CIVIL PROCEDURE

July 27, 2019 (205 questions) (Print but do not write

anything to the questionnaire)

1.  How should these Rules be referred to?[1]

2.  What do you understand by remedial law?[2]

3.  Distinguish substantive law from remedial law.[3]

4.  On February 15, 1996, Roldan E. Mala purchased a 300-square-meter

parcel of land located in Poblacion, Parang, Maguindanao, now Shariff
Kabunsuan, from one Ceres Cañete. On March 3, 1996, Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-15633 covering the parcel of land was issued in
Roldan’s name. At the time of the purchase, Vivencio B. Villagracia
occupied the parcel of land.
By 2002, Vivencio secured a Katibayan ng Orihinal na Titulo Blg. P-
60192 issued by the Land Registration Authority allegedly covering the
same parcel of land.
On October 30, 2006, Roldan had the parcel of land surveyed. In a
report, Geodetic Engineer Dennis P. Dacup found that Vivencio occupied
the parcel of land covered by Roldan’s certificate of title.
To settle his conflicting claim with Vivencio, Roldan initiated barangay
conciliation proceedings before the Office of the Barangay Chairman of
Poblacion II, Parang, Shariff Kabunsuan. Failing to settle with Vivencio at
the barangay level, Roldan filed an action to recover the possession of the
parcel of land with respondent Fifth Shari’a District Court.
In his petition, Roldan alleged that he is a Filipino Muslim; that he is the
registered owner of the lot covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
15633; and that Vivencio occupied his property, depriving him of the
right to use, possess, and enjoy it. He prayed that respondent Fifth
Shari’a District Court order Vivencio to vacate his property. Does the
Sharih District Court have the jurisdiction over real actions where one of
the parties is a Muslim?[4] Explain.

5.  An impeachable officer was a respondent in a preliminary proceeding

before the House of Representatives who found probable cause against
him. But before the House filed the Articles of Impeachment before the
 Senate, the Republic filed a quo warranto case against said impeachable
officer. The officer maintained that he cannot be removed by quo
warranto because, being an impeachable officer, only the Senate acting
as an impeachment court can remove him. Is that contention correct? [5]
Explain.

No, the officer is not correct in his contention. Although it is true that Senate has the power to try
on impeachable officers, the filing of the quo warranto is not limited to the power of the Senate.
Under Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, the government or any individual may file a quo warranto
petition against “a person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office,
position or franchise.” Therefore, the officer’s contention is not correct.

6.  Ramon was charged with the crime of violation of Section 5, Article II
of RA 9165, for selling one (1) gram of methampethamine hydrochloride.
He was set for arraignment this Friday. Yesterday, he filed a motion to
plea bargain the case from violation for Section 5 to Section 12 of RA
9165. The prosecution objected and invoked Section 23 of RA 9165 which
provides that “Any person charged under any provision of this Act
regardless of the impossible penalty shall not be allowed to avail of the
provision on plea bargaining.” The Court denied the motion. Was the
court correct?[6] Explain.

Yes the Court was correct in denying the motion to plea bargain Ramon’s case. Under
Administrative Matter released by the Supreme Court which discusses the framework of plea
bargaining in drug cases, sale or trade of at least one (1) gram of methampethamine hydrochloride
or shabu will not be allowed to plea bargain. Therefore, the Court was correct in the denying the
motion to plea bargain Ramon’s case.

7.  Supmat was a subject of a buy-bust operation for violation of Section 5,

Article II of RA 9165. The operation was witnessed by a representative from the
Department of Justice, a media practitioner and an elected public official, who
did not sign the inventory. Photos were taken of the accused, the drugs valued
at P3m and the police operatives. Others present were not photographed.
Supmat was convicted. The CA affirmed the decision. Was the CA correct? [7]
Explain.

No, the Court of Appeals was not correct in the affirmation of the decision. Anything short of
observance and compliance by the authorities with the positive requirements of the law, and even with
their own internal procedures, means that they have not performed their duties. In this case, the lack of
signature of the representatives present in the buy bust operation is a clear violation of not following a
strict compliance in the procedural aspect of their operations. Therefore, the CA was not correct in
affirming the decision.
8.   May the Congress repeal, alter, or supplement rules
concerning pleading, practice, and procedure? Explain. [8]
No, Congress may repeal, alter, or supplement rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure.

Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals (Sixth Division)23 further elucidated: the power to promulgate
rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and
procedure in all courts belongs exclusively to this Court

In Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice (Echegaray), the Court traced the evolution of its rule-making
authority, which, under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, had been priorly subjected to a power-
sharing scheme with Congress. As it now stands, the 1987 Constitution textually altered the old
provisions by deleting the concurrent power of Congress to amend the rules, thus solidifying in
one body the Court's rule-making powers, in line with the Framers' vision of institutionalizing a
"[s]tronger and more independent judiciary."

9.  If your answer is in the negative, which has the power to

amend the Rules of Court.[9]
The Supreme Court now has the power to amend the Rules of Court following the expansion of its
Rule making power in the 1987 Constitution.

10.      Can the Supreme Court amend the rules of court by way
of its decision only and not through express amendment? [10]
Explain
Yes, the Supreme Court can also amend the Rules of Court by direct amendment and not only
through it’s decisions. The Court has “ the sole prerogative to amend, repeal, or even establish new
rules for a more simplified and inexpensive process, and the speedy disposition of cases” Neypes v.
Court of Appeals.

11.      What are the limitations on the rule-making power of the

Supreme Court?[11] Enumerate.
The following limitations are imposed by the Constitution on the rule-making power of the Supreme
Court: a) The rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases. b) The rules shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and c) The rules shall not
diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.

12.      Ger borrowed money from Kre. Ger failed to pay on the
designated date. Can the courts, on its own, call the parties to
settle their case amicably?[12] Explain.
No, The courts on their own cannot call on the parties to settle their case amicably. In the absence
of a party going to court to invoke the rules and the jurisdiction of the court, the court even though
vested with jurisdiction cannot on its own initiative take cognizance of a case and settle claims
between the parties.

13.      What is the reason behind your answer in the preceding

problem?[13]
In the preceding problem the courts cannot motu proprio call on the parties to settle their case
amicably. The law requires an action from a party in the form of a complaint in order for the court to
gain jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of the case.

14.      What is a complaint?[14]

A concise statement of the ultimate fact constituting the plaintiffs cause or causes of action with a
specification of the relief sought, but it may add a general prayer for such further relief as may be
deemed just or equitable.

15.      What is the primary purpose of filing a complaint? [15]

Explain.
The filing of the complaint is the act of presenting said complaint to the clerk of court. It signifies the
commencement of the civil action.

16.      Distinguish a right of action from a cause of action. [16]

The cause of action is an act or omission by which a party violates the rights of another wherean in
Right of action is a remedial right or right to relief granted by law to a party to institute an action
against a person who committed a delict

17.      How are actions or proceedings classified as to subject

matter?[17]
Actions and Proceedings are classified depending on the purpose of the action, if said actions are on
the base on ones protection of right or to redress a wrong. it shall therefore be classified as the
latter whereas if the purpose is to establish a status , a right , a particular fact or elements in which
are present in R73 Sec1 it shall therefore be a classified as a special proceeding however under the
same R73 sec2 it is stated that in the absence of a special proceeding then the rules of ordinary
action shall therefore be applied and be practicable.

18.      How actions are classified according to binding effects? [18]

The actions are classified as ff:
Quasi In Personem
- it is one wherein an individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to
subject his interest therein to the obligation

Action In Personem /In Rem

- A classification of action according to the object of the action .

19.      Distinguish real action from personal action.[19]

20.      Give examples of real actions.[20]
21.      Give examples of personal actions.[21]
22.      Do you consider an action to recover deficiency after the
extrajudicial foreclosure of real property mortgage a personal
action?[22] Explain.
23.      What is the importance or practical significance of
distinguishing between a real action and a personal action? [23]
24.      Where to file an action to recover a motorcycle the value
of which is P100,000?[24] Explain.
The Municipal Trial Court has an exclusive original jurisdiction over an actions involving personal
property whose value does not exceed P300,000.00 or, in Metro Manila P400,000.00.

25.      Define an action in rem.[25]

An action in rem or proceeding in rem is one which is not directed against a particular person but on
the thing or res itself and which asks the court to make a declaration of or to dispose of or deal with
res.

26.      Do you consider a petition for correction of date of birth

an action in rem?[26] Explain.
27.      Give examples of action or proceedings in rem.[27]
Examples of action or proceedings in rem are:
a. Application for original registration of a parcel of land
b. Special proceedings, the object of which is to establish the res, i.e., status, rigth,or particular fact
c. Petition for declaration of insolvency
d. Escheat proceedings.
e. Petition for change of name under R103

28.      What is an action in personam?[28]

An action in personam is one which is directed against particular persons and seeks a relief which
would be binding only upon such particular persons.

29.      What is an action quasi in rem?[29]

An action quasi in rem, also brought against the whole world, is one brought against persons seeking
to subject the property of such persons to the discharge of the claims assailed. An individual is
named as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interests therein to the
obligation or loan burdening the property. It deals with status, ownership or liability or a particular
property but which are intended to operate on these questions only as between the particular
parties to the proceedings and not to ascertain or cut off the rights or interests of all possible
claimants.

30.      Give examples of actions quasi in rem.[30]

Examples of actions quasi in rem are action for partition, action for accounting, attachment,
foreclosure of mortgage.
31.      Is an action for ejectment an action quasi in rem or in
personam?[31]
An action for ejectment is an action in personam wherein judgment only binds parties who had been
properly impleaded and were given an opportunity to be heard.

32.      Is an action to recover title to or possession of real

property an action in personam or an action quasi in rem? [32]
An action to recover, title to or possession of real property is an action in personam, brought against
the person upon whom the claim is made.

33.      What is the importance of distinguishing an action in

personam from an action in rem or quasi in rem?[33]
The distinction is important to determine whether or not jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is required and consequently to determine the type of summons to be employed.

34.      Define the term jurisdiction as to subject matter, personal

and over the res.[34]
Jurisdiction over subject matter is the power or authority to hear and determine cases to which the
proceeding in question belongs or the power of the court to hear the subject of the case.
Jurisdiction as to personal (jurisdiction in personam) the power of the court to her over the person
for the court to validly hear the case. jurisdiction over the res (jurisdiction in rem) or jurisdiction
over the thing/property is the power of the court over an oject or the thing litigated.

