CIVPRO FEB 2 Santiago, it will be a walk in the park.

Kaya nga lang,

1. alonzo 0-12 Jurassic Park. Hihi walang tumawa.
We can start the ball rolling already (Guys wa juy kwenta ang 12 minutes sa akong part huhu)
What is the coverage of Civil Procedure
It covers the following topics: 2. evangelista 12 - 24
1. General Principles
2. Law on Jurisdiction Nothing relevant. Orientation part only
3. Katarungang Pambarangay Law
4. Rules on Summary Procedure 3. garcia 24 - 36
5. Revised Rules of Procedure on Small Claims
6. Rules 1 to 5 under the 1997 Rules on Civil 24:00-26:00 Nangutana ra si Atty about modular sched…
Procedure
7. When we reach Rule 6-34 (including Rule 144 of Atty: Guys, you have taken already Criminal Procedure,
Rules of Court), read from 2020 Rules on Civil Procedure is that correct? Ano ba yung syllabus ng San Carlos,
8. Rule 36-56 (Judgements until Ordinary Civil mauuna ba yung CrimPro sa Civil Procedure?
Actions.
S: Yes, Atty.
Kit: Meron bang separate subject sa San Carlos for
Atty: Okay, thank you. Practically, you studied Rules 110-
Provisional Remedies and Special Civil Actions? Nandito
127. The guidelines to continuous trial, you studied the
ba si Julie Ann? Where are you Julie Ann? I talked to you
law on jurisdiction, including the jurisdiction of the
earlier but I have not seen your face, sweetheart. Nasan
Sandiganbayan, Ombudsman, RTC, MTC, Court of
siya?
Appeals, Supreme Court, even the Family Courts in
Julie Ann: Hello Atty., Good evening.
Criminal Procedure. You studied, likewise, RA 7438, the
Kit: Hi. Good evening. Maayong Gabii. Happy to see you
rights of a person detained or under custodial
here. (Welcome to Jollibee, may I take your order? Char)
investigation, rules on cyber-crime warrant, you also
So yung topic ba, yung subject ba, does it include
studied precautionary hold departure order. I think you
Provisional Remedies and Special Civil Actions?
have covered that. So basically, you already know criminal
Julie Ann: In Civil Procedure, atty?
procedure. But this time, we will be studying civil
Kit: Yes, yes, yes.
procedure and as mentioned, we will be covering this
Julie Ann: I think so, Atty.
time, Rules 1-71, with the emphasis on the new rule of
Kit: Ah, so it includes Rule 57 to 71. If we talk about 57,
civil procedure, from rule 6-35, Summary judgment.
we have the Writ of Preliminary Attachment. 58
(Preliminary Injunction), 59 (Receivership), 60 (Replevin), BACKGROUND/INTRODUCTION OF REMEDIAL
61 (Support ? Pendente Lite), 62 (Interpleader), LAW
63(Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies), 64 (Review
of the Judgements of the COA and the COMELEC), 65 If you talk about remedial law, remember in you first year
(Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus), 66 (Quo Warranto), last year, you studied about the concept of a law,
67(Expropriation), 68 (Foreclosure), 69 (Partition), 70 preliminary man na, and you say that law is a rule of
(Ejectment), 71(Contempt). Parant nag recite ako dun ah. conduct, just and obligatory, enacted by a legitimate
So covered lahat ng mga Rules na yon, mga kaibigan. authority, for common purpose and benefit.
Let’s have a productive semester, my friends.
Now, let me highlight that within the Philippine
(Chika about THQs, top the bar with your own notes, blah jurisdiction, basically, there are two kinds of laws:
blah blah)
We’ll focus on the Codal Provisions. I’ll be giving you some 1. Substantive laws (political law, labor law, civil
quizzes. We’ll be using some applications. (chika about his law, taxation law, criminal law)
partnership with USC and Bar Review) Most of the 2. Remedial law
students takot kayo sa tax. Except sa mga Accountants.
That will be just a walk in the park. Gaya ng sabi ni Mayor
Bustos v. Lucero …… naputol daw kay na disconnect ang Bluetooth
headset …..

Remedial law Substantive law The SC has already made it clear in several cases. Case
of Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice; Domingo Neypes
vs. Court of Appeals, Sept. 2007; De Lima vs. ???, April
It prescribes the methods It creates, it defines, it 17, 2018; Carpio Morales vs. CA, Nov 10, 2015
for the enforcement of regulates the rights and
substantive laws, obligations of the parties. For example: Case of De Lima
including civil procedure.
In other words, when you This answers the question of whether the power to
It answers the question talk about substantive promulgate rules is a shared power between the SC and
HOW. law, it answers the the executive branch of the government.
question WHAT.
Other terms: procedural If you recall, you are done with CrimPro right? to make it
laws/rules, adjective laws simple the Department of Justice issued Department
Order Circular 41

4. gregorio 36 - 48
These substantive laws are useless if you do not know
how to enforce the same. DE LIMA V. GENUINO
The DOJ issued DO Co. 41, giving the SOJ the power
If you talk about remedial law, our bible here is the Rules and authority to issue a hold departure order. If you
of Court. The Rules of Court are divided into four talk about this, conformably to SC Circular 39-7, the
major parts: RTC family court in special proceedings pertaining to
custody of the child and Sandiganbayan can issue a
I. Civil Procedure: Rules 1-71 hold departure order. But basically only the RTC when
you talk about regular courts in a pending criminal case
Including Provisional remedies … (wa ko kasabot may issue a hold departure order.
33:10) civil actions
However, if you recall in crimpro, the DOJ Secretary
II. Special Proceedings: Rule 72-109 pursuant to DOJ Circular 41 issued a hold departure
order. Her basis was that the Secretary of Justice has
While there are 37 sections, nonetheless, more
the power to issue hold departure orders.
than one-half of these rules were already
rendered obsolete by the provisions of the
GMA then was about to leave the country, SOJ then De
substantive law and other rules
Lima, went to NAIA, armed with the hold departure
order and served it to GMA.
III. Criminal Procedure: Rule 110-127

IV. Rules on Evidence: Rule 128-133 GMA questioned the propriety of the issuance of the
hold. Departure order.
We need not study Rule 134 anymore, Perpetuation of
Testimony, precisely because the provisions therein were Issue:
already incorporated on the Rule on Deposition? (34:05) Is DO 41 constitutional?
(wa na ko kasabot sa after guys huhu)
Ruling:
So basically yan ang structure ng Rules of Court. Initially, SC issued a TRO. Under Rule 58, if the SC
issues a TRO, it is effective until further orders.
Who promulgated the ROC? Supreme Court
 Is DO 41, giving the secretary of justice the power to
Mga mam chikaminute kaayo syas iyang lifestory dri nga
issue a hold departure order, valid and constitutional?
Cebuano daw siya for 2 years kay UV Colon isya ga grade
The Court ruled otherwise. That DO is considered
2 unya iyang ate kay sa Salazar Institute or churva.
unconstitutional because (1) it is violating the right to
travel of GMA and (2) encroaches on the rule-making
Coverage of the ROC:
power of the SC. Right to travel can only be restricted
by reasons of national security, public safety and public RULE 5
health in accordance with law. However, this DO is not Principle of Uniformity: the rules are similar, uniform.
a law. It is only a circular. Therefore, it cannot restrict You uniformly apply the ROC in the RTC or MTC.
the constitutional right to travel of GMA. However, there are also exceptions provided for by the
rules such as the rules on ejectment wherein Summary
More importantly, SC applied Article 8, Section 5 (5) Procedure will apply. However, basically, the principle
and stated that if you talk about the rule-making power, of uniformity applies.
the power to promulgate rules is now a power that is
exclusive to the SC. Remember this because malay
5. nacua 48 - 1hr
nyo pagdating ng bar nyo, ako pala yung examiner.
The ROC does not apply to the following cases:
Diba? At paborito pa ni Atty. Kit. It is not shared with
the Executive Branch of the government. RULE 1, SEC. 4
In what case not applicable. — These Rules shall not
Thus, DO 41 is unconstitutional. apply to election cases, land registration, cadastral,
naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and other
cases not herein provided for, except by analogy or in
How about with the legislative branch? Is the
a suppletory character and whenever practicable and
power to promulgate rules considered a shared
convenient.
power with the SC?

Remember the cases regarding payment of docket fees. But are there exceptions to these exceptions?
If you read the substantive law, NAPOCOR’s chapter/law, - YES. (1) By analogy, (2) suppletory in
the law on cooperatives, the cooperatives, NAPOCOR and character, and whenever practicable
GSIS, are all exempted from the payment of legal fees. and convenient.
This was promulgated by the Congress. Thus, they filed
complaints in court, arguing that they were not required If we say suppletory in character it means that the
to pay the docket fees because of the provision of the ROC will apply only if, let us say, election laws, land
substantive law. registration proceedings, there is no applicable law or
rule, that’s the time you apply the ROC suppletorily. Kung
meron, yung ang mag aapply.
GSIS V. HEIRS OF FERNANDO CABALLERO
In re: Petition for Exemption from the payment of
Papasok tayo sa civil procedure.
docket fees filed by NAPOCOR
In re: Petition for Exemption from the payment of
TOPIC: CIVIL PROCEDURE
docket fees filed by Baguio Market Cooperatives.
Can we give retroactive effect to the
Issue: Should the court grant the petition because of
ROC/remedial laws?
the provisions of the substantive law (GSIS Charter)?

GR: If you say laws, as a rule, laws have no retroactive

No. The power to promulgate rules is a power
effect.
that is already exclusive to the SC. Not shared
XPN: Procedural rules.
with the executive branch of the government,
more so with the legislative.
Therefore, can you give retroactive effect to remedial
laws? - DEFENDI (haha) it depends.

Pag yan ay criminal cases, can we give retroactive effect
to remedial laws if criminal cases? - Yes, if favorable to
the accused.
Remember the fresh period rule in crimpro, Judith yu vs
honorable samson tatad (???) feb 9, 2011. Can you give
retroactive effect to the fresh period rule? I should say
yung fresh period rule in criminal cases?
- Yes, precisely because it is favorable to the
accused.
You can give retroactive effect also to the ruelson crimpro
if favorable to the accused EXCEPT (Prev bar question) if
you talk about ex-post facto law.
Can we give retroactive effect to other parts of remedial
law? – YES
For instance…
Domingo Neypes vs CA Sept 14, 2005
Can you give retroactive effect to the fresh period rule?
Kasi, September 14, 2005 na promulgate yung decision,
but how about cases pending on or even filed before
September 14, 2005, can you give retroactive effect
to the fresh period rule?
This time, if your Motion for reconsideration, motion for
new trial in civil cases is denied, can you file an appeal?
– yes, noong araw (before) within the balance of the
period of 15 days.
But in this case, forget about that rule (stated above) you
can file an MR, motion for new trial in civil cases but if
these motions are denied, you can file an appeal, but not
within the balance of the period of 15 days because NOW,
you have a fresh period of 15 days counted from
the receipt of the order denying the MR or the
order denying the motion for new trial.
Question: applicable bay an, can we give retroactive
effect? PCI leasing Inc., vs Milan (???)… ang daming
ruligns nyan…
SC said: YES we can give retroactive effect to the fresh
period rule to remedial laws, to all cases pending ON or
EVEN FILED BEFORE September 14, 2005 (relevance of
the date – the date when the SC promulgated the decision
in the case Neypes vs CA), we can give retroactive effect
to all cases, pending and determined at the time of the
promulgation of the rule, at the time of the decision of
the SC, because SC said there are no vested rights if
you talk about ROC.
I’ll tell my mom about it later.
HOW DO WE CONSTRUE THE ROC?
Escape doctrines (iyaha rani own terms ayaw daw iapil
sa answer)
1. Liberal construction principle
2. SC has the power to relax, suspend the
application of the SC
3. Philippine courts are both courts of law and
equity.
Question: How do we construe the ROC?
- Liberal Construction of the ROC
SEC 6. RULE 1
The ROC should be liberally construed in order to
promote its objective of (JSI) just, speedy and
inexpensive disposition of every action or proceeding.
If you cannot answer a bar question, apply the liberal
construction, anong tawag dyan? – escape doctrines
(refer above).
In a long list of cases, the SC used this liberal construction
principle.
Ano pa? another principle…
6. panerio 1:00-1:12:01
There would be 10 questions. Ay 20 questions.
And the first 10 questions anong sagot mo?
Ans: Liberal Construction Principle.
After 10 questions nahiya kanang gamitin. Naku
nakakauhaw naman meron pa bang ibang principle?
Pakisulat.
Ans: Another is the SC has the power to relax or suspend
the application of the rules of court for witty and
persuasive reasons to relieve a litigant at the end of
justice.
Oo naman, sometimes you have to file an appeal para ma
relax, some cases, but hundi ideal na always it could be
strictly construed to file an appeal. Payment for docket
fees for instance, Manchester doctrine, Sun Insurance
Corporation case.
Now third principle that I want you to remember, so 1-10
ano sagot mo sa bar? Liberal construction principle, 11-
15 ano sagot mo? SC has the power to relax or suspend
the application of the rules of court for witty and
persuasive reasons to relieve a litigant at the end of
justice. No. 16 na, konti nalang, lawyer na, nako no.16
baka top 2 lang ako nito, kailangan mag top 1 ako, no.
16 pagbasa mo sa question ano to Chinese? Ano
yon? Hindi mo natintindihan masyado, Ano
gagawin ko dito? Ano ang sagot natin mga
kaibigan?
Ans: Philippine Courts are both courts of law and equity.
Yan parang kinilig ako non. Parang ako lang mag isa
kinikilig ditto. So anong ibig sabihin niyan?
Philippine courts are both courts of law and equity. Bigyan
kita ng puso at tsaka monggos. Gusto ko siomai, puso at
monggos pwede na. Gusto kung inuuwi from cebu alam
niyo yung kaikai? Paborito yan ng mga bata RM bayon na
kaikai, ah hindi niyo alam minsan yung may ari bayun oh
yata ng owner ng kaikai, nag lecture ako sa bar review eh
nanduduon. Binigyan pa nga ako ng kaikai naalala ko
lang. Sabi ko wow thank you.
Having said that konting buelo lang so Philippine
courts are both court of law and equity but when
do we apply equity?
Ans: Only in the absence of the law, in other words if
there is an applicable law, apply the law syempre. If there
is established applicable jurisprudence, apply the
jurisprudence. If there is a established applicable
principle, ah okay apply the principle. But what if my
friends there is no law, there is no jurisprudence, there is
no principle, aminin na natin pagdating sa bar exam you
cannot recall any law. You cannot recall any
jurisprudence. You cannot recall any principle. What are
you going to do my friends? Apply equity outside legality,
because SC said that Philippine Courts whether original or
appellate jurisdiction are both courts of law and equity.
But we all apply equity in the absence of the law not as
the replacement to the law, not as the replacement to
jurisprudence, not as the replacement to the established
applicable principle. Sir may ganon pala that Philippine
Courts are both court of law and equity.
So moving forward people, let’s talk about jurisdiction.
What is jurisdiction? Remember, if you talk about
jurisdiction my friend. Traditionally in the case of PCGG v.
Cuenca okay jurisdiction is the power to try, hear, and
decide a case. Ano yon sir? Ulitin mo nga?
T=RY
H=EAR
D=DECIDE
Oo, THD, may THD?
Yes, try, hear and decide. Ahh okay, but let me tell you
my friends, beautiful ladies and gentlemen here. That if
you talk about the concept of jurisdiction, that is enough
anymore, that is only the traditional concept, because if
you recall in the landmark case of Echegaray v. Secretary
of Justice the SC my friends expanded the concept of
jurisdiction. Let me call this in my own words, expanded
concept of jurisdiction. Why? If you recall briefly in the
case of Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, Echegaray was
charged, tried, and convicted for rape with homicide.
When there was a bill filed in congress for the purpose of
abolishing death penalty, and that bill if I remember
passed the first reading. Then there is a possibility that
the bill will become a law. The concept that the case of
Echegaray went to SC, precisely the questions my friend.
He asked for a TRO, petition for prohibition praying for
the issuance of TRO. Ano yung gusto niyang restrain?
Yung, death penalty. Sir bakit? Kasi nga meron ng bill
baka maging batas yan. Wala na, pag inexecute si
Echegaray. Oo nga naman. So the judge of Padre Paura
issued a TRO. And the government now, represented by
the office of solicitor general question the propriety of the
SC in issuing the TRO. Saan nila quenistion? Syempre sa
SC din walang ng ibang court diba? So don quenistion.
Okay, so do you expect to reverse. So anong sabi? Anong
argument ni government?
Ahh, that is not valid, the TRO is not valid, why? because
for two reasons:
 1. Yung, ano yung constitutional law ninyu Article 7,
pag yung President to stop execution, reprieval. Only
the president can exercise the power of reprieval sa
constitution.
2. If you talk about jurisdiction as define by the
handsome Atty Villasis, it is only the power to try hear
and decide. Tapos na, na try na, na hear na eh. My
decision na yung kaso so SC said you loss jurisdiction
of the issue for Temporay
to life.” So paano sagot naman sir? Yung Expanded
Concept of Jurisdiction. Klaro? Sir, klaro, I’ll tell my mom
about it.LOL.
So having said that people, there are 4 Kinds of
Jurisdiction in Civil Cases:
1. Jurisdiction over the Parties
2. Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter
3. Jurisdiction over the Res
4. Jurisdiction over the Issues

Restraining Order. So friends what do you think is the But Justice Leonen said said it includes:
contention of the government correct? Is the 5. Jurisdiction over the Remedies
argument correct? What do you think tama ba that
SC loss its jurisdiction already to issue temporary So what are the kinds/aspects of jurisdiction?
restraining order. Can you please tell me yes or no? ***(inaudible) that a judgement or decision rendered by
the court can only be over the subject matter, over the
OO nga naman power of reprieval can only be exercise by
issues, over the parties, over the res and jurisdiction over
the president. Diba yung sa pilikula papakita yung relo.
the remedies.
Tapos yung music tatawag yung president stop execution
ting. Yan yung reprieval. That was the argument that only
TOPIC: What is Jurisdiction over the Issue?
the president can stop the execution. Alright. And Number
2 jurisdiction is the power to try, hear, and decide a case.
KIT: Plain and simple: you talk about the complaint! Yung
Wala na natry na, na hear na, may decision na.
gi-file ni plaintiff. Whatever you alleged therein, filed in
court so the court assumes jurisdiction over the issues
7. taucan 1hr 12 - 1hr 24:26
alleged therein/ The same thing as the answer filed by
KIT: Oh, bakit Ian? OK, lang. Tayo-tayo lang, sekretong
the defendant. When there is an issue, kapag merong
malupet! What is the answer my friends? Of course, SC
specific denial, lagay nyo nalang muna. Maiintindihan nyo
said “Admittedly, traditionally, jurisdiction is the power to
rin yan pag pinag-usapan nyo ng part na yan.
try, hear and decide the case. However, SC said “We have
the power to expand the concept of jurisdiction. Yan ang
When is there an issue sir? Iba yung issue sa Civil
tawag ko ay Expanded Jurisdiction. From now on,
Code ha. Iba yung Remedial Law. Yung issue sa CC gusto
remember,:
nyo yun (ano yon??) Here, if you talk about issue, there
is a specific denial, ok? So when is there an issue sir?
“Jurisdiction is not only the power to try, hear and
Basta merong specific denial. Kung walang specific denial,
decide the case. It includes one more power; the
general denial lang then there is no issue. Yun lang muna,
power to execute the judgement until the final
makakarating tayo jan; Rule 8, Sec. 10.
disposition of the case and until the full and
complete service of sentence by the accused in
So having said that my friends, during the pre-trial the
criminal cases.”
parties will agree on the issues to be resolved by the
court. That is Jurisdiction over the issue. So if the
Don’t stop there, kumapit nag mahigpit! Hold on! Ano sabi
complaint alleges, let us say, Ownership. As a rule you
ng SC? SC ratiocinated and stated, my friends, that “A
cannot present evidence on possession for example lang.
person who is convicted and his conviction became final
Kasi that is not an issue.
and executory, nonetheless, that person still possesses
collateral rights. And these rights can still be invoked from
TOPIC: Jurisdiction over the Res
the courts of justice. Because the powers of the executive,
legislative and judiciary in saving the life of the accused
KIT: What do you mean by jurisdiction over the res? You
late Mr. Echegaray does not exclude each other for the
talk about the thing itself or the status of the person. So
simple reason that there is no higher right than the right
normally, this jurisdiction over the res is so important
when you talk about in rem or quasi in rem action.
Kunwari, nagfile ka ng petition for annulment of marriage,
that is an in rem action! A suit against the whole world.
Ano ibig sabihin sir? You don’t file a petition for annulment
of marriage to the world literal, diba? Pero yung effect
nya kasi nagiging in rem action against the whole world.
But anyway, we will talk about that further. Basta to put
things into proper perspective lang, jurisdiction over the
res is important when you talk about in rem or quasi in
rem actions.
TOPIC: Jurisdiction over the Parties
KIT: Basically there are two parties in a civil action: you
have the plaintiff and the defendant. But take note that
the plaintiff will become a defendant, the defendant will
become a plaintiff. Sir, kailan po? The Rules may be
reversed. When? Pag simpleng nag file ng complaint ang
defendant, nag file ng answer and merong tayong third
claim. A counterclaim is a claim by the defendant against
the plaintiff. And the rules may be reversed because the
original defendant becomes the plaintiff and the original
plaintiff becomes the defendant if we talk about
counterclaim whether permissive or compulsory
counterclaim (not sure about the last word).
The same is true is the defendant files a cross claim
against his co-defendant. Dalawang defendants: si
Defendant A nagfile ng cross claim against his co-
defendant in which case, again, the original defendant
becomes a plaintiff.
The same holds true if the defendant in an answer files a
third party complaint against a person who is now part of
the actio. Third party complaint for the purpose of
contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief
with leave of court. In which case, the original defedant
becomes a plaintiff. But basically my friends there are only
2 parties in a Civil Action.
TOPIC: How do the courts acquire jurisdiction over
the person of the plaintiff?
KIT: The moment the plaintiff files the complaint and
pays the requisite docket fee “because of our materialistic
society.” The court automatically acquires jurisdiction
over the person of the plaintiff. Diba?
Sir maski na naa sa abroad sya? YES! Why? Precisely
because, my friends, residency is not a requirement in
filing docket fees (not very clear). Even citizenship is not
a requirement.
Now, having said that people, the moment the plaintiff
files the complaint and pays the requisite docket fees
because of our materialistic society (Lmao) the court
acquires the person over the plaintiff. By the way ha wag
ilagay sa booklet pag nag exam kayo “because of our
materialistic society”. Dili na totoo. Dili oy! Pod, gyud!
(hahahahaha)
TOPIC: How do the courts acquire jurisdiction over
the person of the
KIT: Two things:
1. Service of summons
2. Voluntary Appearance
Service of Summons but the next question is: if there is
no service of summons, may the court acquire jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant? (Nag Yes lahat) Yes,
yes, yes ang gagaling talaga ng mga estudyante ko
because the answer is No.
Di biro lang, the answer is YES. Because there is such a
thing as voluntary appearance under Sec. 23, Rule 14.
The voluntary appearance is tantamount, and is
equivalent to a service of summons.
Ooooy, therefore the court can acquire jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant even though there is no
service of summons.
Oooy, even though there is a defective service of
summons. Because again voluntary appearance = service
of summons.
8.villa
Section 3 of Rule 14. The voluntary appearance of a
person is tantamount, is equivalent to a Service of
summons. Therefore the COURT CAN VALIDLY ACQUIRE
JURISDICTION OF THE PERSON, of the defendant, EVEN
THOUGH THERE IS NO SERVICE OF SUMMONS. Even
though there is a defective service of summons. Because
again, the voluntariness of a person is equivalent to a
service of summons.
Topic: MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
AN ANSWER
Example: Motion for Extension of Time to File an Answer.
– Although prohibited under Rule 11 or the New Rules,
pwede 1 time lang.
Under Rule 11, Section 11.
Rule 11 (Amended and Supplemental Pleadings)
Section 11. Extension of time to file an answer. —
A defendant may, for meritorious reasons, be granted an
additional period of not more than thirty (30) calendar
days to file an answer. A defendant is only allowed to file
one (1) motion for extension of time to file an answer.
A motion for extension to file any pleading, other than an
answer, is prohibited and considered a mere scrap of
paper. The court, however, may allow any other pleading
to be filed after the time fixed by these Rules.
Section 11. Extension of time to plead. — Upon motion
and on such terms as may be just, the court may extend
the time to plead provided in these Rules.
The court may also, upon like terms, allow an answer or
other pleading to be filed after the time fixed by these
Rules.
Atty Kit: Motion for Extension of Time to File an Answer
is allowed only for the 1st time, for 30 days. All other
pleadings are prohibited.
So, if you file Motion for Extension of Time to File an
Answer, pagkatapos mentioned in the case of Allan Go
vs. Mortimer Cordero. The SC said, nag file ka ng
complaint, nag file ng Motion for Extension of Time to File
an Answer, thereafter nag file ng Motion to Dismiss, hindi
Answer, it was alleged that the Court has no jurisdiction
over the person, I am the defendant, there is a defective
service of summons. So, the Court took cognizance of the
Motion to Dismiss.
Q: Should the court grant the Motion to Dismis?
Atty Kit: SC said in this case, too late in the days, 25 days
delayed.
Atty Kit: Late na, too late in the day. Bakit? Kasi when you
file your Motion for Extension of Time to File an
Answer,you are deemed to have VOLUNTARILY
SUBMITTED YOURSELVES TO THE JURISDICTION OF
THE COURT. Kaya, even though there is a defective
service of summons, it was already deemed voluntary
submission to the court.
Topic: JURISDICTION OVER SUBJECT MATTER
Atty Kit: The last kind of Judicial Remedies. Yung
Jurisdiction Over Subject Matter, the most important
aspect of jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction Over Subject Matter is considered
SUBSTANTIVE in character.
Q:Why? Why do you know if the Civil Action is capable of
pecuniary investigation and is cognizable by the RTC?
Atty. Kit: Because it is under the law, it is provided by law,
under BP 129 as amended by RA 2691, Actions Not
Capable of Pecuniary Estimation.
Q: Why do you know that the action of an ejectment suit
is cognizable under the MTC?
Atty. Kit: Because the law says so.
Q: Why do you know that the action of a sum of money
amounting to P400,000 and below in Metro Manila falls
within the Jurisdiction of the MTC?
Atty Kit: Because the law says so. Because Jurisdiction
over the Subject Matter is conferred only by law, including
the 1997 Constitution. So therefore, Can you agree (the
parties) jurisdiction of the court? Can you sign a notarized
agreement?
Atty Kit: In one case, the parties agreed to file the
agreement for ejectment before the RTC. Sir why?
Because the parties are residents, are residing 10 steps
away from the RTC. Then the suit, MTC yun dapat but
they have to travel let us say 2 hrs. Kasi malayo yung MTC
but the RTC they live 10 steps nalang away from the RTC.
Katabi lang nag bahay. What did the parties do?
Atty Kit: The parties agreed voluntarily, willingly, without
any mental reservation so help me God. They both agreed
and decided to file the case in the RTC for ejectment.
They formed a written agreement. Q: Does the RTC have
jurisdiction over the case?
Atty Kit: No. The RTC does not have jurisdiction over the
case because jurisdiction is conferred by law. Nothing else VENUE JURISDICTION
but by law and cannot be a subject of an agreement by
the parties. It cannot be waived, silenced or even
cognizance of the party will not vest jursdiction over the Definitions
court.

