VOLUME I

CIVIL PROCEDURE
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG

Note: These subjects, even if you did not study law school,
BASIC PRINCIPLES these are matters which are relatable, like marriage, support.
In criminal law, naay nangawat, kabalo ka kung naay nanguha
LAW – It is a rule of conduct, just and obligatory, promulgated ug butang nga dili iyaha, then you are committing a crime. But
by a competent authority and of common observance and insofar as remedial law is concerned, usually, dili makarelate
benefit. dayon, because this happens in court. I will first illustrate kung
unsa b ani atong ginaisturyahan. For example:
These are laws that are promulgated by the legislature, so that • A borrows money (1Million) from B in the year 2017. The
they will govern us and we are bound to follow them, and in due date would be December 31, 2018. What we have
case of lack of compliance, then we have certain liabilities, here is immediately a contract of loan whereby A is the
which could be civil or criminal. debtor and B is the creditor. Assuming by December 21,
2018, A did not pay, is A in Default?
TWO SETS OF LAWS: Substantive & Remedial • NO. There has to be demand first on the part of the
creditor.
SUBSTANTIVE LAW REMEDIAL LAW • Despite demand B did not pay. What is the redress of A?
It creates, defines and It prescribes the methods of Since B has substantive rights, and there is a violation of
regulates rights and enforcing those rights and his right, therefore, he already has a cause of action. How
duties concerning life, obligations created by does B enforce his cause of action;
liberty or property, which substantive law by providing • As the lawyer, you have to see first if the case can be
when violated gives rise a procedural system for resolved in the Baranggay, otherwise, it could be
to a cause of action. obtaining redress for the dismissed due to failure to comply with a condition
invasion of rights and precedent, if it is required to be with the Baranggay under
violations of duties and by the Katarungang Pambaranggay Law.
prescribing rules as to how • If it’s covered and you have already complied with the law
suits are filed, tried and and in fact you have a certificate from the Baranggay,
decided upon by the courts. then you can file a case.
• The question now is, where do you file the case? As a
Examples of Substantive Laws: lawyer, you have to know which court has jurisdiction
1. Civil Laws: over the case.
a. Laws on Property • Since this case involves a sum of money (1Million), it
b. Persons and Family Relations should be with the RTC.
c. Obligations and Contracts • You file a complaint and pay the docket fees.
2. Mercantile Laws • There you have to know the rules. What do you need
3. Criminal Laws when you file a complaint? Do you need verification?
4. Constitutional Laws Certification against forum shopping? If that is not
present, then your case can still be dismissed. The next
Example of Application of Remedial Law: step would be summons. Summons are katong sa imong
You have a certain property and it’s occupied by another kalaban.
without your consent, against your will, so what do you do? • There are also many ways to serve summons.
Certainly, the law says that you have a right and as owner of Halimbawa diay, ang mode of summons nimo dili valid.
the property, you have a right to use, to protect, to enjoy, even Then naghearing hearing mo, then pagkatapos nag
to destroy your property. But once that property is unlawfully judgement. Pero NO. The judgement is void kay walay
occupied by another person, what can you do? How do you jurisdiction over my person. Diba kay walay proper
enforce your right? That’s where remedial law comes in. service of summons. Then after that the court will set the
case for pretrial.
ASPECTS OF REMEDIAL LAW • So pretrial palang, actually daghan ma dismiss na case
during pretrial, you have to know the rules.
PUBLIC ASPECT – affords remedies to the state against • Then trial, then decision sa court. So it’s possible, na
individuals and vice versa. mudaog si B pero dili maenforce ang decision. Kay for
Such as criminal procedure, which is the manner in which example, wala na gyud kwarta si A, kay maybe bankrupt
criminal cases are instituted against a person who violates na sya. Maybe gi baligya na iyang properties to place
penal law. By a private individual against the state such as them beyond the reach of the creditor. So, again the
a petition for the issuance of a writ of Amparo or habeas Rules on Procedure apply in the execution of judgement.
corpus • Pero halimbawa mapildi si B, unsa n apud iyang himoun?
Then he will file an appeal to the CA.
PRIVATE ASPECT – affords a remedy to an individual against • So that’s the procedure in enforcing your rights in civil
another individual. procedure.
Such as civil procedure, which is the body of laws rules and
procedures which details how to file a claim against Cases are sometimes won or lost based on procedure.
another individual.

0

BRANCHES OF REMEDIAL LAW
1) Civil procedure (rule 1-56, 57-71) – the body of law that
sets out the rules and standards that courts must follow
in adjudicating civil law suits.
2) Provisional Remedies (rule 57-61) – govern remedies
to preserve the status quo until the final disposition of
matters in court.
3) Special civil actions (rule 62-71)
4) Special proceedings (rule 72-109) – these are
miscellaneous proceedings dealing on special issues.
5) Criminal Procedure (rule 110-127) – legal process for
adjudicating claims that someone has actually violated
criminal law.
6) Rules of Evidence (rule 128-133) – means sanctioned
by the rules of court to ascertain in a judicial proceeding
the truth respective of a matter of fact.
7) Law on Jurisdiction – this is applicable both in civil and
criminal cases, however it is more complicated in civil
cases.
WHERE REMEDIAL LAW IS APPLIED
Only in COURTS OF JUSTICE (as provided for in Rule 1
Section 2 of the Rules of Court)
Section 2. In what courts applicable. — These Rules
shall apply in all the courts, except as otherwise provided
by the Supreme Court.
Those quasi-judicial bodies like the SEC, the DARAB, NLRC,
DENR, etc., they also have their own rules but they pattern it
based on the ROC, so, if you have understood the ROC, then
those are also easy to understand. Although, again lahi gyud
tong ilaha.
1987 Constitution, Art VIII
Section 5. Paragraph 5 The Supreme Court shall have
the power: Promulgate rules concerning the protection
and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading,
practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the
practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance
to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a
simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy
disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the
same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify
substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts
and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless
disapproved by the Supreme Court.
Note: Whichever RTC or MTC it gets to, the procedure will be
the same.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
THE COURT
Definition of Court
A COURT is an entity or body vested with a portion of the
juridical power. It is a passive system, wherein the cases filed
before it sets it in motion. The court cannot initiate moto proprio
its proceedings without a petition in court.
Why ― portion only?
This is because the Constitution provides that ―the juridical
power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such other
lower courts as may be established by law‖. (Art. VIII, Sec. 1,
1987 Constitution)
SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one
Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be
established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to
settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or
not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch
or instrumentality of the Government.
Q. Why is the definition pertaining to a ‘portion of judicial
power’ only?
A. It’s because the Constitution provides that judicial power
shall be vested in one Supreme Court, hence, all the other
courts only have a portion of judicial power.
Exercise of Judicial Power by Several Courts
The reason why the law creates different courts to divide the
cases or judicial power among them so that one court may not
be burdened with so may cases. So, judicial power is not
exercised only by one court, but by several courts. Thus, each
court has its own jurisdiction and may only try cases within its
jurisdiction. No court has all the power of the judiciary but only
a portion of it.
Nature of a Court
A court has NO physical existence, only a LEGAL one.
Are you saying that there can be no Court without a sala? NO.
in fact it happened here ano. Naay na create na bago na court.
Dayon, wala diay sala. Naay duha ka judges na nagaway,
basic inyong parents ha. Nag-away sila kay nag-ilog sila sa
sala. Kulang man gud ang korte. Until it got to a point na nag-
conflict na sila. Pero, just to stress, there can be a court even
without a building.
1
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG

DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN JUDGE AND COURTS CLASSIFICATION OF COURTS

1. SUPERIOR Courts and FIRST-LEVEL Courts (Inferior
JUDGE COURT Courts).
The PERSON or public It is the ENTITY, BODY, or 2. Courts of GENERAL jurisdiction and Courts of SPECIAL
OFFICER who presides TRIBUNAL vested with a jurisdiction.
over a court. portion of judicial power. 3. Courts of ORIGINAL jurisdiction and Courts of
Creation of God Creation of law or APPELLATE jurisdiction.
Constitution 4. CIVIL Courts and CRIMINAL Courts.
Physical being No physical existence 5. Courts of LAW and Courts of EQUITY.
6. CONSTITUTIONAL Courts and STATUTORY Courts.
They die, resign, they retire The court continues to exist
7. Courts of RECORD and Courts NOT OF RECORD.
and may even be removed even after the judge
– they are not co-terminus presiding over it ceases to [1] Superior Courts versus Inferior Courts (First-Level
with the courts in which they do so. When a new judge is courts or court a quo)
preside. appointed, proceedings SUPERIOR INFERIOR
(not continuous) continue. The court is Courts Courts
continuous. Court which possess Courts which are
A judge and a court may exist independently of each other, supervisory authority over subordinate to another
for there may be court without a judge or a judge without a lower courts court, their judgments may
court. (Pamintuan vs. Llorente, 19 Phil. 342) be reviewed by a superior
• Atty Espejo: a judge must always have a court because court
you can‘t appoint a judge without a vacant court. The SC, CA and RTC MTC

Q. Can a Court exist without a judge? [2] Courts of General Jurisdiction versus Courts of Special
Jurisdiction
A. Yes. Because the court continues to exist even after the
GENERAL SPECIAL
judge presiding over it ceases to do so. If a judge dies, a new
Jurisdiction Jurisdiction
judge is appointed to the court and proceedings continue. This
They are courts which take They are courts which take
is because the court is a Creation of Law
cognizance of all kinds of cognizance of certain
cases, whether civil or specified cases only.
Q. Can there be a judge without a court? criminal.
A. Yes. This is also possible temporarily. If you are newly
assigned judge, you won’t have a court immediately. Pero Court of Special Jurisdiction:
applying man na nimo kung unsa ka na branch. So pwede na 1. Court of Tax Appeals (RA 1125)
sya temporary lang. Kung wala kay court, pagresign na ka kay 2. Sandiganbayan (PD 1486 as amended)
wala ka pulos kung wala kay court. Legally, there should not 3. Shari‘a District Courts and the Shari‘a Circuit Courts
be a judge without a court. Although, in reality, it could happen, (PD 1803, the ―Code of Muslim Personal Laws of
but that would be a temporary arrangement. the Philippines‖)
4. Family Courts
Q. Can there be a judge with more than 1 court? 5. Dangerous Drugs Court
A. Yes. 6. Small Claims Court
1) Judge in an assisting or pairing capacity.
[3] Courts of Original Jurisdiction versus Courts of Appellate
2) Judge appointed with another court when such court
Jurisdiction
is yet to appoint a new judge, temporary capacity.
ORIGINAL APPELLATE
3) Judge of an MCTC, MTCC wherein he transfers from
Courts Courts
one courtroom to another.
They are those where a They are those where a
case is commenced or case is reviewed.
Pairing Judge: Example is if the judge in one branch will be initiated at first instance.
assigned as the pairing judge of another branch. Then, he will
handle the cases of the other judge in case the judges are
• The SC, CA and RTC are BOTH original and appellate
overburdened.
courts.
• The MTC, however, is a 100% original court. It is the
Judge in MTCC, MCTC: Example is a circuit court. There is
lowest court in the hierarchy. There are no cases
one in Hagonoy and one in Matanaw. The judge in Hagonoy
appealed to it. The cases coming from the Lupong
also presides the one in Matanaw. That is its circuit. It is only
Tagapamayapa – are not appeals to the MTC but the
one judge but he handles the circuit. So that is considered as
execution of a compromise agreement.
a circuit court because lagyo gyud ng mga lugar nan a from
each other.

2
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG

[4] Civil Courts versus Criminal Courts

POWERS OF THE COURTS
CIVIL CRIMINAL
Courts Courts
They are those that take They are those which take The following are the powers of the Courts:
cognizance of civil cases cognizance of criminal 1. Inherent Powers.
only. cases only. 2. Power to enforce judgements.
3. Power to enforce writs and processes.
➢ All Philippine courts (SC, CA, RTC & MTC) are BOTH civil
and criminal courts. [1] INHERENT POWERS OF A COURT
➢ Atty Espejo: in a limited sense there can be a purely civil These are the inherent powers of courts – meaning that all
and purely criminal court. Example: courts can exercise these powers. This would be under Rule
✓ RTC acting as a Small Claims Court 135, Section 5.
✓ RTC acting as a Dangerous Drugs Court
✓ SB acting on Administrative cases
RULE 135
In reality, a court can decide both civil and criminal cases. Section 5. Inherent powers of court. — Every court shall have
power:
[5] Courts of Law versus Courts of Equity (a) To preserve and enforce order in its immediate presence;
Courts of Courts of (b) To enforce order in proceedings before it, or before a person or
LAW EQUITY persons empowered to conduct a judicial investigation under its
They are tribunals which They are tribunals which authority;
administers the law of the rule according to the (c) To compel obedience to its judgments, orders and processes,
land. precepts of equity or justice and to the lawful orders of a judge out of court, in a case pending
and are sometimes called therein;
“court of conscience” (d) To control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial
officers, and of all other persons in any manner connected with
They dispose cases They dispose cases
a case before it, in every manner appertaining thereto;
according to LAW according to the principles
(e) To compel the attendance of persons to testify in a case pending
of EQUITY which means the therein;
principles of justice, fairness (f) To administer or cause to be administered oaths in a case
and fair play. pending therein, and in all other cases where it may be
necessary in the exercise of its powers;
➢ All Philippine courts (SC, CA, RTC & MTC) are BOTH (g) To amend and control its process and orders so as to make them
courts of law and of equity. (Alonzo vs. IAC, May 28, 1897) conformable to law and justice;
➢ In the case of substantive law, there is a thin line which (h) To authorize a copy of a lost or destroyed pleading or other
divides the principle of law from the principle of equity paper to be filed and used instead of the original, and to restore,
because principles of equity such as estoppel, laches and and supply deficiencies in its records and proceedings.
solutio indebiti are already incorporated in the law,
particularly, in the Civil Code. To preserve and enforce order in its immediate presence
➢ Part of it is the power of the court to declare a person in
Actually, our courts are both courts of law and courts of equity. CONTEMPT (direct or indirect).
But you don’t find that in any provision any substantive or • Example: There is a proceeding in court – a court
can actually compel parties in a case. You can be
remedial laws. That is only found in jurisprudence.
held liable for direct contempt if you disturb the
proceedings of the court.
[6] Constitutional Courts versus Statutory Courts
CONSTITUTIONAL STATUTORY To enforce order in proceedings before it, or before a
Courts Courts person or persons empowered to conduct a judicial
They are created directly by They are created by law or investigation under its authority.
the constitution itself. by legislation. ➢ Example: Trial by commissioners - The commissioners
will act as the court imbued with all of the powers of the
➢ The SC is the ONLY constitutional court. court, including the power to enforce order and power to
➢ The CA, RTC, MTC and all other special courts were administer oaths.
created by law.
➢ The Congress has the power to abolish all courts but it To compel obedience to its judgments, orders and
can never abolish the SC unless there be an amendment processes, and to the lawful orders of a judge out of court,
of the Constitution. in a case pending therein
➢ Although the 1973 Constitution said, ―There should be ➢ Rule 38. Execution of judgments: Ex. The judge already
created a Sandiganbayan…‖, it was a law (PD 4186) that issued a writ of execution – ordinarily, the losing party will
created it. not voluntarily pay. The prevailing party files a motion for
execution. Then the sheriff will use the writ to demand
from the losing party. If the party against whom the writ
is enforced does not follow, the court can also motu
propio find the person in indirect contempt of court.

3

To control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its
ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any manner
connected with a case before it, in every manner
appertaining thereto
➢ MINISTERIAL OFFICER – an officer who does not
possess discretionary powers. Example: Clerk of court,
Court Interpreter, Court Stenographer, other clerks.
To compel the attendance of persons to testify in a case
pending therein
➢ Power of the court to issue SUBPOENA.
• Subpoena ad testificandum – when court orders
a person to appear in court to testify.
• Subpoena duces tecum – when court orders a
person to bring documents in court AND to testify
thereon. Deemed to include a Subpoena ad
testificandum.
To administer or cause to be administered oaths in a case
pending therein, and in all other cases where it may be
necessary in the exercise of its powers
1. In a case pending therein:
Ex: To testify as witness - Upon taking the witness stand,
one has to take an oath or affirmation (if you don‘t believe
in God) saying ―I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help me God.‖ Otherwise, you
are not qualified to be a witness. PURPOSE: to subject the
witness to PERJURY.
2. Others cases where it may be necessary:
Ex: oath taking for a court appointed commissioner as an
officer of the court. Usually in eminent domain cases:
• 1st stage – determination of the propriety of taking for
public use.
• 2nd stage – determination of just compensation
(Market value + consequential benefits and
damages), assessed by the commissioner.
To amend and control its process and orders so as to
make them conformable to law and justice
➢ Related to Sec. 6. (see below)
➢ The court can issue an order and then if the opposing
party files a motion for reconsideration, the court can still
amend and reverse its decision if there is merit to the
motion.
To authorize a copy of a lost or destroyed pleading or
other paper to be filed and used instead of the original,
and to restore, and supply deficiencies in its records and
proceedings.
➢ Usually when you file a case in court and you have
documentary evidence, the general rule is you have to
present the original, under the Best Evidence Rule
➢ Exception: The court can authorize the presentation of
substitutionary evidence like photocopy; Or maybe you
have an original, but it’s only one and it has a sentimental
value. You don’t want to submit it in court because
eventually, it will just get lost. What you can do during the
presentation of evidence, you can ask your witness to
identify the document, the signature on the document,
etc. You can tell the court that the copy brought is an
original and ask that it be substituted with a photocopy
which is a faithful reproduction of the original.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
[2] POWER TO ENFORCE JUDGEMENTS
The enforcement of a judgment is usually prescribed by law.
BUT, in the absence of such law, the power to enforce is still
present: This is because no law or rule can ever be complete.
Rule 135
Section. 6. Means to carry jurisdiction into effect.—When
by law jurisdiction is conferred on a court or judicial officer, all
auxiliary writs, processes and other means necessary to carry
it into effect may be employed by such court or officer; and IF
the procedure to be followed in the exercise of such jurisdiction
is not specifically pointed out by law or by these rules, any
SUITABLE PROCESS or MODE OF PROCEEDING may be
adopted which appears conformable to the spirit of said law or
rules.
➢ Relate to Article 9 of the Civil Code: "No judge or
court shall decline to render judgment by reason of
the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws."
[3] POWER TO ENFORCE WRITS AND
PROCESSES
This can also be said on the jurisdiction of a particular court:
When a tribunal has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of
jurisdiction, the proceedings of the tribunal can be annulled.
The court where you file the petition for certiorari can annul the
proceedings in the lower court.
In this respect a court has the power to issue the following
writs:
1. Certiorari (Rule 65, Section 1)
2. Prohibition (Rule 65, Section 2);
3. Mandamus (Rule 65, Section 3);
4. Quo Warranto (Rule 66)
5. Habeas Corpus
6. Injuntion.
CERTIORARI
1. Purpose – to correct an act performed by respondent;
2. Act sought to be controlled – discretionary acts;
3. Respondent – one who exercises judicial functions and
acted with grave abuse of discretion or in lack or excess
of jurisdiction.
4. Generally directed against an interlocutory order of the
court prior to appeal from the judgment in the main case;
5. Need merely be filed seasonably (within 60 days),
without undue delay and before the act, order, or
proceedings, sought to be reviewed or set aside has
become fait accompli such that any reversal thereof shall
have become academic;
6. Unless a writ of preliminary injunction shall have issued,
does NOT stay the challenged order;
7. Parties are the aggrieved parties against the lower court
or quasi-judicial agency and the prevailing parties;
8. Motion for reconsideration is a condition precedent,
subject to certain exceptions;
9. Higher court exercises original jurisdiction under its
power of control and supervision over the orders of lower
courts.
4
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG

PROHIBITION (SECTION 2, RULE 65)
When the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board,
officer or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or
ministerial functions, are without or in excess of its or his
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any other
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in
the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying
that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to
desist from further proceedings in the action or matter
specified therein, or otherwise granting such incidental reliefs
as law and justice may require.
The petition shall likewise be accompanied by a certified true
copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof,
copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent
thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as
provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46.
Writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
habeas corpus and injunction issued by a TRIAL COURT
It may be enforced ONLY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION
OF THE ISSUING COURT. It cannot enforce the writs
outside of its region.
Example:
A person is illegally detained in Bansalan (11th judicial
region). A writ of habeas corpus cannot be applied for in
the 12th judicial region, even if the court is located in a
nearby town. BUT such writ may be applied for in the very
distant place of Tandag because it is still within the 11th
judicial region.
NOTE:
➢ If issued by the SC or CA – enforceable in the entire
Philippines
➢ If issued by the RTC – enforceable within any part
of the region

MANDAMUS (SECTION 3, RULE 65) All other writs

When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person It may be enforced ANYWHERE in the Philippines.
unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law Example:
specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or ➢ warrants of arrest
station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and ➢ summons/subpoena
enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, ➢ writs of execution
and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in ➢ writ of Amparo
the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may ➢ HOWEVER: A Search warrant (particularly
file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with describing the place to be searched) – is limited
certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding within the court‘s territorial jurisdiction.
the respondent, immediately or at some other time to be
specified by the court, to do the act required to be done to
protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages
sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of
the respondent.

The petition shall also contain a sworn certification of non-

forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of section
3, Rule 46. (3a)

QUO WARRANTO
Petitioner contends the position of the defendant assailing
which party has the right to the position.

HABEAS CORPUS
A writ requiring a person under arrest to be brought before a
judge or into court, especially to secure the person's release
unless lawful grounds are shown for their detention.

INJUNCTION
It is a remedy availed of when the case is still pending in order
to enjoin an act by the defendant which will defeat the very
purpose of filing the case.
Example: There is a case concerning the ownership of a
property which is about to be demolished. Plaintiff wishes to
enjoin the demolition of the property because he/she has an
interest in the property. If you wait for the case to be finish, the
property would be demolished thus defeating the purpose of
the plaintiff in filing the case in the first place. These remedies
include:
1. Writ of Preliminary Injunction – this is availed of while
the case is still pending, and when the case is
finished it then becomes an injunction.
2. Temporary Restraining Order – in cases of extreme
urgency.

