CIVIL PROCEDURE LECTURE NOTES Jurisdiction has 2 parts or components (both
MUST be present to acquire jurisdiction; absence of one
PRELIMINARIES
CIVIL PROCEDURE
- covers Rules 1-71 of the Rules of Court
[Atty. Rondez enumerated the title of each rule. So,
memorize the Rules. Consult your Rules of Court codal
xD]
- Included within its scope are the 1991 Rules on
Summary Procedure and the provisions on the
Katarungang Pambarangay under the Local
Government Code.
Before we begin discussing the rules specifically,
we should always have a discussion of JURISDICTION.
Jurisdiction is defined as the power of the court
to hear, try, and decide a case.
If a court does not have jurisdiction, the only thing
that the court can do is to dismiss the case.
Stated otherwise, when we say the court has
jurisdiction that means it has the power to hear, try, and
decide a case. So if the court has jurisdiction, the Rules
now will have application because the Rules are
considered procedural in character (procedural law) as
opposed to what is known as substantive law. When we
say substantive law, we are talking of a law which
creates, define, and regulates the rights and obligations
of a party. In other words, it is the law which determines
whether you have a right or obligation. Procedural law
means the law or the rules that prescribe the method by
which you can enforce your rights or the method by
which you can obtain redress of a violation of your
rights.
The Rules on Civil Procedure are procedural.
Procedural law is a law and so the Rules on Civil
Procedure carry the force and effect of a law.
The court must have jurisdiction before the rules
apply. The court cannot hear, try, and decide a case if it
has no jurisdiction (paulit-ulit hahahah xD)
The Rules are HOW. How will you obtain redress?
How will you enforce your rights?
Example:
The action is for specific performance, you are
trying to enforce a right. Let us say the action is payment
of a sum of money, you are asking the court to direct the
defendant to pay you a sum of money, so you are seeking
redress. You have this right. You are able to obtain
redress because that is based on substantive law. Now
how you actually do that is procedural.
We need to study jurisdiction because without
jurisdiction, the Rules do not apply (ulit na naman xD).
will mean no jurisdiction):
1. Jurisdiction over the person (personal
jurisdiction).
Let us do a simple illustration:
Payment of a sum of money – A versus B
When we speak of over the person, we are
referring to the parties to an action. The parties are the
plaintiff and the defendant. In the given illustration, the
plaintiff is A and the defendant is B. When we say
jurisdiction over the person then we are referring to
jurisdiction over the plaintiff and jurisdiction over the
defendant.
How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the
person of the plaintiff?
 Upon the filing of the complaint.
Why is jurisdiction acquired over the person of the
plaintiff upon the filing of the complaint?
 It is because when the plaintiff files his
complaint, he is actually asking the court to
grant him relief. In so doing, he is aware that it is
the court that can grant him the relief. The court
now can hear, try, and decide his complaint.
[Simple analogy, if you are still receiving an
allowance from your parents and your allowance is
deficient, from whom do you ask for allowance? Of
course, still from your parents because you know
that they are the persons you can give you your
allowance. The concept is the same in court].
How about the defendant?
 Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is
acquired through the a) service of summons,
or b) voluntary appearance.
Service of summons is covered by Rule 14.
Summons is the way by which the court may acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Summons
may be served properly or improperly. Of course, what is
important is proper service of summons. So let us
assume now that service of summons is proper. It means
the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant. Naturally, it follows that if service is
improper, jurisdiction is NOT acquired.
Voluntary appearance is an invocation of a
court’s jurisdiction. Estoppel applies to this.
Example:
The defendant B has not yet been served with
summons, so there is no jurisdiction yet. Service of
summons CAN be dispensed with if there is a voluntary
appearance. When B returns home, A informs him that
he will file a case against him (B). So B is aware. B went
to the court and found out that A really filed a case
against him. B will now ask the court and say, “Can I have
more time to file my answer?” This is voluntary
appearance because he is invoking the court’s
jurisdiction. He is asking the court to give him relief.
When you ask somebody to give you relief, it means that
that person can give you the relief. In this case, B is
recognizing the court’s jurisdiction.
*** Once there is jurisdiction now over BOTH the parties,
then there is jurisdiction over the person.
2. Jurisdiction over the subject matter (Subject
matter jurisdiction).
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is acquired
by the a) allegations in the complaint and by the b)
law in force at the time of the filing of the complaint.
In the context of civil actions, we have our basic
courts. MTC, RTC (and Quasi-judicial bodies), CA, and SC.
The trial courts are the MTCs and RTCs but under Rule
46 there are actions that are within the jurisdiction of
the CA. While both the CA and the SC are appellate
courts, they also have original jurisdiction.
If the case involves money or a claim for a
payment of a sum of money: MTC – threshold amounts:
P300k and below, P400k Metro Manila; in a real action –
Assessed value: P20k, P50k Metro Manila (this is the
law in force at the time of the filing of a complaint by
A against B)
In Baguio: A is asking that B should pay him P350k
(allegation in the complaint). A files his complaint in
the RTC. Does the RTC has jurisdiction over the subject
matter?
 YES because based on the allegation – P350k
and the law in force states that if the claim is
P300k and below, MTC has jurisdiction; if P300k
and above RTC has jurisdiction. In case A files in
the MTC, the MTC will not acquired subject
matter jurisdiction.
Example:
X v. Y for recovery of real property.
X says Y occupied his property without his permission so
X would like to recover possession of the property. X
says that his property has an assessed value of P19k. X
filed in the RTC. Does RTC has jurisdiction?
 No jurisdiction because the allegation reveals
that the assessed value is P19k and the law in
force states that if assessed value is P20k and
below (outside Metro Manila), MTC has
jurisdiction. In this case, it should be filed in the
MTC not the RTC.
When we say, look at the allegations in the
complaint, we have to look into the four corners of the
complaint, nothing beyond the complaint (kung anong
nakasulat sa complaint, iyon lang. Walang iba) EXCEPT
when the defendant raises the defense of agricultural
tenancy. In this case, we can consider the answer of the
defendant to the complaint. The general rule is look at
the allegations of the plaintiff in the complaint not the
answer of the defendant (EXCEPT when the defense is
agricultural tenancy).
Why are we limited to the complaint? Why should we
not look at the answer of the defendant?
 It is because if we allow a resort to the answer, it
will be easy for the defendant to avoid
jurisdiction.
Example:
The complaint was filed in the RTC but the
defendant claimed, “150 lang ang utang ko” or “mas
malaki pa diyan iyong utang ko.” In here, the greater evil
is allowing the defendant to choose the court (pwedeng
paglaruan ng defendant ang jurisdiction).
The court only has the power to dismiss.
The power of the court to dismiss can be undertaken by
the court itself, motu proprio or upon its own initiative
If the court recognizes that he has no jurisdiction over
the matter, then he can dismiss the complaint already.
It can also be brought in the attention of the court by the
party (defendant).
How? By the filing of a motion to dismiss under Rule 16
saying: the court has no jurisdiction be it jurisdiction
over the person or jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Sec. 1, Rule 16: first two grounds for motion to dismiss
are:
1. Lack of jurisdiction over the person
2. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
PROBLEM AREAS AFFECTING JURISDICTION
Sometimes, the court itself or the parties themselves
does not recognize that he has no jurisdiction.
Consequence on the judgment/ proceedings that had
been undertaken before the court:
If proceedings are undertaken, and the court has no
jurisdiction, all those proceedings/ judgments are NULL
and VOID; no rights are created, no obligations are
created by a void judgment.
If that is the case, the requirement then is for a party, if
the court does not recognize it on its own, to bring the
issue of jurisdiction at eth earliest possible opportunity.
Rule regarding bringing the issue of lack of jurisdiction
before the court:
That can be done at any time even on appeal provided
the party bringing it is not barred by estoppel or laches.
Eve n if proceedings had been undertaken already the
issue of lack of jurisdiction can still be questioned.
Even if there’s judgment and it has already been
appealed the issue of lack of jurisdiction can still be
questioned.
The 1st available opportunity to question jurisdiction is
at the time the defendant is served with a copy of the
summons.
Qualifier: before he is barred by laches or estoppel
When will a party intending to question lack of
jurisdiction be considered barred by laches or estoppel?
If he is already participating in the proceedings before
the court where he has recognized the court’s
jurisdiction
Further qualification: knowing that the court does not
have jurisdiction
When one questions jurisdiction but he is barred by
laches or estoppel one can no longer question
jurisdiction, the consequence on the proceedings or
judgment rendered becomes VALID.
Why? Because that is the penalty imposed on the person
who should have questioned jurisdiction in a timely
manner but who is now unable to do so because he is
barred by laches or estoppel. (necessary consequence).
*judgment – null and void
MTC renders a judgment without jurisdiction. On appeal
to the RTC, sec. 8 of Rule 40 says: if the RTC has
jurisdiction, it should now resolve the case (as if it was
originally filed with it) in accordance with the provisions
of Rule 40 without prejudice to the admission of
additional evidence and the filing of memoranda.
The RTC does not have jurisdiction. It is appealed to the
CA. The CA will see the issue of jurisdiction. The CA
agrees that the RTC has no jurisdiction. The judgment
will be dismissed by the CA then the remedy of the
plaintiff is to refile it in the proper court (MTC).
Sec. 8, Rule 40: if the MTC decided a case without
jurisdiction, on appeal to the RTC, the RTC ordinarily
should (do this- if rendered without decision, you refile).
The RTC should resolve the case as if it was originally
filed with it.
Problem areas:
1. What is the consequence of lack of jurisdiction and
when can it be questioned
- Consequence: all proceedings, judgment, is null and
void.
- You can question jurisdiction at any time even on
appeal as long as you have not been barred by laches or
estoppel.
Usual na mangyayari: On appeal, the court ordinarily if it
is questioned before the trial court, the trial court
dismisses it if it appeals but if it is going to be questioned
on appeal, the appellate court should dismiss unlike
MTC, RTC.
2. Action incapable of pecuniary estimation
If the action is incapable of pecuniary estimation,
jurisdiction is vested with the RTC.
It is a jurisdictional problem because there is difficulty in
determining whether it is capable of PEor incapable of
PE.
The way to determine whether it is capable or incapable
is to apply: Nature of the Action Test
An action is said to be incapable of pecuniary estimation
if you are unable to attach a monetary value to the
subject matter of the action
Ex. you want to recover a parcel of land worth 100K;
when you’re asking to be paid moral damages of 200K
=capable
Nature of the Action Test examples:
o Reformation of a Contract – the action to compel
the defendant to agree to a change in a written
contract to fully reflect the agreement between
the parties. = incapable
o Specific performance – when you want to
compel a performance of an act =incapable
o Support = incapable (why? The person asking
for support may…but the support awarding him
or her as the case may be is going to depend on
what the court determines as what he is entitled
to or what the person obliged to give support is
capable of giving.
o Expropriation = incapable (why? The court still
has to determine just compensation)
Test to be employed whether it is capable or incapable:
NOTAT
There are cases which appear to be incapable but in the
end, they are capable – that is where jurisdiction
problem arises.
Example: specific performance- nature of the action is
incapable BUT if we use the ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE
TEST, it may appear to be capable.
1st situation:
A brought property form B. A paid 150K for the
property, then he occupied the property already but
could not get a title in his name so for him to get the title,
he will bring an action for specific performance against B
to compel B to execute a deed of absolute sale. =
incapable (why? Ownership has 2 aspects: equitable and
legal title. A already has equitable title, he is already in
occupation and what he needs is the legal title only.)
2nd situation;
A brought property form B. A paid 150K for the
property, but A does not occupy so A cannot now
establish his right since he just paid B and did not
occupy. A brought an action for specific performance for
B to execute a deed of absolute sale AND surrender
possession. = capable (why? A is acquiring both legal and
equitable title. ownership has value and that value is
probably what he paid but for purposes of determining
jurisdiction, you have to take a look at the assessed value
of the property 18,500) file it in the proper court – MTC
UOT- get the property
If we use NOTAT, one is incapable
If we use UOT, one is capable and the other is capable
(summary: it is a jurisdictional problem because the
incapable pecuniary estimation should be filed only with
the RTC. You can make a mistake because what you think
is incapable may be capable. That mistake can be
prevented from being made if you are aware of the kinds
of tests that you can use to determine. 1st test NOTA but
this may not be sufficient because there are actions
where just because of its nature, they are without any
doubt incapable ex. support, expropriation. There are
also NOTA, specific performance but it may not be so so
we need to apply the UOT; what is the ultimate objective
of the plaintiff. If the UOT of the plaintiff cannot be
quantified or no monetary value can be attached to it,
then it is incapable but if you attached a monetary value
to it, then it becomes capable. Once it is capable, the
determination now will go to a court’s jurisdiction, it
depends on what the law says. If the property’s assessed
value is 200K and below, MTC and greater than that,
RTC.
Once the court acquires jurisdiction, up to when can the
court exercise that jurisdiction?
Until judgment has been rendered and an appeal has
been perfected if any.
Once jurisdiction is acquired, that court can exercise
jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts – Doctrine
of Adherence to Jurisdiction
Monetary threshold~
MTC: 300K
A case is filed with the MTC and the claim is 250K (court
has jurisdiction) and it turns out that instead of 250K,
the claim that he is entitled to is 350K = the court CAN
ONLY AWARD AN AMOUNT UP TO ITS JURISDICTIONAL
THRESHOLD
Exception of MTC to award an amount greater than its
monetary threshold:
1. Illegal detainer (ex. unclaimed rental 2M – MTC can
award)
2. BP 22 (If amount of the check is 1 billion – MTC can
award)
RTC: 300K above
Claim is 350 but the court determines that instead of
350K, defendant is entitled to1 peso = the court CAN
AWARD an amount even beyond its jurisdictional
threshold; Jurisdiction is not affected.
PECUNIARY ESTIMATION
Principle: Can the subject matter be given monetary
value (yes-capable, no-incapable)
Problem: actions which appear to be incapable but are
really capable
JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION
- Situation where you have a plaintiff and
defendant and the plaintiff may file several
complaint against the defendant so when he
does that, he is joining his causes of action.
ALTERNATIVE CAUSES OF ACTION
- Situation where one can base his right upon
several things. Meaning, his right is based
on different substantive laws (creates,
defines, and regulates rights and duties that
give rise to a cause of action) upon which he
can base his right of recovery.
Ex. A is riding in a common carrier (bus) for a trip from
Manila to Baguio. Along the way, the bus is involved in
an accident, because it collides with another vehicle
causing A injuries.
A now has a right to recover damages for his injuries.
The right to recover damages based on his injuries, can
be based on 2 things: (ONE recovery based on 2 things)
1. Based on breach of the contract of carriage
(common carrier)
2. He can also sue the party responsible for the
accident based on quasi-delict
The rules allow a plaintiff to plead alternative causes of
action so that the plaintiff is not going to be forced to
make a choice. If he can recover on several alternative
causes of action, he can plead all of them so that he is not
forced to make a choice.
Illustration: A filed an action for recovery of ownership
and possession against B. The object is real property
with an assessed value of P12,500.00. A also has another
cause of action which is for annulment of deeds. He is
saying that the deed held by B to claim ownership of the
property he is seeking to recover (are patent nullities)
should be annulled.
Q: Can A join the 2 actions? YES. He can join these causes
of action or he can plead them as alternative causes of
action.
1. Action for recovery of ownership = capable
Capable because you can attach monetary value
to the subject matter of the action (ownership
and possession of real property has pecuniary
value- P12,500,MTC)
2. Action for annulment of deeds = incapable
Applying NOTAT, it is incapable because no
monetary value can be attached to the subject
matter of the action. (RTC)
Q: Can A file 1 without filing 2? Yes
Q: If A will file 1 and he will lose, can he still file 2 or vice
versa? No. (resjudicata)
If A loses in 1, the court now will confirm that the owner
is B. Can A still file an action to annul the deeds held by
B? No more. This will be res judicata in so far as ______ is
concerned.
If he will file 1 and he will lose, he cannot file 2 because
the court will affirm the validity of the deeds being held
by B since this will be res judicata insofar as _____ is
concerned.
So yes he can file 1 and not file 2, he can file 2 and not file
1 but he runs the rest of losing the case and if he lose the
case, he can no longer file the other one. (Splitting of
cause of action –Rule 2).
What will A do? Join the causes of action
Where will A file? RTC
Reason:
1. You will ignore the action thus capable of
pecuniary estimation and go with the action
capable of pecuniary estimation and file it in the
RTC;
2. When we discuss joinder of causes of action, a
person or party can join his causes of action in
the RTC provided, the RTC has jurisdiction over
one causes of action and venue lies therein.
Another Illustration: X vs Y
X files an action in the USA against Y. The court in the
USA says that Y is indebted to X in the amount of S7,000.
Y is in the Philippines and he has a lot of properties in
the Philippines. X will come to the Philippines. He will
bring an action for recognition of a foreign judgment.
So that the judgment obtained in the USA where Y is
indebted to him for S7,000 or approximately P350,000,
can be enforced in the Philippines.
Q: Is the actin filed by X in the Philippines capable or
incapable of pecuniary estimation?
A: Real object: recognition – incapable. So even the
subject matter of the judgment sought to be recognized
is capable, the action for the recognition of a foreign
judgment is always incapable.
FILING AND DOCKETING
Basic principle: The court acquires jurisdiction upon
docketing.
Docketing involves payment of docket fees.
Problem: What you find in Rule 2.
Rule 2: when an action is considered as having
commenced, it is considered as having commenced upon
the filing of a complaint.
So when a complaint is filed based on Rule 2, that means
the court should already have jurisdiction over the
complaint.
Qualifier: Filing should immediately be followed after
docketing; it is actually upon filing and docketing that
the court acquires jurisdiction.
Example: A complaint is filed but it is not docketed, is the
court said to have jurisdiction? No.
Docketing means there is a need to pay docket fees.
Purpose of docket fees: Docket fees are utilized by the
court for efficient administration of justice.
Basic concept: For the court to have jurisdiction, it must
not only be filed, but the docket fees should be paid.
Exemption of filing, docketing, without docket fees:
when a party is allowed to litigate as a pauper litigant
or an indigent litigant. If so allowed, the case will be
filed, it will be docketed, but there is no docket fees paid.
Situations:
1. If docket fees are not paid, no jurisdiction except
pauper litigant.
2. There is partial payment of docket fees.
1st situation: Plaintiff is aware that docket fees are not
paid in full.
Rule: the court should allow the plaintiff to complete
payment of docket fees within a reasonable period of
time but before it is bared by prescription.
Example: An action to enforce a written contract
prescribes in 10 years
The plaintiff brought his action against the defendant
after a period of 9 years, 11 months, and 15 days. How
many more days does he have before his cause of action
prescribes? Another 15 days.
He filed an action and his docket fees are not enough and
he is aware that his docket fees are insufficient so for the
court to have to have jurisdiction, he must pay the full
docket fees but the rule is he is allowed a reasonable
period of time to pay docket fees but before he is barred
by description. So the court will now say that he will be
granted 30 days to pay. So does he have the full 30 days
within which to pay? No, because he only has 15 days
before it is barred by prescription.
If he pays 10 days after, he is still okay because he has
paid the full docket fee before it is barred by prescription
so the court now has jurisdiction
If he pays 20 days after, the court will have no
jurisdiction because he is already barred by prescription.
He had only 15 days, he paid 20 days thereafter, he is
now barred by prescription so the court does not acquire
jurisdiction. If summons had been issued, then the
defendant can simply the motion on the ground that the
court has no jurisdiction because the docket fees have
not been paid.
Other situation where you have partial docket fees:
 If the plaintiff is not aware.
Like, he should have paid 2,000 but ang siningil lang
sakanya 1,500 did he commit the mistake? No.
If it turns out later that it is discovered that there are
insufficient docket fees, will that affect the court’s
jurisdiction? No. The court’s exercising of jurisdiction is
valid. The deficient docket fees would constitute a lien
on the judgment.
Ex. plaintiff won and the additional docket fees he needs
to pay will be deducted to his recovery.
Another situation where insufficient docket fees will
arise but it does not affect jurisdiction:
 He will make a claim but he will not specify how
much.
The plaintiff says: I’m entitled to the payment of
damaged but he doesn’t specify how much. He is able to
prove that he is entitled to damages. What happens now?
For example his original claim is P220,000 and he is able
to prove the claim of P50,000 damages, and the court
awards the P50,000. Is the judgement of the court valid?
Yes, it doesn’t affect the jurisdiction of the court.
However, same situation. The corresponding docket fees
for the additional P50,000 will constitute a lien on the
judgment.
 He files the complaint, pays the docket fees,
when the case is being litigated it turns out that
he has another claim.
Can he prosecute that claim? Yes.
If he is awarded an additional amount, the docket fees or
the additional claim constitute a lien on the judgment.
Summary: 2 situations:
1. One doesn’t pay the docket fees in full – affects
jurisdiction.
2. The docket fees are not paid in full but
jurisdiction is not affected.
What distinguishes one from the other? The awareness
of the plaintiff that he has deficient docket fees.
 If the plaintiff has knowledge that his docket
fees are deficient and he did not pay, that affects
jurisdiction.
 If the plaintiff has no knowledge that his docket
fees are deficient for some reason or another
and he did not pay, the Court is the one to be
blamed (mistake of the court) or later on he is
able to prove a greater amount than what he is
originally claiming, or he has an additional pay
which he was able to prove. In this case, the
court still has jurisdiction, except that the
corresponding docket fees for the additional
amount that he receives will now constitute a
lien on the judgment.
General rule: when the court has no jurisdiction, he
only has the power to dismiss.
Note: In the RTC, some RTC can be designated as
special courts.
 RTC can be designated as a special
commercial court.
 RTC can also be designated as a public
court.
Using the general principle, if a complaint that is within
the jurisdiction of a special commercial court is filed in
an RTC which is not a special commercial court, the
general rule is, the RTC has no power except to dismiss.
It cannot transfer it to the special commercial court
which is also an RTC.
But now, it is an EXCPETION.
Gonzales vs GJH Land (Nov. 2015, Court en banc)
This is no longer the rule. If you file a case that is
cognizable by a special commercial court with the RTC,
the case is simply going to be returned to the executive
judge, and transmitted to the special commercial court. If
you file a complaint that is cognizable by an ordinary
RTC, with the special commercial court, the case is
returned back to the executive judge, the executive judge
will assign it or raffle it off to the other branches of the
RTC.
JURISDICTION
The courts has an original and concurrent Jurisdiction.
1. Original means that the court exercises
jurisdiction at the first instance as opposed to
what is known as appellate jurisdiction.
So MTC-RTC-CA and the SC.
Our principal trial courts are the MTC and the RTC. They
are the courts that exercise original Jurisdiction.
However, the CA and the SC also exercise original
jurisdiction because there are certain actions that can be
filed either with the CA or the SC. The court exercises
appellate jurisdiction if it is reviewing the decision of an
interior court. If the RTC reviews the decision of MTC, it
is exercising appellate jurisdiction so on and so forth.
When the RTC renders a decision and goes to CA, then
CA is exercising appellate jurisdiction and of course the
SC exercising appellate jurisdiction.
2. Then you have the matter of Concurrent
jurisdiction as opposed to exclusive jurisdiction.
Concurrent means several courts can exercise
original jurisdiction. Referring specifically to the
RTC, CA, and SC, they can exercise original-
concurrent jurisdiction. In order words, for a
particular kind of case, it can be filed with RTC, CA
or the SC.
EXAMPLE: Certiorari under rule 65, is an action that
can be filed with the RTC, can be filed in CA and can
also be filed in SC. So you now have 3 courts
exercising original jurisdiction concurrently. (kleer!)
Exclusive when it is to the exclusion of other courts.
Example, MTC has original-exclusive jurisdiction for
Forcible Entry and Illegal detainer case. No other
court will accept a complaint for FE or ID except for
MTC.
Q: Where do file an action if several courts exercise
concurrent jurisdiction ?
Civil actions can be classified in 3 BASIS:
A: You will file in the lowest court. That is in
accordance with the DOCTRINE OF HEIRARCHY OF
COURTS.
That means kung mag e-exercise ng jurisdiction
ang RTC , CA at SC, Punta ka sa RTC. However, it
doesn’t mean that you cannot go to the CA or SC. You
can! But it would depend on the nature of the action
or the subject matter. So if you feel that the subject
matter of your petition for certiorari, as for our
example, is something that should be resolved
immediately and preferably by the SC because of its
importance, then you directly go to the SC. But if you
don’t have that option, the Doctrine of hierarchy of
courts must be observed.
We will now begin with the discussion of rules,
RULE 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS
There are 3 things that you will find in rule 1:
1. Applicability of rules
2. Commencement of an action
3. Construction of the rules
1. Applicability. Section one of rule 1 says
the rules shall be known as rules of
court. It also tells us to what action do
they apply to. They apply to civil,
criminal and special proceedings. Focus
is: civil 1-71.
Q:To what cases the rules of court don’t
apply?
- cadastral cases, election cases, land
registration, naturalization and
insolvency proceedings etc.
The only application of rules of court is
by analogy meaning, there may be a
counterpart rule in this type of cases
,however, they don’t know how it
applies and is similar to the provision of
the rules of court then they will use the
application as we do it under the rules
of court for that particular case or in a
suppletory character . if there are
applicable rules in the rules of court
then the rules of court will have a
suppletory application. (kleer!)
Our focus now is Civil procedure which
now applies to:
1. Civil cases or civil actions as
distinguished from criminal actions
and as opposed to special
