RULE 16 Motion to dismiss

Page

*hindi ko pa to naayos and hindi pa kumpleto

KUPALOURD RULE 16 Motion to Dismiss

REM 1 BRONDIAL

Palaging may question ang Motion to Dismiss, in many forms. In fact, I would say that this is almost 100%. You can just put 100%
na may question sa Motion to Dismiss. Was the dismissal proper? Together with jurisdiction.
When you memorize Rule 16, you always compare that with Rule 117 Motion to Quash. I-compare niyo palagi. And that is the way
to study.
The grounds must be memorized together with Sec. 3 of Rule 117.
Section 1. Grounds. Within the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim,
a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following grounds:
(a) That the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defending party;
Under Rule 14, how does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant?
1.

Valid service of summons;

2. Voluntary appearance

(b) That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim;
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law.
(c) That venue is improperly laid;
-

Rule 4

Before the 1997 Rules of Court, venue in order to be appreciated must be filed in a Motion to Dismiss, but under the present Rule,
even if you do not file a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of improper venue, you do not waive venue, you can still raise it as an
affirmative defense in your answer. There is no waiver. Yun ang present Rule.
(d) That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;

Rule 3 on parties

(e) That there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause; (litis pendentia)

We partly studied that in Rule 2 and in Rule 6

One suit for a single cause of action and joinder of causes of action

(f) That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of limitations;
-

Sec. 47, Rule 39

There are 3 paragraphs there. The first paragraph is Action in Rem, second, Action in Personam, third, conclusiveness of judgment,
because there are 2 kinds of res judicata:
1. estoppel by judgment
2. conclusiveness of judgment
When we discuss this, alam na alam niyo dapat. Memorize na memorize niyo yung requirement ng res judicata. What are the 4
principal reqs for res judicata to apply?
1. That there is a final judgment
2. rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction
3. that this is a judgment on the merits.
4. that there is identity of what:
a. cause of action
b. subject matter
c. parties
When we say that the judgment must be a final judgment, the word final there means executory judgment, not just a final
judgment because a final judgment is still correctible by appeal or new trial/reconsideration. What is meant there by the first
requirement is that it is an executory judgment.
Court of competent jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over what? Jurisdiction over the subject matter.

KUPALOURD RULE 16 Motion to Dismiss

REM 1 BRONDIAL

Page

Judgment on the merits. And what is a judgment on the merits? It does not mean that to be a meritorious judgment, there must be
a trial proper? NO. any judgment can be a judgment on the merits provided, the parties were given enough time to present their
positions. In other words, they have their day in court, then it is a judgment on the merits. That is why a judgment by default, is a
judgment on the merits. A compromise judgment is a judgment on the merits. A summary judgment under Rule 35 is a judgment
on the merits. Judgment on the pleading is a summary judgment, so lahat nito. All the parties were given opportunity to present
their side. Hence, they are judgment on the merits. It does not matter whether there was actual presentation of evidence.
Identity. Cause of Action, Parties, and Subject Matter.
If A files a case against B for recovery of a parcel of land and judgment was rendered in favor of A, 5 years after when that
judgment has become final and executory, X files a case against Y for the recovery of the same parcel of land, will there be res
judicata, considering that X and Y are not A and B?
You have to qualify. If X and Y are for example, heirs of A and B so that they have identity of interest then still so that this
identity of parties does not mean absolute identity. It refers to identity of interest.
Then, identity of subject matter would be absolute. If A and B were talking about the land in Makati and X and Y are talking about
the land in Caloocan City, so there is no identity of subject matter. Res Judicata will not apply.
Identity of Cause of Action. Remember that even if there is no identity of cause of action, still the other kind of res judicata would
apply which we call, conclusiveness of judgment. Basic is the rule, that in an action for unlawful detainer and forcible entry, the only
issue is posesion de facto so that if the same party in an ejectment case files a case for action reinvindicatoria over the same parcel
of land for purposes of res judicata, res judicata will not apply because the issue in one is possession, while the issue in action
reinvindicatoria is ownership. So res judicata will not apply even if the judgment in one is already executory.
Kaya nga remember the requirements for res judicata. And remove one of the requirements in res judicata, it will already be
conclusiveness of judgment.
There is a 2009 case. Serrano v CA regarding this. Look into this.
This is regarding that ground of a Motion to Dismiss which is that the cause of action is barred by prior judgment.
Nakuha niyo yung conclusiveness of judgment? Pag walang identity of cause of action , all the other requirements are there, there
will be no res judicata as estoppel but there can be conclusiveness of judgment.
Halimbawa, in an action for settlement of estate, the issue of ownership was decided already by the probate court, the court which
settled the estate of the decedent. They settled already that this properties which is part of the inventory or part of the inventory is
owned by Mr. X, if later on the issue with regard to the ownership of that property was brought in some other forum or fora, then
you can invoke conclusiveness of judgment. Not res judicata proper but conclusiveness of judgment. Only as regards the issue of
ownership of that property which has been settled already in a settlement of estate case.
(g) That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action;
Go back to Rule 2, we studied cause of action. Diba? So take note that it says there states no cause of action. So that insufiiciency
of cause of action is not a ground for dismissal of the case, because that is correctible by amendment, so if the allegations in the
complaint practically states no cause of action, then it can be dismissed. But remember, if ever this is given in the bar, that the
ground for dismissal is the pleading or the complaint states no cause of action, be very cautious because jurisprudence tells us
that when the ground is lack of cause of action, the judges must be very cautious because the only evidence for this kind of
ground are the pleadings themselves. You cannot go beyond the pleadings for the court to dismiss the case on the ground of lack
of cause of action. The judge cannot go beyond the pleading. In other words, evidence alliunde NOT ALLOWED in that ground of
lack of cause of action, so be very cautious, so pag binigay yan na problem, alam niyo na kung saan ang inclination niyo. Your
inclination is not to grant the motion to dismiss. That is the inclination of the Rule.
(h) That the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff's pleading has been paid, waived, abandoned, or
otherwise extinguished;
Pag binigay yan ang mas maganda doon sa Motion to Quash, diba? Pag dito sa extinguishment of obligation, mas maganda
magbigay doon sa Motion to Quash. The extinguishment of criminal liability because of several cases.
It started with the Bayotas doctrine which says that when the accused dies pendente lite or even on appeal, in the Bayotas case,
appeal na namatay yung akusado, the criminal liability is extinguished.
Ang problema, how about this civil liability? And the Bayotas doctrine followed by many cases, the civil liability flowing from
the crime only extinguished as well but those that emanate from other sources of obligation, they are not
extinguished so if the source is from law, its not extinguished.
(i) That the claim on which the action is founded is enforceable under the provisions of the statute of frauds;
and (unenforceability)
Go back to your Civil Law, what are those which are under the Statute of Frauds? An obligation for example Ang baba e.. hindi
more than 500 pesos hanggang ngayon. Dapat it must be in writing, so pag mangutang ka, mangutang ka palagi ng what? More
than 500. Pahiram naman diyan, pag hindi binayaran, hinabla ka man, valid obligation but can you enforce it? YES, ito.. (may