Venue is the place where The power to try, hear,

—————END—————
the action should be decide the case.
CIVPRO FEB 9 instituted. (Geographical Includes the power to
area, location) execute the judgement
1. alonzo 4 -13

It is clear to us that in civil cases, jurisdiction is not the

Distinction (so far)
same as venue to begin with. I know that you are done
with criminal procedure. In criminal procedure,
jurisdiction is venue and venue is jurisdiction because in PROCEDURAL SUBSTANTIVE in
criminal procedure, we only file the case in the place character
where the crime was committed or where any of its
essential ingredients took place, save the exceptions.
Jurisdiction is substantive in character. Can the parties
(kaya sa crim pro, kapag ang krimen nangyari sa
agree on the jurisdiction of the court? For instance,
Mandaue City, Cebu, you cannot file a criminal case in
ejectment suit, what court has jurisdiction over the suit?
Makati city. Why? Because venue is jurisdictional in
Property is located in Mandaue City, the suit is filed by the
criminal cases.
lessor against the lessee. Ejectment (unlawful detainer),
what court has jurisdiction? MTC. Yes sir clear yan,
Q: Pero ser bakit ganun? Yung Ampatuan Case? The trial
ejectment suit, BP 129 as amended by RA 7691, the Rules
was held in Manila.
on Summary Procedure also, clear, in relation to Rule 70.
A: Yes you can transfer only the venue of the trial in Yes, clear.
criminal cases. You cannot transfer the place where you
PROBLEM: Property is located in Mandaue, but
institute the criminal action because venue is jurisdictional
ejectment suit is filed in MTC of Makati City. Because the
in criminal cases. Sa Ampatuan case for instance, case
case was filed in Makati City and the property is actually
was filed in the prosecutor’s office ng, kung hindi ako
located in Mandaue City, Cebu. Defendant moved for the
nagkakamali, doon sa Mindanao, where the crime was
dismissal of the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
committed. What was transferred, with the approval of
Does MTC Makati have jurisdiction over the ejectment
the Supreme Court, was the venue of the trial.
suit?
IN CIVIL CASES VENUE AND JURISDICTION ARE
ANSWER: YES because I asked about jurisdiction. If you
NOT THE SAME
talk about jurisdiction, certainly, definitely, all MTCs all
In civil cases, my friends, venue and jurisdiction are not over the Philippines (Luzon, Visayas, Mindanao) have
the same. jurisdiction over ejectments suits. That is because
jurisdiction is conferred by law (emphasis supplied
Important Distinctions by Atty. Kit)

Bar Tip: If asked to distinguish, do not define jurisdiction Why is jurisdiction conferred by law? Because
and venue. jurisdiction is substantive in character.

In the problem, ano yung mali? It is not jurisdiction but

the venue of the action.
[Sample Recits, no grade, kurog gihapon mga bayot] Anong ground niya, if you heard me? Mitzi? Yan, perfect.
The judge said, alright I will take cognizance over your
2. evangelista 13 - 22 motion to dismiss. Alright. After your basis not the rules
of civil procedure, but actually the rules of Summary
Guys, I call my friends sweetheart…but seriously, anak,
Procedure. Let me rectify that, kasi ejectment suit pala to.
so Mitzi, the same facts, property is located where? In,
Anong basis mo in filing a motion to dismiss? Section 19,
uh, Mandaue, Cebu, but the ejectment suit was filed in
Book 7, Summary Procedure, Section 19, Number 1.
Makati, MTC. I will agree with you, I agreed to, everyone
Prohibited Motions. Number 1 doon, motion to dismiss,
na you said na MTC Makati, has jurisdiction over the
except on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction over subject
ejectment suit. Because, ano yung mali doon? Ang venue,
matter and failed to comply with the requirements of per
venue. But not the jurisdiction of the court. Sir, bakit mali
barangay counselation. Yun dapat ang rule ah. Kasi
yung venue? First question, Mitzi. Why is the venue of the
summary procedure pala ito. Can you follow? Pag Civ Pro,
action wrong? In our case.
yun ang rule kasi Rule 15, Section 12, Rule 9, Section 1.
Pero ito, o kaya dun sa Rule 6, Section 5. Pero affirmative
Uhm Atty., because it has to be filed where the property
defenses. Pero ngayon, ejectment ito, summary
is located, Atty.
procedure, nakuha mo Mitzi? Binago ko ah? I made some
adjustments kasi narealize ko summary procedure ang
Perfect, sweetheart. Very good. Kudos, you did a good
problem, hindi civil procedure. Okay, ejectment.
job.

Okay, now, anong ginawa ni Judge? Nagfile ng motion to

Now, because it is a real action, and if you talk about real
dismiss ang defendant. Anong ground niya? Lack of
action, what’s the venue of the action, the place where
jurisdiction over subject matter. But the judge granted it,
real property is located. Agree. However, Marie Mitzi,
not on the grounds, based on the grounds of improper
alright, the defendant in this case, filed a motion to
venue, not based on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
dismiss. And what is the ground used for instance, the
Okay? Did the judge act correctly, Mitzi?
ground used is lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Because if you check the new rules of Civil Procedure
No, Atty. Because we based on uhm, the ground of
2020, alright, in relation to Rule 15, Section 12, number
improper venue.
1. Prohibited Motions, motions prohibited except on the
grounds of lack of jurisdiction over subject matter, lis
She based it on the ground of improper venue. The
pendia, Res Judicata and (inaudible). So pwede ka
ground used is lack of jurisdiction over subject matter, but
magfile ng motion to dismiss maskin wala na yung rule
the judge said no. Jurisdiction is proper. MTC’s
16, anong basis mo? Rule 15, Section 12, Number 1.
jurisdiction. What is wrong here is not jurisdiction, but
Anong basis mo? Rule 9, Section 1. May exceptions, okay?
rather venue. So I would grant the motion to dismiss, but
So pwede, nag file si Marie, ng motion to dismiss, anong
not on the lack of jurisdiction but rather on the ground of
ground niya? Lack of jurisdiction. Thinking that the
improper venue. So did the judge act correctly,
jurisdiction that the MTC, has no jurisdiction over the
sweetheart?
subject matter, over the ejectment suit. Bakit? Kasi nga,
ang property is located in Mandaue, Cebu. It was filed in
No atty. Because uhm, atty., in the rules of summary
MTC of Makati. Clear so far?
procedure, the prohibited pleading is motion to dismiss
based on lack of jurisdiction? And only jurisdiction is
Therefore, simply put. You file the motion to dismiss on
prohibited, atty.
the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.
But what did the MTC judge do? The MTC judge granted
Okay, is that your final answer, sweetheart?
the motion to dismiss. But, not on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction, but rather, on the ground of improper venue.
Yes, Atty.