5

JURISDICTION IN GENERAL
IMPORTANCE
There are many cases where even though the plaintiff has a
cause of action, the case can still be dismissed if it is filed
before a court which has no jurisdiction.
What is worse is if there is a reglementary period, and you filed
the case in the wrong court. After which the reglementary
period has already lapsed. In that case, you no longer have a
remedy.
Example practical application of procedural rules:
Ombudsman cases – the remedy for resolutions of the
ombudsman in criminal cases is to file a petition for certiorari
before the Supreme Court. However, the case was filed with
the court of appeals. A petition for certiorari must be filed within
60 days from receipt of notice. The petition in the CA will not
be dismissed immediately by the CA, it will first ask the
opposing party for an answer, which will take time. Usually, the
60-day period will lapse. If you are the opposing party, you
should not comment immediately, instead, when given you are
given the 10-day period to file your answer, you should file for
an extension. When the 60-day period lapses, you should then
file your comment whereby you answer that the case should
be dismissed because of lack of jurisdiction.
JURISDICTION
Definition of Jurisdiction
JURISDICTION simply means the power and authority of the
court to hear, try and decide a case.
NOTE: In its complete aspect, it also includes the power to
enforce the judgment.
Etymology of Jurisdiction
It is derived form 2 Latin words: juris (law) and dico (to speak).
Literally translated, it means ― speak by the law or ― to speak
the law.
2 MEANINGS of the term jurisdiction:
1) Practical authority granted to a formally constituted
tribunal or body or to a political leader to deal with or
make pronouncements over matters.
2) Power to administer justice or to make matters of legal
effect within a defined area of responsibility (territorial or
specific jurisdiction)
Effect if Court where case was filed has NO Jurisdiction
If there is yet NO judgment, case may be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction. BUT even if there is already judgment, such is still
null and void.
Principle of Exercise of Equity Jurisdiction
A situation where the court is called upon to decide a particular
situation and release the parties of their correlative obligations
but if it would result in adverse consequences to the parties
and the public, the court will go beyond its powers to avoid
negative consequences in the release of the case.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
Naga Telephone Co., Inc. (NATELCO) and Luciano
Maggay v. Court of Appeals & Camarines Sur II
Electric Cooperative (CASURECO II)
(G.R. 107112 | 24 February 1994)
FACTS: In this case NATELCO and CASURECO II entered
into a contract whereby NATELCO agrees to install free of
charge, ten (10) telephone connections as consideration for
the use by NATELCO in the operation of its telephone service,
the electric light posts of CASURECO II.
The terms included that the duration of the contract would be
as long as NATELCO would have need of the electric light
posts or unless they are forced to stop or abandon its operation
as a public service. Overtime, the so many, people had their
phonelines installed and CASURECO’s posts where already
overburdened.
CASURECO assails the contract 10 years after, stating that it
is too one sided in favor of plaintiffs arguing that it is not in
conformity with the guidelines of the National Electrification
Administration (NEA) which directs the reasonable
compensation for the use of the posts and prays for
reformation of the contract.
CASURECO invoked Article 1267: When the service has
become so difficult as to be manifestly beyond the
contemplation of the parties, the obligor may also be released
therefrom, in whole or in part. (Doctrine of Unforeseen Events)
This is said to be based on the discredited theory of rebus sic
stantibus in public international law; under this theory, the
parties stipulate in the light of certain prevailing conditions, and
once these conditions cease to exist the contract also ceases
to exist. Considering practical needs and the demands of
equity and good faith, the disappearance of the basis of a
contract gives rise to a right to relief in favor of the party
prejudiced.
HELD: Technically, if Article 1267 was applied, it would
release CASURECO from the contract. But the SC said this
would cause an inconvenience to the public. Reformation was
the remedy granted instead. The court granted the prayer for
reformation of the contract on the ground of equity, stating that
“while the contract appeared to be fair to both parties when it
was entered into by them during the first year of private
respondent's operation and when its Board of Directors did not
yet have any experience in that business, it had become
disadvantageous and unfair to private respondent because of
subsequent events and conditions, particularly the increase in
the volume of the subscribers of petitioners for more than ten
(10) years without the corresponding increase in the number
of telephone connections to private respondent free of charge.
The trial court concluded that while in an action for reformation
of contract, it cannot make another contract for the parties, it
can, however, for reasons of justice and equity, order that the
contract be reformed to abolish the inequities therein.” “equity
demands a certain economic equilibrium between the
prestation and the counter-prestation and does not permit the
unlimited impoverishment of one party for the benefit of the
other by the excessive rigidity of the principle of the obligatory
force of contracts.”
6

JURISDICTION
To which court? What court
in general.
Authority to hear and decide
cases.
Governed by substantive
law.
Establishes a relation
between the court and the
subject matter of the case.
Always fixed by law and
cannot be conferred by
means of agreement of
parties.
Once conferred, it can never
be taken away from the
court having jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction v. Exercise of Jurisdiction
JURISDICTION
The authority to decide a
case. It does not depend
upon the regularity of the
exercise of that power or
upon the rightfulness of the
decision made.
Refers to authority or power
itself not the decisions
rendered in the case by
reason of jurisdiction.
NOTE: In order to know if the court has jurisdiction, we must
look into the law. BP 129 is our basic law on jurisdiction. There,
the law has apportioned the jurisdiction of the different courts.
Jurisdiction v. Venue
VENUE
To where specifically?
Which court and where is it
located?
Place where the case is to
be heard or tried.
Governed by remedial law.
Establishes a relation
between the parties, the
plaintiff and the defendant
or the petitioner and the
respondent.
Example: Rule 4 with
respect to filing of cases-
whether in MTC or RTC, it
depends on where the
plaintiff resides or where the
defendant resides, at the
option of the plaintiff.
Can be conferred by
agreement or contract (only
if civil case, because if
criminal case, venue is
jurisdictional)
Can be subjected to the
power of the SC to order a
change of venue in order to
avoid miscarriage of justice.
Exercise of Jurisdiction
Where there is jurisdiction
over the person and the
subject matter, the
resolution and decision of all
other questions arising in
the case is but an exercise
of jurisdiction. Trial and
judgement are products of
jurisdiction.
Any error the court may
commit in the exercise of
jurisdiction is merely an
error of judgement, which
does not affect its authority
to decide the case much
less divest the court of its
jurisdiction over the case.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
Error of Jurisdiction v. Error of Judgement
Error of Error of
JURISDICTION JUDGEMENT
Happens when a court Happens when a court with
takes cognizance of a case competent jurisdiction
that it has no jurisdiction commits errors in the
over. exercise of such authority to
hear the case. Instances
“Grave abuse of discretion where there is error of
amounting to lack or excess judgement:
of jurisdiction.” 1. Wrong application of
law or;
2. Wrong interpretation of
the law or;
3. Misappreciation of the
facts.
Example: Example:
An MTC taking cognizance An RTC trying a case of
of a murder case, which is murder convicted the
supposed to be under the accused for such even in
RTC or an RTC entertaining the absence of a qualifying
a case for forcible entry or circumstance to the crime
unlawful entry. murder.
If the court commits an error If the court commits an error
of jurisdiction, although the of judgement, if the
judgement is correct, it is an judgement is wrong, it is still
INVALID JUDGEMENT. a VALID JUDGEMENT.
Remedy: is any of the Remedy: is to ordinary
extraordinary remedies appeal the wrong
such as certiorari and judgement to a higher court.
prohibition. It cannot be remedied by a
special civil action because
the remedy of appeal is still
available.
Excess of Jurisdiction v. Absence of Jurisdiction
Equitable PCI Bank Inc. v. Apurillo
[November 5, 2009 | G.R. No. 168746]
Error of Error of
JURISDICTION JUDGEMENT
Means that an act, through Means lack or want of legal
within the general power of power, right or authority to
a tribunal, board or officer is hear and determine a cause
not authorized, and invalid or causes, considered either
with respect to the particular in general or with reference
proceeding, because the to a particular matter. It
conditions which alone means lack of power to
authorize the exercise of the exercise authority.
general power in respect of
it are wanting.
7

Jurisprudence: An error of judgment cannot be annulled even
if it is wrong once it becomes final and executory.
Araneta v. Commonwealth, Ins. Co.
[G.R. L-11584 | 28 April 1958]
FACTS: The respondent released the co-guarantors of the
petitioners. Under the Civil Code, a release made by the
creditor in favor of one of the guarantors, without the consent
of the others, benefits all to the extent of the share of the
guarantor to whom it has been granted. The lower court,
however, still held the petitioners liable to respondent. Instead
of appealing the judgment, the petitioners rather filed a
separate complaint for injunction to restrain its execution on
the ground that the decision of the judge was a nullity.
ISSUE Can the erroneous decision of the court can be set
aside?
RULING: NO. This supposed error attributed to the judge is
not an error of jurisdiction, but, if at all, an error of judgment.
Not being jurisdictional, such an error, even if committed, does
not render the decision in void. Where the court has jurisdiction
over the parties and the subject-matter, and the court commits
errors of judgment in the exercise of its jurisdiction, said errors
are mere errors of judgment, correctible and reviewable only
by appeal, and if no appeal is taken, the decision, erroneous
or not, becomes final and executory, and is valid and binding
upon the parties. If petitioners had believed that his judgment
therein was erroneous, they should have sought its review by
appeal. Petitioners did not appeal from the decision; hence it
became final and executory, and is now fully binding upon
them and the present complaint is barred by res judicata.
With whom is Jurisdiction vested with?
Jurisdiction is vested with the COURT and not the judge. A
court may have several branches and each is not a court
distinct and separate from the other. So, when a case is filed
before a branch, the trial may be had or proceedings may
continue before another branch or judge.
Example:
There is only 1 RTC of Davao but it has 12 branches. Although
there are so many branches, there is technically, only 1 RTC.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
Jurisprudence: There may be different branches of RTC but
there is only 1 RTC.
Lumpay v. Moscoso
[GR L-14723 | 29 May 1959]
FACTS: The then CFI of Leyte had 6 branches, 2 of which are
located in Tacloban and Cariaga, respectively. One criminal
case was supposed to be filed in the CFI Cariaga Branch. The
provincial fiscal, however, petitioned the Sec. of Justice for
authority to file said case in CFI Tacloban branch. So, an
information was filed in CFI Tacloban branch. However, the
Sec. of Justice later issued an order to stop the previous
authority given and to hear the trial on the merits of the case
in CFI Cariaga Branch. The CFI of Tacloban, however, where
the information was filed refused to give up jurisdiction.
According to it, once jurisdiction has attached by the filing of a
complaint or information with a court of concurrent jurisdiction,
the latter may not be divested thereof. It predicates the
argument on that the six branches of the CFI of Leyte are six
different courts.
ISSUE Were the 6 branches of the CFI of Leyte 6 different
courts?
RULING: NO. There is only one court of first instance of Leyte;
each of its six branches is not a court separate and distinct
from the five other branches. Jurisdiction, furthermore, is
vested in the court, not in the judges. So, when a complaint or
information is filed before one branch or judge, jurisdiction
does not attach to said branch or judge alone, to the exclusion
of the others. Trial may be had or proceedings may continue
by and before another branch or judge. Hence, the transfer to
CFI Cariaga Branch was granted.
8
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG

[3] Exclusive Jurisdiction versus Concurrent, Confluent,

TYPES OF JURISDICTION or Coordinate Jurisdiction
GENERAL SPECIAL or LIMITED
1. GENERAL Jurisdiction and SPECIAL OR LIMITED Jurisdiction Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction; It is the power to adjudicate It is the power conferred
2. ORIGINAL Jurisdiction and APPELLATE Jurisdiction; a case or proceeding to the upon different courts
3. EXCLUSIVE Jurisdiction and CONCURRENT OR exclusion of all other at that whether of the same of
COORDINATE Jurisdiction. stage of the proceeding different ranks to take
cognizance at the same
[1] General Jurisdiction versus Special or Limited stage of the same case in
Jurisdiction the same or different judicial
GENERAL SPECIAL or LIMITED territory. The court first
Jurisdiction Jurisdiction obtaining jurisdiction retains
It is the authority of the court It is the authority of the court it to the exclusion of all
to hear and determine all to hear and determine others.
actions and suits, whether particular cases only. Ex: Ex:
civil, criminal, A collection case for P5,000 The SC, CA and RTC has
administrative, real, can only be filed with the concurrent jurisdiction in the
personal or mixed. MTC and no other court issuance of a writ of habeas
Power to adjudicate all Restricts the court’s because actions to collect corpus. The petition for the
controversies except those jurisdiction only to particular unpaid loan below issuance of such writ may
expressly withheld from the cases and subject to such P300,000 belongs with the be commenced in any of the
plenary powers of the court. limitations as may be MTC. It cannot be filed 3 courts. But once such
provided by law. elsewhere. petition is commenced in
Ex: SC can hear anything Ex: (6) CTA, SB, SDC/SCC, any of the 3, the remaining 2
except question of facts. FC, DCC, SCC. lose jurisdiction.

In civil cases, the RTC is a court of general jurisdiction while

the MTC is a court of special or limited jurisdiction.

United States Judiciary System

• If question of Law – Judge
• If question of fact – Jury
Philippines Judiciary System
• If pure question of Law – SC
• If pure question of fact - CA/RTC/MTC
• If mixed question of fact and law- CA/RTC/MTC

[2] Original Jurisdiction versus Appellate Jurisdiction

ORIGINAL APPELLATE
Jurisdiction Jurisdiction
It is the power of the court to It is the authority of a court
take judicial cognizance of a higher in rank re-examine
case instituted for judicial the final order or judgement
action for the first time under of a lower court which tried
conditions provided by law. the case now elevated for
judicial review.

9

ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION
The Supreme Court discussed the elements of jurisdiction as
explained by Justice Regalado in the case of De Joya vs
Marquez (GR No. 162416 January 31, 2006): [SPRI]
1. Jurisdiction over the SUBJECT MATTER
2. Jurisdiction over the PERSON of the parties to the case
3. Jurisdiction over the RES, and
4. Jurisdiction over the ISSUES
1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter
How to know whether or not the court has jurisdiction over the
subject matter?
It depends upon the law. It is conferred by law; it is not
conferred by the silence or waiver or agreement of the parties.
Although in some exceptional circumstances, the doctrine of
estoppel was applied.
2. Jurisdiction over the person: plaintiff/defendant
It could be the person of the plaintiff. When it comes to the
person of the plaintiff, jurisdiction is acquired by his act of
instituting the complaint or the petition or by filing the initiatory
pleading before the court.
How about jurisdiction over the defendant? This is acquired
either by: (1) his voluntary appearance or submission of the
defendant to the court, or (2) coercive process issued by the
court to him; generally, by the service of summons.
3. Jurisdiction over the issues
This is determined or conferred by:
a) The pleadings filed in the case by the parties.
So the pleadings, the complaint or the answer.
b) Their agreement in the pre-trial order.
So after the plaintiff filed his complaint, the defendant
will file his answer, and then maybe the plaintiff would
also file his reply, and then the court will now set the
case for pre-trial. During pre-trial, the parties will also
stipulate on the issues. So what are the issues?
Those mentioned in the pre-trial order. Those are the
issues over which the court has jurisdiction because
these are the issues submitted by the parties to the
court.
c) Implied consent.
By the failure of a party to object to evidence on an
issue not covered by the pleadings. So there are
situations when even if the issue was not raised, it
was not objected to also. So pwede ghapon sya
mahimong part of the issues. This will be discussed
in section 5 of rule 10.
4. Jurisdiction over the res
Or the property or thing which is the subject of the litigation.
How is it acquired?
a) By the actual or constructive seizure by the court of
the thing in question thus placing it in custodia legis,
like in attachment or garnishment. Attachment, you
will discuss when you go to provisional remedies.
Garnishment, this will be tackled also in execution in
Rule 39.
b) By provision of law which recognizes in the court the
power to deal with the property or subject matter
within its territorial jurisdiction.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER
This is the power of the court to hear cases of the general class
to which the proceeding in question belongs. Example:
whether the court has jurisdiction over money claim amounting
to P500K or the money claim amounting to P100K.
Again we already discussed that jurisdiction over the subject
matter is determined by law. Kay diba, it is not conferred by
the silence, agreement, or waiver of the parties.
The question is, what law? What kind of law?
It is the law in force at the time of the commencement of the
action. We’re talking here of which court has jurisdiction. For
example, at the time when the cause of action accrued, lahi
ang naa’y jurisdiction. But by the time that you filed the case,
lahi na, na-amend na ang law. So it is the court that has
jurisdiction as provided for by law AT THE TIME OF THE
FILING of the complaint or at the time of the commencement
of action.
De Villa vs. CA
(GR No. 87416 , April 08, 1991)
Facts: Actually this case involved a criminal case, BP 22. Now
at the time when the act was committed, ang jurisdiction sa
court, it was not limited to a particular case. So here, the
information alleged that the offense was committed in Makati,
Metro Manila, and so the case was filed in Makati, Metro
manila. And the law in force at that time says that jurisdiction
is determined by the place of the issuance of the check. Take
note that jurisdiction in criminal and civil cases are different.
Jurisdiction in criminal cases is the same as the venue. In civil
cases, lahi na sya. Lahi ang jurisdiction, lahi ang venue.
Issue: W/N the RTC of Makati has jurisdiction over the case.
Held: So here because the law in force at that time said that it
should be filed in the place where the check was issued, so it
was proper for the prosecution to file it in Makati.
Another important concept in jurisdiction to remember:
Jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case is
conferred by law and is determined by the allegations in
the complaint and the character of the relief sought
irrespective of whether the parties are entitled to all or
some of the claims asserted.
So we already discussed that jurisdiction is conferred by law.
Now how will we know that this particular case really falls
within the jurisdiction of this particular court?
EXAMPLE: BP 129 says that jurisdiction over money claims if
the amount exceeds P300K, it should be filed before the RTC.
So you have now an action for collection against A. Your claim
is 1M, so definitely you file that with the RTC. So that is in your
complaint. Now in the answer of the defendant, he said, “it is
correct that I am indebted to you for a certain amount, but it is
not 1M, it is only 200K.” Therefore, the defendant filed a motion
to dismiss on the ground that you filed the case in the wrong
court. Lack of jurisdiction.
If you are the judge, will you dismiss the case? How will you
know which court has jurisdiction?
As discussed in the case of Padilla vs Magdua, and actually
this has been the consistent ruling of the Supreme Court:
10
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG

“jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the
allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief
sought, irrespective of whether the party is entitled to all or
some of the claims asserted.”
So to determine whether or not the court has jurisdiction, we
only have to examine the allegations in the complaint.
How about the answer? No! Otherwise, the defendant would
be able to easily circumvent the law on jurisdiction and to
dismiss the case just by alleging na walay jurisdiction. We
would now be subordinating the question of jurisdiction to the
allegations of the defendant. So it should be the complaint. The
complaint determines which court has jurisdiction. And the
character of course of the relief sought, sa complaint lang
ghapon na sya tan-awon.
As reiterated in the case of Serrano vs Munoz, Jurisdiction
over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the
complaint irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to
recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. A
matter that can be resolved only after and as a result of the
trial. So whether or not tinuod ba gyud na si A is entitled to 1M
or 200K, that will be threshed out during the trial. So the court
will know that based on the presentation of evidence by the
parties. But again, for the purpose of conferring of jurisdiction,
what is sufficient would be the allegations in the complaint.
If the jurisdiction of the court be made to depend upon the
defenses set up in the answer or upon the motion to dismiss,
or if it were to be governed by such rule, the question of
jurisdiction would depend almost entirely upon the defendant.
So that is one aspect of jurisdiction.
action for unlawful detainer is within the jurisdiction of the MTC.
Now before RA 9700, even if the defendant would say “NO I
CANNOT BE EJECTED BECAUSE I AM AN AGRICULTURAL
LEASEHOLD TENANT AND UNDER THE LAW, A TENANT
HAS A SECURITY OF TENURE. And under the law, the
jurisdiction to evict a tenant who is an agricultural leasehold
tenant belongs to the DAR particularly the DARAB.” So bisan
pag mag ingon si B na walay jurisdiction si MTC because I am
a tenant and therefore the case should have been filed before
the DARAB. Before, dili na sya magmatter. Because again the
rule is jurisdiction is determined based on the allegations of the
complaint. So if the complaint does not mention at all any
tenancy relationship between A and B, then proper na gifile ni
A sa MTC. If during the trial, it later on appears that B is really
a tenant, then the case filed by A will be dismissed.
But now because of RA 9700, gifile ni A sa MTC and then B
alleges that the case should be filed before the DARAB
because I am an agricultural tenant. Now based on this law, if
there is that allegation, the Court should defer any action and
refer the matter to the DAR for the DAR to determine whether
or not indeed there is an agrarian dispute. If the DAR says that
there is an agrarian dispute, then the court will dismiss the
case. If the DAR says that there is no agrarian dispute, then
the court will proceed with the case.
So that is one exception to the rule that jurisdiction is
determined solely on the allegations on the complaint.

Now there is one possible exception to that rule.

GR: Jurisdiction is determined based on the allegations of the

complaint.
EXCEPTION: Republic Act 9700 or the CARPER LAW

Section 19 of such law provides:

Section 19. Section 50 of RA 6657 is hereby amended by
adding section 50-A to read as follows: No court or
prosecutor’s office shall take cognizance of cases
pertaining to the implementation of the CARP except
those provided under Sec. 57 of RA 6657, as amended. If
there is an allegation from any of the parties that the case
is agrarian in nature and one of the parties is a farmer,
farmworker, or tenant, the case shall be automatically
referred by the judge or the prosecutor to the DAR which
shall determine and certify within fifteen (15) days from
referral whether an agrarian dispute exists: Provided, that
from the determination of the DAR, an aggrieved party
shall have judicial recourse. In cases referred by the
municipal trial court and the prosecutor’s office, the
appeal shall be with the proper Regional Trial Court, and
in cases referred by the Regional Trial Court, the appeal
shall be to the Court of Appeals.

Example: A is the owner of an agricultural land. B is cultivating

the land of A. But later on, nagbago na isip ni A kay di na
magtuo si B sa iyaha. Nagfile syag kaso na ejectment against
B. Possibly unlawful detainer kay dugay na man sya and then
A could allege that the tolerance has already ended because
the occupation by B of the land is merely by virtue of tolerance
or there could be a contract which already expired. So an

11
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG

JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON
When you say jurisdiction over the person, this refers to the
power of the court to render judgment which will bind the
parties to the case.
Again we already discussed how it is acquired. If you are the
plaintiff, then by the filing of the complaint or the petition or by
the initiatory pleading. If you are the defendant, by the service
of summons or voluntary submission before the court.
Basically, what are those instances when we say that the court
has jurisdiction over the person?
Wala ta’y problema when it comes to the person of the plaintiff,
of course kay sya man nagfile ug case so naturally dili pud
gyud na niya iquestion kung naa ba jurisdiction ang court sa
iyahang kaso. So we go to the defendant.
Under Rule 14, you have here Service of Summons.
That is an order by the court requiring the defendant to file his
answer usually within 15 days. Generally, it should be personal
service. Kung di ka katubag, pwede ka madeclare in default,
unsay consequence if madeclare ka in default? The court will
proceed to hear the evidence ex-parte. So if the court did not
acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant and it
proceeded to render judgment, then the judgment and all the
proceedings conducted in the case are null and void.
So very important that we should know what is the proper
mode of acquiring jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant. Again in summons naa ta’y rule, of course personal
service, and there are also other forms of service like
substituted service, pero again there are requirements.
Halimbawa diay di ka gusto magsubmit sa jurisdiction of the
court but you would like to inform the court na wala ka
kareceive ug summons, so there is what we call a concept of
conditional appearance. Such that a party who makes a
special appearance to challenge among others the court’s
jurisdiction over his person cannot be considered to have
submitted to his authority. So prescinding from this, it is clear
that: (1) special appearance operates as an exception to the
general rule on voluntary appearance; (2) accordingly,
objections to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the
defendant must be explicitly made, or it must be set forth in an
unequivocal manner. Meaning, you really have to mention it,
that you are objecting to the jurisdiction because you were not
served properly served summons. That alone will not be
equivalent to voluntary appearance. Failure to do so
constitutes voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court.
Again, especially where a pleading or motion seeking
affirmative relief is filed and submitted to the court for
resolution.
Here, there was no conditional appearance filed by the lawyer.
He just filed a motion for extension to file an answer without
making any exception to the jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant he was representing. So here, it was considered as
voluntary appearance and the court acquired jurisdiction. So
dili na issue diri tong summons kung proper ba, because there
was a waiver through the voluntary appearance made by the
lawyer. The act of the lawyer binds the client. The mistakes of
the lawyer also unfortunately bind the client. So be very
careful.

Carson Realty & Management Corp. vs Red Robin

Security Agency
(GR No. 225035, Feb. 08, 2017)
Facts: Here, a case was filed against Carson. And then
summons was served. And then the lawyer filed a motion for
extension to file answer. And then the court granted the
motion. But instead of filing an extension dghan pa kaayog
gifile. Eventually what was contested here was that there was
no proper service of summons to the defendant.
Issue: Was jurisdiction acquired over the person of the
defendant?
Held: YES. How? By his voluntary submission to the
jurisdiction of the court. HOW? By filing a motion for extension
of time. Because when you appear and you ask affirmative
relief from the court, like in this case the motion for extension,
then that would be equivalent to voluntary submission. Here
the Supreme Court gave us some guidelines when can your
appearance be considered voluntary and therefore you are
considered to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court.
So here, the Supreme Court said: “one who seeks affirmative
relief is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the
court. It is by reason of this rule that we have had occasion to
declare that the filing of motions to admit answer, for additional
time to file answer, for reconsideration of a default judgement,
and to lift order of default with motion for reconsideration, is
considered voluntary submission to the court’s jurisdiction.