proceedings. Civil action can be
categorized as follows:
a. Ordinary or special
The civil action is special when
the fact that there is a rule
specifically to cover it.
1. IN PERSONAM- the basis is one’s personal
liability to another.
For example:
B owes A a sum of money. A now wants to sue B
to enforce payment of that sum of money. That
action is in personam because A can only sue B.
The reason why he can only sue B is because of
B’s personal liability to A. A cannot sue anybody
else, he can only sue one person and that is B.
Therefore that action is in personam.
2. IN REM- it is an action that is directed against a
thing itself, or property or status and the object
is to enforce it against the whole world.
Example: -land registration is in rem because
you like to establish your ownership over the
property.
-adoption is in rem, you would like to
establish a status of an adopted child with all the
rights of an legitimate child.
3. QUASI IN REM-when your object really is to
subject property to a corresponding lien or
obligation. Like, foreclosure of mortgage. There
is a defendant but your real object is to get the
property that serves as security for the
obligation constituted by the defendant in your
favor. May defendant dito pero ang talagang
intention mo ay habulin ang property niya.
Example: You are seeking to enforce a right
against a defendant who does not reside in the
Philippines and who cannot be found in the
Philippines. But he has property in the
Philippines, so, the object now is to deprive him
of his interest in that property. Your action is
now considered quasi in rem
An action for payment for the issuance of writ
of preliminary attachment. Yes you are asking
payment to that person but what you are really
want to do is go over his property.
FOUNDATION:
Civil actions can also be classified as follows:
They can be real or personal
1. REAL- sec.1 of rule 4. “a real action is one
that affects title to, possession of or any
interest in real property. All others are
personal. So pag hindi siya real, it is
personal.
2. PERSONAL – are actions where one is
seeking recovery of personal property,
enforcement of a contract or recovery of
damages then that is personal.
When we distinguish civil action as real or
personal, we are doing so on basis of
FOUNDATION.
Because if it is real it is based on real
property. Although basis and foundation
appears to be the same,in contemplation as
to the distinction between civil cases, they
are two different things
example:
A vs. B (Recovery of possession over real
property)
-as to basis, the action is in personam. Why?
Because only B can be sued by A, and only B
entered the property of A.
-As to foundation, it is real because the
object is title to, possession, or any interest
in real property.
So it is in personam and a real action. So ,It
does not translate that if it is personam, it is
also personal kasi hindi pareho ang
distinction. Although it is a distinction on
account of basis and of foundation but they
are separate and distinct from each other.
Why are we making this distinctions? Kasi
nga, this is essential to jurisdiction and
venue. Pag in personam, it tells you who
need to be summoned
if in personam then in the name the
defendant,
if in rem then everybody that is why it
needs publication,
if quasi in rem the important thing is
jurisdiction over the res or the subject
matter of the action. But it doesn’t mean
that you will not serve the defendant, you
still have to serve him. What is essential is
for the court is to acquire jurisdiction over
the res and the court is able to acquire if the
property is in the Philippines.
VENUE-place where you file the action, not
the court where you will file the action.
Rules in venue:
1. If the action is real then that means you
will file it in the place where the
property is located
2. If it is personal, it is to be filed in the
place where the plaintiff or defendant
has residence at the option of the
plaintiff.
This are the two basic rule is so far as
venue/
Summary:Civil cases can be classified as
-ordinary-special;
-in personam, in rem or quasi-in rem;
-real or personal
3. COMMENCEMENT OF A CIVIL ACTION
Q: when is it considered as having commenced?
A: Rule 1 tells us that it is upon the filing of the
complaint. In so far as a later defendant, it is considered
commenced upon the filing of the later pleading
irrespective as to whether or not a motion to admit is
denied.
Q:Significance of knowing that the action has been
commenced?
A: this will tell us whether or not an action has been filed
within the covering period of prescription. Causes of
action should be brought within a specified period.
Example: an action to enforce the terms snd condition of
a bill of lading as brought within period of 4 years from
the time there has been a delivery of the goods covered
by the bill of lading.
Example2: an action to enforce a written contract which
prescribes within 10 years from the date of execution of
the contract.
Example 3: X vs. Y (BREACH OF CONTRACT)
The contract is executed on January 15, 2008. If
X wants to enforce that contract, Y has breach the
contract. X has up to January 15 2018. If x filed an action
for breach of contract on January 5 , 2018, . ThE is
considered commenced as against Y on January 5, 2018.
Not yet prescribed.
-assuming that X wants to implead Z also. X now files an
amended complaint including Z on January 11, 2018.
Assuming that the filing of the amended complaint
requires a motion to admit.
Q:when is the action considered as having commenced
against Z?
A: January 11, 2018. Not yet prescribed
“When a defendant is impleaded later, it is commenced
upon the filing of the later pleading irrespective of the
denial of the motion to admit.”
Situation: the court denied the amended complaint. Does
it affect the commencement of action against Z?
A: no because it is irrespective of the denial of motion to
admit.
Situation: X filed against Y on January 5. X filed the
amended complaint on January 18,2018. Is the action
considered as having commenced against Z on January
18, 2018?
A: YES it is commenced.
Q: Can X enforce his action as against Z?
A: NO.BECAUSE IT HAS PRESCRIBED
But, if the question is if it commenced, the answer is yes!
Significance: para malaman kung hindi pa siya
nagprescribed.
:It is also a signal to determine whether there is
voluntary appearance.
Q: Can you consider the existence of a voluntary
appearance if the action has been NOT yet been
commenced?
A: no .the starting point to determine voluntary
appearance is commencement.
CONSTRUCTION OF RULES
When it comes to construction, the rule say, it should be
liberal.
It should be construed liberally for the purpose of
promoting a just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination of every action or proceeding.
Strict = opposite of liberal
There are 2 things here:
1. Construction can be strict. Meaning, we follow it
together or
2. It can be liberal
Concepts behind this:
For purposes of resolution of any controversy, it is best
to resolve the controversy based on merit, not
technicality.
Q: Why are rules in place?
A: We want an orderly administration of justice; because
rules are in place to put order to things so that we can
have order and all rules have this as the basis.
Q: When can we invoke liberal construction?
If we follow the rule strictly, can we say liberal
construction? No more.
If we do not follow the rule, can we invoke liberal
construction? Maybe.
If we commit an error in the interpretation or
application of a rule, can be invoke liberal construction?
Yes.
Simplify: The rules are to be construed liberally to
promote the objective of obtaining a just, speedy, and
inexpensive determination of every action or proceeding
that’s why we have liberal construction.
BUT we have to reconcile something. What we need to
reconcile is the fact that Rules are there for a purpose. (If
we don’t have the Rules of Court, we should all be some
place now.) If there are no rules, how can you get the
relief that you are asking for is somebody has wronged
you?
Reason why we have Rules: There’s a need to be able to
have and ensure an orderly administration of justice.
We need to reconcile now, there is a need for it, but the
Rule itself is saying: The construction should be
liberal as opposed to the construction being strict, it
should be liberal.
The first way to reconcile it is, let’s take a look why did
the Rules say that the construction should be liberal.
The Rules say is because we want to promote a just,
speedy, and inexpensive determination of every
proceeding or every action. – that’s the object kaya nga
sinasabing ito ang Rules, ito ang purpose ng Rules,
kayalang ang object ng Rules are just, speedy, and
inexpensive determination; To be able to get that, we
have to give some flexibility to the Rule that’s why it
is said to be liberal.
Notwithstanding that statement in the Rules, it doesn’t
mean we can ignore the Rules. The Rules are there for a
purpose so as much as possible, we must comply with
what the Rule says. Otherwise, we run the risk of being
penalized for an infraction of the Rules.
If you cannot get the reason because of this (liberal),
then take a look at this concept (merit, not technicality).
The concept is, cases or controversies should be resolved
as much as possible, based on the merits not on
technicalities.
(Let me explain it in this way: Assuming that you are
now practicing and we now stand on opposite sides.
Who do you think will put one over the other insofar as
applying the Rules? Se ser melemeng haha)
If your facility with the Rules is really to some degree not
in the level where you are very comfortable, what may
happen is, I may get you by way of a technicality. Now, is
that justice?
That’s why in this discussion, we need to:
1. Be able to balance the two (liberality, based on
merits, not on technicality)
2. Recognize that there is really a need for Rules,
but we also need to recognize that while Rules
are there for a purpose, the primary objective
really is getting just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination of every action or proceeding.
That’s the reason why- liberal. There’s no
contradiction with this because we really want to
be able to have justice.
The reason we invoke liberal construction maybe one or
two or several,
o we did not follow what the Rules says or
o this is what the Rule says, we need something
else or
o this is what the Rule requires, we did not
comply with it exactly or completely ( mejo
deficient ang compliance natin)
How does this happen? It may be because of
carelessness, simple inadvertence, then, sometimes the
Rule is not complied with. So that is the time that you
invoke a liberal construction.
If you don’t invoke liberal construction, then the
sanction will be forthcoming and eventually, that
sanction will not going to be felt by you but by the party
you are representing.
What is the way out of your situation? The way out of
your situation is to invoke a liberal construction of the
Rules.
When you invoke liberal construction of the Rule,
you need to cover up an explanation and it is upon
your explanation that the court may actually allow
you to invoke liberal construction.
Example: This is the reason why I failed to comply with
what was required by the Rule…
Once you are able to do that, and the Court finds your
explanation to be sufficient or acceptable, then the Court
will allow liberal construction.
While it says liberal, it is not automatic. It depends on
who you will ask it for because there are some Judges
who, even if “yes, the rule says this, and the rule says
that..” they will not allow you a liberal construction. It
depends as to the standard that they will call you to. Ex.
as between you and I, if we commit the same mistake,
who do you think will be favored a liberal construction?
(us not ser). Everything will be judged by the
circumstances you find yourselves in.
One aspect of the Rules which are strictly construed and
that is when we are talking about PERIODS.
Periods are strictly construed.
Ex. 15 days to file an answer (that’s a period. You need to
file an answer within 15 days)
It doesn’t mean however that, there are no acceptable
uses. Except that, the general understanding is, when we
are talking about period, you must comply within the
period. Because there’s a reason behind this: usually
litigations are long that’s why compliance with the
period is necessary since this helps to some degree in
shortening the litigation.
Finally, not only are Rules to be liberally construed the
SC exercising discretion may suspend the application of
the Rules.
So in proper circumstances or exceptional
circumstances, the court may suspend it and actually
come up with its own Rule.
RULE 2: CAUSE OF ACTION
Expectation:
1. Cause of Action
- When to file
- Number of actions we can file
2. Joinder
3. Misjoinder
Rule 2 says: The basis of every civil action, is a cause
of action,
Civil action =an action that is filed for the purpose of
enforcement of a right, protection or redress of a wrong.
What gives rights to a COA: an act or omission that
violates the right of another.
The basis of every civil action is a cause of action.
Meaning, if we don’t have a cause of action, you
cannot file a civil action.
Requisites of a Cause of Action:
1. Right – meaning if you are a plaintiff, you must
have a right;
2. Obligation – the defendant must have a
corresponding obligation to respect that right;
3. Act or omission – the defendant committed an
act or omission that violates that right.
Ex. If the plaintiff owns property and the defendant
enters into the property without any authority from the
plaintiff and occupies it now adversely to the plaintiff,
does the plaintiff have a cause of action as against the
defendant?
YES, The plaintiff has a right of ownership; the defendant
is under obligation to respect the right of ownership and
possession over real property; the defendant committed
an act that violates the right of the plaintiff –he entered
into the plaintiff’s property without permission and now
he is in possession adverse to plaintiff.
Speaking of an omission, let’s do creditor-debtor
(Right) Creditor’s right: to be paid.
(Obligation) Debtor’s obligation: to pay.
(Act/omission) Omission that violates the right of the
creditor: Non-payment
Action vs Right of Action vs COA
The COA is this (Refer to requisites)
The ROA = power to bring the action.
If you have a cause of action, you can file a civil action
and that ability to bring that action is your ROA.
The Actual action or actual suit that you filed is your
ACTION.
When you speak of your cause of action, that is a
situation where, the plaintiff has a right, the defendant
has an obligation, and the defendant committed an act or
an omission that violate the right of the plaintiff.
The Right of Action on the other hand is the ability of
the plaintiff to bring the action and he brings the action
because he has a cause of action and he can now act with
that cause of action.
The ability is his right of action; when he now acts upon
it, and he files a suit, that is the action.
This is important because if you take a look at Sec. 1 of
Rule 16, you will see that one of the grounds for a motion
to dismiss is the failure to state the COA.
How do you know that there’s a failure to state the COA?
When there’s a failure to state the COA, there is no right,
obligation, act, or omission or pwedeng may right pero
walang obligation so kung walang obligation, wala yung
omission or pwedeng may right, may obligation, kaso
walang act or omission; so what is stated now in the
complaint is simply a right, and an obligation but there is
no act or omission so question: is there a COA? None.
When we say there is a failure to state the COA among
others because later on especially when we take up
parties and Rule 3, there are other manifestations of the
failure to state the COA but the basic failure to fail to
state the COA is the failure to state in your complaint
that you have a right you are a plaintiff, that the
defendant has an obligation, and the defendant
committed an act or omission in violation of that
right. If you fail to do that, then the complaint fails to
state a COA.
Q: How many actions can you file of you have only 1
COA?
The filing of one or a judgment on the merits in another
is a ground for dismissal
What the Rule is saying: If you have 1 COA, you can only
file 1 action.
The proportion is: I COA- I Action
You can never have several actions where you
only have 1 COA and if you file several actions, when you
only have 1 COA, the Rule says: The filing of one or the
judgment in the merits on another is ground for a
dismissal of the other.
So you have 1 COA, you file your 1 st ACTION then you file
the 2nd action but you only have 1 COA. What happens is,
the filing of one is ground for the dismissal of the other.
In other words, when you files one already and you file
another, then it is going to be dismissed.
It is also a situation where you have 1 COA in the 1 st
action there is already a judgment on the merits is
ground now for dismissal of the other. Meaning, when
you file for a second action, this is going to be dismissed.
1st Version: (LITIS PENDENTIA – 2 or more cases
pending at the same time)
When a party or a plaintiff do this, he will now file at
least 2 actions when he only has 1 COA or after 1
ACTION has been decided, he will file a 2 nd action when
he only has 1 COA what did he do with this COA?
SPLITTING OF A CAUSE OF ACTION (You only have 1
COA and you are now filing 2 or more actions)
Why do they do this? When they file 2 or more actions
because they only have 1 COA, they are hoping that at
least 1 of the two will be favorable.
As between 1 action only and 2 actions, which situation
do you think will give the plaintiff a better chance of
winning? 2 actions.
The plaintiff wants to better his chances of getting a
favorable judgment so what he will do now is to file
several action even if he only has 1 COA. This is not
allowed because the Rule is, 1 COA is equal to1 ACTION
Only. If he has only 1 action and he files 2 or more, he is
splitting a COA which is a ground of dismissal.
2nd version: (RES JUDICATA – situation where there’s
already a decision in the merits in one case and a
subsequent case is filed based on the same cause of
action)
1 COA he files the action and he lose so what he will do is
to slightly modify the COA but it is still the same thing.
He will now file the 2nd action.
 - This is also prohibited because he has split
his COA
You cannot split your CO. If you split your COA, the filing
of one or judgment of the merits on another is ground
for a dismissal.
Sec. 1 of Rule 16 provides the grounds for a motion to
dismiss and splitting of COA is not one of the grounds
mentioned.
DETERMINE whether or not a party or plaintiff has
split his cause of action:
How to determine that?
1. SAME OBJECTIVE TEST
-SOT requires identity of –parties
-causes
-reliefs
a. Identity of parties
Example: A vs. B, in one case and A vs. B in the
other case. So there is identity of the parties.
Pag X vs. Y, A vs. Y , or any other
combination, can there be an identity of parties
still? Yes, kasi kahit iba na yung tao, may
identity of parties parin specially if they turn out
to be successor in interest, there can still be
identity of the parties.
So the point is identity of parties really is a
situation where the parties are really identical
or the situation where the action is between
successors in interest of persons who were
prior parties.
b. identity of causes:
We go back to the requisites of a cause of action.
In here, the RIGHT is the same, the OBLIGATION
is the same, the ACT/OMISSION is the same.
(ROA)
c. identity of Reliefs
In other words, in both cases, they are asking for
the same thing. The plaintiff is asking for the
same thing. So if he is asking for recovery of
personal property and in another case, he is
asking for the same thing, so, in other words,
there is identity of reliefs.
SOT is one way to determine whether or
not there is splitting of cause of action.
2. SINGLENESS OF A CAUSE OF ACTION
Singleness of a cause of action will first look at
the BASIS of the action. Ang basis pwedeng
delict or it can be a contract. If the basis of the
supposed cause of action is Delict, then the rule
is there is only one cause of action. The
reason is because there is only one injury. That
is why there is only one Cause of action.
Do not be confused with the Alternative Causes
of Action. When you have ACA, you can only
bring one action, because your recovery will
only be based on one of those alternative causes
of action.
For example: He can claim recovery for his
injury based on DELICT and he can also based
his recovery on BREACH OF CONTRACT OF
CARRIAGE, so he has alternative causes of action
but since he only sustain one injury, he can only
recover ones. If he base it on Delict, isa lang ang
kanyang cause of action.
1 delict-1 injury = only 1 cause of action
When we are talking about CONTRACT
however, the first thing now to determine is the
if the contract is DIVISIBLE OR INDIVISIBLE.
Q: What makes a contract Divisible or what
makes it indivisible
A: It depends on the NUMBER OF OBLIGATION.
Indivisible: If only one obligation,
Divisible: if there are several obligation
Eg. He wants to recover on tort so one COA, he
wants to recover on breach of contract of
carriage contract. Is that contract divisible or
indivisible? INDIVISIBLE kasi isa lang ang
obligation and that is to carry the passenger
from point A to point B. There is only one
obligation so the contract is indivisible.
If contract is indivisible = rule : only one COA;
If contract is Breach= only ONE COA because it
indivisible
If you determine a contract to be DIVISIBLE.
Several obligation makes a contract divisible.
Are there several obligations?
Example: The plaintiff lend to defendant 1.2M
pesos payable by 10 equal monthly installments
or 100K each. This is INDIVISIBLE because there
is only one obligation and that is to pay the 1.2M
pesos although it is payable by 10 equal
installments.
Example2: Supply contract A and B
A wants to have goods . B is supposed to
deliver to A the following units:
1-deliver 10k good
2-deliver 15k
3-deliver 20k
4-deliver 10k
5-deliver 15k
6-deliver 20k
In 6 months
This is DIVISIBLE because there are several
obligations.
If the contract is said to be DIVISIBLE,
 1st rule: Every breach of the contract = to one (1)
cause of action.
Q: If for B did not deliver, how many cause
of action does A have?
A: He has 6 because every breach is equivalent
to one cause of action.
2 QUALIFICATIONs:
1. If a party has not acted on previous
breaches, he is required to include in his
actions a claim for all previous breaches.
Example hindi nagdeliver si B for the first 2
months tapos walang COA, pero nung 3rd
month, he now files an action. He is now
required to include in his action all previous
breaches.
2. If the obligor has manifested that he will no
longer comply with the contract, then the
oblige now can bring an action for all the
future breaches. DOCTRINE OF
ANTICIPATORY BREACH
Example: B says I can no longer comply with
the contract, there is no way I can comply. A
does not need to wait for the whole period
of 6 months. He can already file and include
future breaches even if it did not yet occur.
SUMMARY:
1. Singleness of cause of action. Determine
whether it is based on Delict or
contract.
Delict = 1 COA, why? Because only one
INJURY
Contract = Identify if it is divisible or
indivisible
:indivisible= one COA
:divisible= rule is “every breach is
equivalent to one COA”
 However, if a party has not yet
acted on previous breaches and
he ha acting on a present
breach, he must include in his
action all previous breaches.
 Doctrine of anticipatory
breach-obligor manifested he
can no longer comply
We have two ways to determine if a party has split his
COA. We can use the SOT(Same objective test) or
SCA(singleness of Cause of action.
Identify if there is splitting in the following situations
1. A’ files sues B for Specific Performance to
compel the delivery of the car to A;
A’ also sues B reformation of contract for the
contract to show the obligation of B to deliver
the car.
Answer: Splitting because applying the test
a. Identity of causes : right- to be entitled with
the delivery of the car, Obligation-deliver
the car, omission- not delivering the car,
b. Identity of reliefs: delivery of car
c. Identity of parties: meron din
So based on the Same objective test there is
splitting.
Q: If the action is based on contract,
divisible or indivisible?
A: INDIVISIBLE. The only obligation is to
deliver the car. One cause of action only.
There were two actions which is not
allowed therefore it is splitting COA
2. A files a recovery of ownership over real
property against B;
A’ files an action for unlawful detainer against X
whom B allowed to occupy the property.
Answer: NOT SPLITTING.
Identity ofparties? Yes
Identity of causes? None why? Because first is
recovery of ownership and 2nd is recovery of
possession.
Identity of relief? No because establish
ownership, 2nd establish better right to possess
NO splitting because they are 2 different things
together
3. A forecloses a mortgage against B
A against B for collection of sum of money for
based on the law secured by mortgage
Answer: Identity of parties? Yes
Identity of causes? Yes,r: to be paid, o:
to pay a/o: nonpayment
Identity of reliefs? Yes because both
action seeks to obtain payment of debt.
So based on SOT, it is SPLITTING!
Basis of action: CONTRACT, -INDIVISIBLE= one
COA but it files 2 actions, therefore splitting
yan.
4. A sues B for damages on account of accident
caused by B,
B is held by the court to be liable for 400k for
damages
Later on A became blind, so he now sues B for
amount of 1M on account of same accident.
Answer: para kay ser SPLITTING. BECAUSE
there is identity of parties ,Identity of causes,
identity of reliefs.
If we base on singleness, it is based on DELICT,
there is only one injury therefore there is only
one COA.
So we have discussed that you can only file one action if
you have one COA, If you violate that rule then it can
happen that filing of one or judgment of another will be
ground for dismissal of others. So how do we know that
there is only ONE COA. I have presented to you 2 ways:
1. Same objective test
 2. Rules on Singleness of COA
You can use either one of them or you
can use both preferably to validate it.
Rule 2 also speaks of a situation where one has several
COA.
So if one has several COA, then he can bring as many
actions as he has COA.
If he has 3 COA, he can bring 3 actions.
This presupposes commonality. In other words, the 3
COA are as against the same defendant; that is the time
that he can now join his causes of action. While he has 3
COA the other option that he now has is to join these
actions.
These are the options:
A vs B
Action 1
Action 2
Action 3
Other option:
A vs B, involving 3 COA <- Known as joinder of causes of
action.
A party can join his COA, he is allowed to assert in 1
pleading, in the alternative or otherwise, as many COA as
he may have, as against the opposing party.
So in 1 complaint, he asserts 3 COA. So he will say in his
complaint:
1st COA
2nd COA
3rd COA
If the COA on the other hand are in the alternative, he
will say:
1st COA, alternative COA
So that means, he is seeking only 1 recovery but he is
basing his claim on 2 or more COA.
(This is what is meant by “in the alternative”)
Q: If one would like to join his COA, what are the
conditions that he must comply with or observe?
(Sec. 5, Rule 2)
a) The party joining the causes of action shall
comply with the rules on joinder of parties;
b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions
or actions governed by special rules;
c) Where the causes of action are between the
same parties but pertain to different venues or
jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the
Regional Trial Court provided one of the causes
of action falls within the jurisdiction of said
court and the venue lies therein; and
d) Where the claims in all the causes action are
principally for recovery of money, the aggregate
amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.
JOINDER OF PARTIES
Q: What is joinder of parties?
The Rule on Joinder of Parties is actually found in Rule 3:
“All person in whom or against whom, any right to relief
in respect to, or arising out of the same transaction, is
alleged to exist whether jointly, severally, or in the
alternative except as otherwise provided joined together
as plaintiff or as defendant in one compliant where any
question of fact or any question of law is common to all
such plaintiffs or such defendant in (a right COA?)”
1st consideration: When will we consider the need to
comply with the Rule on Joinder of Parties if we intend
to join COA?
1. If there are multiple plaintiffs or multiple
defendants, or multiple plaintiff or
defendants
The rule on Joinder of Parties say now that they should
be joined together as plaintiff, or they should be joined
together as defendants or in other words, they join
together as plaintiffs if they have here right of relief, they
join together as defendants if relief can be sought as
enforced as against all of them (plaintiffs/defendants).
The Rule also says they may be joined together as
plaintiffs or defendants in the alternative.
That means you can join in the alternative if there’s a
right to relief as against them but you cannot determine
as against whom the right of relief can be enforced.
You join them together in the alternative if you have a
right of relief as against them but you are uncertain as
against whom exactly the right to relief exists.
2. They must be bound by a common question
of law or fact.
We are now considering joining COA:
The 1st thing that we need to do is we need to
comply with the Rule on Joinder of Parties.
I. The Rule on Joinder of Parties requires us to
join parties together be it as plaintiffs, or as
defendants.
If they are going to be joined as
defendant, they can be joined also in the
alternative. You have defendants against
whom you can assert a right of relief but
you are uncertain who among them is liable
to you. So if the case is like this, you join
them together in the alternative; the next is:

