent proper substitution still holds no water.
The pertinent provision of the Revised Rules of Court provides:
Section 16. Death of party; duty of counsel. - Whenever a party to a pending
action dies, and the claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty
of his counsel to inform the court within thirty (30) days after such death of
the fact thereof, and to give the name and address of his legal
representative or representatives. Failure of counsel to comply with his
duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action.
The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased,
without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court
may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.
The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to
appear and be substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice.
If no legal representative is named by the counsel for the deceased party, or if
the one so named shall fail to appear within the specified period, the court may
order the opposing party, within a specified time, to procure the appointment
of an executor or administrator for the estate of the deceased and the latter
shall immediately appear for and on behalf of the deceased. The court charges
in procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may be
recovered as costs.
The purpose behind the rule on substitution is the protection of the right of
every party to due process. It is to ensure that the deceased party would
continue to be properly represented in the suit through the duly appointed
legal representative of his estate. Non-compliance with the rule on substitution
would render the proceedings and the judgment of the trial court infirm
because the court acquires no jurisdiction over the persons of the legal
representatives or of the heirs on whom the trial and the judgment would be
binding.
In the case at bar, we find that no right to procedural due process was
violated when the counsel for the respondents failed to notify the court of
the fact of death of Simplicia P. Aguilar and even if no formal substitution
of parties was effected after the such death. As can be gleaned above, the
rationale behind the rule on substitution is to apprise the heir or the substitute
that he is being brought to the jurisdiction of the court in lieu of the
deceased party by operation of law. The said purpose was not defeated even
if no proper substitution of party was made because Melba A. Clavo de Comer,
the heir of the deceased Simplicia P. Aguilar, was already impleaded by
petitioner as a party-defendant to Civil Case No. LP-02-0300 when the latter
filed his Amended Complaint. For sure, petitioner is very much aware that
despite the passing of the Spouses Aguilar, the case would still continue
because de Comer, on her own behalf and as the legal representative of her
deceased parents, possessed the authority to pursue the case to its end.
In Vda. De Salazar v. Court of Appeals, we ruled that a formal substitution
of the heirs in place of the deceased is no longer necessary if the heirs
continued to appear and participated in the proceedings of the case. In the
cited case, we explained the rationale of our ruling and related it to the due
process issue, to wit:
We are not unaware of several cases where we have ruled that a party having
died in an action that survives, the trial held by the court without appearance of
the deceased's legal representative or substitution of heirs and the judgment
Page 127 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
rendered after such trial, are null and void because the court acquired no
jurisdiction over the persons of the legal representatives or of the heirs upon
whom the trial and the judgment would be binding. This general rule
notwithstanding, in denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration, the Court
of Appeals correctly ruled that formal substitution of heirs is not necessary
when the heirs themselves voluntarily appeared, participated in the case
and presented evidence in defense of deceased defendant.
Attending the case at bench, after all, are these particular circumstances which
negate petitioner's belated and seemingly ostensible claim of violation of her
rights to due process. We should not lose sight of the principle underlying
the general rule that formal substitution of heirs must be effectuated for
them to be bound by a subsequent judgment. Such had been the general rule
established not because the rule on substitution of heirs and that on
appointment of a legal representative are jurisdictional requirements per se
but because non-compliance therewith results in the undeniable violation of the
right to due process of those who, though not duly notified of the proceedings,
are substantially affected by the decision rendered therein. Viewing the rule on
substitution of heirs in this light, the Court of Appeals, in the resolution denying
petitioner's motion for reconsideration, thus expounded:
Although the jurisprudential rule is that failure to make the substitution is a
jurisdictional defect, it should be noted that the purpose of this procedural
rule is to comply with due process requirements. The original party having
died, he could not continue to defend himself in court despite the fact that the
action survived him. For the case to continue, the real party in interest must be
substituted for the deceased. The real party in interest is the one who would be
affected by the judgment. It could be the administrator or executor or the heirs.
In the instant case, the heirs are the proper substitutes. Substitution gives them
the opportunity to continue the defense for the deceased. Substitution is
important because such opportunity to defend is a requirement to comply with
due process. Such substitution consists of making the proper changes in the
caption of the case which may be called the formal aspect of it. Such
substitution also includes the process of letting the substitutes know that they
shall be bound by any judgment in the case and that they should therefore
actively participate in the defense of the deceased. This part may be called the
substantive aspect. This is the heart of the procedural rule because this
substantive aspect is the one that truly embodies and gives effect to the
purpose of the rule. It is this court's view that compliance with the substantive
aspect of the rule despite failure to comply with the formal aspect may be
considered substantial compliance. Such is the situation in the case at bench
because the only inference that could be deduced from the following facts was
that there was active participation of the heirs in the defense of the
deceased after his death:
1. The original lawyer did not stop representing the deceased. It would be
absurd to think that the lawyer would continue to represent somebody if
nobody is paying him his fees. The lawyer continued to represent him in the
litigation before the trial court which lasted for about two more years. A dead
party cannot pay him any fee. With or without payment of fees, the fact remains
that the said counsel was allowed by the petitioner who was well aware of the
instant litigation to continue appearing as counsel until August 23, 1993 when
the challenged decision was rendered;
2. After the death of the defendant, his wife, who is the petitioner in the
instant case, even testified in the court and declared that her husband is
already deceased. She knew therefore that there was a litigation against her
husband and that somehow her interest and those of her children were
involved;
3. This petition for annulment of judgment was filed only after the appeal
was decided against the defendant on April 3, 1995, more than one and a
half year (sic) after the decision was rendered (even if we were to give
credence to petitioner's manifestation that she was not aware that an appeal had
been made);
4. The Supreme Court has already established that there is such a thing as
jurisdiction by estoppel. This principle was established even in cases where
jurisdiction over the subject matter was being questioned. In the instant case,
only jurisdiction over the person of the heirs is in issue. Jurisdiction over the
person may be acquired by the court more easily than jurisdiction over the
subject matter. Jurisdiction over the person may be acquired by the simple
appearance of the person in court as did herein petitioner appear;
5. The case cited by the herein petitioner (Ferreria et al. vs. Manuela Ibarra
vda. de Gonzales, et al.) cannot be availed of to support the said petitioner's
contention relative to nonacquisition of jurisdiction by the court. In that case,
Manolita Gonzales was not served notice and, more importantly, she never
appeared in court, unlike herein petitioner who appeared and even testified
regarding the death of her husband.
Page 128 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
Similarly in this case, the RTC had priorly acquired jurisdiction over the person
of de Comer after she was served with summons as a party-defendant to the
case and she continuously appeared and participated therein up to this point.
Such jurisdiction previously acquired achieved the purpose of a formal
substitution.
SULPICIO LINES, INC., Petitioner
vs.
NAPOLEON SESANTE, NOW SUBSTITUTED BY MARIBEL ATILANO,
KRISTEN MARIE, CHRISTIAN IONE, KENNETH KERRN AND KARISNA
KATE, ALL SURNAMED SESANTE
Substitution by the heirs is not a matter of jurisdiction, but a requirement of due
process.17 It protects the right of due process belonging to any party, that in
the event of death the deceased litigant continues to be protected and properly
represented in the suit through the duly appointed legal representative of his
estate.18
The application of the rule on substitution depends on whether or not the
action survives the death of the litigant. Section 1, Rule 87 of the Rules of
Court enumerates the following actions that survive the death of a party,
namely:
(1) recovery of real or personal property, or an interest from the estate;
(2) enforcement of liens on the estate; and
(3) recovery of damages for an injury to person or property.