12

JURISDICTION OVER THE RES
We actually have 3 kinds of action insofar as the acquisition of
jurisdiction over the res:
1.) Actions in personam
2.) Actions in rem
3.) Actions quasi in rem
1.) ACTIONS IN PERSONAM
Actions which seek to recover judgments against a specific
person. So the action is directed against the person himself
seeking to enforce his personal liabilities.
EXAMPLE: Breach of contract, action for collection, etc.
Generally, when it comes to actions in personam, it is very
important for the court to have jurisdiction, aside from the
subject matter or the issues, he must acquire jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant.
2.) ACTIONS IN REM
These are actions enforced against specific things. But of
course, under our laws, walay Juan dela cruz vs the land in
Calinan City. The case still has to be against a person, whether
natural or juridical, but what is affected here is the thing. The
decisions in actions in rem are binding against the whole world.
As distinguished from an action in personam, which is binding
only against the defendant or his successors in interest. So if
it is an action in rem, and when you say that it is binding against
the whole world, I cannot say that I am not bound by the
decisions in that case because I was not made a party.
EXAMPLE: Probate of will. That is an action in rem. What is
the concept of probate of will? Si testator, he left a will leaving
his properties to several people, and he disinherited one of his
children, etc. The will itself cannot be automatically be given
effect upon the death of the testator. Kinahanglan na sya ug
judicial proceeding. So magfile ka ug petition for probate. What
is the purpose of that proceeding? So that the court will
determine the genuineness and due execution of the will.
When the court already admits the will to probate, the decree
of probate becomes binding against the whole world. So if
you’re one of the heirs, or isa ka sa mga gidisinherit, nya
muingon ka na wala man ko kabalo nga nagfile diay ug probate
proceeding, you cannot say that the probate is not binding
against you because you were not a participant. Again, being
a proceeding in rem, it is binding against the whole world.
3.) ACTIONS QUASI IN REM
“Murag in rem” (lol). Actually it is also directed against a thing
but there are interests of persons over the thong which are
affected directly or indirectly Because these rights or interests,
they attach to the thing. So although the subject of the case is
really about a thing, but persons who have interest in that thing
is affected.
EXAMPLE: Foreclosure of mortgage. Ang imong habol kay
kato lng property which is the subject of the mortgage. But of
course, if the thing is foreclosed and sold at public auction,
maapektuhan pud ang nterest ni mortgagor.
Now there is a need to discuss that because it matters whether
the action is in personam, in rem or quasi in rem, as to the
issue of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
Again, if it is an action in personam, we need to acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Because an
action in personam seeks to recover personal judgments
against the defendant.
How about in rem or quasi in rem? Do we need to acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant?
BIACO v. PHILIPPINE COUNTRYSIDE RURAL
BANK
(GR No. 161417, February 08, 2007)
Facts: This is a case for foreclosure of real estate mortgage.
So mag asawa ni sila noh. Si Ernesto ug Maria Theresa.
Husband obtained several loans from the bank. And as
security for the payment of the loan, they mortgaged a real
property covered by OCT No. P-14423 So both spouses
signed the mortgage contract. Of course the husband
defaulted that is why the creditor here was constrained to
institute foreclosure of mortgage proceedings against the
spouses. Now the husband received the summons but for
unknown reason he did not file an answer. However, the wife
wala sya naserve. So they were declared in default and
therefore there was judgment in default and then the court
authorized the sale of the property at public auction. And you
know in a mortgage proceeding, when the proceeds of the
property are not sufficient to satisfy the obligation, there could
be a deficiency judgment. So in that same proceeding pwede
ka mahold liable for the deficiency which the court did in this
case. When the wife discovered, she filed an action for
annulment of the decision of the RTC contending that there
was extrinsic fraud preventing her from participating in the
judicial foreclosure. And according to her also, the trial court
failed to acquire jurisdiction because summons was served on
her to her husband without any explanation as to why personal
service could not be made. So even if the spouses are both
defendant, service upon the husband does not operate as
service upon the wife. And she also alleged that the deficiency
judgment is a personal judgment which should be deemed
void for lack of jurisdiction over her person.
Issue: WON the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the res.
Held: The question of whether the trial court has jurisdiction
depends on the nature of the action, whether the action is in
personam, in rem or quasi in rem. And the rules of service of
summons under rule 14 will also apply according to the nature
of the action. So the SC again discussed what are these
actions.
An action in personam is an action against a person on the
basis of his personal liability. An action in rem is an action
against the thing itself instead of against the person. An action
quasi in rem is one wherein an individual is named as
defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his
interest therein to the obligation or lien burdening the property.
In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide
the case. However, in a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem,
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a pre-
requisite to confer jurisdiction on the court provided that the
court acquires jurisdiction over the res. How will you acquire
jurisdiction over the res? That’s the one we should discuss.
Either by the seizure of the property under legal process
whereby it is brought into actual custody of the law like
attachment or garnishment, or as a result of the institution of
13

legal proceedings in which the power of the court is recognized
and made effective. Meaning, when you file an action for
foreclosure of mortgage. In that act itself the court already
acquires jurisdiction over the res.
Nonetheless, the SC said, summons, whether action in rem or
quasi in rem, must be served upon the defendant not for the
purpose of vesting jurisdiction over the court but merely for
satisfying the due process requirements.
Now in this case, was there jurisdiction over the res? Yes. This
was acquired when the action was instituted by the plaintiff. So
the judicial foreclosure proceeding instituted by the creditor
undoubtedly vested the trial court with jurisdiction over the res.
A judicial foreclosure proceeding is an action quasi in rem as
such jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner is not
required it be sufficient that the trial court is vested with
jurisdiction over the subject matter. In this case, the purpose
of summons is not actually to acquire jurisdiction but merely to
satisfy the requirement of due process. In this particular case,
the wife participated after she learned of the case, she filed
several motions, etc. So the SC said that insofar as that aspect
is concerned, due process is already satisfied. However, the
trial court went beyond its jurisdiction. Why? Because even if
it acquired jurisdiction over the res, the court exceeded its
jurisdiction when it issued an order for the deficiency judgment.
Because by requiring that deficiency be filed by the wife, that
was already a personal judgment against the wife not only
against the property. And for that, against the person na to sya.
You cannot require that without properly acquiring jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant. The trial court went beyond
its jurisdiction over the res because aside from rendering a
decision for the foreclosure, it rendered a personal judgement
against the spouses.
To reiterate:
“While the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the res, its
jurisdiction is limited to a rendition of judgment on the res. It
cannot extend its jurisdiction beyond the res and issue a
judgment enforcing petitioner’s personal liability. In doing so
without first having acquired jurisdiction over the person of
petitioner, as it did, the trial court violated her constitutional
right to due process, warranting the annulment of the judgment
rendered in the case.”
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
DE PEDRO vs ROMASAN DEVELOPMENT BANK
(GR No. 194751, November 26, 2014)
Facts: This case involves annulment of free patent and
original certificate of title. So nagfile syag action for nullification
of the free patent and the corresponding titles issued by virtue
of that patent. Here, plaintiff Romasan alleged that it was the
owner and possessor of parcel of land and his representative
discovered that a certain De Pedro put up fences on the
portion of the property. To make the story short, this person
was able to have the property titled under her name based on
the free patents issued. Now, an action for nullification of the
title and free patent was filed. The court issued summons
against the defendant but attempts to personally serve the
summons on the defendant De Pedro failed. So the plaintiff
filed a motion to serve summons by publication. It was granted
but wala ghapon answer despite that so nagmotion napud sila
to declare the defendant in default and then there was
presentation of evidence ex-parte and of course, the plaintiff
won in the case. So here, the RTC issued an order declaring
as a nullity the titles and free patent issued to the defendant.
Now De Pedro, through counsel, filed a motion for new trial
alleging that the court did not acquire jurisdiction over her
person because service by publication is not the proper
service of summons.
Issue: WON the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction over the
person of De Pedro.
Held: Jurisdiction over the parties is required regardless of the
type of action — whether the action is in personam, in rem, or
quasi in rem.
So lahi na ang giingon diri, “jurisdiction over the parties is
required”. How will we reconcile that with the prior case that
we discussed? Actually the SC said:
“Courts need not acquire jurisdiction over parties on this basis
in in rem and quasi in rem actions. Actions in rem or quasi in
rem are not directed against the person based on his or her
personal liability.”
Let’s reconcile. Actually the same lang ghapon sya. When you
are enforcing personal liability of course you need to acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. So if it is an
action in personam, of course because mainly that action is to
enforce the personal liability of the defendant. But if it is action
in rem or quasi in rem, it’s not required to acquire jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant in order for you to acquire
jurisdiction over the res. Lahi man na sila. It’s enough that you
acquire jurisdiction over the res by again katong institution of
the action or by subjecting the thing to custodia legis. However,
if you seek to enforce personal judgments in that same case
then here lies the problem because you need to acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Just like in the
previous case, okay na tong foreclosure of mortgage, kaya
lang naa may deficiency judgment, so dili pwde nga naa lang
jurisdiction over the res, kinahanglan pud gyud naay
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. So that is how
we reconcile.
Balik ta sa action in rem or quasi in rem na generally
jurisdiction over the res is sufficient to render a judgment upon
the thing. The SC said:
14
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG

“Actions in rem are actions against the thing itself. They are JURISDICTION OVER THE ISSUES
binding upon the whole world. Quasi in rem actions are actions
involving the status of a property over which a party has Again if the issue is not raised in the pleadings of the parties
interest. Quasi in rem actions are not binding upon the whole then the court cannot take cognizance of that issue. Although
world. They affect only the interests of the particular parties. there are certain exceptions.
However, to satisfy the requirements of due process,
jurisdiction over the parties in in rem and quasi in rem actions
is required.

The phrase, "against the thing," to describe in rem actions is a

metaphor. It is not the "thing" that is the party to an in rem
action; only legal or natural persons may be parties even in in
rem actions. "Against the thing" means that resolution of the
case affects interests of others whether direct or indirect. It
also assumes that the interests — in the form of rights or duties
— attach to the thing which is the subject matter of litigation.
In actions in rem, our procedure assumes an active vinculum
over those with interests to the thing subject of litigation.”

So basically, if it is an action in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction

over the res is sufficient so that judgment over the thing can
be rendered. However, we also need to acquire jurisdiction
over the persons of the defendant or serve summons upon the
defendant, in the first case, not for the purpose of acquiring
jurisdiction but merely for the purpose of satisfying due
process. However, in this particular case, which is a much later
case (2014), murag pareho napud syag effect because even if
you say that we need to serve summons upon the defendant
not for the purpose of acquiring jurisdiction but merely for the
purpose of satisfying due process, but in this case the SC said
violation of due process is a jurisdictional defect.

Meaning, mahimo ghapong null and void ang proceedings

kung wala nimo properly giserve ug summons si defendant.
So this action for annulment of certificate of title is quasi in rem.
It is not an action against a person on the basis of his personal
liability but an action that subjects a person’s interest over a
property to a burden. Even if we say it is quasi in rem, it
threatens the petitioner’s interest in the property. She will be
deprived of the title because it will be annulled so the petitioner
here is entitled to due process with respect to her interest. The
court does not have competence or authority to proceed with
an action for annulment of certificate of title without giving the
person in whose name the certificate was issued, all the
opportunities to be heard, which is again, due process
requirement. But again, the SC equated this to a jurisdictional
defect so the issuance of the judgment without proper service
of summons is a violation of due process rights the judgment
therefore suffers a jurisdictional defect.

Kung nalibog mo sa giingon sa SC in the two cases, in both

cases dili valid ang judgment because wala properly naserve
ang summons. Although in the first case niingon lng sya na dili
requirement for jurisdiction but for due process pero defective
man ghapon. In the second case, it is a violation of due
process which is equivalent to a jurisdictional defect so dili
ghapon sya valid.

15

JURISDICTION
General Rule: When a court acquires jurisdiction, such
jurisdiction continues. The court may proceed to hear the case,
until the decision is final and executory.
Instances When the Courts Lose Jurisdiction:
1. When a subsequent law provides for a prohibition for
the continued exercise of jurisdiction;
2. When the law punishing an act is repealed by a
subsequent law. The reason is that, the State loses
the power to prosecute when the law is repealed,
hence, the court has no more power to decide.
3. When an accused is deprived of his constitutional
right such as where the court fails to provide counsel
for the accused who is unable to obtain one and does
not intelligently waive his constitutional right.
4. When the proceedings in the court acquiring
jurisdiction is terminated, abandoned, or declared
void.
5. When the statute expressly provides, or is construed
to the effect that it intended to operate as to actions
pending before its enactment, when the law is
retroactive.
6. Once an appeal has been perfected.
7. When the law is curative.
[1] When a subsequent law provides for a prohibition for the
continued exercise of jurisdiction;
Rilloraza vs. Arciaga
“Where a court originally obtains and exercises jurisdiction,
jurisdiction will not be overturned and impaired by any
legislative enactment unless express prohibitory words are
used, and jurisdiction duly acquired under an existing statute
is not taken away by a subsequent statute prescribing a
different method of commencing an action.”
What was at issue here was the passage of R.A. 3828 which
takes away the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court.
But the Supreme Court held that unless it is expressly stated
in a law itself that jurisdiction is ousted from that particular
court, we cannot presume that the court loses jurisdiction.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
[2] When the law punishing an act is repealed by a
subsequent law. The reason is that, the State loses the
power to prosecute when the law is repealed, hence, the
court has no more power to decide.
People vs. Pastor
Under the law enforced at the time, the National Internal
Revenue Code punish only the manufacturer, producer, or
importer for the non-payment of privilege tax.
The question here is how about the merchant who was the one
prosecuted? The law does not mention that the merchant
under prosecution here, is included in the people liable to pay
privilege tax. Meaning, he is not included.
This is in accordance with the doctrine: here the repealing law
wholly fails to penalize the acts which constituted the offense
defined and penalized in the repealed law, the repeal carries
with it the deprivation of the courts of jurisdiction to try,
convict, and sentence persons charged with violations of
the old law prior to the repeal. Prior to the new law, it
included the merchant. The new law did not include the
merchant. Here, if he is not penalized under the new law, then
the court loses jurisdiction, you cannot continue trying the
person.
[3] When an accused is deprived of his constitutional right
such as where the court fails to provide counsel for the
accused who is unable to obtain one and does not
intelligently waive his constitutional right.
Chaves vs. CA
The court also loses jurisdiction because there is a violation of
the constitutional right. Any proceeding conducted by the court
when the person was deprived of his right to counsel would be
void.
[4] When the proceedings in the court acquiring jurisdiction is
terminated, abandoned, or declared void.
Seven vs. Pichay
What was involved here was a guardianship proceeding.
When the guardianship terminates, then the court immediately
loses jurisdiction over the case.
Here the Supreme Court said, the jurisdiction of a court in a
guardianship proceeding and all incidents thereof exists as
long as the case is pending in that court. But when the case is
terminated, by dismissal or otherwise, the court ceases to
exercise the power and authority to try said case or any
incidental matters thereof.
Petition for accounting, etc., which is an incident of a
guardianship proceeding, should be filed in the court where the
proceeding are pending. But once the guardianship
proceeding is terminated, said petition can no longer be filed
in the same case, but must be filed as a separate case, in the
same court, or in any other court of competent jurisdiction.
Here the Court said that you cannot file a petition for
accounting in the same case where the guardianship
proceeding was previously held because the proceedings had
already terminated; the guardianship has already ended. File
it in a separate case in any court with competent jurisdiction.
16

[5] When the statute expressly provides, or is construed to
the effect that it intended to operate as to actions pending
before its enactment, when the law is retroactive.
Bengzon vs. Inciong
The rule is that where a court has already obtained and is
exercising jurisdiction over a controversy, its jurisdiction to
proceed to the final determination of the cause is not affected
by new legislation placing jurisdiction over such proceedings
in another tribunal. That is the general rule.
The exception to the rule is where the statute expressly
provides, or is construed to the effect that it is intended to
operate as to actions pending before its enactment. Where a
statute changing the jurisdiction of a court has no retroactive
effect, it cannot be applied to a case that was pending prior to
the enactment of the statute.
Example: If you filed a case before the Regional Trial Court
and at the time when you filed it the Regional Trial Court had
jurisdiction (200,000). Assuming that in the middle of the trial
there’s a law passed altering the jurisdiction of the Regional
Trial Court (300,00). The Municipal Trial Court now has
jurisdiction. Should the Regional Trial Court dismiss the case
and transfer it to the Municipal Trial Court?
GR: As long a Statute does not provide that the cases should
be transferred then it should not.
XPN: When the Statute provides.
[6] Once an appeal has been perfected.
What happens when there is already an appeal? The court a
quo (ginikanan) example the Municipal Trial Court, and there
was an appeal, the decision of the Municipal Trial Court cannot
be changed by the Municipal Trial Court because of the appeal
to the Regional Trial Court. The Municipal Trial Court already
loses jurisdiction over the case. It is the Regional Trial Court
now who can either modify, revise, or reverse the decision of
the Municipal Trial Court. This is discussed in the case of Alma
vs. Abbas.
[7] When the law is curative.
Garcia vs. Martinez
It is actually a labor case. At the time when the case was filed,
the court has no jurisdiction. But when the case was about to
be decided, it already has jurisdiction. So, it has a curative
effect. In that case, the court can validly render a decision.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
DOCTRINES RELATED TO JURISDICTION
Barroso vs Omelio
There are two principles relating to jurisdiction as discussed in
this case.
This is actually from Davao City. Here, the Regional Trial Court
Branch 16 issued a writ of execution. When there is a writ of
execution it presupposes that there already is a final judgment.
Here, the final judgment was by virtue of a compromise
agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant. In the
compromise agreement it was agreed that the defendant in
case he violates the tenor of the agreement, he will be liable in
so far as his counterbond is concerned. In that case the RTC
branch 16 made liable not only the defendant himself but also
the surety.
In this case, the surety filed a case before the Regional Trial
Court Branch 14 with Judge Omelio. He issued a writ of
preliminary injunction enjoining the implementation of the writ
of execution issued by the Regional Trial Court Branch 16.
[Chikka: Judge Omelio learned that the plaintiff filed a petition
for certiorari. He challenged the plaintiff’s lawyer into a duel at
the PTA grounds]
The issue here is, was it proper for Judge Omelio to issue a
writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the implementation of
the writ of execution issued by another Regional Trial Court.
Another issue, was it proper for the petitioner to directly
institute a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court,
considering that there is a lower court, the court of appeals,
which also has jurisdiction to entertain original petitions for
certiorari.
In relation to that, let us discuss first the hierarchy of courts.
What are the courts we have?
We have the Supreme Court the highest court, and then we
have the Court of Appeals, and then we have the Regional
Trial Court, and then we have the Municipal Trial Court,
Municipal Circuit Trial Court.
Under the hierarchy of courts, the highest is the Supreme
Court.
Now, there are certain actions over which the Supreme Court
and the Court of Appeals have concurrent jurisdiction. When
we say concurrent jurisdiction, meaning, you can file it with the
Supreme Court, you can also file it with the Court of Appeals.
Also, in their original jurisdiction, like certiorari, it can be filed
with the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. So, there is
concurrent original jurisdiction.
DOCTRINE OF HEIRARCHY OF COURTS, if the case can be
entertained before the lower court, you should first file a case
before the lower court. Because each court is competent to
rule upon the issue. In fact they can determine factual issues.
Here, the Supreme Court said; following the doctrine of
hierarchy of courts, you should have filed the petition for
certiorari before the Court of Appeals, supposedly pursuant to
the rule on hierarchy of courts.
17
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG

The said rule is an important component of the orderly
administration of justice and not imposed merely for whimsical
and arbitrary reasons.
The strictness of the policy is designed to shield the Court from
having to deal with causes that are also well within the
competence of the lower courts, and thus leave time for the
Court to deal with the more fundamental and more essential
tasks that the Constitution has assigned to it. Because
remember, the Supreme Court is a creation of the Supreme
Court. Those matters can be taken cognizance of a lower
court.
DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL STABILITY OR NON-
INTERFERENCE: in the regular orders or judgments of a co-
equal court is an elementary principle in the administration of
justice: no court can interfere by injunction with the judgments
or orders of another court of concurrent jurisdiction having the
power to grant the relief sought by the injunction. The rationale
for the rule is founded on the concept of jurisdiction: a court
that acquires jurisdiction over the case and renders judgment
therein has jurisdiction over Its judgment, to the exclusion of
all other coordinate courts, for its execution and over all its
incidents, and to control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct
of ministerial officers acting in connection with this judgment.

The doctrine that requires respect for the hierarchy of courts The remedy is to file a motion for reconsideration before the
was created by this court to ensure that every level of the RTC Branch 16. If your motion is denied, you can file a petition
judiciary performs its designated roles in an effective and for certiorari before the Court of Appeals following the doctrine
efficient manner. of hierarchy of courts.

The Court was initially inclined to reject taking cognizance of
this case. However, we cannot close our eyes to the
unbecoming conduct exhibited by respondent judge in
obstinately issuing an injunction against the orders of a co-
equal court despite this Court's consistent reiteration of the
time-honored principle that "no court has the power to interfere
by injunction with the judgments or decrees of a court of
concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction. The various trial courts of
a province or city, having the same or equal authority, should
not, cannot, and are not permitted to interfere with their
respective cases, much less with their orders or judgments."
Another contention here of Judge Omelio is that he was not
enjoining the decision or RTC Branch 16, I was enjoining the
sheriff of RTC Branch 16. That is not correct. Because the writ
of execution issued by the sheriff is pursuant to the authority
granted by RTC Branch 16. That was a writ which emanated
from RTC Branch 16 itself. We cannot say that it is the Sheriff’s
act, it is the court’s act.

However, in the same case, it was acknowledged that for

exceptionally compelling reasons, the Court may exercise its
discretion to act on special civil actions for certiorari filed
directly with it. Examples of cases that present compelling
reasons are:

(1) those involving genuine issues of constitutionality that must

be addressed at the most immediate time;
(2) those where the issues are of transcendental importance,
and the threat to fundamental constitutional rights are so
great as to outweigh the necessity for prudence;
(3) cases of first impression, where no jurisprudence yet exists
that will guide the lower courts on such issues;
(4) where the constitutional issues raised are better decided
after a thorough deliberation by a collegiate body and with
the concurrence of the majority of those who participated
in its discussion;
(5) where time is of the essence;
(6) where the act being questioned was that of a constitutional
body;
(7) where there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law that could free
petitioner from the injurious effects of respondents' acts in
violation of their constitutional rights; and
(8) the issues involve public welfare, the advancement of
public policy, the broader interest of justice, or where
the orders complained of are patent nullities, or where
appeal can be considered as clearly an inappropriate
remedy.

The issue raised in this case, therefore, falls under one of the
exceptions to the rule on hierarchy of courts, i.e., where the
order complained of is a patent nullity.