II. They must be bound together by a
common question of law or a common
question of fact.
For example, (common question of law)
We feel that we are going to be affected
by the New Train Law but we do not know
exactly how that law will apply to us so we
would now like to get clarification. We now
bring an action as against the Commissioner
of the Bureau of Internal Revenue so that
we will know what our rights and
obligations are. So all of us can be joined
together as plaintiffs for the Court to
declare in an action for declaratory relief
what our rights and obligations are under
the law. In that situation, since we are all
entitled to relief, the relief being to know
what our rights and obligations are, we can
join together as plaintiffs and the reason
that we can all join together as plaintiffs is
because we are bound by a common
question of law.
For example, (common question of fact, in
the alternative)
A wants to sue B because B was
supposed to deliver merchandise to A.
When A is asking B for the merchandise
supposed to be delivered, B now says “No! I
gave it to C already for deposit and C was
supposed to hand it to you.” When A now
asks C “where is the merchandise that was
supposed to be delivered to me?”C will now
say, “B never gave it to me.” Can A now sue
both B and C in one action? Yes, A will be
suing 2 parties; there are 2 parties who may
be libale to him and he is now joining the
both of them. However, while he is joining
the both of them, he is joining them in the
alternative because he can only recover
once.
Situation: A vs B and C based on their
respective obligations to A in respect to the
merchandise which was never delivered.
The can be joined because they are bound
by A now not a common question of law but
by a common question of fact who is liable
to who.
Illustrate:
A wants to join causes of action as against B. He has the
following COA:
(a) Recovery of personal property with a value
of P120,000;
(b) Claim for payment of a sum of money based
on a promissory note and the amount due is
P150,000;
(c) Recovery of ownership over real property
the assessed value of which is P15,000
located in Dagupan;
(d) Damages in the amount of P450,000
(e) Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage the
assessed value of the property is P50,000
located in La Trinidad, Benguet;
(f) Specific performance
He now has 6 causes of action.
Issue: Can A join these COA?
I. Rule on Joinder of Parties
1st thing we need to consider is the need to comply with
the Rule on Joinder of Parties.
So do we need to comply?
- No, because there are no other parties involved
except A and B.
For example, in the specific performance action, A can
compel performance from either B or C.
Do we need to comply now the Rule on Joinder of
Parties?
- Yes, because they are liable in the alternative,
and they are bound by a common question of
fact as to whether or not the specific
performance of action of the contract which is
sought to be enforced ca be enforced as against
either B or C.
So we can only consider the Rule on Joinder of Parties if
we have multiple parties. We will not consider it if it is
clear that you only have 1 plaintiff and 1 defendant.
II. You cannot join special civil actions or
actions governed by special rules
So: (Keep in mind: Is this COA bound or covered by a
special rule?)
(a) Recovery of personal No (ordinary civil
property with a value of action)
P120,000;
(b) Claim for payment of a Yes (covered by the
sum of money based on Rule on Small claims)
a promissory note and
the amount due is
P150,000;
(c) Recovery of ownership No (ordinary civil
over real property the action)
assessed value of which
is P15,000 located in
 Dagupan; amount is P230,000.
(d) Damages in the amount No (ordinary civil
of P450,000 action) Will that change our assessment now that the last
(e) Foreclosure of Real Yes (Special civil condition does not apply?
Estate Mortgage the action)
assessed value of the Because you now have 5 [(a),(c),(d),(f),(g)] COA that can
property is P50,000 be joined.
located in La Trinidad,
Benguet; Balik tayo sa rule: “If they are all for the payment of a
(f) Specific performance No (ordinary civil sum of money, the aggregate amount is determinative of
action) jurisdiction.”