Okay, do you want to change your horse in the middle of
the race?
No, Atty.
Okay, thank you sweetheart. I’ll call on another student.
Pag usapan…
Kris, the same question? It should be a different answer.
In my understanding, one of the exception for ejection
cases, because ejectment suits fall under the summary
procedure, so I think Sir, since it is an exception that you
can file a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction so I guess uhm, the petition is
correct.
What do you mean, correct?
It is correct to file a petition for a motion to dismiss the
complaint on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction by the
MTC.
Yeah, but, the issue is actually not the propriety of filing
a motion to dismiss, because I will agree with you indeed,
that as a matter exception, the section 1, the Section 19,
Number 1 of Rules of Procedure, ang nakalagay motion
is prohibited except grounds of lack of barangay
conciliation or you talk about lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter. Diba? Kasi it refers to the proceeding
sections, so lack of uhm, 5, consolation and of course,
lack of jurisdiction over subject matter. But my question
is, did the judge act correctly in granting the motion to
dismiss, not on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, the
grounds used, but rather the grounds of improper venue.
(Inaudible) That was not used in the answer, in the
motion to dismiss of the defendant.
Uhm, if I would base, I mean I would say the judge is
correct.
Why?
I think I would base my answer on your discussion earlier
when you said that, it is a problem, I mean the problems
is with regards to venue and not jurisdiction is conferred
by law, you discussed that when it comes to ejectment
suits, MTC is actually have (sic) jurisdiction over
ejectments, ejectment cases. And I, this is a problem with
regards to venue, so I think the judge correctly, ruled that
it is uh, due to improper venue, sir.
Oh yeah, sweet heart, part of our assignment, diba? In
summary procedure, can the court, motu proprio, dismiss
the case, based on improper venue.
3. garcia 22 - 31
Because ganito yan ha, let me give you distinctions guys:
Jurisdiction is substantive in character, venue is
procedural
Number 2: Since jurisdiction is substantive in character,
what is the effect? The parties cannot agree on the
jurisdiction of the court because it is conferred by
law, only by law, or kaya the 1987 Constitution.
Pero sa venue, can the parties agree? Stipulate on the
venue of the action? Yes. Section 4 of Rule IV of the Rules
on Venue allows the stipulation agreement on venue.
Jurisdiction Venue
Parties can’t agree on the Parties can stipulate the
jurisdiction or the court venue of the action
cannot stipulate
Why? The rules on venue have been formulated for
the convenience of the parties, that’s why it can be
the subject of an agreement under Section 4, Rule
IV.
Since jurisdiction is substantive in character, what is the
effect? Can you waive your objection as regards the
jurisdiction of the court? No. You cannot waive your
objection as regards the jurisdiction over the subject
matter. Why? Conferred by law, substantive in character.
Can you waive your objection as regards the venue of the
action?
Company is located in Mandaue but MTC Makati, took
cognizance of the ejectment suit, defendant did not
object. There is a waiver, because you can actually waive
the venue of the action. What is important is jurisdiction.
Pangatlong effect: Jurisdiction cannot be waived. Your
objection as regards the jurisdiction of the court over the
subject matter cannot be waived, whereas in venue, you
can actually waive your objection as regards the venue of
the action.
Fourth distinction: if you talk about jurisdiction, the court
can motu propio, what does it mean? Unilaterally without
a motion, without a hearing, on his own initiative, sua
sponte, the court may dismiss the case for lack of
jurisdiction.
Why? Conferred by law and nothing else but by law.
Venue – can the court motu propio dismiss the case based
on improper venue? No, because you can actually waive
the venue of the action. There should be a motion, there
should be a hearing. Although, we should make some
adjustments, under the new rules, hindi na sha ground
for dismissal, it can be used as an affirmative defense.
(Rule VIII, Sec. 12b in relation to Rule IV, Sec. 5)
Bakit yon? Kasi dba yung other affirmative defenses,
kasama dun yung improper venue.
Going back, what is the rule? The court cannot motu
propio dismiss the case based on the ground of
improper venue but in jurisdiction of the court, the
court can motu propio dismiss the case.
Atty: Did the court act correctly in granting the motion to
dismiss of the defendant on the case governed by the
Rules on Summary Procedure on the ground of improper
venue instead of the ground used in the motion to
dismiss which is lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter?
What was the ground used by the defendant in the
ejectment suit here? Lack of jurisdiction. Yun lng pwede,
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, tsaka failed to
comply with the requirements of a barangay conciliation,
dalawa lng Section 19, but sabi nang judge e grant ko
based on improper venue, in effect motu propio dismissal
of the case based on improper venue.
S: No, Atty. Because as you’ve said earlier the court
cannot motu propio dismiss a case based on improper
venue. Since this is an ejectment case, it should not be a
motion but rather just a defense answer.
Atty: I want you to check Sec 4 of the 1991 revised Rules
on Summary Procedure.
Calls another student… (ako diay toh huhu)
You read section 4 and tell us whether the answers of
your classmates are correct.
S: Sec. 4 of the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary
Procedure tells us about the Duty of the Court, Atty.
THE 1991 REVISED RULE ON SUMMARY
PROCEDURE
SECTION 4. Duty of Court. — After the court
determines that the case falls under summary
procedure, it may, from an examination of the
allegations therein and such evidence as may be
attached thereto, dismiss the case outright on any
of the grounds apparent therefrom for the
dismissal of a civil action. If no ground for dismissal
is found it shall forthwith issue summons which shall
state that the summary procedure under this Rule shall
apply. d-c
Atty: So when the complaint is filed what is the duty of
the court?
S: The court may dismiss the case outright on any of the
grounds apparent therefrom.
Gipa repeat ni Atty ang provision …
Atty: As you can see now, based from that provision, do
you agree with the answers, respectfully of Mitzi and
Ellen?
4. gregorio 31 - 35(4mins) and 37 -
42(5mins)
S: “I agree with the answer of Ms. Ellen, Atty. that the
court may dismiss…”
Atty. Kit: Alright, let me tell you, no offense ha, the
answers of Ellen and Mitzi are incorrect. Can you please
tell us, Angelou, why their answers are not correct?
S: Their answers are not correct, Atty, since the court may
dismiss the case outright.
Atty. Kit: I want you to remember that because that may
be asked in the BAR when the times comes. So what does
it mean, Mitzi and Ellen?
(With emphasis)
GR: The court cannot motu proprio dismiss the case
based on improper venue because it is only procedural.
Parties can waive their objections with regards to the
venue of the action.
XPN:
SEC. 4 OF THE 1991 Rules on Summary
Procedure
The court can dismiss the case outright on any grounds
available for the dismissal of the action.
Thus, if the case is governed by the Rules on Summary
Procedure, the court can actually motu proprio dismiss
the case based on improper venue because of Sec. 4 of
the 1991 RSP.
The same holds true if the case is governed by the
Revised Rules of Procedure on Small Claims. Kasi doon,
bawal ang motion to dismiss absolutely. But the court can
dismiss the case based on any grounds available for the
dismissal of the action.
Kaya doon sa problem natin kanina, the ground used was
lack of jurisdiction. The answer to it was:
Yes, all MTCs all over the Philippines have jurisdiction over
the ejectment suit.
They filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction
and not of improper venue but the judge granted the
motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue. Did
the Judge act correctly?
Ordinarily, hindi ito pwede. Why? (Na ngawp ang ante)
“I’m back, I’m sorry”
Clear-cut distinctions on venue and jurisdiction.
We emphasized that the court can motu proprio dismiss
the case based on improper venue if the case governed
by the RSP or RRP on Small claims.
JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER
Remember: concept of jurisdiction and exercise of
jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is the power to try, hear, and decide the
case plus the power to execute judgement.
Exercise of jurisdiction presupposes that the court has
jurisdiction to begin with. If it has jurisdiction over the
subject matter, the persons, the issues, the exercise of
such power is called exercise of jurisdiction. The exercise
of that power and authority is EJ. Again, if the court has
jurisdiction, the decision of all questions arising therefrom
are considered exercise of that jurisdiction.
Pag nagkamali yan, may karugtong yan:
ERRORS OF JUDGMENT
i. The court has jurisdiction
ii. If the court has jurisdiction, the
decision of all questions arising
therefrom are considered exercise of that
jurisdiction.
iii. If there are errors committed in
the exercise of jurisdiction = errors of
judgment
Ergo:
Jurisdiction – exercise of jurisdiction – errors of judgment
If there are errors committed in the exercise of
jurisdiction = errors of judgment. Errors of
jurisdiction will only happen if there is jurisdiction and
there is proper exercise of jurisdiction.
Remedies in case there is error in judgment:
● Appeal
● Motion for reconsideration
● Motion for new trial
OTOH, if the court has no jurisdiction at the outset, you
do not talk about exercise of jurisdiction because there is
no jurisdiction to begin with.
This time, there will be error of jurisdiction because
there is no jurisdiction at all.
What is the result now? What is your remedy?
5. nacua 42 - 51
On the other hand, if the court has no jurisdiction, you do
not talk about exercise of jurisdiction.
Why? Kase wala ngang jurisdiction, so walang exercise of
jurisdiction.
NO JURISDICTION, what will be the result?
- There’s an error of jurisdiction. Why? Kase
walang jurisdiction at all, hindi errors of
judgment.
Kanina errors of judgment lang kase may jurisdiction,
ngayong wala ngang jurisdiction eh so the result is errors
of jurisdiction.
What is the your remedy?
- Petition for Certiorari.
Pag sinabi mong errors of jurisdiction walang jurisdiction,
pwedeng GADALEJ, doon nyo na ipapasok ang petition for
certiorari.
Review:
Pag may Jurisdiction – result exercise of jurisdiction.
Pag nagkamali sa exercise of jurisdiction errors of
judgment.
Remedy Appeal, MR, or Motion for New Trial.
But if the court has No Jurisdiction no exercise of
jurisdiction – result Errors of Jurisdiction
Remedy Petition for certiorari.
Interruption (nay nag question)
Q: Remedy available for errors of jurisdiction, is it
automatically Rule 65 or do we have to exhaust all
available remedies before Rule 65?
A: if you go back to Rule 65, anong sabi? “Certiorari is
only available, if there is no PSA, you file a petition for
certiorari against the TBO (Tribunal Board Officer)
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial function. But
remember, the certiorari is an extraordinary remedy that
is only available if appeal is no longer available or there is
no PSA.
Ano yung PSA?
P=lain
S=peedy remedy
A=dequate
Therefore, certiorari is available if appeal is no longer
available or there is no plain, speedy or adequate remedy
under the courts of law but you don’t talk about
exhaustion iba yung exhaustion is only available at
administrative remedies. Iba yung principle nay un ha.
Iba yung exhaustion ng available administrative remedies
iba din yung doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Ang nandon
sa certiorari ang sinasabi po nandun kasi yung tanong.
You talk about MR, motion for reconsideration is a
condition sene qua non for certiorari. So your correct in
saying anak that you have to exhaust all available
remedy. But again para lang for proper use of the terms
no. Doctrine of primary jurisdiction, doctrine of
exhaustion of available administrative remedies is not the
correct answer, it is not the best answer.
You talk about administrative bodies, ang tawag po diyan.
There should be no PSA, if no plain, speedy, adequate
remedy available under regular courts of law. That before
you file a petition for certiori. You file first available
remedies, kaya MR is a condition sene qua non in filing a
petition for certiorari. Then the MR is not the PSA.
Again guys ano ibig sabihin ng PSA?
P=LAIN
S=PEEDY
A=DEQUATE
If you say TBO, what does it mean?
T=RIBUNAL
B=OARD
O=OFFICER
Exercising judicial or quasi-functions, yung mga certiorari
nayan for the main time you go back muna doon. Thank
you for asking me that questions. For the main time that’s
a valid question there. You can file a case for trial, you
can file a motion for reconsideration in the main time
because of error of judgment alright, before you file a
petition for certiorari.
We move forward, I hope this is clear enough. Now let
me move forward.
There are two principles to remember:
1. Jurisdiction is conferred by law and nothing
else but by law
2. Jurisdiction is conferred, by law and
determine by the allegations contain in the
complaint.
Very Important! Akala niyo madali lang, porket nabasa
na. Guys, believe there are several questions there in
jurisprudence. One liner, pero delikado. So jurisdiction is
determine by the allegations contained in the complaint.
So let me ask questions people, If I may, my good friend
Vincent Nacua.
Nacua: Hello Atty good evening,
Atty: maayung gabie bay, lipay ko dong, at Nakita kita
ditto.
Jurisdiction is determine by the allegations contain in the
complaint, I filed a complaint for a sum of money against
you. Ako muna ang bida, ako yung plaintiff , ikaw ang
defendant. How much? 1million pesos,
Nacua: one million pesos atty!
Atty: Perfect but, Vincent what did you do? Upon the
receipt of the summon you filed a motion to dismiss. And
what did you do you admitted that you borrow from me.
Alright let us say in Metro Manila 1 million so I filed it in
the RTC of Quezon City. You are probably aware of the
jurisdiction limit already. Alright let us say, in Metro Manila
1 million, so I filed it in the RTC of Quezon City, you are
probably aware of the limit already. In Metro Manila,
conformably of BP129 as amended by RA7691 for
100,000 exact and below MTC. For 100,000 and 1 cents
above RTC in Metro Manila. Outside Metro Manila,
300,000 and below MTC. 300,000 plus 1 centavo above
outside Metro Manila RTC. Bakit ang complaint ko 1million
syempre RTC.
6. panerio 51 - 1:00:28
Okay, but the next question here is this, you filed the
motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Why? You said alright I admit I borrow money from the
handsome atty Villasis. Please agree with me Vincent
okay. But I borrowed, Metro Manila tayu, 350, 000 only.
Therefore, the jurisdiction falls under the MTC of Quezon
City not RTC.
Bakit?
Inadmit ko na eh, not 1 million but 350,000 pesos only.
Can you follow Vincent? Now question, presented by the
situation there is a mode to dismiss. The court grant the
motion to dismiss of Mr Nacua.
Nacua: The court should not dismiss my petition Atty.
Atty: why? Whose that motion?
Nacua: The motion Atty, because what is controlling is the
allegations contained in your complaint and not on my
answer. Hence, since you allegedly put that it is one
million that I borrowed so what is controlling is the
allegations what you said in the complaint hence the RTC
has jurisdiction and my motion would not be entertained.
Atty: Okay, because precisely of the jurisdiction over
subject matter is determined only by the allegations
contained in the complaint. In other words, the
contention of the defendant in his answer or in his motion
to dismiss has nothing to do to the determination of
jurisdiction.
Why? Immaterial.
Why? Because the court will hypothetically admit the
allegations contained in the complaint to take cognizance
over the case and render judgment conformable to the
evidence presented.
Atty: Sir, papano pag ano nga yung sa bisaya
sinungaling? He lie people. Vincent he lied good is indeed
he only borrowed 300,000.00 but the plaintiff filed the
complaint for 1 million to collect also the attorney’s fees
of the handsome lawyer may hiningi kasi na 500 thousand
so pinatung na and you added it and then it total 1 million
example lang.
Now Vincent and people and tanong, should the court
grant the motion. Ang sagot natin no because:
REASON:
1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter in only
determined upon the allegations contained in
 the complaint the contention of the
defendant in his answer in his motion to
dismiss has nothing to do in the
determination of jurisdiction.
2. Remember the principle of continuity of
jurisdiction. Remember applying this
principle, once jurisdiction attaches it
continues until the final disposition of the
case even though there is a supervening
event that could have prevented the court
from acquiring jurisdiction on the first place.
Illustration
BUT now, Vincent (defendant), listen, the handsome atty.
Villasis filed an ejectment suit, so, what did you do? You
filed an answer 10 days only non-extendible under the
RSP – 10 days to file an answer, motion for extension of
time is not allowed prohibited dilatory prohibited motion.
So, nag file ka ngayon ng motion to dismiss, anong sabi
mo? “MTC has no jurisdiction because there is no lessor
and lessee relationship, there is actually a tenancy
relationship.”
And you know, if it is a tenancy relationship you talk about
the jurisdiction of DARAB (Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudicatory Board) kapag tenancy.
So, sabi mo “ang gi file ni atty. Villasis is unlawful detainer
case, lessor lessee”, “ay walang jurisdiction ang MTC
because jurisdiction falls the DARAB because may tenancy
relationship.
Q: should the court grant the motion to dismiss precisely
because you alleged in your answer/motion to dismiss
that there is no lessor-lessee relationship but there is
actually tenancy relationship and therefore, jurisdiction
falls under the DARAB?
Nacua: (hi sayup ako answer haha)
Atty: let me just highlight that this is an Exception.
GR: Jurisdiction is to be determined in the allegations of
the complaint such that the contention of the defendant
in his answer/motion to dismiss has nothing to do in the
determination of jurisdiction because the court
hypothetically admit delegation contain in the complaint
as true take cognizance of the case and render judgment
(di masabtan..) evidence presented.
That’s the rule.
HOWEVER!
7. taucan 1hr - 1hr 9
KIT: Remember the case of Illado v. Chavez (not sure sa
case title guys) CFI, Salmorin marami eh. These are
important cases, landmark cases. While the exception
people is that while the court will actually consider
allegations contained in the answer in the motion to
dismiss; if there is an allegation tenancy. BUT mind you,
caveat my friends, if there is allegation of tenancy, should
the court grant automatically, the motion to dismiss the
defendant? The answer my friend is NO.
Why? If you read these landmark cases, SC said “What
will happen? It is not enough that there is an allegation
of tenancy in the answer in a motion to dismiss. WHY??
because , there must also be evidence and ultimately,
proof of tenancy because of proof is ***(inaudible) of
evidence.
To make it simple, para Civil Procedure 101. Anong
kailangan?
1. Allegation of Tenancy
2. Evidence
3. Proof
It is not enough that you alleged in your answer or in a
motion to dismiss that there is no lessor-lessee
relationship; that there’s actually a tenancy relationship
because the court should hear, decide the evidence of the
parties.
In other words, you alleged tenancy, you present
evidence of the existence of tenancy and that’s the time
that the court can dismiss the case based on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter as a matter
of exception to the general rule that “jurisdiction over the
subject matter is determined only by the allegations
contained in the complaint.” That the contention of
the defendant’s answer in a motion to dismiss has
nothing to do determination of jurisdiction.
Clear, Vincent, everyone? Move!
Vincent: Yes, Atty.
KIT: So having said that, my friend, I’ll move forward! So
jurisdiction is already clear to all of us. Now, just a
guidance to everyone kasi this has been asked in the Bar
from time to time. Pag yung mga sum of money for
instance, makinig ha. Pamati kaayo. Oh, I’ll call another
student. Nikki! (Kulbaan si Nicole) Sweetheart, now Metro
Manila ang setting natin wag na muna Cebu para maiba
naman.
Question: You filed a complaint for a sum of money. Sa
complaint mo the obligation for instances is covered by a
promissory note. How much? 350k. In your complaint, of
course, you also claim damages 100k. Interest 50k,
Attorney’s fees 200k (masyado malaki, example lang ito
libre mangrap), litigation expenses and cost of the suit,
for instance 100k. Nikki, I cannot recall the figures that I
gave to you. Can you please read it?
Nikki: 350k - Promissory Note
100k - Damages
50k - Interest
200k - Attorney’s fees
100k - Litigation expenses/cost of the suit
____
800k - Total
KIT: Ngayon, nasaan sila sa Manila? Quezon City don e-
file yung kaso. And remember sa bar question, you’ll be
lawyer friend, you’ll be a judge. “If you were the counsel
of the plaintiff what would be your advice to the client?”
Ganon lagi sa Bar eh. So ngayon anak, indeed, if your
client would ask you “Atty. taga Quezon City ako at tsaka
yung defendant. Where should we file the complaint? RTC
or MTC? What is your answer?
Nikki: MTC, Atty.
KIT: Huh? Why?
Nikki: because the main action of the suit which is the
promissory note was only 350k and the jurisdiction as to
the amount only pertains to the main action and does not
pertain as to the interest, damages and other claims Atty.
KIT: Yeah, Nikki, don’t say main action because there’s
only one action here, diba? If you say “main action”
there’s an auxiliary action there’s none he. So why did you
say that it should be filed in the MTC, because? (in Kris
Aquino accent)
Nikki: The promissory notes only amounts to 350k, Atty.
KIT: Aw ok, because you only consider the principal not
the student! Biro lang (onsaon jud?) You only consider
the principal amount of the obligation. And what is the
principal amount of the obligation here? It is the amount
of?
Nikki: 350k.
KIT: Covered by the promissory note! Because the rule
is: You exclude damages of whatever kind! The rule is:
You exclude DIALEC. Anong yung DIALEC? May code!
D - Damages
I - Interest
A - Attorney’s fees
L- Litigation
E - Expenses
C - Cost of the Suit
You only consider Sweetheart the principal obligation. Do
you follow? The same holds true if damages are merely
incidental or consequence of a main action. You filed an
action for specific performance plus damages. Forget
about damages! WHY? It’s incidental or consequence of
a main action.
Breach of contract case, as a rule plus damages. Forget
about damages! WHY? It’s incidental or consequence of
a main action.
***(inaudible, gashagit man sya oy) case, forget about
damages! Why? I mean, you forget it in determining
which court has jurisdiction. Para clear ha? “Sir, bakit
ganun? I’m a court employee, everytime we compute the
filing fees of a plaintiff we include DAILEC. Bakit ganun?
Tama ba yung ginagawa namin?”
You’re right! WHY? Iba yung filing fees, docket fees as
determination of jurisdiction. Pag jurisdiction exclude
DIALEC.
8. villa
Atty Kit: Pag jurisdiction, exclude docket fees, exclude
damages of other kinds, filing fees.
In an idealistic society, it includes the amount of
damages, interest, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses
and cost of the suit. I will give you exceptions.
There are however some exceptions you have to
remember, like in one case, Elmer Gomez vs. Maria
Lita Montalban. Take note of this case because maybe
2 or 3 years from now, I might be the examiner.
This case is very important, what is this case all about?