18

SPECIAL COURTS
1. Court of Tax Appeals
2. Sandiganbayan
3. Sharia Circuit Court
4. Family Courts
5. Drugs Court
The rules that we will discuss will apply to the regular courts,
so the; MTC, RTC, CA, and the SC.
DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION
The court will not determine a controversy involving a question
within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal where
thequestion demands the exercise of sound administrative
discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and
services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical
and matters of fact.
There are certain cases that are within the competence of
other tribunals.
For example, as I have mentioned before, agrarian matter or
agrarian disputes. These are within the jurisdiction of DAR or
the Department of Agrarian Reform. They have their own
quasi-judicial agency: the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication board or the DARAB. The DENR, they also have
their own rules.
So, in these matters pertaining to their specializations, the
court will be hands off, give them the opportunity to resolve the
matter first.
When in a case it is alleged by any party that there is an
agrarian dispute, the regular court will refer the matter to the
DAR for the DAR to determine if there is an agrarian dispute.
If indeed there is an agrarian dispute, the court will dismiss the
case and give the matter to the DAR. If the case is not agrarian
in matter then the court will hear it.
That is an application of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.
San Miguel Properties vs. BF Homes
Here, we are referring to the competence of the HLURB,
another quasi-judicial agency.
[T]he jurisdiction of the HLURB over cases enumerated in
Section 1 of PD No. 1344 is exclusive. Thus, we have ruled
that the board has sole jurisdiction in a complaint of specific
performance for the delivery of a certificate of title to a buyer
of a subdivision lot; for claims of refund regardless of whether
the sale is perfected or not; and for determining whether there
is a perfected contract of sale.
It is clear from the plain language of Section 1 of Presidential
Decree No. 1344 and aforecited jurisprudence that the HLURB
had exclusive jurisdiction over the complaint for specific
performance filed by SMPI against BF Homes for the delivery
of the remaining 20 TCTs.
General Rule
Pursuant to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, "the courts
cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question
which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal,
where the question demands the exercise of sound
administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge,
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
experience, and services of the administrative tribunal to
determine technical and intricate matters of fact, and a
uniformity of ruling is essential to comply with the purposes of
the regulatory statute administered." However, said doctrine is
not an absolute or inflexible rule.
Exceptions
The Court recognized several exceptions in Republic v. Lacap,
viz.:
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the
corollary doctrine of primary jurisdiction, which are based on
sound public policy and practical considerations, are not
inflexible rules. There are many accepted exceptions, such as:
a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the
doctrine;
b) where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal,
amounting to lack of jurisdiction;
c) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that
will irretrievably prejudice the complainant;
d) where the amount involved is relatively small so as to make
the rule impractical and oppressive;
e) where the question involved is purely legal and will
ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice;
f) where judicial intervention is urgent;
g) when its application may cause great and irreparable
damage;
h) where the controverted acts violate due process;
i) when the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative
remedies has been rendered moot;
j) when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy;
k) when strong public interest is involved; and,
l) in quo warranto proceedings, x x x.
The contractual relationship between BF Homes as owner and
SMPI as buyer of subdivision lots is governed by Presidential
Decree No. 957 and is undeniably imbued with public interest.
Hence, it is crucial that the dispute between them be resolved
as swiftly as possible.
19

JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT
CLASSIFICATION OF THE SUPREME COURT AS A
COURT
❖ A superior court (as opposed to a first-level or inferior
court.
❖ It is both an original and appellate court.
❖ Both a civil and criminal court.
❖ Both courts of law and equity.
❖ THE ONLY CONSTITUTIONAL COURT (versus
statutory court).
❖ The jurisdiction of the SC is found in the 1987
constitution.
Article VIII | 1987 Constitution
SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one
Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be
established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not
there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.
We have discussed before what is the meaning of judicial
power, that is mentioned in the Constitution.
SECTION 2. The Congress shall have the power to define,
prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts
but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over
cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.
No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it
undermines the security of
tenure of its Members.
SECTION 3. The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy.
Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced by the
legislature below the amount appropriated for the previous
year and, after approval, shall be automatically and regularly
released.
SECTION 4.
(1) The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice
and fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in its
discretion, in division of three, five, or seven Members. Any
vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence
thereof.
(2) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty,
international or executive agreement, or law, which shall be
heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other cases
which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en
banc, including those involving the constitutionality,
application, or operation of presidential decrees,
proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other
regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of a
majority of the Members who actually took part in the
deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
(3) Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or
resolved with the concurrence of a majority of the Members
who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the
case and voted thereon, and in no case without the
concurrence of at least three of such Members. When the
required number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en
banc: Provided, that no doctrine or principle of law laid down
by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may
be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc.
NOTE: When you file cases in the Supreme Court usually they
are decided en banc, but seldom, there are cases decided en
banc. Number 2 Section 4 are cases which can be heard by
the Supreme Court en banc.
Powers of the Supreme Court
SECTION 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following
powers:
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and
over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, and habeas corpus.
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or
certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide,
final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of
any treaty, international or executive agreement,
law, presidential decree, proclamation, order,
instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost,
assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in
relation thereto.
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court
is in issue.
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is
reclusion perpetua or higher.
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is
involved.
(3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other
stations as public interest may require. Such temporary
assignment shall not exceed six months without the
consent of the judge concerned.
(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a
miscarriage of justice.
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice,
and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice
of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the
underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and
inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade,
and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive
rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-
judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved
by the Supreme Court.
(6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in
accordance with the Civil Service Law.
NOTE: Overall, you can see here that the Supreme Court has
original jurisdiction, concurrent jurisdiction, and appellate
jurisdiction. Of course, the Supreme Court can promulgate
rules; we have the Rules of Court. There are cases where the
Supreme Court can change a venue or place of trial (discusses
the case of Tagum and the persons in power). Before
discussing the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
20

We have to differentiate between original and appellate and
concurrent and exclusive jurisdiction.
When it comes to jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, it can
either be exclusive original or concurrent original.
ORIGINAL vis-à-vis APPELATE JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL APPELATE
The case is originally filed in The case is filed in a lower
that court. court.
EXCLUSIVE vis-à-vis CONCURRENT JURISDICTION
EXCLUSIVE CONCURRENT
The court solely has There are a lot of courts
jurisdiction. You cannot where you can file a case.
choose to file a case in any All can take cognizance of
other court. the case.
Subject to the doctrine of
hierarchy of courts.
Example: Courts with concurrent jurisdiction are RTC, CA,
and SC. Apply the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
Several Regional Trial Courts have concurrent Jurisdiction.
We apply the rule that the court where you file the case
exercises jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts.
It is possible that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction
and exclusive jurisdiction. Or it can have, original but
concurrent jurisdiction. That is the concept regarding the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
CASES WHERE THE SUPREME COURT HAS
EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
1. In petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
against:
- Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
- Commission on Audit (COA)
- Court of Appeals (CA)
- Sandiganbayan (SB)
- Court of Tax Appeals (CTA)
- Ombudsman (OMB);
2. Election contests involving the position of President or
Vice-President (PET);
3. Cases questioning the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
proclamation of martial law and the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the extension
thereof;
4. Disciplinary proceedings against members of the Philippine
bar and the judiciary; and
5. Injunction in agrarian cases.
[1] Petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
against the COMELEC, COA, CA, SB, CTA and OMB
These are special civil actions which are under Rule 65.
Certiorari (Section 1 Rule 65): When any tribunal, board or
officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial function has acted
without or in excess of jurisdiction or with abuse or grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or in excess of
jurisdiction. You may file an appeal on certiorari under Rule 65
to annul the decision.
Prohibition (Section 2 Rule 65): When the proceedings of
any tribunal, board or officer whether exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial or ministerial function, without or in excess of his
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, you may file a
petition with a prayer for prohibition. The purpose of this
prohibition is to have the Supreme Court command the
respondent to desist from further proceedings in the action or
matter specified therein.
Mandamus (Section 3 Rule 65): When any tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the
performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a
duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully
excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or
office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition
in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying
that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent,
immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court,
to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the
petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner
by reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent. This pertains
only to ministerial duty.
Ministerial Discretionary
You have no choice but to Requires deliberation and
comply and discharge the judgements.
duty. The remedy is
mandamus. Ex. Ministerial
duty of the LRA to issue a
decree of registration.
21

Note: The common ground among certiorari, prohibition, and
mandamus is there is excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
WHERE TO FILE THE APPEAL
WHEN IT IS FILED WITH THE SUPREME COURT
In these types of cases, it depends on who the respondent is.
If the respondent is the COMELEC, COA, CA, SB, CTA and
OMB, etc. the petition must be filed in the SC.
1987 Constitution, Article IX
Section 7. - … Unless otherwise provided by this
Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each
Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on
certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt
of a copy thereof.
WHEN IT MUST BE FILED WITH THE CA
SC jurisdiction is concurrent with the CA for cases under
petition for certiorari of decisions by the CSC, SEC, EEC, SSC.
R.A. 7902
Sec. 9. Jurisdiction. — The Court of Appeals shall exercise:
(1) Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition,
certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary
writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction;
(3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments,
decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of RTCs and quasi-
judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions,
including the SEC the SSC, the EEC and CSC …
EXCLUSIVE by SC CONCURRENT with CA
COMELEC CSC
CA SEC
SB [PD 1606; RA 8249] SSC
CTA EEC
OMB [Sec. 14 RA 6770] NLRC [GR 130866]
COA
NLRC: Ruling on concurrent jurisdiction of the SC with the CA
over cases decided by the NLRC.
St. Martin Funeral Home vs. NLRC
[G.R. No. 130866. September 16, 1998.]
FACTS: In a case for illegal dismissal the NLRC rendered
judgment against petitioner. A petition for certiorari was filed
with the SC alleging that the NLRC committed grave abuse of
discretion. The basis for the appeal was Section 9 of BP 129,
to wit: ―The Court of Appeals shall Exercise: xxx 3. Exclusive
appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, resolutions,
orders or awards of xxx quasi-judicial agencies xxx Except
those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court in accordance with the xxx Labor Code of the Philippines
under PD No. 442, as amended xxx.”
ISSUE: Is the SC is the proper forum to review the decision of
the NLRC?
RULING: NO. It is the CA. All references in the amended
Section 9 of B.P. No. 129 to supposed appeals from the NLRC
to the Supreme Court are interpreted and hereby declared to
mean and refer to petitions for certiorari under Rule 65.
Consequently, all such petitions should henceforth be initially
filed in the CA in strict observance of the doctrine on the
hierarchy of courts as the appropriate forum for the relief
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
desired. Because the case is the first to set this precedence
for all others, the SC remanded the case to the CA.
[2] Election contests involving the position of President or
Vice-President (PET)
ARTICLE VII Section 4 [1987]
Xxx The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole
judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of the President or Vice- President, and may
promulgate its rules for the purpose.
[3] Cases questioning the sufficiency of the factual basis
of the proclamation of martial law and the suspension of
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the extension
thereof
ARTICLE VII Section 18 [1987]
Xxx The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate
proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual
basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of
the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and must
promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
Note: This is one of the exceptions to the general rule that the
SC is not a trier of facts. Here the SC is like an ordinary Court
trying the case and determining factual questions.
[4] Disciplinary proceedings against members of the
Philippine bar and the judiciary
RULE 56-A ROC
Section 1. Original cases cognizable. — Only petitions
for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas
corpus, disciplinary proceedings against members of the
judiciary and attorneys, and cases affecting ambassadors,
other public ministers and consuls may be filed originally in the
Supreme Court. (n)
Section 2. Rules applicable. — The procedure in original
cases for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and
habeas corpus shall be in accordance with the applicable
provisions of the Constitution, laws, and Rules 46, 48, 49, 51,
52 and this Rule, subject to the following provisions:
a) All references in said Rules to the Court of Appeals
shall be understood to also apply to the Supreme Court;
b) The portions of said Rules dealing strictly with and
specifically intended for appealed cases in the Court of
Appeals shall not be applicable; and
c) Eighteen (18) clearly legible copies of the petition shall
be filed, together with proof of service on all adverse
parties.
The proceedings for disciplinary action against members of the
judiciary shall be governed by the laws and Rules prescribed
therefor, and those against attorneys by Rules 139-B, as
amended. (n)
22

[5] Injunction in agrarian cases
Cubero v. Laguna West Multi-Purpose Cooperative
[509 SCRA 410 | 30 November 2016]
The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) is vested with
primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian
reform matters, with exclusive original jurisdiction over all
matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform
except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Department of Agriculture and the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources.
The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(DARAB) has jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate all
agrarian disputes involving the implementation of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). Included in the
definition of agrarian disputes are those arising from other
tenurial arrangements beyond the traditional landowner-tenant
or lessor-lessee relationship.
HELD: In cases where allegations of violation or circumvention
of land reform laws have been raised, this Court has declined
to address them, it stating that petitioners must first plead their
case with the DARAB.
Note: In this case, the SC stated that it could not issue an
injunction over decisions of the DARAB. This was based on
Section 55 RA 6657. It was already amended under Section
20 of RA 9700:
"SEC. 55. No Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction. —
Except for the Supreme Court, no court in the Philippines shall
have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or writ of
preliminary injunction against the PARC, the DAR, or any of its
duly authorized or designated agencies in any case, dispute or
controversy arising from, necessary to, or in connection with
the application, implementation, enforcement, or interpretation
of this Act and other pertinent laws on agrarian reform."
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
CONCURRENT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE
SUPREME COURT
When you file for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, the
proper court to take cognizance will depend on who the
respondent-party is to the case.
Ex. If you file a case against the RTC, since the SC has
concurrent jurisdiction with the CA, then the case must be
filed in the CA since the doctrine of hierarchy of courts must
be followed.
Concurrent original jurisdiction means that these cases are
original actions which can be filed with the SC or other Courts.
All can take cognizance of the case. However, this is subject
to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. The following are the
summary:
[1] Exercise concurrent original jurisdiction with the CA in
petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against
the following:
1. Regional Trial Court (RTC)
2. Civil Service Commission (CSC)
3. Central Board of Assessment Appeals (CBAA)
4. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
[2] Exercise concurrent original jurisdiction with the CA and
the RTC in petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and
mandamus against lower courts and bodies, and in petitions
for quo warranto and writ of habeas corpus:
1. Quasi-judicial Agencies: with CA and RTC
2. Other lower courts and bodies.
[3] Exercise concurrent original jurisdiction with the RTC in
cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers and
consuls.
[4] Exercise concurrent original jurisdiction with the CA in
petitions for writ of kalikasan
[5] Exercise concurrent original jurisdiction with the RTC & CA
in petitions for writ of continuing mandamus, and
[6] Exercise concurrent original jurisdiction with the CA, RTC
& SB the writ of amparo.
St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC
[G.R. 130866 | 16 September 1998]
All references in the amended Section 9 of B.P. No. 129 to
supposed appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme Court are
interpreted and hereby declared to mean and refer to petitions
for certiorari under Rule 65. Consequently, all such petitions
should henceforth be initially filed in the Court of Appeals
in strict observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts
as the appropriate forum for the relief desired.
23

[1] & [2] Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus
Against Different Respondents
[1] Exercise concurrent original jurisdiction with the CA in
petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus
against the following:
1. Regional Trial Court (RTC)
2. Civil Service Commission (CSC)
3. Central Board of Assessment Appeals (CBAA)
4. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
[2] Exercise concurrent original jurisdiction with the CA and
the RTC in petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and
mandamus against lower courts and bodies, and in
petitions for quo warranto and writ of habeas corpus:
1. Quasi-judicial Agencies: with CA and RTC
2. Other lower courts and bodies.
CERTIORARI
Two kinds of Certiorari:
1. Rule 65 of the ROC – Special Civil Action
(concurrent original)
2. Rule 45 of the ROC – Petition for Review (exclusive
original)
1. Rule 65 special civil actions – a petition for certiorari is
an ORIGINAL petition which is filed in the Supreme Court
for the first time.
CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS
Section 1. Petition for certiorari.
When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of
its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is
no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby
may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the
facts with certainty and praying that judgment be
rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such
tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental
reliefs as law and justice may require.
2. Rule 45 Petition for Review – in the exercise of review
or appellate jurisdiction.
APPEAL BY CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT
Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court.
A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment
or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the
Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts
whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme
Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The
petition shall raise only questions of law which must be
distinctly set forth.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LACK OF JURISDICTION &
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION
LACK of Jurisdiction EXCESS of Jurisdiction
At the very instance when You file a case, maybe it
the case was filed, the court was proper when you filed it,
really did not have but subsequent acts of the
jurisdiction. tribunal, board or court
renders it powerless to
further act.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
QUO WARRANTO
(RULE 66 Special Civil Action):
Section 1. Action by Government against individuals.
An action for the usurpation of a public office, position or
franchise may be commenced by a verified petition brought in
the name of the Republic of the Philippines …
➢ because it is only the Republic of the Philippines who
has the power to grant public office or a position, or a
franchise
➢ CONCURRENT with: CA & RTC
HABEAS CORPUS
(RULE 102 Special Proceedings):
Section 1. To what habeas corpus extends.
Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the writ of
habeas corpus shall extend to all cases of illegal confinement
or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, or
by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the
person entitled thereto.
➢ CONCURRENT with: CA & RTC
➢ Note: The petition for habeas corpus which is a
special proceeding which the SC has concurrent
jurisdiction with the CA & RTC, is different from the
complaint assailing the factual basis for the
declaration of martial law or the suspension of the writ
of habeas corpus whereby the SC has exclusive
original jurisdiction.
Madrian v. Madrian
[G.R. 159374 | 12 July 2007]
FACTS: Spouses Mardian separated. The husband brought
with him the 3 children, first to Albay and then to Laguna. The
wife filed a petition for habeas corpus before the CA. Because
that, the CA issued an order to explain the basis why the
husband took the children. The husband filed an answer with
a motion to dismiss the petition. According to the husband, the
CA has no jurisdiction to issue the writ of habeas corpus.
According to the husband the jurisdiction lies with the family
courts. Pursuant to RA 8369.
HELD: The provisions of RA 8369 must be read in harmony
with RA 7029 and BP 129 that family courts have concurrent
jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court
in petitions for habeas corpus where the custody of minors is
at issue.
Moreover, a careful reading of Section 5(b) of RA 8369 reveals
that family courts are vested with original exclusive jurisdiction
in custody cases, not in habeas corpus cases. Writs of habeas
corpus which may be issued exclusively by family courts under
Section 5(b) of RA 8369 pertain to the ancillary remedy that
may be availed of in conjunction with a petition for custody of
minors under Rule 99 of the Rules of Court. In other words, the
issuance of the writ is merely ancillary to the custody case
pending before the family court. The writ must be issued by the
same court to avoid splitting of jurisdiction, conflicting
decisions, interference by a co-equal court and judicial
instability.
The rule therefore is: when by law jurisdiction is conferred on
a court or judicial officer, all auxiliary writs, processes and
other means necessary to carry it into effect may be employed
by such court or officer. Once a court acquires jurisdiction over
the subject matter of a case, it does so to the exclusion of all
other courts, including related incidents and ancillary matters.
24

EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE ON HIERARCHY OF
COURTS
1. Constitutional Issues: Those involving genuine issues
of constitutionality that must be addressed in the most
immediate time.
2. Transcendental Importance: Those where the issues
are of transcendental importance and the threat to the
fundamental constitutional rights are so grave as to
outweigh the necessity for prudence.
3. Novel Questions of Law: cases of first impression
where no jurisprudence yet exists that would guide the
lower courts on such issues.
4. Where the constitutional issues raised are better decided
after a thorough deliberation by an immediate body and
with a concurrence of the majority of those who
participated in the discussion.
5. Where time is of the essence.
6. Where the act being questioned was that of a
constitutional body.
7. Where there is no other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary courts of law that would free
petitioner from the injurious effects of respondents acts
of violation of their constitutional rights.
8. The issues involve public welfare, the advancement of
public policy, the broader interest of justice or where the
orders complained of are patent nullities or where appeal
can be considered as clearly an appropriate remedy.
The following cases illustrate the aforementioned exceptions.
Chavez v. Romulo
[G.R. 157036 | 9 June 2004]
On the alleged breach of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts,
suffice it to say that the doctrine is not an iron-clad dictum. In
several instances where this Court was confronted with cases
of national interest and of serious implications, it never
hesitated to set aside the rule and proceed with the judicial
determination of the cases. The case at bar is of similar import
as it involves the citizens’ right to bear arms.
Government of the United States v. Hon. Guillermo
Purganan
[G.R. 148571 | 24 September 2002]
This case concerns bail in extradition proceedings. The SC
took cognizance of the case directly.
General Rule: A petition for certiorari before a higher court will
not prosper unless the inferior court has been given, through
a motion for reconsideration, a chance to correct the errors
imputed to it. This rule, though, has certain exceptions:
(1) when the issue raised is purely of law,
(2) when public interest is involved, or
(3) in case of urgency.
As a fourth exception, the Court has also ruled that the filing of
a motion for reconsideration before availment of the remedy of
certiorari is not a sine qua non, when the questions raised are
the same as those that have already been squarely argued
and exhaustively passed upon by the lower court. Aside from
being of this nature, the issues in the present case also involve
pure questions of law that are of public interest. Hence, a
motion for reconsideration may be dispensed with.
Likewise, this Court has allowed a direct invocation of its
original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari when there are
special and important reasons therefor.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
COMELEC v. Quijano-Padilla
[G.R. 151992 | 18 September 2002 | 389 SCRA 623]
This case is concerned with the government contract with
Photokina Marketing Corporation regarding the Voter’s
Registration and Identification System Project (VRIS).
HELD: Anent the alleged breach of the doctrine of hierarchy
of courts, suffice it to say that it is not an iron-clad dictum. On
several instances where this Court was confronted with cases
of national interest and of serious implications, it never
hesitated to set aside the rule and proceed with the judicial
determination of the case. The case at bar is of similar
import. It is in the interest of the State that questions relating
to government contracts be settled without delay. This is more
so when the contract, as in this case, involves the
disbursement of public funds and the modernization of our
country’s election process, a project that has long been
overdue.
Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB v. Executive Secretary
Ronaldo Zamora
[G.R. 142801 -802 | 10 July 2001]
Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) is the
agency primarily responsible for anti-smuggling operations in
all land areas and inland waters and waterways outside areas
of sole jurisdiction of the Bureau of Customs. In 29 March 2000
Estrada issued EO 223 providing that all EIIB personnel
occupying positions specified therein are deemed separated
from service pursuant to a bona fide reorganization.
HELD: SC took cognizance of the case stating that it is in the
interest of the State that questions relating to the status and
existence of a public office be settled without delay.
Fortich v. Corona
[G.R. 131457 | 24 April 1998 | 289 SCRA 624]
144 ha agricultural land in Bukidnon was converted into agro-
industrial land. In response, the Farmer-beneficiaries
commenced a hunger strike. In response, the OP and the
Deputy Executive Secretary, Corona issued a so-called “win-
win resolution” where only 44 ha would be converted.
HELD: The Supreme Court has the full discretionary power to
take cognizance of a petition for certiorari filed directly to it if
compelling reasons, or the nature and importance of the
issues raised, warrant.
25

[3] Cases Affecting Ambassadors, Public Ministers
and Consuls
[3] Exercise concurrent original jurisdiction with the RTC in
cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers and
consuls.
Section 21 #2 BP 129
Article VIII Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution.
These cases can be filed before the RTC or the SC.
[4] & [5] Petition for Writ of Kalikasan & Writ of
Continuing Mandamus
[4] Exercise concurrent original jurisdiction with the CA in
petitions for writ of kalikasan
AM 09-6-8-SC [April 29, 2010]
RULE 7. Section 1. Nature of the writ.—The writ is a remedy
available to a natural or juridical person, entity authorized by
law, people’s organization, non-governmental organization, or
any public interest group accredited by or registered with any
government agency, on behalf of persons whose constitutional
right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or
threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a
public official or employee, or private individual or entity,
involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to
prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or
more cities or provinces.
Section 3. Where to file. — The petition shall be filed with the
Supreme Court or with any of the stations of the Court of
Appeals.
[5] Exercise concurrent original jurisdiction with the RTC &
CA in petitions for writ of continuing mandamus, and
AM 09-6-8-SC [April 29, 2010]
RULE 8. Section 1. Petition for continuing mandamus.—
When any agency or instrumentality of the government or
officer thereof unlawfully neglects the performance of an act
which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an
office, trust or station in connection with the enforcement or
violation of an environmental law rule or regulation or a right
therein, or unlawfully excludes another from the use or
enjoyment of such right and there is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person
aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper
court, alleging the facts with certainty, attaching thereto
supporting evidence, specifying that the petition concerns an
environmental law, rule or regulation, and praying that
judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to do an
act or series of acts until the judgment is fully satisfied, and to
pay damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the
malicious neglect to perform the duties of the respondent,
under the law, rules or regulations. The petition shall also
contain a sworn certification of non-forum shopping.
SEC. 2. Where to file the petition. — The petition shall be
filed with the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over
the territory where the actionable neglect or omission occurred
or with the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
[6] Writ of Amparo
[6] Exercise concurrent original jurisdiction with the CA,
RTC & SB the writ of amparo.
AM 07-9-12-SC [25 September 2007]
Section 1. Petition. - The petition for a writ of amparo is a
remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and
security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful
act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private
individual or entity.
The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances or threats thereof.
Sec. 3. Where to File. - The petition may be filed on any day
and at any time with the Regional Trial Court of the place
where the threat, act or omission was committed or any of its
elements occurred, or with the Sandiganbayan, the Court of
Appeals, the Supreme Court, or any justice of such courts. The
writ shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.
When issued by a Regional Trial Court or any judge thereof,
the writ shall be returnable before such court or judge.
When issued by the Sandiganbayan or the Court of Appeals
or any of their justices, it may be returnable before such court
or any justice thereof, or to any Regional Trial Court of the
place where the threat, act or omission was committed or any
of its elements occurred.
When issued by the Supreme Court or any of its justices, it
may be returnable before such Court or any justice thereof, or
before the Sandiganbayan or the Court of Appeals or any of
their justices, or to any Regional Trial Court of the place where
the threat, act or omission was committed or any of its
elements occurred.
Note: The writ of amparo has a broader coverage than the writ
of habeas corpus, which only covers restraint on liberty. The
writ of amparo also covers threats to life, liberty, and security.
Returnable means – that is the Court where you can explain
and argue.
5 KINDS OF WRIT OF AMPARO
1. Amparo Libertad – For the protection of personal
freedom equivalent to the habeas corpus writ.
2. Amparo Contra Leyes – For the judicial review of
constitutionality of statutes.
3. Amparo Casación – for the judicial review of the
constitutionality and legality of a judicial decision.
4. Amparo Administrativo – for the judicial review of
administrative actions.
5. Amparo Agrario – for the protection of peasants’ rights
derived from the agrarian reform process.
26
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG

Limitations on the Power of Congress

APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME
COURT ARTICLE VI.
SECTION 30. No law shall be passed increasing the appellate
Appellate Jurisdiction jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this
When you say appellate jurisdiction of the SC, it means that Constitution without its advice and concurrence.
the case was already decided by a lower court or agency and
then it is elevated to the SC. ARTICLE VIII
SECTION 2. The Congress shall have the power to define,
Article VIII. Section 5 [1987 Constitution] prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of various courts but
The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.
certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final
judgments and orders of lower courts in: No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any undermines the security of tenure of its Members.
treaty, international or executive agreement, law,
presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, Note: Again, the jurisdiction of the SC is laid down in the
ordinance, or regulation is in question. Constitution. The congress cannot decree also the jurisdiction
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, of the SC. This would be under BP 129.
assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation
thereto.
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in General Rule: The SC is not a trier of facts. It is not the
issue. function of the SC to determine the weight of the evidence
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is supporting the assailed decision.
reclusion perpetua or higher.
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is This is ordinarily the duty of the lower courts. This is because
involved. the SC does not ordinarily conduct hearings. Its rulings are
typically based on the documents and papers it receives. The
The law says on appeal or certiorari. There is a difference trial is usually with the RTC and the CA, so they are in the best
between an appeal by certiorari and petition for review on position to know the facts because they come face to face with
certiorari. Certiorari is governed by Rule 65. the parties. In this way, they can see the demeanor of the
parties. For instance, if the case involves property, they can
Petition for Review on Appeal on Certiorari visit the site, etc.
Certiorari [Rule 45] [Rule 65]
Ordinary Appeal Original Action Exception to the Rule that the SC is NOT a Trier of Facts
Continuation of the case Correction of errors of Exceptions: Cases involving the factual basis for the
from either the CA, the SB, jurisdiction – one in which declaration of Martial Law and suspension of the privilege of
RTC or other courts. the act complained of was the writ of habeas corpus.
issued by the court, officer,
or quasi-judicial body Other Exceptions:
without or in excess of (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on
jurisdiction, or with grave speculations, surmises or conjectures;
abuse of discretion which is (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken,
tantamount to lack of or in absurd or impossible;
excess of jurisdiction. (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion;
The petition must raise only The purpose of the remedy (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of
pure questions of law, which of certiorari is to annul or facts;
must be distinctly set forth void proceedings; prevent (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting;
and discussed. unlawful and oppressive (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went
exercise of legal authority; beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are
and provide for a fair and contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and
orderly administration of the appellee;
justice. (7) when the findings are contrary to that of the trial court;
(8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of
specific evidence on which they are based;
(9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the
petitioners main and reply briefs are not disputed by the
respondent;
(10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed
absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence
on record; or
(11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked
certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which,
if properly considered, would justify a different
conclusion.