An action for breach of contract of carriage survives the death of the

plaintiff
The petitioner urges that Sesante's complaint for damages was purely personal On the one hand, Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court lists the actions
and cannot be transferred to his heirs upon his death. Hence, the complaint abated by death as including:
should be dismissed because the death of the plaintiff abates a personal action.
(1) claims for funeral expenses and those for the last sickness of the
The petitioner's urging is unwarranted. decedent;
(2) judgments for money; and
Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court lays down the proper procedure in the (3) all claims for money against the deceased, arising from contract,
event of the death of a litigant, viz.: express or implied.

Section 16. Death of party; duty of counsel. - Whenever a party to a pending
action dies, and the claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of his
counsel to inform the court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact
thereof, and to give the name and address of his legal representative or
representatives. Failure of counsel to comply with his duty shall be a ground for
disciplinary action.
A contract of carriage generates a relation attended with public duty, neglect or
malfeasance of the carrier's employees and gives ground for an action for
damages. Sesante's claim against the petitioner involved his personal injury
caused by the breach of the contract of carriage. Pursuant to the aforecited
rules, the complaint survived his death, and could be continued by his heirs
following the rule on substitution.

The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased, SURIVIVES DEATH
without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court Section 1, Rule 87
may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs. (1) recovery of real or personal
property, or an interest from the
xxxx estate;
(2) enforcement of liens on the estate;
DOES NOT SURVIVE DEATH
Section 5, Rule 86
(1) claims for funeral expenses and
those for the last sickness of the
decedent;
(2) judgments for money; and

Page 129 of 147

Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
and (3) all claims for money against the
(3) recovery of damages for an injury deceased, arising from contract,
to person or property. express or implied.
SPOUSES AMADO O. IBAEZ and ESTHER R. IBAEZ, Petitioners
vs.
JAMES HARPER as Representative of the Heirs of FRANCISCO MUOZ,
SR., the REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MANILA and the SHERIFF OF MANILA,
Respondents
Section 16, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 16. Death of party; duty of counsel. - Whenever a party to a pending
action dies, and the claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of his
counsel to inform the court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact
thereof, and to give the name and address of his legal representative or
representatives. Failure of counsel to comply with this duty shall be a ground
for disciplinary action.
The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased,
without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court
may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.
The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to
appear and be substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from
notice.1wphi1
If no legal representative is named by the counsel for the deceased party, or if
the one so named shall fail to appear within the specified period, the court may
order the opposing party, within a specified time, to procure the appointment
of an executor or administrator for the estate of the deceased and the latter
shall immediately appear for and on behalf of the deceased. The court charges
in procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may be
recovered as costs.
The rationale behind the rule on substitution is to apprise the heir or the
substitute that he is being brought to the jurisdiction of the court in lieu of the
deceased party by operation of law.71 It serves to protect the right of every
party to due process. It is to ensure that the deceased party would continue to
be properly represented in the suit through the duly appointed legal
representative of his estate. Non-compliance with the rule on substitution would
render the proceedings and the judgment of the trial court infirm because the
court acquires no jurisdiction over the persons of the legal representatives or of
the heirs on whom the trial and the judgment would be binding.72
Nevertheless, there are instances when formal substitution may be
dispensed with. In Vda. de Salazar v. Court of Appeals,73 we ruled that the
defendant's failure to effect a formal substitution of heirs before the rendition of
judgment does not invalidate the court's judgment where the heirs
themselves appeared before the trial court, participated in the
proceedings, and presented evidence in defense of the deceased defendant.
The court there found it undeniably evident that the heirs themselves sought
their day in court and exercised their right to due process.74
Similarly, in Berot v. Siapno,75 we ruled that the continued appearance and
participation of Rodolfo, the estate's representative, in the proceedings of the
case dispensed with the formal substitution of the heirs in place of the
deceased.
Here, while there may have been a failure to strictly observe the provisions of
the rules and there was no formal substitution of heirs, the heirs of Francisco,
represented by James, voluntarily appeared and actively participated in
the case, particularly in the enforcement of the Hatol. As the records show,
they have filed multiple pleadings and moved several times to implement the
Hatol to protect Francisco's interest. Following our rulings in Vda. de Salazar
and Berot, a formal substitution of parties is no longer required under the
circumstances.
The trial court therefore committed grave abuse of discretion when it declared
that Harper cannot be made a party in the case because of the lack of a valid
substitution. Its refusal to recognize Francisco's heirs deprived them of the
opportunity to exact compliance with whatever rights they may have under the
terms of the Amended Compromise Agreement.
Page 130 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
STOPPED HERE!!!
Section 17. Death or separation of a party who is a public officer.
When a public officer is a party in an action in his official capacity and during its
pendency dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold office, the action may be
continued and maintained by or against his successor if, within thirty (30) days
after the successor takes office or such time as may be granted by the court, it
is satisfactorily shown to the court by any party that there is a substantial need
for continuing or maintaining it and that the successor adopts or continues or
threatens to adopt or continue to adopt or continue the action of his
predecessor. Before a substitution is made, the party or officer to be affected,
unless expressly assenting thereto, shall be given reasonable notice of the
application therefor and accorded an opportunity to be heard. (18a)
Normally it happens when a Mayor demolishes the stores. The Vendors filed a
case against the Mayor, but the Mayor dies. The Successor has the choice
whether he wants to continue the case of his predecessor or not. If he wants to
continue, there is substitution. The predecessor is the defendant.
What if the predecessor is the one who filed against an entity? Lets just say that
the entity occupied land of public dominion. Its up to the successor if he
wants to continue the case. Option is given to the successor in office.
Section 18. Incompetency or incapacity. If a party becomes
incompetent or incapacitated, the court, upon motion with notice, may allow
the action to be continued by or against the incompetent or incapacitated
person assisted by his legal guardian or guardian ad litem.
A Motion with notice must be filed to allow the action to be continued by or
against the Incompetent or Incapacitate assisted by his legal guardian. The
notice must be served to the adverse party. If no legal guardian, then the court
will assign a guardian ad litem.
Section 19. Transfer of interest. In case of any transfer of interest, the
action may be continued by or against the original party, unless the court
upon motion directs the person to whom the interest is transferred to be
substituted in the action or joined with the original party.
What to file: Motion to be substituted or joined
This happens all the time. I think we already talked about this in the Caltex
case. There is a transfer of interest here during the pendency of the case.
Example: P owns a parcel of land that is being occupied by D. He filed an
accion publiciana against. D. Then P suddenly decides na ayaw na niya i-
continue ang case. He decided to sell the land to X. There is a transfer of
interest na. What does Section 19 say? The action may be continued by or
against the original party, unless the court upon motion directs the person to
whom the interest is transferred to be substituted in the action or joined with
the original party.
Rules when there is a transfer of interest
1. The action may be continued by or against the original party
2. Unless the court upon motion directs the person to whom the interest is
transferred to be: [not motu proprio]
a. substituted in the action
b. joined in the original action. (Additional party)
There are options. If P sells the land to X while there is still a pending case of
accion publiciana against D, he can continue (option 1). If he files a motion in
the court saying that he does not want to participate in the case, then pwede
yun. Or he can ask the court to join X being a necessary party. So they will join
together so when the court rules in favor of the plaintiff, the court can order D to
surrender the possession of the property to X, the new owner. Section 19 talks
about Transferee pendent lite. The case will not be dismissed.
SINGANON,LEXI SECOND HOUR
Dec. 6, 2017 (1:00-2:00)
Sec. 19. Transfer of interest.
In case of any transfer of interest, the action may be continued by or against the
original party, unless the court upon motion directs the person to whom the
interest is transferred to be substituted in the action or joined with the original
party.
You have encountered a number of cases already where there is transfer of
interest, like in banks. For example, BDO has eaten up many banks already
Page 131 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
such as Equitable PCI Bank. So what if the original action was filed by the PCI
Bank? And now, who is the party? Its BDO.
So it says here: The action may be continued by or against the original
party, such provision apples if the original party still exists. But if the
original party no longer exists, then definitely the transferee will have to be
substituted in the action. If the original party still exists, the action may be
filed by him or against him and the transferee may be joined.
Example:
P files an action against D to recover a parcel of land. While the case was
pending, D sold the land to L, who is the transferee pendente lite. L now
assumes the risk and takes the property subject to the outcome of the case. He
is now going to take the place of D as defendant.
According to Section 19, three scenarios are available:
1. The action may be continued against D, even though he transferred
his interest to L. If he loses, L will be the one who will be ordered to
vacate. [the action may be continued against the original party]
2. D will be removed as party-defendant and L will be substituted.
3. D and L will be joined together as defendants.
De Veras interest is not independent of or severable from the interest of
the Heirs. De Vera is a transferee pendente lite of the Heirs (by virtue of the
Deed of Renunciation of Rights that was executed in his favor during the
pendency of Civil Case No. U-7316). His rights were derived from the Heirs
and, as transferee pendente lite, he would be bound by any judgment
against his transferors under the rules of res judicata. Thus, De Veras
interest cannot be considered and tried separately from the interest of the
named defendants.
Now, lets go to Sec. 20. IMPORTANT PROVISION
Sec. 20. Action on contractual money claims.
When the action is for recovery of money arising from contract, express or
implied, and the defendant dies before entry of final judgment in the court in
which the action was pending at the time of such death, it shall not be
dismissed but shall instead be allowed to continue until entry of final
judgment.
A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the
manner especially provided in these Rules for prosecuting claims against the
estate of a deceased person.