35.      Define the term jurisdiction as to subject matter, personal

and over the res.[35]
Jurisdiction over subject matter is the power or authority to hear and determine cases to which the
proceeding in question belongs or the power of the court to hear the subject of the case.
Jurisdiction as to personal (jurisdiction in personam) the power of the court to her over the person
for the court to validly hear the case. jurisdiction over the res (jurisdiction in rem) or jurisdiction
over the thing/property is the power of the court over an oject or the thing litigated.

36.      Classify jurisdiction.[36]

Classification of Jurisdiction:
 General jurisdiction
 Special jurisdiction
 Original jurisdiction
 \Appellate jurisdiction
 Exclusive jurisdiction
 Concurrent jurisdiction

37.      What are the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the SC

in civil cases?[37]
The original and exclusive jurisdiction of the supreme court in civil cases are the petitions for
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the court of appeals, COMELEC, COA, CTA,
Sandiganbayan.

38.      What are the original concurrent jurisdiction of the SC with

the CA in civil cases?[38]
The original concurrent jurisdiction of the SC with the CA in civil cases are petitions for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus againts the RTC, CSC, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, NLRC, quasi-
judicial agencies, and writ of Kalikasan, all subject to the docrine of hierarchy of courts.

39.      SC’s original concurrent jurisdiction with the RTC’s in civil

cases.[39]
SC'S Original concurrent jurisdiction with CA and RTC IN CIVIL CASES are:
1. Petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against courts of the first level and other bodies
2. Petition for habeas corpus and quo warranto

40.      SC’s jurisdiction concurrent with RTC’s.[40]

SC’s jurisdiction concurrent with the RTC is: 1. Action against ambassadors, other public ministers
and consuls.
41.      SC’s jurisdiction concurrent with the Sandiganbayan.[41]
SC’s jurisdiction concurrent with the Sandiganbayan is : 1. Petition for certiorari , Prohibition,
mandamus, habeas corpus , injunctions, and ancillary writs in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and
over petitions of similar nature, including quo warranto in PCGG cases.

42.      In what courts that the Rules of Court be applicable? [42]

he Rules of Court be applicable in all courts except as otherwise provided in SC.

43.      Carest and Erlinda were nurses of Tondo Medical Center.

In July of 1999, Carest availed of maternity leave when she
delivered her child. Erlinda circulated ennuendos that Carest’s
child did not belong to her husband. For this, Carest filed an
administrative complaint, for serious misconduct,  against
Erlinda before the Office of the Ombudsman. Erlinda filed a
motion to dismiss arguing that the Ombudsman has no
jurisdiction to conduct an investigation of an act of a public
officer which is not service-connected. Notwithstanding
Erlinda’s motion, the Office of the Ombudsman rendered a
decision finding Erlinda as charged and ordered her suspension
for seven months. Erlinda filed a petition for certiorari before
the Supreme Court arguing that the Ombudsman has no
jurisdiction to conduct an investigation of a non-service
connected act. a) Was Erlinda correct? b) Was she correct also
in elevating her case directly with the Supreme court without
first observing the heirarchy of courts? Explain very briefly. [43]
2 points.
a. No, Erlinda is not correct. The office of the Ombudsman has the power to investigate and render
judgement to any public officer or employee including those in the government-owned or controlled
corporations, with an act or omission alleged to be illegal, unjust, and improper or inefficient is an
Ombudsman case.
b. Yes, Erlinda was correct in alleviating her case directly to The Supreme Court. Under rule 45
section 1, a party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment , final order or resolution of the
Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals. The regional Trial Court or other
courts, whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for the
review on certiorari.

44.      What is the basis in determining the jurisdiction of the

court at the time of the filing of the case?[44] Explain.
45.      Which confers jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
case?[45] Explain.
he basis in determining the jurisdiction of the court at the time of the filling of the case are to be
determined from the material allegations of the complaint, the law in force at the time the
complaint is filed, and the character of the relief sought irrespective of whether plaintiff is entitled
to all or some of the claims averred. Jurisdiction is not affected by the pleas or the theories set up by
the defendant in an answer to the complaint or a motion to dismiss the same. Otherwise,
jurisdiction would be dependent almost entirely upon the whims of defendants. (AC Enterprise vs.
Frabelle Properties Corp. G.R. No. 166744. November 2, 2006, Callejo, J).

46.      Distinguish jurisdiction over the subject matter from the

exercise of jurisdiction.[46] Explain.
The following confers jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case
a. Nature of the offense
b. Authority of the court to impose the penalty imposable given the allegation in the information
c. Territorial jurisdiction of the court imposing the penalty

47.      Juliet  invoking  the  provisions  of  the  Rule  on  Violence 
Against Women  and  their Children filed with the RTC designated
as a FamilyCourt a petition for issuance of a Temporary  Protection 
Order (TPO)  against  her  husband,  Romeo.  The  Family  Court
issued  a  30-day  TPO  against  Romeo.  A  day  before  the 
expiration  of  the TPO,  Juliet filed  a  motion  for  extension. 
Romeo  in  his  opposition raised,  among  others,  the
constitutionality  of  R.A.  9262  (The VAWC  Law)  arguing  that 
the  law  authorizing  the issuance of a TPO violates the equal
protection and due process clauses of the 1987 Constitution.  The
Family  Court  judge,  in  granting  the  motion  for  extension  of 
the TPO, declined to rule on the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9262.
The Family Court judge reasoned  that  Famliy  Courts are  without 
jurisdiction  to  pass  upon  constitutional issues, being a special
court of limited jurisdiction and R.A. No. 8369, the law creating the 
Family  Courts,  does  not  provide  for  such  jurisdiction.  Is  the
Family  Court  judge correct when he declined to resolve the
constitutionality of R.A. No. 9262?[47] Explain.
No. Family Courts have authority and jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of a statute. At
the outset, it must be stressed that Family Courts are special courts, of the same level as Regional
Trial Courts. Under R.A. 8369, otherwise known as the "Family Courts Act of 1997," family courts
have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of domestic violence against women
and children. In accordance with said law, the Supreme Court designated from among the branches
of the Regional Trial Courts at least one Family Court in each of several key cities identified. To
achieve harmony with the first mentioned law, Section 7 of R.A. 9262 now provides that Regional
Trial Courts designated as Family Courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases of
VAWC defined under the latter law.

48.      P filed an action for specific performance against S in order to

compel the latter to execute a deed of conveyance over a parcel of
land the assessed value of which was P10,000 before the Regional
Trial Court. D filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the action was
a real one even if was captioned as specific performance. If you
were he judge, will you grant the motion to dismiss?[48] Explain.
Yes. Albeit the suit filed is one for specific performance, allegations and relief prayed for in the
complaint must be determined. Under these circumstances, the suit before the RTC is a real action,
affecting as it did title to the real property sought to be reconveyed.

49.      May jurisdiction be conferred by waiver?[49] Explain.

No. Jurisdictional issues, as a rule, cannot be acquired through a waiver or enlarged by the omission
of the parties or conferred by the acquiescence of the court. Also, jurisdiction over the subject
matter in a judicial proceeding is conferred by the sovereign authority which organizes the court; it
is given only by law and in the manner prescribed by law and an objection based on the lack of such
jurisdiction cannot be waived by the parties.
50.      A filed an action for specific performance in order for B to
execute a deed of conveyance, the assessed value of the land was
P15,000. A filed the case with the RTC and trial ensued without B
challenging the jurisdiction of the RTC. The Court ruled in favor of
A. On appeal, B challenged the jurisdiction of the the RTC alleging
that under the principle of ultimate objective test, it is the MTC
which has jurisdiction over the case considering that the assessed
value is less than P20,000.00. Do yout think the contention of B will
prosper?[50] Explain.
No. While it may appear that the suit filed is one for specific performance, hence an action incapable
of pecuniary estimation, a closer look at the allegations and reliefs prayed for in the Complaint,
however, shows that A did not merely seek the execution of the deed of sale in his favor. The cause
of action clearly springs from the right of A as purchaser of the subject land. Under these
circumstances, the suit before the RTC is a real action, affecting as it did title to the real property
sought to be reconveyed. A real action is one in which the plaintiff seeks the recovery of real
property; or, as indicated in what is now Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, a real action is an
action affecting title to or recovery of possession of real property.

51.      Give a situation of jurisdiction by estoppel.[51] Explain.

Rules of Court shall be applicable in actions civil or criminal , and special proceedings.

52.      S and D entered into a contract wherein the latter agreed to

sell to S his land, the assessed value of which was P15,000.00. D
failed to comply his promise hence S filed an action for specific
performance against D to compel the latter to execute a deed of
conveyance with the RTC considering that specific performance is
incapable of pecuniary estimation. D did not challenge the
jurisdiction but insisted that he did not promise to sell his land and
that the document purporting to be their agreement was fraudulent.
Trial ensued after which the court decided to dismiss the case for
lack of jurisdiction. S appealed the decision and contended that
because S did not question the jurisdiction of the RTC, the issue of
lack of jurisdiction was already waived. (a) Did the RTC acquire
jurisdiction of the case?[52] Explain. (2) Assuming that the RTC did
not acquire jurisdiction, was it conferred by waiver on the part of S?
[53]
Explain.
No, unless otherwise provided by law. This is expressed in the familiar legal maxim lex prospicit, non
respicit, the law looks forward not backward. The rationale against retroactivity is easy to perceive.
The retroactive application of a law usually divests rights that have already become vested or
impairs the obligations of contract and hence, is unconstitutional.

53.      In what cases that the Rules of Court be applicable? [54]

The rule does not apply where the statute itself expressly or by necessary implication provides that
pending actions are excepted from its operation, or where to apply it to pending proceedings would
impair vested rights. Under appropriate circumstances, courts may deny the retroactive application
of procedural laws in the event that to do so would not be feasible or would work injustice. Nor may
procedural laws be applied retroactively to pending actions if to do so would involve intricate
problems of due process or impair the independence of the courts.

54.      Do the Rules of Court have a retroactive application? [55]

Explain.
Rules of Court does not apply to election cases, land registration , cadastral , naturalization and
insolvency proceedings and other cases not herein provided for.

55.      While procedural rule may be made applicable to actions

pending and undetermined at the time of their passage and is
retroactive in that sence, in what instances that the rule does
not apply?[56] Enumerate.

56.      In what cases that the Rules of Court is not applicable? [57]
Enumerate.

57.      Are administrative bodies bound by the Rules of Court? [58]

Explain.

58.      The Comelec admitted the affidavit of the witness even if

the same was not identified during the hearing. Was the
Comelec correct?[59] Explain.