So there are 6 COA, (2 of them) 1 (b) is covered by a
special rule, the other (e), is clearly a special civil action.
Q: Can there be joinder of COA? Qualify, meaning yes,
you can join 4 of the 6 COA. 2 of those COA cannot be
joined because they are either covered by a special rule
or is a special civil action.
Note: If they are all for the payment of a sum of
money, the aggregate amount is determinative of
jurisdiction.
So does it change our answer? Because our answer a
while ago (no 7th COA) is that is does not apply because
only 1 [referring to (d)] action is for the payment of a
sum of money, the 3 [referring to (a),(c),(f)] others are
not. Will the Rule apply?
A: Qualify because the basic rule is: When you have
several COA you can have a smany action as you have
COA. Mind you, the Rule on joinder of COA is NOT
compulsory. So you can file as many action as you have
COA.

Looking at the causes of action which we can join Now when you join, is there are Rule that says, you may
[referring to (a),(c),(d),(f)] are they all for the payment join all you COA together? No.
of a sum of money? No, the rule will not apply. That does mean now that you can choose what you want
to join? Yes.
Assuming that I add a 7th COA:
So will the addition of an action (g) For the payment of a
(g) For the payment of a sum of money the amount is sum of money the amount is P230,000, change our
P230,000. original action that the 4th condition does not apply?
Probably or maybe because the plaintiff may choose to
(a) Recovery of personal No (ordinary civil join (d) 450k and (e)+ (g) 230k = P680,000 (clearly
property with a value action) within the jurisdiction of the RTC).
of P120,000;
(b) Claim for payment of Yes (covered by the Subukan daw palitan kalokaa. So magiging ganito:
a sum of money Rule on Small
based on a claims) (d) damages in the amount of P210,000
promissory note and (g) For a payment of a sum of money the amount is
the amount due is P230,000
P150,000;
(c) Recovery of No (ordinary civil If he chooses to join that, clearly, the addition of 210k
ownership over real action) and 230k will take it out of the jurisdiction of the MTC
property the assessed (440k) so he can now file it in the RTC.
value of which is
P15,000 located in III. When causes of action that are to be
Dagupan; joined pertain to different jurisdiction
(d) Damages in the No (ordinary civil and different venues.
amount of P450,000 action)
(e) Foreclosure of Real Yes (Special civil *A is a resident of Baguio B is a resident of Tarlac.
Estate Mortgage the action) (I am introducing residency because of the Rule on
assessed value of the Venue)
property is P50,000
located in La Rule on Venue: Personal action in the place where the
Trinidad, Benguet; plaintiff or the defendant resides at the option of the
(f) Specific performance No (ordinary civil plaintiff. If it is a real action, in the place where the
action) property or any portion thereof is located.
(g) For the payment of a
sum of money the (a) Recovery of personal property Personal MTC
 with a value of P120,000; of REM the
(b) Claim for payment of a sum of Personal MTC assessed
money based on a promissory value of the
note and the amount due is property is
P150,000; P50,000
(c) Recovery of ownership over real Real MTC located in
property the assessed value of La
which is P15,000 located in Trinidad;
Dagupan;
(d) Damages in the amount of Personal RTC (f) Specific Personal RTC Baguio/Tarlac
P450,000 performanc
e
(e) Foreclosure of Real Estate Real RTC
Mortgage the assessed value of
the property is P50,000 located in When you have COA, which pertain to different
La Trinidad; jurisdiction and different venue, you can now have
(f) Specific performance Personal RTC joinder of causes of action in the RTC provided, the RTC
where you joined your COA, has jurisdiction over one of
Q: Do you now have COA which can be joined but they the COA and venue lies therein.
pertain to different jurisdictions and different venue?
What can you actually join? Q: Can you join all these COA in the RTC of Baguio?

Exclude -> (b) and (c) Requirement: RTC of Baguio should have jurisdiction
Include -> (a), (c) and (d) over 1 of the COA. Does it? Yes – damages (d) or specific
performance (f).
Q: do they pertain to different jurisdiction and different
venue? Yes because you have cases covered or within the Q: Does venue lie in Baguio?
jurisdiction of the MTC, cases within the jurisdiction of
the RTC, different jurisdiction and different venue: Yes, because it is a personal action. Venue is either the
place where the plaintiff resides (Baguio), or the place
(a) Recovery of Personal MTC Baguio/Tarlac where the defendant resides at the option of the plaintiff.
personal So it can be joined in the RTC of Baguio because the RTC
property of Baguio has jurisdiction over 1 of the COA and venue
with a value lies therein.
of
P120,000; Q: Can you have it in the RTC of Tarlac?
(b) Claim for Personal MTC Baguio/Tarlac
payment of You can have Joinder of COA in the RTC provided it has
a sum of jurisdiction over 1 of the COA and venue lies therein.
money Tarlac RTC has jurisdiction over one of the COA so Tarlac
based on a is proper venue (personal damages).
promissory
note and For example: palitan daw ulet lokaret!
the amount
due is (c) Recovery of ownership over real Dagupan
P150,000; property the AV of which is P8,000
located in Dagupan;
(c) Recovery of Real MTC Dagupan
ownership
So can it happen in the RTC of Dagupan? Yes! Because
over real
the RTC of Dagupan has jurisdiction over this (c) COA,
property
and venue lies therein. Why? Because it is a real action.
the AV of
Venue of a real action is the place where the property is
which is
located or any portion thereof is located.
P15,000
located in
Joinder of Causes of Action:
Dagupan;
The plaintiff is joining all his causes of action as against a
(d) Damages in Personal RTC Baguio/Tarlac defendant. The causes of action that are joined are either
the amount original causes of action against the same defendant, or
of P450,000 causes of action in the alternative against the same
defendant.
(e) Foreclosure Real RTC La Trinidad
When one wants to join causes of action, what are the
conditions that must be observed? The conditions are:
1. The party joining the causes of action shall comply
with the rules on joinder of parties
- We need to comply when there are multiple
parties and these parties are bound by a
common question of fact or a common question
of law.
2. The joinder shall not include special civil actions or
actions governed by special rules;
3. Where the causes of action are between the same
parties but pertain to different venues or
jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the
Regional Trial Court provided one of the causes of
action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and
the venue lies therein; and
4. Where the claims in all the causes action are
principally for recovery of money, the aggregate
amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.
Sometimes, COA which are not supposed to be joined are
joined. We call them MISJOINED CAUSES OF ACTION.
The Rule also says that if the COA is misjoined, it is not a
ground for dismissal. It is only a ground for severance. In
other words, it will be severed from the action where
one has joined causes of action. It can be severed by:
1. The action of court, motu proprio or
2. Upon motion of a party.
What the Rule doesn’t say: If a misjoined COA is not
severed, what will happen? If a court renders judgment
on a misjoined COA is the judgement valid? As to those
actions which have been properly joined, the RTC can
render a valid judgment. If it is a misjoined COA, a court’s
judgement will only be valid if it has jurisdiction over the
misjoined COA.
(b) Claim for payment of a sum of money based
on a promissory note and the amount due is
P150,000
 This should not be joined. Jurisdiction of this
COA is with the MTC. The RTC cannot render a
valid judgment because it is not within its
jurisdiction.
(e) Foreclosure of REM the assessed value of the
property is P50,000 located in La Trinidad
 This is within the jurisdiction of the RTC but this
is misjoined because it is a special civil action. If
the RTC renders a judgment, it is valid because it
is within its jurisdiction.
Recap:
Joinder of COA:
-Require that there are several causes of action, and if
there are several COA, the options are, you can file as
many actions as you have causes of action:
1. Join COA in one action- Joinder of COA
Conditions:
a. It must comply with the Rule on Joinder of parties.
-there must be commonalities on one side or the
other or both : either as plaintiff, defendants or
in the alternative, so you join them together. If
these people are joined together by a common
question of Fact or a common question of law
then they must be joined together.
b. You cannot join Special civil actions or those
covered by special rules.
-if you are joining COA, you can only join COA
which are considered ordinary civil actions. Hindi
pwedeng pagsamahin ang SCA with OCA.
Q: What happens if you join special civil action with
ordinary civil action?
A: That is Misjoinder of COA. If we are able to catch the
misjoinder, then the misjoinder is not a ground for
dismissal rather it is ground for acceptance. That means
it will only be separated from the joined actions and it
will be litigated separate from the joined COA.
Q:We also said that sometimes there are COAs not
supposed to be joined but they are joined. What happens
now?
A: the court may render a valid judgment on a misjoined
COA provided, the court has jurisdiction on the
misjoined COA. If the court has no jurisdiction, then the
judgment is valid only insofar as the COA which have
been joined validly. That if there is misjoinder of COA
and the court has no jurisdiction, that is not a valid
judgment.
Example: joinder in RTC. Then you have an action for
forcible entry or unlawful detainer that is joined in the
RTC, this is a misjoined COA. Why? Because this is a
special civil action. So the RTC cannot render a valid
judgment because RTC has no Jurisdiction.
As distinguished in the situation where there is an
Action for Partition of real property with an AV of
80,000. This is a special civil action but, if you were to
file this separately, the RTC has jurisdiction. So if you
join your COA in the RTC including this you have a
misjoined COA. However RTC can render a valid
judgment over the misjoined COA.(kleer?)
c. if you have COA’s which pertain to different
jurisdiction or venue.(MTC or RTC).
- If all COA’s pertain to MTC then joinder is on
the MTC. If all the COA pertain to RTC then
joinder is on RTC. We will only consider this if
 you have at least one COA that pertains to the
MTC, one COA pertains to RTC, so what can be
done?
A: It can be joined in the RTC provided the RTC
has Jurisdiction over one of COA and venue lies
therein. That is the case now then joinder can be
done in the RTC.
d. If they are all for the payment of sum of money, the
aggregate amount determines jurisdiction.
RULE 3: PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS
WHO? -Natural,
-Juridical,
-Entities authorized by law
1. NATURAL PERSONS
- each and everyone of as are natural person.
2. JURIDICAL PERSONS
-Those who exist in the contemplation of the law. It is
the law that gives them personality.
Example: State, corporations, partnerships,
associations..etc.
3. ENTITIES AUTHORIZED BY LAW
-they really do not have juridical personality,
however, the law recognize them to exist. As such they
are given the right to become parties.
Examples: Labor unions, estate of deceased
person, Roman catholic church..
“This are the persons who can become
parties.”
The First part of rule 3 indicates a person who can
become PARTIES, NATURAL, JURIDICAL, ENTITIES
AUTHORIZED BY LAW CAN BECOME PARTIES.We will
have to add to this enumeration what we found in
section 15 of rule 3. It speaks of entities without legal
personality.
4.Entities without legal personality can be sued after
the name by which they are generally or thoroughly
known. However in answer to their complaints there
name , and addresses must be revealed.
So we have an entity without juridical personality as an
addition to the enumeration.
But when we are speaking of entities without juridical
personality, it can only become a party but only as a
DEFENDANT. Because the rule specifically says that they
may be SUED under the name that they are commonly
known. However, when they file their ANSWER, they
must indicate their names and addresses. It only
authorizes us to sue entities without juridical
personality. There is NO POWER given to it to sue.
When we speak of parties they are either:
1. PLAINTIFFs
Those with an Interest in the subject matter
of the action or those who are interested in
obtaining reliefs.
2. DEFENDANTS
Those persons whose interest is adverse to
the plaintiff.
Plaintiff is the one who has a COA, and the defendant is
the one who is trying to resist the enforcement of the
COA. Specifically the COA is for the payment of a sum of
money, yung plaintiff ang humihingi ng payment, yung
defendant naman ay yung nagreresist ng payment.
You must understand though that those characters may
SHIFT.
EXAMPLE: A VS. B
A is the plaintiff, B is the defendant. A and B
may shift depending on what you are looking at. The
situation is the A-plaintiff, B-defendant, that is in the
original complaint. But when we are now talking of
COUNTERCLAIM , a counterclaim is defined as a claim
which the defending party may have as against the other
party. So in this situation , B(Defendant) can file a
counterclaim because he is the defending party. So when
we are now looking at the counterclaim , the rows are
reversed. The plaintiff now is B and the defendant now
in the counterclaim is A.
There is also such a thing as CROSS CLAIM and
there can also be a THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT.
CROSS CLAIM is a claim by which a party may have as
against a co-party arising out of the same transaction or
occurrence, subject matter of either the original action
or a counterclaim.
Illustration: AX(plaintiffs) VS. BY(defendants)
Now, there is a cross claim. B, can cross claim against
Y and vise versa. Because a crossclaim is claim that a
party may have against a co-party arising out of the
original claim.
Example: The plaintiff sued for a collection of a sum of
money. Supposedly, they are suppose to share the
obligation 50/50 but the quality of the matter is B only
availed of 20% , Y for 80%. So it is now possible for B to
crossclaim for the additional 30%.
B, no bayad pero may utang si Y sa kanya pero
bago pa man makipag usap kay A at X, may utang na si Y
sakanya(B). so he will now sue Y to make sure that he
has something to pay them. Is that proper cross claim?
NO, Because it does not arise of the same occurance or
transaction, subject matter of the original claim. Hindi
siya connected kasi there is separate obligation, kaya
hidi pwede and cross claim. However he can file separate
complaint of an independent action but not by way of
cross claim.
So if we are speaking of a counterclaim , who are
cross claiming as against each other, it is the original
plaintiff are the ones cross claiming. Nag counterclaim
sila against the original plaintiffs and the original
plaintiffs can counter claim against each other.
THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT is a complaint that is
brought by a defendant against a person who in not yet a
party for what purpose: contribution, indemnification,
subrogation, or any other claim in respect to the
opposing parties claim .
Example(same scenario above):
A and X only file suit against B. So Y is not a party. But Y
shares the obligation, So B may file a THIRD PARTY
COMPLAINT to add Y in the picture. In which case now,
he is asking Y to either contribute, indemnification or
subrogation or any other claim in respect to the
opposing parties claim.
In a Cross claim, who is the Plaintiff and who is the
defendant? In a cross claim, one of the defendants
become the plaintiff and the other defendant become the
defendant in the crossclaim. Not only as he is a
defendant in the original complaint, but he is also a
defendant in the cross claim. But the one making the
crossclaim is the plaintiff in the cross claim.
In a third party complaint, the original defendant is now
the plaintiff, and person brought in is the defendant,
third party defendant.
Q: Can a third party defendant become a plaintiff?
A: YES in two ways. He can file a fourth party complaint
in which case he become the plaintiff or when he file his
aswer to the third party complaint, he can counter claim
as against the third party plaintiff. In this case it is now
the plaintiff in the counterclaim. So the personalities will
shift depending on what you are looking at.
P vs. D
If plaintiff is not neither natural, juridical, or entity
authorized by law. In other word ewan natin kung ano
siya. Let us say it is a:
1. Partnership by estoppel, in other words it is not
N, J, E.
Example : A -123Partnership
A is a partner to 123 partnership. But not
actually a partner. So A will transact with X who
is a natural person.
X now will not pay A. what are the things that
can happen:
A now will say: “1,2,3 partnership vs.
X”
Q:Can 123P become a party?
A: No. because it is not N,J,E. it neither exist in
law or in fact.
Q: if it bring suit and it cannot become a party,
what happens now?
A: a suit can be dismissed on the “ground lack
of legal capacity to sue”. Sec1 rule 16
It can however happen that instead of plaintiff having
lack of the capacity to sue, it is now the DEFENDANT is
the one who is not N,J E/L.
2. Sole proprietorship
Sari sari store- not a n,j,e. So it lack of legal
capacity to sue
The ground for dismissal is lack of legal capacity
to sue.
The ground for dismissal if the defendant is not
authorized to be a party is failure to state a
COA .
For you to be able to say that there is failure to
state the COA, the requisites of COA must be
incomplete.
It can also be that the requisites are complete
but there is still a failure to state a COA,that
happens when the defendant is not authorized
to be a party. Meaning, you cannot enforce the
COA as against 1 who cannot be a party. If the
sole proprietorship cannot be a party even if the
plaintiff has a valid COA, that COA cannot be
enforced as against it. Because it is not a PARTY!
-Sometimes called: LACK OF LEGAL
PERSONALITY: inability to enforce the COA.
When there is inability to enforce COA, the
ground for DISMISSAL is failure to state the
COA.
IF NOT N,J,E- then it lacks legal capacity to sue.
Who can become parties?
1. Natural person
2. Juridical person
3. Entity authorized by law
They can be plaintiff or defendant.
 Plaintiff = person who has interest on the
subject matter or receiving relief.
 Defendant = in a position adverse to the
plaintiff.
Entity without juridical personality can only be a
defendant.
 Original complaint
 Counterclaims
 Cross-claims
 Third party complaint