So, I filed a case against the beautiful student but before
I filed the complaint, we entered into a loan agreement.
So, ako yung nagpa utang, ikaw yung umutang.
Atty Kit: Anong counterparts. So if I say Lessor? You say?
Student: Lessee.
Atty Kit: If I say Bailor?
Student: Bailee.
Atty Kit: Vendor?
Student: Vendee.
Atty Kit: Buyer?
Student: Seller.
Atty Kit: Borrower?
Student: Creditor.
Atty Kit: Borrowee? Walang borrowee, Lender?
Student: Borrower.
Atty Kit: Okay. Not the borrowee. So, we agreed under
the agreement P20,000 monthly example umutang ka
sakit nag 1M. Umutang at may 15% monthly interest,
magkano ang P20,000 + 15% monthly interest. You
signed the loan agreement it’s very clear, expressly
agreed upon by the beautiful parties and fast forward you
defaulted in paying the obligation. You defaulted and I
sent a demand letter to you but despite receipt thereof,
you refused and failed and you continuously refuse and
fail to pay the amount of let us say P350,000. That is the
principal amount, sweetheart. Again, Metro Manila pa rin
tayo, para hindi kana ma confuse sa facts.
Atty Kit: BUUUT LIZZZEN, but I am the quandary
because if I will include the amount of interest being
claimed, palagay natin P200,000 yung interest pag
sinama ko. So, P350,000 + P200,000 = P550,000, if I will
include the interest, but if I will not include the interest,
the principal amount is only P300,000. Now sweetheart,
you advice me, now you’re my counsel for instance and I
asked you Atty.
Q: Where should I file the complaint? MTC or RTC? If I
will include the interest? It should be part of the RTC
because it will become P550,000. But if you will exclude
the interest because according to you exclude dialec, I
should only file it to the MTC. Atty, what is your advice to
the handsome plaintiff?
Student: The case for the collection of a sum of money
should be filed in the RTC because in this case, the
P350,000 and also the P200,000 interest are already
legally demandable at the time when the suit was filed.
So, the interest should be included in the determination
of jurisdiction.
Atty. Kit: So you will include the amount of P200,000?
Student: Interest Atty., because it’s already
demandable. The debtor had already served demands.
Atty Kit: And counsel what is your basis? Please
convince Nicole Evangelista.
Student: Because Atty., in actions for collection of sum
of money what is controlling is the amount that is
already legally demandable Atty.
Atty Kit: Wag kang ma uwaw. Wag kang mahiya. Speak
your mind sweetheart. Oh sige, you’re on the right track.
Give yourself away.
Student: That’s all I have Atty.
Atty Kit: But you heard the case that I mentioned
earlier?
Student: I have not read the case Atty.
Atty Kit: It’s okay. There’s no problem, wala namang
grade ang recitation ngayon eh. Wala nga akong class
cards with me right now eh. Wala rin akong dalang
notes. Anyway, Elmer Gomez case, remember the case
because this is a landmark case. I want you to read it
sweet heart. Remember the case of Elmer Gomez vs.
Maria Lita Montalban. In this case, I want you to
remember yung mga basic ha yun yung basahin ninyo
sa libro nyo.
Atty Kit: This this the exception to the rule because in
the case of Elmer Gomez vs. Maria Lita Montalban .
The SC said we have to include the amount of interest
being claimed . Why?
The SC said, since the interest on the loan is a
PRIMARY and INSEPARABLE COMPONENT OF THE
CAUSE OF ACTION AND ALREADY DETERMINABLE
AT THE TIME OF THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT.
It should be included in the determination of which court
has jurisdiction over the petitioner’s case.
Atty Kit: Bakit? Kasi nga expressly agreed upon at the
outset yung parties doon sa monthly amortization and
yung interest. So, it should be included as a matter of an
exception
Elmer Gomez vs. Maria Lita Montalban .
(GR. No. 174414 March 14, 2008)
Facts:
Maria Lita Montalban obtained a loan from Elmer
Gomez in the amount of P40,000 with a voluntary
proposal on her part to pay 15% interest per month.
Montalban failed to comply with her obligation so
Gomez filed a complaint in the RTC for sum of money.
Summons was served but despite her receipt, she still
failed to file an Answer. She was declared in default
and upon motion, Gomez was allowed to present
evidence ex parte. The RTC rendered a decision
ordering Montalban to pay Gomez.
Thereafter, respondent filed a Petition for Relief from
Judgment alleging that there was no proper service of
summons since there was no personal service. She
alleged that one Mrs. Alicia Dela Torre was not
authorized to receive summons and that her failure to
file an Answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake,
excusable negligence (FAME). The Petition was set for
hearing but counsel for respondent failed to appear
before the court hence the dismissal of the Petition.
Montalban filed for a Motion for Reconsideration of the
dismissal of the Petition stating that counsel’s failure to
appeal was unintentional to which the RTC granted. To
this instance, Gomez filed a Petition for
Reconsideration.
Issue: Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction.
Ruling:
Yes. it is irrelevant that during the course of the trial, it
was proven that respondent is only liable to petitioner
for the amount of P40,000.00 representing the
principal amount of the loan; P57,000.00 as interest
thereon at the rate of 24% per annum reckoned from
26 August 1998 until the present; and P15,000.00 as
attorney's fees. Since the interest on the loan is a
primary and inseparable component of the
cause of action, not merely incidental thereto,
and already determinable at the time of filing of
the Complaint, it must be included in the
determination of which court has the
jurisdiction over petitioner’s case.
Contrary to respondent's contention, jurisdiction can
neither be made to depend on the amount ultimately
substantiated in the course of the trial or proceedings
nor be affected by proof showing that the claimant is
entitled to recover a sum in excess of the jurisdictional
amount fixed by law. Jurisdiction is determined by the
cause of action as alleged in the complaint and not by
the amount ultimately substantiated and awarded.
Basic as a hornbook principle is that jurisdiction over
the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and
determined by the allegations in the complaint which
comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts
constituting the plaintiff's cause of action. The nature
of an action, as well as which court or body has
jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the
allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff,
irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to
recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.
The averments in the complaint and the character of
the relief sought are the ones to be consulted. Once
vested by the allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction
also remains vested irrespective of whether or not the
plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the
claims asserted therein.
FEB 16
1. Alonzo
2. Evangelista
JUDICIAL HIERARCHY
In the case of Apo Fruits Corporation vs. CA, the issue is
Agrarian Reform and Supreme Court said you can
disregard the principle of judicial hierarchy and go directly
to the SC.
Also an exception to a doctrine of (25:13) of judgment we
shall discuss here. Now, (inaudible) Exception, for
instance, in the case of Alliance of Homeowners of
Quezon City vs. the Quezon City Government, meron
kasing ordinance passed increasing the fair market value
of the real properties in quezon city. So the alliance of
homeowners of quezon city filed or questioned the
constitutionality, validity of this particular ordinance.
Diba? And ultimately, they went to the immediately the
supreme court. Eh, fast forward. And supreme court said
that that is an issue that involves transcendental interest
or importance to the public because it will actually affect
more than 10 million people in Quezon City.
So these are exceptions to the rule. But kung basic lang
muna, second year law, what should you realize that in
any event, you have to follow the principle of judicial
hierarchy. Kapag certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, habeas corpus, and main action for injunction,
you have to apply the principle of judicial hierarchy, save
the exceptions.
JUDICIAL STABILITY
Doctrine of judicial stability, or the doctrine of non-judicial
interference. No court may interfere against the
jurisdiction of another court of equal level, and coordinate
jurisdiction. Again, no court may interfere against the
jurisdiction of another court of equal level, and at least of
coordinate jurisdiction.
No court of equal grade may issue a writ of injunction or
a TRO as regards to execution of the decision of another
court of equal level and coordinate jurisdiction.
We need to have judicial stability. Kaya nga ang tawag
diyan doctrine of Judicial stability or doctrine of non-
judicial interference.
In other words, let me make it simple, RTC Branch 1 of
Cebu City and RTC Branch 2 of Cebu City. Pwedeng RTC
Cebu City and RTC of Makati City. All RTC all over the
Philippines are on equal and coordinate jurisdiction. And
what is the effect? They cannot interfere with each other’s
jurisdiction, because there should be judicial stability. So
RTC of Makati cannot issue a TRO or a writ of injunction
as regards to the execution of the decision rendered by
the RTC of Cebu City. Actual case yan ah, binigay na kaso.
Bakit the same level and coordinate jurisdiction.
It also applies to quasi-judicial bodies, you must be aware
at this point that the quasi-judicial bodies are of equal
grade with the RTC, the same level. So kunyari, decision
of the NLRC, administrative body, can the RTC issue a
TRO or a written injunction as regards to the execution of
the decision rendered by the NLRC. As mentioned, they
are the same level. What will happen? We’re going to
violate the doctrine of judicial stability or the doctrine of
non-judicial interference.
Court of Tax Appeals, pursuant to RA 9282, has equal
level already with the CA, they are the same level.
Therefore, dati kasi, can you check your, can you read
rule 43?
Student: Appeals From the Court of Tax Appeals and
Quasi-Judicial Agencies to the Court of Appeals
Guys, Change the title. Kindly remove Court of Tax
Appeals. Lagyan niyo ng cross. Kasi pursuant to the law,
RA 9282, the law expanding the jurisdiction of the court
of tax appeals, yung court of tax appeals, is at equal level
already with the CA. Yung dating rule, Rule 43, tells us
that if you’re going to appeal a decision of the court of tax
appeals, and other quasi-judicial agencies, you go to the
court of appeals. That’s why I told you, you remove CTA
kasi parehong level na, ang court of tax appeals under RA
9282, the law expanding the jurisdiction of the court of
tax appeals, the court of tax appeals now is of equal level
or the same level with the CA.
How can we apply the doctrine of judicial stability? Can
we appeal the decision of the CTA to the CA? No. Bakit?
Kasi the same level nga. So we’re going to apply the
doctrine of judicial stability.
Decisions of the RTC branch 1, cannot be a subject of a
TRO, or written injunction, by the RTC Branch 2, or kaya
RTC Cebu City, cannot be a subject of a TRO or injunction
by the RTC of Makati City. Bakit? Same level. We’re going
to abide the doctrine of judicial stability. The same holds
true when we talk about NLRC. In the case of Santos vs.
Bayhon, NLRC again NLRC, administrative bodies, same
level with the RTC. So kunyare, illegal dismissal case, you
file it to the labor arbiter, pagkatapos you go to the NLRC,
from the NLRC, you file an MR, then you go to court of
appeals, you file a petition for certiorari (inaudible) vs.
NLRC. Kapag may kadecision yung NLRC, can you go to
the RTC, and ask for a TRO or writ of injunction to stop
the execution of the decision the NLRC in the illegal
dismissal case? Of course the answer is no because the
same level again, we’re going to violate the doctrine of
judicial stability.
Exception to Judicial Stability
There is one exception that I want you to remember.
Consider the case of Abiera, the landmark case of Abiera
vs CA, Santos vs. Bayhon also.
Let us say, okay, sum of money case, and ultimately fast
forward, the plaintiff in this particular case, was able to
secure a favorable judgment against the defendant. Let’s
say 1 million pesos, and fast forward, a writ of execution
was already issued by the court. And of course, it is now
subject for execution, okay? Nung executing judgment,
okay? Ganito kasi, wala pa tayo sa execution no, pero
pagkwentuhan natin. Ganito ka simple. So, may decision,
kaming dalawa ni Dean Joan Largo. Panalo siya, talo ako.
So she won the case against me, sum of money case,
which is 1 million pesos. Kasi Rule 39 na to. Now, ano ang
kwento, sum of money case, how will the Dean Largo
execute a decision against me? So she’s armed already
with the judgment in her favor, of course meron nang writ
of execution. Okay? Directing the defendant to pay the
plaintiff the amount of 1 million pesos corresponding
damages, interest, attorny’s fees, litigation expenses and
costs of the suit. So si sheriff ngayon will go to the
defendant borrower. Ang tawag niya sa akin ay may talo
daw sa kaso, judgment debtor. Anong other term?
Judgment obligor. Borrower ako, defendant ako. Talo
ako. I lost the case so magbayad ka, defendant. So the
sheriff now will go to me and he will tell me, oh,
defendant, okay? A favorable judgment was secured by
the plaintiff plaintiff, Dean Joan Largo, and so you have
to pay 1 million pesos. So the sheriff will ask me, do you
have cash? Oh eh walang cash, wa ko cash bai. Okay, so
kung wa kay cash bai, eh meron ka ba diyang manager’s
check? Certified bank check? Na pambayad mo? (speaks
Bisaya “wa man gyud bai, wa gyud manager’s check.) Ah
okay, so walang cash, walang manager’s check, makinig
ah? Pwede bang promissory note? Sheriff, promissory
note lang. Pangako, magpapakabait na ako. Hindi ko na
aawayin si plaintiff. No no, promissory note dun sa
execution, sa utang ay hindi rin po pwede. Okay? Merong
ruling diyan. Daguoc vs Erlina.
In Daguoc vs Erlina, so yung promissory note is not
included in the rules of court. The only exception is if its
acceptable to a judgment creditor. Kung papayag si
judgment creditor, saka po papayagan yung promissory
note. Eh ayaw pumayag ni Dean Largo. So anong
gagawin na ni sheriff? Sheriff will look for properties
belonging to the defendant. Pag may nakuha siyang
personal property, execute na yan, pagkat kulang pa ang
kuha ng real property. Let us say, maghahanap siya ng
property under my name, so sabi niya, Atty. Villasis, do
you have any personal properties? Wala sheriff. Baka
naman kotse? Wala po eh. Oh, so anong sasakyan mo?
Wala. Nakakabahay lang ako eh. Sayo yun? Hindi.
Nirentahan ko lang.
So wala, walang makuha si Sheriff. Now sheriff will look
for real property. “So meron ka bang bahay? Eh mga
apartment units? Wala din eh. So sheriff, pasensya ka na,
pasayloa ko bai.” Okay, so anong gagawin ni Sheriff?
The sheriff will look for properties. sheriff will look for
properties and these properties will be levied on
execution. Sheriff now found a property as a rule walang
problema kung ilevy. “eto property ko, house and lot”
nilevy ni sheriff, pambayad sa utang kay dean largo. So
yung bahay ibibigay ba niya ni Dean Largo? Hindi.
Iauction sale pa yun. Pag nanalo si Dean Largo, walang
ibang nag bid, okay? What will happen? Meron pang 1
year redemption period on my end. Pwede iredeem yung
property. Ganun ang kwento. So what is the issue here?
Ang issue ganito, pag nag levy si sheriff ng property, all
the while the sheriff thought that that property that he
levied no, is owned by the handsome defendant.
However, the properties that actually owned by the
handsome defendant is owned by another person. A third
person who is not a party to the action. Makinig ha? Itong
problem, apat, upat na ka beses ui, Upat na gyud ui.
(speaks Bisaya)
3. Garcia (40:00-55:00)
Ganito yung exceptions.
So the Sheriff thought that the property is owned by the
defendant, pero hindi pala, owned by a third person. So
anong mangyayari? The sheriff is about to sell the
property already in an auction sale, the property is about
to be sold. The property is not owned by the defendant
but owned by a third person.
This third person now will complain to the sheriff,
“property is not owned by the defendant, I actually own
the property, I am a third person here, I am a third-party,
I am not a party in the action, why did you levy my real
property?,” So yan ang proseso nya, ideally pagka
pumayag anong gagawin ni third-party
defendant/claimant? Sabi niya, “Sheriff, if you will not
release the property to me, I will execute a third-party
claim.”
Ano yung third-party claim? That Dean Capanas is a third
person, not a party in the action, that he owns the
property. He will state in the affidavit his rights, interest,
ownership over the property levied upon by the Sheriff
about to be sold in a public auction. E-file nya ang third-
party claim kai Sheriff, the Sheriff will then talk to the
judgment-obligee (yung nanalo).
Sheriff: “I received an affidavit of third-party claim,
under Rule 39, Sec. 16, I will have to release the
property to a third -party claimant.”
XPN: Post a court approved indemnity bond.
Sheriff: “Pag nag post ng indemnity bond, I will ignore the
third-party claim”
If the Sheriff ignores the third-party claim, anong remedy
ni Dean Capanas, he is not a party to the action? So nag
render ng decision against me is RTC Branch 1, Cebu City.
Anong gagawin ni Dean Capanas? Ang property ni levy ni
Sheriff, about to be sold in a public auction.
REMEDY: Go to court, file an action to nullify the
levy, ask a temporary restraining order, ask a writ
of injunction from the RTC in order to stop the
Sheriff to sell his property in a public auction.
Pag finile ni Dean Capanas ang action to nullify the levy
with prayer for issuance of a TRO or a writ of injunction.
This would be raffled to another court.
Palagay natin na naraffle sha sa RTC Branch 2, dalawa
na:
● RTC Branch 1 na nag render ng decision, and
pursuant to the decision rendered by RTC Branch
1, the Sheriff levied the property, but this is … by
the third person. This third person went to the
court, it was raffled to RTC Branch 2, he filed an
action to nullify the levy with prayer for TRO or
writ of injunction to stop the auction.
● RTC Branch 2 took cognizance over the petition
to nullify the levy and issued a TRO and later on
a writ of injunction. Ano yung ini-enjoin nya?
Yung auction sale of a decision rendered by RTC
Branch 1.
But again, yung RTC Branch 1 and RTC Branch 2, the
same level yan.
Calls a student…
Atty: Was there a violation of the Doctrine of Judicial
Stability?
Student: I’m not actually sure, but I think there’s no
violation
Atty: Can you tell us the reason why.
Student: Because if we were to follow the Doctrine of
Judicial Stability, it would mean that RTC Branch 2 would
not have the power to nullify or issue the TRO and
injunction against Branch 1’s issuance order, that would
then cause a miscarriage of justice against the third-party
claimant who actually owns the property just levied. That
would be my reasoning, Attorney, but I am not entirely
sure.
Atty: Indeed as a rule, you talk about Doctrine of Judicial
Stability that no court will interfere against the jurisdiction
of another court of equal level and coordinate jurisdiction.
And indeed as a rule, the RTC Branch 2 cannot issue a
TRO or writ of injunction as regards the execution of the
decision rendered by RTC Branch 1. Kasi nga Doctrine of
Judicial Stability or Doctrine of Non-judicial Interference.
However, TN that third party claim is the exception
to Doctrine of Judicial Stability.
Why? SC said, it would be a height of injustice if they
are going to allow a property owned by a third
person to be levied upon by the Sheriff and sold in
a public auction.
Why? In the first place, the court has no jurisdiction
over the person of this third party claimant. And
secondly, in your political law, in your constitutional law,
anong tawag jan, that will result in an unlawful
taking, violative of the principles of due process. It
is elementary to note, that no person should be deprived
of his property without due process of law. Therefore, in
one sentence, third party claim, pursuant to the ruling of
the SC in the case of Abiera v. CA, Santos v. Bayhon, SC
said precisely, third party claim is the exception to
Doctrine of Judicial Stability.
PRINCIPLE OF CONTINUITY OF JURISDICTION/
ADHERENCE TO COURT’S JURISDICTION
Once jurisdiction attaches, it continues until the
final disposition of the case even though there is a
supervening event, that could have prevented the
court from acquiring jurisdiction on the first place.
Landmark case: Mark Jimenez a.k.a “Mario Crespo” vs.
Judge ??? (wa ko kasabot sa name jud sorry guys)
Principle applies in criminal cases, even in civil
cases.
Last time, I asked you about a sum of money and asked
you what if the plaintiff filed a complaint for a sum of
money amounting to 1M in RTC of Quezon City.
Consequently the defendant filed an answer, or kaya a
motion to dismiss, sabi nya, “I admit I borrowed money
from the plaintiff but I borrowed only 350k. In Metro
Manila, if you talk about 400k below, MTC has
jurisdiction.”
Ang claim ni plaintiff is 1M pero defendant filed already a
Motion to Dismiss because RTC has no jurisdiction, admits
that he borrowed money but only in the amount of 350K.
Presented with this situation, should the court grant the
Motion to Dismiss? Pwede ba mag file ng Motion to
Dismiss sa civil Procedure? Dba may exception naman,
under Rule 15, Sec. 12 (1) of that New Rules of Civil
Procedure? Motion to Dismiss prohibited, EXCEPT
jurisdiction over the subject mater, lis pendentia, res
judicata, and prescription.
Anyway, should the court grant the motion to dismiss
since the defendant admitted in his motion to dismiss that
indeed he borrowed money from the plaintiff but only in
the amount of 350K which is below the jurisdictional limit
of the RTC, it should have been filed in the MTC?
Sabi natin NO for 2 reasons:
1. Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations
contained in the complaint, the contention of the
defendant in his answer has nothing to do in the
determination of jurisdiction. Immaterial yon.
Because the court will hypothetically admit the
allegations contained in the complaint as true, take
cognizance of the case, and render judgment
conformably to the evidence presented.
2. Apply principle of continuity of jurisdiction or
adherence to court’s jurisdiction.
RULES ON SMALL CLAIMS
What is the threshold amount now if we talk about small
claims action? The rules of procedure on small claim, so
2016. May 2010 tapos inamendahan, tapos ultimately
2016.
4. Gregorio
5. Nacua (1:10:00 - 1:25:00)
If you take a careful scrutiny of the statement of claim,
you just get a copy from the clerk of court, pr forma, you
just complete that, that’s the statement of claim already.
And mentioned therein, if you take a careful scrutiny of
the statement of claim, it will say, “by filing of this action,
you are deemed to have waived the excess of 400k”.
Kaya, if you are willing to waive the excess of 400k, it can
be governed by the rules of procedure on small claims.
So, pwede naman, the MTC will assume jurisdiction here,
BUT, it can only award an amount up to 400k. because
there is only the jurisdictional limit of the MTC.
SMALL CLAIMS ACTIONS
Q. pwede ba rito yung Joinder? What do you mean
by joinder?
Illustration
B borrowed money from A, 100k, he will buy a bike, B
borrowed money again from A, 150k, he will buy a bike
for GF. B borrowed money again another 150k, to buy a
bike for his brother. Total is 400k.
Pwede ba ito pang small claims?
Atty (a): Dito ba, is joinder allowed if you talk about small
claims? Having said that, GR: lawyers are not allowed to appear
and represent a party in a small claim action.
S: Yes.
XPN: if the lawyer is a party (plaintiff/defendant)
This is allowed as long as the aggregate amount of
the claim falls within the jurisdiction of a small Now, of course, papaano po kapag company? and the
claim action. Board of directors passed a board resolution authorizing
atty villasis to file the complaint on behalf of the
Joinder is ALLOWED. corporation.