59.      The issue of the respondent’s appointment was not

disputed. He was charged with acts of lasciviousness
constituting serious misconduct. The Civil Service Commission
admitted in evidence the affidavit of the complainant although
the same was identified only ex-parte. Was the civil
commission correct?[60] Explain.

60.      The Court of Appeals admitted in evidence the belated

certification of the Baragay captain that Oh Mi Ghod was not
actually residing in the barangay at the time of the latter’s
application for naturalization. Said certification, however, was
not offered in evidence in the trial court. Was the CA correct?
[61]
Explain.

61.      If these Rules is not applicable based in your answer in

the  preceding questions, will there be situations where the
Rules of Court be made applicable in the cases you
enumerated?[62] Explain.

62.      What is the scope of civil procedure in the Rules of Court.

[63]

63.      Define the following: (1) Civil action [64]; (2) Criminal
action[65]; (3)Special proceedings.[66]

64.      What are the special civil actions?[67]

65.      In what cases that the Rules of Court shall not be

applicable?[68]
Criminal action is one by which the State prosecutes a person for an act or omission punishable by
law. (Sec 3b, Rule 1)

66.      When is a civil action commenced?[69]

Special proceeding is remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact.
(Sec. 3c, Rule 1)

67.      If an additional defendant is impleaded in a later pleading,

when shall the action is deemed commenced as far as he is
concerned?[70]
The following are the special civil actions as presently embodied in the Rules of Court: a.
Interpleader; b. Declaratory relief and similar remedies; c. Review of judgments and final orders or
resolutions of the COMELEC and COA; d. Certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus; e. Quo warranto; f.
Expropriation; g. Foreclosure of real estate and mortgage; h. Partition; i. Forcible entry and unlawful
detainer; and j. Contempt. (Page 193, Riano)

68.      How is the Rules of Court be construed?[71]

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. (Sec. 4, Rule 1)

69.      Can a petition for judicial settlement of estate be

dismissed for failure of the petitioners to aver that earnest
efforts toward a compromise involving members of the same
family have been made prior to the filing of the petition? [72]
Explain.
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 date of the filing
of such later pleading, irrespective of whether the motion for its admission, if necessary, is denied
by the court. (Sec. 5, Rule 1)

70.      When is an action deemed commenced?[73]

71.      May a complaint be filed by registered mail? If so, when it

is deemed commenced.[74]

72.      A complaint filed for recovery of possession of real

property also prayed for moral and exemplary damages the
amounts of which have been left to the court’s discretion, and
for actual damages the amount of which shall be proven at the
trial. The docket fees for the action involving the real property
have been paid, but not those for the related damages, the
amount of which have not been specified; 1.(a) Did the trial
court acquire jurisdiction over the action? [75] (b) May the action
be dismissed?[76] 2.(b) Is the rule on the payment of docket
fees in ordinary civil actions the same as that for the claim of
damages which are impliedly instituted in criminal cases? [77]
(91 Bar Q5).

73.      What trial court outside Metro Manila has exclusive

original jurisdiction over the following cases? Explain briefly
your answers. (a) An action filed on November 13, 2017 to
recover the possession of an apartment unit being occupied by
the defendant by mere tolerance of the plaintiff, after the
former ignored the last demand to vacate that was duly served
upon and received by him on July 6,2016. [78]  (b) A complaint
in which the principal relief sought is the enforcement of a
seller's contractual right to repurchase a lot with an assessed
value of P15,000.00.[79]

74.      Santa filed against Era in the RTC of Quezon City an action
for specific performance praying for the delivery of a parcel of
land subject of their contract of sale. Unknown to the parties,
the case was inadvertently raffled to an RTC designated as
a special commercial court.  Later, the RTC rendered judgment
adverse to Era, who, upon realizing that the trial court was not
a regular RTC, approaches you and wants you to file a petition
to have the judgment annulled for lack of jurisdiction. What
advice would you give to Era? Explain your answer.[80]

The advice I would give to Era is that the petition for annulment of judgment on lack of jurisdiction
will not prosper. The Supreme Court has held that a special commmercial court is still a court of
general jurisdiction and can hear and try a non-commercial case. Hence the special commercial
court had jurisdiction to try and decide the action for specific performance and to render a
judgment therein.

75.      The respondent offered to buy a parcel of land from the

National Tobacco Administration. The deed of sale was signed
by Respondent and he paid the 20% downpayment but the
Petitioners, officers of the NTA, refused to implement the sale.
Respondent thus filed against the Petitioners a Petition for
Mandamus with Damages. In the body of the petition, the
amount of the moral and exemplary damages and the
attorney’s fees were mentioned but they were not mentioned
at all in the prayer. The Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to pay the docket fees on the moral and exemplary
damages and attorney’s fees. The Respondent then filed an
amended petition specifying the amount of the damages and
fees in the prayer and also asking that the deed of sale
executed by NTA in favor of Stanford East Realty Corporation
be declared void and a TCT in favor of Petitioner be issued. The
trial court, over the Petitioners’ objections, admitted the
amended petition stating that the Respondent had already paid
the docketing fee. Did the trial court act properly in admitting
the amended petition?[81]

No. The trial court should have dismissed the petition pursuant to the ruling in Manchester
Development Corporation v. CA, 149 SCRA 562, which had been rendered as far back as 1987 and
which states that the amount of damages claimed should be specified in the body and in the prayer.
It is unfortunate that up to this date, this ruling has been ignored. The trial court had no power to
admit the amended petition since it had no jurisdiction over the original petition. What is more the
amended petition seeks to recover interest over real property at bottom and hence the Respondent
should have specified the assessed value, or if none, the estimated value thereof, to serve as a basis
for the computation of the docket fee. Evidently there was an intent to evade payment of the
correct docket fees. The amended petition should be expunged and the civil case dismissed.

76.      P was a former record owner of 100 shares of stock in the

Manila Golf Club. Upon his return from the U.S., he discovered
that the shares in his name were cancelled and new shares
issued in favor of the NSC. P filed an action against NSC and
MGC to compel the assignment of shares of stock in his favor.
P paid the docket fee for actions incapable of pecuniary
estimation, which was only about P600. After trial NSC filed a
motion to dismiss on the ground that P should have paid the
docket fee based on the value of the stocks sought to be
recovered and since the proper docket fees were not paid, the
trial court therefore did not acquire jurisdiction. (a) Were the
proper docket fees paid?[82] Explain. (b) Should the motion to
dismiss filed by NSC be granted?[83] Explain.

a. No. An action to compel the assignment of shares of stocks is an action for recovery of personal
property rather than one incapable of pecuniary estimation. The docket fees should have been
assessed on the value of the stocks sought to be assigned to P.

b. No. The NSC was estopped from raising the defense of non-payment of the docket fee since it
participated in the trial. The deficiency docket fee shall be assessed as a lien on the judgment award.

77.      Allan borrowed money from Bruno in the amount of

P300,000.00. Allan failed to pay hence Bruno caused Allan to
be summoned for barangay concialiation. On November 4,
2017 and in the barangay, they agreed that Allan will pay
Bruno the total amount of P350,000.00 to include the interest,
on November on or before January 30, 2018.  Allan failed to
pay hence Bruno filed with the RTC of Ozamiz City an action for
sum of money.  Allan moved to dismiss the case alleging that
the RTC has no jurisdiction because the subject of the action
resulted from a conciliation proceding hence it is the MTC
which has jurisdiction. Bruno countered that because the
amount of the claim is more than P300,000.00, it is the RTC
which has jurisdiction. Rule on the contention of the two (2)
sides.[84] Explain.

78.      May the trial court allow the payment by installment of the
docket fee where the plaintiff pleads financial difficulty? [85]

79.  M et al., as human rights victims obtained a favorable

judgment against the estate of Pres. Marcos in the amount of
$1.9B. They filed a complaint with RTC for the enforcement of
such judgment which has become final and executory. The
Marcos Estate filed a motion to dismiss for non-payment of
docket fees which it argued should be based on the amount of
the judgment award sought to be enforced. M et al. countered
that an action to enforce a foreign judgment is incapable of
pecuniary estimation; hence the rate of Php 610 is sufficient.
Should the docket fees be computed based on the amount of
the judgment award sought to be enforced?[86]

80.  In the proceedings for the settlement of the estate of Alice,

a contingent money claim for commission in the event of the
sale of properties of the estate was filed by Alan with the
probate court. The executrix moved for the dismissal of the
claim on the ground that the docket fee under S7(a) R141 was
not paid. The RTC dismissed the money claim. Was the
dismissal proper?[87]

81.  What are the instances when the docket fees need not be
paid at the commencement of the suit but may be considered
as a lien on the judgment award?[88]

82.  The petition for change of name under R108 did not
implead the local civil registrar. However a copy of the petition
was furnished the local civil registrar. Judgment was rendered
granting the petition. On appeal the OSG contends that the
judgment was null and void since an indispensable party, the
local civil registrar, was not impleaded. May the judgment be
set aside?[89]

Yes, the judgment may be set aside. As ruled, the necessary consequence of the failure to implead
the civil registrar as an indispensable party and to give notice by publication of the petition for
correction of entry was to render the proceeding of the trial court, so far as the correction of entry
was concerned, null and void for lack of jurisdiction both as to party and as to the subject matter.
(Republic v. CA, G.R. No. 103695, Mar. 15, 1996). Along with the tenor of the following
jurisprudential doctrine, thus, said judgment may be set aside.

83.  What is the basis of an ordinary civil action?[90]

An ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action (Sec 1, Rule 2)

84.  What is a cause of action?[91]

A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another.
85.  What is a right of action?[92]

A right of action is the right to file a suit. It is procedural in character. The rule: There is no right of
action where there is no cause of action.

86.  Is a party allowed to institute in more than one suit for a

single cause of action?[93] Explain.

A party may not be allowed to institute more than one suit for a single cause of action. 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 dismissal of the others.

87.  What is the effect if the plaintiff splits his cause of action
into two (2) or more?[94] Explain.

The rule against splitting a cause of action and its effect is that if two or more suits are instituted on
the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment on the merits in any one is
available as a ground for the dismissal of the others.

88.  Nora was indebted to Vilma evidenced by four (4)

promisory notes which became due on March 1, April 2, May 3
and June 4. Vilma, to minimize the docket fee, filed an action
for collection for the promissory note dated March 1 only. The
court decided the case in Vilma’s favor. Yesterday, when he
has already the money to pay for the higher docket fee, filed
another collection case against Nora for the remaining three
(3) promissory notes. If you were the counsel of Nora, what
will you do?[95] Explain.