In all cases, the transferee pendente lite will be bound by the decision of the
court.

Heirs of Medrano vs Estanislao De Vera

Issue: WON De Vera is separate and distinct from the Heirs of Hilaria and
Elena such that he cannot participate in the case
Held: NO. De Vera is NOT separate and distinct from the Heirs of Hilaria
and Elena. As such, he can participate in the case.

The trial court gravely abused its discretion in refusing to allow De Vera to
participate in the case, finding that De Veras right to participate in the case
was independent of the Heirs. Because of its ruling that De Vera had an
"independent interest," the trial court considered his interest as separate
from Medranos claims against the Heirs, and allowed the latter to be tried
separately.

Page 132 of 147

Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018 NEXT STAGES AFTER ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
If you remember Sec. 16, it talks about the death of a party. Sec. 20 does not
talk about any party but it talks about the death of the defendant. The action
involved here is for the recovery of money arising from contract, express or
implied. Thus, Sec. 20 is limited to actions for recovery of money.
If youre talking about accion publiciana, quieting of title, or unlawful ENTRY OF LEVY/EXECUTION
EXECUTION
detainer, then you apply Sec. 16[kay not for recovery of money man]. But JUDGMENT SALE
here, we have recovery of money. Now the defendant here dies dies before
entry of final judgment in the court in which the action was pending at the time
of such death.
Sec 16
When the court renders a decision, so lets say the judgment was rendered on Situation 1
June 10, 2016 and it became final 15 days from notice. Lets say the parties
received the judgment on June 15 so the finality of the decision was attained on
June 30. And then the next step is the entry of judgment. After a judgment
becomes final, it will be entered in the dockets of the court. There is no Situation 2 Sec 5 Rule 86
specific time frame for entry of judgment, so lets say it takes a month. So
the entry of judgment is July 30.
Now what is the situation under Sec. 20? The defendant dies before June 30. Situation 3 Sec 7 Rule 86
He couldve died after judgment or after finality but not before the judgment
has been entered. He also couldve died during the pendency of the case. So
the defendant couldve died at anytime from the filing of the action until entry of
judgment. So what is the effect? The action shall not be dismissed. It shall be allowed to
continue until entry of judgment.

*DAPAT JUDGMENT IS AGAINST THE DEFENDANT

So what if the judgment is against the defendant? It says here, A favorable
judgment obtained by the plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the manner
JUDGMENT: JUNE 15, JUNE 30, especially provided in these Rules for prosecuting claims against the
2016 ENTRY OF estate of a deceased person. So you proceed against the estate, meaning you
June 10, 2016
JUDGMENT file an action against the estate of the defendant.
2016 RECEIPT FINALITY