In this case, somebody is usually
designated as a defendant and
became a plaintiff.
The PLAINTIFF is not a natural person, juridical person
or entity authorized by law then the action is dismissible
on the ground of LACK OF LEGAL CAPACITY TO SUE.
The DEFENDANT is not a natural person, juridical
person or entity authorized by law then the action is
dismissible on the ground of FAILURE TO STATE A
CAUSE OF ACTION because a party cannot seek relief
from one who cannot be a party.
 REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY
Specifically, when one can sue or be
sued, he can sue or be sued in a representative
capacity. In other words, he can be represented
by somebody else.
Example:
A vs B
Can this suit take place between X and Y as
representatives of A and B? Yes, provided if that
happens, it must be stated that this persons are suing as
representatives of either plaintiff or they are being sued
as representatives of a defendant.
 HUSBAND AND WIFE
Rule: Husband and wife must sue jointly. That
means:
o If they are bringing a suit, both husband
and wife should appear as plaintiff.
o If they are being sued, both husband and
wife should appear as defendant.
Exception: If they are suing to recover their own
personal properties. In other words, you have either a:
(1) Complete separation of property as the property
regime, or
(2) You have a situation where they have properties
which they own by themselves to the exclusion of
the spouse.
Furthermore, if one does not include the husband,
or does not include a wife in a complaint, that is a MERE
FORMAL DEFECT and it can be remedied by the
inclusion of the husband or the wife as the case
maybe.
 MINORS AND INCOMPETENTS
Minors and incompetents are natural persons. They
have the capacity to sue and to be sued. However, if they
are going to sue or going to be sued, they need to be
assisted by:
 Father
 Mother
 Guardian
 Guardian ad litem
When a representative sues for another, the
representative must state that he is suing as a
representative of another. If a representative is being
sued, it must be stated that he is being used as a
representative of another,
What we have discussed so far is what is required when
one is going to sue or be sued. What is required? The
basic requirement: You must be a: Natural person,
Juridical person, or Entity authorized by law and with a
qualification of (?)
Example:
Jose (he can sue and can be sued)
Juan (he can sue and can be sued)
RSR
While they may have the capacity to sue or to be sued,
they cannot be parties in every action.
The only way it can happen, is that, RSR or Jose or Juan
should be a REAL PARTY IN INTEREST.
A real party in interest is one who is going to be
benefited or one who is going to be injured by the
decision, or one entitled to the avails of the suit.
**Real party in interest can be:
o Real party in interest-plaintiff
- The one who has a right that is sought to be
enforced in the action.
o Real party in interest-defendant
- One who has a corresponding obligation
and whose act or omission violated the right
of the plaintiff.
Plaintiff is the one to be benefited;
Defendant is the one to be injured.
Plaintiff = Pwede ba siyang manalo na nag benefit siya or
pwede ba siyang matalo na nagbenefit siya?
Defendant= Pwede ba siyang matalo na na-injure siya or
pwede ba siyang mag benefit na-natalo siya?
We don’t know who is the party who is going to be
benefited and who is the party who is going to be injured
because there is no guarantee that just because you are
the plaintiff, you will prevail; there’s no guarantee on the
other hand because you are the defendant, you will lose.
A real party in interest is one who is supposed to be
benefited, or supposed to be injured by the decision.
Hindi sumusunod na plaintiff yun, hindi rin sumusunod
na defendant yun. As long as what can happen to a party
is that he will be benefited or he might be injured, he is a
real party in interest.
“The one entitled to the avail of the suit”
When we say avail of the suit, we are talking of the
consequences. So ang consequences kasi is: Panalo, talo,
tabla. So if they will both be affected, they are the parties
in interest. How? They will either lose, they will either
win or they may either walk away with nothing, both of
them. It really depends how the court will perceive the
COA and how it will consider the evidences that are
presented.
Determination of a real party in interest-plaintiff as
opposed to a real party in interest-defendant, hindi siya
pareho. Both of them may either benefit or be injured.
That’s why they are two different things. Both of them
are real parties in interest because they may benefit or
they may be injured. (kleer! Potspa paulit ulit yukuna
xD).
SEC. 2 RULE 3
“All actions should be prosecuted and defended in the
name of a real party in interest.”
Q: What does it require us to do? So when an action is
filed, even if the plaintiff or the defendant is a natural,
juridical, or an entity authorized by law, what else is now
required?
A: They must be real parties in interest. It is not
sufficient that you be a natural person (kaya nga sinabi
ko kanina, can I intervene in all actions? No! and if I ask
you: Why not? I’m a natural person? Because, I’m not a
real party in interest.) The Rule requires all actions to
be prosecuted and defended in the name of a real
party in interest.
 1st illustration (prosecuted)
Jose v Juan
Jose has a COA against Juan. There is a right now in favor
of Juan, there is an obligation and an act or omission was
committed by Juan.
Q: Are they real parties in interest?
A: Yes, they can be parties because they are both natural
person. Yes, they are real parties in interest because Jose
(real party in interest-plaintiff), has a right that he wants
to enforce. Juan is also a real party in interest-defendant
because he has an obligation and he committed an act or
omission that violates the right of Jose.
*Pedro is aware of what Juan did to violate the rights of
Jose.
Pedro: Oh! Yun yung ginawa sayo ni Juan, anong
ginagawa mo?
Jose: Eh alam mo naman tayo ehmasyado tayong
pasensyoso. Pabayaan nalang natin siya…
Pedro: Ano!? Papabayaan nalang natin?!
Jose: Oo
Pedro: Ah hindi pwede sakin yan ah! I will take up the
cudgels for you!
 2nd illustration (Defended)
Pedro vs Juan
Pedro says he has a right and Juan committed an
omission and that he (Pedro) has an obligation as well as
an act or omission. Can this proceed? No! because Pedro
is not a real party in interest.
Juan: I will file a motion to dismiss on the ground of
failure to state a COA.
Q: Why failure to state a COA meron namang
right/obligation/statement of act or omission? Why do
we still say that it is a failure to state a COA? When
clearly a COA is stated?
A: When clearly a COA is stated it is still considered
failure to state a COA because, Pedro is not entitled to
any relief yet he has stated a COA but the COA does not
belong to him. Since it doesn’t belong to him, he has no
right to relief. That’s why, even if a COA is stated, the
ground for dismissal is still- a failure to state a COA
insofar as he is concerned- because the COA belongs to
Jose. It doesn’t belong to Pedro. That’s why insofar as
Pedro is concerned, while he has stated a COA, the stated
COA does not belong to him. It belongs to Jose.
Baliktarin natin: (yawkuna)
Jose, states his COA (he has a right, he has stated an act
or omission and he has an obligation) but he filed it
against Mario (Maurer :3 charot!). Jose taught Juan is
Mario or talagang gusto ng idemanda si Juan kayalang
nung pinakulong si Juan, si Mario (Maurer maylabs)
yung sabat ng sabat so dinemanda ni Jose si Mario (sabi
niya daw: ikaw kaya idemanda ko xD)
Question: Is Mario, a real party in interest defendant?
A: No! because the obligation is imposed upon Juan. Juan
is the one who committed an act or omission. So Mario is
not a real party in interest-defendant.
So the rule now is violated. Since the rule is: all actions
should be prosecuted and defended, in the name of a
real party in interest.
Based on our illustrations, it is not being defended in the
name of the real party in interest and it can be dismissed
on the ground of FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF
ACTION.
Yes, a COA is stated, BUT the one with an obligation is
not the named defendant. That’s why insofar as the
name defendant, there is no COA. That’s why it is failure
to state a COA. (Kleer!)
Reminder: This failure to state a COA, must not be
magulo (messy :3 cheret engelesh) but there are now
VARIANTS OF A FAILURE TO STATE A COA:
1) A COA is composed of a right, an obligation,
or an act or omission;
- So if you have a statement that is
insufficient, in other words walang right,
walang obligation or walang act or omission
or wala yung dalawa or wala yung tatlo,
(lahat na lahat na wala ser) that is clearly, a
failure to state a COA.
2) A COA is stated however, the defendant is not
one who can become a party.
- Failure to state a COA parin because you
cannot enforce a COA as against one who
cannot be a party. (kleer!)
3) Plaintiff is not a real party in interest;
- He has no right that can be enforced. So the
name plaintiff now states no COA because
he has no right. He cannot state a COA in his
favor because the COA belongs to somebody
else. That’s why (walang forever cheret),
insofar as he is concerned, there is a failure
to state a COA.
Defendant is not a real party in interest
- Real party in interest defendant- the one
who has corresponding obligation, whose
act or omission violated the right of the
plaintiff. So if a person named as a
defendant is not a real party in interest,
then that mean, he has no obligation and he
is not the one who committed the act or
omission. That’s why, insofar (naka ilang
insofar na tayo insofar? xD) as he is
concerned, no COA is stated as against him.
Kaya failure to state a COA even if there is
really a COA. (Duyufalow?)
A vs B
Q: If X represents A, how should the complaint appear so
that it will not be dismissed on the ground of failure to
state a COA?
A: It should now appear this way:
A vs B A is represented by X
A vs B as represented by Y
Rule: all actions to be prosecuted and defended in
the name of a real party in interest.
So if (A vs B), supposed to be but lumalabas na (X vs B),
that is dismissible on the ground that there is a falure to
state a COA because X is not a real party in interest.
This has something to do with standing or also known
as LOCUS STANDI.
LOCUS STANDI = your right to participate in an action.
So if you are a real party in interest, you have locus
standi or you have standing.
But there are certain actions specifically “tax
payer’s suit” where there are issues as to standing
because when we speak of LS, we are preparing to one’s
right to appear before a court on a given question.
In ordinary and special civil actions for that matter,
standing or locus standi is granted or is governed by the
Rules on Real party in Interest.
o If you are a real party in interest, then you have
standing.
o If you are not a real party in interest, then of
course, you do not have standing.
However, that being said, the SC in certain instances,
have allowed persons without standing to appear before
a court and litigate a particular matter. They are
referring to cases of transcendental importance.
Meaning, because of the issues involved, the SC will
overlook or disregard the rule on standing and allow a
party to appear before the court even if that party really
has no standing.
RECAP:
Real Party in Interest: RPI is one who stands to be
benefited or injured by the decision or judgment.
 RPI-Plaintiff : Is the one who has a right that he
is seeking to enforce.
 RPI-Defendant: the one who has the
corresponding obligation who committed an act
or omission in violation of the right of the
plaintiff.
The rule as found in sec 2 of rule 3: “actions are
to be prosecuted and defended in the name
of the real party in interest.”
If the plaintiff is not a RPI or the defendant is not
RPI or both are not RPI, the action can be
dismissed on the ground: “failure to state a
COA”.
Why? Dahil nga kung hindi siya RPI-Plaintiff he
has no right of action, if hindi siya RPI-
Defendant then there is no act/or omission. That
is why there is failure to state a COA.
What gives standing?
RPI can be further classified into two:
1. INDISPENSABLE PARTY:
 A party without whom, there can be no
final determination of an action. In
other words, kailangan natin siya, hindi
pwedeng wala siya.
Are you indispensible ?(syiimpri)
Illustration:
 A owns a property. B enters into A’s
property without A’s consent. He now
build a structure in the property of A.
When A now is trying to get back the
property, B refuses to give back the
property. That means , A has a cause of
action against B. Now in relation to that
COA, who should A sue?(humor me sabi
ni ser). Ofcourse B! Hindi pwedeng
magdemanda si A na si A lang.
Q: Is B indispensable?
A: OPKURS!
 In situations where you have 1 plaintiff where
you have a COA, there is only one possible
defendant, the defendant is clearly an
indispensable Party.
 What complicates this things is the possibility
where you have other parties who need to be
involved. So when you have other parties whom
you need to implead, you now have to take a
determination kung indispensable ba siya o
hindi. An indispensable party must always be
impleaded.
Q: Why can you not proceed with an action if you have
not impleaded an indispensable party?
A: Because there can be no final determination of the
action.
“no final determination”: that means the court cannot
render any decision because the decision affects the
party who should be impleaded. The court cannot grant
relief because the relief to be granted will affect the
party who is not impleaded. That is why there can be no
final determination. In fact, as a consequence to the
failure to implead an indispensable party, the judgment
cannot be valid.
Illustration: A, B, C, and D own a property. A wants to
partition the property already which is owned in co-
ownership. All the property is owned by A,B,C,D.
Now, A VS. B
Q: Will that be sufficient for the court to render a valid
judgment?
A NO! Why? Because there are indispensable parties. The
court cannot partition the property between A and B
because it affects the interest of C and D or ABCD. But
the situation is only B is impleaded. C and D are not
impleaded so the court cannot render a valid judgement
dividing the property into four. Because any such
judgment affects the right of C and D. They are
indispensible parties. Kleer.
If you are going to be ask if a party is indispensible or
not, you simply ask yourselves: “Can the court render a
valid judgment without affecting the rights of a party
who is not impleaded?”
2. NECESSARY PARTY
NP is not indispensible. But, they ought to
be joined for purposes of COMPLETE relief.
Example:
X VS. AB
A and B owe X 500k. But, the obligation is
not solidary, it is joined. The promissory
note signed by signed by A and B says: A
owes 250 and B owes 250. X now sues A.
How much can X recover from A if he only
sues A, so its 250. What does that make B
now?
A: B is Necessary party. B is not
indispensible because the court can render
a valid judgment against A without
affecting the interest of B.
Second part of the definition, “but who
ought to be joined for purposes of
complete relief”
The recovery of 500 is the complete relief.
So for X to be able to recover 500, he must
join B, who is a necessary party.
If X only sues B, what does that make A?
Necessary party, because X can only
recover 250k, at para marecover ang 500K,
he must join both of them.
Q: When X is only recovering 250k( two pepti lang gusto
ko!), he sues A in so far as X is concerned what is A?
A: Indispensible party . he is essential for the complete
determination of X, however insofar as the 250k only.
Indispensible is one who ought to be joined for a
final determination. In other words, the entire
controversy will be resolved. Nothing should be left
hanging. If something is remained to be hanging, then
you have an indispensible party who ought to be
impleaded/ joined.
IP: FINAL DETERMINATION
NP: COMPLETE RELIEF
Main question: Can the court render a valid judgment
without affecting the rights of another?
 If YES, then the other is simply a
NECESSARY PARTY. Because in the
situation X can only recover 250 from A,
he has no right recovering the 250 from
B. so when he sues A alone, B is a
NECESSARY PARTY. Because B ought to
be joined and the relief will be
complete.
Object of the rule: AVOID
MULTIPLICITY OF ACTIONS. Lahat ng
dapat majoin, ijoin mo na!
MAIN DISTINCTIONS:
-pag indispensible ang party then, if you
do not join, there is no final
determination.
 -pag Necessary party, if you do not join,
then there is no complete relief.
Q: If it is determined that an indispensible party is
missing, is that a ground for Dismissal?
A: NO because what should happen is that the court
should order the amendment of the pleadings to include
the indispensible party.
 If the Indispensible party despite an order
is not joined,or the plaintiffs fails or
refuses to join the indispensible party or
because the IP cannot be sued on account
of the fact that he is not a resident and the
action is personal then the action can be
DISMISSED. It is not dismissed because
there is non-joinder of an indispensible
party but it is dismissed because there is
failure to comply with an order to join
an indispensible party.
Balik daw sa example: A,B,C, and D,
A VS. B
The court should not dismiss because C and D are
not joined. The court should order A to amend the
pleading to include C and D.
If there is an order, the plaintiff must comply. But 2
things can happen when there is an order.
1. You will comply- no problem
2. Fail or refuse to comply or for some reason he
cannot comply, specifically if the defendant is a
non-resident defendant who is being sued in a
personal action. Like you cannot acquire
jurisdiction over the person on a nonresident
defendant, that’s why wala ka magagawa. In that
case, that will lead to a DISMISSAL.
On the other hand there is also a possibility that: A
vs. B,C,D,E,F
Sabi ni A: Para walang problema isama ko na silang
lahat. Although hindi dapat kasama si E at F. Is that a
problem?NO because if a party is misjoined they
will be SEVERED from the action.
Q: what will lead to a party being misjoined?
A: he is not a Real Party in Interest. If one is not
RPI, he is misjoined.
When a necessary party is not joined, the rules
require that:
1.When a plaintiff files his complaint, he must state the
name of the necessary party who ought to be joined
2. State the reason why that person is not being joined.
EXAMPLE:
X only sues A. We have identified B to be a necessary
party. So when X only sues A, the complaint must state
the name of B as a necessary party, and the reason why
he is not being joined. Now, after the complaint is filed,
the court will now make a determination if the reason is
VALID /JUSTIFIED or NOT. Then , if the court will now
say that the reason is valid, then the case will proceed. In
other words, the court will continue to hear the case as
against A and it does not matter now whether B is joined
or not because there is valid reason not to join B.
 If the court determines that the reason
is NOT VALID, the court will now issue
an order requiring A to implead B.
 If A fails or refuses to implead B, the
consequence is, the claim of X as against
B is considered WAIVED. The action
now proceeds and any judgment is
without prejudice to any right which B
may have as against X.
Sabi ni X: I am not impleading B
because I am courting his sister of B.
(valid)
Or because im scared of the brother of B
who is 600 pounds , ex-convict. Or
Because B is accused of murder and he
murders those who file a complaint
against him.
If VALID, the court can go ahead and
hear the case.
If court says its not VALID, it is now
considered as a waiver of the claim of X
as against B. the judgment now can be
rendered and without prejudice to the
rights of B as against X.
SUMMARY:
RPI shall be classified further as IP or NP. IP are parties
those who ought to be joined to be able to get a final
determination of the action. The failure to implead an IP,
will not allow the court to render a valid judgment,
because the judgment, affects the right of the persons
who should be joined because they are IP.
If it is discovered that there is an IP to be joined, the
court should order the plaintiff to amend his pleading to
join an IP. When the plaintiff fails or refuse or the
jurisdiction over the indispensible party cannot be
obtained because the action is personal and the party is
nonresident defendant, then that is the time the action is
DISMISSED.
When we are talking of a necessary party, it is not
indispensible but they ought to be joined for complete
relief. When a necessary party is not joined, the rules
require: that the complaint shall state the necessary
party, together with the reason why the NP is not being
joined. The court now will make a DETERMINATION if
the reason is meritorious or valid or not. If VALID, then
the action proceeds as against the impleaded party. That
means now that later on can X decide to sue B…? YES. If
NOT VALID/MERITORIOUS, then consequence is there
is a WAIVER of the claim of the plaintiff as against the
NP who is not joined. The court will now proceed to
judgment and such is without prejudice to any right
which a NP out to be joined may have as against the
plaintiff.
Finally, when parties are misjoined, that is determined to
be the fact then the misjoined parties can simply be
severed from the action.
We’ve already taken up JOINDER OF PARTIES in
relation to Joinder of Causes of Action.
We said, one of the conditions that must be complied
with when we are joining cause of actions is the Rule on
joinder of parties.
 The Rule on Joinder of Parties provides that, all
person in whom or against whom any right to
relief in respect to or arising out of the same
transaction is alleged to exist, whether jointly,
severally, or in the alternative may, except as
otherwise provided in the Rules, join as
plaintiffs or join together as defendants in one
action where any question of law or question of
fact is common to all of them.
The Rule is saying:
 “All person in whom” meaning, the plaintiff; “Or
against whom any right to relief in respect to or
arising out of the same transaction is alleged to
exist” meaning, the defendant; They may be
joined together.
Their connection may either be: jointly, severally, or in
the alternative. So that is how they are going to be
pleaded in the complaint.
They may now, except as otherwise provided for in the
rules, be joined together as plaintiffs or defendants. The
keyword here is “may” what does “may’ mean? This
brings me back now on the Rule of Joinder of Parties. Is it
now compulsory? Or is it permissive? With the use of the
word “may”, it is PERMISSIVE so you may, or may not
join them.
GENERAL RULE: Joinder of Parties now is really
permissive.
EXCEPTION to the Rule: When all parties to be joined
are indispensable parties.
 If all the parties that you need to join or you can
join are indispensable, then you need to join all
of them.
Illustration on partition:
A,B,C,D
If A will only sue B, he needs to join C and D because
they are real parties in interest and they are fully
indispensable parties. If that is the situation, for relief
to be obtained by A, A needs to join C and D.
So in this situation, in so far as Joinder of Parties is
concerned, kase if you Join Parties, you included B,C, and
D together or it can be “A,C, and D vs. B”.
Q:Did you join parties? (yes) that is Joinder of Parties
because they are bound by a common question of fact.
Q:What applies to that Joinder now? Is it the General
Rule or the exception?
Joinder of parties, pagsamahin mo siya (maghihiwalay
din kayo charot!). Either jointly, severally, or in the
alternative (pagsamahin mo siya, yun lang naman ang
concept) and they are bound (kaya mo siya
pinagsasama,) they are bound by a common question
of law or a common question of fact.
Q:In the illustration, when it becomes A vs C,D,E, did we
do joinder of parties?
A: Yes. This is an illustration of Joinder of Parties where
they are joined together as defendants.
If we do A,C, and D (one partition) vs the one who
doesn’t want partition, then we also do joinder of
parties.
We can properly join them together because they are
all bound by a common question of fact.
Nung nag joinder tayo, ano yung sinunod natin? Yung
general rule, or yung exception dun sa general rule? The
exception because the general rule is Joinder of parties is
permissive – you may or may not join parties.
Let me give you an example:
The package of X was lost so the one who carried it from