If were the counsel of Nora, I will advise her to proceed with her collection case for the remaining
three promissory notes. It cannot be file for one single cause of action since the promissory notes
may be governed by different terms and conditions.

89.  What is the importance of a cause of action?[96]

The importance of a cause of action is to avoid an early dismissal of the complaint. Where there is a
defect or an insufficiency in the statement of the cause of action, a complaint may be dismissed not
because of an absence or a lack of cause of action but because the complaint states no cause of
action. The dismissal will therefore, be anchored on a failure to state a cause of action.
 90.  Define the following terms:(1) Right of action [97]; (2)
Relief[98]; (3) Remedy[99]; (4) Subject matter[100]

Right of Action refers to the right of the plaintiff to institute the action; Relief means deliverance
from oppression, wrong, or injustice. Remedy is a term that means to be employed by the law to
correct an injury or to enforce a legal right. Subject matter refers to the name that is given to the
matter that is in dispute.

91.  Illustrate the foregoing terms:

Plaintiff lent P500,000 to Defendant. The loan is secured by

a real estate mortgage executed by X in favor of the
Plaintiff. The Defendant failed to pay the loan on the due
date despite demand from Plaintiff.[101]

The fact of the case is the defendant failed to pay the loan of 500, 000 to the Plaintiff despite of
the demand. Now, the plaintiff can file a complaint in the court for the collection of the loan as
the cause of action.

92.  Distinguish a cause of action from a right of action. [102]

.  (a) A cause of action refers to the delict or wrong committed by the defendants, whereas right of
action refers to the right of the plaintiff to institute the action;
(b) A cause of action is determined by the pleadings; whereas a right of action is determined by the
substantive law;
(c) A right of action may be taken away by the running of the statute of limitations, by estoppels or other
circumstances which do not at all affect the cause of action (Marquez vs. Varela, 92 Phil. 373).

93.  May there be a cause of action without a corresponding

right of action?[103]

Yes, there may be a cause of action without a corresponding right of action. A right of action may be
taken away by the running of the statute of limitations, by estoppels or other circumstances which do
not at all affect the cause of action (Marquez vs. Varela, 92 Phil. 373).

94.  Is there a cause of action in proceedings for declaratory

relief?[104]
 No, there is no cause of action in proceedings for declaratory relief. The cause of action as defined
and required of an ordinary civil action finds no application to the special civil action of declaratory
relief. It finds no application also in a complaint for interpleader. In this action, the plaintiff may file
a complaint even if he has sustained no actual transgression of his rights. In fact, he actually has no
interest in the subject matter of the action.

95.  What is meant by “splitting a cause of action”?[105]

.”Splitting a cause of action” is the act of instituting two or more suits for the same cause of action (Sec.
4, Rule 2). It is the practice of dividing one cause of action into different parts and making each part the
subject of a separate complaint (Bachrach vs. Icaringal, 68 SCRA 287). In splitting a cause of action, the
pleader divides a single cause of action, claim or demand into two or more parts, brings a suit for one of
such parts with the intent to reserve the rest for another separate action (Quadra vs. CA, GR 147593,
07/31/2006).

96.  What is the effect of splitting a cause of action?[106]

.”Splitting a cause of action” is the act of instituting two or more suits for the same cause of action (Sec.
4, Rule 2). It is the practice of dividing one cause of action into different parts and making each part the
subject of a separate complaint (Bachrach vs. Icaringal, 68 SCRA 287). In splitting a cause of action, the
pleader divides a single cause of action, claim or demand into two or more parts, brings a suit for one of
such parts with the intent to reserve the rest for another separate action (Quadra vs. CA, GR 147593,
07/31/2006).

97.  SRBI mortgaged several parcels of land to Metrobank as

security for its loan. Then SRBI and Metrobank entered into a
credit line agreement with the same mortgaged properties as
collateral. SRBI defaulted and Metrobank filed an action for
extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage. Subsequently,
Metrobank filed an action for collection of money arising from
the export bill purchases under the credit line agreement.
Metrobank bought the properties at the foreclosure but the bid
price was below SRBI’s obligations. SRBI moved to dismiss the
action for collection on the ground that Metrobank is splitting
its cause of action. Should the motion to dismiss be granted?
[107]
98.  Prince Chong entered into a lease contract with King Kong
over a commercial building where the former conducted his
hardware business. The lease contract stipulated, among
others, a monthly rental of P50,000.00 for a four (4)-year
period commencing on January 1, 2010. On January 1, 2013,
Prince Chong died. Kin Il Chong was appointed administrator of
the estate of Prince Chong, but the former failed to pay the
rentals for the months of January to June 2013 despite King
Kong’s written demands. Thus, on July 1, 2013, King Kong filed
with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) an action for rescission of
contract with damages and payment of accrued rentals as of
June 30, 2013.  (A) Can Kin Il Chong move to dismiss the
complaint on the ground that the RTC is without jurisdiction
since the amount claimed is only P300,000.00? [108] Explain. (B)
If the rentals accrued during the lifetime of Prince Chong, and
King Kong also filed the complaint for sum of money during
that time, will the action be dismissible upon Prince Chong’s
death during the pendency of the case?[109] Explain.

99.  P sued D for specific performance of a contract. The court

decided in favor of D and dismissed P’S complaint. After the
dismissal had become final, P sued D to have the same
contract reformed to make it conform to their true intent and
to recover upon the reformed contract. Is the second action
barred by res judicata?[110]

100.      Petitioner filed with the CFI a complaint against the

Private Respondent in 1969 for quieting of title with damages,
wherein the former seeks to be declared the owner of the
subject land. In 1970, the private Respondent dispossessed
petitioners of the land in question and stayed there until
January 1978. The Private Respondent won in the CFI but the
CA reversed and declared the Petitioner as the owner of the
subject land and ordered the Private Respondent to pay
Petitioner P100,000 as the latter’s share in the proceeds of the
sale of the copra from the coconuts harvested in the land. The
Decision became final and executor in February 1978. In the
same month, Petitioner filed a second case with the CFI
against Private Respondent seeking to recover from the latter
the incomes from the subject land from 1970 up to 1978 when
possession of the land was delivered to the Petitioner. Private
Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the second case on the
ground of res judicata. Should the second motion to dismiss be
granted?[111] Explain.

101.      Nasugatan sued Sagasa for injuries he suffered when

Sagasa drove his car recklessly and bumped into Nasugatan.
Sagasa confessed judgment and was adjudged to pay
P5,000.00. Nasugatan became blind because of the injuries he
sustained in the accident. He filed another suit against Sagasa,
this time for P100,000.00. May Sagasa plead the filing of the
first complaint in abatement of the second suit and contend
that the judgment on the merits in the first case constitutes a
bar in the second?[112] Explain.

Yes, Sagasa may plead the filing of the first complaint in abatement of the second suit because the
filing of Nasugatan an action to recover damages for the injuries he suffered and later for the loss of
his vision would be splitting a single cause of action and is expressly prohibited by the Rules of Court
which specifically mandates that, “A party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of
action”.

102.      P filed with the RTC an accion reivindicatoria over a 

parcel of rice land against D, alleging that the same was sold
to him by the rightful owner S and praying that he (P) be
declared the owner of the land and that D deliver possession to
him. D filed an answer in which he also counterclaimed for
moral and exemplary damages for the unwarranted filing of the
suit by P. During the pendency of the case, P disposed D of the
subject land and proceeded to harvest the rice. Judgment was
rendered by the RTC dismissing P’s suit. The judgment became
final. P delivered possession back to D. D then filed an action
before the RTC against P seeking to recover the value of the
rice harvested by P. P. filed a motion to dismiss on the ground
of res judicata. Should the motion to dismiss be granted? [113]

103.      What are the rules governing joinder of causes of action?

[114]

A party may in one pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as many causes of action as he
may have against opposing party, subject to the following conditions: a. The party joining the causes
of action shall comply with the rules on join set 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 RTC
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 of action are principally for recovery of money, the
aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.

104.      A is indebted to B in the amount of P500,000 which

became due on April 1, this year. A also mortgaged his lot to B
which became mature also on April 1. B filed an action for
collection and foreclosure of mortgage, in one suit, yesterday.
Do you think the action will prosper?[115] Explain.

No, the action will not prosper. Under the rules, an action for collection is an ordinary civil action
and cannot be joined with special civil actions, hence, the foreclosure of mortgage. They are
separate causes of action and each is the subject of a different transaction.

105.      Is a misjoinder of causes of action a ground for the

dismissal of the action?[116] Explain.

No, misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for dismissal of an action. A misjoined cause of
action may, on motion of a party or on the initiative of the court, be severed and proceeded with
separately. (Sec. 6 Rule 2)

106.      What is the totality rule?[117]

Sec 33 of B.P. 129, as explained by R.A. 7691 and Administrative Circular No. 09-94, 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 claims of actions,
irrespective of whether the cause of action arose out of the same or different transactions.

107.      Lender extended to Borrower a PhP 100,000 loan

covered by a promissory note. Later, Borrower obtained
another PhP 100,000 loan again covered by a promissory note.
Still later,  Borrower  obtained  a  PhP300,000 loan  secured 
by  a  real  estate  mortgage  on  his land  valued  at  PhP 
500,000.  Borrower  defaulted  on  his  payments  when  the 
loans matured. Despite demand to pay the PhP 500,000 loan,
Borrower refused to pay. Lender, applying the Totality Rule,
filed against Borrower with the RTC of Manila, a collection suit
for PhP 500,000. (A)Did  Lender  correctly  apply  the  Totality 
Rule  and  the  Rule  on  Joinder  of  Causes  of Action?
Explain.[118]

 
108.  At  the  trial,  Borrower’s  lawyer,  while  cross examining 
Lender,  successfully  elicited  an admission  from  the  latter 
that  the  two  promissory  notes  have  been  paid. 
Thereafter, Borrower’s lawyer filed a motion to dismiss the
case on the ground that as proven only PhP  300,000  was 
the  amount  due  to  Lender  and  which  claim  is  within  the 
exclusive original  jurisdiction  of  the  MTC.  He further 
argued  that  lack  of  jurisdiction  over  the subject matter can
be raised at any stage of the proceedings. Should the court
dismiss the case?[119] Explain.