OTOH, if you say counterclaims, that is a claim of the May board resolution naman ako, I (atty) have the
defendant against the plaintiff. If ikaw plaintiff, si atty ang secretary’s certificate, does that allowed by the rules?
defendant, you (student) filed a complaint against me, I
(atty) could set up include in my answer “Compulsory A: NO. Kase if you read the revised rules of procedure on
counterclaim” or otherwise “Permissive Counterclaim”. small claims, nakalagay jan “by filing this action, I am
deemed to have waived my right to institute the action…
What is Compulsory Counterclaim?
Ano ngang nakalagay jan? Ang lawyer ba, pupwede ba
Illustration mag appear? – so ang nakalagy jan, “Juridical entities
shall not be represented by a lawyer in any capacity”.
Kunyare, because you (student) filed a complaint against
me (atty), I suffered from sleepless nights, serious
SEC. 18. Appearance.– The parties shall personally
anxiety, so again, moral damages, that is a compulsory
appear on the designated date of hearing. Appearance
counterclaim.
through a representative must be for a valid cause. The
representative of an individual-party must not be a
So compulsory counterclaim, arises out or it is
lawyer, and must be related to or next-of-kin of the
necessarily connected with the transaction or
individual-party. Juridical entities shall not be
occurrence which is a subject matter of the
represented by a lawyer in any capacity.
complaint.
The representative must be authorized under a Special
So, moral damages, atty fees, I was compelled to engage
Power of Attorney (Form 7-SCC) to enter into an
the services of a lawyer, - compulsory counterclaim.
amicable settlement of the dispute and to enter into
stipulations or admissions of facts and of documentary
Counterclaim - is the claim of the defendant against
exhibits.
the plaintiff, the defending party against the claiming
party.
SEC. 19. Appearance of Attorneys Not Allowed.–
No attorney shall appear in behalf of or represent a
Q. Is a counterclaim allowed in small claims?
party at the hearing, unless the attorney is the plaintiff
or defendant. If the court determines that a party
A: YES. Allowed in small claims whether compulsory or
cannot properly present his/her claim or defense and
permissive, as long as the threshold amount does not
needs assistance, the court may, in its discretion, allow
exceed 400k – MeTC, or kaya 300k for MTCs.
another individual who is not an attorney to assist that
party upon the latter’s consent.
Pag small claims, may Rule tayo na BAWAL ANG
ABOGADO.
So, even though I (atty) am armed with the board
Cheka resolution with corresponding secretary’s certificate, I
May lecture daw siya entitled “How to collect debts cannot represent the corporation in a small claims action.
without a lawyer using the small claims court”.
Q. How about an individual client? Can an individual
execute SPA authorizing the lawyer to appear and
represent him in a small claim action?
A: NO, because individuals cannot be represented by a
lawyer. They can only be represented by a person who is
next of kin who is not a lawyer.
Finally, sa small claims, maganda po yung proseso kase
dito, 1 day lang yan.
Ibig sabihin:
On the day of the hearing, the judge will encourage the
parties to explore the possibility of settlement. If the
parties agreed, they have to execute the
compromise agreement, and the same will be
submitted to the judge for approval.
If the court approves the same, we have a judgment
based on compromise. And the judgment based on a
compromise by the parties is a valid judgment. And it can
be a subject of execution already.
If the parties, however on the other hand, failed to
agree, on the same day of the hearing, the judge will
conduct a trial.
Yung trial, it’s informal. No tedious process on appeal, no
rules on evidence, IOW, walang objections2 dyan.
Illustration
Kunyare ako and dean largo, ito yung ebidensya ko
(promissory note) can she object? NO, hindi naman sya
abogado eh. Because lawyers are not allowed to appear
and represent the parties.
So, informal. In fact, sa demand letter, relax yung rules
eh. If you check the statement of claim, merong
enumeration doon on “how did you demand payment
obligation?”. Nakalagay po dun, pwedeng phone, others,
in writing… ibig sabihin, relax yung rules on the demand
because the amount of the demand naman is small
400k.
Having said that, yan yung situation natin. On the same
day, there would be a hearing, parties will present their
respective evidence, no rules on evidence, informal ang
proceeding, and thereafter, pagkatapos ng hearing nay
an, within a period of 24hrs, the judge should render a
decision.
Q. Dito pag may decision si judge, what will happen?
Natalo ako, panalo si dean largo, can I file a MR?
A: MR is NOT ALLOWED
Q. So, I lost the case, can I appeal that decision of that
MTC, governed by the rules of procedures of small
claims to the higher court?
A: NO. appeal is expressly PROSCRIBED / PROHIBITED
by the rules.
Q. So, no MR, no Appeal. Why?
A: Because decisions in a small claim actions are
considered FEU (Final, Executory and Unappealable)
Q. What is your remedy if you talk about a small claim
action?
A: Well, in the case of A.L. Ang network vs Mondejar.
A.L. Ang network vs Mondejar
SC: since the rules prohibit the filing of an appeal, the
remedy, if you talk about a small claim action, is to
file a petition for certiorari under rule 65 of
ROC.
Another topic
In small claims, you also have to consider cheques. Pag
tumalbog po yung cheque, pwede po pang BP 22, pwede
rin pong pang Small Claims actions.
Having said that, if you talk about this situation. You
cannot have the best of both worlds. You have to choose.
Either you file:
(1) criminal case of BP 22; or
(2) Small claim action.
Hindi pwedeng dalawa. Only 1 remedy.
If you file a BP 22 case, you cannot anymore file a small
claim action involving the same bouncing check.
Recall
In your criminal procedure, rule 11 sec 1 (b) prosecution
of civil action…
(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the
corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such
civil action separately shall be allowed.
“No separate action is allowed if you talk about BP 22”
Kaya nga sa BP 22, lahat ng sources of civil liability: (law,
contracts, quasi-contract, delict, quasi-delict) are deemed
impliedly instituted with the penal action of BP 22 as a
matter of exception pursuant to the ruling of the SC in the
case of Paz Bernardo vs PP (?), PP vs Bayotas.
Q. Now, in the same manner, that if you file initially a
small claim action, can you file later on a criminal case for
BP22?
A. Hindi na po pupwede. Anong basis natin? Not the
rules, but again, yung statement of claim.
6. Panerio
1:25:00
Therefore, pag small claims class to make it simple pag
bouncing check, you just choose one remedy either:
Small claims action, you cannot file a small claim action
anymore in the same manner if you filed a small claim,
you cannot file BP22 anymore.
Meron pa, another thing is you have your rules on small
claims can you go to section 7 very important tapos okay
nayun. Substantial nayun.
Student: It’s venue atty.
Atty: Your name again sweet heart
Student: JO JACOBO ATTY.
Atty: Jo ganito you follow the rules on venue if you talk
about civil actions. So personal action action, you will
know the venue of the action. So normally pagka small
claims place of the residence of the plaintiff, or place of
the residence of the defendant at the option of the
defendant that is venue for you. Likewise, pwede rin
kapag corporation yan, where is the residence of
corporation, you talk about the principal place of the
corporation. So the principal place of business or
corporation is the residence of the corporation.
Normally po sa small claims you talk about the lending
companies and sa mga lending financing companies gaya
ng ibang mga cliente naming like banks instutions,
lending, those entities engage in the business of lending,
banking and other similar activities. Alright?
Here, pag corporation ang involve saan ang venue? Don
sa principal place or office of the corporation based sa
articles of incorporation nakalagay man sa articles of
incorporation. Residence/place nasa articles of
incorporation. Nakalagay don class yung principal place
or office of the corporation. Yan na po yung residence ng
corporation.
Normally kapag yung lending company, o kaya yung
bangco oh kaya yung financial institution. Meron siyang
principal place of business or office sa Makati, e yung
borrower is a resident of a Mandaue Cebu. So pag nag
default ang borrower from cebu. In paid obligation, what
will happen? Yung lending company that has principal
office or business in Makati will file a small claims action,
saan? Sa Makati. Kawawa naman kaayu uy yung cebuana
that should go to Makati. Those are small claims action.
And because of that, that became an amendment in 2016
revised rules of procedure. Because here class if you
check section 7 can you please read it anak?
Student: Ahmm all the provisions atty?
Atty: Yung pangalawa lang, however if the…
Student: SECTION 7 (2) However, if the plaintiff is engage
in the business of lending or banking or similar activities
and has a branch within this municipality or city where
the defendant resides, the statement of claims shall be
filed where that branch is located.
Atty: You know that provision, will soon become a subject
of a bar examination question because precisely the Chief
Justice Renato Peralta he was the chairman of the
committee of the SC when he was an associate justice
palang during the time of Juctice Bersamin I think. He was
asked to lead the committee in amending the rules of
procedure of small claims. So that is the child of the Chief
Justice. So having said that. Remember, precisely that is
the purpose of the committee they wanted my friends to
make it convenient of the defendants kasi kawawa before
kapag ang pricinpal place of business or office ng lending
company or ng bank nasa Makati mga kaibigan or nasa
Quezon City or ang defendant nasa Mindanao pupunta pa
ng Makati court. My God! Kapag kinasuhan siya. Diba?
Ngayun, iniba na yung rule, if the plaintiff is engaged in
the LBS=LENDING, BANKING and other SIMILAR
ACTIVITIES and has a branch in the City or Municipality
where the defendant resides, the Statement of Claim shall
be filed in the MTC where that branch is located.
Q. Ano pong ibig sabihin?
So sa example nating, taga saan yung barrower natin?
Sorry sweetheart yung sa Mandaue Cebu. Since taga
Mandaue Cebu. Yun nalang Jo no, saan mag file ng small
claims action or let us say the borrower defaulted in
paying the obligation. Traditionally go to Makati, go to
Quezon City because of this amendment or let as say for
example lang.
X lending company has a branch, I am not so familiar in
geographical location pero Mandaue. In Mandaue my
MTC, I am not sure ha. Anyway, sa Mandaue nakatira ang
borrower and he defaulted in paying obligation.
Q. Where should the lending company filed the
complaint? In Makati or assuming the may MTC sa
Mandaue. In Makati or MTC Mandaue?
Ans: MTC of Mandaue because that is precisely the
amendment under Section 7. If the plaintiff is engage in
the business of lending, banking and other similar
activities or has a branch in the City of Municipality where
the defendant resides. The statement of claims shall be
filed in the court where that branch is located.
Atty: Do you understand the words that come out to my
mouth?
That is small claims.
Now, I will go on the RULES ON SUMMARY
PROCEDURE. Para covered kuna lahat yun tapos
babalikan ko nalang yung jurisdiction of various courts.
But anyway, nakuha niyo na yung small claims?
Naintindihan niyo na? Clear clear, klaro or okay.
Now, let’s talk about summary procedure. The rules of
summary procedure mga kaibigan. 1991 RULES ON
SUMMARY PROCEDURE. Of course sa summary
procedure the first thing that I want you to remember is
this if you talk about the rules on summary procedure.
Q. What are the cases that are govern by the rules
on summary procedure?
So you have of course pwede criminal, pwede civil cases
but of course for our class in civil procedure so in order
not to confuse you my friend no for purposes of this class
in civil procedure I will just discuss civil cases that govern
by the rules on summary procedure.
Primarily you talk about ejectment suit.
Q. Ano ba yung ejectment suit?
Forcible entry, unlawful detainer.
Q. Ano po ito mga kaibigan?
Paalisin mo sa bahay=>forcible entry
Ano yun, nakatira ako sa bahay na ito biglang pumasok si
dean Largo, e eject ko siya wala naman ako permiso sa
kanya. I have to go to court and file a forcible entry case,
ibig sabihin I am in possession, my prior possession ako,
pumasok si defendant=>forcible entry.
Q. Bakit forcible entry?
Pwede pong by reason of force, intimidation, threat,
strategy, thief, then among others sa rule 70=>forcible
entry.
Now, you also have my friends, unlawful detainer=>ito
yung mga nag rerenta. Diba I am leasing the apartment
unit, the apartment of dean Largo and of course associate
dean Largo then ang sabi ko I paid 10k or 15k for
instance. Okay, I stop paying already so what will happen
I can be remove from the apartment unit of dean Largo.
But I have to go to court okay. You talk about my friends
unlawful detainer case.
An ejectment suits=>governed by the rules on summary
procedure. Similarly, considering the amendments there
from November 25 2002 the amount is increase already
from 2,000 to 200k in Metro Manila or 100k outside Metro
Manila. So, pwede napong small claims in summary
procedure but ginagamit small claims kasi bigger pa yung
amount but nonetheless kung summary procedure 200k
below in Metro Manila and 100k below outside Metro
Manila. Pwede pong govern ng summary procedure on
Q. what court has the jurisdiction?
First level court on MTC, MeTC, MCTC. Whether criminal
case or civil case MTC yan first level courts.
Now, ano po ang situation natin. Having said that my
friends sa summary procedure so ejectment at sum of
money claims excluding settlement of estate probate.
Hindi yan pwede sa small claims namatay succeeded by
last will testament of the testator. O kaya walang last will
testament yung gross value ng estate that it shall not
exceed 200k. Hindi pwedeng govern ng summary
procedure because the rules on summary procedure will
not apply if you talk about settlement on estate.
So now, pagkwentuhan natin. So sa summary procedure
class, pag nagfile ako ng complaint for ejectment for
instance=> summary procedure. When we file the
complaint the defendant will file the answer then another
rules defendant has non extendable of 10 days to file his
answer. Be careful. Summary procedure only to file and
answer non extendible.
Q. Can the defendant file a motion to dismiss,
instead of filing the answer within 10day period?
Ans: As a rule, under the section 19 of the rules on
summary procedure motion to dismiss is prohibited
except on two grounds: lack of jurisdiction over
the subject matter; failure to comply with the
requirements of prior barangay conciliation
pursuant to section 18.
As a rule hindi pepwede except on two grounds sa
summary procedure:
1. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
2. Failure to comply requirements of prior
barangay conciliation.
Now having said that class, so I will file an answer within
10days.
Q. But Can I file a motion on bail of particulars and
tell the court that there are vague and ambiguous
allegations contained in the complaint that are
required to be alleged with sufficient particularity
and indefiniteness? In other words, your honor I don’t
understand the allegations in the complaint I am filing for
the motion of bail of particulars for the plaintiff to clarify
the vague and ambiguous allegations.
Ans: Motion for bail of particulars is not allowed in
summary procedure. Yung rule 12 at yung rule 116 sa
crim pro motion for bail of particulars sa section 9 doon
hindi po pwepwede yan sa summary procedure.
1:40: 34
7. Taucan
TOPIC: Motion for Extension of Time
KIT: Motion for Extension of Time hindi rin po pupwede
manfile nyan. ***inaudible…
Q: Can she file a reply?
A: NO. Reply is prohibited under the RSP.
Therefore class, you have to memorize the prohibited
pleadings and motions kasi yun yung favorite question:
Enumerate the prohibited pleadings and motions. Lagi
may be objective. I ask for 20 questions for instance, part
2 ganyan, mayroon dyan isang enumeration, mag tatlo
may apat. Kasi ba’t ko kailangan itanong? Kasi sa Bar
exam po kasi, sa Summary procedure ang laging tanong
you talk about the prohibited pleadings and motions, Sec
19. So you have to memorize!
Q: So what are the prohibited pleadings and motions?
Technique: Kung hindi nyo memorize yung prohibited
pleadings and motions, I want you to direct your attention
to Sec. 3, RSP because it enumerates the pleadings
allowed.
A: CCCA
1. Complaints
 2. Compulsory counterclaims
3. Cross-claims
4. Answers thereto (refers to cross-claims)
Anong ibig sabihin ng “answers thereto”? You refer to the
cross-claim because you do not file an answer to a
compulsory counterclaim; you file an answer to a
permissive (not sure) counterclaim! Therefore Sec. 3, RSP
allows CCCA; these are the only pleadings allowed in the
RSP!
And it should be emphasized that the pleadings allowed
under Sec. 3, RSp are required to be veriref (Sec.4, RSP).
So class, after RSP, I don’t know what will happen,
probably pre-trial then civil cases, parties will file their
respective position papers and the court will render its
judgement.
Q: But can you file a motion for reconsideration under the
RSP?
A: The answer my friends is NO. It is prohibited. Makinig!
So kapag may judgement yung MTC sa ejectment suit,
pinapaalis na ako ng korte. Sabi ng judge,
“Wherefore, premises considered, this ***(inaudible) the
complaint and directs the handsome defendant, Atty.
Christian Jay Villasis, and all persons claiming rights and
interests therein, to immediately vacate the subject
property, so ordered.”
So yan ang desisyon, pinapaalis na ako class. Talo ako,
panalo si Dean Largo. Can I file a motion for
reconsideration? Precisely, Sec. 19 prohibits the filing of
MR. So what should I do? MR is not allowed, I have to file
an appeal. And how will I appeal the decision of the MTC?
What is the appellate court? RTC. Syempre MTC then
hierarchy of courts, RTC kana. Diba?
So how will you go to the RTC from the MTC aside from
taking a Grab? Seriously, you file a Notice of Appeal. And
where do you file a Notice of Appeal? You file it to the
same MTC that rendered the decision in the ejectment
complaint even though your appellate court is the RTC.
Ganon ka simple yon. (hmmmm)
Actually madali lang ang procedure sa RSP. You just have
to memorize the prohibited pleadings and motions, my
friends. Ganito, pag di mo na-memorize class, you take
note of the pleadings allowed and the rest are prohibited.
Oh, diba, ganun strategy nun pagka last minute lecture:
What are the prohibited pleadings pero nakalimutan mo
so think: what are the pleadings allowed?
Section 3:
1. Complaints
2. Compulsory counterclaims
3. Cross-claims pleaded in the answer
4. And the answers thereto
The rest are prohibited except Motion to Dismiss on the
ground of
1. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or
2. Failure to comply with the prior barangay
conciliation
That is the RSP if you talk about civil cases.
TOPIC: Katarungang Pambarangay Law (KPL)
KIT: PD 1508 as amended by the LGC RA 7160 (not sure
guys, please check the RA) you have the Katarungang
Pambarangay Law. (***Chika minute. Giganahan daw
sya mag-lecture. Inabot na daw sila 2:20 in the morning.
Kuyawan ang mga mam oy.)
(***Extended Chika minute: “Ako yung nag-joke ako din
yung tumawa. I have to tell the student pa na nag joke
ako. Hahahaha kalooy. React mo sunod guys.)
So if you talk about the Katarungang Pambarangay Law,
if you check the preamble, because as just asked once in
the Bar, diba objectives… So primarily ang purposes
naman ng KPL is you talk about court decongestion eh, to
declogged the dockets of the court, to encourage the
parties for the possibility of settlement, avoid further
controversy and litigation and ultimately unclog the
dockets of the court. Yun yung purposes ng KPL.
Kasi sa Barangay, sa katotohanan lang, hindi naman mag
rerender ng decision yung barangay eh, diba? It’s an
arbitration (not sure) kasi ang purpose lang po ng KPL is
merely to bring the parties together, encourage the
parties for the possibility of settlement and ultimately for
them to conclude an amicable settlement. Ganun lang
naman yun eh. Kaya dalawang bagay lang ang pwede
mangyari sa barangay,either:
 1. The parties will agree; or
2. They will agree to disagree
If they agreed, compromise agreement din. If they
disagreed, secure a Certificate to File the Action (CFA).
Bakit kailangan yun? To show compliance to the condition
precedent. Sir bakit? Noong araw, ground in filing a
motion to dismiss,old rules, diba Rule 16, Sec. 1 (j)
(transposed or deleted na ang Rule 16) Doon kana
papasok sa Rule 8, Sec. 12 on Affirmative defenses. So
having said that, so yun ang purpose ng KPL merely to
encourage the parties to explore the possibility of
settlement. (balik-balik najud na sharo ma-wrong pa)
But common mistake ***inaudible about the KPL and the
common question asked by the televiewers: “Kailangan
ba pag KPL, parties are residents of the same barangay?”
Is it mandatory that the parties are residents of the same
barangay to apply the KPL? That my friends is a misnomer
(wrong use of the term misnomer but OK). Because ang
requirement po ng ating PD 1508 as amended, ang
importante: parties are residents of the same city or
municipality. So even though the parties reside in
different barangays as long as they reside in the same city
or municipality. Kunwari, Mandaue City or Mactan City,
Barangay Uno or Dos. So the same city, the same
municipality, maski magka-ibang barangay, covered yan
ng KPL.
So having said that, if you say “residents” what do you
mean? (Justin Bieber) Kasi iba po yung “residence” and
“domicile”, yung mga political law, yung Imelda Marcos
case na inaral ninyo diba? (Pero gibasa ba kaha? Charot)
Just remember my friends that if you talk about
“residents” for the purpose of applying the KPL, may mga
ruling ng SC yan like Marilou Pascual case (mentions
cases). Ano sabi ng SC? “As long as there is a character
of continuity and consistency.” Permanence ay/and
continuity, considered na yan na residence mo. Tandaan
mo, we are talking about residence ha. Residential
address. Kasi may isa kaso,in Anghel Buleley vs. Judge
Villanueva of Baguio.
8. Villa
Atty Kit: Yung allegation, party is a resident of 1
Sampaguita St., Brgy. Uno, Mactan Cebu. Now, the
defendant on the other hand has a postal address 2
Sampaguita St., Brgy. Uno, Mactan Cebu. (* not sure if
he mentioned Cagayan valley case? *inaudible part)
Q: Now class, is there a need to undergo prior brgy.
conciliation? Anong sabi ni Supreme Court?
A: The purpose for determining yung applicability ng
Katarungang Pambarangay Law, you talk about the
RESIDENTIAL address of a person NOT the POSTAL
address because a person may have a residential address
in one place and a postal address in another.
Atty. Kit: Likewise class, if you talk about the
Katarungang Pambarangay Law, you only apply this law
if:
TWO TESTS:
1) the parties are residence of the same city or
municipality; and
2) only NATURAL PERSONS are required to file a
Barangay Conciliation.
Atty. Kit: If you say natural person, what do you mean?
A: Tao. Juridical entities are not covered by the
Katarungang Pambarangay Law.
Atty. Kit: In the case of Borromeo vs. Pugoy, in the case
of Universal Robina Milling Corp. vs. CA, SC said that
ONLY NATURAL PERSONS ARE REQUIRED TO UNDERGO
PRIOR BARANGAY CONCILIATION.
Atty. Kit: So, kunwari sa corporation, hindi pwede. If a
party if an estate of a deceased person, hindi naman
natural person yun. (ACTUAL BAR EXAM Q)
SC said, there is no need to undergo barangay conciliation
but if they pass the two tests, which means again that the
parties are residents of the same city or municipality and
that natural persons are involved here, they will go to the
barangay first before they go to court.
Q: Anong relevance?
A: This is because if you will go to court directly without
undergoing prior barangay conciliation or mediation or
arbitration, the CASE is to be DISMISSED on the ground
of failure to comply the condition precedent.
Atty. Kit: Yun ang rule, kaya ngayon sa New Rules, it can
3. Where the dispute involves real properties located
be an AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE of the answer and
in different cities and municipalities, unless the
ultimately the case will be dismissed because of the failure
parties thereto agree to submit their difference to
to comply the condition precedent.
amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon;

Atty. Kit: Pero, mag mga EXCEPTIONS. Even though

4. Any complaint by or against corporations,
parties are residents of the same City or municipality and
partnership or juridical entities, since only individuals
the parties are natural persons however there are some
shall be parties to Barangay conciliation proceedings
instances wherein the parties can go directly to court. At
either as complainants or respondents (Sec. 1, Rule
kailan pwede pumunta sa korte directly?
VI, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules);
A: 1. If one of the parties is a public official who
5. Disputes involving parties who actually reside in
committed the act in the performance of his duty as a
barangays of different cities or municipalities, except
public official (no need to undergo prior barangay
where such barangay units adjoin each other and the
conciliation.)
parties thereto agree to submit their differences to
amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon;
2. If the crime/offense committed prescribes a
maximum penalty of imprisonment exceeding one (1)
6. Offenses for which the law prescribes a maximum
year or a fine exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00);
penalty of imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or a
(no need to undergo prior barangay conciliation.)
fine over five thousand pesos (P5,000.00);
3. If the action complies with the provisional
7. Offenses where there is no private offended party;
remedies such as preliminary injunction, attachment,
replevin, delivery of personal property and support during 8. Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to
the pendency of the action; (no need to undergo prior prevent injustice from being committed or further
barangay conciliation.) continued, specifically the following:

4. Actions which may be barred by prescription a. Criminal cases where accused is under police
(kung criminal case yan, under detention, hindi na custody or detention (see Sec. 412 (b) (1), Revised
kailangan dumaan sa brgy.) Katarungang Pambarangay Law);

b. Petitions for habeas corpus by a person illegally

GENERAL RULE: All disputes are subject to
Barangay conciliation pursuant to the Revised
Katarungang Pambarangay Law (formerly P.D. 1508,
repealed and now replaced by Secs. 399-422,
Chapter VII, Title I, Book III, and Sec. 515, Title I,
Book IV, R.A. 7160, otherwise known as the Local
Government Code of 1991), and prior recourse
thereto is a pre-condition before filing a complaint in
court or any government offices, except in the
following disputes:
deprived of his rightful custody over another or a
person illegally deprived or on acting in his behalf;
c. Actions coupled with provisional remedies such as
preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery of
personal property and support during the pendency
of the action; and
d. Actions which may be barred by the Statute of
Limitations.

1. Where one party is the government, or any 9. Any class of disputes which the President may
subdivision or instrumentality thereof; determine in the interest of justice or upon the
recommendation of the Secretary of Justice.
2. Where one party is a public officer or employee,
and the dispute relates to the performance of his
official functions;
Atty. Kit: So, these are some of the exceptions to the
rule. You can go directly to the court.
 FEB 23
1. Alonzo
Atty: Where did we stop last time?
Kris: We stopped discussing about Katarungang
Pambarangay Law and you mentioned about discussing
the jurisdiction of the courts.
JURISDICTION OF VARIOUS COURTS
Well you have of course the MTC, the RTC, the CA and
the Supreme Court.
Here are some significant cases:
TRANSFER OF VENUE
The Supreme Court has the power to transfer the venue.
What is the purpose? To avoid miscarriage of justice.
What is transferred is not really the jurisdiction but rather
the venue of the trial.
AMPATUAN MASSACRE CASE:
The criminal action was instituted in the prosecutor’s
office in, I think, Cotabato. But, nonetheless, the trial was
transferred, with the approval of the Supreme Court, to
the RTC of Quezon City.
So as mentioned, institution of the criminal action should
be filed in the court of the place where the crime or where
any of the essential ingredients thereof took place, save
for some exceptions.
You know very well that in criminal cases, venue is
jurisdictional. That means therefore that venue is
jurisdiction and jurisdiction is venue.
JURISDICTION IN CIVIL CASES
Going back, talking about civil cases, I would rather
highlight to you some cases if we talk about jurisdiction
of the Court of Appeals.
COURT OF APPEALSThere was one decision you have
to remember:
Habeas Corpus involving custody of a minor Child
Case: Thornton v. Thornton
Remember, if you’re talking of Habeas Corpus involving
custody of a minor child. What court has jurisdiction?
If you check the Family Courts Act (RA 8369), it tells us
that it should be filed in the RTC Family Court.
But the problem is that if you check the Rules of Court,
specifically Rule 102, what court has a jurisdiction
over a petition for Habeas Corpus? You have RTC,
CA and Supreme Court.
There is a seeming conflict between the provisions of the
Family Courts Act and the Rules of Court.
Supreme Court muna tayo.
Can the Supreme Court take cognizance over a
petition for Habeas Corpus involving custody of a
minor child?
Diba nakalagay sa Family Courts Act, only the RTC Family
Court can.
In Thornton v. Thornton, the Supreme Court said, YES.
The Supreme Court of its jurisdiction without
amending the 1987 constitution. Therefore,
notwithstanding the provisions of the Family Court Act,
stating that only the RTC Family Court can assume
jurisdiction over petition for Habeas Corpus involving
custody of a minor child. Nonetheless, the Supreme
Court may take cognizance of a petition for Habeas
Corpus involving the custody of a minor child.
Can the Court of Appeals take cognizance over a
petition for Habeas Corpus involving custody of a
minor child?
Direct answer: the Supreme Court said, that there is
nothing in the Family Courts Act that prohibits the CA from
taking cognizance over a petition for Habeas corpus
involving custody of a minor child.
Atty’s discussion:
*insert name of a case na di nako masabot ang title*
Respondent argued that the CA can take cognizance. He
stated that the Supreme Court indeed cannot be deprived
of its jurisdiction without amending the 1987 constitution.
But how about the Court of Appeals? He argued that
under the Family Courts act, only the RTC family court
may assume jurisdiction over a petition for Habeas Corpus
involving custody over a minor child. However, the
Supreme Court said, that there is nothing in the Family
Courts Act that prohibits the CA from taking cognizance
over a petition for Habeas corpus involving custody of a
minor child.
LONG STORY SHORT:
The Supreme Court, the CA and the RTC Family
Court may take cognizance over a petition for
Habeas Corpus involving custody of a minor child.
Aside from that, you have to remember one more case.
Let’s talk about
PETITION FOR ANULMENT OF JUDGEMENT UNDER
RULE 47 OF THE ROC
Where can we file a petition for annulment of judgement
under Rule 47?
If you revisit the provisions of Section 10 of Rule 47, if it
is a decision rendered by the MTC, MeTC, MCTC
(First level courts), it can be subject of a petition
for annulment of judgement to the RTC.
How about decisions of the RTC? Where can you
file a petition for annulment under Rule 47?
Can you file it to the CA? to the SC?
I want you to remember some SC rulings. In the case of
the Estate of the Late Jesus _______ v. Republic.
The SC said, can you file a petition of the annulment of
judgement of the RTC to the Court of Appeals? YES.
2. Evangelista
But can you file a petition for annulment of judgment of
the RTC to SC? In the case of the Estate of the Late Jesus
Yujuico vs. Republic, SC made it clear that petitions for
annulment of judgments under Rule 47 of the ROC is a
remedy that is only available to CA if the we talk about
decisions of RTC. In other words, under BP 129, decisions
of RTC can only be a subject of a petition for annulment
of judgment to CA and SC, therefore, cannot take
cognizance of petitions for annulment of judgment of
RTC. Because again, at the risk of being repetitious, CA
exercises exclusive and original jurisdiction over petition
for annulment of judgment under Rule 37 of ROC of the
decisions rendered by RTC.
Now having said that, Nicole Evangelista, take note of
this. If you talk about petition for relief from judgment,
on the other hand, where can you file that? Check Rule
38 of ROC. What does it say? What are the grounds?
Fame or famine, fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
negligence. Of course, if you see fame or famine, there
should be (inaudible samoka uy, required jud mu
shagit?!) but the bottom line is where can you file a
petition for relief from judgment, this may run counter to
the views of your authors, but this is an SC ruling: petition
for relief from judgment is a remedy that is only available
to the Trial Courts. In other words, can you file a petition
for relief from judgment of the CA or SC? In the case of
Julio Purcon vs. MRM Philippines, Mesina vs. Meer,
petition for relief from judgment is a remedy only
available to the trial courts. In other words, if you say
trial courts, you file it only to the RTC and MTC. Therefore,
can you file it with the CA? NO. Petitions for relief from
judgment under Rule 38 should only be filed in the same
court and the same case and the same court refers to the
trial court. Only the MTC and RTC. Therefore, a petition
for relief from judgment is a remedy that is not available
to CA and SC; it is only available to the MTC and RTC, in
the same court and the same case on the grounds of fame
or famine, fraud, accident or mistake or excusable
mistake (inaudible) affidavit of merit.
What are the significant decisions relative to the
jurisdiction of the RTC? If you talk about sum of money
cases, admiralty and maritime claims or action for
recovery of personal property, ano ang rule natin? It’s the
amount involved. What are the amounts involved? Since
April 15, 2004 RA 2691*** (please not sure, d sad ma
search), the amounts involved now are 400,000 and
300,000 php. In other words, in Metro Manila, 400,000
and below, MTC. 400,000.01 and above, RTC. Similarly,
outside Metro Manila, 300,000 and below to MTC.
300,000.01 and above to RTC. This applies if you talk
about actions for sum of money, recovery of personal
property, admiralty and maritime place.
Similarly, if you talk about settlement of an estate,
whether testate or intestate, the threshold amount are
the same. In Metro Manila, 400,000 and below to MTC;
otherwise, RTC. Outside Metro Manila, 300,000 and below
to MTC; otherwise, RTC. But if you talk about settlement
of an estate you consider the gross value of the estate.
But the Rules on SumPro do not apply if you talk about
settlement of estate even though the amounts fall within
the jurisdictional limits of the cases governed by the Rules
on SumPro.
If you talk about real action, what are real actions? It
involves real property. What is the issue? TOPA - title,
ownership, possession or any interest over the real
property. What do you mean by possession? Under the
NCC, it is the holding of the thing and the enjoyment of a
right.
PS: Wala na nako g apil ang mga chika niya nga way
pulos guys :)
3. Garcia (18:00-27:00)
PROBLEM: Property is located in Bacolod City, the
assessed value is P15,000. Parties are residents of
Quezon City. I will file an accion reivindicatoria case –
action for recovery of ownership, what court has
jurisdiction?
REMEMBER: Check whether it is a real action or not,
because if it is a real action, the assessed value of the
property will determine the jurisdiction of the court.
Magkakaiba ang assessed value, zonal value, and market
value:
ASSESSED FAIR MARKET ZONAL VALUE
VALUE VALUE

The same holds true if the issue is title, ownership, and

any interest over the real property. And if it is a real Check the tax The amount of Go to the BIR for
action, on what court has jurisdiction, you check the declaration and the property the purpose of
assessed value of the real property, this will determine it will determine wherein the paying taxes –
the jurisdiction of the court. the jurisdiction seller is willing to CGT (capital
of the court. sell the property gains tax) or
Example of a real action: Accion reivindicatoria – recovery and the amount otherwise the
of ownership. that the buyer is contract price,
willing to buy the whichever is
REMEMBER: Penta Pacific Realty Corp. vs. Ley property – check higher.
Construction and Development Corporation the amounts.

