ANONUEVO, Jaime Jr. G.

JD- Block 2A

I.
a.
No.
The totality rule applies only to the MTC. Totality of claims cannot
exceed the jurisdictional amount of the MTC. There is no totality rule for the
RTC because its jurisdictional amount is without limit.
Hence, in the present case, it is improper to apply the totality rule on
joinder of causes of action.
b.
No.
The law requires that in action for money claim, RTC acquires
jurisdiction if the amount claimed exceeds Php 2,000,000.00. Furthermore, the
Rules of Court provides that personal actions may be commenced and tried
where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiff resides, or where the
defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or in the case of non-
resident defendant where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff.
Although the amount claimed by Pacific X exceeds Php 2,000,000.00
and obviously RTC has jurisdiction, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant
resides in Legazpi. Thus, the case was improperly instituted at RTC-Legazpi
c.
Yes.
When a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the only power
it has is to dismiss the action, as any act it performs without jurisdiction is null
and void, and without any binding legal effects.
Thus, on the ground of want of subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall
be dismissed.
 II.
No.
The Rules of Court provides that neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of
parties is ground for dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or added
by order of the court on motion of any party or on its own initiative at any
stage of the action and on such terms as are just.
Hence, case shall not be dismissed for failure to implead C and D.
 III.
The claim of X Oil is untenable.
The actions instituted individually by some of the residents of Rapu-rapu
are separate and distinct from that which was filed as a class by the residents of
said barangay. Thus, there is no litis pendencia to talk about.
 IV.
With regards to the first situation, the action shall not prosper.
The Rules of Court provides that 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.
None of the property in question in the case at bar is situated in Legazpi
over which the RTC has jurisdiction. Thus, the action shall not prosper for
lack of jurisdiction.
As to the second situation, the action shall prosper.
According to the Rules of Court, personal actions may be commenced
and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiff resides, or where
the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or in the case of non-
resident defendant where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff.
In the case at bar, the plaintiff resides in Legazpi City. Thus, the
institution of an action before the RTC of Legazpi is proper.
V.
VI.
 VII.
a. Injunction- Action in rem
b. Annulment of Marriage- Action in rem
c. Specific Performance- Action in personam
d. Petition for Cancellation of Second Birth Certificate- Action in rem
e. Petition for Adoption- Action in rem
f. Cadastral Proceedings- Action in rem
g. Probate Proceedings- Action quasi in rem
h. Partition- Action in personam
i. Action for Breach of Contract- Action in personam
j. Action for Accounting- Action in personam
 VIII.
a. Locus standi, as defined in line of cases decided by the Supreme Court,
is a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question.
Specifically, it is a party’s personal and substantial interest in a case
where he has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the act
being challenged.

b. Estoppel on questions of jurisdiction, according to a jurisprudence is a

principle which states that if the parties acquiesced in submitting an issue
for determination by the trial court, they are estopped from questioning
the jurisdiction of the same court to pass upon the issue.

c. Adjective Law is legally defined as a law that deals with the rules of
procedure governing, among others, evidence, pleading, and practice.

d. Class suits referred to the action taken when the subject matter in such
action is of common or general interest to many persons and the persons
are so numerous making it impractical to bring them all before the court.
 IX.
a. 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.
An indispensable party is a party in interest without whom no final
determination can be had of an action. A necessary party is one who is
not indispensable but who ought to be joined as a party if complete relief
is to be accorded as to those already parties, or for a complete
determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action.
b. Failure to state a cause of action refers to the insufficiency of the
pleading, and is ground for dismissal under Rule 16 of the Rules of
Court. On the other hand, lack of cause of action refers to a situation
where the evidence does not prove the cause of action alleged in the
pleading.
 X.
If I were the lawyer of B, I would file the case at RTC of Sorsogon City.
The rule on venue shall not apply where the parties have validly agreed
in writing before filing the action on the exclusive venue thereof. Since both
parties have agreed that when dispute arises between them, they will file the
case exclusively at the appropriate court in Sorsogon City, and that the amount
claimed is within the jurisdictional amount of RTC, then RTC of Sorsogon is
the appropriate court where the plaintiff is to file the action.
XI.
XII.
XIII.
 XIV.
According to the law, an indigent family is a family whose income does not
exceed Php15,000.00 per month and who do not own a real property.