SECTION 20

Page 133 of 147

Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
So lets specify further. Lets look at the different scenarios.
1. If the action is one that survives and it is a contractual money claim:
a. The plaintiff dies Apply Sec. 16, the case will continue and the
heirs or legal representatives will be substituted as plaintiff in the
case.
b. The defendant dies during the pendency of the case or before
entry of judgment Apply Sec. 20 and in case of a favorable
judgment obtained, the plaintiff shall enforce such judgment by
filing a claim against the estate of the defendant in accordance
with Sec. 7 Rule 86.
2. If the defendant survives the entry of judgment, but he dies after entry
of judgment but before execution through levy or attachment Apply
Sec. 5 Rule 86, file a claim against the estate of the defendant.
3. The defendant survives the execution. The Sheriff has 3 options:
a. Immediate payment on demand;
b. Upon failure to pay for lack of money, Sheriff will levy any
property of the defendant
c. Once levied, the property will be sold at an auction sale
and the proceeds of the same will be used to satisfy the
judgment
4. The defendant dies after levy but before auction sale Apply Sec. 7(c)
Rule 39, In case of the death of the judgment obligor [who is the
defendant], after execution is actually levied upon any of his property,
the same may be sold for the satisfaction of the judgment obligation,
and the officer making the sale shall account to the corresponding
executor or administrator for any surplus in his hands.
Different Secenarios
Sec 20 Rule 3
If the defendant survives When the action is for recovery of money
the entry of judgment, but arising from contract, express or implied,
he dies after entry of and the defendant dies before entry of final
judgment but before judgment in the court in which the action was
execution through levy or pending at the time of such death, it shall not
1 attachment be dismissed but shall instead be allowed to
continue until entry of final judgment. A
favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff
therein shall be enforced in the manner
especially provided in these Rules for
prosecuting claims against the estate of a
deceased person.
If the defendant survives Sec 5 Rule 86
the entry of judgment, but Section 5. Claims which must be filed
he dies after entry of under the notice. If not filed, barred;
judgment but before exceptions. All claims for money against
execution through levy or the decent, arising from contract, express or
attachment implied, whether the same be due, not due,
or contingent, all claims for funeral expenses
and expense for the last sickness of the
decedent, and judgment for money against
the decent, must be filed within the time
limited in the notice; otherwise they are
barred forever, except that they may be set
2 forth as counterclaims in any action that the
executor or administrator may bring against
the claimants. Where an executor or
administrator commences an action, or
prosecutes an action already commenced by
the deceased in his lifetime, the debtor may
set forth by answer the claims he has against
the decedent, instead of presenting them
independently to the court as herein
provided, and mutual claims may be set off
against each other in such action; and if final
judgment is rendered in favor of the
defendant, the amount so determined shall
Page 134 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
The defendant dies after
levy but before auction sale
3
be considered the true balance against the
estate, as though the claim had been
presented directly before the court in the
administration proceedings. Claims not yet
due, or contingent, may be approved at their
present value.
Sec 7 Rule 86
Section 7. Mortgage debt due from estate.
A creditor holding a claim against the
deceased secured by mortgage or other
colateral security, may abandon the security
and prosecute his claim in the manner
provided in this rule, and share in the
general distribution of the assets of the
estate; or he may foreclose his mortgage or
realize upon his security, by action in court,
making the executor or administrator a party
defendant, and if there is a judgment for a
deficiency, after the sale of the mortgaged
premises, or the property pledged, in the
foreclosure or other proceeding to realize
upon the security, he may claim his
deficiency judgment in the manner provided
in the preceding section or he may rely upon
his mortgage or other security alone, and
foreclosure the same at any time within the
period of the statute of limitations, and in that
event he shall not be admitted as a creditor,
and shall receive no share in the distribution
of the other assets of estate; but nothing
herein contained shall prohibit the executor
or administrator from redeeming the
property mortgaged or pledged, by paying
the debt for which it is held as security,
under the direction of the court, if the court
shall adjudge it to be for the best interest of
the estate that such redemption shall be
made.
In the 4th scenario, upon the sale of the property on auction, the proceeds
corresponding to the amount of the judgment award will go to the plaintiff,
while the surplus will go to the estate of the defendant.
Now what are the actions that do not survive? We already talked about it like
annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity, action for legal separation,
petition for support, petition for recognition of filiation, etc. If the defendant
dies during the pendency of an action which does not survive, then the effect is
the dismissal of the action.
If the situation falls under Sec. 20, does it mean that Sec. 16 is forgotten? No.
Sec. 16 applies both to plaintiff and defendants and applies in money claims
and other actions that survive. What this means is, if the defendant dies in these
cases, then there will be substitution. But when it comes to judgment, the heirs
will not be directly held liable with their money. The heirs will be substituted as
parties but the estate of the defendant will be the one held liable for the
judgment.
UST vs CA
Issue: WON the substitution was proper
Held: YES. While Canicosa was the defendant in USTs ejectment complaint, he
was the plaintiff in his counterclaim for damages which he filed in relation to the
ejectment case. A counterclaim partakes of the nature of a complaint or cause of
action against the plaintiff so that a counterclaimant is the plaintiff in his
counterclaim.
Thus, with respect to the counterclaim, respondent Canicosa was not the
defendant but the plaintiff; it was UST which was the defendant.
Thus Rule 3, Section 21 was not applicable as that provision pertains to
a defendant who dies before final judgment. Hence, if it is the plaintiff who dies,
as in this case, a mere substitution of the heirs or legal representative for the
deceased is all that needs to be done, in accordance with procedure set out in
Rule 3, Section 17 of the Revised Rules of Court:
Sec. 17. Death of a party After a party dies and the claim is not thereby
extinguished, the court shall order, upon proper notice, the legal
representative of the deceased to appear and to be substituted for the
Page 135 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
deceased, x x x. The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for
the deceased, without requiring the appointment of an executor or
administrator x x x.
So as you can see, the former Rule 3 Sec. 21 and present Rule 3 Sec. 20 are
different from each other.
Rule 3, 21 of the 1964 Rules of Court provided that "when the action is for
recovery of money, debt or interest thereon, and the defendant dies before
final judgment in the Court of First Instance, it shall be dismissed to be
prosecuted in the manner especially provided in these rules."
This provision has been amended so that now Rule 3, 20 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure provides:
When the action is for the recovery of money arising from contract, express or
implied, and the defendant dies before entry of final judgment in the court in
which the action was pending at the time of such death, it shall not be dismissed
but shall instead be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment. A
favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the
manner especially provided in these Rules for prosecuting claims against the
estate of a deceased person.
So the previous provision was being invoked in the counterclaim because
Canicosa died. In a counterclaim, it is the counterclaimant who is considered
the plaintiff. So the Court held that such provision is not applicable because
what is applicable is Sec. 16 which was previously Sec. 17. And there will
merely be substitution of heirs.
Alipio vs CA
Issue: WON the case should be dismissed
Held: YES. A creditor cannot sue the surviving spouse of a decedent in an
ordinary proceeding for the collection of a sum of money chargeable against
the conjugal partnership and that the proper remedy is for him to file a claim in
the settlement of estate of the decedent.
As mentioned earlier, Puritas husband Placido died on December 1, 1988,
more than ten months before private respondent filed the collection suit in the
trial court on October 13, 1989. This case thus falls outside of the ambit of Rule
3, 21 which deals with dismissals of collection suits because of the death of the
defendant during the pendency of the case and the subsequent procedure to
be undertaken by the plaintiff, i.e., the filing of claim in the proceeding for the
settlement of the decedent's estate.
As already noted, Rule 3, 20 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure now provides
that the case will be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment. A
favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff therein will then be enforced in
the manner especially provided in the Rules for prosecuting claims against the
estate of a deceased person.
In the case at bar, the Alipio spouses signed the sublease contract binding
themselves to pay the amount of stipulated rent. Under the law, the Alipios'
obligation is one which is chargeable against their conjugal partnership. When
Placido died, their conjugal partnership was automatically dissolved and debts
chargeable against it are to be paid in the settlement of estate proceedings in
accordance with the Rules.
As such, Romeos remedy is to file a claim against the Alipio spouses in the
proceeding for the settlement of the estate of Placido for the collection of the
unpaid balance. Therefore, the case should be dismissed.
When a spouse dies, theres no more conjugal partnership to speak of. So they
now have separate properties. The surviving spouse will have her inheritance
from the husband who dies while the husband has his estate.
If no action was filed against the husband and the contracting parties are both
husband and wife and no action was filed against them before the death of
either of the spouses, then upon the death of one spouse, a person cannot file
an action for collection of sum of money chargeable against the conjugal
property against the other spouse. Instead, the action must be filed against the
estate of the deceased spouse.
PASDA, Inc. vs Dimayacyac, Sr.
Issue:
1. WON PASDAs money claims will prosper despite the death of Dimayacyac
2. WON the heirs of Dimayacyac will be held liable for the money claims
against Dimayacyac
Held:
Page 136 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
1. YES. Section 20, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court provides:
When the action is for recovery of money arising from contract, express or
implied, and the defendant dies before entry of final judgment in the court in
which the action was pending at the time of such death, it shall not be dismissed
but shall instead be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment. A
favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the
manner especially provided in these Rules for prosecuting claims against the
estate of a deceased person.
Here, Dimayacyac died after the CA rendered judgment but before entry of
such judgment. Applying the said provision to the case at bar, despite the death
of Dimayacyac and while hes no longer being personally compelled to pay his
obligation from the said contract, his debt still subsists against his estate.
2. NO. Section 20, Rule 3 should be read in relation to Section 5, Rule 86 of the
Rules of Court.
In the event that the respondent-debtor dies during the pendency of the case,
the same is not dismissed but is allowed to continue. If, eventually, the court
rules against the deceased respondent, the same shall be enforced as a claim
against his estate, and not against the individual heirs.
In this case, pursuant to the aforesaid rules, PASDAs remedy is to file a claim
against the estate of Dimayacyac and not against his heirs. Moreover, the fact
that Dimayacyac's heirs have not instituted any action for the settlement of his
estate does not warrant the conclusion that the judgment award must be
enforced against the individual heirs.
In other words, because Dimayacyac dies, his heirs will be substituted in the
action, but the heirs are only substitutes for the purpose of continuing the case.
They cannot be bound and held liable by the judgment award.
DECEMBER 11, 2017
DEL ROSARIO, INAH 1ST HOUR
Section 2. Venue of personal actions. All other actions may be commenced
and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where
the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a non-
resident defendant where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff.
Section 2 is a venue for personal actions.
Venue of Personal Actions
At the Election of the Plaintiff
(1) Where P or any of the principal Ps resides; or
Why is the word principal there? Sometimes there are parties who are
not principal parties but are merely nominal parties (i.e. Register of
Deeds in an annulment of a title, Sheriff.) Therefore, one has to determine
who the principal parties are.
Issues under Section 2:
(a) Principal and nominal parties One has to determine who the principal
parties are. The nominal parties do not determine the venue.
(b) Residence
What do you mean by where the plaintiff/defendant resides? In
your Consti, you have a discussion on the difference of domicile and
residence. With respect to venue, we follow domicile or residence. Lets
see from the cases how the SC applies this term.
Another issue as regards residence is you know that a party to a civil
action may be a natural person or a juridical person. If a party is a natural
person, this is when you determine the domicile or residence. What if
the party is the juridical person or corporation? What is the
residence of a corporation? We will also see that when we look at the
cases.
(2) Where D or any of the principal residents; or
Page 137 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
(3) In case of non-resident, where D may be found, at the election of the
plaintiff
We will also look at the cases.
Section 3. Venue of actions against non-residents. If any of the defendants
does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, and the action affects the
personal status of the plaintiff, or any property of said defendant located in the
Philippines, the action may be commenced and tried in the court of the place
where the plaintiff resides, or where the property or any portion thereof is
situated or found.
What if the defendant is a non-resident and not found in the Philippines?
This provision is related to our discussion on actions in rem and quasi in rem.
This provision must not be confused with Rule 14, Sec. 15 on service of
summons which is different from venue. If it is possible to serve summons on
such defendant who is not a resident and not found here, then the venue is
where the plaintiff resides. Take note that Section 3 is only talking about
defendants. The plainitiff can just file the action where he resides or he has an
option to file it where the property of the defendant or a portion thereof is
situated or found.
Venue when D does not reside and is not found in the RP
1) Where P resides; or
2) Where the property of D or any portion thereof is situated or found
Condition the Action affects:
a) The personal status of P or
b) Any property of D located in the Philippines
What kind of property is this? A property that will be the subject of the
court action or an attachment to convert the action to a quasi in rem.
Because if you look at the provision there, such action can only be filed in
those 2 venues, if the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff.
What do you mean by that? If the aciton filed is for recognition as an
illegitimate child, we have already discussed this in actions in rem or
quasi in rem. If P is an alleged illegitimate child and he wants his father to
recognize him, then it affects his personal status. Therefore, he can file
the action for recognition where he resides.
How about the 2nd one (where the property of D or any portion
thereof is situated or found)? This applies when the defendant cannot
be found in the Philippines and is a non-resident therefor jurisdiction
cannot be acquired over the person of the defendant. The court will just
acquire jurisdiction over the res. That is the property found in the
Philippines.
You have to look at the kind of property.
If the property is a real property, then the action becomes a real action.
Therefore the action must be filed where the property is situated.
If the property is personal property, then it is not a real action. If it is a
personal action, there is no requirement. It could be filed where the
plainitff resides.
You have to look at the kind of property because Sec 3 does not specify
what kind of property whether real or personal property.
If the action is purely in personam, there can be no case against a non-
resident who is not found in the Philippines. You have to correlate that
with Rule 14, Sec. 15. Because actions in personam, extraterritorial
service of summons is not possible. Therefore you cannot file an action
against a non-resident who is not found here and the action is in
personam.
Section 4. When Rule not applicable. This Rule shall not apply
(1) In those cases where a specific rule or law provides otherwise; or
(2) Where the parties have validly agreed in writing before the filing of the
action on the exclusive venue thereof.
Secs 1-3 are rules in venue which do not apply in cases of Sec. 4 (a) (b).
a. In those cases where a specific rule or law provides otherwise; or
b. Where the parties have validly agreed in writing before the filing of
the action on the exclusive venue thereof.
This is normally applicable to contracts wherein it is stated in the
contract that in case of a breach of a contract the parties bring the action
before the courts of Makati. Meron na silang agreement before the filing
Page 138 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
of the action where the actions should be filed. That is why venue can be
changed even though that particular venue is not the residence of the
plaintiff nor the defendant; not the place where the property is found
because Section 4 is clear that the Rule 4 shall not apply amidst an
agreement between the parties on an exclusive venue.
What are the requisites for venue to be exclusive under Sec. 4:
1) Valid written agreement
2) Executed by the parties before the filing fo the action; and
3) Exclusive nature of the venue is clearly seen in the agreement; there
must be restrictive words.

