2019400309 CIVPRO 3B

VILLAROMAN, Janine Monica D. 14 October 2020

1. A real action is one that affects title, possession, or any interest in real property. On the
other hand, personal action is one that is brought for the recovery of personal property
for the enforcement of a contract or recovery of damages. It is important to know the
difference of the two actions because the venue of such actions shall depend on these
two classifications. In real actions, as provided for by Rule 4, Section 1, the action shall
be commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the real
property, or a portion thereof is situated. According to Section 2, if the action is personal,
it shall be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or defendant resides, or in case of a
non-resident defendant, it shall be tried where he may be found.
2. As provided for in the case of Domagas v. Jensen, a proceeding in personam is one to
enforce personal rights and obligations and brought against the person and is based on
the jurisdiction of the person; a in rem proceeding is one brought against the thing itself
instead of against the person; and a proceeding quasi in rem is one brought against
persons seeking to subject the property of such persons to the discharge of the claims
assailed. The significance of knowing the difference among the three proceedings lies on
determining the payment of whether jurisdiction over defendant is required; the
payment of docket fees; and the type of summons to be served.
3. A cause of action involves a right of the plaintiff and a violation of this right by a
defendant. On the other hand, a right of action is a right to file a suit based on the cause
of action of the plaintiff against the defendant.
4. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is not waivable; but jurisdiction over the person may
be waived. Jurisdiction over the person shall be waived and be raised before the accused
or the defendant enters his plea, otherwise, he shall be deemed to have submitted
himself to the court’s jurisdiction.
5. In the case of Nocum v. Tan, the court defined jurisdiction as the authority to hear and
decide a case, while venue is the place where the case is to be heard or tried. Jurisdiction
is a matter of substantive law while venue is procedural. In addition, jurisdiction
establishes a relation between the court and the subject matter, while venue establishes a
relation between the plaintiff and the defendant. Jurisdiction is fixed by law and cannot
be conferred by the parties, while venue may be decided or agreed to by the parties
involved. All these provided, venue is controlling.
6. No, the parties to a case cannot change the rules of procedure as this is set by the Court
to be followed. Changing the rules of procedure according to the preference or
convenience of the parties shall be problematic in several aspects.
7. Under Rule 1, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, a civil action is commenced by the filing of
the original complaint in court.
8. As provided for under Rule 11, Section 11 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Court may, for meritorious reasons, grant an additional period of not more than 30
calendar days to file an answer, but this shall only be allowed once. However, the
second paragraph of the same section provides that a motion for extension to file any
pleading other than an answer shall be prohibited.
9. A splitting cause of action, under Rule 2, Section 4, is one where two or more suits are
instituted on the basis of the same cause of action. Section 3, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court
provides that a party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action. In
addition, in the case of Progressive Dev’t Corp. v CA, the Court ruled that a claim
cannot be divided in such a way that a part of the amount of damages may be recovered
in one case and the rest, in another. It was also explained by the Court in Bachrach v.
Icarangal that such rule is aimed at preventing repeated litigations between the same
parties in connection with the same subject; and also to keep the defendant away from
unnecessary vexation.
10. If there is a splitting of action, Section 4, Rule 2 provides that the filing of one or a
judgment upon the merits in any of one is available as a ground for dismissal. The
remedy of the defendant in this case is to file a motion to dismiss.
11. As a rule under Section 11, Rule 3, neither a misjoinder nor a non-joinder of parties is a
ground for the dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or added by order of the
court, on motion of any party or on the court's own initiative at any stage of the action.
Section 7, Rule 3 of the Amended Rules of Court, requires indispensable parties to be
joined as plaintiffs or defendants. The joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory.
12. Section 1 of Rule 3 of the RoC provides that only natural or juridical persons or entities
authorized by law may be parties in a civil action. A real party in interest stands to be
benefited of injured by judgment or entitled to the avails of the suit.
13. The classifications of parties in interest are: (1) Indispensable party, one that is
inextricably intertwined with the other parties that his legal presence is an absolute
necessity; and necessary party, one where his interest is distinct and divisible from the
interest of the other parties and shall not necessarily be prejudiced by a judgment which
does complete justice to the parties in court.
14. Section 6, Rule 3 provides that all persons in whom or against whom any right to relief
in respect to or arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions is alleged to
exists, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative may join as plaintiffs or be joined
as defendants in one complaint. In the case of Flores v. Mallare-Phillipps, the Court
ruled that in cases of permissive joinder of parties, whether as plaintiffs or as
defendants, Section 6 of Rule 3 provides that the total of all the claims shall now furnish
the jurisdictional test. In addition, if instead of joining or being joined in one complaint,
separate actions are filed by or against the parties, the amount demanded in each
complaint shall furnish the jurisdictional test.