27

Cases Required to be Heard En Banc by the SC
OTHER JURISDICTIONS OF THE SC AS PROVIDED
1. Cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any
treaty, international or executive agreement, law,
2. Cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any
executive order, presidential decree, proclamation,
order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question;
3. cases which under the ROC must be decided en banc:
Declaration of successful candidates of the Philippine bar
and the taking of the oath.
4. Cases where the required number of votes(three votes)
in a Division cannot be obtained;
5. Cases where a doctrine or principle laid down by the
Court en banc or by a Division may be modified or
reversed;
6. Cases involving the discipline of a Member of the Court,
or a Presiding Justice, or any Associate Justice of the
collegial appellate courts;
7. Contest relating to the election, terms, and qualification
of the president or the vice president.
Legal Basis
ARTICLE VII. SECTION 4.
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of
all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications
of the President or Vice- President, and may promulgate its
rules for the purpose.
ARTICLE VIII. SECTION 4
(2) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty,
international or executive agreement, or law, which shall be
heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other cases
which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en
banc, including those involving the constitutionality,
application, or operation of presidential decrees,
proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other
regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of a
majority of the Members who actually took part in the
deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.
(3) Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or
resolved with the concurrence of a majority of the Members
who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the
case and voted thereon, and in no case, without the
concurrence of at least three of such Members. When the
required number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en
banc: Provided, that no doctrine or principle of law laid down
by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may
be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc.
ARTICLE VIII. SECTION 11.
The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts
shall hold office during good behavior until they reached the
age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the
duties of their office. The Supreme Court en banc shall have
the power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their
dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually
took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and
voted thereon.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
BY SPECIAL LAWS
1. Issuance of restraining orders against the DAR
RA 6657 CARP LAW
SEC. 55. No Restraining Order or Preliminary
Injunction. - Except for the Supreme Court, no court
in the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue any
restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction
against the PARC, the DAR, or any of its duly
authorized or designated agencies in any case,
dispute or controversy arising from, necessary to, or
in connection with the application, implementation,
enforcement, or interpretation of this Act and other
pertinent laws on agrarian reform.
Section 68. Immunity of Government Agencies
from Undue Interference. -No injunction, restraining
order, prohibition or mandamus shall be issued by the
lower courts against the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR), the Department of Agriculture (DA),
the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) and the Department of Justice
(DOJ) in their implementation of the program.
EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL w/: SC only
2. Appeal from Judgement of RTC for Violation of
International Humanitarian Law.
R.A. 9851 Philippine Act on Crimes Against
International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and
Other Crimes Against Humanity
Section 18. Philippine Court, Prosecutors and
Investigators. - The Regional Trial Court of the
Philippines shall have original and exclusive
jurisdiction over the crimes punishable under this Act.
Their judgments may be appealed or elevated to the
Court of Appeals and to the Supreme Court as
provided by law.
CONCURRENT APPELATE w/: SC & CA
28

JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
HISTORY OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
➢ First organized on February 1, 1936
➢ Current number of CA judges is 69 justices
BP Blg. 129
Section 9. Jurisdiction. – The Court of Appeals shall Exercise:
1. Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus,
prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo
warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or
not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for
annulment of judgements of Regional Trial Courts; and
3. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final
judgements, resolutions, orders or awards of Regional
Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies,
instrumentalities, boards or commission, including the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Social
Security Commission, the Employees Compensation
Commission and the Civil Service Commission, Except
those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution, the
Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential
Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of this Act,
and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and
subparagraph 4 of the fourth paragraph od Section 17
of the Judiciary Act of 1948.
The court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and
conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all
acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling
within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power
to grant and conduct new trials or Appeals must be continuous
and must be completed within three (3) months, unless
extended by the Chief Justice. (as amended by R.A. No.
7902.)
Classification of the Court of Appeals as a Court
➢ a superior court (versus first-level or inferior court)
➢ both an original and appellate court
➢ both a civil and criminal court
➢ both courts of law and equity
➢ a statutory court (versus a constitutional court)
CLASSIFICATIONS OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE CA
1. Original Jurisdiction of the CA
a. Exclusive Original
b. Concurrent Original
2. Appellate Jurisdiction
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
Letter of Associate Justice Reynato Puno of the
Court of Appeals Dated 14 November 1990
[A.M. No. 90 -11-2697-CA | 29 June 1992]
FACTS: After BP 129 took effect, petitioner became a justice
of the then IAC. When the 1986 EDSA Revolution occurred,
Pres. Aquino issued EO No. 33 to govern the reorganization
of the Judiciary. The Screening Committee recommended the
return of petitioner as Associate Justice of the new Court of
Appeals and assigned him the rank of number 11 in the roster
of appellate court justices. When the appointments were
signed by Pres. Aquino, however, petitioner‘s seniority ranked
changed from number 11 to 26. Petitioner then wrote the SC
to have his seniority rank in the CA be corrected in accordance
with Sec. 2 of EO 33, amending Sec. 3 of BP 129 regarding
precedence in rank. The SC granted his petition via resolution.
A motion for reconsideration was filed by 2 CA justices who
were affected by the resolution. They contend that the present
Court CA is a new Court and that petitioner could not claim a
reappointment to a prior court, neither can he claim that he
was returning to his former court, for the courts where he had
previously been appointed ceased to exist at the date of his
last appointment.
ISSUE Is the new CA is a continuity of the IAC?
RULING: NO. The present Court of Appeals is a new entity,
different and distinct from the Court of Appeals or the
Intermediate Appellate Court existing prior to Executive Order
No. 33, for it was created in the wake of the massive
reorganization launched by the revolutionary government of
Corazon C. Aquino in the aftermath of the people power
(EDSA) revolution in 1986. Hence, present CA appointments
have no relation to earlier appointments to the abolished
courts, and that the reference to precedence in rank invoked
by petitioner refers to prospective situations as distinguished
from retroactive ones.
29

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE CA
Exclusive Original Jurisdiction of the CA
NOTE: There is only one kind of case which belongs to the
Exclusive Original Jurisdiction of the CA.
ANNULMENT [Sec. 9 (2) of BP 129]
Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of
judgements of Regional Trial Courts.
Example: When the decision of the RTC is adverse to the
petitioner and the decision was made without notice to the
petitioner that there was an ongoing case. So wala ka kabalo
na ngakaso kaso na diay didto. Dayon nakuha na imong
property. You can have the decision of the RTC annulled under
Rule 47.
RULE 47
ANNULMENT OF JUDGEMENTS OF FINAL ORDERS AND
RESOLUTIONS
Section 1. Coverage. — This Rule shall govern the
annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders
and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts for
which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for
relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available
through no fault of the petitioner. (n)
Section 2. Grounds for annulment. — The annulment may
be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of
jurisdiction.
Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of,
or could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or
petition for relief. (n)
CONCURRENT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE
CA
1. Concurrent and original jurisdiction with SC to issue
writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against:
a. RTC
b. CSC
c. CBAA
d. Other Quasi-Judicial Entities mentioned in
Rule 43
e. NLRC
2. Concurrent and original jurisdiction with the SC and
the RTC to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus against lower courts and bodies and
writs of quo warranto and habeas corpus.
3. Concurrent and original jurisdiction with the SC, the
RTC, and the SB to issue writs of amparo.
4. Concurrent and original jurisdiction with the SC to
issue writs of kalikasan.
5. Concurrent and original jurisdiction with the RTC, SC,
and SB to issue writs of continuing mandamus.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
Implications of Concurrent Jurisdiction
Remember when a certain case is with the concurrent
jurisdiction of several courts.
1. You must observe the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
2. Where jurisdiction is concurrent, the Rule on Forum
Shopping must be observed.
FORUM SHOPPING
There is forum shopping when, as a result of a decision in one
forum or in anticipation thereof, a party seeks a favorable
opinion in another forum, through other means other than
appeal or certiorari.
CONSEQUENCE OF FORUM SHOPPING
Forum shopping is NOT allowed. The following are the
consequences of forum shopping:
1. The case can be dismissed.
2. The lawyer can be made administratively liable.
Zenaida Polanco et. al. v. Carmen Cruz
[G.R. No. 182426 | 13 February 2009]
There is forum-shopping when as a result of an adverse
decision in one forum, or in anticipation thereof, a party seeks
a favorable opinion in another forum through means other than
appeal or certiorari. Forum-shopping exists when two or more
actions involve the same transactions, essential facts, and
circumstances; and raise identical causes of action, subject
matter, and issues. Still another test of forum-shopping is
when the elements of litis pendencia are present or where a
final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in
another – whether in the two or more pending cases, there
is an identity of (a) parties (or at least such parties as
represent the same interests in both actions), (b) rights or
causes of action, and (c) reliefs sought.
Sixto P. Crisostomo v. SEC
[G.R. Nos. 89095 & 89555 | 6 November 1989]
A violation of this rule shall constitute contempt of court and
shall be a cause for the summary dismissal of both petitions,
without prejudice to the taking of appropriate action against the
counsel or party concerned. (Interim Rules of Court.)
30
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG

EXCLUSIVE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS
1. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction by way of ordinary
appeal over decisions of the RTC and the Family Courts.
(Section 9 [3] of BP 129)
2. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction by way of petition for
review over decisions of the RTC rendered by the RTC
in its exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. (Section 22 of
BP 129)
Difference between No. 1 & 2
1 2
Case was originally filed Case originated from the
with the RTC under its MTC. Petitioner loses,
original jurisdiction. and appeals to the RTC.
Petitioner loses and files an Petitioner loses again
appeal to the CA. files a petition for review
to the CA.
3. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction by way of petition for
review from the decisions resolutions, orders, or awards
of the CSC, the CBAA, and other bodies mentioned in
Rule 43 and of the Office of the OMB in administrative
and disciplinary cases. (Rule 43)
Note: I had a case before with the voluntary arbitrator.
And the decision was against my client. Diba dapat rule
43, but I was not able to file kay 15 days lang man na
sya. So it lapsed. What I did was I filed a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65, based on grave abuse of
discretion which has a period of 60 days. It was good
because, CA did not dismiss my case and the decision of
the voluntary arbitrator was reversed.
4. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the
MTC in Cadastral or Land Registration Cases pursuant
to its delegated jurisdiction. (Section 34, BP 129)
Note: Land Registration cases typically go to the RTC
but there are cases that are dedicated to the MTC. So
what happens if there is an unfavorable decision by the
MTC, then you appeal. In this case, you go directly to the
CA, not to the RTC, because that decision of the MTC is
delegated from the RTC. Therefore, you go directly to the
CA.
RULE 41
APPEAL FROM THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
Sec. 2. Modes of appeal. Ordinary appeal.- The appeal to the
Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court
in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing
a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment
or final order appealed from…
RULE 42
PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURTS TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
Section 1. How appeal taken; time for filing. - A party
desiring to appeal from a decision of the RTC rendered in the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction may file a verified petition
for review with the CA…
RULE 43
APPEALS FROM QUASI JUDICIAL AGENCIES TO THE
COURT OF APPEALS
Section 1. Scope. This Rule shall apply to appeals from
judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and from
awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or authorized
by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial
functions.
Among these agencies are the:
a) Civil Service Commission,
b) Central Board of Assessment Appeals,
c) Securities and Exchange Commission,
d) Office of the President,
e) Land Registration Authority,
f) Social Security Commission,
g) Civil Aeronautics Board,
h) Bureau of Patents,
i) Trademarks and Technology Transfer,
j) National Electrification Administration,
k) Energy Regulatory Board,
l) National Telecommunications Commission,
m) Department of Agrarian Reform under RA. 6657,
n) Government Service Insurance System,
o) Employees Compensation Commission,
p) Agricultural Inventions Board,
q) Insurance Commission,
r) Philippine Atomic Energy Commission,
s) Board of Investments,
t) Construction Industry Arbitration Commission(CIAC),
u) and voluntary arbitrators authorized by law.
Sec. 5. How appeal taken. Appeal shall be taken by filing a
verified petition for review with the CA…
NB: COURT OF TAX APPEALS is now appealable to the
Supreme court by petition for review on certiorari.
RA 9282 AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COURT OF TAX APPEALS (CTA), ELEVATING ITS RANK
TO THE LEVEL OF A COLLEGIATE COURT
SEC. 19. Review by Certiorari. - A party adversely affected
by a decision or ruling of the CTA en banc may file with the SC
a verified petition for review on certiorari pursuant to Rule 45
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Office of the Ombudsman v. Heirs of Margarita Vda.
De Ventura
[G.R. No. 151800 | 5 November 2009]
THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS APPELLATE
JURISDICTION OVER THE DECISIONS OF THE
OMBUDSMAN IN ADMINISTRATIVE CASES: The Court of
Appeals has jurisdiction over orders, directives and decisions
of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary
cases only. It cannot, therefore, review the orders, directives
or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-
administrative cases.
Is the CA a Trier of Fact or only of Law? – Both, the CA can
hear both questions of fact and questions of law.
Question of Fact Question of Law Mixed
When doubt or Where doubt or Treated as a
difference arises difference arises Question of Fact
as to the truth or as to what the law
falsehood of an is on a certain set
alleged fact. of facts.

31
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG

Lingner & Fisher GMBH v. IAC
[G.R. 6355 | 125 SCRA 522 | 28 October 1983]
FACTS: The petitioner lost a civil case in the lower court. It
then went on certiorari to the CA (the then IAC) and requested
that a hearing be held, conformably to the provisions of Section
9(3) of BP 129, on the question of whether or not it was doing
business in this country to determine whether it was properly
served with summons. The CA denied the petition.
ISSUE: Can the CA hold evidentiary hearings?
RULING: NO. The Appellate Court acted correctly in denying
the request for an evidentiary hearing. Evidence necessary in
regards to factual issues raised in cases falling within the
Appellate Court's original and appellate jurisdiction
contemplates "incidental" facts which were not touched upon,
or fully heard by the trial or respondent Court. The law could
not have intended that the Appellate Court would hold an
original and full trial of a main factual issue in a case, which
properly pertains to Trial Courts. So no trial de novo.
SEC. 7. Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and
Recording of Communications. -The provisions of Republic
Act No. 4200 (Anti-Wire Tapping Law) to the contrary
notwithstanding, a police or law enforcement official and the
members of his team may, upon a written order of the Court of
Appeals, listen to, intercept and record, with the use of any
mode, form, kind or type of electronic or other surveillance
equipment or intercepting and tracking devices, or with the use
of any other suitable ways and means for that purpose, any
communication, message, conversation, discussion, or
spoken or written words between members of a judicially
declared and outlawed terrorist organization, association, or
group of persons or of any person charged with or
suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit
terrorism.
[2] Issuance of Order for Opening of Bank
Accounts

SEC. 27. Judicial Authorization Required to Examine Bank

Deposits, Accounts, and Records. - The provisions of
EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL MISCELLANEOUS
Republic Act No. 1405 as amended, to the contrary
JURISDICTION OF THE CA notwithstanding, the justices of the Court of Appeals
designated as a special court to handle anti-terrorism cases …
to:
[1] Issuance of Order to Conduct Surveillance
(a) examine, or cause the examination of, the deposits,
of Terrorists. (Section 7) placements, trust accounts, assets and records in a
bank or financial institution; and
RA 9372 (b) gather or cause the gathering of any relevant
AN ACT TO SECURE THE STATE AND PROTECT OUR information about such deposits, placements, trust
PEOPLE FROM TERRORISM [March 6, 2007] accounts, assets, and records from a bank or financial
institution.
SEC. 3. Terrorism.- Any person who commits an act
punishable under any of the following provisions of the
Revised Penal Code:
a. Article 122 (Piracy in General and Mutiny in the High
Seas or in the Philippine Waters);
b. Article 134 (Rebellion or Insurrection);
c. Article 134-a (Coup d' Etat), Article 248 (Murder);
d. Article 267 (Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention);
e. Article 324 (Crimes Involving Destruction), or under:
1. Presidential Decree No. 1613 (The Law on Arson);
2. Republic Act No. 6969 (Toxic Substances and
Hazardous and Nuclear Waste Control Act of 1990);
3. Republic Act No. 5207, (Atomic Energy Regulatory
and Liability Act of 1968);
4. Republic Act No. 6235 (Anti-Hijacking Law);
5. Presidential Decree No. 532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti-
Highway Robbery Law of 1974); and,
6. Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended (Decree
Codifying the Laws on Illegal and Unlawful
Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or
Disposition of Firearms, Ammunitions or Explosives)

thereby sowing and creating a condition of widespread and

extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order to
coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand shall
be guilty of the crime of terrorism and shall suffer the penalty
of forty (40) years of imprisonment, without the benefit of
parole as provided for under Act No. 4103, otherwise known
as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.

32

JURISDICTION OF THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Primarily, the Jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court can be
found in Section 19 – 24 of BP Blg. 129.
Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional Trial Courts
shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is
incapable of pecuniary estimation;
(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein,
where the assessed value of the property involved
exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or for
civil actions in Metro Manila, where such the value
exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (50,000.00) except
actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of
lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is
conferred upon Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
(3) In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction
where he demand or claim exceeds One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or , in Metro Manila,
where such demand or claim exceeds Two hundred
thousand pesos (200,000.00);
(4) In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate,
where the gross value of the estate exceeds One
hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in probate
matters in Metro Manila, where such gross value
exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (200,000.00);
(5) In all actions involving the contract of marriage and
marital relations;
(6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any
court, tribunal, person or body exercising jurisdiction or
any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions;
(7) In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within
the exclusive original jurisdiction of a Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court and of the Courts of Agrarian
Relations as now provided by law; and
(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of
interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees,
litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the
property in controversy exceeds One hundred
thousand pesos (100,000.00) or, in such other
abovementioned items exceeds Two hundred
thousand pesos (200,000.00). (as amended by R.A.
No. 7691*)
Section 20. Jurisdiction in criminal cases. – Regional Trial
Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all
criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court,
tribunal or body, except those now falling under the exclusive
and concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which shall
hereafter be exclusively taken cognizance of by the latter.
Section 21. Original jurisdiction in other cases. – Regional
Trial Courts shall exercise original jurisdiction:
(1) In the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and
injunction which may be enforced in any part of their
respective regions; and
(2) In actions affecting ambassadors and other public
ministers and consuls.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
Section 22. Appellate jurisdiction. – Regional Trial Courts
shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective territorial
jurisdictions. Such cases shall be decided on the basis of the
entire record of the proceedings had in the court of origin and
such memoranda and/or briefs as may be submitted by the
parties or required by the Regional Trial Courts. The decision
of the Regional Trial Courts in such cases shall be appealable
by petition for review to the
Court of Appeals which may give it due course only when the
petition shows prima facie that the lower court has committed
an error of fact or law that will warrant a reversal or
modification of the decision or judgment sought to be
reviewed.
Section 23. Special jurisdiction to try special cases. – The
Supreme Court may designate certain branches of the
Regional Trial Courts to handle exclusively criminal cases,
juvenile and domestic relations cases, agrarian cases, urban
land reform cases which do not fall under the jurisdiction of
quasi-judicial bodies and agencies, and/or such other special
cases as the Supreme Court may determine in the interest of
a speedy and efficient administration of justice.
Section 24. Special Rules of Procedure. – Whenever a
Regional Trial Court takes cognizance of juvenile and
domestic relation cases and/or agrarian cases, the special
rules of procedure applicable under present laws to such
cases shall continue to be applied, unless subsequently
amended by law or by rules of court promulgated by the
Supreme Court.
Q. What is the nature of the Jurisdiction of the RTC?
A. As compared to a Municipal Trial Court, the RTC has
general jurisdiction, because, it can decide practically all
cases, because a case which does not fall under the
jurisdiction of any other court, falls under the catch-all
jurisdiction of the RTC, as distinguished from the limited
jurisdiction of the MTC.
NATURE OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE RTC
Similar to the SC and the CA, the RTC has:
1. Original Jurisdiction
a. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction (Section 19)
b. Concurrent Original Jurisdiction
2. Appellate Jurisdiction
33

EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE RTC
1. Exclusive Original jurisdiction involving actions incapable
of pecuniary estimation;
2. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction over actions involving title
to or possession of a property or any interest in real
property where the assessed values of such property
exceeds:
a. PhP 20,000 – outside of Metro Manila;
b. PhP 50,000 – within Metro Manila;
3. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction over actions in admiralty
or maritime jurisdiction where the amount of the claim
exceeds:
a. PhP 300,000 outside Metro Manila;
b. PhP 400,000 within Metro Manila;
4. Exclusive Original jurisdiction over matters of probate,
testate, or intestate where the gross value of the estate
exceeds:
a. PhP 300,000 outside Metro Manila
b. PhP 400,000 within Metro Manila
5. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction over cases not falling
within the jurisdiction of any Court, Tribunal, Person or
Body, exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
6. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction in all other cases in which
the demand exclusive of interest, damages of whatever
kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and cost, or the
value of the property in controversy exceeds:
a. P400,000 in Metro Manila
b. P300,000 in any other place
7. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction in Intra-corporate disputes
(Section 5.2 of RA 8799).
4 TYPES OF CASES WHERE THE RTC HAS ORIGINAL
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION:
1. Cases involving devises or schemes employed by or any
acts, of the board of directors, business associates, its
officers or partnership, amounting to fraud and
misrepresentation which may be detrimental to the interest
of the public and/or of the stockholders, partners, members
of associations or organizations registered with the SEC.
2. Intra-corporate disputes or partnership relations, between
and among stockholders, members or associates;
between any or all of them and the corporation, partnership
or association of which they are stockholders, members or
associates, respectively; and between such corporation,
partnership or association and the state.
3. Controversies in the election or appointments of directors,
trustees, officers or managers of such corporations,
partnerships or associations.
4. Petitions of corporations, partnerships or associations to
be declared in the state of suspension of payments.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
[1] ACTION INCAPABLE OF PECUNIARY
ESTIMATION
In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is
incapable of pecuniary estimation. This entails that the value
of the action cannot be estimated in terms of money.
EXAMPLES
❖ action for specific performance – whenever there is a breach of
contract, plaintiff may file either for specific performance or
rescission. However, note that there are some cases in which the
SC has ruled that the action was capable of pecuniary estimation.
❖ action for rescission
❖ action for support (or necessaries) - declaration of entitlement
for support and amount for support always varies and depends on
the capacity of the giver and necessity of the recipient.
Additionally, you must prove filiation first before you can be
awarded support.
❖ action for foreclosure of mortgage – enforcement of the
accessory contract of mortgage, not the principal contract of loan.
This is because although the mortgage actually has a value, what
you are enforcing is the accessory contract of mortgage.
❖ action for questioning validity of mortgage – contending that
contract is null and void and not suing on a specific amount
❖ action for annulment of judgment or foreclosure – the validity
of the judgment, no amount involved
❖ action for annulment of deed of sale or conveyance – the
validity of the deed of sale
❖ action for recovery of the price paid in a contract – actually a
rescission of the contract, this is still rescission;
❖ action for expropriation – propriety of the taking for public use
❖ action for appointment of administrator of an estate
❖ action for injunction with prayer for TRO
Russell v. Vestil
[304 SCRA 739]
HELD: [I]n determining whether an action is one the subject
matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation this
Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature
of the principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for
the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered
capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in
the municipal courts or in the courts of first instance would
depend on the amount of the claim. However, where the basic
issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of
money, where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a
consequence of, the principal relief sought, this Court has
considered such actions as cases where the subject of the
litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are
cognizable exclusively by courts of first instance (now
Regional Trial Courts).
34