109.      Give the rule on joinder of parties.[120]

The rule on joinder of parties can be found under Section 6 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court and it states
that, “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)”.
 110.      What is the meaning of “transaction” as used in S6 R3?
[121]

Transaction, as defined in the Black’s Law Dictionary, and relative to Section 6, Rule 3 is “[t]he act or
an instance of conducting business or other dealings; esp., the formation, performance, or discharge
of a contract.” -Source, BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1535 (8th ed. 2004).

111.      Peter, the owner of a parcel of land, files a complaint for

recovery of possession against 30 persons who each occupy a
separate and distinct portion of the land. Is the joinder of
defendants proper?[122] Explain.

Peter, the owner of a parcel of land, files a complaint for recovery of possession against 30 persons
who each occupy a separate and distinct portion of the land. Is the joinder of defendants proper?
[122]Explain. We must qualify. As clarified in the case of Philippine Bank of Communications vs.
Elena Lim et al (G.R. NO. 158138. April 12, 2005), to avoid a multiplicity of suits, joinder of parties is
encouraged by the law. If the possession of the property arises from the same transaction or series
of transactions that had common question of fact, the joinder of the defendants is proper.
Otherwise, the joinder is improper.

112.      P, a Manila resident, filed a complaint against D, a

resident of Iloilo City, in the RTC of Manila. The complaint joins
2 causes of action: one for collection of P500,000 and the other
for title to real property in Iloilo City with an assessed value of
P20,000, both causes of action arising out of the same
transaction between the parties. Was there a proper joinder of
causes of action?[123]
Yes. Section 5, Rule 2 on the Joinder of causes of action provides that 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 of action are principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of
jurisdiction.
113.      P filed a complaint in the RTC of Manila. The complaint
joins 2 causes of action: one for collection of P350,000.00
against D and another for specific performance against E (D’s
friend) based on E’s undertaking  that he will assign certain
shares of stock in favor of P if D defaults in the payment of the 
loan. Assume that the joinder of D and E as defendants
complies with S6 R3. Was there a proper joinder of causes of
action?[124]

No. There was no proper joinder of causes of action. While the cause of action involving the specific
performance against E, which is incapable of pecuniary estimation, falls within the RTC's jurisdiction,
the cause of action involving the collection of 350k against D, does not. Hence, the latter should be
severed. Further, Rule 2 Section 5(c) of the Rules of Court applies only, "where the causes of action
are between the same parties". Here in this case, the causes of action are not between the same
parties because there are two defendants, D and E. Thus, joinder is not allowed due to the fact that
one cause of action falls outside the jurisdicrion of RTC.

114.  Hanna, a resident of Manila, filed a complaint for the

partition of a large tract of land located in Oriental Mindoro.
She impleaded her two brothers John and Adrian as defendants
but did not implead Leica and Agatha, her two sisters who
were permanent residents of Australia. Arguing that there
could be no final determination of the case without impleading
all indispensable parties, John and Adrian moved to dismiss the
complaint.  Does the trial court have a reason to deny the
motion?[125] Explain your answer.

115.      P, a Manila resident, filed a complaint against D, a

resident of Iloilo City, in the RTC of Manila. The complaint joins
2 causes of action: one for collection of P300,000 and the other
for recovery of title to real property in Iloilo City with an
assessed value of P60,000, both causes of action arising out of
the same transaction between the parties.(a).Was there a
proper joinder of causes of action?[126]; and (b). If you were the
lawyer for D, what would you do?[127]
a.) No. While the real action falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC of Manila, the venue does not lie
therein but in Iloilo City. Under Rule 2 S5(c), the conjuctive use is "and" thus, there is a misjoinder of
causes of action. b.) I would file a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction and lack of venue. Since there was no proper joinder of causes of action, each cause of
action would have to be filed separately. The RTC of Manila has no jurisdiction over a claim not
exceeding 400k and the venue of the real action is misplaced as it should have been filed in Iloilo
City.

116.      P lent P250,000 to D which remains unpaid despite

several demands by P. P also entered into a contract for
services with D. However D has breached a material provision
of the contract for services. P filed a complaint against D
before the MTC of Manila wherein he joins the cause of action
for collection and rescission. Should the joinder of causes of
action be allowed?[128]

117.  Elise obtained a loan of P3 Million from Merchant Bank.

Aside from executing a promissory note in favor of Merchant
Bank, she executed a deed of real estate mortgage over her
house and lot as security for her obligation. The loan fell due
but remained unpaid; hence, Merchant Bank filed an action
against Elise to foreclose the real estate mortgage. A month
after, and while the foreclosure suit was pending, Merchant
Bank also filed an action to recover the principal sum of P3
Million against Elise based on the same promissory note
previously executed by the latter. In opposing the motion of
Elise to dismiss the second action on the ground of splitting of
a single cause of action, Merchant Bank argued that the ground
relied upon by Elise was devoid of any legal basis considering
that the two actions were based on separate contracts,
namely, the contract of loan evidenced by the promissory note,
and the deed of real estate mortgage.  Is there a splitting of a
single cause of action?[129] Explain your answer.
Yes, there is a splitting of a single cause of action. Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, there is a
splitting of a single cause of action if two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause
of action. [S4 R2]. A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of
another. [S2 R2]. Here, both suits, the foreclosure and the collection suit, arose from the same cause
of action, that is, the non-payment by Elise of her P3 million loan from Merchant Bank. The fact that
the two actions were based on separate contracts is irrelevant, what matters is that both actions
arose from the same cause of action.

118.      P(lessor) files a complaint with the RTC wherein he joins

two causes of action: one against the lessee B to collect unpaid
rentals of P250,000 and the other against sub-lessee C to
collect damages on the leased premises amounting to
P200,000. C files a motion to drop him from the case on the
ground of mis-joinder. Should the court grant C’s motion?[130]

No. Misjoinder is not ground for dismissal but the court may order amendment of the pleading.

119.      P is a dealer of tires in Baguio City. A bought P200,000

worth of tires from P. The same day B bought P200,000 worth
of tires from P. Both A and B did not pay P. P filed a case with
the RTC of Baguio City joining his causes of action against A for
collection of P200,000 and against B for collection of P200,000.
B filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground of lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction. Should the motion to dismiss be
granted?[131] Explain.

Yes, the case should be dismissed as they are not indispensable parties to the case.

120.      D borrowed P250,000 from P. The loan remains unpaid

despite several demands from P. in another transaction, D
bought from P a jeep worth P250,000. Although the jeep had
been delivered to him, D did not pay P the purchase price
despite several demands. The loan and the sale are unrelated
to each other and do not have a common question of law or
fact. P filed a complaint against D before the RTC of Manila
wherein P joins the two causes of action. D filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. D argues that
there is a misjoinder of causes of action since the two claims
for relief do not arise from the same transaction or series of
transactions and there is no common question of law of fact.
Should the motion to dismiss be granted?[132] Explain.
No. The motion to dismiss should be denied as the same case could be joint.

121.      P’s bus sideswiped a car owned by G. the cost of the

repair was P450,000. The insurer paid G P60,000 and so the
balance of P390,000 was shouldered by G. the insurer and G
filed a single complaint before the RTC of Makati against P
wherein the insurer claimed for P60,000 and G claimed for
P390,000. P filed an answer wherein he contends that the RTC
of Makati does not have jurisdiction since the separate claims
of the insurer and G fall below the jurisdictional amount and
joinder of causes of action was not proper. Does the RTC of
Makati have jurisdiction?[133] Explain.

122.      P is a resident of Iligan City, while R and M are residents

of Ozamis City. They are the co-owners of a parcel of
residential land located in Tangub City with an assessed value
of P200,000. P borrowed P200,000 from R which he promised
to pay on or before December 1, 2012. However, P failed to
pay his loan. P also rejected R and M’s proposal to partition the
property. R filed a complaint against P and M in the RTC of
Tangub City for the partition of the property. He also
incorporated in his complaint his action against P for the
collection of the latter’s P200,000 loan plus interest and
attorney’s fees. State with reasons whether it was proper for R
to join his causes of action in his complaint for partition against
P and M in the RTC of Tangub City.[134]

123.      R, a warehouseman, filed a complaint against V, X and Y

Corporations to compel them to interplead. He alleged therein
that the three corporations claimed title and right of possession
over the goods deposited in his warehouse and that he was
uncertain which of them was entitled to the goods. After due
proceedings, judgment was rendered by the court declaring
that X was entitled to the goods. The decision became final and
executory. R filed a complaint against X for the payment of
P100,000 for storage charges and other advances for the
goods. X filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of res
judicata. X alleged that R should have incorporated in his
complaint for interpleader his claim for storage fees and
advances and that for his failure he was barred from
interposing his claim. R replied that he could not have claimed
storage fees and other advances in his complaint for
interpleader because he was not yet certain as to who was
liable therefore. Resolve the motion to dismiss. [135] Explain.

124.      Who may be parties in a civil action?[136]

125.      Who is a real party in interest?[137]

Rule 3, Section 2 defines real party in interest as the party who stands to be benefited or injured by
the judgement in the suit or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.

126.      Give examples of entities authorized by law to be parties

in a civil action.[138]

The provision on Sec. 1 of Rule 3 recognizes “entities authorized by law”. Such entity may sue or be
sued both considering the following examples:

a) A corporation by estoppel is precluded from denying its existence and the members thereof can
be sued and be held liable as general partners.

b) A contract of partnership having a capital of three thousand pesos or more but which fails to
comply with the registration requirements is, nevertheless, liable as a partnership to third persons.

c) The estate of a deceased person.

d) A legitimate labor organization

e) The Roman Catholic Church may be a party and as to its properties, the archbishop or diocese, to
which they belong, may be a party.

f) A dissolved corporation may prosecute and defend suits by or against it provided that the suits (1)
occur within three years after dissolution and (2) the suit are in connection with the settlement and
closure of its affairs.
127.      What is the rule if the suit is instituted by a
representative party?[139] Explain.

Sec. 3 of Rule 3 emphasized the rule if the suit is instituted by a representative party, wherein it
states that “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 the tittle of the case and
shall be deemed to be the real party in interest”.

128.      Who is a representative in an action?[140]

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.

129.      May an agent sue in his own name?[141] Explain.

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.

130.      The Tibanga Subdivision Homeowner’s Association

(TSHA) filed a suit against P seeking to compel her to provide
an open space for Tibanga Subdivision. The records are bereft
of any showing that TSHA is an association duly organized
under Philippine Law. P filed a motion to dismiss with the
HLURB on the ground of lack of legal personality of TSHA to
sue. The HLURB denied the motion to dismiss treating the
action as a suit by all the parties who signed and verified the
complaint. Should the HLURB have dismissed the complaint?
[142]
Explain.