Specfiic Rules on Venue: *In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, venue stipulation is merely
Art. 360, RPC permissive meaning that the stipulated venue is in addition to the venue
(1) A civil action arising from Libel under Art. 360 RPC must be filed provided in the contract.
a) in the RTC of the province or city where the libelous article is
printed and first published Jurisdiction Venue
b) where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of authority of the court to hear and place where the action is brought or
the commission of the offense decide upon a case tried
(2) If one of the offended parties is a public officer, whose office is in the cannot be waived it is conferred by waivable can be the subject of
City of Manila at the time of the commission of the offense, the action shall law agreement
be filed at the: governed by substatntive law governed by procedural law
a) RTC of Manila; or
the relation of the parties of the court the relation between parties
b) RTC in the province or city where the libelous article is printed
limits the courts authority limits plaintitffss rights
and first published
(3) If the public officer does not hold office in the City of Manila at the the matter ordinarily can be raised at
time of the commission of the offense , the action will be filed any stage of trial and upon appeal
a) RTC of the province or city where he held office at the time of the
commission of the offense or where the libelous article is printed Lets go to the cases.
and first published
(4) in case one of the offended parties is a private individual, the action
shall be filed
a) in the RTC of the province or city where he actually resides at the LIETZ HOLDINGS VS. REGISTRY OF DEEDS
time of the commission of the offense or where the libelous
matter is printed and first published Facts: Rudolf Lietz Inc filed a petition for amendment of titles from Rudolf Lietz
Inc to Rudolf Lietz Holdings. This was filed before the RTC of Paraaque but
Provided, further, That the civil action shall be filed in the same court where the impleaded the RTC of Pasay because the certificate of titles of the properties
criminal action is filed and vice versa: Provided, furthermore, That the court located in Pasay were transferred to the custody of Paraaque. The ROD of
where the criminal action or civil action for damages is first filed, shall acquire Paraaque was sought to be added by Lietz as a party to the case. RTC of
jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts: And provided, finally, That this Paraaque motu proprio dismissed the motion on the ground of improper venue
amendment shall not apply to cases of written defamations, the civil and/or because the property is found in Pasay.
criminal actions to which have been filed in court at the time of the effectivity of
this law. Issue: Was the venue improperly laid?