SC said, for instance, accion reivindicatoria, recovery of

ownership. So you have to allege the assessed value of So assessed value will determine the jurisdiction of the
the real property. court if it is a real action:

Reason: If you will not allege the assessed value of the
real property, the complaint is vulnerable to dismissal.
Why? The court will not be able to determine the
jurisdiction thereof.
The assessed value should be alleged in the
complaint because if the assessed value is not
found in the complaint, the action should be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
In Heirs of Julao vs. CA, Supreme Court reiterated the
ruling, SC stated again that the allegation of the assessed
value of the real property must be alleged in the
complaint, otherwise, the complaint is vulnerable to
dismissal.
● Accion reivindicatoria – action for recovery of
ownership
● Accion publiciana – if the possession exceeds 1
year.
If you talk about accion publiciana, what court has
jurisdiction? Similarly, if you file with the RTC or the MTC,
depending on the assessed value of the real property.
So again, if you talk about accion reivindicatoria and
accion publiciana, these are cognizable by the RTC
or the MTC depending on the assessed value of the
real property.
What if the action is for partition under Rule 69?
PROBLEM: Property is located in Bacolod City, the
assessed value is P15,000. I am going to file an action for
partition under Rule 69, what court has jurisdiction?
Barrido vs. Nonato, October 2014
Before partition is considered incapable of pecuniary
estimation. HOWEVER, in the case of Barrido vs.
Nonato, Supreme Court said an action for partition
is considered a real action.
4. Gregorio
5. Nacua
It is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation. But what
if I file an action for specific performance + damages,
what court has jurisdiction?
Still RTC. Why? Precisely because damages are merely
incidental or consequence to the main action. Therefore,
action for specific performance is an action incapable of
pecuniary estimation.
But what if I file an action for specific performance OR
in the alternative Damages? (Previous Bar Question)
Action for specific performance OR the alternatives i.e.
damages, now the amount of damages will determine the
jurisdiction of the court.
But again, if you file an action for specific performance,
or otherwise an action for specific performance + and
damages (not “OR damages), it is cognizable by the
RTC, precisely because it is an action considered
incapable of pecuniary estimation.
BUT, we need to talk about ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE
TEST. (asked thrice in the bar) you have to remember
the landmark case of gochan vs gochan, rubi shelters
vs pormaran (???).
Illustration
Property is located in Bacolod City, the same facts.
Assessed value 15k. but the parties are residents of QC.
Q. (1) where is the venue of the action? (2) What court
has Jurisdiction?
A: (1) if you talk about venue, in the absence of
stipulation of venue, or in the absence of the law/rule
which specifies the venue of the action, you check
whether the action is real or personal. If real action,
where is the venue – consider the place where the
property is located. If personal action, where the venue
– consider the residences of the parties, at the option of
the plaintiff.
Having said that, when can you say that the action is real
or personal?
If you check the ROC specifically rule 4, merely define a
real action and does not define personal actions.
The ROC tell us that all actions, if you talk about real
actions, if it involve a real property and the subject matter
involves title, ownership, possession or any interest over
the real property.
Interestingly, oddly, the ROC tell us, states that “all
other actions are considered personal”.
RULE 4 VENUE OF ACTIONS
Section 1. Venue of real actions. – Actions affecting
title to or possession of real property, or interest
therein, shall be commenced and tried in the proper
court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the
real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.
Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced
and tried in the municipal trial court of the municipality
or city wherein the real property involved, or a portion
thereof, is situated. (1[a], 2[a]a)
Section 2. Venue of personal actions. – All other
actions may be commenced and tried where the
plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or
where the defendant or any of the principal defendants
resides, or in the case of a nonresident defendant
where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff.
(2[b]a)
Section 3. Venue of actions against
nonresidents. – If any of the defendants does not
reside and is not found in the Philippines, and the action
affects the personal status of the plaintiff, or any
property of said defendant located in the Philippines,
the action may be commenced and tried in the court of
the place where the plaintiff resides, or where the
property or any portion thereof is situated or found.
(2[c]a)
Section 4. When Rule not applicable. – This Rule
shall not apply-

a) In those cases where a specific rule or
law provides otherwise; or
b) where the parties have validly agreed in
writing before the filing of the action on the
exclusive venue thereof. (3a, 5a)
So, if you will be asked to define it, by the Bar Examiner,
you write “all other actions are personal” (izz now joker).
Seriously, if you talk about personal actions – more
often than not, you talk about breach of contract,
action of recovery of your personal property,
action for damages, sum of money case, (in the Bar,
laging apat nay an paulit ulit) if you talk about personal
actions.
Q. Where’s the venue of personal action?
A: consider the residences of the parties and give the
option to the plaintiff.
Q. A party is a corporation.
A: the residence of the corporation. You check the articles
of that corporation. And the principal place of business or
office of the corporation is considered as the residence of
the corporation for the purpose of applying the ROC.
(GOING BACK TO THE PROBLEM)
The problem is an action for specific performance. Why?
Recall (facts)
Property is located in Bacolod City, the same facts.
Assessed value 15k. but the parties are residents of QC.
Parties: A vs B.
Illustration
Listen, if you talk about this situation, A sold the property
to B for 10M, B paid the amount of 5M, the balance of 5M
is divided into 12 equal monthly installments. After 12
months, B was able to pay the full amount of 5M,
therefore fully paid,
(the seller now must execute a deed of sale a contract of
sale because there is a full payment of the obligation, is
that enough? NO. the seller now has to give the title over
the real property. that is the rule.)
What happened?
B was able to pay the full amount of 5M, therefore he
demanded from A to execute already a deed of sale in his
favor. He demanded A to deliver to him the title over the
real property, located at Bacolod City with an assessed
value of 15k. A & B are residents of QC.
But despite repeated demands of B to A, A refused and
failed and continuously refuses and fails to execute the
deed of sale, the contract of sale in favor to B, and deliver
to B the title over the real property.
So, B was constrained to file an action for specific
performance.
6. Panerio FEB 23 45:00-54:00
File action for specific performance to execute a deed of
sale. X execute the deed of sale in his favor and deliver
to him, to deliver to Mr. B the title over the real property
because action of specific performance but B is in the
contrary.
Where should I file the action for specific performance?
What court has the jurisdiction?
And in the power in fact believe me my friends you will
be become a lawyer. If you were the counsel of B, what
can you advise to your client? In the bar exam you will
become the judge. If you were the judge. Oh diba. And
what is your answer my friends kindly type at the chat
box everybody. I am asking first, venue? Sabi ni B where
should I file the action for specific performance? I am the
resident of Quezon City and the defendant is also a
resident of Quezon City but the property is located where?
In Bacolod City with the assessed value of 15,000. And I
will file an action for specific performance for venue first.
Saan ako pupunta?
Sa Bacolod City ba or Quezon City?
Sana QC lang para malapit sa residence ko. So class, how
are we going to answer that kind of question in the bar?
We have determine the date of the action, Is it a
personal action or a real action?
Well anong sabi natin all other action are personal. So pag
hindi real action personal. But class anong sabi ng Korte
Suprema. As a rule, an action for specific performance
incapable of pecuniary estimation. General rule, incapable
of pecuniary estimation, therefore, RTC has jurisdiction.
If you talk about venue, action for specific performance is I can see it now.
considered a personal action. Therefore, considered the
re to whom? The plaintiff that is the general rule. Ans: Bacolod City

However, what did the SC say in the land mark case of Atty: Why is it Bacolod City?
Gutchan v. Gutchan?
Because it is now a real action.
What did the SC say in the case of Ruby Shelters v.
Mormoran? Why is it a real action?

What did the SC say in the case of Arthur Builders v.
NHA?
Several cases my friends, of course SC said you apply the
ultimate objective test. In this rule, an action for
specific performance is incapable of pecuniary estimation
therefore the RTC in this personal action. You check the
purpose. If the purpose in filing for specific performance
is to compel execution of the deed of sale or otherwise
the delivery of title or ownership over real property or
otherwise the delivery of title of the ownership of the real
property. Then this action for specific performance which
is traditionally considered a personal action will now be
considered as a real action. Precisely because of the
ultimate objective test. Hey people can you unmute your
microphone and say ultimate objective test.
Students: ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE TEST
Because of the ultimate objective test. Ano ba yan alam
na alam ko na to. So therefore, I will tell my mom about
this later huh. Sure. So clear, real action, therefore, venue
the place where real property is located klaro Bacolod
City.
But the next question is where is or what court has
jurisdiction now over this action for specific performance.
Applying again the ultimate objective test, since this
action for specific performance is already considered a
real action.
What is now the effect people?
It is already a real action and therefore what court has
the jurisdiction? You check the assessed value of the real
property. And since how much is the value of real
property?

Ans: 15,000 located in Bacolod City, therefore what

I cannot hear you people. Make it loud and clear. Louder.
court has the jurisdiction?
Ultimate objective test.

Kindly type at the chat box my friends, anon a ang korte

Atty: Ultimate Objective test, ultimate objective test,
na may jurisdiction mga kaibigan pakisulat. Yan alright,
ultimate objective test say it.
you ‘re learning. We are all learning that is good.
Students: Ultimate objective test. Ultimate objective
Ans: MTC of Bacolod City. That is the court that has
test. Ultimate objective test.
jurisdiction and venue is in the Bacolod City.
Applying the ultimate objective test, you check the
Why?
ultimate objective of the petitioner in filing the action. So
again if the ultimate objective of the plaintiff or petitioner
Because of the ultimate objective test. In the landmark
in filing the action for specific performance is to compel
case of Gutchan v. Gutchan, Ruby Shelters v. Mormoran.
the execution of the deed of sale or otherwise the delivery
Sir alam na alam ko na ito. Okay very good.
of the ownership of the property where those action for
Congratulations. Alright now having said that my friends
specific performance which is traditionally considered as
another thing to remember:
a personal action will now be considered as a real action.
Let’s go to the jurisdiction of MTC
And therefore my friends where is the venue of the
action if it is already a real action? Can you type at Similarly apply the threshold amounts since April 15,
the chat box. Kindly type at the chat box. Everybody. 2004 considering the amendments deduce by RA 12691,
the BP 129, okay listen to me.

Una muna ejectment, forcible entry, or unlawful detainer.
What court has jurisdiction?
You know forcible entry the application of force. Yes sir
alam na alam ko yun. May kwento ako sa inyu
interestingly. I gave a bar review lecture more than 10
years ago. I talk about ejectment my friends. I talk about
forcible entry. I talk about unlawful detainer and
surprisingly during the break I call the students. During
the break I don’t want to entertained questions because
I want to rest for five minutes but before I go home I will
ask all you questions. Okay clear.
7. Taucan
KIT: blah blah blah
Remember: Now, ejectment suits, regardless of the
assessed value of the real party, FE and UD, ejectment
suits are cognizable by the MTC.
Q: Sir,what if the amount of damages being claimed is
100 million pesos? FE.
A: Regardless of the amount of damages being claimed.
FE is cognizable by the MTC.
Q: Sir pano pag UD? 10 months ng di nagbabayad ng
rental and the amount of rental being claimed is 100
million pesos.
A: Again, regardless of the amount of rental being
claimed, of damages, FE and UD are cognizable of the
MTC. Regardless the assessed value of the property. This
is provided by law because jurisdiction is conferred by law
and nothing but by law.
Likewise, if you talk about MTC, sum of money case,
admiralty and maritime claim...
(nihapit panglibak og bar examiner nga di kabalo spelling)
Villa
Atty. Kit: So, Sum of Money case, admiralty and
maritime claims, action for recovery of personal property,
among others. Threshold amounts,
● Metro Manila - 400k
● Outside Metro Manila - 300k
Within Metro Manila:
● 400k eksakto and below in Metro Manila = MTC
● 400k pulse 1 centavo and above = RTC
Outside Metro Manila
● 300k esaksato and below = MTC
● 300k pulse 1 centavo and above = RTC
Atty. Kit: Next, if you talk about MTC’s Jurisdiction, Take
note of the SPECIAL JURISDICTION OF THE MTC. The
delegated jurisdiction of the MTC, kunwari let’s say Cebu
City, the Chief Justice went to Cebu City and called a
conference for all the RTC judges in Cebu City. You are
now going to file a petition of habeas corpus, you are
going to apply for bail, bakit? The rightful custody, first is
they are entitled thereto. Ano pa? Illegal confinement,
detention by which a person is deprived of his liberty.
Remember anong korte ang may Jurisdiction sa
Habeas Corpus?
A: It is the RTC, Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.
They exercise original and concurrent jurisdiction.
Atty. Kit: However, all the RTC judges of Cebu City are
attending a conference with the Chief Justice. Okay,
remember the Special Jurisdiction of the MTC. In the
absence of all the RTC judges, in the province or city, the
MTC judge may exercise special jurisdiction over petitions
for habeas corpus or applications for bail. Therefore, MTC
will exercise special jurisdiction. (This came out 4 times in
the BAR exam)
Atty. Kit: Now, remember also if you talk about
Delegated Jurisdiction of the MTC, you talk about
Cadastral or Land Registration Proceedings. What court
has jurisdiction?
A: The RTC has jurisdiction over land registration
cases or cadastral proceedings.
Atty. Kit: However, the MTC, MAY EXERCISE
DELEGATED JURISDICTION. If there is no
controversy or opposition over the property
subject of the land registration or cadastral
proceeding, or even though there is controversy or
opposition the value of the property does not
exceed P100,000. In this case, the MTC may
exercise delegated jurisdiction over these
cadastral or land registration proceedings. (This is
asked several times in the Bar exam)
Q: If the MTC renders a decision in the exercise of its
delegated jurisdiction over these cadastral or land
registration proceedings. Where do you appeal the
decision of the MTC?
A: You have to go to the Court of Appeals.
Q: Why?
A: Precisely because the decision was made in the
exercise of the MTC’s DELEGATED JURISDICTION.
Atty. Kit: Okay, some cases in the Court of Tax Appeals
(CTA), remember procedural amendments to the law
expanding the jurisdiction of the CTA, the CTA decision
cannot be elevated to the CA, yung Rule 43 tells us about
the CTA but it was already removed because of the
amendment because of R.A 9282, the law expanding
jurisdiction of the CTA, the CTA now has equal level with
the CA.
Therefore, you do not appeal a decision of the CTA to the
CA but rather, the decisions of the CTA division, you go
to the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc.
The decision of the CTA En Banc is elevated to the
Supreme Court by way of Rule 55.The question is, can the
CTA take cognizance over a Petition for Certiorari?
A: As a General Rule, Petition for Certiorari is cognizable
by the RTC, CA and SC. In election cases, you can file a
petition for certiorari before the MTC.
Q: Can you file a petition for certiorari to the Court of Tax
Appeals?
A: YES, although Rule 55 is silent, silent din yung R.A.
9282 (the law expanding the jurisdiction of the CTA).
There is no law, no rule, which provides that a petition for
certiorari can be filed before the CTA.
Atty. Kit: Remember one important case, the case of City
of Manila vs. Judge Cuerdo of Pasay City. Anong sabi ng
Supreme Court?
A: SC said, the CTA can now take cognizance over
petitions for certiorari in aid of its Appellate Jurisdiction.
CASE OF CITY OF MANILA vs. JUDGE CUERDO
This is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule
65 of the Rules of Court seeking to reverse and set
aside the Resolutions dated April 6, 2006 and
November 29, 2006 of the Court of Appeals.
FACTS:
● Petitioner City of Manila, through its
treasurer, petitioner Liberty Toledo, assessed
taxes for the taxable period from January to
December 2002 against the private
respondents. In addition to the taxes
purportedly due from private respondents
pursuant to Section 14, 15, 16, 17 of the
Revised Revenue Code of Manila (RRCM),
said assessment covered the local business
taxes. private respondents were constrained
to pay the P 19,316,458.77 assessment
under protest. On January 24, 2004, private
respondents filed before the RTC of Pasay
City the complaint denominated as one for
“Refund or Recovery of Illegally and/or
Erroneously–Collected Local Business Tax,
Prohibition with Prayer to Issue TRO and Writ
of Preliminary Injunction
● The RTC granted private respondents’
application for a writ of preliminary
injunction.
● Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration
but the RTC denied. Petitioners then filed a
special civil action for certiorari with the CA
but the CA dismissed petitioners’ petition for
certiorari holding that it has no jurisdiction
over the said petition.
● The CA ruled that since appellate jurisdiction
over private respondents’ complaint for tax
refund, which was filed with the RTC, is
vested in the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA),
pursuant to its expanded jurisdiction under
Republic Act No. 9282 (RA 9282), it follows
that a petition for certiorari seeking
nullification of an interlocutory order issued
in the said case should, likewise, be filed with
the CTA.
 ● Petitioners filed a Motion for
Reconsideration, but the CA denied it in its
Resolution hence, this petition
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CTA has jurisdiction over a special
civil action for certiorari assailing an interlocutory
order issued by the RTC in a local tax case.
RULING:
● The CTA has jurisdiction over a special
civil action for certiorari assailing an
interlocutory order issued by the RTC in
a local tax case.
● In order for any appellate court to
effectively exercise its appellate
jurisdiction, it must have the authority
to issue, among others, a writ of
certiorari. In transferring exclusive
jurisdiction over appealed tax cases to
the CTA, it can reasonably be assumed
that the law intended to transfer also
such power as is deemed necessary, if
not indispensable, in aid of such
appellate jurisdiction.
● There is no perceivable reason why the
transfer should only be considered as partial,
not total. Consistent with the above
pronouncement, the Court has held as early
as the case of J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v.
Jaramillo, et al. [118 Phil. 1022 (1963)] that
“if a case may be appealed to a particular
court or judicial tribunal or body, then said
court or judicial tribunal or body has
jurisdiction to issue the extraordinary writ of
certiorari, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.”
● This principle was affirmed in De Jesus
v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 101630,
August 24, 1992) where the Court stated
that “a court may issue a writ of certiorari
in aid of its appellate jurisdiction if said
court has jurisdiction to review, by appeal
or writ of error, the final orders or
decisions of the lower court.
-------------END------------
MARCH 16, 2021
DATA (00:00-0:13:00)
Rules on Cause of Actions, Parties and Venues
If you talk about civil procedure there are two kinds
of action. These are:
1. Ordinary Civil Action – a party sues another for the
enforcement and protection of a right or prevention
or redress of a wrong
2. Special Civil Action or Special Proceeding – a
remedy which seeks to establish a status, right or
particular facts
BAR Q: Distinction between ordinary civil action and
special proceeding.
Ordinary Civil Action Special Civil Action
There is already the No right yet, thus need to
existence of a right go to court to establish a
right, status, or particular
facts
Rules 1 to 56 Rules 62 - 71
Provisional Remedies:
Rules 57 – 61
Governed by rules on Governed by special
ordinary civil action rules, it is one which is
only also governed by the
rules on ordinary civil
action but subject to the
specific rule prescribed
for such particular civil
action*
*Example in partition under rules 69, we apply the
rules in ordinary civil action and likewise the rules on
special rules provided in rules 69 on partition.
This is important because under Rule 2, Joinder of
causes of action, you cannot join in one complaint
an ordinary civil action and a special civil action
 because this is prohibited under Rule 2 Section 5 of
ROC.
Can you join in one complaint a collection of a
sum of money and a special civil action for
ejectment?
No, because ejectment is governed by a special civil
action and collection of sum of money case is
governed by rules on ordinary civil action.
Likewise you cannot join a petition for partition with
a collection of sum of money case or breach of
contract, because you cannot join in one complaint
an ordinary civil action and a special civil action.
Special Civil Actions:
1. Rule 62 – Interpleader
2. Rule 63 - Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies
3. Rule 64 - Review of Judgments and Final Orders or
Resolutions of the Commission on Elections and the
Commission on Audit
4. Rule 65 - Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus
5. Rule 66 - Quo Warranto
6. Rule 67 - Expropriation
7. Rule 68 - Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage
8. Rule 69 – Partition
9. Rule 70 - Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer
10. Rule 71 – Contempt
What are criminal actions?
One by which the state prosecutes a person for an
act or omission punishable by law. This is governed
by the provisions on rules of criminal procedures
from rule 110 – 127 of the rules of court.
Classification of an action:
a. Based on the foundation of the action:
1. Real action - title to or possession of real property,
or interest therein.
2. Personal action – Rule 4 of the ROC did not define
real action it simply defined a real action and held
that
Purpose of distinction: To know the venue of the
action
b. Based on the binding effect:
1. In personam
2. In rem
3. Quasi-in rem
Purpose of distinction: To know whether or not
there is a need for the court to acquire jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant or the binding effect
of the judgement as a classification of the action.
Q: If it is a personal action, is it already
considered as a personal action and vice versa?
No.
Q: If it is a real action is it automatic that it is an
in rem action?
No
TN action based on the foundation of the action and
based on binding effect are not interrelated.
A. Real Action
Test to determine if the cause of action is a real
action:
a. Check the property if it involves real property
under Article 414 of CC
b. Check the subject matter or issue if it involves
TOPA (title, ownership, possession or any interest
over the real property) Possession – holding of a
thing and enjoyment of a right
If all of the above is yes, then where is the venue
of real action?
The place where the real property is located
DESCALLAR (13:01 to 26:00)
There should be a real property and the issue
involved is title or interest over the real property (rule
4)
Personal Actions
ROC: All other actions are personal.
ROC has no explicit or clear definition.
Examples of Personal Actions:
- Action for Specific Performance (depende if Gochan
v. Gochan would apply so pwede real or personal);
- sum of money case;
- breach of contract;
- action for damages.
 ***kapag walang real property, personal na agad.
Venue of Personal Action:
The residences of the parties at the option of the
plaintiff.
For personal actions, it does not mean that if it is
personal, in personam na (same for real actions and
in rem)
In personam action – is lodged against a person on
the basis of personal liability. In other words, there
is a particular defendant you want to be held
personally and civilly liable.
Why the need to know the definition? Because you
will know why there is a need to acquire jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant.
In personam cases requires jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant.
HOW JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF
THE DEFENDANT ACQUIRED:
- Service of the summons
- Voluntary appearance under Section 23 rule 14.
Voluntary appearance is equivalent to valid service
of summons.
If there was a defective service of summons but
there was voluntary appearance, the defect is
cured.
Allan Go v. Cordero
In this case, the defendant filed a motion for
extension. Subsequently, he filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant.
SC said that by filing the motion for extension of
time, defendant is deemed to have voluntarily
submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the
court. The subsequent motion was already too
late because by filing the first motion, he already
submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court.
Motion to dismiss is prohibited but only allowed on 4
grounds: rule 15 sec 12
- Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
- Lis pendentia
- Res judicata
- Prescription
Question: Are you allowed to file a motion to dismiss
on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person
of the defendant? NO
Apparently, this is not enumerated in the
exceptions.
(guys ga libog kos iya giyawyaw diri nya nagpa recit sad sya wa nako
kagets :/ )
DE LOS REYES (26:01-39:00)
Rule 14, sec 23(a) Voluntary appearance. — The
defendant's voluntary appearance in the action shall be
equivalent to service of summons. The inclusion in a
motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall not
be deemed a voluntary appearance.
A motion on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant is allowed as a matter of
exception. It is not accurate to say that a motion to
dismiss in civil procedure based on the May 1, 2020
rules, is only allowed if the grounds are lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter, lis pendencia, res
judicata and prescription because now, following the
provisions of Rule 8, sec 12B in relation to Rule 14, sec
23A, it can be inferred that likewise, a motion to dismiss
based on lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is allowed.
In personam actions require jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant. It is an action against a person
on the basis of personal liability.
In rem actions are actions directed against a thing itself
or the status of a person. There’s this Jessie Lucas vs.
Jesus Lucas, Justice Nachura clarified that all actions
now involving the status of a person are already
considered in rem actions. E.g. action for nullity of
marriage, annulment of marriage because you talk
about the status of a person here. Of course, you file a
petition against your spouse but nonetheless an it is an
action against the whole world, thus an in rem action.
Why? Because you cannot file an in rem against the
whole world but involves a status of a person.
Jessie Lucas vs. Jesus Lucas - An action for
recognition of illegitimate filiation, before it is said to be
an in person action, thus, there’s a need to acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant but now,
SC has already made it clear that all actions that
involve the status of a person are in rem action. Hence,
Petition for recognition of illegitimate filiation is an in
rem action. Why? Because we talk about the status of
a person.
Declaration of nullity of marriage, annulment of
marriage, change of name, cancellation or correction
of entry in the civil registry, petition for adoption and
among others, are considered, in rem actions. These
involve the status of a person.
In in rem actions as a rule in order for the court to
acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant,
talks about the thing itself or the status of a person.
Quasi in rem actions - parang in personam, parang in
rem. Just like an in personam action it names a person
as a defendant. But, nonetheless, while it names a
person a respondent, the purpose here is not to hold,
the name defendant, personally liable, the purpose is
only to subject the interest, the name defendant
on/over a particular property. E.g. partition under Rule
69.
EVANGELISTA (39:01:00-52:00:00)
Partition is a quasi in rem action. While you name
co-owner respondent, the purpose is not to hold the
respondent personally liable but only his interest
over the property subject of co-ownership. Hence, a
partition is a quasi in rem action.
Quieting of Title is also a quasi in-rem action. When
you sue a person as a respondent, the purpose is to
subject his interest of the property subject of the
petition for Quieting of Title.
Foreclosure is a quasi in-rem action. While you
name the borrower-mortgager a respondent in a
judicial foreclosure, for example, the purpose is not
to hold him personally liable but only to subject his
interest of the property subject of the foreclosure,
judicial under Rule 68 or extrajudicial under Act
3135.
Ejectment suit is a real action. The issue is
possession which means the holding of the thing and
the enjoyment of a right.
Q. Is an action for ejectment in personam, in rem,
or quasi in rem action?
Domagas vs. Jensen - Ejectment suit involves real
property but not all real actions are automatically
considered as in rem action. An ejectment suit is a
real action but nonetheless, an in personam action
because there is a particular defendant who you
want to be held personally and civilly liable.
Domagas vs. Jensen
The action for forcible entry is a real action and on
in personam.
An action in personam is one which has for its
object a judgment against the person, as
distinguished from a judgment against the
proprietary to determine its state. An action in
personam is a proceeding to enforce personal
rights or obligations; such action is brought
against the person.
Actions for recovery of real property are in
personam.
Real Actions and Personal Actions
Real Action – involves a real property and the issue
is title, ownership, possession, any interest over the
real property. The venue is the place where the
property is located.
Personal Action – all other actions are considered
personal. The plaintiff can venue
Venue
The prupose in justifying the action based on the
foundation whether personal or real is for the
purpose of answer the question on venue.
The common mistake is that if there is a question on
venue, they check the nature of the action whether
real or personal.
In civil cases, venue is not jurisdictional. Venue is
only the area, the place, geographical area where
the action is to be instituted. In civil cases, venue is
only procedural in character. Therefore, you can
waive as regards the venue of the action.
Q. May the court dismiss the case based on
improper venue?
Radiowealth Co. vs. Pineda – the court cannot
motu proprio dismiss the case of improper venue
because it is only procedural. Thus, it is only for the
convenience of the parties.