point A to point B is Y. The one who stored it is Z. So X is
not sure who actually lost it.
Q:So can X sue Y? Yes.
Q:Can X sue Z? Yes.
Q:But can he join them together? Yes also because there
are bound by a common question of fact of who is
responsible for the lost.
Q:So here, if X decides to sue only Y, is that okay? Yes.
Q:Is he required, if he cannot prove that Y or he is
unsure as to who lost it, is he (X) obligated to sue both of
them in one action? No.
What applies here if he sues both of them Y and Z which
he can do, he has joined parties who are bound by a
common question of fact but what is now applicable is
the general rule because joinder is permissive.
Q:Can he sue only Y? Yes
Q:Does it affect Z? No
Q:Can the court render a valid judgment that would not
affect the rights of Z? Yes.
Q:Would J be affected if the court says Y is liable? No
Q: If X sues Y, is Z now a necessary party? Or if X chooses
to sue Z, is Y a necessary party?
 Definitely, if X sues Y, Z is not an indispensable
party
 Definitely also if X will sue Z, Y is not an
indispensable party – because the court can
render a valid judgment without affecting the
rights of the other so they are not indispensable
parties now you have to actually join them
together.
Q: X vs Y, is Z a necessary party? (a necessary party is
one who is not indispensable – so up to that point parang
ok tayo diba kasi na determine natin na si Z pala an
indispensable in X vs Y. we also determined that Y is not
indispensable in X vs Z that means now, necessary-
 definition of necessary party-
1st part one who is not indispensable;
2nd part- but who ought to be joined for purposes of
complete relief.
Question: pagkaba si X ay dinemanda si Y lang, hindi
makaka kuha si X ng complete relief? Yes! Q:If Y is the
one liable, is the relief complete, Yes!
Q:So does that mean Z is necessary? No! kase id X will
sue Z, can he get complete relief from Z? yes. Will that
make Y necessary? No! (nakakaloka!)
So we now have 2 situations on the board. One is the
exception, the other one is the general rule. So the
general rule is: joinder of party is simply permissive. So
the choice now is upon the plaintiff, whether he will join
all the plaintiffs together, against a single defendant, or
join all the defendants together or if marami kang
plaintiff you can join them all together vs all the
defendant because , general rule is that it is permissive.
We have identified that all of them are indispensable. So
all of them ought to be joined . this illustrates the
exception to the general rule. If you determine all the
parties to be indispensable, the requirement now is,
you must join all of them.
Q: Why is it required that you join all of them?
A: Because without all of them being joined, there will
never be a final determination. That’s why, you need to
join all of them. (so exception, all of them are
supposed to be joined if they are all indispensable
parties)
The EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION is where it is a
CLASS SUIT.
Q: What makes a suit a class suit?
It has something to do with the subject matter of the
action. The subject matter of the action should be one of
a common or general interest to many persons. That
it is impractical to join all of them in one suit.
Q:Why is it exception to the exception? So the exception
is, all parties are supposed to be joined if they are all
indispensable. In a class suit, all parties have common or
general interest in the subject matter. That makes all of
them indispensable. All of them are indispensable.
However, there is something that prevents us from
joining all of them. – Their number. They are so
numerous that it is impractical to join all of them. So it is
difficult really to join all of them.
EXAMPLE:
Let us say against a common defendant, a thousand
people are interested, the requirement is, if a thousand
people can become plaintiffs, the requirement is, all of
them must be joined. The problem is, there may be
difficulty or hurdles that may be experienced that you
cannot join all of them. Without the exception to the
exception, then that suit can never get going because
our rule is, if they are all indispensable, they must all
be joined. Stated otherwise, the rule gives us a way to
avoid having to join all indispensable parties. That
situation is if the subject matter is proper for a class suit.
Class suit has 3 requisites:
1. The subject matter of the controversy is one of
common or general interest to many persons
- Explanation: each of them must possess an
indivisible right or interest.
Illustration: If you read the book of the Dean, where the
(Donia Pascual?) where a thousand passengers were
injured and died. Some died, some are injured. So the
subject matter of the action is the claim of all those who
are injured, or all those who died who is their
representatives or heirs, for the payment of damages.
That situation is not proper for a class suit because while
is it true that the subject matter is of common general
interest to many, there interest is divisible because those
who were injured or those who died, did not occupy the
same social positions. (ex. there are laborers,
employees, professionals, business men, and so on) the
claim for damages vary as to each of them. The claim for
one is not the same as the claim for the other that’s why
it is not proper for a class suit. In some other
jurisdictions, that would be proper for a class suit. But in
our jurisdiction, it is improper for a class suit. In fact it
could even be said that we have a more stringent
requirement for the institution of class suits because our
interpretation of a common or general interest, is that it
should be indivisible. Meaning you cannot separate the
interest of one from the other. That’s why sometimes,
we have to be careful when asking for the payment of
damages. Because if you file a class suit and you ask for
the payment of damages, sometimes, that can be
interpreted as having the effects of converting the
subject matter from one that is indivisible, to divisible
because ang mangyayari, the members of the class will
receive a definite sum of money in the form of damages.
So when the sum becomes definite, there is interest in
the subject matter becomes divisible, so hindi na ngayon
proper for a class suit.
PARTIES
 Natural
 Juridical
 Entity authorized by law
 Entity without juridical personality
Real parties in interest
 Real party in interest-plaintiff = the one with a
right
 Real party in interest-defendant = the one
whose act or omission violated the right of the
plaintiff
Representatives
 Husband and wife
 Minors and incompetents
This discussion is in connection with the rule that
requires actions to be prosecuted and defended in the
name of your real party in interest then we discussed
necessary and indispensable parties.
IP = Party who ought to be joined for a final
determination or w/o whom there can be no final
determination.
NP = Party who is not indispensable but who ought to be
joined for complete relief.
Rule on Joinder of party
 Permissive however the rule on joinder of party
becomes compulsory if all the parties to be
joined are indispensable parties so you need to
join all of them.
 The compulsory nature of joinder of parties will
yield to an exception and that is when you’re
talking of a CLASS SUIT.
REQUIREMENTS OF CLASS SUIT:
1. The subject matter should be of common or
general interest to many
This dictates what can be the subject matter of a CS.
We say, while it is of common general interest to many.
When we say it is of common general interest to many,
kailangan na the nature of the interest should be
INDIVISIBLE or simply put, the benefit of one, if the
benefit of everybody; where one benefits, everybody
benefits. So yun ang ibig sabihin ng proper subject
matter.
We also made a comparison between a class suit
under jurisdiction, and class suits in our own
jurisdiction. In other jurisdiction, even if the subject
matter is capable of division or separation, it is still
proper a CS. For example, the suit filed against the
Tobacco Distributive Manufacturing (Firms of) the
United States, that is a CS. However, the interest of the
parties or the members of the class is SEPARABLE. In
other words, hinid sila pare-pareho. Some may get
greater settlement, some may get lesser settlement. Now
in our setting, that will not work. In our setting it should
be, everbody should have the same thing or should be
entitled to the SAME THING. The benefit of one, is the
benefit that is going to be enjoyed by the others.
The best standing example of a class suit is the case
of OPOSA V. FACTORAN because that is an
environmental landmark case brought by children are
represented by their parents to make sure that the
Manila Bay is cleaned up. So this is a CS because all of
our interest for the generation to come is really
incapable of separation. If one will really benefit then
everybody will benefits from the cleaning up of Manila
Bay.
Another example, if a class will all reside in one
locality and to get to get to and from our respective
residences, we only pass one road. Now if the owner of
the parcel of land wherein the road is standing decides
to close it, can we bring a class suit? Yes we can. But we
have to be careful in the sense that we should ensure
that our interest in keeping the road open is COMMON to
everybody wala tayong mas malapit ako, ams gusto ko,
you may not want it you may want some other way of
getting to and from your property, it should be of
common interest to everybody. That may be proper for a
CS but take note that the minute we now say that I am
entitled not only to the opening of the road + damages in
this amount, medyo delikado na yon because that
changes the character of the subject matter from one
that is indivisible to all, to divisible now because you can
now quantify your interest and the way you quantify
your interest is not necessarily the same way by which
one will quantify his or her own interest. If you can
maintain it as one where the interest of everybody
remains to be the same then it should be proper for a
class suit.
2. The parties are so numerous that it is
impracticable to join all of them as parties
This requirement is relative kasi, can we assign a
particular number numerous? Hindi. If we decide to
bring a class suit, are we numerous enough? That’s
where it becomes relative. Some may say we are a
sufficient number but it is impracticable to join all of us
as plaintiffs or as defedants for that matter. So as you can
see, relative yan.
3. The court may find the number of the parties
bringing the class suit to the representative of the
class
If only one of us will bring it or two of us will bring
it, would we be numerous enough to be representative of
the class? Again, no particular number is assigned to the
term numerous eh.
Let us say that you want to question a law that
affects you and others. But the point is, you are the one
with a better average understanding of what the law is
all about and what the effects of the law are. Now you
have found that there may be questions as to the validity
of the law. Can you bring a suit now for yourself and the
others? When I say the others, the others now will
constitute a class. Can we do that? It appears that you
can because these requirements (pertaining to #s 2 &3)
are relative. In the case of Oposa, ilan lang ang petitioner
pero yung class ay generational (kasi, the present
generation and all future generation) so ilan yun? See.
If one wants to bring a class suit, the 1 st order of
business id to determine what is the subject matter is.
The subject matter is one if common general interest to
the many- meaning, it is incapable of separation or
division they may be proper for a class suit. This is the
determination that is supposed to be made by the parties
or the one bringing the suit. The 2nd and 3rd requirements
will be determined by the court itself. The court, upon
the filing of the CS will determine. Is the number so
numerous that we cannot join all of them? When the
court finds that the # is no numerous you cannot join all
of them, then what is the court doing? It is disregarding
the rule that if all the parties are indispensable parties,
all of them should be joined. Then the court will also
determine: those who are bringing the suit are they
sufficient in number to represent the class? Again I told
you a while ago, relative yan, pwedeng iisa yan, pwedeng
dalawa, tatlo, apat, lima, pwedeng isang daan but again,
that is to be determined by the court. We will just have
to allege (the one bringing the CS) that you or you and
others as plaintiffs, are representative of a class and let
the court decide whether or not you are truly
representatives of a class.
 When a CS is brought, the person or persons
who control a CS is or are the person or
persons who brought a class suit. They control
the class suit. So they will determine how the CS is
going to proceed. If a member of a class not part of
the original group would like to the participate in
the CS, that person can intervene in the CS. So
when we take up Rule 19 or discuss Intervention,
we would understand that if one has an interest in
the subject matter, he or she can intervene. So if a
class brought a CS, any member of the class can
intervene because it is clear that he or she has
an interest in the SM.
 While the Rules require or grant the person/s
bringing the CS the authority to control the CS, the
CS however by way of a check measure, cannot be
dismissed or compromised without the approval
of the court. Yes the one who brought it can
control it, but when you’re talking of dismissal or
entering into a compromise that requires the
approval of the court.
We now talk of SITUATIONS. That’s the 1st part of Rule 3:
Who can be parties, who are RPI, and who are IP and NP
and the Rule on Joinder, permissive, compulsory,
exception to the rule if it is not compulsory. So that is
your parties.
Rule 3 also speaks of SITUATIONS:
 THE MATTER OF AN UNWILLING CO-
PLAINTIFF
An unwilling co-plaintiff is a party who ought to be
joined. However, he refues to give his consent to the
action. The Rule on unwilling co-plaintiff applies to
indispensable party why? Kasi kung necessary party ang
kailangan mo lang gawin ay hatiin mo, that there is a
necessary party and you state the reason why the NP is
not being joined then the court determines now whether
the reason is valid or not with certain consequences.
When we speak of an unwilling co-plaintiff, we
are talking of an indispensable party. He has to be
joined. An IP is one who ought to be joined so that you
may have final determination. So kailangan mo siyang
isama hindi pwedeng hinid mo siya isama. When one
joins an action, he can join either as a plaintiff or as a
defendant. Take note, the rule says: unwilling plaintiff
is one whose consent cannot be obtained. Question,
who are we referring to there? Somebody who will be a
defendant? Or somebody who will be a plaintiff?
Somebody who will be a plaintiff! Because you never
need to get the consent of the defendant. Do you go to
the defendant and say: “pwede ba kitang idemanda?”
You don’t. sino ang hinihingian mo ng consent para
sumali? Only the plaintiff! The defendant, whether he
likes it or not, he wll be a defendant. There is no way by
which a defendant can say, “wag mo akong i-demanda
kasi ayaw ko.”
The Rule on Unwilling Co-plaintiff always applies
to the plaintiff or a party who is supposed to be a
plaintiff and is an indispensable party. He ought to
be joined.
AvB
C is supposed to join the plaintiff but he says to A: “pare,
wag mo muna ako isama jan. May utang na loob ako kay
B, kaya ayaw kong sumama jan.” But A cannot proceed
with the action without joining C because C is
indispensable. So the situation now would be: A can now
join C as a defendant and he will describe him as an
unwilling co-plaintiff.
Once the action or complaint has been filed stating that B
or C is an unwilling co-plaintiff, what happens
subsequently? Depende nayan kay C kung anong gusto
niyang gawin. If he realizes: “hey, dapat ngapala kasama
ko si A” he simply filed an attestation: “I’m joining A” If
he realizes, I should resist A, then he simply files an
answer resisting the claim of A. but you have solved the
problem because the problem is, C has to be joined but
you cannot get his consent.
This rule serves another practical purpose. If you got
ahead and read up on parts of a pleading under Rule 7,
the parts of a pleading, the last part you need verification
and certification against forum shopping. So sometimes
if we cannot get a person to sign with the verification
and certification against FS, we will simply sue him as a
defendant. And describe him as an unwilling co-plaintiff.
He is no longer required to sign a verification and
certification against FS. So pag dating ng araw pag nag
proceed verification, mag file lang siya ng attestation
“your honor, I respectfully manifest that I am now
joining the plaintiff” so we dispense with the need to
have him sign a verification and certification against FS.
 UNCERTAIN DEFENDANT
There is no uncertain plaintiff because every civil
action is based on a COA. So meron at merong may right
na na-va-violate and that belong to somebody that’s why
the one who should take action always is the plaintiff
that’s why there is no such thing as uncertain plaintiff.
If you do not know the name or identity of the
defendant, should that stop you from filing an action?
No, because the Rules say that if the defendants name or
identity is uncertain, then you can sue the defendant
nevertheless by describing the defendant as: unknown
owner, unknown possessor, unknown heir, or whatever
description is appropriate. However, later on, when the
identity or the uncertain defendant was uncovered, the
pleading must be amended to reflect the name of the
defendant. The fact that you don’t know that name of the
identity of the defendant is not a hindrance to being an
action.
Ex. somebody enters your property, he built
structures on your property so nakikita mo and you now
go tanungin mo, palakad ka palang, papunta ka palang,
maybe 5m away, nagtatago na siya. How will you know
who he is? And more often than not, when a person does
that, can you just walk up to him and say “sino ka?” xD
(No) so you would probably ask around who he is. If
they cannot give you information of his name or identity,
it’s no hindrance. You can just sue him as the unknown
possessor hen it’s up to the person serving summons to
determine who is being referred to as long as you
describe him appropriately and there is a way by which
the one who is serving the summons can determine who
you are referring to, then that is a sufficient enough
description.
 DEATH
A party who dies either the plaintiff or the
defendant, what is required now? Nothing namatay na
eh. The COUNSEL should give notice of the fact of death
and to name the legal representatives. This obligation
arises if the action survives. When does the action
survive and when does it not survive?
An action will not survive if it is strictly personal.
Examples of strictly personal actions:
 Annulment
 Legal separation
 Support
Examples of actions that survive:
 Those that arise torts
 Those that are for recovery of real or personal
property
 Those actions for payment of a sum of money
based on a contract express or implied
- They survive because the estate of the
deceased will still be there.
- So yung estate complainant yung namatay,
the action survives so pwede pa niyang
habulin sa defendant. Kung yung defendant
naman ang namatay, pwedeng habulin nung
plaintiff sa estate.
So the action as between the plaintiff or defendant is one
that will survive death, the counsel for the deceased
defendant should give the court notice of death within
30 days from the track of death, issue notice and state
who the legal representatives are. This act of counsel
terminates the attorney-client relationship.
One needs to give notice because this is part of due
process. Kung yung plaintiff ang namatay, so the court
will know that he has died, the legal representatives
would substitute the deceased defendant. If the plaintiff
is entitled to something, if there is no substitution,
nobody can recover what he is entitled to. In the same
manner, if the defendant is liable for something, then
those who represent the defendant should be given the
opportunity to actually show if the defendant is not
really liable for what is being claimed from him. So
nandun ang DUE PROCESS element ng giving of NOTICE
OF DEATH and the NAMES OF LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES.
Once the name of the legal representative is given, the
court will issue an order of substitution. The order of
substitution will in effect put the legal representative in
place of the deceased party. Kaya for example ang legal
representative ni B ay si X, upon notice of the court that
X is the legal representative, X now will stand as the
plaintiff as against the defendant. That will also happen if
the defendant dies. There will be substitution.
What happens if there is no substitution?
If there’s no substitution, the proceedings that will
eventually be undertaken by the court would be NULL
AND VOID. Why null and void? Because if there is no
substitution, then there is no acquisition of jurisdiction
over the legal representatives. So the court cannot
render a valid judgment for lack of jurisdiction. So
there’s a need for substitution.
You have to be conscious however insofar as
substitution.
ISSUES
So 1st issue: when there is substitution, we talked about
acquisition of jurisdiction. When we said acquisition of
jurisdiction over the person, there are 2 ways by which
jurisdiction is acquired:
1. By service of summons
2. By voluntary appearance
Now ngayon, etong situation ngayon nating ito, iba to. It
arises from DEATH. It is the service of the order of
substitution that enables the court to acquire
jurisdiction over the substitute or the legal
representative. Hindi na kailangan ng service of
summons. But this is a special case as opposed to yung
service of summons, voluntary appearance, that is
acquisition of jurisdiction upon filing of the complaint.
This is acquisition of jurisdiction arising from the
death of a party.
“Unlawful detainer and forcible entry cases”
If the defendant dies, there is no need for
substitution at least insofar as those who derive their
rights to occupy on the deceased defendant. This is a
special case. In unlawful detainer forcible entry cases,
everybody who derives his right to occupy from the
principal defendant is BOUND BY THE ACTION even if he
is not named as a defendant.
So the defendant dies. Ang legal representative niya
ay si wife who is in occupation. Now ideally, counsel
should give notice of death, legal representative wife.
The court will substitute the wife as a defendant (ok
everything compliant). What I’m trying to tell you is this:
what if counsel does not give the notification? So counsel
is subject to disciplinary action. The action continues but
the defendant is already dead, unknown to the court. It
becomes known to the court later after it has rendered a
decision. Can the wife or the legal representatives
question it? NO! because it is a special case. In unlawful
detainer and forcible entry cases, the action or any
judgment finds anyone who derives the right to
occupy from the defendant. In this case, since the wife
derive the right to occupy the defendant, then even if she
is not substituted, the judgment can be enforced as
against the wife. (So that is the exception since yung iba
kailangan mong i-substitute.)
2ND issue: WHAT IF THERE IS NO LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE
If there is no legal representative, the court shall
order the other party to procure the appointment of an
executor or an administrator. The executor or the
administrator now will be the one who will stand for the
deceased party. The expenses however for procuring an
administrator or an executor, is recoverable as cost.
Example: Plaintiff vs Defendant
The Defendant dies, wala siyang legal representative.
The counsel for the defendant notifies the court that the
defendant died and he say I’m not aware of any relative
or any person who may stand as his legal representative.
After the lapse of time where one may be given the
opportunity to determine now kase the plaintiff will try
to determine meron bang legal representative? Wala
talaga. Kung wala talaga, the court will order the plaintiff
to get an executor or an administrator who will stand in
the place of the deceased defendant. The expenses to get
the executor or administrator is chargeable as cost. In
other words, pag nanalo si plaintiff, yung cost (gumastos
siya ng 50k para makakuha ng executor) that is
chargeable as against the estate of the deceased