Rulling: NO. The motu proprio dismissal of the complaint on the ground of
improper venue without first allowing the proper procedure to be followed is
Page 139 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
erroneous. The trial court should have waited for a motion to dismiss or an
objection based on improper venue before dismissing the case. When Rudolf
learned that the ROD of Paraaque had taken custody of the titles, the
amendment of the petition is justified in order to correct the allegations in their
complaint.
Note: Venue is waivable. That is the principle which the SC is establishing in
this case. There are rules on venue but when they are not followed, the court
cannot dismiss motu proprio (on its own) the action just because the venue is
improperly laid. In this case, Paraaque and Pasay are beside each other and
there is always a boundary issue between the 2 cities. Sometimes it is not easy
to determine where the property was located. Can the RTC Paraaque
dismiss on its own? NO. Because venue is waivable. The court may dismiss the
complaint or the action only when a motion to dismiss was filed on the ground
that the venue was improperly laid. That the venue is improperly laid is one of
the grounds of a motion to dismiss under Rule 16, Sec. 1. If you have these
ground, generally speaking, the court cannot dismiss on its own. The court has
to wait for a motion to dismiss. If the other party does not complain, then the
court should proceed as long as it has jurisdiction over the subject matter. In
this case, it is just a case involving a petition to change the name of the
corporation. what is the problem? It does not involve title or ownership to
property anyway. It is just to change the names of the corporation in the titles.
GUMABON VS. LARIN
Facts: Gumabon made a Deed of Sale with Right of Repurchase over a parcel of
land located in Pampanga in favor of Larin. Gumabon filed a complaint before
the RTC of Quezon City seeking the return of the certificate of title from which
Larin refused to hand over despite full payment. RTC QC dismissed the
complaint on the ground that it is a real action which should be filed where the
property is located and thus the case should have been filed in RTC Pampanga.
Gumabon contended that dismissal was not proper because Larin never
contested the jurisdiction.
Issue: Can the RTC motu proprio dismiss the action on the ground that the
venue is improperly laid?
Ruling: NO. Wrong venue is merely procedural and not jurisdicational
impediment. Hence it is wrong for the RTC of QC to dismiss the complaint motu
proprio based on improper venue.
Note: The same as Lietz, this is another real action. The proeprty is found in
Pampanga but the action was filed before the QC. However, SC said that there
was no motion to dismiss filed by Larin on the ground of improper venue.
Therefore, the RTC of QC should proceed in trying the case. Venue is merely
procedural, technical and waivable.
NOCUM VS. TAN
Facts: Lucio Tan filed a libel complaint (civil case) against reporter Umali of the
Inquirer. In the Answer, Umali contended the venue is improperly made
because the complaint failed to state the residence of Tan as well as the place
where the libelous article was first printed and published under Art. 360 RPC.
RTC dismissed the complaint. Tan filed an Amended Complaint, which alleged
that the article was printed and first published in the City of Makati where the
complaint was filed.
Issue: Whether the complaint should be dismissed because of improper
venue.
Ruling: NO. The venue for the filing of civil and criminal cases for libel follows
a specific rule in Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code. The complaint should
be filed before the RTC where the libelous was printed and was first published.
If the plaintiff is also a private individual, the complaint may be filed before the
RTC of the place where the offended party resides. If the offended party is a
public official, the complaint may be filed before the RTC of the place where he
held office at the time of the commission of the crime. Here, the additional
allegations in the amended complaint goes only into the issue of venue and not
into the issue of jurisdiction. So, at most, the failure to allege such facts leave
the RTC the power to dismiss the complaint upon the motion of a party which
was done in this case. However, before the finality of the dismissal, since the
issue involves a procedural defect, it could still be cured by the amended
complaint. That was what Tan did in this case. So, the argument of Nocum that
the RTC had no jurisdiction would have been tenable if what was filed is a
criminal action because there, the venue is jurisdictional. It is a well-
established rule that venue has nothing to do with jurisdiction except in
criminal actions. Assuming that the venue were properly laid in the court where
Page 140 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
the action was substituted, that would be procedural not a jurisdictional
impediment.
Note: Even though the venue of civil cases on libel is also governed by Art. 360
of the RPC one should not be too strict. Although there was a motion to dismiss
filed by Nocum, the ground is that the venue is improperly laid. It is not
jurisdictional. The dismissal cannot be based on jurisdiction because the court
has jurisdiction over libel cases.
However, the venue was not improperly made because Makati is the venue
based on the requirements of Art. 360. It is just that the complaint was
insufficient, it did not state the place where the article was first printed and
published and the residence of the defendant.
So, the only thing to do is to amend the complaint to fix it. We already know
that under Rule 110 that a information can be amended. It should not be
dismissed right away if the information can be amended or fix the formal
defects. It is the same for civil cases: the complaint can be amended to state
what is needed to be stated. There is no point of dismissing everything. That
would actually delay a case. There is a ground for dismissal, but if the court can
fix a formal or procedural or technical defect by allowing an amendment, then
why not. It wouldnt have been different if the venue was really improperly laid.
Like Makati pero everything happened in Cebu, then venue there is definitely
improperly laid. That was not the case here.
DLPC VS. CA
Facts: Davao Light filed a complaint a damages (personal action) against
Tesorero before the RTC of Cebu City. Tesorero filed a motion to dismiss on the
ground that venue is improperly laid because he resides in Davao City. Davao
Lights principal place of business is also Davao City because a few contracts
entered into stated that the address of Davao Light is Reyes St., Davao City.
Since according Sec. 2, personal actions should be filed in the place of
residence of the plaintiff or the defendant which both are in Davao City.
Issue: Whether the venue was improperly made.
Ruling: NO. Davao Light is a corporation, the residence of which is considered
as the principal place of business as stated in its Articles of Incorporation. Since
the Articles of Incorporation stated that it is in Cebu City, then the complaint
was properly filed in Cebu City.
Note: When a party is a corporation, the residence of a corporation is its
principal place of business. How do you know where the principal place of
business is of a corporation? You look at the Articles of Incorporation and the
address registered in the SEC. Davao Light is an Aboitiz owned corporation and
Aboitiz lives in Cebu. They might have registered Davao Light there. Its
nothing wrong with that and since it is registered there, that is the principal
place of business. It is possible to put the address of Reyes Street as address of
Davao Light because there is a branch here. But you cannot every branch of a
corporation as its residence. A corporation for purposes of venue has only one
residence and that is its principal place of business.
GOMEZ VS. CA
Facts: Involves 2 lots which were owned by Spouses Trocino. Spouses Trocino
secured a loan obtained from Dr Yujuico with the lots via Real Estate Mortgage.
Before the redemption period was over, Spouses Trocino sold the lots to
Spouses Gomez. Gomez redeemed the property from Dr. Yujuico. Spouses
Trocino refused to deliver the titles of the property to Gomez. Spouses Gomez
filed an action of specific performance against Spouses Trocino before the RTC
of Cebu.
Issue: Whether the case was improperly filed in RTC Cebu.
Ruling: NO. A personal actions seeks the recovery of personal property or the
enforcement of a contract or the recovery of damages. While a reall action
seeks the recovery of real property. In this case the nature of the complaint is a
personal action. Following Sec. 2, Rule 4, personal actions may be filed where
the plaintiff or defendant reside. Venue was properly
Note: Another issue in the determination of venue is whether or not an action is
a real action or personal action. Actions for specific performance would seem
like it is a personal action then Section 2 would apply. But if it is a real action
Page 141 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
which involves a title to or interest to real property then Section 1 will apply. In
this case, it was considered a personal action. Therefore, Section 2 applies. You
do not have to file it in the place where the place where the property is located .
SALUDO VS. AMERICAN EXPRESS
Facts: Saludo filed a case against American Express before the RTC Leyte.
Saludo alleged that he is a Filipino citizen and a member of HoR. Amex raised
the affirmative defense of improper venue because none of the officers of Amex
was a resident of Leyte. Moreover, Saludo is not a resident of Leyte as per the
community tax certificate as it was issued in Pasay City. Hence Sec. 2 Rule 4 was
not complied with.
Issue: Is venue is improperly laid?
Ruling: NO. Because Saludo is a resident of Leyte. The nature of the complaint
was a personal action thus Rule 4, Section 2 applies. The option is with the
plainitff: He may file in the place where the defendant resides or may be found
if he is a non-resident defendant or the place where the plaintiff resides.
In this case, Saludo chose to file the complaint where he resides. Court
distinguished the residency for purposes of election and law and residency for
purposes of venue.
Residence for purposes of venue is the place of abode whether
permanent or temporary, of the Plaintiff or Defendant as distinguished from
Domicile. For purposes of election law, domicile and residence are
synonymous.
The term residence imports not only an intention to reside in a fixed place
but also personal presence and domicile, which denotes a fixed permanence
resident to which when absent one has the inteniton of returning.
In this case, the SC ruled that for purposes of venue, it is less technical.
It would be absurd to rule that the venue improperly laid because Saludo is a
representative of Leyte. Saludo may only have one domicile but he may have
numerous places of residence.
Note: In other words, when it comes to venue, the term residence means
residence You have a house there, then you can be considered a resident
there. It would be a different story if you filed before a court where you merely
booked a room in a hotel. But here, Saludo is a representative of Leyte so
definitely, there is a residency requirement for election purposes. Therefore,
he can be considered as a resident of Leyte as well as a resident of Pasay City.
He has the option to choose where and he did by choosing to file in Leyte.
SAN MIGUEL VS. MONASTERIO
Facts: San Mig Corp entered into an exclusive agreement with SMB
Warehousing Services. In the agreement it was stated that the venue is in the
court of Makati and Pasig, to the exclusion of the other courts at the option of the
party. Monasterio (resident of Naga) filed in RTC of Naga City against SMB for