Bardillon v. Barangay Masili of Calamba Laguna
[GR 146886 | 30 April 2003]
This case is concerned with expropriation. You might think that
there is just the determination of just compensation in the case,
so why is it incapable of pecuniary estimation?
HELD: An expropriation suit does not involve the recovery of
a sum of money. Rather, it deals with the exercise by the
government of its authority and right to take property for public
use. As such, it is incapable of pecuniary estimation and
should be filed with the regional trial courts.
The following are the main issues in an expropriation case:
1. The right and authority to expropriate - Whether the
government or any of its instrumentalities has
complied with the requisites for the taking of property
and the authority of the entity who exercises the right
to appropriate;
2. the necessity of appropriation; and
3. The observance of due process.
Just compensation is only determined after the
aforementioned issues are resolved. Just compensation is
only incidental to expropriation proceedings.
Iniego v. Purganan Et. Al.
[GR 166876 | 24 March 2006 ]
An action for damages based on quasi-delict is capable of
pecuniary estimation. In order to determine whether an action
is incapable of pecuniary estimation, it is not the cause of
action which is determinative but the subject matter of the
action. When there is quasi-delict the relief sought is
reparation, restoration and indemnification.
HELD: In determining whether an action is one the subject
matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation this
Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature
of the principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for
the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered
capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction
is in the municipal courts or in the courts of first instance
[now Regional Trial Courts] would depend on the amount
of the claim. However, where the basic issue is something
other than the right to recover a sum of money, where the
money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the
principal relief sought like suits to have the defendant perform
his part of the contract (specific performance) and in actions
for support, or for annulment of a judgment or to foreclose a
mortgage, this court has considered such actions as cases
where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in
terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by courts of
first instance [now Regional Trial Courts].
Mendoza v. Teh
[GR 122646 | 14 March 1997 ]
An action for reconveyance, which involves title to property
worth millions of pesos, such as the lots subject of this case,
is cognizable by the RTC. Likewise falling within its jurisdiction
are actions "incapable of pecuniary estimation," such as the
appointment of an administratrix for an estate. Even the
Rules on venue of estate proceedings (Section 1 of Rule 73)
impliedly recognizes the jurisdiction of the RTC over petitions
for granting of letters of administration. On the other hand,
probate proceedings for the settlement of estate are within the
ambit of either the RTC or MTC depending on the net worth of
the estate. By arguing that the allegation seeking such
appointment as administratrix ousted the RTC of its
jurisdiction, both public and private respondents confuse
jurisdiction with venue. Section 2 of Rule 4 as revised by
Circular 13-95 provides that actions involving title to property
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
shall be tried in the province where the property is located, in
this case, — Batangas. The mere fact that petitioner's
deceased husband resides in Quezon City at the time of his
death affects only the venue but not the jurisdiction of the
Court.
Bases Conversion Development Authority v.
Elipidio Uy
[GR 144062 | 2 November 2006]
Section 19 of BP 129 shows that a Regional Trial Court has
jurisdiction over all civil cases in which the subject of litigation
is incapable of pecuniary estimation. Jurisprudence has
recognized complaints for injunction with a prayer for
temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary
injunction. We explained at length this specie of cases
in Manila Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals:
In the factual setting at bar, the Court rules that the
Parañaque RTC has jurisdiction over the complaint of
respondent Uy it being a case in which the subject of
litigation for permanent injunction against the termination of
his contract, is incapable of pecuniary estimation. The prayer
of respondent Uy in Civil Case No. 99-0425 to permanently
enjoin petitioners from rescinding the LCA, is not forbidden
under RA 7227, PD 1818, and RA 8975. Said prohibitive
laws cover only temporary or preliminary restraining orders
or injunctions to prevent unjustified stoppage of the
implementation of government projects; but not permanent
injunctions.
Explanation on Rescission and Specific Performance
Generally, this action is incapable of pecuniary estimation
because when you file an action for specific performance or
rescission, it’s either you want the other party to comply with
his undertaking in the contract. Such compliance cannot be
estimated in sum of money. If you would like the contract to be
rescinded or ask for mutual restitution, it’s the same.
For example, A sold to B his land for 1Million PhP. B, the
buyer, already paid the 1Million. But A did not deliver the land.
Now, B would like to file a case for specific performance, where
will you file the case. Let’s say the assessed value of the land
is P15,000. When you say assessed value it’s what’s declared
in the tax declaration, which is in contrast to the market value.
Typically this is confused with the cases involving title to real
estate, where jurisdiction depends on the assessed value –
MTC if 20K Below. But if you file for specific performance, then
it’s automatic RTC because incapable of pecuniary estimation.
EXAMPLE:
An action for specific performance plus damages was filed.
Where do you file the case? What is the nature of the action?
Remember, Article 1191, if there’s a breach, you can file an
action for specific performance and damages or rescission and
damages.
GENERAL RULE: If there is a main action and damages will
only be an additional claim, jurisdiction will be determined
based on the main action. If it is for specific performance and
damages, we only look at specific performance; damages
would be ancillary to the case.
EXCEPTION: Demand is in the alternative.
35

pouses Pajares v. Remarkable Laundry
[G.R. NO. 212690, FEBRUARY 20, 2017 ]
Facts: The complaint was filed by Respondent was
denominated as breach of contract with damages against
Spouses Pajares.
• Respondent alleged that it entered into a Remarkable Dealer Outlet
Contract with petitioners whereby the latter, acting as a dealer
outlet, shall accept and receive items or materials for laundry which
are then picked up and processed by the former in its main plant or
laundry outlet; that petitioners violated Article IV (Standard
Required Quota & Penalties) of said contract.
• Respondent made written demands upon petitioners for the
payment of penalties imposed and provided for in the contract, but
the latter failed to pay; alleging that petitioners' violation constitutes
breach of contract.
• The RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction saying that the
total amount alleged in the complaint is only 280,000 pesos.
• Respondent argued that as the case is for breach of contract, or one
whose subject is incapable of pecuniary estimation, jurisdiction thus
falls with the RTC.
Issue: What court has jurisdiction?
Held: It is the Municipal Trial Court. The real nature of the
action is neither one of specific performance or rescission of a
contract. The prayer in the complaint was the payment of
damages. An analysis of the factual and material allegations
in the Complaint shows that there is nothing therein which
would support a conclusion that respondent's Complaint is one
for specific performance or rescission of contract. The nature
of the violated contract involves payment of liquidated
damages; it was a penal clause.
Petitioners' responsibility under the penal clause (Article IV
Standard Required Quota & Penalties) involves the payment
of liquidated damages because under Article 2226 of the Civil
Code the amount the parties stipulated to pay in case of
breach are liquidated damages. "It is attached to an obligation
in order to ensure performance and has a double function:
(1) to provide for liquidated damages, and (2) to strengthen the
coercive force of the obligation by the threat of greater
responsibility in the event of breach.
The complaint is one for damages. In an action for damages,
the court which has jurisdiction is determined by the total
amount of damages claimed.
Paragraph 8, Section 1938 of BP 129, as amended by
Republic Act No. 7691,39 provides that where the amount of
the demand exceeds ₱300,000.00, exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation
expenses, and costs, exclusive jurisdiction is lodged with the
RTC. Otherwise, jurisdiction belongs to the Municipal Trial
Court. Respondent's complaint denominated as one for
"'Breach of Contract & Damages" is neither an action for
specific performance nor a complaint for rescission of contract.
In reality, even if the alleged that there was a breach of
contract, the main relief asked for was merely the payment of
damages. They invoked the penal clause of the contract which
stipulated for liquidated damages, and under BP 129 when the
claim is purely for damages the value of the claim shall be the
basis of jurisdiction.
Notwithstanding the title of the case the main relief was only
for damages, there was nothing else in the contract which
sought to be performed. The prayer merely asked for
damages, it is not incapable of pecuniary estimation.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
Cruz v. Tan
[GR L-3448 | 27 November 1950]
Facts: What is involved is an action to compel the defendant
to deliver the house by completing its transaction or to pay the
sum of 644.41 Pesos. Both are main actions but in the
alternative.
Held: The Supreme Court said that when an action is in the
alternative, then the case becomes capable of pecuniary
estimation and therefore the jurisdiction shall be based on the
amount prayed for damages. The claim for damages also
becomes a main action because it is alternative.
*Note the conjunction and (damages as ancillary to the action);
or (damages is a main action).
Ortigas & Company v. Judge Herrera
[GR L-36096 | 21 January 1983]
Facts:
• The contract involved was a contract to sell of a parcel of
land.
• The petitioner agreed to sell to the latter a parcel of land with
a special condition that should private respondent as
purchaser complete the construction including the painting
of his residential house on said lot within two (2) years from
August 14, 1969, petitioner, as owner, has agreed to refund
to private respondent the amount of P10.00 per square
meter.
• There was a request for refund because he was able to
complete the construction in two years.
• Petitioner failed to pay the obligation. Private respondent
filed a complaint for sum of money and damages with the
City Court of Manila (MTC).
• A motion to dismiss was filed by petitioner on grounds of
lack of jurisdiction.
• Petitioner thus filed the present petition and argues among
others that: (a) as determined from the allegations of the
complaint, the action is for specific performance of contract;
and (b) actions in which the subject of litigation is not
capable of pecuniary estimation such as complaints for
specific performance of contract are exclusively cognizable
by the Court of First Instance.
Issue: Whether or not the City Court of Manila, Branch II, has
jurisdiction over the complaint.
Held: The CFI has jurisdiction. The action involved in this case
is one for specific performance and not for a sum of money
and wherefore incapable of pecuniary estimation because
what private respondent seeks is the performance of
petitioner's obligation under a written contract to make a refund
but under certain specific conditions still to be proven or
established.
Even if the plaintiff would like to recover a sum of 4820 pesos,
it was just a consequence of the fulfillment of the obligation
which makes it a case incapable of pecuniary estimation. The
payment of money is only incidental which can only be ordered
after a determination of certain facts, the performance of which
being the more basic issue inquired.
36

SSS v. Atlantic Gulf & Co
[GR 175952 | 30 April 2008]
Facts: There’s an agreement for SSS to make a dation in
payment; there’s originally a monetary obligation but the
debtor cannot pay the obligation and therefore he is offering
property perhaps to pay the same. Dation in payment is
governed by the law on sales; the debt becomes the price of
the sale. The other party refused to comply with the obligation
to convey a property by way of dation in payment.
Issue: What is the nature of the case if you want to file an
action against the party who reuse toto convey the property by
means of dation in payment?
Held: The Supreme Court said it is an action for specific
performance. You do not look at the value of the property
subject of the dation in payment because what we are talking
here is the performance of an obligation which is sourced from
a contract. The obligation for the enforcement of a dation in
payment.
[2] ACTIONS INVLOVING TITLE TO OR
POSSESSION OF A PROPERTY OR ANY INTEREST
IN REAL PROPERTY
General Rule - All civil actions which involve the title to, or
possession of or any interest in real property where the
assessed value of the property involved:
a. exceeds P50,000 in Metro Manila; or
b. exceeds P20,000 in any other place.
Exception - Except actions for:
a. forcible entry; and
b. unlawful detainer (jurisdiction is with the MTC).
What we have to take note here is the assessed value of the
property. If it exceeds 20,000 pesos, outside Metro Manila, the
jurisdiction is with the RTC.
Heirs of Sebe v. Heirs of Sevilla
[GR 174497 | 12 October 2009]
Facts: The case is for the declaration of nullity for the
document of conveyance that Sevilla allegedly tricked them
into signing and as a consequence of the declaration of nullity
of that contract is reconveyance of the certificate of titles for
the two lots that Sevilla succeeded to get from them because
of fraud that made them sign the document. They filed a case
with the RTC.
Issue 1: WON the RTC has jurisdiction.
Held: The action is, therefore, about ascertaining which of
these parties is the lawful owner of the subject lots, jurisdiction
over which is determined by the assessed value of such lots.
The present action is, therefore, not about the declaration of
the nullity of the documents or the reconveyance to the Sebes
of the certificates of title covering the two lots. These would
merely follow after the trial court shall have first resolved the
issue of which between the contending parties is the lawful
owner of such lots, the one also entitled to their possession.
Based on the pleadings, the ultimate issue is whether or not
defendant Sevilla defrauded the Sebes of their property by
making them sign documents of conveyance rather than just a
deed of real mortgage to secure their debt to him.
This clearly falls within the jurisdiction of the MTC.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
Issue 2: What is the meaning of an action involving title to real
property?
Held: The Supreme Court said that it means that the plaintiffs
cause of action is based on a claim that he owns such
property or that he has the legal rights to have exclusive
control, possession, enjoyment, or disposition of the
property.
Title is the legal link between (1) a person who owns property
and (2) the property itself. We are talking here of real property.
In reality, it is not that easy to determine. There are several
cases which reached the Supreme Court where that is exactly
the issue.
Sometimes a lot get confused whether the case is an action
incapable of pecuniary estimation or an action involving title to
real property.
How do we make a distinction? Basically, if you cannot value
an action in terms of money the it is incapable of pecuniary
estimation.
San Pedro v. Asdala
[GR 164560 | 22 July 2009]
Facts: The case is for Accion Reivindicatoria, Quieting of Title
and Damages. The allegation here according to the plaintiffs
is that petitioners with malice and evident bad faith claimed
that they were the owners of a parcel of land that
encompasses and covers subject property. So they were
prevented from entering, and possessing the property.
Issue: What is the nature of the case?
Held: This is an action involving title to or possession of real
property. They were claiming the right of possession over the
property.
General Rule: Action for reconveyance, accion
reinvidicatoria; action to recover ownership, quieting of title
are actions that affect title to or possession of property. To
determine which court has jurisdiction, we have to determine
the assessed value of the property.
Spouses Huguete v. Spouses Amarillo
[GR 149554 | 1 July 2003]
Facts:
• Huguete bought a parcel of land from their son-in-law which he also
bought from certain Lourdes.
• The spouses eventually were able to fully pay the property.
• The Property coming from Lourdes had 150 square meters.
• The one bought by Jufredo the son-in-law, but the portion sold to
the spouses were only 50 square meters.
• Spouses demanded the title of the land to their names and partition
since the lot is still consolidated under the name of Lourdes.
• Juferdo had several reasosn until eventually, the spouses learned
that Jufredo had the title for the entire 150 square meters in his
name alone.
• Spouses Huguete demanded execution of the partition and to
transfer the title to their names, to no avail, they filed a case. The
case filed was Annulment of TCT No. 99694 (150 square meters in
favor of Jufredo), Tax Declaration No. 46493, and Deed of Sale,
Partition (establish the boundary), Damages and Attorneys Fees
before the Regional Trial Court.
• Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, arguing
that the total assessed value of the subject land was only
P15,000.00 which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Municipal Trial Court.
• Petitioners assert that their action is incapable of pecuniary
estimation.
Issue: What is the nature of the case?
37

Held: This is an action involving title to real property which
should be based on the assessed value of the real property. If
the value is 15,000 pesos, this is well within the jurisdiction of
the Municipal Trial Court. The case was filed before the wrong
court.
Partition shows that it is an action involving title to or
possession over the property. According to the Supreme
Court, he nature of an action is not determined by what is
stated in the caption of the complaint but by the allegations of
the complaint and the reliefs prayed for.
Here, the ultimate objective of the plaintiffs is to obtain title to
real property, it should be filed in the proper court having
jurisdiction over the assessed value of the property subject
thereof.
The reliance of the petitioners on the case of Russell v. Vestil
is misplaced. In the said case, petitioners sought the
annulment of the document entitled, Declaration of Heirs and
Deed of Confirmation of Previous Oral Partition, there are
several heirs, but certain heirs partitioned the property only
among themselves. Petitioners brought the action in order for
them to be recognized as heirs (main relief) in the partition of
the property of the deceased. It was held that the action to
annul the said deed was incapable of pecuniary estimation and
the consequent annulment of title and partition of the
property was merely incidental to the main action.
EXAMPLE:
A sold a land to B. A paid 1 million but B failed to deliver the
land. A filed an action against B for specific performance. What
is the nature of that case?
It is incapable of pecuniary estimation because what is
involved is the delivery of the land. Tradition confers
ownership, here there was no delivery yet.
You have to familiarize yourself with the facts, if there is a
problem presented, apply the case which is most analogous.
My own evaluation of the case of Vestil, why the Supreme
Court considered this as an action incapable of pecuniary
estimation even if there was a prayer for partition, is that the
heirs here were already owners of the property upon the
death of the decedent. It was not partition which is the mode
of acquiring ownership, it is succession.
In Huguete it was really about the title because they bought
the property from their son-in-law. Knowing that the title was
issued in the name solely to the son-in-law they filed an
action for annulment of title. It was not just a case of
segregating the portions, but they really have to assert title
over the property.
In reality, you cannot say that there is a clear-cut rule. You
have to familiarize the cases.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
SEVERAL ACTIONS INVOLVING TITLE TO PROPERTY
1.) accion publiciana
2.) accion reinvindicatoria
3.) accion interdictal
a. forcible entry
b. unlawful detainer
A is the owner of a parcel of land. B suddenly is in possession
of that land through force, intimidation, strategy, threat, or
stealth. What can you file against B to recover the property?
Accion interdictal; within the jurisdiction of the MTC, no matter
what the assessed value of the property is. It has two kinds:
(1) Unlawful detainer – originally the possession was lawful, by
virtue of a contract, such as lease, or maybe because of the
tolerance of the owner but the contract or the tolerance has
ended. Within one year from demand, the occupant fails to
return the property to the owner, the owner can file an action
for unlawful detainer.
(2) Forcible entry – You can file it one year from the occurrence
of force, intimidation, strategy, threat, or stealth.
The issue here is not with regard possession of ownership or
de facto, it is possession in fact or de jure.
If a case was not filed within one year you can still recover.
You can file accion publiciana or recovery of possession. Here,
we now base on the assessed value of the property. If the
assessed value of the property is more than 20,000 the
jurisdiction belongs to the RTC, if below, MTC. The issue here
is who has the better right of possession.
The other one is accion reinvidicatoria, here you want to
recover ownership. The jurisdiction is determined based on the
assessed value of the property. Exceeding 20,000 the
jurisdiction belongs to the RTC, if below, MTC.
What if the assessed value is not alleged? The court will
dismiss the case.
[3] ACTION IN ADMIRALTY OR MARITIME
JURISDICTION
Those involving acts committed in the high seas or navigable
waters and those involving contracts and transactions
connected with shipping employed in the seas or navigable
waters.
38

[4] MATTERS OF PROBATE, TESTATE, OR
INTESTATE
All matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the
gross value of the estate:
a. exceeds P400,000 in Metro Manila or
b. exceeds P300,000 in any other place.
Based on Section 19 (4), jurisdiction id determined by the
gross value of the estate.
TESTATE: Decedent has a will. The will is not automatically
recognized.
INTESTATE: Decedent has no will. If heirs cannot settle on
how to partition the property, they have to go to court to fil a
petition for the settlement of the intestate estate of the
decedent.
PROBATE: is a proceeding to determine genuiness and due
authenticity of the will.
Probate courts are distinguished from ordinary courts; a
regional trial court exercising its regular or general jurisdiction
as opposed from a regional trial court acting as a probate
court.
The jurisdiction of the probate court are only matters regarding
the settlement of the estate; whether the will is valid.
In some cases, the probate court can determine questions of
ownership. Example, there is an inventory of the properties of
the decedent, but it was claimed that there is a property not
belonging to the decedent. While the probate court can
provisionally determine the ownership of that property, it is
only for the purposes of knowing whether that property should
be included in the inventory or excluded. To determine who
really is the owner of the property, a separate action must be
filed for that purpose which falls in the jurisdiction of the regular
courts.
Decisions regarding ownership by the probate court are
provisional and will not constitute res judicata.
Although there’s an exception to the general rule: If the
interested party are all heirs or the parties consent to the
assumption of jurisdiction by the probate court, and third
parties are not injured thereby, the probate court may decide
questions on ownership.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
[5] ALL CASES NOT FALLING WITHIN THE
JURISDICTOON OF ANY COURT, TRIBUNAL,
PERSON OR BODY
RTC’S CATCH-ALL JURISDICTION
All cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of another court,
tribunal or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
You have to know the jurisdiction of other tribunals and quasi-
judicial agencies.
RULES
• The rule here is if the issue can be resolved by reference
to general law (for example the new civil code), then the
REGULAR COURTS have jurisdiction (it can be the RTC
or the MTC, depending on the subject matter of the case.
• If the issue can be resolved by reference to special laws
(like that law on the HLURB, ERB, Labor Code), then the
tribunal or QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY which implements or
has competence over the said special law has jurisdiction.
• If the issue can only be resolved by the application of more
than one law, then that must be brought before the
REGULAR COURTS.
Fajardo vs. Bautista
[GR 102193 -97 | 10 May 1994]
For example an action is incapable of pecuniary estimation,
therefore it falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC.
Facts: But here a developer of a subdivision having been
charged of sold lots where there was already a previous
contract to sell. He was charged for violating a contract; breach
of contract and specific performance.
Issue: Who has jurisdiction?
Ruling: Ordinarily it is incapable of pecuniary estimation, but,
here the jurisdiction lies before the HLURB by virtue of PD
1344. The HLURB has the exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases
of unsound real estate practices. It shall also involve actions
for specific performance. Here, because there is a specific law
conferring jurisdiction to another tribunal, the jurisdiction lies
before the said quasi-judicial agency.
Sandoval vs. Caneba
[GR 90503 | 27 September 1990]
Issue: Whether or not the ordinary courts have jurisdiction
over the collection of unpaid installments regarding a
subdivision lot.
Ruling: The trial court has no jurisdiction under the
circumstances obtaining in this case, the decision it rendered
is null and void ab initio.
In administrative law you will learn the jurisdiction of other
tribunals or quasi-judicial agencies.
Bernardo vs. Caltex
[GR 101345 | 1 December 1992]
Facts: Under EO 292, disputes between an operator or a
dealer and an oil company except creditor debtor relationship
are cognizable by the energy regulatory board.
Here Caltex charged Bernardo at an increased price different
from their contract, and which was not in effect at the time an
order was made.
Issue: Who has jurisdiction?
Ruling: The Supreme Court said that this does not fall with the
jurisdiction of the ERb because the resolution of this question
involves matter pertaining to civil law concepts.
39