defendant.
Recap: We were talking about death. The death of the
plaintiff and the death of the defendant. It requires now
that there should be notice of the fact of death and a
statement as to who will be the representatives are. We
said that the requirement is for the purpose of
complying with the due process. There should be
proper substitution.
 If the plaintiff is the one who dies, the somebody
else can prosecute for the plaintiff against the
defendant.
 If the defendant dies then the defendant would
have the opportunity to defend the claim of the
plaintiff. That’s the reason why we need to have
substitution.
 Qualification:If substitution do not take place
the proceeding subsequent to the death as lack
of jurisdiction. However,
P VS. D1,D2,D3
If D1 dies,it doesn’t affect the proceedings as against D2
and D3. It only proceeding in so far as deceased
defendant is not substituted then jurisdiction is affected.
Exception: ejectment cases
We are still talking about death so the next death that we
are talking about is:
1. Death of a Public Officer
Public officer who is sued in that capacity or who is
suing in that capacity. In other words, the plaintiff and
the defendant is a public officer. In that suit he is suing,
because he is a public officer, or he is being sued because
he is a public officer. So if the public officer(plaintiff or
defendant) dies, resigns or ceases to hold office,what
will happen?
A: The action will be maintained or continued by or
against the successor of the public officer within 30
days after the successor assumes the office or such
time as granted by the court, it is satisfactorily shown
by the party that there is a substantial need to continue,
maintain the action, and that the successor adopts,
continues or threaten to continue the action of his
predecessor.
Situation: So let us say that the one who dies is the
Plaintiff who is a Public officer. So when a public officer
dies, normally, he will have a successor. The defendant
now or the successor himself has filed an application
with the court now for a continuance or maintenance of
the action. However, for that purpose, there must be a
showing that the successor is going to do one of the
several things.
1. He is adopting the position of his
predecessor.
 Meaning, kung siya ang nag apply to
continue, he must show that he is
continuing the position taken by the
person whom he replace.
2. He is continuing or threatening to
continue with the action and position
taken by the predecessor.
 So if that is the case, the court will make
a determination whether or not an
action should be continued and
maintained.
Q:If there is no substitution of a public officer who
dies, resigns or ceases to hold office, What will
happen to the action?
A: The action will be DISMISSED.
So to have a better understanding, baliktarin naman
natin:
Situation 2: P(ordinary person) VS. D
(pubic officer)
So we have a plaintiff who is an ordinary person and a
defendant who is a public officer. The public officer dies,
resigns or ceases to hold office. Normally, it should be
the plaintiff now who should be asking the court to be
allowed to continue with the action. Kasi nga siya ang
plaintiff. So, he will now file an application with the court
to continue the action.
Q:Now, when he(plaintiff) files the application to the
court what is he required to show to the court?
A: He is required to show that the person who replaces
the deceased defendant is adopting the same position. In
other words, kinokontra parin niya yung gusto ni
plaintiff or he’s continuing the position or he has already
manifested that he will threaten to continue the position.
If that is the case, then the court will make the
determination if he will continue the position adverse
to the plaintiff then there is clearly a need for the action
to continue. The court now will order the substitution of,
let us say “X” the person who will replace “D” as the new
defendant. That is what going happened if there is
death , resignation or the public officer who is sued or
who is suing as such ceases to hold office.
2. Death of a Defendant on a Contractual
MONEY CLAIM.
Q: If an action for the payment of a sum of money based
on a contract express or implied and the defendant dies,
what happens now?
A: The action must continue until there is ENTRY OF
JUDGMENT.
P vs D
Explanation : Plaintiff vs. defendant (action for
payment of sum of money based on a promissory
note). An action for payment of sum of money based on
a contract.
 If the defendant will die, the rule says
that the action must continue until
there is ENTRY OF JUDGMENT.
EXAMPLE: Nasa MTC siya. There is a decision of MTC in
favor of the plaintiff. If the decision becomes final, meron
ng entry of judgment. However, is it possible for this to
be appealed with the RTC, CA, all the way to SC? Yes,
it is possible. So if the Defendant or the person now
representing the defendant will appear to RTC, CA or SC,
then we will have to wait until there is a decision of the
SC, and the decision of SC is FINAL. Because the only way
you can get entry of judgment is when the decision
becomes FINAL.
Q: What will happen once there is entry of judgment?
A: The entry of judgment now will be brought in the
proceedings or will be enforced in the manner
prescribed or provided by rules for prosecuting claims
against the estate of the deceased person. In short, bring
the judgment for the settlement of estate proceedings.
*Settlement of estate proceedings: its either the
petition for issuance of letters of the administration if
the deceased party win or in the action for probate will
dadalhin mo siya dun. Dun mo ngayon iclaclaim yung
amount that is stated in your judgment.
Let me give you a personal opinion about this rule. First,
why is it na kailangan mo pa magpunta sa court para
humingi ng ng entry of judgment. In other words, you
need to wait for a decision that becomes final, why?
Because a decision rendered by the court is
CONCLUSIVE. Conclusive as to the validity of the
obligation, conclusive as to the amount. Therefore when
there is a final judgment , the plaintiff can ask payment
from the administrator or the executor of the estate. The
executor or administrator cannot say that the obligation
is invalid because the court already said it is valid. The
administrator or executor cannot sa also “ we do not owe
you 1M, we only owe you 500K,” hindi pwede yun
because it is already a final judgment, it is conclusive.
You cannot change what the court already found to be
the fact! That’s the reason why the rule say you need to
reach until final entry of judgment. Para kun naningil ka
sa settlement of estate proceeding, wala ka ng question.
This is my issue (oh dami mong issue!xD)
MY ISSUE IS how long does it take to litigate a matter in
courts? Sabihin natin it runs the whole courts so mtc-rtc-
ca-sc. Now, by my own experience, it will be a dream that
it will be done for lets say 2years. So two years ang
hihintayin mo. So kung ikaw si plaintiff 2 years. So
pagpunta mo sa settlement of estate proceedings, meron
ka pa bang masisingil? Wala naa..kasi kailangan mo pang
hintayin ang entry of judgment eh. Kung ikaw naman
and nagrerepresent sa decease, what will you do? Kung
ako..(kaw naman lagi eh) ia-appeal ko kasi alam ko
naman na that will delay the enforcement of the
obligation diba. If I’m not a party to this case and I’m
representing the executor or administrator, then I will
let the executor/administrator liquidate it already.
Gastusin mo na. that is my issue.
Though the reason for the rule is really good and that is
to solve or prevent any dispute as to validity and
amount. But for practical purposes, I don’t really think it
works kasi it takes time (to realize..♪♪) to get your entry
of judgment pagdating mo sa estate, wala na , sorry no
more.. you may say meron naman tayong section 4 rule
74, which holds realparoperty of the deceased
answerable for every obligations for 2 years from date of
registration to the transfer of the property to the heirs.
Eh 2 years yan eh, pangarap nga di natatapos ng 2
years(mas lalo naman ang relasyon ser xD). So if 3 years,
by that time the prescription period under rule 74 has
lapsed. But that’s my personal opinion ha.
So if I were in the shoes of P (Plaintiff). Ang gagawin ko
ipapadismiss ko na to. Refile ako ng petition for the
issuance of letter of administration so I will be the one
initiate the settlement of the estate so I can control it.
Walang problema kahit gastusan ko kasi I can recover
the cause(yemen ne ser xD)
EFFECT OF INCOMPETENCY OR INCAPACITY ON AN
ACTION
Remember when we were talking of parties, so real
party in interest, napag usapan natin yung
representatives of minors and incompetents. So our
discussion in so far as minors and incompetents that
time is their ability to initiate an action however they
should be assisted by their :
 Mother
 Father
 Guardian
 Guardian ad litem
Q: What happens to the action when the
incompetency or incapacity arises? Will the action
be dismissed?
A: NO, the action will continues however, the
incompetent or the incapacitated must now be assisted
by his guardian or guardian ad litem. This rule refers on
what happen to the action if later on the party becomes
incompetent or incapacitated.
TRANSFER PENDENTE LITE
 A transfer of the subject matter of the action.
Example:
Plaintiff vs. Defendant(for recovery of real property)
So the subject matter of the action is Real Property. For it
to be a transfer pendent lite, one of the parties (plaintiff
or defendant) will transfer his interest in the subject
matter to a THIRD PERSON.
Illustration: P VS. D……..Tranfered it to A
So ang nagtransfer ay si Defendant, trinansfer niya kay A.
He transferred the subject matter to A.
Q: When should it be transferred?
A: During the litigation. Meaning, in between the time
the complaint is filed to the time the judgment becomes
final. So it is now a transfer pendent lite or a transfer
pending litigation.
Q: what is its(TPL) relationship to the parties?
A: the relationship is that the TRANSFEREE becomes a
PARTY. Kasi the rule says: the action will be continued
by and between the original parties or upon proper
motion, the court may order substitution or the
transferee pendent lite may be joined.
P vs. D Original parties
P vs. A substitution
P vs. DA Transferee pendent lite
joined
These are the 3 possible actions arising out from transfer
pendent lite.
Q: what is now the problem? Which of those is
problematic?
For one to be bound by whatever happens, meaning, to
be bound by the proceedings or to be bound by the
judgment, one must be a PARTY. Take a look at the 3
situations,
Q: Where is it shown or indicated, that the transferee
pendent lite is not a party?
A: In the FIRST. In the second there is no problem
because he is clearly a party. The 3 rd one no problem
also, it is clearly a party. Kasi nga ang common problem
pagdating sa transfer pendent lite ay when there is a
judgment already. The transferee pendente lite will
say:”how can I be bound by the judgment when I am not
a party”. In the second, he is bound because he is clearly
a party and so as the 3 rd one because he has been joined.
So it is the first one where he may claim that he is not a
party. But that is not true because the rule says: in case
of a transfer pendent lite, the action may be continued
between the original parties, meaning the Plaintiff or
defendant or upon the proper motion, the transfer
pendent lite is substituted or he is joined as a party.
1st problem: If sinabi ng court na panalo ang Plaintiff at
talo ka Defendant, can the transfer pendente lite say “I
will not honor that judgment because I am not a party
“..Can he say that? NO because he is a party even if he
does not appear to be the party.
nd
2 problem: if the defendant does not appeal, will that
bind him?
A: YES, because he is already a party whether he likes it
or not, by virtue of D , a transferee pendent lite, he is a
party?(wait what?) so if the action is litigated as between
the original parties and the defendant in our illustration
does not appeal, the judgment becomes final.
Conversely, even if he is not a party, as it appears in the
records, can he appeal?
A: yes because he is already a party.
So this is what I want you to understand, a transfer
pendente lite is transfer of the subject matter of the
action by any of the parties to a third person during the
pendency of litigation.
You have to understand that the transferee pendente
lite will become a party regardless of whether or not
he is going to be named as a party. Because the rule
says..(nanaman?) “the action may be continued by the
original parties or by proper motion be substituted or be
joined. When he is joined or substituted, it does not
create any problem because he is responsible for what
he needs to do in relation to the litigation. The problem
arises when he does not appear to be a party. But you
should realize now that even if that is the case, he is still
a party! (woooh party party! Antok nako xD)
Is he bound by a judgment? YES
Can he appeal from judgment?YES
But if the TPL does not appeal, will he be prejudiced by
the non taking of appeal by his transferror? YES…yes
But in the same manner because he will be prejudiced by
the non appeal of his transferor, he himself can appeal.
Dooyooofaloow? So kahit anong tanong ko sa transfer
pendent lite masasagot nyo?(asa ka ser xD)
Transferor pendent lite: the one that transfers the
property
Transferee pendente lite: the person in whose name is
transferred into.
*Since the transferee pendente lite is already a party, do
not confuse this matter to what is found in rule 19 which
refers to INTERVENTION. A party who has an interest in
the subject matter but who is not yet a party is allowed
to intervene. Without necessarily dealing with rule 19
completely. Anong relationship? So “A”, Plaintiff vs.
Defendant, so does he need to intervene? No because he
is already a party. Lagi tong lumalabas sa bar exam about
intervention. Pero the person who is suppose to
intervene is already a party because he is a transferee
pendent lite.
Rules that govern in case of:
 Death of a party
You have the need for:
(1) Notice as to the fact of death and
(2) Who the legal representatives are.
 Death of a public officer
The rule also applies if the public officer resigns or will
cease to hold office
In this case, there would have to be:
(1) Determination of the need to continue or
maintain the action
- The need to continue or maintain the
action is going to be based on the
position taken by the successor of the
public officer who has died, who has
resign, or who has cease to hold office.
So his position is the same as the
person to be replaced and there is
clearly a need to continue the action.
 Failure to have substitution will be ground for
DISMISSAL.
  Death of a defendant when we’re talking of
an action for the payment of a sum of money
based on a contract express or implied.
- There is a need for the action to
continue until there is ENTRY OF
JUDGMENT.
- Once there is entry of judgment- that is
going to be enforced in a manner
provided for, for settling the estate of a
deceased person.
Effects of incompetency or incapacity
Here, the situation is, the party becomes incompetent or
becomes incapacitated during the pendency of the
action. If that happens, the action continues however the
party incompetent now or incapacitated must be
assisted by a guardian or a guardian ad litem.
Transfer pendent lite
o What is being transferred? The subject matter
o Who is transferring the SM? The party
o When is the party transferring it? During the
pendency of the litigation
If it is a TPL, it means that the transferee pendent lite
automatically becomes a party. However the thing that
gives rise to publication is if the court allows the action
to proceed as between the original parties. In other
words, hindi pumapasok or hindi nag susurface yung
transfer pendent lite as a party-plaintiff or as a party-
defendant.
What you have to remember always: As long as you
recognize it to be a TPL, a transferee pendente lite is
always a party.
Q: What is the consequence if he be considered as a
party?
A: He will be bound by all the proceedings and the
judgment. If he wants to take relief from a judgment that
is adverse, then he himself can appeal.
*then I cautioned you regarding intervention because
the probable question in so far as intervention:
Q: Will there be a need for a person or a transferee
pendente lite to still intervene?
A: No, because he is already a party. A person intervenes
only if he has an interest in the subject matter of the
litigation and he is not yet a party. A transferee pendent
lite notwithstanding his absence as a named party, he is
already a party.
Indigent or a pauper litigant
An indigent or a pauper litigant is whom, he is a person
who litigates on a claim that he has no money or
property sufficient or available for food, shelter, and
basic necessities. He wants to litigate as such because he
does not have money for food, shelter, and basic
necessities, and all the more, he doesn’t have the money
or resources to pay for the filing fees. That is why he will
seek to litigate as a pauper litigant.
One can claim that he be allowed to litigate
as an indigent or a pauper litigant if:
(1) His gross income and that of his immediate
family does not exceed an amount double the
monthly minimum wage of an employee.
For example, the minimum wage is P300.00 a day so that
means, we’re talking ‘double’, so P600.00 a day. If one
wishes to litigate as a pauper litigant, it needs that his GI
together with that of the immediate members of his
family, should not exceed P600.00.
So let us say that it is the husband who wants to litigate a
pauper litigant, so the other persons earning income
within his immediate family is the spouse. So is the
spouses’ income is P200 not P300, then they would
qualify to litigate as a pauper litigant because their GI,
meaning, that of the person who wishes to litigate as a
pauper litigant and those of his immediate family, does
not exceed an amount double the minimum wage. In this
case, P300 ang example, basta hindi lumalamang sa
P600, okay.
(2) He may own real property provided the real
property does not have a fair market value in
excess of P300,000
So sa tax declaration, so nakalagay na “less than
P300,000”, even if he has real property, then he will not
be disqualified from litigating as a pauper litigant.
So there are two conditions: If he does not exceed double
the minimum wage, and no real property, yes he can
litigate as a pauper litigant. If it does exceed, okay. But he
has real property- the condition is, the fair market value
should not be greater than P300,000. So if he has real
property and the fair market value is only P250,000,
then he can litigate as a pauper litigant.
The way to litigate as a pauper litigant:
 File an application then that application to
litigate as a pauper litigant, is supposed to be
accompanied by an affidavit stating the facts
required by the circular.
 It must also be accompanied by an affidavit of a
disinterested person attesting to the facts stated
in the primary affidavit.
So what will the pauper litigant do?
1) He will file his complaint
2) He will file his application to litigate as a pauper
litigant
Attached in his application is his:
a. Primary affidavit saying that he is qualified and
an
b. Affidavit of a disinterested person confirming
the facts stated in his primary affidavit.
3) He will now submit that.
 Once it is submitted, the Clerk of Court now
will bring to the attention of the Executive
Judge.
 The Executive Judge now will make a
determination whether or not the plaintiff
can be allowed to litigate as a pauper
litigant.
 Once the Judge says he can litigate as a
pauper litigant, the complaint will now be
docketed. (Pag file ng complaint, ma
dodocket siya. Kailan siya ma dodocket? Pag
binayaran na yung filing fees.) Here in this
case, if the plaintiff is allowed to litigate
as a pauper litigant, he does not pay the
filing fees.
 Subsequently, summons will be issued.
Note: while there appears to be an exception as to the
payment of docket fees that is really not the case because
the docket fees will constitute a lien on the judgment. If
the pauper litigant eventually prevails, the docket fees
supposed to be paid will constitute a lien on the
judgment. In other words, pag collect niya or pag enforce
niya ng judgment, babawasan na dun yung docket fees.
What else is covered by a favorable grant of an
application to litigate as a pauper litigant? What will be
covered likewise is an exemption from the payment of
DSL fees or the payment for securing transcripts of
stenographic notes (P10 per page).
However, if it turns out that there is a falsity in the
affidavit, the other party can bring that to the attention
of the court. If it finds out that indeed there is a false
statement in the affidavit, it shall constitute sufficient
ground to dismiss the action or to strike out the pleading
without prejudice the filing of appropriate criminal cases
because there is now a false statement in the affidavit so
that would constitute perjury.
The best thing that you can get away with, is for the
court to simply say, pay for the docket fees. But the Rules
say, that if there’s a falsity that is ground for a dismissal,
or for a pleading to be stricken out.
Need for the appearance of a SOLICITOR
GENERAL
A SolGen is supposed to appear in any action involving
the validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, executive
order, presidential decree, rule, or regulation before in
its discretion, may require the appearance of a SolGen
who may be heard in person or through a representative
designated by it.
The SolGen is not a party. The action is between different
parties. However, if the subject matter in the action has
something to do with the validity of a treaty, a law,
ordinance, executive order, presidential decree, rule or
regulation, the court in the exercise of its discretion, may
require a SolGen to appear. The purpose is, ofcourse the
SolGen is there to ensure that the questioned matter is in
order kase the law is accorded a presumption of
regurality. So the SolGen, is supposed to defend that or if
the SolGen really finds that there is something wrong
with the subject matter of the law, then it should make
the necessary measures to inform the court or to advice
the court appropriately as to the actual status of the law.
Kase the lawyer of the state is always the SolGen.
RULE 4
VENUE
Venue is defined as:
 The place where the action is to be commenced
and tried.
 It has also been defined as the proper location for
the trial of a case.
Venue is not jurisdiction. In other words, when we say
venue is not jurisdictional, we are saying that venue is
not the same as jurisdiction. However, venue becomes
jurisdictional only, in criminal cases because the only
case where you can commence a criminal action is the
place where the offense or any of its essential elements
occurred. That is why in criminal cases, venue is
jurisdictional because no other court can take
cognizance of a criminal action except the court where
the offense was committed.
In civil cases, venue is not jurisdictional. To illustrate:
If you want to recover property with an AV of P70,000
then jurisdiction is RTC because it is already beyond
P50,000 or in MTCs, beyond P20,000. So it is clearly with
the RTC. If this property is located in Baguio, then venue
should be in Baguio because the Rule on venue is that, in
real actions, venue should be in the place where the
property or any portion thereof is located.
When we say venue is not jurisdictional, here we are:
This is supposed to be filed in Baguio but let us say that
it is filed in the RTC of Manila. Can you file a motion in
the RTC of Manila saying that it has no jurisdiction on the
ground that it should be filed in Baguio? No, because the
RTC of Manila has jurisdiction over this kinds of actions.
Except that, the proper place where it is supposed to be
commenced and tried is Baguio.
When venue is not questioned, in other words, as
between the plaintiff and the defendant, they are
perfectly happy litigating it in Manila, is that okay? Yes,
because venue is not jurisdictional. The RTC of Manila
even if the property is located in Baguio, can actually try
the case.
Venue vs Jurisdiction
VENUE JURISDICTION
Let us say, same property, 5% Baguio, 95% in La
Trinidad. Where is the venue? Either in La Trinidad or in
Baguio because there is no distinction as long a portion
thereof is located within the territorial jurisdiction of a
locality, then venue is proper in that locality.
2. If the action is personal, venue is in the place
where plaintiff resides or the defendant resides,
at the option of the plaintiff.