131.      If the plaintiff is not a natural person or an entity

authorized by law to be a party, what is the ground of the
motion to dismiss?[143] Explain.

132.      In whose name must an action be prosecuted or

defended?[144]
133.      What is the reason for the rule that every action must be
prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in
interest?[145]

134.  Strauss  filed  a  complaint  against  Wagner  for 

cancellation  of  title. Wagner  moved  to dismiss  the 
complaint  because  Grieg,  to  whom he  mortgaged  the 
property  as  duly annotated in the TCT, was not impleaded as
defendant.(A) Should the complaint be dismissed? [146]
135.   If the case should proceed to trial without Grieg being
impleaded as a party to the case, what is his remedy to protect his
interest?[147]
136.      Does the rule require that a civil action be prosecuted by
the real party in interest?[148] Explain.

No, what Rule 3, Sec. 2 requires is that a civil action be prosecuted in the name of but not
necessarily by the real party in interest. Hence, an action is allowed to be prosecuted or defended by
a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity but the beneficiary shall be included in
the title of the case and shall be seemed to be the real party in interest.

137.      Who is a real party in interest?[149]

A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgement in the
suit or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless, otherwise authorized by these rules, every
action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.

138.      If an action is prosecuted in the name of someone who is

not the real party in interest, what is the remedy of the
defendant?[150] Explain.

The defendant may file a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action.

139.      G drove the car of his father, P, and left it in the parking
area of the Known Inn where he was a guest. G entrusted the
key of the car to a security guard hired by the PR Company,
the owner/operator of the Known. E, pretending to be the
brother of G, got the key from the security guard and drove
away with the car. The car was never recovered. Later, P sued
PR for the value of the carnapped vehicle plus damages. PR
sets up the defense that P has no interest in the case, hence,
has no cause of action, as he was not the guest of the Inn but
his son, G. is the defense of PR tenable? [151] Explain.

The defense that P has no interest in the case is not tenable. Under s5 r3 a real party in interest in
the party who stands to be benefited by the judgement in the suit or the party entitled to the avails
of the suit. Here p owns the car, thus it is clear that he stands to be benefited by the judgement or
that he is entitled to the avails of the suit. Being the real party in interest, the objection that he has
no cause of action will not lie. The argument that it was G not P was the guest of the inn is without
merit the right of action of P is not based on contract but on law, specifically art.1999 of the civil
code which provides that the security guard is liable for the vehicles which have been placed in the
annexes of the inn on quasi-delict under article 2179 of the civil code.

140.      What is the exception to the rule that every action must
be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in
interest?[152]

An action is allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a representative or someone acting in a

fiduciary capacity provided that the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and shall be
deemed to be the real party in interest.

141.      Give examples of representative parties.[153]

1. Trustee of an express trust.

2. Guardian.
3. Executor or administrator.
4. Party authorized by law or the Rules of Court.

142.   Water Builders,   a   construction   company   based   in  

Makati   City,   entered   into   a construction  agreement  with 
Super  Powers,  Inc.,  an  energy  company  based  in  Manila, for
the construction of a mini hydro-electric plant. Water Builders failed
to complete the project  within  the  stipulated  duration.  Super 
Powers  cancelled  the  contract. Water Builders  filed  a  request 
for  arbitration  with  the  Construction  Industry  Arbitration
Commission (CIAC). After due proceedings, CIAC rendered
judgment in favour of Super Powers,  Inc.  ordering  Water 
Builders  to  pay  the  former  P  10  million,  the  full  amount  of the
down payment paid, and P2 million by way of liquidated damages.
Dissatisfied with the  CIAC's  judgment,  Water  Builders,  pursuant 
to  the  Special  Rules  of  Court  on Alternative Dispute Resolution
(ADR Rules) filed with the RTC of Pasay City a petition to vacate
the arbitral award. Super Powers, Inc., in its opposition, moved to
dismiss the petition, invoking the ADR Rules, on the ground of
improper venue as neither of the parties were doing business in
Pasay City. Should Water Builders' petition be dismissed?[154]
143.      Give an example of a party authorized by law or the
Rules of Court to sue even if he is not the real party in interest.
[155]

In execution, the court may authorize the judgement obligee to bring an action against a person
alleged to have property of the judgement obligor or to be indebted to him, when such person
claims an adverse interest in the property or denies the debt. (S46 (R39; 1 FLORENZ D. REGALADO,
REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM 466 [7th rev. ed., 3rd printing]). In this case the judgement obligee
must include in the title the name of the judgement obligor who is deemed to be the real party
interest.

144.      A complaint entitled “A as Attorney-in-fact for X, Plaintiff,

versus B, Defendant” was filed to recover a car in the
possession of B. A’s power of attorney expressly authorized
him (A) to sue for the recovery of the car. B files a motion to
dismiss the complaint for lack of capacity to sue. Decide the
motion.[156] Explain.

Grant the motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of capacity to sue. Under Section 2 Rule 3 of the
Rules of Court, “Every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in
interest.” In the instant case, the real party in interest is the X. A is only an attorney-in-fact. An
attorney-in-fact cannot use in his own name because he is not the real party in interest. 145. The
law requires that necessary party ought to be joined whenever possible in order to adjudicate the
whole controversy and avoid multiplicity of suits, but for some reason or another he cannot be
joined, the court may proceed without him and the judgment shall not prejudice his rights.

145.      Give an exception to the rule requiring the joinder of the

beneficiary.[157]

146.      What are the rules regarding spouses as parties to a

suit?[158]
Under the law, husband and wife shall sue or be sued jointly except where there is complete
separation of property or with regard to the exclusive property of each spouse.

147.      Husband and wife lent money to defendant spouses A

and B. A and B did not pay the loan. Husband alone filed a suit
to collect the loan against A and B. A and B filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground that the wife was not impleaded as a co-
plaintiff in violation of S4R3. Should the motion to dismiss be
granted?[159] Explain.

No, the motion to dismiss should not be granted. The defect, non-inclusion of wife as co-plaintiff, is
not fatal but merely formal. The complaint should not be dismissed. All that is to be done is to
amend the complaint impleading the wife.

148.      D(wife) and E (husband) were married in 1990. E works

as an employee in a private company abroad. In 1995, D
(without E’s knowledge) borrowed money from C to put up a
drugstore the income of which was intended to defray the
household expenses. The drugstore however incurred only
losses and eventually went under. C sues D and E to recover
the debt. Should the absolute community be liable? [160] Explain.

Yes. The absolute community property of both spouses has the legal liability of debts and obligations
contracted by either spouse without the consent of the other to the extent that the family may have
been benefited.

149.      Would your answer be the same if D was designated

administrator-spouse?[161] Explain.

Yes. The absolute community property of both spouses has the legal liability for all debts and
obligations contracted during the marriage by the designated administrator-spouse for the benefit
of the community.

150.      The Philippine Blooming Corporation obtained a P50-

million loan from Ayala Investment. As security for the loan,
the Executive Vice-President of PBM, Alfredo Ching was the
designated administrator-spouse of the absolute community.
PBM defaulted on the loan so Ayala Investment sued PBM and
Ching. A final and executory judgment was rendered in favor of
Ayala Investment and it sought to levy on the conjugal
properties of the Spouses Ching. May the sheriff levy on the
absolute community properties?[162]

No. The loan procured from AIDC was for the advancement and benefit of PBM and not for the
benefit of the conjugal partnership of Ching. Furthermore, AIDC failed to prove that Ching
contracted the debt for the benefit of the conjugal partnership of gains. PBM has a personality
distinct and separate from the family of Ching despite the fact that they happened to be
stockholders of said corporate entity. Clearly, the debt was a corporate debt and right of recourse to
Ching as surety is only to the extent of his corporate stockholdings. Hence, the conjugal partnership
should not be made liable for the surety agreement which was clearly for the benefit of PBM.

151.      Would your answer be the same if it was proved by Ayala

Investment that because of the grant of the loan, the
employment of Ching in PBM would be prolonged, that the
shares in PBM of the Ching family would rise in value, and that
Mr. Ching’s prestige in PBM and his career therein would be
enhanced?[163]

No. These are not the benefits contemplated by Article 161 of the Civil Code. The benefits must be
one directly resulting from the loan. It cannot merely be a by-product or a spin-off of the loan itself.
The benefit contemplated is that benefit derived directly from the use of the loan. In the case at bar,
the loan is a corporate loan extended to PBM and used by PBM itself, not by petitioner-appellee-
husband or his family. The alleged benefit, if any, continuously harped by respondents-appellants,
are not only incidental but also speculative.

152.      Who is an indispensable Party?[164]

An indispensable party is one whose interest in the subject matter of the suit and the relief sought
are so inextricably intertwined with the other parties that his legal presence as a party to the
proceeding is a necessity.

153.      Who is a necessary party?[165]

 A necessary party is one who is not indispensable but who ought to be joined as a party to the case
if complete relief is to be accorded as to those already parties, or for a complete determination or
settlement of the claim subject of action.

154.      Distinguish an indispensable party from a necessary

party.[166]

An indispensable party must be joined under any and all conditions while a necessary party should
be joined whenever possible.

155.      What is the rule regarding an indispensable party?[167]

An indispensable party should be joined under any and all conditions, his presence being a sine qua
non for the exercise of judicial power.

156.      What is the result if an indispensable party is not

impleaded in a suit?[168]

Failure to implead an indispensable party is not a ground for dismissal. If a complaint or petition is
not brought in the name of or against an indispensable party, a motion to dismiss may be filed on
the ground that the complaint states no cause of action. However, an outright dismissal is not the
immediate remedy authorized by the Rules because under the Rules, the non-joinder of parties is
not a ground for dismissal of an action.

157.      In a declaratory relief proceeding, what is the effect of

the failure to include as defendant a party who would be
adversely affected by the declaratory judgment of the court?
[169]

Under Section 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, "parties in interest without whom no final
determination can be had of an action shall be joined as plaintiffs or defendants." If there is a failure
to implead an indispensable party, any judgment rendered would have no effectiveness.