NOTE: In some cases, it is hard to determine jurisdiction. For
example, in labor cases; questions pertaining to employer
employee relationship. Ordinarily, this falls within the
jurisdiction of the labor arbiter under the NLRC. But
sometimes, there are other issues involved. So, is it purely a
labor case? Or are there matters which must be resolved in
this case which makes such case falling under the catch all
jurisdiction of the regional trial court?
Halagueña, et al. Vs. Philippine airlines
incorporated
[G.R. NO . 172013, OCTOBER 2, 2009 ]
This is a very important case in determining the test of
jurisdiction.
Issue: Constitutionality or legality of the provisions of Section
144(a) of the PAL-FASAP CBA. The issue here is on the
retirement age of the flight attendance. According to them it
was discriminatory against women, so they sought to annul the
provision.
Contentions: It was contended the the case must be filed
before the National Labor Relations Commission, because this
pertained to the employee-employer relationship between the
persons affected and the PAL.
Ruling: The Supreme Court said that the issue cannot be
resolved solely by applying the Labor Code. Rather, it includes
the application of the Constitution, labor statutes, law on
contracts, and the convention on elimination of all forms of
discrimination against women. It is within the jurisdiction of trial
courts.
The jurisdiction of the NLRC under Article 127 of the Labor
Code is limited to those arising from employer-employee
relationship, which can only be resolved by reference to the
labor code, other labor statues, and their collective bargaining
agreement.
Here, you cannot resolve the issues by reference to labor laws
alone. You have to refer also to the civil code and treaties and
conventions. This cannot be resolved by the Labor Arbiter
because of their jurisdiction is specialized. Therefore, this is to
be resolved by the regular courts.
Not every controversy or money claim by an employee against
the employer or vice-versa is within the exclusive jurisdiction
of the labor arbiter.
Where the principal relief sought is to be resolved not by
reference to the Labor Code or other labor relations statute or
a collective bargaining agreement but by the general civil law,
the jurisdiction over the dispute belongs to the regular courts
of justice and not to the labor arbiter and the NLRC.
Section 5 of Article VIII of the Constitution discussed the
powers of the Supreme Court. One of which is: all cases in
which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international
or executive agreement, law, presidential decree,
proclamation, order, ordinance, or regulation is in question.
That is within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in the
exercise of its APPELATE jurisdiction.
The law says in paragraph 2 of section 5, review, revise,
reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or
the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of
lower courts. The lower court mentioned here includes the
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
Ongsuco vs. Malones
[GR 182065 | 27 October 2009]
The Regional Trial Court also has jurisdiction to resolve
questions of constitutionality and validity of laws (deemed to
include local ordinances), without deciding questions which
pertain to legislative policy.
[6] ALL OTHER CASES IN WHICH THE DEMAND
EXCLUSIVE OF INTEREST, DAMAGES OF
WHATEVER KIND, ATTORNEY’S FEES,
LITIGATION EXPENSES AND COST, OR THE
VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN CONTROVERSY
EXCEEDS:
P400,000 in Metro Manila
P300,000 in any other place
This can be divided into two parts:
1. Demand – whatever being claimed by the plaintiff such as
in money claims, and collection cases.
2. Value of the property – like replevin, the value of the
property mentioned here is personal property.
RECALL:
• MENTAL – damages that can be recovered
• Attorney’s fees – some kind of damages awarded to the
plaintiff, not paid to the lawyer, although it can be agreed
upon (See Article 2208 of the NCC).
• Litigation expenses – those expenses incurred in the case
like docket fees, filing fees, photocopies, transportation,
postage, commissioner’s fees, etc.
RULES:
- If the claim for damages is merely incidental or ancillary to
the main cause of action, we do not include the amount of
damages in determining jurisdiction. We base on the main
case.
- When the claim for damages is the main cause of action or
one of the causes of action, here, the amount of the claim
shall be used as basis in determining jurisdiction.
Where can there be a case where damages is the main cause
of action:
• Damages based on quasi-delict
• Damages as an alternative cause of action *Reiteration of
the Ortigas Case
• Action for interpleader *Recall the case of King Solomon
there are two persons claiming . . . for example in a lease
contract where A as lessee originally pays to X but now
there’s Y claiming that X sold to him the building, but X says
that he is still the owner of the building. Two of them are
claiming the right to the rentals. The proper procedure is
for A to consign the amount in court and file an action for
interpleader to compel X and Y to litigate among
themselves who is entitled to the rentals. The nature of an
action for interpleader depends on the subject. If real
property, it is based on the assessed value of the property.
If it is personal property, the same thing, the value. If
money, the value of the demand. See: Makati Development
vs Tanhuatco.
40
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG

[7] INTRACORPORATE DISPUTES

RA 8799 Securities Regulation Code
Section 5.2. 5.2. The Commission’s jurisdiction over all cases
enumerated under section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A
is hereby transferred to the Courts of general jurisdiction or the
appropriate Regional Trial Court: Provided, That the Supreme
Court in the exercise of its authority may designate the
Regional Trial Court branches that shall exercise jurisdiction
over the cases. The Commission shall retain jurisdiction over
pending cases involving intracorporate disputes submitted for
final resolution which should be resolved within one (1) year
from the enactment of this Code. The Commission shall retain
jurisdiction over pending suspension of payment/rehabilitation
cases filed as of 30 June 2000 until finally disposed.
CONCURRENT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE
RTC
APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE RTC
BP 129. Section 22. Appellate jurisdiction. – Regional Trial
Courts shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over all cases
decided by Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts,
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective territorial
jurisdictions. Such cases shall be decided on the basis of the
entire record of the proceedings had in the court of origin and
such memoranda and/or briefs as may be submitted by the
parties or required by the Regional Trial Courts. The decision
of the Regional Trial Courts in such cases shall be appealable
by petition for review to the
Court of Appeals which may give it due course only when the
petition shows prima facie that the lower court has committed
an error of fact or law that will warrant a reversal or
modification of the decision or judgment sought to be
reviewed.

1. Concurrent and Original jurisdiction with the SC in

actions affecting ambassadors, public ministers, and
consuls (Section 21 (2) of BP 129);
2. Concurrent and Original jurisdiction with the SC and the
CA in petitions for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus against lower courts and bodies and in
petitions for quo warranto and habeas corpus (Section
21 & Section 9, BP 129);
3. Concurrent and original jurisdiction with the SC, the CA
and the SB to issue writs of amparo (Section 3, AM 07-
9-12-SC)
4. Concurrent and original jurisdiction with the SC and the
CA to issue writs of continuing mandamus (Rule 8
Section 2, AM 09-6-8-SC)

41

OTHER JURISDICTIONS OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT
Special Jurisdiction to try Special Cases
Section 23. Special jurisdiction to try special cases. – The
Supreme Court may designate certain branches of the
Regional Trial Courts to handle exclusively criminal cases,
juvenile and domestic relations cases, agrarian cases, urban
land reform cases which do not fall under the jurisdiction of
quasi-judicial bodies and agencies, and/or such other special
cases as the Supreme Court may determine in the interest of
a speedy and efficient administration of justice.
FAMILY COURTS
RA 8369
AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE FAM ILY COURTS
Sec. 5. Jurisdiction of Family Courts. - The Family Courts shall
have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide the
following cases:
a) Criminal cases where one or more of the accused is
below eighteen (18) years of age but not less than nine
(9) years of age but not less than nine (9) years of age or
where one or more of the victims is a minor at the time of
the commission of the offense…
b) Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas
corpus in relation to the latter;
c) Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation
thereof;
d) Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of
nullity of marriage and those relating to marital status and
property relations of husband and wife or those living
together under different status and agreements, and
petitions for dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains;
e) Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment;
f) Summary judicial proceedings brought under the
provisions of the "Family Code of the Philippines";
g) Petitions for declaration of status of children as
abandoned, dependent or neglected children, petitions
for voluntary or involuntary commitment of children; the
suspension, termination, or restoration of parental
authority …
h) Petitions for the constitution of the family home;
i) Cases against minors cognizable under the Dangerous
Drugs Act, as amended;
j) Violations of Child Abuse Act
k) Cases of domestic violence against women and children
or RA9262 cases
Agrarian Cases
Administrative Circular 29-2002
Section 55. No Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction. --
No court in the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue any
restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction against PARC
or any of its duly authorized or designated agencies in any
case, dispute or controversy arising from, necessary to, or in
connection with the application, implementation, enforcement,
or interpretation of this Act and other pertinent laws on agrarian
reform.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
Section 56. Special Agrarian Courts. -- The Supreme Court
shall designate at least one (1) branch of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) within each province to act as a Special Agrarian
Court.
The Supreme Court may designate more branches to
constitute such additional Special Agrarian Courts as may be
necessary to cope with the number of agrarian cases in each
province. In the designation, the Supreme Court shall give
preference to the Regional Trial Courts which have been
assigned to handle agrarian cases or whose presiding judges
were former judges of the defunct Court of Agrarian Relations.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) judges assigned to said courts
shall exercise said special jurisdiction in addition to the regular
jurisdiction of their respective courts.
The Special Agrarian Courts shall have the powers and
prerogatives inherent in or belonging to the Regional Trial
Courts.
Section 57. Special Jurisdiction. -- The Special Agrarian
Courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all
petitions for the determination of just compensation to land
owners, and the prosecution of all criminal offenses under this
Act. The Rules of Court shall apply to all proceedings before
the Special Agrarian Courts, unless modified by this Act.
The Special Agrarian Courts shall decide all appropriate cases
under their special jurisdiction within thirty (30) days from
submission of the case for decision.
Further, the trial court judges concerned are directed to take
note of the decisions of the Supreme Court of 3 December
1990 in Vda. de Tangub vs. Court of Appeals (191 SCRA 885),
and of 13 September 1991 in Quismundo vs. Court of Appeals
(201 SCRA 609).
Strict compliance is hereby enjoined. The Office of the Court
Administrator is directed to implement this Administrative
Circular, which shall take effect upon its issuance.
LAND REGISTRATION CASES
In land registration cases the RTC also has jurisdiction
pursuant to Section 17 of PD 1529.
These cases are:
- Section 32: Petition for review of decree of registration
within one year from and after the date of entry of such
decree or registration.
- Section 36: Cadastral registration.
- Section 70: Adverse Claims
- Section 108: Amendment and alteration of certificates.
These also fall under the jurisdiction of the RTC. Although in
the docketing of cases, the RTC will clearly indicate it as a land
registration case.
42
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG

RA 9262
JURISDICTION OF THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN ACT
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT SECTION 10. Where to Apply for a Protection Order. –
Applications for BPOs shall follow the rules on venue under
Section 409 of the Local Government Code of 1991 and its
EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
implementing rules and regulations. An application for a TPO
or PPO may be filed in the regional trial court, metropolitan trial
BP 129 Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts,
court, municipal trial court, municipal circuit trial court with
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in civil
territorial jurisdiction over the place of residence of the
cases. – Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
petitioner: Provided, however, That if a family court exists in
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
the place of residence of the petitioner, the application shall be
filed with that court.
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and
probate proceedings, testate and intestate, including
An application for a protection order can be filed either in the
the grant of provisional remedies in proper cases,
RTC or the MTC.
where the value of the personal property, estate, or amount
of the demand does not exceed One hundred thousand
SPECIAL JURISDICTION
pesos (P100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila where such
personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does
Section 35. Special jurisdiction in certain cases. – In the
not exceed Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00)
absence of all the Regional Trial Judges in a province or city,
exclusive of interest damages of whatever kind, attorney's
any Metropolitan Trial Judge, Municipal Trial Judge, Municipal
fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the amount of which
Circuit Trial Judge may hear and decide petitions for a writ of
must be specifically alleged: Provided, That where there
habeas corpus or applications for bail in criminal cases in the
are several claims or causes of action between the same
province or city where the absent Regional Trial Judges sit.
or different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the
amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in
In cases of habeas corpus, in the absence of RTC judges,
all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes
MTC judges may hear and decide petitions for writ of habeas
of action arose out of the same or different transactions;
corpus or petition for bail.
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible
DELEGATED JURISDICTION
entry and unlawful detainer: Provided, That when, in
such cases, the defendant raises the question of ownership
Section 34. Delegated jurisdiction in cadastral and land
in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be
registration cases. – Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts may be assigned by
of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue
the Supreme Court to hear and determine cadastral or land
of possession.
registration cases covering lots where there is no controversy
or opposition, or contested lots the where the value of which
(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions
does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00),
which involve title to, or possession of, real property,
such value to be ascertained by the affidavit of the claimant or
or any interest therein where the assessed value of the
by agreement of the respective claimants if there are more
property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty
than one, or from the corresponding tax declaration of the real
thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro
property. Their decisions in these cases shall be appealable in
Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty the same manner as decisions of the Regional Trial Courts.
thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest,
(as amended by R.A. No. 7691)
damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation
expenses and costs: Provided, That value of such property
Usually, land registration cases falls within the jurisdiction of
shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent the RTC. If there is an adverse decision, the appealed party
lots. (as amended by R.A. No. 7691)
can appeal before the Court of Appeals. But that jurisdiction
can be delegated to the MTC. In case of adverse decision, you
CONCURRENT JURISDICTION
appeal not the the RTC but the Court of Appeals, because that
is already a delegated jurisdiction from the RTC.
RULE 71 Section 5. Where charge to be filed. — Where the
charge for indirect contempt has been committed against a
Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank, or
against an officer appointed by it, the charge may be filed with
such court. Where such contempt has been committed against
a lower court, the charge may be filed with the Regional Trial
Court of the place in which the lower court is sitting; but the
proceedings may also be instituted in such lower court subject
to appeal to the Regional Trial Court of such place in the same
manner as provided in section 11 of this Rule.

Cases for indirect contempt committed against a lower court.

An act committed not in the direct presence of the court. A
petition for indirect contempt can be filed before the MTC or
the RTC.

43
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG

Forcible Entry Unlawful Detainer

EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
The issue is who has prior Prior possession is not the
possession issue, the issue is WON
1. Civil actions and probate proceedings: Intestate and possession is still legal
testate;
2. Cases involving forcible entry and unlawful detainer; Even if the question of ownership is raised, the MTC will still
3. Cases involving title to. have jurisdiction. It cannot be ousted of its jurisdiction just
because the defendant raised the issue of ownership.
[1] Civil Actions and Probate Proceedings:
Intestate and Testate; [3] Cases involving title to.

All cases are lumped. These are cases capable of pecuniary The same rule applies here, only that, it is filed with the MTC
estimation. Value is determined, in this case 300,000 Pesos because the value of the property is 20,000 or less, or 50,000
outside Metro Manila. When you talk of the amount as basis of or less.
jurisdiction, look into the main action.

Totality rule: That where there are several claims or causes
of action between the same or different parties, embodied in
the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the
totality of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of
whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different
transactions.
In Rule 3 we will discuss joinder. The totality of those claims
shall be the basis of the jurisdiction. Irrespective of the cause
of action arising out of the same or different transactions.
[2] Cases involving forcible entry and unlawful
detainer;
The value of the property is not taken into account. This is in
accion interdictal. In accion publiciana, here, we consider the
value of the property. If it is not exceeding 20,000 pesos it is
within the jurisdiction of the MTC, and not exceeding 50,000
pesos in Metro Manila area.
For accion publiciana and reinvidicatoria, we base on the
amount of the property.
PROCEDURE IN THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
May be governed by:
 Rules of Civil Procedure (Regular rules)
 Rules of Summary Procedure
 Rules on Small Claims
It will depend on the case filed before the MTC.
REVISED RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE
COVERAGE
Section 1. Scope. — This rule shall govern the summary
procedure in the Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial
Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial Courts, and the Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts in the following cases falling within their
jurisdiction:
1. All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer,
irrespective of the amount of damages or unpaid rentals
sought to be recovered.

Accion Accion Publiciana Accion PROCEDURE

Interdictal Reinvidicatoria
• Complaint
Injunction/ Ejectment Possessory action Reinvidicatory action
suit • Answer
Recovery of Recovery of Recovery of • Pre-trial
possession de facto possession de jure possession based on • The court will require the submission of position papers.
ownership Witnesses will execute affidavits following the Judicial
File within one year File within 10 years File within 30 years Affidavit Rule. No hearing like in ordinary rules.
from the date of from the date of the from the date of the
entry or last demand possession of possession of
another another
REFERRAL TO THE LUPON
File with the MTC File either with the File either with the Sec. 18. Referral to Lupon. — Cases requiring referral to the
irrespective of the MTC/RTC depending MTC/RTC depending Lupon for conciliation under the provisions of Presidential
amount on the value of the on the value of the Decree No. 1508 where there is no showing of compliance with
prop (20,000/50,000) prop (20,000/50,000) such requirement, shall be dismissed without prejudice and
Proof of better right Proof of better right may be revived only after such requirement shall have been
to possess without to possess without Proof of title or complied with. This provision shall not apply to criminal cases
claim of ownership claim of ownership ownership where the accused was arrested without a warrant.

In actions involving forcible entry and unlawful detainer, the
issue is possession only, possession de facto; the fact of who
has prior possession. That prior possession has been lost
because of force, intimidation, strategy, threats, or stealth
(FISTS).
Under the Katarungnang Pambarangay Law, there are
cases there that must be referred first before the Barangay.
If you fail to comply, the court will dismiss the case, the same
with cases covered by the rules on summary procedure.
They require prior reconcillation before the lupon. If you do
not have a certificate to file an action, it can be dismissed.

44
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG

Another important provision in the Rules on Summary
procedure is:
Sec. 19. Prohibited pleadings and motions. — The following
pleadings, motions or petitions shall not be allowed in the
cases covered by this Rule:
o Motion to dismiss the complaint or to quash the complaint
or information except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
over the subject matter, or failure to comply with the
preceding section;
o Motion for a bill of particulars;
o Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgment,
or for opening of trial;
o Petition for relief from judgment;
o Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or
any other paper;
o Memoranda;
o Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any
interlocutory order issued by the court;
o Motion to declare the defendant in default;
o Dilatory motions for postponement;
o Reply;
o Third party complaints;
o Interventions.
In reality, only cases for unlawful detainer and forcible entry
are governed by the rules on summary procedure. The
advantage of these rules is that it is faster than the regular
rules. When it comes to forcible entry and ulawful detainer
cases, the decision is immediately executory. Meaning, you
can implement the ejectment immediately even if there is an
appeal, unless, the other party files a counter bond.
Ordinarily, you can move for an execution pending appeal.
Unlike in regular cases where execution pending appeal is just
discretionary on the part of the court.
EXAMPLE:
Forcible entry : 1 year from unlawful entry
Unlawful detainer: 1 year from the time of demand
If one year had already lapsed, what do you do? You can file
an action for recovery of possession; accion publiciana (at
issue is who has better possession). Where do you file? It
depends in the assessed value of the property. If it does not
exceed 20,000, the MTC has jurisdiction. The difference is, it
is now not covered by the summary procedure, but the regular
procedure.

Remember these prohibited pleadings. I remember, there Here, execution pending appeal is discretionary upon the
were three cases. I was counsel for the defendant, then we court. It is better to file a case for forcible entry or unlawful
won in the MTC level. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s detainer.
case. There were three lawyers; one for Hagonoy, the other
for Padada, and the other for Panabo, who filed for a motion
for reconsideration with regard to the decision of the MTC.
So I knew that was prohibited, of course, I kept quiet. It
would take a long time before I will be notified, by that time
the time for them to perfect an appeal already lapsed.

The procedure here is to file an appeal, you do not file a

motion for reconsideration. I filed a comment, after I have
counted that the fifteen day already lapsed, that a motion for
reconsideration is a prohibited pleading. Therefore the
decision has become final and executory. If course the court
denied the motion for reconsideration, the plaintiff cannot
anymore appeal. Please remember. Do not commit the
same mistake.

I have a fourth case, which is still the same. My opponent

was my student, he lost. In my mind, I was wondering if he
will file a motion for reconsideration. And, he really did not,
so I was happy even if he lost in his appeal.

Sec. 21. Appeal. — The judgment or final order shall be

appealable to the appropriate regional trial court which shall
decide the same in accordance with Section 22 of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129. The decision of the regional trial court in
civil cases governed by this Rule, including forcible entry and
unlawful detainer, shall be immediately executory, without
prejudice to a further appeal that may be taken therefrom.
Section 10 of Rule 70 shall be deemed repealed.

This is the remedy, not a motion for reconsideration. The

appeal shall be filed in the RTC.

45

REVISED RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR SMALL
CLAIMS CASES
AM 08-8-7-SC
COVERAGE:
Section 2. Scope. – These Rules shall govern the procedure
in actions before the Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs),
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCCs), Municipal Trial
Courts (MTCs) and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs) for
payment of money where the value of the claim does not
exceed Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00)
exclusive of interest and costs.
This has been amended recently by OCA Circular-2018,
effective August 01, 2018, the amount is increased to 300,000.
The most significant difference between summary
procedure and small claims is that in the latter, lawyers are
not allowed, exception is when the lawyer itself is the
complainant or defendant. There can be a representative,
provided that he is not a lawyer, provided further, he is your
relative.
What are the cases covered?
Section 4. Applicability - The Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall apply this Rule in all actions
which are; (a) purely civil in nature where the claim or relief
prayed for by the plaintiff is solely for payment or
reimbursement of sum of money, and (b) the civil aspect of
criminal action, or reserved upon the filing of the criminal action
in court, pursuant to Rule of 111 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure.
Remember, in BP 22 cases, even if your claim does not
exceed 300,000 pesos, you are not allowed to file a separate
civil action. All the corresponding civil actions are deemed
impliedly instituted in a BP 22 case. That’s why, ordinarily,
the death of the accused, pending his liability on a criminal
case, will extinguish his civil liability arising solely from the
delict. If you can predicate your claim in another source of
action like; contract or quasi-delict, you can file a separate
civil action. It must be instituted separately from the criminal
case.
But if it is a BP 22 case, when the accused dies,
theoretically, his civil liability arising from the crime is
extinguished. How about the contract? It still exists. You can
recover. Do you have to file a separate civil case? No, you
can recover it from the same case. That’s a different story in
BP 22 cases.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
These claims or demands may be
(a) For money owned under any of the following:
1. Contract of Lease;
2. Contract of Loan;
3. Contract of Services;
4. Contract of Sale; or
5. Contract of Mortgage.
(b) For damages arising from any of the following;
1. Fault or negligence;
2. Quasi-contract; or
3. Contract;
(c) The enforcement of a barangay amicable settlement or
an arbitration award involving a money claim covered by
this Rule pursuant to Sec. 417 of Republic Act 7160,
otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991.
Decision here is fast. Small claims is faster and does not
cause much because there is no need for a lawyer.
Section 23. Decision. - After the hearing, the court shall render
its decision on the same day, based on the facts established
by the evidence (Form 13-SCC). The decision shall
immediately be entered by the Clerk of Court in the court
docket for civil cases and a copy thereof forthwith served on
the parties.
What is important here is that the decision is final and
unappealable.
REMEDY IN SMALL CLAIMS
A.L. Ang Network v. Mondejar
Facts: Aggrieved party filed a certiorari before the Regional
Trial Court. It was dismissed by the RTC saying that they were
just circumventing the unappealable nature of small claims;
you cannot supplant the decision of the lower court by another.
Issue: What is the dismissal proper?
Ruling: YES. The extraordinary writ of certiorari is always
available where there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law and there
is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. Appeal may not be allowed but certiorari is.
It was proper for petitioner to file certiorari before the RTC
applying the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. The RTC would
have to determine whether or not the MTC committed grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Here, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the RTC for
the determination of grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction.
46

RULE 1
General Provisions
The Rules of Court is based on Article VIII Section 5 of the
Constitution:
ARTICLE VIII. SECTION 5 [5]. The Supreme Court shall have
the following powers:
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice,
and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice
of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the
underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and
inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade,
and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive
rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-
judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved
by the Supreme Court.
SCOPE OF THE RULES OF COURT
1. The protection and enforcement of constitutional
rights;
2. Pleadings, practice and procedure in all courts;
3. Admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar
and legal assistance to the underprivileged.
These are the matters covered by the Rules of Court.
Section 1. Title of the Rules. — These Rule shall be known
and cited as the Rules of Court.
It appears to be a MANDATORY provision with the use of the
word ― shall, but sometimes the decisions of the SC as ―
according to the rules of the revised rules of evidence‖ or ―
according to the rules of criminal procedures‖ which is actually
violative of Section 1, but the SC can do whatever they want.
Section 2. In what courts applicable. — These Rules shall
apply in all the courts, except as otherwise provided by the
Supreme Court. (n)
General Rule: In pursuance of Art 8, Sec 5.: ―procedural
rules shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade…
Based on Section 2 the Rules of Court is applicable in all the
Courts, except as provided.
Exception: Example of instances ―as otherwise provided by
the Supreme Court:
1. Revised rules on summary procedure
2. Rule of procedure for small claims cases
3. Rule for examination of child witnesses
4. Cases enumerated in Rule 1, Section 4 [ELCIN]:
a) Election cases,
b) Land registration cases,
c) Cadastral cases,
d) Insolvency proceedings, and
e) Naturalization proceedings and
f) other cases not herein provided for,
The ROC will not apply in these cases except by analogy or in
a suppletory character and whenever practicable and
convenient.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
Section 3. Cases governed. — These Rules shall govern
the procedure to be observed in actions, civil or criminal and
special proceedings.
(d) A civil action is one by which a party sues another for
the enforcement or protection of a right, or the
prevention or redress of a wrong, (1a, R2)
A civil action may either be ordinary or special. Both
are governed by the rules for ordinary civil actions,
subject to the specific rules prescribed for a special
civil action. (n)
(e) A criminal action is one by which the State prosecutes
a person for an act or omission punishable by law. (n)
(f) A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party
seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact.
(2a, R2)
CIVIL ACTION (MEMORIZE)
A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the
enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or
redress of a wrong. It may be:
1. Ordinary Civil Action or
2. Special Civil Action
CRIMINAL ACTION
A criminal action is one by which the State prosecutes a
person for an act or omission punishable by law.
SPECIAL PROCEEDING
A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to
establish a status, a right, or a particular fact.
Sec 3 tells us what are the cases governed, what are the
procedures to use. Defines and lists down the types of actions.
In letters (a), (b), and (c) are the definitions of what is a civil
action, criminal action and a special proceeding.
NOTE: ROC is actually a collective term to describe all the
rules from Rule 1 to Rule 144, however if you talk about CIVIL
PROCEDURE, it only starts from Rule 2 because Rule 1 are
general provisions which governs all branches of remedial law.
The ROC also deals with all types of actions, however in CIVIL
PROCEDURE; the subject shall only deal with CIVIL
ACTIONS.
APPLICABILITY OF RULES OF COURT
Rule: The ROC applies to ALL types of actions: civil, criminal
and special proceedings.
Exception: With respect to In SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS the
rule is: ― Generalia specialibus non derogant – universal
things do not detract from specific things. Therefore,
special provision always prevails.
Example: In civil procedure we have a concept of DEFAULT,
which takes place when the defendant fails to file an answer
and there is judgment by default. BUT this CANNOT be
applied in criminal procedure. In criminal procedure there can
be no situation where the accused is deprived of his
opportunity to be heard, and also in the declaration of nullity of
marriage.
47
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG

When Suppletory Application Allowed 1st Classification: As to NATURE

However, there are instances when the rules allow reference
to and application of provisions from the other branches of the
ROC.
Example: Criminal Procedure referring to Civil procedure
a) Rule 120 - Judgment
Sec. 8. Entry of judgment. – After a judgment has
become final, it shall be entered in accordance with Rule
36.
b) Rule 127 – Provisional remedies in criminal cases
Section 1. Availability of provisional remedies. – The
provisional remedies in civil actions, insofar as they are
applicable, may be availed of in connection with the civil
action deemed instituted with the criminal action. Special
proceeding referring to Civil procedure
c) Rule 72 – Subject matter and applicability of general
rules
Sec. 2. Applicability of rules of civil actions. - In the
absence of special provisions, the rules provided for in
ordinary actions shall be, as far as practicable, applicable
in special proceedings. Rules of evidence referred to in
everything.
d) Rule 128 - General provisions
Sec. 2. Scope. — The rules of evidence shall be the
same in all courts and in all trials and hearings, except as
otherwise provided by law or these rules.
Action v. Suit
Ordinary or Special
[1] ORDINARY Civil Actions
ORDINARY CIVIL ACTIONS are governed by the rules for
ordinary civil actions
[2] SPECIAL Civil Actions
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS are also governed by the rules for
ordinary civil actions BUT subject to the specific rules
prescribed for special civil actions which are governed by
Rules 62-71: (InDeReCe – QuEFo2PaCo)
✓ Rule 62: Interpleader
✓ Rule 63: Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies
✓ Rule 64: Review of Judgments and Final Orders or
Resolutions of the Commission on Elections and the
Commission on Audit
✓ Rule 65: Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus
✓ Rule 66: Quo Warranto
✓ Rule 67: Expropriation
✓ Rule 68: Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage
✓ Rule 70: Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer
✓ Rule 69: Partition
✓ Rule 71: Contempt
Those actions not enumerated above are automatically
ORDINARY civil action by process of elimination.
RULE: CONFLICT between special and ordinary civil
actions – In case of conflict between a specific rule governing
a particular type of civil action and an ordinary rule, the
SPECIFIC rule prevails.