money claims on the ground that he was not paid for the cashiering services
rendered. San Miguel contended that the money claim claimed by Monasterio
rose from his services as a warehouse contractor and not from the cashiering
services. Section 2 of Rule 4 does not apply because they have agreed upon an
exclusive venue. The stipulations in the exclusive agreement should apply.
Monasterio argued that the cashiering services was separate and distinct from
the warehouse services (which was covered by the exclusive agreement which
embodied the exclusive venue stipulation) he rendered. Thus, Sec. 2 should
apply.
Issue: Was the venue improperly laid?
Ruling: NO. The exclusive venue stipulation in the exclusive warehouse
agreement restricted both San Mig and Monasterio in case there is a suit in a
breach of contract. However, the exclusivity clause is not necessarily all
encompassing. Since the the cause of action of the complaint was not based on
EQA but was based on the cashiering services rendered by Monasterio. The
collection of money, being a personal action, it was properly filed before the
RTC of Naga where Monasterio resides in accordance with Sec. 2, Rule 4.
Note: The contracts entered into by San Mig and Monasterio relates to the
warehousing. If there was a breach in the warehousing contract, there was a
stipulation there that the venue was exclusive to Pasay and Makati to the
exclusion of other courts. There is an exclusive venue stipulation in the
contract. However, the action filed by Monasterio against San Mig had nothing
to do with the contract of warehousing but other services which he was hired to
do outside the contract. Nag-sideline siya with San Mig. Therefore, since it was
Page 142 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
an outside agreement, San Mig cannot use the exclusive venue stipulation in the
warehousing contract thus Sec. 2 applies. Since the action was for the collection
of a sum of money, therefore it is a personal action which can be filed where the
plaintiff resides which is in Naga City.
SPOUSES LANTIN VS. LANTION
Facts: Spouses Lantin obtained a loan from Planters Development Bank. This
was secured by real estate mortgages and promissory notes. Due to the failure
to pay by Spouses Lantin, the property was foreclosed. Spouses Lantin filed a
complaint for the declaration of nullity or annulment of sale of mortgage before
the RTC of Lia, Batangas. Development Bank moved to dismiss the complaint on
the ground of improper venue. The loan agreements restricted the venue of the
suits to Makati City alone thus the complaint should have been filed in Makati
City.
In the event of suit arising out of or in connection with this mortgage and/or the
promissory note/s secured by this mortgage, the parties hereto agree to bring
their causes of auction (sic) exclusively in the proper court of Makati, Metro
Manila or at such other venue chosen by the Mortgagee, the Mortgagor
waiving for this purpose any other venue
Spouses Lantin argued that the stipulation merely stated an additional venue
hence the motion to dismiss should not be granted.
Issue: Whether the stipulation provides for an exclusive venue.
Ruling: YES. Clearly, the words "exclusively" and "waiving for this purpose any
other venue" are restrictive and used advisedly to meet the requirements.
Under Section 4 (b) of Rule 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the general
rules on venue of actions shall not apply where the parties, before the filing of
the action, have validly agreed in writing on an exclusive venue. The mere
stipulation on the venue of an action, however, is not enough to preclude
parties from bringing a case in other venues. The parties must be able to show
that such stipulation is exclusive. In the absence of qualifying or restrictive
words, the stipulation should be deemed as merely an agreement on an
additional forum, not as limiting venue to the specified place
Dec. 11, 2017 Last 39 mins
So that is a direct application of Section 4 where the contract entered by the
parties clearly stipulated exclusive venue. Noh? And there is the word
exclusively and the waiver was also there. There is no doubt that waiver has
been agreed upon by parties.
One can say it is a contract of adhesion, but nowadays when a party signs a
contract prepared by one party alone, that does not make the contract invalid
and provisions invalid.
Legaspi vs RP
Legaspi entered into a construction agreement with SSS for construction
of 4-story building. Legaspi sent a letter to SSS requesting adjustment of
contract price, but it was rejected. Legaspi filed a complaint for sum of
money and damages in RTC Makati.
SSS moved to dismiss the case because there was improper venue. The
construction agreement provided that all actions must be in Quezon City
and Legaspi was waiving any other venue.
Legaspi argue that the exclusive venue does not apply because his
cause of action did not arise therefrom. His action was a personal action,
so he has the option to file it where he or SSS resides.
ISSUE: Whether venue was properly laid.
NO. Legaspi filed the action in the wrong venue.
As a general rule, personal action is governed by Sec 2 Rule 4 of the
Rules of Court which provides that the action can be filed where the
defendant or any of the principal defendant resides, but the parties are
not precluded from agreeing in writing as to an exclusive venue.
In this case, the parties agreed. In their construction agreement
provided that all actions and controversies that may arise from their
agreement may be brought in Quezon City where the main office of SSS
is located and that the contractor waives any other venue.
Page 143 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
In this case, the action filed arose from construction agreement. Since it
arose therefrom, then Legaspi is bound by the venue proviso.
So you look at again the stipulation in the contract. There was no exclusive
there, but there was contractor waiving any other venue
Golden Arches v St. Francis Square
On May 4, 2007, St Francis Square filed an action for breach of contract
and damages against Golden Arches for terminating lease contract to an
earlier date than what was initially in their contract. It was filed in RTC
Mandaluyong.
Golden moved to dismiss for lack of cause of action and improper
venue. St. Francis was maintaining its principal place of business was in
Makati pursuant to its Articles of Incorporation.
ISSUE: Whether venue was properly laid.
Yes. The proper venue is RTC Mandaluyong.
SC cited Section 2 of Rule 4. In this case, the complaint of St. Francis was
one for enforcement of contractual provisions and damages. It was in the
nature of personal action. Thus, it would have to be filed in the plaintiffs
residence. In a metaphysical sense where the principal office is located
with respect to domestic corporation. Here are some instances that
support that venue must be in RTC Mandaluyong:
1. St. Francis was holding its principal place of business in
Mandaluyong at that time the complaint was filed.
2. There were letters sent during the time of filing of complaint
between Golden and St. Francis. The address indicated St.
Francis Mall, Julia Vargas, Mandaluyong.
At the time of filing of complaint, the principal place of business is in
Mandaluyong.
If you noticed, this ruling is different from Davao Light case. (DLPC v CA)
In the Davao Light case, the Supreme Court said that the proper venue is one
stated in Articles of Incorporation. But actually the ruling is the same.
(Atty. S. was asking why. She was willing to give a hundred on the recit to
anybody who will get it correctly)
The ruling is the samethat venue was properly laid. The Supreme Court will
not rule it was not proper except if there is Section 4 na klaro talaga na may
exclusive venue.
Improper? Proper? Proper!
Did you see a decision here na improper? WALA! Because venue can be
waived. It is too technical. In civil cases, so what? Ano ngayon di ba? What is the
problem? Unless it falls on Section 4 na klarong-klaro waiving and all those
other things.
Here at the election of plaintiff. What is wrong with that? Mas convenient pa nga
sa plaintiff doon. Should the Supreme Court This case reached the Supreme
Court. Will the Supreme Court nullify it? Inullify natin? Remand ulit?
Do not give me factual answers. If your answer is factual, dont bother.
So if you ask me why is it different? Because of that. The Supreme Court is very
lax when it comes to venue and it will defeat having expeditious trial just
because of some improper venue.
Lets go to GSIS v Velasco
GSIS v Velasco
An administrative case was filed against Velasco and Molina. GSIS
issued a Board Resolution where it recommended the disqualification
from the motion of its employees where there was pending case, as in
Velasco and Molina.
Velasco and Molina filed in RTC Manila a petition for prohibition with a
Page 144 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
prayer for writ of preliminary injunction. They sought to prohibit the
execution of that Board Resolution.
The two accused in the administrative held their office in Pasay.
GSIS claims that there is wrong territorial jurisdiction in an action for
prohibition because the acts sought to be prohibited were performed in
the place of office by Velasco and Molina in Pasay.
ISSUE: Whether venue was properly laid.
Yes. The venue was properly laid.
Reporter: It was a correct venue
Atty. S: Correct venue? No correct venue. The venue is properly laid in
RTC Manila.
The SC determined the nature of the action which in this case is a
petition for prohibition, a personal action. It does not involve title to,
possession, or interest in a real property.
Pursuant to Rule 4, there are two ways to lay down:
1. Where plaintiff resides
2. Where defendant or principal defendant resides.
In both cases, it will be at the election of the plaintiff.
Velasco, the plaintiff in petition for prohibition, has the choice as to
where he may file. Despite the fact that their principal place of business
or the act sought to be prohibited was in Pasay, the venue is proper
because it was elected by the plaintiff.
Very easy. Personal action (petition for prohibition) because it does not involve
real property.
So where should it be filed? Petition should be filed place of residence of
plaintiff or Defendant at the option of the plaintiff. Venue was properly laid.
May decision ba na improperly laid?
Lets go to Sps. Ochoa v CBC
Sps. Ochoa v CBC
Case involves property of Sps. Ochoa. China Banking extra-judicially
foreclosure their property. They filed a petition for EJ foreclosure sale of
real estate mortgage. However, Sps Ochoa filed annulment of
foreclosure sale and damages in RTC Makati.
Parties stipulated the same exclusive venue of RTC Makati shall apply in
any and all other actions arising from or related with the said mortgage.
Contention of Sps. Ochoa: The petition filed by CBC shall be filed in RTC
Makati and not with RTC Paraneque pursuant to their stipulation.
ISSUE: Whether the venue was correctly filed.
SC: CBC correctly filed in RTC Paranaque.
The law that should be applied is Act 3135 as amended by Act 4118: Sec
2 provides that said sale cannot be made legally outside of the province
in which property is situated.
So exclusive venue stipulated in Makati cannot be made because the
provisions of Rule 4 apply only to venue of actions. The Court here ruled
that foreclosure of extrajudicial sale is not an action.
An action is an ordinary suit in a court of justice where one party sues
another for the enforcement of a right or redress of a wrong.
It is in other words, a special action.
Hagans v Wislizenus: EJ foreclosure of real estate mortgage sale: are not
judicial proceedings or suits
What shall apply here is Act 3135 as amended and not the general
Page 145 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
provisions of Rules of Court. So Rule 4 applies.