1. In the place where 1. A power or authority

the action is of the court to hear,
The plaintiff makes the decision kung saan niya i-f-file.
commenced and try, and decide a case.
He can file it in the place where he resides or where the
tried
defendant resides and he is the one who is going to make
2. Venue can be 2. Jurisdiction cannot be the choice.
waived waived

3. Venue can be the 3. Jurisdiction can never If you are talking however, of a NON-RESIDENT
subject of a be the subject of an DEFENDANT, in other words, he does not have
written agreement (since it is residence in the Philippines, a non-resident defendant
agreement fixed by law) can be sued wherever he may be found. If the action is
personal, the plaintiff’s residence or the defendant’s
4. The court cannot 4. On account of lack of
residence at the option of the plaintiff. If we’re talking of
motu proprio jurisdiction, a court
a NRD, can the action still be brought in the plaintiff’s
dismiss on the can motu proprio
residence? Yes because it is his choice. However, it can
ground of dismiss an action if it
also be brought wherever the NRD can be found.
improper venue finds that it doesn’t
have jurisdiction

When we speak of RESIDENCE, we are talking of a place

Take note: Jurisdiction as a rule cannot be waived.
HOWEVER, if you distinguish between jurisdictions over
the person, jurisdiction over the subject matter:
Jurisdiction over the person = can be waived
Jurisdiction over the SM = cannot be waived
RULES ON VENUE
1. If it is a real action, it should be commenced in
the court where the property is located or any
portion thereof is located.
Real action = one that affects title to possession or any
other interest in real property.
where the plaintiff has his place of abode. Kung san
siya nakatira talaga. Whether that is permanent or
temporary. So let us say, a non-resident of Baguio (not
permanently residing in baguio), assuming that they
want to bring a real action, can they bring it here in
Baguio? Yes because they will nevertheless be
considered as a resident even if their stay in Baguio is
temporary. As distinguished from your place of
domicile where even if you are temporarily absent, you
have every intention of returning. So can you bring your
action in the place of you domicile? Yes you can because
you are likewise a resident of that place.
3. If the defendant is a non-resident, and the action
affects the personal status of the plaintiff or any
property of the defendant located in the
Philippines, the action may be commenced and
tried in the court of the place where the plaintiff
resides or where the property or any portion
thereof is situated or found.

If the property is entirely in Baguio, then the proper

venue is the appropriate court in Baguio. If the property  This Rule applies to a NRD.
is half in Baguio and the other half is in La Trinidad, the
venue is either Baguio or La Trinidad because where the What makes a defendant a non-resident? He cannot be
property is located or any portion thereof is located. found in the Philippines.
  Another specific rule: Civil action for damages
 If the action is either one that affects the
personal status of the plaintiff (ex.
annulment of marriage, legal separation), those
actions affect the personal status of the
plaintiff.
If that is the case, then the action can be brought in the
place where the plaintiff resides.
arising from libel. They can be instituted in the
RTC of the place where public officer holds
office or the place where the alleged libelous
article was first printed and published, if you’re
talking of a private offended party, then the RTC
where the article was first printed and
published or where any of the offended party
resides at the time of the commission of the
offense.

 Another specific rule: that which provides for

For example, husband and wife. Two days after the intra-corporate disputes. Actions that involve
marriage, isa sakanila nawala. If one or the one who is intra-corporate dispute can only be files in the
left behind is minded to file an action for annulment or RTC of the place where its principal office is
nullification, that is an action that affects the personal located. When you speak of a corporation,
status of the plaintiff. So it can be brought in the place principal office is where the books of records
where the plaintiff resides. are found. In ordinary cases, let us say you have
a corporation, they are considered residents if
the place where they operate. But if the dispute
 If it affects property of the defendant in the is intra-corporate, then it should be filed in the
Philippines (ex. plaintiff vs defendant to sue RTC of the place where the principal office is
recovery of real property like for example the P located.
and the D entered into a contract. Where
supposedly the D is supposed to purchase the
property of the P. The defendant only paid 5% READ 6,7,8 – Coverage for NEXT WEEK.
of the agreed consideration with the
understanding that the balance would be paid
at the end of the specified period. The specified
period has come and gone and the D is likewise
gone and it turns out that the D has migrated
already. Question: Recovery- how can the P get
back his property? He files an action for
recovery of real property. Now the D is no
longer in the Philippines so that makes him a
NRD. So where can the plaintiff bring the
action? In the place where the property is
located.

When these THREE Rules are not applicable

These three Rules are not applicable where a specific

rule or a law provides otherwise. In other words, the
rule says, “venue is in this court” or the law says “venue
is laid in this court.” When you speak of a rule that says
otherwise, take a look at RULE 66:

 Quo warranto may be instituted in the SC, CA,

or the RTC exercising territorial jurisdiction
over the area where the respondent reside.
That is a specific rule and even if the SolGen
initiating quo warranto proceeding, he may
initiate it before the RTC of Manila.