158.      What is the test for determining whether a party is an

indispensable party or not?[170]
In determining whether a party is indispensable, courts generally look to three factors:
1. Will the missing party's interests be harmed in some direct way by the outcome of the case?
2. Does the missing party have an interest which would cause another party to the case to be subjected
to multiple obligations?
3. Can the court provide complete relief to the plaintiff without the presence of the missing party?
159.      Give examples of indispensable parties.[171]

Examples of indispensable parties are the plaintiff and defendant. Specifically, the claiming party,
the counter-claimant, the cross-claimant, or the third (fourth etc.)-party plaintiff. Likewise, it also
includes the original defending party, the defendant in a counterclaim, the cross-defendant, or the
third (fourth, etc.)-party defendant.

160.      D obtained a car loan from a car dealer evidenced by a

promissory note and secured by a chattel mortgage over the
car executed by D in favor of the car dealer. The note and the
chattel mortgage were assigned by the car dealer to BA
Finance. D defaulted in the payment of the loan. BA Finance
learned later on that the car was in the possession of F. BA
Finance filed an action for replevin against F to recover the car.
D was not impleaded. Is D an indispensable party?[172]

Yes. In this case, D is deemed to be the original defending party as against BA Finance (an assignee
of the car dealer). A chattel mortgagee, unlike a pledgee, need not be in, nor entitled to the
possession of the property unless and until the mortgagor defaults and the mortgagee thereupon
seeks to foreclose thereon. Since the mortgagee's right of possession is conditioned upon the actual
fact of default which itself may be controverted, the inclusion of other parties like the debtor or the
mortgagor himself, may be required in order to allow a full and conclusive determination of the
case. When the mortgagee seeks a replevin in order to effect the eventual foreclosure of the
mortgage, it is not only the existence of, but also the mortgagor's default on, the chattel mortgage
that, among other things, can properly uphold the right to replevy the property.

161.      In the preceding problem, assume that BA Finance filed

the replevin action against D without impleading F. Is F an
indispensable party?[173]

Yes. F can be the cross-defendant in the case. Thus, is an indispensable party. An adverse possessor,
who is not the mortgagor, cannot just be deprived of his possession, let alone be bound by the
terms of the chattel mortgage contract, simply because the mortgagee brings up an action for
replevin.

162.        Give examples of necessary parties.[174]

An example of a necessary is a defendants in an action to annul the sale of land who before the filing
of an action , had sold their interests in the land subject of the suit in their co- defendants.

163.      Quirino and Milagros are co-owners of a credit extended

to the spouses Carandang. Quirino sued the spouses
Carandang. The spouses Carandang filed a motion to dismiss
on the ground that an indispensable party, Milagros, was not
impleaded as a co-plaintiff. The Spouses Carandang contends
that a co-owner is an indispensable party. Should the motion
to dismiss be granted?[175]

No. The motion to dismiss should not be granted outright. In Heirs of Mesina vs. Heirs of Fian, Sr.,
G.R. No. 201816, April 8, 2013, 695 SCRA 345, the Court definitely explained that in instances of
non-joinder of indispensable parties, the proper remedy is to implead them and not to dismiss the
case, to with : The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for dismissal of an action. At
any stage of a judicial proceeding and/or at such times are just, parties may be added on the motion
of a party or on the initiative of the tribunal concerned. If the plaintiff refuses to implead and
indispensable party despite the order of the court, the court may dismiss the complaint for the
plaintiff’s failure to comply with the order.

164.      D, E, and F are solidarily indebted to P for P90,000. P

files a collection case against D only. Are E and F indispensable
parties?[176]

No, E and F are not indispensable parties. Solidarity does not make a solidary obligor an
indispensable party in a suit filed by the creditor. Art.1216 of the Civil Code says that the creditor
may proceed against anyone of the solidary debtors or some or all of them simultaneously. (De
Castro , et al. vs. CA , et al., G.R. No. 115838, July 18, 2002).

165.      In an action to foreclose a real estate mortgage, is the

junior mortgagee an indispensable party?[177]

No. A junior mortgage or encumbrancer is not an indispensable party to a proceeding at law or in

equity to foreclosure in a real estate mortgage.( G.R. L- 42754,Enrique Somes vs. The Government of
the Philippine Lands). 166. Yes. A solidary co-debtor a necessary party.

166.      Is a solidary co-debtor a necessary party?[178]

167.      Is a joint debtor a necessary party?[179]

Yes, a creditor may sue one joint debtor for his share although necessarily that would not afford
complete relief to him.

168.      D,E and F are jointly indebted to C in the amount of

P9,000,000. C files a collection suit against D for the amount of
P3,000,000. The complaint alleges that D, E and F are jointly
indebted to C but that C is only suing D in order to avoid
additional factual issues which would just prolong the trial. D
files a motion to dismiss on the ground that C did not implead
E and F. (a) Should the motion to dismiss be granted? Assume
that the motion to dismiss was not granted.

a)  The court however ordered C to implead E and F. [180] Is

the order of the court proper?[181] Explain.

Yes. Under section 9, Rule 3, if the court finds the reason for the omission of the necessary
party unmeritorious, it may order the inclusion of the omitted necessary party if jurisdiction
over his person may be obtained.

b) Assume that C did not comply with the court order. May
the court dismiss the case? Assume that the court
continued trying the case despite C’s non-compliance with
its order. The court rendered judgment in favor of C
against D for P3,000,000. The judgment became final.
Subsequently C filed a case against E for collection of
P3,000,000.[182]

No, the court may not order the dismissal of the case. Under Section 9, Rule 3, it is not
provided that the failure to comply with the court's order without justifiable cause shall be a
ground for dismissal; rather the pleader is deemed to have waived his claim against the
necessary parties not included.

c)  If you were E’s counsel, what would you do?[183]

I would file a motion to dismiss on the ground that C's claim has been waived.

169.          A passenger bus collided with a tricycle resulting in

damage to the tricycle and injuries to its driver. The
Plaintiff tricycle driver filed a case for damages against the
bus owner alone but did not implead the bus driver as
defendant. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff.
The defendant bus owner argues that the judgment was
void for failure to implead the bus driver as an
indispensable party. Is the judgment void?[184] Explain.

No, the judgement is not void. In Cerezo v. Tuazon, the Supreme Court has held that the
liability of the bus owner and the driver is solidary since they are joint tort-feasor. The creditor
may proceed against all or just one of the solidary debtors.

170.          Fimarco mortgaged its heavy equipment to the DBP.

DBP assigned the mortgage to APT. Subsequently P filed a
suit against Filmarco for recovery of a parcel of land in
which the mortgaged equipment was located. A final and
executory judgment was rendered in favor of P. The APT
then filed an action to annul the judgment. It argued that it
was an indispensable party and should have been
impleaded in the suit filed by P against Filmarco. Should
the judgment be annulled?[185]

No, the judgment should not be annulled. The mere fact that the recovery of the land would
necessarily entail the removal of the equipment mortgaged to APT does not make the latter
an indispensable party. APT's rights can easily be resolved in a separate action it can file
against Filmarco.

171.          P filed an action with the RTC to nullify the TCT of A.

There was an existing registered mortgage over the TCT in
favor of Metrobank. The bank was however not impleaded
in the cancellation suit. The court rendered judgment
cancelling the TCT. The judgment became final and
executory. Can the bank file an action to annul the
judgment of the RTC? If so in what court should the bank
file the action?[186]

Yes. In a suit to nullify an existing TCT with an annonated REM, the mortgagee is an
indispensable party, since the mortgagee's rights over the property would no longer be known
and respected by third parties. The non-joinder of the mortgagee deprived the trial court of
jurisdiction to pass upon the controversy. (Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company v. Alejo,364
SCRA 813 (2001). The bank should file the action with the Court of Appeals which has the
original and exclusive jurisdiction to annul judgments of the RTC.

172.          An impostor (Oliver 1) mortgaged the property of

Oliver 2 to Chinabank misrepresenting that she is the real
Oliver. Oliver 2 filed an action in the RTC against the bank
seeking to nullify the mortgage on the ground that she’s
the real Oliver. Oliver 2 did not implead Oliver 1.
Chinabank filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of non-
joinder of an indispensable party. The trial court denied the
motion to dismiss. Instead of filing an answer, Chinabank
filed a special civil action with the CA to set aside the
Judge’s order denying its motion to dismiss. Meanwhile for
failure of Chinabank to answer within the reglementary
period it was declared in default by the trial court and
Oliver 2 allowed to present evidence ex parte.

a.  Did the trial court properly deny Chinabank’s motion

to dismiss?[187]

Yes. The SC held that Oliver 1 is not an indispensable party as tha case can proceed to
judgment so long as Oliver 2 can prove that she's the real Oliver. Further, a declaration of
the mortgage's nullity will not necessarily prejudice Oliver 1 as the bank still needs to
initiate proceedings to go after the mortgagor, who in turn can raise other defenses
pertinent to the two of them. Hence it is not S7 R3 requiring compulsory joinder of parties
which applies but S11 R3, which provides that non-joinder of parties is not a ground for
dismissal.

b.  Did the trial court properly declare Chinabank in

default?[188]

Yes. The filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 does not suspend the running of
the period within which a defendant should answer the complaint unless a temporary
restraining order or preliminary injunction was issued. ( China Bank v. Oliver, 390 SCRA
263 (2002).
173.          P filed with the RTC an action to annul the issuance
of an OCT registered in the name of A (deceased). P did
not however implead the heirs of A. A judgment in favor of
P annulling the OCT was rendered by the RTC. The heirs of
A then filed with the RTC of Lapu-Lapu City an action to
annul the judgment nullifying the OCT. (a) In an action to
annul an OCT issued in the name of the registered owners,
are the heirs of such registered owner indispensable
parties?[189] (b) Should the RTC grant the action to annul
the judgment?[190]

A. Yes. The cancellation of the OCT would certainly strip them of their rights over the property.
B. No. The action to annul the judgment should be filed with the CA which has jurisdiction
over such cases. (Nery v. Leyson, 339 SCRA 232 (2000).

174.          What is the Rule if the husband and wife sue or be

sued?[191] Explain.

Section 4, Rule 3 states that husband and wife shall sue or be sued jointly, except as provided
by law. This provision does not tell us much as it simply begs the question of what the law
provides. If one spouse is suing as plaintiff, the other spouse need not be joined even if the
suit relates to community or conjugal property. This is because the spouses are joint
administrators of the community or conjugal property (Articles 96 and 124, Family Code) and
the bringing of a suit is but an act of administration. If a spouse is being sued, the other spouse
should be joined if the suit could result in liability being incurred by the absolute community
or the conjugal property. If the suit would only result in the separate liability of a spouse, the
other spouse should not be joined. The liabilities of the absolute community and the conjugal
partnership are found in Articles 94 and 121 of the Family Code.