Radiowealth Finance Co. vs. Pineda Jr.
Venue is a matter of procedural law. A party’s
objection to venue must be brought at the earliest
opportunity either in a motion to dismiss or in the
answer; otherwise, the objection shall be deemed
waived. When the venue of a civil action is
improperly laid, the court cannot motu proprio
dismiss the case.
Wrong venue is merely a procedural infirmity, not
a jurisdictional impediment. Jurisdiction is a matter
of substantive law, while venue is a matter of
procedural law.
Q. Can the parties, specifically the defendant,
waive their objection as regards the venue of the
action?
Yes, because it is only procedural for the
convenience of the party.
Example: If the property is located in Cebu City but
the ejectment suit is filed in the MTC of Makati City.
Q. Does the MTC of Makati have jurisdiction over
the ejectment suit?
Yes, because what is wrong here is venue, not
jurisdiction. All MTCs all over PH have jurisdiction
over the ejectment suit. What is wrong is the venue.
Q. Can an MTC of Makati validly dismiss the case
motu proprio on the ground of improper venue
because the property is located in Cebu City?
Yes, because it is governed by the Rules on
Summary Procedure. Under Section 4, the court can
dismiss the case outright on any ground available for
the dismissal of the action. Ejectment suit is
governed by the Rules on SumPro.
Q. If it is an Accion Reinvindicatoria, can the
court motu proprio dismiss the case on improper
venue?
No, it can be waived.
Q. What about in an Accion Publiciana?
No, venue can be waived.
But if it is an ejectment suit, the court can motu
proprio dismiss the case based on any grounds
available for the dismissal of the action under Sec. 4
of the Rules on SumPro.
If you talk about small claims, MTC will dismiss
likewise based on improper venue because in small
claims, motion to dismiss is a prohibited motion.
Unlike in SumPro...
JACOBO (52:01:00-1:05:00)
… Summary Procedure, motion to dismiss is
allowed on two grounds:
1. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; and
2. Failure to comply with the requirements of prior
barangay conciliation.
Small Claims - motion to dismiss is prohibited. The
Court can dismiss the case outright on any grounds
available for the dismissal of the action.
VENUE
General Rule: Venue can be waived.
The Court cannot motu proprio dismiss the case on
improper venue, there must be a motion/hearing.
Except: Case is governed by:
i. Rules on Summary Procedure
ii. Rules of Procedure on Small Claims
STEPS ON IDENTIFYING THE VENUE:
1. Check Section 4, Rule 4, ROC
SEC. 4. When Rule not applicable. – This Rule
shall not apply –
(a) In those cases where a specific rule or law
provides otherwise; or
(b) Where the parties have validly agreed in
writing before the filing of the action on the
exclusive venue thereof.
Examples for (a): Petition for Quo Warranto under
Rule 56, which provides, if the SG files the petition
he has the option to file it in CA, SC, or RTC of
Manila.
Also, Section 1, Rule 24, Deposition before action,
the petition for perpetuation of the testimony of the
witness is filed in the place of residence of any of the
residence of any of the adverse party.
Discussion for (b): to be sued in Manila. Qualifying or restrictive
words which would indicate that Manila and
Stipulation on venue is valid when: Manila alone is the venue are totally absent
therefrom. We cannot read into that clause that
a. Reduced into writing; plaintiff and defendant bound themselves to file
suits with respect to the last two transactions in
b. Agreed upon by the parties before the filing of question only or exclusively in Manila. For, that
the action; and agreement did not change or transfer venue. It
simply is permissive. The parties solely agreed to
c. Nature of the action, add the courts of Manila as tribunals to which they
may resort. They did not waive their right to
1. Permissive Stipulation pursue remedy in the courts specifically
mentioned in Sec. 2(b) of Rule 4. Renuntiatio non
– add the stipulated venue on the possible praesumitur shall exclusively, nowhere else
venue of the action (additional option) but, nowhere else ??, only in the courts of
Cebu City to the exclusion of all other courts,
2. Mandatory/Restrictive/Exclusive waiving for this purpose all other venues other
Stipulation than the courts of Cebu City – all of these are
considered restrictive, exclusive stipulation
- stipulated venue will only be the venue of
precisely because of the restrictive words.
the action.

- In the case of Polytrade Corp vs Blanco, the GARCIA 1:05:01-1:18:00

word “shall” is not enough, it should be
accompanied by another word that would
Q: What is the effect if the stipulation on venue is
make it restrictive in character.
mandatory, restrictive, or exclusive in character?
Ex: “shall only,” “shall exclusively,” “shall
solely,” “nowhere else but” The effect is that the stipulated venue will only
be, waiving for this purpose any other venue
described. You can file the complaint only in the
POLYTRADE CORP VS BLANCO place stipulated in the contract.
FACTS: Plaintiff filed a case to recover the
EXCEPTION: BRIONES DOCTRINE
purchase price of rawhide against the defendant
in the CFI of Bulacan. Plaintiff has its principal
office located in Makati, JP Rizal while defendant
resides in Bulacan. Prior to the case files by the Briones v. CA
plaintiff, both parties made a written stipulation in
Modified Facts by Atty. Kit: When Briones was
their contract that, “that the parties agree to sue
outside the country, an OFW while in Japan,
and be sued in the Courts of Manila,” defendant
Briones purchased house and lot here in the
moved to dismiss the case on the ground of
Philippines. Consequently, while still in Japan,
improper venue because as per in the contract
unknown to him, this property was a subject in a
suit the parties agreed in writing that the
mortgage. A certain Mr. X used the property as a
stipulation abovementioned must be followed.
collateral (but the property is owned by Briones,
ISSUE: WON the stipulation is merely permissive not by Mr. X).
or mandatory.
Mr. X purportedly signed a loan agreement with
HELD: The stipulation is merely permissive. An the bank, he signed a Real Estate Mortgage and
accurate reading of the stipulation, "the parties there was a stipulation of venue which states that
agree to sue and be sued in the Courts of Manila," “in the event of controversy or litigation, the action
does not preclude the filing of suits in the shall only be in Makati City. All legal actions
residence of plaintiff or defendant. The plain arising out of this transaction, shall only be
meaning is that the defendants merely consented brought in or submitted to the proper court of
 Makati City.” (Bottomline: there is a restrictive
stipulation)
When Briones returned to the Philippines, he was
surprised that the property he purchased, let us
say in Cebu City, was actually a subject of the
Mortgage and the bank already foreclosed the
property. Briones filed an action to nullify the
loan agreement/ the real estate mortgage
agreement. He alleged that the signatures are
products of forgery, that he was not the one who
personally signed the mortgage documents in the
loan agreement, although admittedly, there was a
stipulation on the loan agreement, in the real
estate mortgage agreement that in the event of
controversy or litigation, the venue of the action
shall only be filed in Makati City, nonetheless
Briones filed it in Cebu City.
Q: Is Briones required to follow the stipulated
venue, which is exclusive in character, in an action
filed for the purpose of nullifying the loan
agreement and the mortgage documents? Is the
defendant correct in arguing that Briones erred,
was he correct when he filed the complaint in
Cebu City, that he should have followed the tems,
stipulation of venue in the contract?
SC: Do not expect the plaintiff to follow the
stipulated venue in the contract in an action filed
precisely to nullify the contract. A complaint
directly assailing the validity of the written
instrument itself should not be bound by the
exclusive stipulation on venue contained
therein. It would be inherently inconsistent,
absurd, for a complainant to recognize the
exclusive venue stipulation when in fact he
assails the validity of the written contract.
COMPLEMENTARY CONTRACTS CONSTRUED
TOGETHER DOCTRINE
------------- GREGORIO (1:18:00-1:31:00) -------------
There was a loan agreement (no stipulation on
venue), there was also a surety agreement (there is
a stipulation on venue exclusive in character).
Q. What is stipulation on venue?
- “In the event of controversy or litigation, the
venue of the action shall only, solely, exclusively,
no where else”
Ga change of facts nasad siya baw lang
There was a stipulation on venue on the promissory
notes, but not in the surety agreement.
In an action filed against the surety, there is no
stipulation on venue but the principal contract/loan
agreement provides a stipulation on venue which is
exclusive in character
Q. In an action filed against the surety, are they
required to follow the stipulation on venue in the
loan agreement?
- Yes because of the “Complementary Contracts
construed together doctrine.” This means that
the accessory contract must be read in its
entirety and together with the principal contract.
In other words, the stipulation on venue filed in the
principal contract which is the loan agreement,
applies equally in an action filed against the surety
based on the accessory contract because of the
“Complementary Contracts construed together
doctrine”. Meaning, the accessory contract must be
read in its entirety and read together with the
principal contract.
Therefore, the stipulation on venue filed in the
principal contract applies equally (emphasis
supplied charot) to the surety agreement which is an
accessory contract to the loan agreement.
PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS V.
LIM 2005
Facts: PBCom filed a complaint for the collection
of a deficiency in the RTC of Manila against
respondents who obtained a loan from it and
executed a continuing surety agreement.
However in the promissory note it was expressly
stipulated that the venue for any legal action that
may arise out of said promissory note shall be
Makati City, “to the exclusion of all other
courts…” Respondents moved to dismiss the
complaint on the ground of improper venue.
Ruling: Section 2 Rule 4 (rule on venue for
personal action) does not apply when the law
specifically provides otherwise, or when – before
the filing of the action – the contracting parties
agree in writing on the exclusive venue thereof.
In enforcing a surety contract, the
“complementary-contracts-construed-together”
 doctrine finds application. According to this
principle, an accessory contract must be read in
its entirety and together with the principal
agreement. This principle is used in construing
contractual stipulations in order to arrive at their
true meaning; certain stipulations cannot be
segregated and then made to control.
The aforementioned doctrine is applicable to the
present case. Incapable of standing by itself, the
SA can be enforced only in conjunction with the
PN.
As we have said earlier, in order for us to know the
venue of the action, check first whether there is a law
or rule which provides for the venue of the action. If
there is none, we refer to the stipulation on venue.
General Rule: Stipulation on venue
Exception: Doctrine laid down on Briones v. CA
BRIONES V. CA 2015
Facts: Briones filed a complaint for nullity of
Mortgage Contract, Promissory Note, Loan
Agreement against Cash Asia before the RTC of
Manila, alleging that he never contracted any
loans from Cash Asia. Essentially, he assailed the
validity of the foregoing contracts, claiming his
signature to be forged. Cash Asia moved to
dismiss the complaint on the ground of improper
venue, pointing to the venue stipulation in the
above contracts that “legal actions shall only be
brought to the jurisdiction of the proper court of
Makati City.”
Ruling: A complaint directly assailing the validity
of the written instrument itself should not be bound
by the exclusive venue stipulation contained
therein and should be filed in accordance with the
general rules on venue. Upon assailing directly
the validity of the subject contracts, claiming
forgery in their execution, Briones cannot be
expected to comply with the aforesaid stipulation.
Hence, pursuant to the general rules on venue,
Briones properly filed his complaint before a court
in the City of Manila where the subject property is
located.
If a stipulation is permissive, simply add the
stipulated venue to the other possible venues of the
action (you have other options).
If a stipulation is restrictive, exclusive or mandatory,
you should only file the action in the place agreed
upon in the contract.
Q. There is no law/rule providing for the venue of
action. There is also no stipulation on venue.
Shall we now refer to personal actions and real
actions?
- Yes, finally.
This is always a common mistake by students. When
they encounter questions pertaining to venue, they
always answer personal and real actions, which
should NOT be the case.
Do NOT start from personal and real actions.
CHECK first RULE 4, SEC. 4.
Section 4. When Rule not applicable. - This Rule
(venue of real & personal actions) shall not apply
-
(a) In those cases where a specific rule or law
provides otherwise; or
(b) Where the parties have validly agreed in
writing before the filing of the action on the
exclusive venue thereof.
If there is no rule/law, stipulation on venue, that is
the time when we will check the nature of the action,
whether real or personal.
o Personal action - the residence of the parties and
give the option to the plaintiff.
o Real action - the place where the property is
located.
Q. What if the plaintiff is a corporation?
- The place of residence of the corporation. Refer
to Articles of the corporation. Where the principal
place of business of the corporation is located,
that is the place of residence of the corporation.
Illustration
Principal place of business of the corporation is in
Mactan, Cebu but the plaintiff resides in Bohol.
Q. Where is the venue of the personal action?
 • It may be in Mactan (if there is an RTC there)
or Bohol at the option of the plaintiff
corporation.
The residence of the corporation is the principal
place of business of the corporation.
Q. What if there are 2 or more
plaintiffs/defendants, where is the venue of the
action?
IRENE MARCOS ARANETA V. CA 2008
Facts: Irene Marcos Araneta filed an action to
recover certain shares of stocks in Batac, Ilocos
Norte but the defendant Benedicto filed a motion to
dismiss.
NACUA – 1:31:01-1:44:00
Benedicto Family filed a motion to dismiss and said,
“motion to dismiss because Araneta is not a resident
of Batac, Ilocos Norte. She’s already a resident of
Makati City and therefore, the venue of the action is
improperly laid.”
Ang galing ng abogado ni Irene Marcos Araneta and
said “Irene Marcos Araneta, nag file ng motion to
dismiss ang defendant on the ground of improper
venue (dati pwede pa under the old rules), so let us
amend the complaint.”
“Let us amend the complaint and let us implead,
include 2 other plaintiffs who are undisputedly
residents of Batac, Ilocos Norte.”
Atty: Edi tapos ang kwento. Venue of the action now
is properly laid.
So inamendahan ang complaint, and impleaded 3
persons who are undisputedly residents of Batac,
Ilocos Norte. These are the 3 people who never left
Batac, Ilocos Norte.
There was a time they were supposed to leave
Batac, IN, but nakasalubong nila si Irene Araneta
and pinabalik. “Indisputably residents of Batac, IN”
Q: Is the venue of the action now properly laid
because the co-plaintiffs are undisputably
residents of Batac, IN?
A: NOOOOOOOO
Why?
Atty: pag may question sa venue, anong unang
strategy? Check whether section 4, Rule 4 applies.
RULE 4, Section 4. When Rule not applicable. –
This Rule shall not apply-
(a) In those cases where a specific rule or law
provides otherwise; or
(b) Where the parties have validly agreed in
writing before the filing of the action on the
exclusive venue thereof.
#1 Is there a law or rule which provides the venue
of the action?
#2 Is there a stipulation on the venue?
- Wala naman pareho #1 and #2
#3 is it a real or personal action? ano bang finile
na action?
- Action to recover certain shares of stocks,
hence, kapag hindi real, personal.
And where is the venue of the action?
- Residences of the parties and give the option
to the plaintiff.
Where is the residence of the party?
- 3 parties:
o Araneta – Makati
o Co-plaintiffs – Batac, IN
Q: Is the venue of the action now properly laid?
SC said: NOOOOOO.
Because if there are several plaintiffs or there are
several defendants, where is the venue of a personal
action?
- You consider the place of residence of the
principal plaintiff or the principal
defendant at the option of the principal
plaintiff.
(going back to the case) Who is the principal plaintiff
here?
- It is Irene Araneta, and she was proven to be
a resident of Makati, City, THEREFORE,
VENUE OF THE ACTION IS IMPROPERLY
LAID.
TN: if there are 2 or more plaintiffs or defendants,
the venue of the action is the place of residence
of the principal plaintiff / principal defendant, at
the option of the principal plaintiff.
REMEMBER: if it is a personal action, papaano yung
extra-judicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage?
Clear na sa atin yan. How about REAL ACTION?
- Venue? à the place where the property is
located.
Q: what if the property is located in the boundaries
of 2 cities/municipalities?
ILLUSTRATION (Makati and Mandaluyong)
Ang harapan ng bahay… (naputol kay nagchika)
What if this is a real action and the residence of the
defendant is located in the boundaries of Makati and
Mandaluyong, assuming ang harapan ng bahay niya
Makati, eh, boundary yung likod, Mandaluyong.
Q: Where is the venue of the real action? If the
property is located of 2 cities / municipalities?
Ganito yan eh.
#1 problem: property is located in the boundaries of
2 cities / municipalities. (Makati and Mandaluyong)
#2 problem: Barangay Katarungan Law. Property
subject to the dispute is located to the boundaries of
2 barangays, e.g. brgy 1 and brgy 2.
RECALL
If we talk about “larger portion” pang barangay lang
yan.
Q: If it is a REAL ACTION, where is the venue?
A: You file it in the place where the real property
is located or any portion.
Panerio 1:44:01-1:46:13
In the boundaries of two cities and munipalities or
two cities Mandaluyong and Makati.
Second Problem: Barangay Katarungan Law,
Properties in disputes are located in mountains of
two barangays. Barangay uno, Barangay dos. Don
palang na explanation maintindihan muna. Kasi
sayup yung ano, you recall we talk about larger
portion. Larger portion, Larger portion. Pang
barangay lang yung larger portion.
Q. If it is the real action where is the venue of the
real action?
You file where the real properties located already
portion or any portion or any portion, any portion.
Therefore, either in Mandaluyong or in Makati. Pag
real action yung sinasabi niyo kaibigan na larger
portion that applies to the Barangay under PD1508
as amended by RA7160 yung government code.
Diba yan yun e. Yung letter c yun diba yung sa
barangay. If the subject of the dispute is a real
property you file the complaint to the barangay
where the property is located, where the larger
portion of the property is located. Doon palang
papasok yun and therefore, in one sentence yung
larger portion na yun refers to the barangay. Kapag
yan may real action sa court in either of this cities. If
the property is in the boundaries of two cities or
municipalities, o kaya boundaries of two barangays.
Naiintindihan niyo ako class? Do you understand the
words that come out to my mouth. Klaro na tayu
diyan kaibigan. You talk about cause of action. You
talk about real action.
I’ll move forward. We can talk about cause of action.
I have to stop here already.
APRIL 13, 2021
PANERIO 0:00-11:00
Ulitin ko nalang, CAUSE OF ACTION. Now,
remember my friends if we talk about cause of action
our relevant rule is RULE 2, Rules of Court.
When we talk about cause of action by definition=>
is an act or omission, which violates the right of
another. That is the simplest definition of the cause
of action.
Q. But why is cause of action important?
Q.Why do we have to study the concept of cause
of action?
Q. What is the relevance of cause of action in
every civil litigation or civil litigation process?
Remember my friends if you read Rule 2 of the Rules
of Court , every action must be founded at least on
the basis of single cause of action. In otherwords,
you cannot go to court and file a complaint unless
you have a cause of action. You cannot go to court
and file a complaint unless you have a cause of
action.
To make it simple to you my dear friends, my dear
cebuanos and cebuanas, mga dong, mga dang,
tandaan ninyu mga kaibigan pag sinabi mong cause
of action=>you cannot call it a cause of action
unless there is a substantive law. Diba we discuss
the distinction between substantive law ang
remedial law.
Precisely you cannot talk remedial law if you are
thing reference to substantive law because
substantive law is the very basis of remedial law.
Albero v. De La Rosa Ruling. In other words, ano
yung remedial law it prescribes the methods for the
enforcement of the substantive law. So yan yung
cause of action pare. You cannot talk cause of action
if there is no substantive law because number 1
element of cause of action is:
1. There must be a right
2. If you say right my friend you are referring to
substantive law
What is your right? You go to your civil code,
the basis of your right Rule 11:69 kunyari. No
demand, no delay. Diba . Kunyari ejectment
suit. Ano ang cause of action mo? Breach of
contract, ano ang basis mo? Stockholder ka
ng corporation ano ang basis mo? Yung
corporation code. All of these are substantive
laws. I told you. We need remedial law to
enforce our substantive laws. Substantive
rights. So therefore, your pre filing of
complaint in court you should have a right.
You cannot go to court without atleast
referring to a provision in substantive law.
Precisely because a cause of action
presupposes the existence of a right. What is
a basis of a right? Substantive law. Okay
very clear. Now, if there is a substantive law.
Is there already a cause of action? Of course,
wala pa because there are three elements
of a cause of action general but later on I’ll
add one more:
1.There must be a right from a
substantive law
2. There is an obligation to respect the
right
3. There must be a violation of a right.
Therefore, it brings up to a proposition, if there is no
a violation of a right there is no cause of action.
Ganon ka simple. Oo umutang ako kai Dean Joan
Largo the most beautiful dean that I know, a good
friend of mine. Diba. Anong sabi ko kai dean.
Magkano, pila? 2M, due a demandable December 1,
2021. Of course, Dean Largo has the right to be pay
the amount of 2M.
I have the obligation to respect that right but is there
a cause of action already? Wala pa, you wait for
December 1, 2021 doon pa lang papasok si cause
of action. Doon palang ang may violation of a right.
Pag si Dean Joan Largo excited gusto niya ako
makalaban sa court. June 1, 2021 pa lang she went
to the court to file a complaint for sum of money.
Q. Meron ba siyang cause of action?
Obviously wala. The complaint is vulnerable to
dismissal on the ground of failure to state a cause of
action pero sa current rules wala ng motion to
dismiss diyan, answer with affirmative defenses
kung papaano ko nilecture last meeting yung
dalawang categories. Diba.
So the bottom line is these three elements are
required to be present, there must be a right, an
obligation to respect the right and more importantly
there must be violation of the right.
ROV=CAUSE OF ACTION
R=ight
O=bligation
V=iolation
If you think that way, you will passed that’s possible.
I don’t want you to pass people. But I want you to top
the bar so you listen to me.
Q. If there is a violation of a right, is there already
a cause of action?
Ofcourse, 99% your professor will tell you yes
because jurisprudence dictates the three elements.
Right, Obligation to respect the right, and violation of
the right. But if I may please allow me to tell you but
that is not enough actually. Why because please
take that the violation of the right must result to
damage or injury. Yan ang importante. Isulat niyo
sa notes niyo number 4 element.
CAUSE OF ACTION ELEMENT=ROV+D
4.The violation of the right must result to damage or
injury=there must be damage, there must be injury.
Sir bakit naman? E explain mo nga? Kasi class kung
meron violation ng right pero walang damage or
injury, anong basis ng right mo, ng relief mo sa court
pag nag file ka ng complaint. Diba?
Pag nag file ka ng complaint may prayer ka, diba you
call it relief under the rules. Pero sa plaintiff, prayer.
Pumili ka to pay the amount of 2million pesos plus
damages. Yan ang prayer, yan ang relief. Ibig
sabihin may damage, may injury. Papaano kung
walang damage, walang injury. You have read that.
Q. Anong sabi ni Justice Peria? My idol. Anong
sabi ni Regalado? My idol. Anong sabi ni
Mariano? Lahat ng idol ko namatay na kaya
kinakabahan ako.
Having said that people, you talk about the civil law
principle of the damnum absque injuria =damage
without injury. So kung merong violation of a right,
but the violation of the right did not result to a
damage or injury. There is no damage or injury,
what will happen people? There is no basis of the
basis that we are going to asked from the court.
Illustration
Kunyari si Mr. A is driving his vehicle while driving
his vehicle pakanta kanta pa siya. Yung paborito
niyang kanta. Tala, tala. Anyway, mahirap mag
lecture pag laptop walang nag rereact. Tapos kana,
wala na. So having said that people so feel na feel
yung music. So si Mr A he is singing while he was
driving. Kasi feel na feel niya ang music people.
Eventually he close his eyes while driving.
Unfortunately, he close his eyes longer than
necessary. Feel na feel niya sumubra. 25minutes na
and because of that he bump and hit a pedestrian.
Anong nangyari? Wag nalang pedestrian, para
namang tao. Sasakyan nalang he hit the car driven
by Mr. B. So tinamaan ang kotse. So what happen?
Ano ang kotse ni Mr. B? Palagay natin na maliit na
kotse. Kia or something o volkswagyen na maliit no.
Ano yung binangga niya? E six wheeler truck. But of
course nabangga, may violation ng right. Of course,
but there is no damage. There is no injury. What will
happen now? Anong hihingiin mo kai Mr A. What is
the basis of the relief that you are going to ask the
court. Wala namang damage. Wala namang injury
yung passengers. In fact, yung sasakyan ni A ang
may damage. So basically simple example, but good
enough for everybody. The violation of the right must
result to damage or injury. Precisely because the
damage is the injury that is the basis of the court.
The plaintiff let us say in asking, in filing the
complaint. That is the basis of the relief that we are
going to asked from the court.
Having said that we know already the concept of a
cause of action. For the guidance of everybody when
the plaintiff file the complaint it is mandatory that all
the elements of a cause of action are required to be
present. Why? Precisely because if any of the
elements of a cause of action is missing.
Q.All of the elements of the action are missing,
what is the effect of the complaint?
SALAZAR APRIL 13 (11:01-24:00)
ATTY: Mr. A hit the car driven by Mr. B then there is
no damage or injury. What are the reliefs you will ask
for Mr. A? What relief can you ask for the court?
Ans: Wala because there is no injury or damage.
Take note that the violation of the right must resulted
to damage or injury for it is the basis of the court for
the relief asks.
Atty: Where the plaintiffs file the complaint, it is
mandatory that all the elements of cause of action
must be present. If there is an absence of one
element then it is vulnerable to dismissal. You can
file a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to
state a cause of action.
All the elements of cause of action are present, can
we now go to court a file a complaint?
Ans: No, not immediately because it is not enough
that all the elements of cause of action are present.
It also needs also have the right to file an action.
Therefore there are several factors that would affect
the right to file an action. There must also be right of
action.
Factors considered in filing a complaint are the
following: prescribed already, paid with abandon and
extinguishment, res judicata, lis pendentia, forum
shopping, splitting of cause of action.
ATTY: If there is cause of action and right of action
you can nowfile the complaint, however, take note
there is a distinction between failure to state cause
of action and lack of cause of action.
FAILURE TO STATE CAUSE OF ACTION
In Failure to state cause of action, the basis is the
four corners of the complainant. This means the
allegations in the complaint. Annexes attach thereto
can also be a basis, Silent ang rules however
remember the case of SEA LAND SERVICE
INC., the supreme court says that in determining
whether or not fails to state a cause of action you
have to consider the allegations contained on the
complained including the annexes attached thereto.
This means that ang failure to cause of action, there
are two pala yan. Unang klase of failure to state a
cause of action is if one of the elements of the cause
of action is missing. Second class is if there is an
insufficiency of the allegations.
SANTIAGO April 13 (24:01-37:00)
Failure to state cause of action means na torpe ka,
insufficiency of the allegation.
Bar Q 2004: Complaint for sum of money but there
was no allegation in the complaint that there was a
prior demand before filing the complaint.
But it is important in Article 1169 of the Civil Code
that “No Demand, No Delay”. So during the trial, can
you present a demand letter? No because you
weren’t able to allege.
Now because the demand letter was not alleged,
what will be the remedy of the defendant (before you
can still file a motion to dismiss)?
Ans: Motion to Dismiss on the ground of failure to
state the cause of action, now an affirmative defense
in the answer, under Rule 8, Sec 12B as an
alternative defense.
The elements of a cause of action is lacking
The loan is due on Dec 2021 but on June 1 the
creditor has already filed a complaint. Obviously,
failure to state a cause of action. Why? Because
there is not yet a violation of a right.
So what is the basis if what is being referred to is
failure to state a cause of action base on the
insufficiency of the allegation?
Ans: the 4 corners of the complaint together with the
annexes attached thereto.
Lack of Cause of Action
If there is lack of cause of action, what is the basis?
Ans: the evidence that the plaintiff has presented.
Technically, presented and offered, and then
admitted by the judge. It is not enough that the
evidence be presented.
When can a judge consider an evidence under the
rule of evidence?
Ans: there must be evidence presented, and the
marked during the pre-marking of exhibits, identified
by the witness during the trial and authenticated,
formally offered and admitted by the judge. These
are the requirements before a judge can consider
evidence in determining WON there is a lack of
cause of action.
What does it mean by lack of cause of action?
Ans: It means there is an efficiency of evidence
based on the facts and based on the law if it appears
there is an insufficiency of evidence.
Thus, what is the relevant rule?
Ans: Rule 33: Demurrer to Evidence
Demurrer to Evidence is actually a motion to
dismiss, although filed after the plaintiff has rested
its case. Remember litigious motions, 5 days to file
for an opposition and 25 days to resolve.
When can you say there is insufficiency of evidence?
Ans: Check the evidence presented by the plaintiff
and admitted by the court.
Defendant: The plaintiff has rested its case, there is
no need for me to present my own evidence because
based on the facts and the law, it appears that there
is an insufficiency of evidence on the part of the
plaintiff. The plaintiff failed to discharge its onus
probandi or burden of proof and failed to establish
his cause of action. Thus, the court should already
dismiss the case based on insufficiency of evidence
under Rule 33.
 2 kinds of Failure to state of cause of action:
1. Insufficiency of the allegation; or
2. There is a missing element of cause of action
On the other hand, lack of action LACK OF CAUSE OF ACTION
1. Insufficiency of the evidence. Relevant rule is Rule
33.
In failure to state of cause of, the relevant rule is Rule
8, Sec 12B.
5 Affirmative Defenses from Rule 8, Sec 12B
1. Lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
2. Improper venue
3. Failure to state a cause of action
4. Lack of legal capacity to sue
5. Condition precedent for the filing of action has to be
complied with.
This is the motu proprio rule. The other category is
the 15/30 rule.
Splitting of a cause of action
Sec 4, Rule 2
Splitting a single cause of action; effect of. — If two
or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same
cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon
the merits in any one is available as a ground for the
dismissal of the others.
One cause of action = one complaint, likewise, one
information = one offense in crimpro, otherwise there
will be duplicity of charges.
Splitting one cause of action is prohibited because it
will result in multiplicity of suits.Thus, judgment for
one may be a ground for dismissal of all the others.
SARIGUMBA 37:01-50:00
Atty: Splitting therefore is prohibited. You filed
several suits on the basis of one cause of action. So
therefore, Section 4 is the filing of one or judgment
of any one is a ground for the dismissal of all the
others.
Every action must be found on the basis of a
single cause of action.
Illustration:
I borrowed P2 million from Dean Largo. Nag due na
sya December 21, 2020. Pwede ba si Dean Largo
mag file ng 5 kaso sayo based on the P 2 million? Di
pwede because of multiplicity of suits. Kasi splitting
of a cause of action. Isang utang lang, isang cause
of action.
Isang right, isang violation of the right. Isang
damage. Isang cause of action.
What is the remedy if there is splitting of action?
Atty: Is splitting of a cause of action a ground for
dismissal?
Answer: NO because it is not a correct ground for
dismissal.
What is the correct ground for dismissal if there is
splitting of cause of action?
1. Litis pendentia – pending litigation involving the
same issue, the same cause of action. Two
complaints are pending altogether OR
2. Res judicata
Examples:
1. Chua vs. Metrobank
- Filed annulment of foreclosure and separately filed
action for damages.
- Not allowed; when you file an annulment of
extrajudicial foreclosure, you should have included
therein your prayer for damages
- Cannot be separate because there is splitting of
cause of action
2. Partitions under Rule 69
- A, B, C and D are co-owners of a property
- A filed a petition for partition of property owned in
common against B, C and D
- Ultimately, the court rendered a judicial partition
- A, however, made improvements on the lot owned
in common and wanted to recover the cost, value of
the improvements
Can A still file an action to recover the value of the
improvement?
Answer: NO, when you filed your petition for partition
property, you should have included therein your
claim for the value of the improvements over the
property.
Otherwise, there will be splitting of a cause of action.
3. Danao vs. Court of Appeals Ruling (BAR
QUESTION)
Atty: Umutang ako kay Dean Capanas P 2 million,
due and demandable on December 1,
2021. Sabi ni Dean Glenn “ako bigay P 2 million,
ikaw bigay property” as a collateral. Dean Capanas
executes real estate mortgage agreement. Atty. Kit
executes principal contract, promissory note in favor
of Dean Capanas.
Thereafter, Atty Kit defaulted in payment.
If Atty Kit defaulted in payment, what is the remedy
of Dean Capanas?
2 Remedies:
1. Foreclose the property OR
2. File a complaint for sum of money
Choose between foreclosure or collection of sum of
money.
DANAO vs. CA, G.R. NO. L-48276
Anent real properties in particular, the Court has laid
down the rule that a mortgage creditor may institute
against the mortgage debtor either a personal action
for debt or a real action to foreclose the mortgage. In
other words, he may pursue either of the two remedies,
but not both. As explained by the Court, the rule is as
follows:
For non-payment of a note secured by mortgage, the
creditor has a single cause of action against the debtor.
This single cause of action consists in the recovery of
the credit with execution of the security. In other words,
the creditor in his action may make two demands, the
payment of the debt and the foreclosure of the
mortgage. But both demands arise from the same
cause, the non-payment of the debt, and, for that
reason, they constitute a single cause of action.
Though the debt and the mortgage constitute separate
agreements, the latter is subsidiary to the former, and
both refer to one and the same obligation.
Consequently there exists only once cause of action for
a single breach of that obligation. Plaintiff, then, by
applying the rule above stated cannot split up his single
cause of action by filing a complaint for payment of the
debt, and thereafter another complaint for foreclosure
of the mortgage. If he does so, the fishing of the first
complaint will bar the subsequent complaint. By
allowing the creditor to file two separate complaints
simultaneously or successively, one to recover his
credit and another to foreclose his mortgage, we will,
in effect, be authorizing him plural redress for a single
breach of contract at much cost to the courts and with
so much vexation and oppression to the debtor.
... a rule that would authorize the plaintiff to bring a
personal action against the debtor and simultaneously
or successively another action against the mortgaged
property, would result not only in multiplicity of suits so
offensive to justice (Soriano v. Enriquez, 24 Phil. 584)
and obnoxious to law and equity (Osorio v. San
Agustin, 25 Phil. 404), but also in subjecting the
defendant to the vexation of being sued in the place of
his residence or of the residence of the Icarangal et al.,
38 Off. Gaz. 389 [1939]).
VILLA = 1:03:01
Atty.Kit: because of the Anticipatory breach, there
is only one (1) cause of action from the 1 month up
st
to the 12 month.
th
The fifth effect is that, since there is only 1 cause of
action, there must only be 1 complaint.
FIVE (5) EFFECTS of ANTICIPATORY BREACH:
1. The obligation is now divisible.
2. The obligation is now entire, it becomes
indivisible.
3. The breach is now total.
 4. There is only one cause of action.
5. There must only be one complaint.
Atty. Kit: after 6 months, the lender can collect
P600,000. He sent a demand letter to the borrower
to collect the amount of P600,000 but the borrower
said “I will pay you the amount of P600,000. I will
also pay you the remaining P600,000 representing
the amortizations of July up to December. So,
Anticipatory Breach will now come in.
So, thinking that the amount is only 600k, what he
collected is that amount of 600k only. Successfully,
he was able to collect the amount of 600k. June
amount due nabayaran na pero yung next due yung
borrower naging due na rin yung December and he
filed another complaint to collect the amortizations
representing the months of July to December.
Question: Will the second action to collect the
amount of P600,000 covering the months of July to
December prosper?
Answer: NO. There is now the Splitting of a cause
of action. Although there is no actual breach
because although it is not yet due and demandable,
there is already an ANTICIPATORY BREACH. This
means that the breach is now total, it is now entire,
the contract is now indivisible and the effect is, there
is only one (1) cause of action.
Atty. Kit: Therefore, when the lender filed the
complaint to collect the sum of money due in 6
months, he should have included therein already the
amortization representing the months of July to
December because there is already an anticipatory
breach. That is the effect of such anticipatory
breach, the breach is now total, the obligation is now
indivisible and there must only be one cause of
action and therefore there must only be one
complaint.
If you did not include it and he filed another
complaint, it is no longer allowed because there is
now splitting of the cause of action.
VILLA end at 1:13:38
TAUCAN April 13 50:01-1:03:00
Anticipatory Breach
ATTY: What do you mean by the Anticipatory
Breach. Pag one cause of action, one complaint.
Ang problema ko lang, paano kung yong obligation
is divided into several
prestations/installments/amortizations?
Problem: 12 months to pay. 100k monthly
amortization. What is the rule if that falls under
Anticipatory Breach?
GR for installment: 1obligation = 1default = 1 cause
of action = 1 complaint
So kung 12 months to pay, for January Amortization
it’s 100K. If you defaulted how much can you collect?
The answer is 100K. 1 default, 1 COA, so 1
complaint.
Problem: What if 5 months default, how much can
you collect?
Answer: 5 defaults, lump altogether that’s 500K.
Several installment but due na lahat so 1 complaint.
Problem: What if the borrower did not pay for 6
months so on the 6th month you sent a demand
letter but the borrower flatly refused to pay saying
“Sorry I will not pay including the remaining
installments from the 7th to the 12th month.” But the
7th-12th are not yet due.
Answer: Supposedly, several obligations = several
complaints. BUT This is where the Doctrine of
Anticipatory Breach because the debtor flatly
refused to pay not only the due installments but also
all the remaining amortizations.
So what is the effect?
Answer: if the Doctrine of anticipatory breach sets
in:
1. The obligation becomes INDIVISIBLE
anymore.
2. The breach is now TOTAL (not only the 6
months dues but also the 7th-12th months
bisan wala pa na due)
3. The contract is now ENTIRE
4. There is only 1 cause of action
5. There must only be 1 COMPLAINT
 Blossoms and Blossoms Inc. vs.
Manila Gas Corporation
FACTS: The Manila Gas Corporation breached
its 10-year contract with the plaintiff by ceasing to
deliver any coal and water gas tar to it solely
because of the increased price of its tar products
and its desire to secure better prices,
notwithstanding the frequent and urgent demands
made by the plaintiff upon it to comply with the
contract. The defendant flatly refused to make
any deliveries.
HELD:
In 34 Corpus Juris, p. 839, it is said:
As a general rule a contract to do several things
at several times in its nature, so as to authorize
successive actions; and a judgment recovered for
a single breach of a continuing contract or
covenant is no bar to a suit for a subsequent
breach thereof. But where the covenant or
contract is entire, and the breach total, there can
be only one action, and the plaintiff must therefore
recover all his damages.
In the case of Rhoelm vs, Horst, 178 U. U., 1; 44
Law. ed., 953, that court said:
An unqualified and positive refusal to perform a
contract, though the performance thereof is not
yet due, may, if the renunciation goes to the whole
contract, be treated as a complete breach which
will entitle the injured party to bring his action at
once.
(daghan pag gi-cite na jurisprudence ang SC in
this case but first 2 ra ako giapil kay same
thoughts raman sad tanan but feel free to check
the full text!)
APRIL 17, 2021 (PRIOR)
ABADIA (00:00-8:00)
CAUSE OF ACTION
Rule 2
Section 1. Ordinary civil actions, basis of. – Every
ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of
action.
Elements/Requisites:
1. a right
2. an obligation to respect the right
3. a violation of the right
4. violation of the right must have resulted to
damage/injury
§ If there is no damage/injury, apply the civil law
principle damnum absque injuria (there is
damage but without injury). There is no basis
of the relief asked before the court if there is
no damage/injury.
It is not enough that one has a cause of action.
He must also have the right to file an action.
RIGHT TO FILE AN ACTION
If the debtor has an obligation which is already due
and demandable, the creditor has a cause of action.
However, if the creditor has already waived the
debtor’s obligation or the debtor has already paid the
debt, there is a cause of action but there is no right
to file the cause of action.
Factors that may affect the right to file an action:
1. prescription
2. barred by res judicata
3. litis pedentia
4. forum shopping
FILING OF A COMPLAINT IN COURT
All elements of a cause of action are required to be
present to be able to file a complaint. If any, some,
or all of the elements are missing, the complaint is
vulnerable to dismissal on the ground of FAILURE
TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION (now an
affirmative defense under Rule 6, Sec. 5 (b), not a
motion to dismiss).
ALEGRE (8:01-15:00)
My debt is due and demandable on Dec. 1, 2020
but Dean Glenn filed a complaint against me on
June 1, 2020. Obviously, not yet due and
demandable.
What will happen?
Complaint is vulnerable to dismissal on the ground
of failure to state an action. There is a missing
element which is the violation of a right. There is no
violation yet because the debt is not yet due and
Meaning Insufficiency of the Insufficiency
demandable at the time of filing of the complaint.
allegation; or of Evidence
Insufficiency of
2nd Situation: There is a complaint of sum of Elements of Cause of
money but there was no allegation that there was Action
prior demand before filing the complaint.