- Obligations and contracts

- When is an obligation extinguished?

Page

pinakita siya di ko siyempre nakita)

KUPALOURD RULE 16 Motion to Dismiss

REM 1 BRONDIAL

Payment, loss of the thing due, merger, subrogation, novation, etc.

- See affirmative defenses.

(j) That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with. (1a)
Tatlo yan ha:
1. Administrative remedies
2. Barangay Conciliation
3. Earnest efforts if the case is between members of the family
- Katarungang Pambaranggay Law
General Rule: All cases must pass through the barangay conciliation proceedings; otherwise it is a ground for dismissal on the
ground of prematurity.
1. It is no longer jurisdictional. It is just a matter of prematurity. The Court will merely archive the case until
condition precedent has been complied with.

Pag in-analyze mo to, meron tong equivalent sa Motion to Quash.

Pero tingnan mo ito, sampu (10). Tignan mo yung sa Motion to Quash, siyam (9).
Alin ang nawala? Venue. Why? Because in Crim Cases, venue is jurisdictional.
So palaging may katambal yan,
Res Judicata Double Jeopardy
Litis pendentia duplicitous
Lack of Cause of Action facts charged do not constitute an offense
No legal personality that the one who filed the information is not duly authorized
Jurisdiction over the subject
Exceptions:
- An action wherein one of the parties is a government instrumentality
- When a public officer is involved and the action involved his office
- Where one of the parties is a corporation
- If the parties reside in different cities or municipalities except when they voluntarily submit themselves in the proper forum and
the barangay in which they reside is adjacent to each other. So even if the parties reside in different cities or municipalities but they
reside in a barangay who is adjacent to each other there is still a need for barangay conciliation.
- When parties avail any one of the provisional remedies
What are these provisional remedies? AIRRS
Preliminary Attachment
Preliminary Injunction Receivership
Replevin
Support pendente lite
When party is arrested pursuant to Sec. 5, Rule 113 or warrantless arrest
b.

When the case is between or among members of the immediate family

nd
1. Immediate family = up to 2
degree of consanguinity
1.
Vertical line = no limitation

KUPALOURD RULE 16 Motion to Dismiss

REM 1 BRONDIAL

Horizontal line = up to brothers and sisters

2. However under Rule 3, we spoke of parties - spouses
1.
In-laws are included, because they have to be impleaded as spouse/s.
c.
Exhaustion of administrative remedies
1. Exercise of primary jurisdiction

Page

2.

If a MTD is granted, what happens? The case is dismissed. What is the remedy? Appeal, because an order denying a
motion to dismiss is a final order court has nothing left to do. If denied, what is your remedy?
File an answer. When? Within the remaining balance of days for the period of filing an answer from receipt of notice of
denial, which must not be less than 5 days.
When do we not apply the Neypes? Doctrine (fresh period rule)? Rules 12, 16 and 64. Example: If summons was duly
st
th
served on 1 of the month, the defendant has until the 16 of the month to file an answer; however, he filed a MTD on
th
the 5 day. How many days were consumed? 4 days. What is the balance of the period? 11 days. MTD was denied,
when should the defendant file an answer? Within 11 days from receipt of the notice of the denial of the motion to
dismiss (only the balance of the period but not less than 5 days).