The General rule is action should be commenced where property is

When you talk of Extra, you mean out of. So EJ foreclosure is foreclosure
made out of court. EJ partition is partition made out of court.
located.

In EJ foreclosure, normally done by creditors and banks, wherein the
mortgagors do not pay their loan. Remedy is to EJ foreclose which is contained
in EJ mortgage as stipulation.
But when it comes to foreclosure done EJ, no need to ask permission from the
court. That is part of the contract.
But when an EJ sale is conducted, it must be under the supervision of sheriff. So,
the creditor bank or creditor will gather all EJ foreclosed properties and
conduct EJ foreclosure sale after asking the sheriff for a day to sell.
So this is not judicial action. So Rule 4 does not apply.
Normally, if there is EJ foreclosure sale in Davao, it will be sold here. Those in
Manila will be sold there.
Paglaum v Union Bank
Exception: Rule 4: Exclusive Stipulation.
SC reiterated Sps Lantin v Lantion: laying down of exclusive venue must
be in qualifying or restrictive words and must be clearly stipulated.
RTC Makati is proper venue because of Restructuring Agreement.
There was EJ foreclosure made by Union Bank. An action was filed annulling EJ
foreclosure sale. This is a court action.
An annulment of EJ foreclosure was contained in REM and it had an exclusive
venue stipulation. You have to follow that. Go back to contract entered into
because this is annulment of EJ foreclosure sale.
Pamaran v Bank of Commerce

Paglaum in behalf of HealTech entered into Real Estate Mortgage (REM) Rosa Pamaran built residential house owned by her children and Sps
over properties in Cebu. They stipulated that the venue arising thereon bernabe. She is a resident of Olangapo. The lot was mortgaged and
will be in Makati. Later on, entered into another REM, Cebu was foreclosure by BankCom. Rosa filed complaint for damages and
provided. Another was entered, it was blank. restitution.

Lets concentrate on the Restructuring Agreement which amended all BankCom: that is a real action. It must be filed in Muntinlupa, not
agreements. It stated that all actions would have to be commenced in Olangapo.
Makati and that both parties are waiving any another venue.
ISSUE: Whether venue was properly laid. YES.
There was failure to pay. So HealthTech filed a complaint for annulment
of sale. UnionBank filed Motion To Dismiss on the ground of improper The Supreme Court distinguished:
venue which was granted by RTC. Real Action Personal
affects title to, all other actions
ISSUE: Whether venue was improperly laid. YES possession or interest
to real property
Annulment of sale and titles resulting from EJ foreclosure is a real action.
Page 146 of 147
Civil procedure: From the lectures of atty. melissa suarez
2 manresa 2017-2018
Must be filed in Can be filed where
proper court which plaintiff or principal
has jurisdiction over defendant or
subject property defendant or principal
defendant resides, at
the option of plaintiff

The complaint is personal. In this case, Rosa did not seek for title of
property but for damages and restitution thereof. The interest in
residential lot was only for value of lot for the amount of damages to be
recovered.

So you noticed, if question of venue and issue is action is personal or real, the
court will look for reason to make the venue proper.
The court will look for legal ground to make venue proper. I dont think the
Court would want to remand everything back just for venue purposes.
We are done with Rule 4 which is covered by your exam.
Avoid not following instructions. It is very painful to have deductions and you
keep on having deductions. This is to train you. This is for the Bar and you have
certain guidelines to follow.
I would like to remind you about writing at the back. I will not read it. Consider
it not there. Better get an extra notebook. It will no longer be NFI. It will be non-
existent. Do not expect me to read anything at the back.
It will not be NFI only. NFI na, non-existent pa.
Why will you purposely allow yourself to have that kind of deduction? You were
already informed.

Page 147 of 147