So, there is insufficiency of allegation. If there is So Lack of Cause of Action can only be used as a
insufficiency, complaint is also vulnerable to ground in Filing a Motion to Dismiss by way of
dismissal on the ground of failure to state cause of Demurrer to Evidence.
action.
When do you file a motion to dismiss by way of
In short, when you say Failure to State an Action, it Demurrer to Evidence?
could be:
After the plaintiff has rested his case which is only
1. Insufficiency of the elements of cause of after the plaintiff has finished presenting his
action; evidence in chief and after he has formally offered
2. Insufficiency of the allegations in the his evidence and ultimately when the court issues
complaint order admitting or denying admission the exhibits
offered by the plaintiff.
FAILURE TO STATE LACK OF
CAUSE OF ACTION CAUSE OF And after that, the defendant now can do two things:
ACTION
1. May decide to present own evidence
Basis in Allegations contained Evidence 2. File Demurrer of Evidence when based on
saying in the complaint presented by the facts and law there is insufficiency of
there is included the Annexes the plaintiff evidence. Defendant no longer needs to
attached thereto present his evidence.

Relevant Rule 8, Section 12 Rule 33 - Remember my discussion on the 2 Categories of

Rule (B) - Affirmative Demurrer to Affirmative Defenses:
Defenses: Evidence
1. 15-30 Rule
2. Motu Proprio Rule (found in Rule 8 Sec 12(b)
- because all of the 5 affirmative defenses no
• Lack of
longer need a summary hearing, hence court
jurisdiction
can apply the motu proprio rule)
over the
person of
defending
party TN: These are just Atty. kit’s own wordings.
• Failure to
state cause of ALONZO (15:01 - 23:00)
action Special proceedings is the most interesting subject
• Lack of legal in Remedial Law.
capacity to
sue Having said that, in Criminal Procedure, the Rule is
• Improper “one offense, one information.” 2 or more offenses
Venue cannot be charged in the one information because
• Condition we apply 110-117 Sec. 3, Motion to Quash. The
precedent for complaint is vulnerable to quashal because of
filing the claim duplicity of charges.
has not been
complied with
If you do not file a Motion to Quash, Rule 120 of
Criminal Procedure says you can be convicted of as
many offenses as are duly charged and proved.
Bottomline: In CrimPro, “one offense, one
information” Same thing with Civil Procedure. “One
complaint, One cause of action.”
You can’t file several complaints on the basis of one
cause of action because Sec. 4 of Rule 2 would tell
us that the filing of one or judgement upon anyone
is a ground for dismissal of all the others. Filing
multiple suits will result in “multiplicity of suits”.
Splitting of a cause of action is not allowed.
Take Note: The splitting of a cause of action is not a
ground for dismissal.
Q: What is the correct ground for dismissal if you
talk about the splitting of a cause of action?
A: The correct ground is “litis pendentia” or
otherwise “res judicata”
Illustration: (Litis pendentia) 1Million loan due and
demandable December 1, 2020. It is now December
2, 2020. There is now a violation of a right and a
demand letter. You decide to file 2 complaints,
P500,000 each. Is that allowed?
A: No because it is splitting a cause of action.
What if I obtained a loan from Ms. Monterde and she
says “ako bigay pera, ikaw bigay property collateral,
e mortgage mo”
Of course if I defaulted, the lender-mortgagee has 2
options: Foreclose the mortgage or File a complaint
for sum of money.
But you cannot have the best of both worlds. Choose
1.
Tito, Vic and Joey are co-owners of a property. Tito
filed for partition under Rule 69; ultimately the court
rendered a judgment Tito said “Wait, I installed
improvements on the property.” Can he collect a
second action to recover the value of the
improvements?
A: Not anymore. It is splitting of action. When he
filed the complaint, he should have included
therein his claim for the cost of the
improvements.
BERDON, 23:01-31:00
Petition of Partition- Introduce improvements over
the property
Can he file a second action to recover the value/cost
of improvements?
A: NOT ANYMORE, because it will be a splitting of
a cause of action.
Dapat if you filed a complaint for partition, he should
have included therein his claim for
the value or cost of the improvements.
-Umutang sa China Bank used my property as
collateral but there after the bank foreclose.
What is the remedy?
of
· Petition for annulment or foreclosure,
extra-judicial foreclosure under Act 135 or
judicial foreclosure under Rules 68
OR
· Filed another petition, separately to
recover damages as a result of the
foreclosure.
~ During the pendency of the case, I decided to
file to recover the damages as a result of illegal,
unlawful foreclosure. Will the second action
prosper?
NO, there is a splitting of the cause of action.
Chua v Metrobank
SC there is also forum shopping here,
remember you file an action for extra judicial
procedure. You should have included therein your
claim for damages. It should not be two actions.
For it may result in multiplicity of suits.
FIDEL O. CHUA v. METROPOLITAN BANK,
GR No. 182311, 2009-08-19
Facts:
Petitioners obtained from respondent Metrobank
a loan.
Having failed to fully pay their obligations,
petitioners entered into a Debt Settlement
Agreement with respondent Metrobank on 13...
whereby the loan obligations of the former were
restructured.
The lawyers of respondent Metrobank demanded
that petitioners fully pay and settle their liabilities,
including interest and penalties
When petitioners still failed to pay their loans,
respondent Metrobank sought to extra-judicially
foreclose the REM constituted on the subject
properties.
Petitioner Chua, in his personal capacity and
acting on behalf of petitioner Filiden, filed before
Branch 257 of the Regional Trial Court of
Parañaque (RTC-Branch 257), a Complaint for
Injunction with Prayer for Issuance of Temporary
Restraining Order (TRO),... Preliminary Injunction
and Damages
RTC-Branch 257 denied petitioners' application
for injunction on the ground that the sale of the
foreclosed properties rendered the same moot
and academic.
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration...
petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals a
Petition for Certiorari,... the Court of Appeals
reversed the 6 March 2002 Order of RTC-Branch
257 and remanded the case for further
proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the
appeal of respondents with finality. Thus, on 27
September 2005, RTC-Branch 257 set the
hearing for the... presentation of evidence by
respondent Metrobank for the application for
preliminary injunction on 9 November 2005.[19]
Issues:
WHETHER OR NOT THE OUTCOME OF THE
"FIRST" CASE WOULD AFFECT THE
"SECOND" CASE.
The only issue that needs to be determined in this
case is whether or not successively filing Civil
Case No. CV-01-0207 and Civil Case No. CV-05-
0402 amounts to forum shopping.
Ruling:
In the present case, there is no dispute that
petitioners failed to state in the Certificate of Non-
Forum Shopping, attached to their Verified
Complaint in Civil Case No. CV-05-0402 before
RTC-Branch 195, the existence of Civil Case No.
CV-01-0207 pending before RTC-Branch 258.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant
Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated 31
January 2008 and Resolution dated 28 March
2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
88087, affirming the Order dated 3 July 2006 of
Branch 258 of the Regional Trial Court of
Parañaque City, dismissing Civil Case No. CV-05-
0402, is AFFIRMED, without prejudice to the
proceedings in Civil Case No. CV-01-0207. Costs
against petitioners.
Principles:
If the forum shopping is not considered willful and
deliberate, the subsequent case shall be
dismissed without prejudice, on the ground of
either litis pendentia or res judicata. However, if
the forum shopping is willful and deliberate, both
(or all, if... there are more than two) actions shall
be dismissed with prejudice..[43] In this case,
petitioners did not deliberately file Civil Case No.
CV-05-0402 for the purpose of seeking a
favorable decision in another forum. Otherwise,
they would not have... moved for the consolidation
of both cases. Thus, only Civil Case No. CV-05-
0402 is dismissed and the hearing of Civil Case
No. CV-01-0207 before RTC-Branch 258 will be
continue.
JOINDER IN THE CAUSES OF ACTION:
There are several elements in Rule 2, Section 5
Section 5. Joinder of causes of action
A party may in one pleading assert, in the alternative
or otherwise, as many causes of action as he may
against an opposing party, subject to the following
conditions:
(a) The party joining the causes of action shall comply
with the rules on joinder of parties;
(b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions
(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
actions falls within the jurisdiction of said court and
the venue lies therein and
(d) Where the claims in all the causes of actions are
principally for recovery of money, the aggregate
amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.
In the splitting of the cause of action you have one
cause of action, you filed several suits on the basis
of several causes of action.
-The judgment of one is a ground of dismissal of all
the others.
Joinder of causes of action under Rule 2,
Section 5
A party in one pleading may assert in the alternative
or otherwise as many causes of actions he may have
against an opposing party subject to the ff
conditions:
(MEMORIZE this!!!)
Requisites:
1) The party of the joinder of actions must comply with
the rules of the joinder of actions.
2) You cannot complained an ordinary civil actions and
a special civil actions (or actions govern in Special
rules)
Ex. Is it okay to join one foreclosure and a sum of
money?
NO. It will be a spitting of a cause of
action. One is governed by ordinary civil action
and the other is governed by special civil action.
CASTILLA, 31:01-39:00
One is governed by ordinary civil action, the other is
special civil action.
Rescission of contract case and partition
GR: cannot be joined because rescission of contract
is an ordinary civil action whereas partition under
Rule 69 is considered a special civil action.
XPN: Ada v. Baylon, G.R. No. 182435, August 13,
2012
SC: “A misjoined cause of action, if not severed upon
motion of a party or by the court sua sponte, may be
adjudicated by the court together with the other
causes of action. Nevertheless, misjoinder of causes
of action is not a ground for dismissal. Indeed, the
courts have the power, acting upon the motion of a
party to the case or sua sponte, to order the
severance of the misjoined cause of action to be
proceeded with separately.33 However, if there is no
objection to the improper joinder or the court did not
motu proprio direct a severance, then there exists no
bar in the simultaneous adjudication of all the
erroneously joined causes of action.”
CGV: If the opposing party did not object and the
court had jurisdiction over both, this was allowed in
the case of Ada v. Baylon. Supposedly, as a rule,
this is not allowed because one is an ordinary civil
action and the other is a special civil action.
Third requisite:
Where the cause of actions are between the same
parties but pertaining to different venues or
jurisdictions, joinder is allowed in the RTC provided
one of the causes of actions falls within the
jurisdiction of the RTC and the venue lies therein.
Fourth requisite (a.k.a totality rule)
Where all the claims are for a sum of money, the
aggregate amount of the claim will be the test of
jurisdiction.
CGV: Memorize the requisites of joinder of the
causes of action. And for the guidance of everybody,
in splitting a cause of action, there is only one cause
of action but you filed several suits and this is not
allowed as this will result in multiplicity of suits. In the
joinder of cause of action, it is allowed because it will
prevent or avoid multiplicity of suits. Here, there are
several causes of action but you will file one
complaint only on the basis of several causes of
action. Pinagsama mo sa isang complaint yung
maraming causes of action. In which case, this time,
it will prevent multiplicity of suits. It will avoid
multiplicity of suits. Thus, joinder of causes of action
is allowed while splitting a cause of action is not
allowed.
Rules of Court, Rule 3, Section 6. Permissive
joinder of parties. – All persons in whom or against
whom any right to relief in respect to or arising out of
the same transaction or series of transactions is
alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the
alternative, may, except as otherwise provided in
these Rules, join as plaintiffs or be joined as
defendants in one complaint, where any question of
law or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all such
defendants may arise in the action; but the court may
make such orders as may be just to prevent any
plaintiff or defendant from being embarrassed or put
to expense in connection with any proceedings in
which he may have no interest. (6)
Elements of permissive joinder of parties:
1. It must arise from the same transaction or
series of transactions
2. There must be common question of law or
fact
3. Such joinder is not otherwise prescribed by
the provisions of the rule on jurisdiction and
venue
Baldovi v. Sarte, G.R. No. L-11767, March 27,
1917 (asked in the 1996 and 2009 bar)
SC: “It is true that the courts should avoid multiplicity
of suits, and that section 90 of the Code of Civil
Procedure permits a complaint to contain more than
one cause of action, as section 427 of the California
Code of Civil Procedure (from which the code in
force in this country is derived) provides that the
plaintiff may join several causes of action in the
same complaint. This legal provision is, however,
merely permissive, and the plaintiff is not
obliged to unite or join several causes of action
in the same complaint.
As there is not positive provision whatever of law or
any rule of jurisprudence that makes a joinder of
actions obligatory, it is not permissible to hold that
because the claim for the P187.50 was not included
in the complaint filed by Blas Ausina Pi in June,
1910, the cause of action that is the basis of Palomar
Baldovi's complaint was wholly extinguished.”
CGV: The rule on joinder of cause of action is purely
permissive and the plaintiff can always file separate
actions for each cause of action.
Rules of Court, Rule 3, Section 7. Compulsory
joinder of indispensable parties. – Parties in
interest without whom no final determination can be
had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or
defendants. (7)
CGV: If you say joinder of cause of action, it must
comply with the rules of joinder of parties.
There are important procedural concepts here:
1. Splitting a cause of action
2. Joinder of causes of action
In order to have a valid joinder of causes of action,
you have to comply with the rules on joinder of
parties. Rule on joinder of parties refers to
permissive joinder of parties. Why? Because we
have permissive joinder of parties.
When is compulsory joinder of parties applied?
Pag indispensable parties. They shall be joined.
Permissive joinder of parties
Ibig sabihin, pwede naman separate causes of
action but allowed to be joined in one complaint to
avoid multiplicity of suits.
DATA, 39:01-47:00
If we talk about permissive joinder of parties there
are two requisites:
1. It must arise from the same transaction or series of
transaction
2. Common question of law or facts
For a joinder of a cause of action to be valid, you
must comply with the rules on joinder of parties.
However, the above requisite only applies if there
are multiple parties involved or if there are plurality
of parties.
If there is only one plaintiff versus one defendant
(one-on-one situation), we do not apply rule 3
section 6. Thus, if there is only one plaintiff versus
one defendant (one-on-one situation), even though
it did not arise from the same transaction and there
is no common question of law or facts, joinder is still
allowed.
In summary: in order to join causes of action you
have to apply joinder of parties under Rule 3 Section
6 which means that it must arise under the same
transaction or series of transactions and common
questions of law or fact. Accordingly, Rule 3 Section
6 only applies if there are multiple parties only and it
does not apply if there is one plaintiff versus one
defendant.
 TN in the exam if there is a question about joinder,
the question will not directly ask if there the joinder
is valid but will ask instead if the court has jurisdiction
or not. The answer to this question must apply the
rules on joinder.
DESCALLAR (47:01 to 55:00)
Example:
B’s wife just gave birth so he borrowed 350 from
A. 2 weeks later, B borrowed another 350k from A
because his girlfriend was about to give birth as
well. After a few weeks, B borrowed another 350k
because his maid (di sya ang tatay) was also about
to give birth. After several weeks, B borrowed 350k
from A again because A’s sister was about to give
birth as well (di daw sya ang tatay wtf)
Now, how many causes of actions are there?
There are 4 causes of action as follows:
1 for the wife, 1 for the GF, 1 for the maid, and 1 for
the sister of A.
How many complaints should there be since there
are 4 causes of actions?
The rule is, for every cause of action, there should
only be one complaint. But if there are many causes
of action, there can be a joinder.
But first, we Test to determine joinder:
- How many parties are involved, is it a one-on-one
situation or plurality of parties? So we would
know whether to apply Rule 3 Section 6 or not
o In the example, there is a one-on-one
situation (A v. B). If one-on-one
situation, we are not required to
follow rule 3 section 6. So even
though it did not arise from the same
transaction/there is no common
question of law or fact, pwede parin
ang joinder.
o Does RTC-QC have jurisdiction over
the complaint with 4 causes of
action? YES, because joinder is
allowed. As discussed, the
jurisdiction of outside metro Manila
RTC, more than 400k dapat. Kung
pwede ang joinder, may jurisdiction
ang RTC-QC, if di pwede, walang
jurisdiction. Pag pinagsama-sama
lahat (350k+350k+350k+350k for
each cause of action)
….continuation
DE LOS REYES (55:01 - 1:03:00)
The total would be 1.4M, and 1.4M falls within the
jurisdiction of the RTC. When we included
everything, all the causes of actions, it falls now to
the totality rule, under Rule 2, Sec 5B. If all the
claims are for sum of money, the aggregate amount
of the claim will be the test of jurisdiction.
Assuming, that the total amount is 350k, if in Manila,
the jurisdiction falls with MTC. The limit of the
jurisdiction of MTC if within Manila is 400k and
below.
Situation 1: A has a cause of action for ejectment
(unlawful detainer) against B due to non-payment of
rentals for 10 months.
Question: In order to avoid multiplicity of suits, can A
be allowed to join in his complaint for sum of money
his cause of action for ejectment suit?
Answer: NO. Rule 2, sec 5B will now apply - The
joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions
governed by special rules.
Since ejectment is a special civil action, an action
therefore governed by special rules cannot be joined
for an action of sum of money.
In Plurality of Parties/Multiple Parties, only 3
situations can happen:
1. One plaintiff versus two or more defendants.
 2. Two or more plaintiffs versus one defendant.
3. Two or more plaintiffs versus two or more
defendants.
In this case, you have to apply the rules on joinder
of parties when plurality of parties/multiple parties
are involved.
Requisites of plurality of parties/multiple parties:
1. It must arise from the same transaction or
series of transactions.
2. Common question of law or fact.
Problem: A lent the amount of 350k to
B…(continuation)
EVANGELISTA (1:03-01-1:11:00)
4 wives are about to give birth and 4 people
borrowed money because their wives are about to
give birth. (Lockdown guro mao daghan buntis)
Q. How many causes of actions are here?
There are 4, one of each.
Q. If there are 4 causes of action, how many
complaints will be filed?
There are also 4 separate complaints.
But the purpose of joinder is to avoid multiplicity of
suits.
Q. Will the court allow A under the Rules of Court
to file 1 complaint only and join these 4 causes
of actions against B, C, D and E?
To answer, the following first:
1) How many parties are involved? Multiple
2) Are you required to follow Rule 3, Section 6? Yes
The two (2) requisites are:
1) This arises from the same transaction
Q. Does RTC of Quezon City have jurisdiction
over the complaint filed by A against B, C, D and
E?
This calls for the application on the rules of joinder.
You also have to follow the joinder on parties. What
is the first requisite? This arises from the same
transaction. Therefore, joinder is not allowed.
Q. If joinder is not allowed, what is your remedy?
Individual suit. Separate suits.
Joinder is not allowed because it did not arise from
the same transaction. If joinder is not allowed, file
individual suits.
Q. Does RTC of Quezon City have jurisdiction?
No, because joinder is not allowed and the amount
involved here is only P350,000 which falls within
jurisdiction of MTC.
Example: Flores vs. Mallare-Philipps (landmark) I
am a dealer of tires and C ordered P250,000 worth
of tires to be delivered at 5pm. C promised to pay
tomorrow. At 3pm, D went to the store and similarly
ordered tires worth P250,000. They promised to pay
the following day around 12nn but they failed to pay.
JACOBO (1:11:01 - 1:19:00)
… (Continuation sa sample situation)
Neither of the deans were able to communicate back
to the creditor. Creditor then sent demand letters to
them, but it was also ignored. Creditor filed a
complaint for sum of money, should I file it to the
MTC or to the RTC? If I join my causes of action
against the deans, Php250k + Php250k = Php500k,
RTC has jurisdiction either in Manila or in Cebu.
But if joinder is not allowed, the amount cannot
qualify the jurisdiction to the RTC, rather it falls under
MTC.
Answer: RTC has no jurisdiction because it did not
arise from the same transaction.
TN: In joinder, “transaction” does not refer to a
contractual obligation alone.
Pantranco vs Standard Insurance Company
The word “transaction” is generic, it may refer to any
acts or omission that may give rise to a cause of
action. The word “transaction” includes occurrences.
Here, the bus driver was driving and there were
passengers inside the bus. The bus hit a post and
the passengers suffered from multiple physical
injuries and there were damages in their property or
belongings.
Question: What is the cause of action of the
passengers against the bus driver?
Answer: Culpa Aquiliana or based on negligence
only because there was no pre-existing contract
between the passengers and the driver.
Question: What is the cause of action of the
passengers against the bus owner?
Answer: Culpa contractual, or based on contract.
There is a pre-existing contractual obligation
(Contract of Carriage) between the owner of the bus
and the passengers.
Question: Can the passengers file 1 complaint
only and join their causes of action against the
driver and the bus owner? Is joinder allowed?
GARCIA 1:19:01-1:27
…the driver and the bus owner. Pwede ba ang
Joinder?
Go back to the requisites:
How many parties are involved? One on one or
plurality of parties?
One plaintiff against two defendants – driver and the
owner – multiple parties.
Are we required to follow Rule 3, Section 6?
Yes.
Did it arise from the same transaction?
The word “transaction” includes occurrence, any act
or omission that may give rise to a cause of action.
Therefore, there is only one occurrence.
Is there common question of law – torts and
damages, civil code, transportation law?
Common question of fact?
Yes, one of actual situation, and therefore, joinder is
allowed.
The last situation is, “Where the cause of action are
between the same parties, pertaining to different
venues OR jurisdictions, joinder is allowed in the
RTC provided one of the causes of action falls within
the jurisdiction of the RTC and the venue lies
therein.”
Rule 2, Sec. 5(c)
xxx (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 xxx
Illustration on different jurisdictions: Complaint
was filed in RTC Quezon City. A filed a complaint
against B, joining 2 causes of action: (1) Sum of
money case, amounting to P2M; (2) another cause
of action amounting to P350K. They are both
Quezon City residents.
-------------------------GREGORIO---------------------------
Q. Can A file the complaint to the RTC of QC?
- Check Rule 2, Section 5C. Apply the rule to
this question.
Section 5. Joinder of causes of action. — A party
may in one pleading assert, in the alternative or
otherwise, as many causes of action as he may
have against an opposing party, subject to the
following conditions:
(a) The party joining the causes of action shall
comply with the rules on joinder of parties;
(b) The joinder shall not include special civil
actions or actions governed by special rules;
(c) Where the causes of action are between the
same parties but pertain to different venues
or jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in
the Regional Trial Court provided one of the
causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of
said court and the venue lies therein; and
(d) Where the claims in all the causes action are
principally for recovery of money, the
aggregate amount claimed shall be the test
of jurisdiction. (5a)
(Refer to illustration)
- Same parties
- Different jurisdictions because the P2M is in
the jurisdiction of the RTC while the P350k is
in the jurisdiction of the MTC
Q. If the complaint is filed in the RTC of QC, is
joinder allowed in this case?
- Joinder is allowed in the RTC provided one
of the causes of actions falls within the
jurisdiction of the RTC and the venue lies
therein (venue for personal action is the
residence of the parties, option to the plaintiff
[they are both QC residents]). Therefore, A
can validly file the complaint in the RTC of
QC.
Q. What if the venues are different?
Illustration
Venue RTC. First of cause of action – recovery of
real property in Mandaluyong City. Second cause of
action – breach of contract. Both A & B are QC
residents.
Q. Can A file the complaint in the RTC of QC
where the causes of actions are pertaining to the
same parties but different venues?
- Now, what is different here is venue, not
jurisdiction.
NACUA - 1:35:01-1:43:00
So, i ha highlight ko lang ang venue. So, recovery...
Ano pa?
Palagay natin, breach of contract.
Recall
Q: Ano yung #2 na cause of action?
- Breach of contract.
continuation
Both A & B are Quezon City Residents.
Q: Can A file a complaint in the RTC of QC? (ito
class venue ‘to, balikan ulit ag rule 2 section 5 C)
RULE 2, Section 5. Joinder of causes of action. – A
party may in one pleading assert, in the alternative or
otherwise, as many causes of action as he may have
against an opposing party, subject to the following
conditions:
(a) The party joining the causes of action shall
comply with the rules on joinder of parties;
(b) The joinder shall not include special civil
actions or actions governed by special rules;
(c) Where the causes of action are between the
same parties but pertain to different venues
or jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed
in the Regional Trial Court provided one of
the causes of action falls within the
jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies
therein; and
(d) Where the claims in all the causes of action are
principally for recovery of money, the
aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of
jurisdiction. (5a)
Rule 2, Section 5 (c) – where the causes of actions
are between the same parties but pertaining to
different venues, joinders allowed in the RTC
provided one of the causes of actions falls within the
jurisdiction of the RTC and the venue lies therein.
Q: What’s the answer? (Can A file a complaint in
the RTC of QC?)
A: ang magkaiba rito ay ang venue hindi jurisdiction.
Now, breach of contract, as a rule, falls within the
RTC. Breach of contract – action incapable of
pecuniary estimation (although there are some
exceptions).
Dito, where the cause of actions are between the
same parties i.e. A vs B, but pertaining to different
venues.
Why? Because, itong una (#1) recovery of real
property is a real action. Venue is Mandaluyong
since it is real action.
Yung pangalawa (#2) breach of contract case,
kung hindi real – personal action. Therefore, the
venue is the place of residence of the parties,
and give the option to the plaintiff, therefore,
Quezon City.
Q: Is that allowed the RTC of QC?
A: jurisdiction is RTC of QC provided the causes of
actions falls within the jurisdiction of RTC, breach of
contract as a rule, and the venue lies therein.
Personal action – QC.
Pwede rin itong recovery of sum of money.
Illustration
Collect sum of money, 2Million, obviously RTC of
QC has jurisdiction. Ang magkaiba rito yung venue
parin, pwede ba sa RTC of QC?
(#1) Recovery of real property located in
Mandaluyong city – it is a real action, venue of the
action is Mandaluyong city.
(#2) Ito naman, sum of money case, personal action,
therefore, venue is QC.
Q: Can we file the complaint in RTC of QC?
A: YES, provided on of the causes of actions
falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC. And the
venue lies therein, QUEZON CITY.
Codal lang ito, application lang.
*Emphasis* provided one of the causes of actions
falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC and the venue
lies therein.
ILLUSTRATION
So kung ito, #1, meron nang assessed value
amounting to 45,000. Pag may assessed value na
45k, meron bang magbabago rito? YES.
Why? Iba na ang venue, iba pa ang jurisdiction.
Why? Diba kapag Real Action, the court that has
jurisdiction depends on the assessed value of the
real property. (metro manila 50k jurisdictional limit)
In other words, pag real action, if the assessed
value of the real property is 50k exact and below,
MTC has jurisdiction, otherwise, if it is 50k 1 cent and
above, RTC has jurisdiction.
If this is a situation.
ILLUSTRATION
A filed a case against B joining 2 causes of actions.
- #1 recovery of a real property located in
Mandaluyong City with an assessed value of
45k.
- #2 sum of money case amounting to 2 million
pesos.
Both are Quezon city residents.
Q: Can A file a complaint in RTC of Quezon City?
Different venues, different jurisdiction. Is it
allowed?
Go back to the codal provision where the causes of
actions are between the same parties but
pertaining to different venues or jurisdictions,
joinder is allowed in the RTC provided one of the
causes of actions falls within the jurisdiction of
the RTC and the venue lies therein.
Answer: YES! Pertaining to different venues and
different jurisdictions, joinder is allowed in the RTC
provided “one” (i.e. sum of money case) of the
causes of actions falls within the jurisdiction of the
RTC and the venue lies therein.
PANERIO
1:43:01-1:46:19
Q. Pwede pa rin bas a RTC?
Yes, provided one of the causes of action, falls within
the jurisdiction of the RTC and the venue lies therein.
Q. Can you follow people?
Everybody please heart button, if you can follow. I
want to make it simple everyone. Okay now, I will
tackle 45k becomes 55k assessed value. Midterm
ko nato ha, binigay ko na. Mag iiisip ako ng bagong
question. Anyway, okay now, ganyan ang midterm.
ABCDE.
Q. So people here, anong change dito?
Yung assessed value, yung 45k it becomes 55k
assessed value now.
Q. Is joinder allowed, in the RTC of Quezon City?
Balik parin sa codal, where the parties of the action
are between the same parties. A v. B. Pertaining to
different venue. Alright. Mandaluyong at Quezon
City. Personal Action at Real Action. Different
venue. Pero dito the same jurisdiction.
50
Because
RTC na yung jurisdiction ng 59K plus 1 centavo
above. Assessed value RTC. So ditu pwede e file sa
RTC of Mandaluyong or RTC of Quezon City. Pipili
nalang. Either na, bakit? Parehong may jurisdiction
ang RTC of Quezon City ay tsaka RTC of
Mandaluyong. Ang magkaiba lang yung venue. So
pumili kana. Either RTC of Quezon City or RTC of
Mandalyung joinder is allowed under rule 3 section
5.
Q.What if the values did not mention?
Kanina, I did not mention, nagsimula ako sa walang
minention na value. To highlight the description
between venue and jurisdiction. Pwede parin as long
as one cause of action falls within the jurisdiction of
the RTC lies therein. Pag different venues muna
wag, pag panagalawa may assessed value na pero
nasa MTC. Yung pangatlo na example yun ngayon
RTC naman because of the assessed value. Can
you follow people? Everybody? Alright sige.
APRIL 17, 2021 (After)
PANERIO
0.00:5:00
Q. How is everybody so far?
Are you getting something? Are you learning my
friends?Everybody, okay naman? May napupulot
kayu? Am I making sense?
So let us continue, lets talk about PARTIES right
now. Saglit lang. Yung misjoinder of cause of action
guys please don’t picture muna kasi hindi pa final
tung ginawa ko. May mga mali pa diyan, wala pang
misjoinder of cause of action.
So, MISJOINDER OF CAUSE OF ACTION.
Misjoinder of cause of action is not a ground for a
dismissal of the action. Misjoinder of cause of action
may severed and proceeded separately. It may be
severed motu proprio by the court, ibig sabihin, on
its own unilaterally. The misjoined cause of action
can be severed from the case. Hiwalay po siya.
Simpleng codal provision. But I told you there is one
exception: the case of Aga v. Baylon it is included
in this book.
Here,
1.Rescission and
2.Partition
Obviously you cannot joined in one complaint a
rescission of action and a petition for partition
because partition because partition under your
favorite rule is actually a special civil action. There
of course situation of ordinary civil action. Now, the
court can do two things:
1. Sua fonte moto proprio=unilaterally
severe/alisin yung misjoined cause of action
2. the opposing party, the defendant=may file a
motion to severe, to separately proceed with
misjoined cause of action.
This I mentioned earlier Aga v. Baylon. Dito the
court did not moto proprio order the severance of
misjoined cause of action. Partition at tsaka
rescission. Either the parties, either the plaintiff and
of course the defendant. The defendant did not also
file a motion to severe the misjoined cause of action
for partition. So the court proceeded to resolve
people. Although misjoined cause of action. Class
can you follow? So having said that people if the
judgment of the court vary in the petition for partition.
Eventhough it is a misjoined cause of action with
action for rescission. Kasi nga special civil action.
People to make it simple sabi ng korte, kung merong
jurisdiction ang RTC sa partition case.
Pero kung wala siyang jurisdiction, yung judgment is
a patent nullity. Kaya although people yung final
draft ng libro ay iiksiin ko muna yan, kaya ayaw ko
pa ilabas. Gusto ko isang paragraph lang lahat yan.
Mahaba pa yan buong judgment pa yan, this will
probably 5sentences para daling basahin ng
studiyante.
In this case SC said misjoinder of cause of action
and parties (ang haba, dapat maiksi lang) Okay. Dito
tayu papasok. If there is a misjoinder of a cause of
action. A motion of party, the court order the several
joined cause of action to be proceeded with
separately. And /or dropping of the party, severance
of any claim against said misjoined party.
SALAZAR APRIL 17 (5:01:-13:00)
ATTY: However, it should be emphasize that the
foregoing rule only applies if the court trying the case
has jurisdiction over all the cause of action therein,
notwithstanding na misjoinder ra ni siya. In other
words, if the court trying the case has no jurisdiction
over the a misjoined cause of action then this must
be severed from the other cause of action. And if not
so severed, any adjudication rendered by the court
would respect to the same would be anality. a nullity
This means pag hindi sever, nag rule ang court, valid
yun kapag may jurisdiction lang. Here the
respondent post no objection and neither the RTC
direct the severance of the petitioner’s action for
partition to their action for partition. While this may
be a omission on part of the RTC, this does not
constitute a ground to assail the validity of the
correctness of its decision. The RTC validly
adjudicate raised by the petitioner.
Pag misjoinder of cause of action, partition and
rescission. The judgment is valid if the RTC has
jurisdiction over the actions.
Example, partition, what court has jurisdiction?
ANS: RTC or MTC
In the case of Barido vs Donato(?), the SC says,
partition has been considered traditionally as an
action capable of pecuniary estimation in the old
rule.
In the current rule, partition is now considered as a
real action, then what court has jurisdiction?
ANS: Depend on the assess value of the property.
Jurisdictional limit outside of Manila, PHP 20,000
and below it is in MTC otherwise of it exceeds then
on RTC.
--------------------------END------------------------------------
Santiago April 17 (13:01- 21:00)
Which court has jurisdiction if ‘Quieting of Title’?
Ans: the prevailing doctrine with regard to QT is that
the jurisdiction lies with RTC or MTC, depending on
the assessed value of the real property.(Hrs of
Concha v Lomocso)
Hrs. of Concha vs Lomocso (GR 158121. 2007)
Facts:
Hrs of Concha filed a complaint for Reconveyance
and/or Annulment of Title with Damages against
Sps Lomocso and Guya. The case was raffled to
the RTC of Dipolog City. Respondents moved for
the dismissal of the respective cases. On the issue
of jurisdiction, respondents contended that the RTC
has no jurisdiction over the complaints pursuant to
Section 19(2) of B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. No.
7691, as in each case, the assessed values of the
subject lots are less than P20,000.00.
Issue:
Which court has jurisdiction over cases of quieting
of title?
Held:
MTC has jurisdiction over the cases.
Being in the nature of actions for reconveyance or
actions to remove cloud on one's title, the
applicable law to determine which court has
jurisdiction is Section 19(2) of B.P. 129,
as amended.
Under the present law, original jurisdiction over
cases the subject matter of which involves "title to,
possession of, real property or any interest therein"
under Section 19(2) of B.P. 129 is divided between
the first and second level courts, with the assessed
value of the real property involved as the
benchmark. This amendment was introduced to
“unclog the overloaded dockets of the RTCs which
would result in the speedier administration of
justice.”
Parties (Rule 3)
In a civil action, there are 2 parties, the plaintiff and
the defendant.
Under Rule 3, only a natural persons, juridical
person like corporations, and entities authorized by
law can become a party in the action.
---end at 21:00---
SARIGUMBA April 17 (after) 21:01-29:00
Atty: Sabi ng rules, only a natural person, juridical
persons, corporations, entities authorized by law can
become a party in the action. So inanimate objects,
can a dolphin file a case, can a marine mammal file
a case?
Answer: NO
Atty: Kapag ang na file mo citizen suit, under the
Rules of Procedure for Environmental Protection,
relaxed ang rule on locus standi; the right to
balanced and healthful ecology in the harmony and
rhythm of nature.
In the case of Oposa vs. Factoran, can the minors
file in the Philippine Court, class suit?
Answer: YES because of the principle of
intergenerational justice, intergenerational
responsibility, not only for this generation; also for
generations yet unborn.
Atty: Kaya dun nanggaling ang definition ng citizen
suit. Kaya relaxed na ang rule on locus standi. Pero
pag binasa mo yung kaso ng resident marine
mammal, pag binasa mo doon sa dulo, bale wala
lahat yung discussion. Sabi ng Supreme Court, after
all, Atty. Ramos and yung isang environmentalist
lawyer filed an action representing the resident
marine mammal and on their individual capacity as
stewards of nature. So meron ba silang locus
standi? Meron kasi natural persons sila.
In reality, only natural persons, juridical persons,
entities authorized by law can become parties in an
action.
Exception:
Citizen suit based on Oposa vs. Factoran; the
definition of citizen suit under the Rules of Procedure
for Environmental Protection for even generations
yet unborn.
Atty: Kaya po relaxed ang rule on locus standi if we
talk about rules on environmental protection.
There are 2 parties:
1. plaintiff
2. defendant
Atty: A plaintiff can become a defendant. The roles
may be reversed. Kelan? Kapag ang plaintiff nag file
ng counterclaim whether permissive or compulsory.
What will happen? The defendant becomes a
plaintiff and the plaintiff becomes a defendant when
the defendant files a counterclaim.
Similarly, if the defendant files a cross-claim against
his co-defendant, in which case, the original
defendant becomes the plaintiff on the cross-claim
that he filed against the defendant.
In the same manner, that an original defendant
becomes a plaintiff, if he files a third party complaint
against a person who is not a party to the action. You
want to bring in someone who is not yet inside for
the purpose of contribution, indemnity, subrogation
and other relief. With the leave of court, a 3 party
rd
complaint, in which case, the original defendant
becomes a plaintiff in the 3 party complaint that he
rd
will file a 3 party, 4 party, 5 party, 88 party
rd th th th
defendant.
As you can see, the original plaintiff will become a
defendant. And the original defendant may become
a plaintiff. But remember the rule – Rule 3 Section 2,
you talk about real party in interest.
Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court
A real party in interest is the party who stands to be
benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or
the party entitled to the avails of the suit.
Rule:
Every action must be filed, must be prosecuted or
defended under the name of a real party in interest.
Who is the real party in interest?
You go back to the elements of the cause of action.
Whoever owns the right would be the plaintiff;
whoever violates the right would be the defendant.
Whoever owns the right, whoever violates the right -
à real parties in interest
---end at 29:00---
TAUCAN April 17 (after) 29:01-37:00
Real Party in Interest
Whole Class:
Lessor = Lessee
Bailor = Bailee
Mortgagor = mortgagee
Vendor = Vendee
Buyer = Seller
Borrower = Lender
ATTY: Lahat sila considered as real party in
interest. Why?
Because they stand to be benefited or injured by
the judgment in the suit or entitled to the avails of
the suit. (Rule 3, Sec. 2)
Problem: If corporations, who is the real party in
interest? Is it the stockholders?
Answer: No pursuant to Doctrine of Separate
Personality. The corporation has a separate and
distinct personality from its stockholders and vice
versa. So the obligation of the corporation is not the
obligation of the stockholders vv. The same way that
the property of the corporation is not the property of
the stockholders and vv. The stockholders only have
interest in the corporation.
Problem: So if the sheriff attached the properties of
the corporation, can the stockholders file an action
against the sheriff as a result of the illegal
attachment?
Answer: The SC said, NO because the
stockholders do not own the properties of the
corporation so the stockholders are not the real party
in interest. They do not stand to be benefited or
injured by the judgment in the suit.
only to realize that the keys of the Montero were
claimed from the Receptionist by someone who
pretended to be his brother. The bf told the
Receptionist “I am an only child! Why did you give
my keys to that guy?!” The couple went home. The
dad asked, “Where’s the Montero?”
VILLA = 37:01-44:23
Atty Kit: Fast forward, the father said I will file a
complaint against the management of Fairview
Motel. The father filed an action to recover the value
of the carnap vehicle against the management of
Fairview Motel but the management argued that the
father is not considered as a real party-in-interest
precisely because he was not the guest of the motel,
it was actually his son.
Question: Is the father considered a real party-in-
interest to recover the value of the carnap vehicle?
This is an actual BAR exam Q.
Answer: YES. The SC said that the first thing you
need to ask is what was the cause of action of the
plaintiff. The father is a real party-in-interest even
though he is not the guest of the motel because the
father owns the carnap vehicle. He stands to be
benefited or prejudiced by the attachment or avails
of the suit. SC said the action was not based on a
contract, the cause of action here is based on law
and not based on contract. Art. 1999 provides that
the hotel-keeper is liable for the vehicles,
animals and articles which have been introduced
or placed in the annexes of the hotel. Therefore,
the father is considered a real party-in-interest to file
an action to to recover the value of his carnap
vehicle.

Actual Bar Exam Question: (abridged and English

version na ni guys)

The boyfriend invited his girlfriend on a date and told

her that he’s gonna pick her up on the way. He asked
his dad if he could use his Montero. The dad said
yes. The boyfriend went to pick his gf then they left.
However, the traffic was really bad so the bf told the
gf “Let’s go to Fairview Motel.” Then they had a great
time memorizing Rules 1-20 of the Rules of Court in
the motel room 😇. 3 hours later, they went down