175.          What is the Rule if a minor will sue or be sued? [192]

Explain.

Section 5, Rule 3 states that 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.

176.          Describe a joinder of parties.[193]

Joinder of parties - a procedural device that may be employed when there are various causes
of actions that accrue in favor of one or more plaintiffs against one or more defendants, i.e.,
there is a plurality of parties. A joinder of parties requires that before parties can be joined
under a single complaint the right to relief must arise out of the same transaction or series of
transactions and there must be a common question of law or fact. A joinder of parties may or
not be involved in a joinder of causes of actions.

177.          P files an action with the RTC of Las Pinas City,

Branch 170, to recover a parcel of land co-owned by D. P
however did not implead in his complaint E and F, the co-
owners of the land. The RTC rendered a judgment in favor
of P ordering the reconveyance of the land to P. No appeal
having been filed the judgment became final and executor
on 10 January 2004 and was entered in the book of entries
of judgment on the same day. E and F learned of the
judgment on 10 March 2004 and on 15 March 2004 they
filed a petition for relief from the judgment with Branch
170 of the Las Pinas RTC. P filed an answer seeking the
dismissal of the petition for relief.

a.  If you were the judge, would you dismiss the petition
for relief?[194]

Yes.

b.  If the dismissal of the petition for relief was proper,

what was the appropriate action that E and F should
have availed of and in what court should they have filed
the same?[195]

The appropriate action that E and F should have availed of is to file Accion reivindicatoria
or accion de reivindicacion. They should filed it in the proper regional trial court in an
ordinary civil proceeding. Accion reivindicatoria or accion de reivindicacion is an action
whereby plaintiff alleges ownership over a parcel of land and seeks recovery of its full
possession. It is a suit to recover possession of a parcel of land as an element of
ownership.
178.    Is the non-joinder of necessary or indispensable parties a
ground for a motion to dismiss?[196]

Under the Rules neither misjoinder nor non joinder of parties is a ground for the 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 (Sec. 11, Rule 3, Rules of Court).
However, even if neither misjoinder nor non joinder is a ground for dismissal of the action, the
failure to obey the order of the court to drop or add a party is a ground for the dismissal of the
complaint under Sec. 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court.

179.    What is the Rule on the joinder of indispensable parties?

[197]
Explain.

The rule on misjoinder or non-joinder of parties does not comprehend whimsical and irrational
dropping or adding of parties in a complaint. What it really contemplates is erroneous or mistaken
non joinder and misjoinder of parties. No one is free to join anybody in a complaint in court only to
drop him unceremoniously later at the option of the plaintiff. The rule presupposes that the original
inclusion had been made in the honest conviction that it was proper and the subsequent dropping is
requested because it has turned out that such inclusion was a mistake. And this is the reason why
the rule ordains that the dropping is "on such terms as are just."

180.          7J, a service contractor, provided manpower

services of Lotte Philippines Inc. Pursuant to this, the
private respondents were assigned to provide janitorial,
maintenance, and utility services to Lotte. Lotte dispensed
with the services of private respondents. The private
respondents filed a labor case against Lotte and 7J. The
labor arbiter ruled that the private respondent’s employer
was 7J not Lotte. NLRC affirmed. The private respondents
filed a petition for certiorari with the CA against NLRC and
Lotte, insisting that Lotte is their employer but they did
implead 7J. CA ruled that Lotte was the employer not 7J
and held Lotte solidarily liable with 7J. May the CA’s
decision be set aside?[198]

181.          Who is an unwilling co-plaintiff?[199]

An unwilling co-plaintiff is a party who is supposed to be a plaintiff but whose consent to be
joined as plaintiff cannot be obtained as when he refuses to be a party to the action.

182.          What is the remedy if there is an unwilling co-

plaintiff?[200]

Under Sec.10 of Rule 3, the unwilling co-plaintiff (a) may be made a defendant, and (b) the
reason therefor shall be stated in the complaint.

183.          Give examples of an unwilling co-plaintiff. [201]

184.          Whose option is it to implead the unwilling co-

plaintiff?[202]

185.          Spouses H and W, during their lifetime, acquired a

parcel of land in 1985, located in Cogon, Lala, Lanao del
Norte, under PD 27, or the Agrarian Law at that time, and
subsequently an Emancipation Patent was issued to them
in the same year. H died in 1986 while W died in 1987. A,
B, C, D and E were the spouses’ surviving heirs. In 1989,
A, the eldest of the five siblings, mortgaged the land to F
but it was not redeemed. Subsequently, A executed a deed
of sale in favor of F, without the knowledge of the other
four siblings. The land has an assessed value of
P30,000.00. After learning of the sale, B and C agreed to
institute and action to recover ownership of the land but D
and E did not want to join with them. (a) What will B and C
first do before they file an action in Court? [203] Explain. (b)
Let us assume that they already complied the requirements
in accordance to your answer in question (a), what will B
and C do next?[204] Explain. (c) Do you think the action of B
and C to recover ownership of the land from A and F will
prosper considering that the land was not yet partitioned
by among the siblings?[205] Explain. (d) What will B and C
do as far as D and E who do not want to be included in the
suit?[206] Explain.
(a) Before filing an action in Court, they must first plead for non-joinder of indispensable
parties for D and E. Since the land is co-owned by all siblings as heirs, and A sold the property
without the knowledge of the four other siblings, this makes B, C, D and E indispensable
parties to the recovery of the land sold. However, since D and E does not want to join, B and C
must plead for non-joinder, so the court can either order their inclusion or consider their non-
joinder as a waiver of the claim.

(b) B and C then file an action in Court, as co-owners, to recover ownership of the land sold
without their consent.

(c) Yes. Recovering ownership of the land may prosper even without partition; the co-
ownership shall govern.

(d) D and E, have to be impleaded by B and C for being indispensable parties.

186.          What is a class suit?[207]

A class suit is an action where one or more may sue or defend for the benefit of all. As defined
in Sec. 12, Rule 3, of the Rules of Court — “Sec. 12. Class suit. — When 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, one or more may sue or
defend for the benefit of all. But in such case the court shall make sure that the parties
actually before it are sufficiently numerous and representative so that all interests concerned
are fully protected. Any party in interest shall have a right to intervene in protection of his
individual interest.”

187.          What are the requisites of a class suit?[208]

The requisites of a class suit are: a. Subject matter must be of common or general interest to
many persons; b. Parties are so numerous that it is impracticable to join all parties; c. The
parties actually appearing before the court are sufficiently numerous and representative as to
fully protect the interests of all concerned; and d. Representatives sue or defend for the
benefit of all.

188.          What shall the court do if it finds that the requisites

of a class suit have been met?[209]

The court shall appoint a number of the group which it finds sufficiently numerous and
representative as to fully protect the interests of all concerned to sue or defend for the
benefit of the group.
189.          May a group member who was not appointed as a
representative intervene in the suit?[210]

Yes. According to Rule 3, Sec. 12 of the Rules of Court, “any party in interest shall have a right
to intervene in protection of his individual interest.” Although a person was not appointed as a
representative, as long as he/she is a group member, he/she may intervene in the suit to
protect his individual interest.

190.          N Magazine published an article titled “An island of

fear” which wrote all alleged abuses committed by
sugarcane plantation owners against their workers. The
sugarcane planters filed a class suit for libel and damages
against N. Was the filing of a class suit proper?[211] Explain.

191.          If a class suit is not proper, what is the recourse of

the defendant?[212] Explain.

192.          L, in Cebu, sold a quantity of rice for P20,000 to R in

Toledo, and shipped the rice through C Transportation. R
refused to pay L, claiming that the rice was never delivered
to him. C, on the other hand, claimed that it has delivered
the rice to R. whom should L sue?[213] Explain.

193.  May a defendant whose name or identity is unknown

be sued?[214] Explain.

194.  May an entity without juridical personality sue as a

plaintiff?[215] Explain.

195.  May an entity without juridical personality be sued as

a defendant?[216] Explain.

Yes, an entity without juridical personality may be sued as a defendant. It is provided under
Sec. 15, Rule 3 of Civil Procedure “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.” However, the authority to be a party under this section is
confined only to being a defendant and not as a plaintiff.
196.  In the complaint, is it necessary to state the names of
the persons composing the entity?[217] Explain.

No, it is not necessary to state the names of the persons composing the entity. As provided in
Sec. Sec. 15, Rule 3 of Civil Procedure, they may be sued under the name by which they are
generally or commonly known. Thus, if A, B, C and D, without incorporating themselves or
without registering as a partnership, enter into transactions using the common name, “Sea
Quest Corp.”, they may be sued as “Sea Quest Corp.”

197.          What is the duty of a party’s counsel, in case of the

death of the party?[218] Explain.

Whenever a party to a pending action dies, and the claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall
be the duty of the party’s counsel to inform the court within thirty (3) 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 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.

198.          When would the death of the party in a pending

action extinguish the claim?[219]

The death of the party in a pending action extinguishes the claim when the claim is purely
personal.

199.          P filed an action against D, who he alleges to be his

father, to claim the status of the legitimate child. During
the pendency of the case, P died. May the heirs of P be
substituted in the action?[220] Explain.

Yes, the heirs of P may be substituted in the action. After the death of the natural child, the
heirs of said deceased natural child, cannot bring the action to compel recognition, but may
however, continue the action already filed to compel recognition. The Family Code in Art. 268
provides that the action to claim legitimacy may be brought by the child during all his lifetime,
and shall be transmitted to his heirs if he should die during his minority or in a state of
insanity. In these cases the heirs shall have a period of five years within which to institute the
action. The action already commenced by the child is transmitted upon his death to the heirs,
if the proceeding has not yet lapsed.

200.          Does the duty under S16R3 apply to death of a

party in cases pending appeal?[221] Explain.

201.          What is the purpose of notifying or informing the

court of the death of a party?[222]

The purpose of notifying or informing the court of the death of a party is for the
determination of the court whether or not a claim is extinguished by such death. If claims
survives, the court shall order the legal representative or representatives of the deceased to
appear and be substituted for the deceased within thirty (30) days from notice.

202.          Who is the legal representative of the deceased

party?[223]

The legal representative shall be the heirs of the deceased.

203.          If a party becomes incompetent or incapacitated,

what will the court do?[224]

Under Sec.18 Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court 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.

204.          In case of any transfer of interest, how the action

may proceed?[225] Explain.

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 as stated under Sec.19 Rule 1 of the
Revised Rules of Court.

205.          What if there is no executor of administrator

appointed by the probate court?[226] Explain.