SUIT – prosecution or pursuit of some claim or demand in a Jurisprudence: If the rules on special civil actions are
court of justice in which a plaintiff pursues his remedy to SILENT, the ORDINARY rules must be applied.
pursue a right or claim.
Amberti v. Court of Appeals
The terms Action and Suit are synonymous. The determinative [GR 79981 | 195 SCRA 659 | 2 April 1991]
or operative fact which converts a claim into an "action or suit" FACTS: In a special proceedings over inheritance, the trial
is the filing of the same with a "court or justice." File it court rendered judgment in favor of the respondent. The
elsewhere, it cannot be considered an action. (Lopez vs petitioner filed with the CA a petition for certiorari to annul the
Filipinas Compañia de Seguros) said decision. However, before the private respondent could
comment on the petition, the petitioner filed a motion to
withdraw, which petition was granted by the CA.
Later, the petitioner instituted the same action again with the
CLASSES OF CIVIL ACTIONS CA but the court declared the dismissal of the petition as final
and the case was remanded to the court of origin for execution
of judgment.
1. AS TO ITS NATURE
ISSUE: Is the dismissal of the petition by the CA with prejudice
a. Ordinary Action
such that petitioner is now precluded from bringing a second
b. Special Civil Action
action based on the same subject matter.
2. As to CAUSE or FOUNDATION
RULING: YES. The present case is a special civil action for
a. REAL Actions
certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction under Rule 65
b. PERSONAL Actions
of the Revised Rules of Court, which is governed by specific
c. MIXED Actions
rules. However, there is no provision in special civil actions
3. As to PLACE OF FILING
applicable to dismissal of actions. Under Rule 62, Sec. 1, it is
a. LOCAL Actions
clearly stated that in special civil actions, the ordinary rules are
b. TRANSITORY Actions
applicable in a supplementary manner.
4. As to OBJECT
The provisions on appeals in the CA under ordinary rules then
a. Action IN PERSONAM
must be applied, particularly Rule 50, Sec. 2 & 4. Applying said
b. Action IN REM
rules in a supplementary manner, upon the withdrawal of a
c. Action QUASI IN REM
petition in a special civil action before the answer or comment
thereto has been filed, the case shall stand as though no
appeal has been taken, so that the judgment or order of the
lower court being questioned becomes immediately final and
executory.

48

2nd Classification: As to CAUSE or
CONSIDERATION
REAL, PERSONAL or MIXED
[1] REAL Actions
REAL ACTIONS are where the issue or the subject involved is
title, ownership, possession, partition, foreclosure of
mortgage or any interest in REAL PROPERTY. All other
actions which are not considered Real are Personal Actions.
Therefore, an action is a real action when it is founded on the
privity of REAL ESTATE. Not every action however involving
real property is a real action, because the realty may only be
an incidental subject matter of the suit. To be a real action, it
is not enough that the action must deal with real property, it is
important that the matter in the litigation must involve incidents
of ownership or possession.
Example of REAL ACTION:
➢ forcible entry
➢ unlawful detainer
➢ accion publiciana
➢ accion reivindicatoria
➢ foreclosure of REM
➢ partition of real property
➢ action to recover real property plus damages
❖ Damages is merely incidental
➢ Specific performance (as an Exception)
❖ If action for specific performance involves a
claim to recover ownership of RP
❖ Example: Denominated as specific
performance but seeks the issuance of a
Deed of Sale for acquisition of ownership
Q. Does this mean that when real property is involved, it is
automatically a real action?
A. NOT necessarily. As we have discussed before also in
Jurisdiction. Even if there is a real property involved, the action
can still be considered as incapable of pecuniary estimation,
or the main objective is different. This means that not every
action which involves property can be said to be a Real Action.
GUIDELINE:
To be a real action, it is not enough that the action involves
real property. It is important that the matter in litigation must
also involve any of the following issues relating to real
property: (TiO – PoPaFo - An)
1. Title
2. Ownership
3. Possession
4. Partition – although as discussed before there are cases
when, even if there is a partition, it’s not actually a real
action
5. Foreclosure of Mortgage (Russell v. Vestil | GR 119347)
6. Any interest in Real Property.
Rule with Respect to Foreclosure of Mortgage &
Expropriation:
A foreclosure of mortgage is a Real Action because it involves
real property (for purpose of determining venue). However, it
is also one which is incapable of pecuniary estimation because
what is involved in a foreclosure is the Right of a Mortgagee to
foreclose on the mortgage as the creditor-mortgagee. Thus,
for the purpose of determining jurisdiction – it is with the RTC.
Same with expropriation proceedings (RTC Jurisdiction).
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
[2] PERSONAL Actions
PERSONAL ACTIONS are where the issue or the subject
involved is founded on privity of CONTRACT or on QUASI-
DELICT.
Examples of PERSONAL ACTION:
➢ action for a sum of money
➢ action for damages
➢ enforcement or resolution of a contract
➢ replevin / recovery of personal property (Verb:
replevy)
o Example: Specific performance seeking
issuance of a deed of assignment of shares of
stocks to regain ownership and possession
➢ action for damages on real property
o Although involving real property, it does not
involve any of the issues
➢ declaration of nullity of marriage
o Even though there‘s division of property after
declaration of nullity
➢ Specific performance (as a General Rule)
o If do not claim ownership or possession
o Example: Specific performance but seeks
execution of a Deed of Sale, Specific
performance in a contract of sale of personal
property
➢ Recognition of validity of award of house and lot
(Hernandez vs. DBP)
o Although the effect would be awarding of RP
➢ Action to compel mortgagee/creditor to accept
payment of debt and release mortgage
o Not foreclosure of REM but payment of the debt
which is secured by the mortgage
➢ Annulment of contract of loan secured by a REM
o Not to foreclose the REM but the loan itself
[3] MIXED Actions
MIXED ACTIONS are a MIXTURE OF REAL AND
PERSONAL ACTIONS. They pertain in some degree to both
real and personal actions and are properly reducible to either.
Example of MIXED ACTION:
➢ an action for specific recovery of land and for
damages sustained in respect of such land
NOTE: This example is treated more as a REAL action
because recovery of land (real action) is the main action while
the action for damages (personal action) is only but incidental.
TEST TO DETERMINE WHETHER REAL OR PERSONAL
1) Does the action deal with real property?
2) If it does, does it involve issues to real property such
as title to, ownership, possession or any interest
relating to real property?
3) If yes, primary objective of the action the recovery of
real property or an interest therein?
If the answer to all the aforementioned is YES, then the action
is a real action.
Note: If damages are merely incidental to the main action
which is recovery of property, then the action is a real action.
49

SIGNIFICANCE OF DETERMINING WHETHER AN
ACTION IS REAL OR PERSONAL
1. For the determination of Jurisdiction.
2. For the determination of Venue.
3. For the determination of the Filing or Docket Fees.
JURISDICTION
When Real: Depends upon the assessed value of the
property:
➢ When jurisdiction pertains to the MTC:
o PhP 20,000 or less – Rural Areas
o PhP 50,000 or less – Metropolitan Areas
➢ When jurisdiction pertains to the MTC:
o More than PhP 20,000 – Rural Areas
o More than PhP 50,000 – Metropolitan Areas
Exception: Foreclosure of Mortgage, despite the involvement
of real property is one incapable of pecuniary estimation.
Therefore, in determining jurisdiction, you do not consider the
Assessed value of the property. Thus, it is within the
jurisdiction of the RTC as provided for by BP 129.
VENUE
In Real Actions:
The venue is the place where the property is located. That is
under Section 1 of Rule 4 of the Rules of Court.
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.
In Personal Actions:
This is in contrast to personal actions, whereby the action can
be filed at the place where the plaintiff resides or where the
defendant resides at the option of the plaintiff.
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 non-resident
defendant where he may be found, at the election of the
plaintiff.
DOCKET FEES
Determination of the proper docket fees
➢ If incapable of pecuniary estimation/personal action –
flat rate;
➢ If capable of pecuniary estimation/real action – based
on the assessed value of the property.
NOTE: This is the reason why you have to know whether an
action is real or personal. Apart from this, there is no clear cut
rule to determine the same, as such you must decide based
on jurisprudence which is most similar to the facts of the case
provided. Although in some cases it is clear, in others it is not.
SIASOCO vs. COURT OF APPEALS
[303 SCRA 186]
The RTC had jurisdiction because the original Complaint
involved specific performance with damages which is a
personal action, as held in the case of La Tondeña Distillers
v. Ponferrada.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
LA TONDEÑA DISTILLERS vs. PONFERRADA
[264 SCRA 540]
A complaint for specific performance with damages is a
personal action and may be filed in the proper court where
any of the parties reside.
HELD: We are not also persuaded by petitioner’s argument
that venue should be lodged in Baguio City where the lot is
situated. The complaint is one for specific performance with
damages. Private respondents do not claim ownership of the
lot but in fact [recognize the] title of defendants by annotating
a notice of lis pendens. In one case, a similar complaint for
specific performance with damages involving real property,
was held to be a personal action, which may be filed in the
proper court where the party resides. Not being an action
involving title to or ownership of real property, venue, in this
case, was not improperly laid before the RTC of Bacolod City.
NOTE: You might be confused when we say that the action is
incapable of pecuniary estimation and its significance as to
whether it is real or personal. When we say it is incapable of
pecuniary estimation, it has implication primarily on jurisdiction
(RTC). But again, we can relate it because it is a personal
action.
DE JESUS vs. COLOSO
[1 SCRA 272]
It was alleged in the complaint that the defendant committed
breach of contract. The plaintiff was praying that the contract
be rescinded and that the defendant be ordered to return the
hacienda to the plaintiff, which was the ultimate purpose of the
action.
HELD: The ultimate purpose of the action is to recover the
possession of real property and not the breach of contract.
Thus the action is a Real action.
EMERGENCY LOAN PAWNSHOP, INC. vs. COURT
OF APPEALS
[353 SCRA 89 ]
The action here was to annul the sale or rescind the sale of
real property but the final objective was to recover real
property. Hence it was categorized as a real action.
HERNANDEZ vs. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES
[71 SCRA 290 ]
An award of a house and lot to the plaintiff was unilaterally
cancelled by defendant. So, an action was filed to annul the
cancellation of that award.
HELD: The action is a personal action. Although the case
involves house and lot, the main action is for the annulment of
the decision cancelling the award of said house and lot. Hence,
the action does not involve title to, or ownership or possession
of real property. The nature of the action is one to compel the
recognition of the validity of the previous award by seeking a
declaration that the cancellation is null and void.
50
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG

3rd Classification: as to PLACE OF FILING IN PERSONAM IN REM QUASI IN REM

Directed against Directed against the Brought against
LOCAL or TRANSITORY specific persons on the thing, property or persons seeking to
basis of their personal status of a person. subject the property of
[1] LOCAL Actions liabilities. such persons to the
discharge of the claims
LOCAL ACTIONS are those which can only be assailed.
instituted in a particular place. Jurisdiction over the Jurisdiction over the Binds the parties and
Example: REAL ACTIONS – because they can only person. res. the property/whole
world.
be instituted in the place where the property is
Personal Service of Publication of the Publication of the
situated. summons – notice – notice –
These are actions which must be brought in particular places. by handing a copy of 1. By the seizure of 1. By the seizure of the
An example of a local action is a real action affecting real the summons to the the property under property under legal
defendant in person. legal process or process or
property. The venue for a real action would be the place where 2. As a result of the 2. As a result of the
the property is located. institution of legal institution of
proceedings.
Service of summons is Service of summons Service of summons
a jurisdictional merely to satisfy the merely to satisfy the
[2] TRANSITORY Actions requirement. requirement of due requirement of due
TRANSITORY ACTIONS are those which follow the process. process.
party wherever he may reside.
Example: PERSONAL ACTIONS – because it is EXAMPLES
based on where the plaintiff or defendant resides at IN PERSONAM IN REM QUASI IN REM
the option or election of the plaintiff. ❖ Action for damages; ❖ Declaration of nullity ❖ Action for collection
❖ Action for sum of of marriage; of sum of money
These are actions which follow the party wherever they reside. money; ❖ Action for with a prayer for
An example of a transitory action is a personal action. The ❖ Auction sale of land compulsory preliminary
case may be filed at the place of residence of either the plaintiff for the collection of recognition of a child attachment (need to
or defendant at the option of the plaintiff. delinquent taxes; / declaration of file bond);
❖ Acction Publiciana heirship; ❖ Action for partition;
for the recovery of ❖ Land registration ❖ Action for
4th Classification: As to OBJECT land; cases (Original accounting;
❖ Action for injunction; Registration); ❖ Attachment;
ACTION IN PERSONAM, ACTION IN REM or ❖ Ejectment suit ❖ Cadastral Cases; ❖ Judicial foreclosure
(Forcible ❖ Probate of a will. of mortgage.
ACTION QUASI IN REM entry/Unlawful
detainer).
[1] Action IN PERSONAM
ACTION IN PERSONAM is an action directed against OTHER EXAMPLES OF COMBINATIONS
specific persons on the basis of their personal liabilities Action In Personam Action In Rem
and seeks personal judgments. Personal • Specific performance as • Declaration of
➢ A vs. B Action long as no issue as to nullity of marriage
title, etc. in RP
• Action for damages
[2] Action IN REM
Real Action • Ejectment suit (Forcible • Land registration
ACTION IN REM is an action directed against the thing, entry/ Unlawful Detainer) cases
property or status of a person and seeks judgments with • Action for recovery of • Cadastral cases
respect thereto as against the whole world. possession of land
➢ A vs. B but the whole world is bound
What is the significance of distinguishing between
[3] Action QUASI IN REM actions in personam, actions in rem, and actions quasi-
ACTION QUASI IN REM is one brought against persons in-rem?
seeking to subject the property of such persons to the
discharge of the claims assailed. An individual is named
The significance lies in determining how summons should be
as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to
served upon the defendant.
subject his interests therein to the obligation or lien
burdening the property. It deals with status, ownership or
In actions in personam, the general rule is that there must be
liability or a particular property but which are intended to
a personal service of summons upon the defendant.
operate on these questions only as between the
Otherwise, there will be a question as to whether or not
particular parties to the proceedings and not to ascertain
jurisdiction upon the person of the defendant was validly
or cut off the rights or interests of all possible claimants.
acquired.
Jurisprudence treats this action as one brought against
the whole world.
In actions in rem, it is not required to personally serve
➢ A vs. B but his property is bound
summons upon the defendant. However, there is a
requirement of publication for the court to acquire jurisdiction.

In actions quasi-in-rem, summons must be personally served

upon the defendant, not for jurisdictional purposes – this is
because jurisdiction over the res is already acquired by taking
custody of the res through means such as attachment or the
institution of the case. The purpose of personal service of
summons is to comply with the due process requirement.

51
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG

Mixture of personal and real actions with actions in

personam, in rem, and quasi-in-rem SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS AS DISTINGUISHED
FROM CIVIL ACTIONS
It is important to note that not all personal actions are
actions in personam and that not all real actions are actions in
rem or quasi-in-rem. What are Special Proceedings?
They are remedies by which a party seeks to
It should be noted that the two classifications pertain establish
to different things. Personal and real actions refer to the a status, right or a particular fact.
foundation of the case. Actions in personam, in rem, and
quasi-in-rem, on the other hand, refer to the object of the case. Kinds of Special Proceedings:
RULE 72 SUBJECT MATTER AND APPLICABILITY OF
As such, it is possible to have combinations of the GENERAL RULES
classifications. For instance, an action in personam and a Section 1. Subject matter of special proceedings. – Rules
personal action. An example of this would be an action for of special proceedings are provided for in the following:
collection of sum of money. This is a personal action because
the plaintiff seeks a sum of money from the defendant. This Rule 73-90 a) Settlement of estate of deceased persons;
action is not founded upon the privity of real estate. It is an Rule 91 b) Escheat; (property reverts back to the state)
action in perosnam because it is directed against the Rule 92-97 c) Guardianship and custody of children;
defendant Rule 98 d) Trustees;
Rule 99 e) Adoption;
Rule 100 f) Rescission and revocation of adoption;
An example of a real action which is an action in Rule 101 g) Hospitalization of insane persons;
personam is recovery of possession of real property. An Rule 102 h) Habeas corpus;
example is the case of Republic vs Court of Appeals. Rule 103 i) Change of name;
Rule 104 j) Voluntary dissolution of corporations;
Republic vs. Court of Appeals Rule 105 k) Judicial approval of voluntary recognition of
[315 SCRA 600] minor natural children;
Rule 106 l) Constitution of family home;
Held: An action to redeem, or to recover title to or possession Rule 107 m) Declaration of absence and death;
of, real property is a real action but an action in personam. It Rule 108 n) Cancellation or correction of entries in the civil
is founded on the privity of real estate because to affects title registry.
to property but is directed against the defendant to compel
them to convey specific property. It is not brought against the WHAT ARE THE DISTINCTIONS?
whole world but upon the person against whom the claim is SPECIAL PROCEEDING CIVIL ACTION
made. It will not bind persons who are not parties to the case. It is a remedy by which a party seeks It is one by which a party sues
to establish another for:
1. a status, 1. the enforcement or
2. right or protection of a right or
3. a particular fact. 2. the prevention or
(Rule 1, Sec. 3[c]) redress of a wrong.
(Rule 1, Sec. 3[a])
While there is only ONE definite There are TWO definite and
party, the PETITIONER, there is NO particular adverse parties:
DEFINITE ADVERSE PARTY. (adversarial in nature)
(not adversarial) 1. PLAINTIFF
the party who demands a right
2. DEFENDANT
the party whom the right is sought
Relief may be obtained by mere Requires the filing of formal
APPLICATION or PLEADINGS.
PETITION/MOTIONS.
Can only be tried by courts of Tried by Courts of GENERAL
SPECIAL or LIMITED JURISDICTION
JURISDICTION
NOT BOUND by the rules for BOUND by the rules for ordinary
ordinary actions, it only applies actions.
SUPPLETORILY. A civil action may either be ordinary
The rules provided for in ordinary or special. Both are governed by the
actions shall be as far as rules for ordinary actions, subject to
practicable, applicable in special specific rules prescribed for a
proceedings. special civil action.
(Rule 72, Sec. 2) (Rule 1, Sec. 3)
Always binding against the WHOLE May either be binding:
WORLD. (always an action in rem) 1. only against the PARTIES and
their SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST
(action in personam) or
2. against the WHOLE WORLD
(action in rem)
It is 30 DAYS and aside from a It is generally 15 DAYS and the
NOTICE OF APPEAL, the law requirement is the filing of a
requires the filing of a RECORD ON NOTICE OF APPEAL.
APPEAL.
Issues are determined by LAW. Issues are determined based on the
ALLEGATIONS IN THE
PLEADINGS.
Prescription does NOT generally Prescription APPLIES.
apply.

52
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG

Natcher v. Court of Appeals Manalo v. Court of Appeals

[GR 133000 | 2 October 2001]
Held: An action for reconveyance and annulment of title with
damages is a civil action, whereas matters relating to
settlement of the estate of a deceased person partake of the
nature of a special proceeding. Matters which involve
settlement and distribution of the estate of the decedent which
concomitantly requires the application of specific rules as
provided for in the Rules of Court fall within the exclusive
province of the probate court in the exercise of its limited
jurisdiction.
Ching and Po Wing Properties v. Hon. Jansen
Rodriguez
[GR 192828 | 28 November 2011]
Facts: A complaint was filed before the regular courts for
disinheritance, declaration of nullity of agreement of waiver,
affidavit of extrajudicial settlement, deed of absolute sale,
transfer certificates of title with prayer for the issuance of a
temporary restraining order and a writ of injunction.
According to the complaint, a certain Ramon misrepresented
himself as the son of the decedent. Due to his, he was able to
acquire certain properties. However, in truth and in fact, his
certificate of birth was merely simulated. It was alleged that he
was actually a suspect in the death of the decedent, which is
why his disinheritance was also prayed for.
It was argued that the case should be dismissed because the
regular courts had no jurisdiction to resolve the issues since
the plaintiffs prayed for Ramon’s disinheritance.
Issue: Whether or not the case should be dismissed?
Held: No. Upon examination of the complaint, it was just an
action for reconveyance and annulment of title with damages.
It is a civil action. Whereas matters relating to the settlement
of the estate of the deceased person such as the advancement
of property pertained to the nature of a special proceeding,
which would require the application of specific rules.
Even if disinheritance was prayed for in the complaint, this is
not sufficient to treat this as a special proceeding. This is
because disinheritance can only be made by virtue of a last
will and testament. There being no last will and testament
presented in this case. This cannot be a special proceeding.
[GR 129242 | 16 January 2001]
Facts: In a case for judicial settlement of estate (No. 1, Sec 1,
Rule 72) involving members of the same family who are heirs
of the same estate. Petitioners argue that the case should be
dismissed based on Article 222, since no earnest efforts have
been made toward a compromise.
Art. 222. No suit shall be filed or maintained between members
of the same family unless it should appear that earnest efforts
toward a compromise have been made, but that the same
have failed, subject to the limitations in Article 2035.
Issue: Will Article 222 apply to civil actions and to special
proceedings? Because if it applies to special proceedings, this
type of case should be subject to Article 222, and
noncompliance thereof would subject the case for dismissal for
noncompliance of the condition precedent.
Held: Article 222 does not apply to special proceedings but
only to ORDINARY CIVIL ACTIONS. Otherwise there would
be cases that would be dismissed purely because none of the
parties can come up to a compromise.
Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals
[GR 163604 | 6 May 2005]
Facts: Apolinaria Malinao filed a petition before the Ormoc
Regional Trial Court for the Declaration of Presumptive Death
of her Absentee Spouse Clemente P. Jomoc. The petition was
thereafter granted by the trial court. The Republic, through the
Office of the Solicitor General, filed a Notice of Appeal. The
trial court disapproved the Notice of Appeal on the ground that
the present case is a special proceeding which requires that a
record of appeal be filed and served pursuant to Section 2 (a)
Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Issue: Whether or not a petition for the Declaration of
presumptive death is a special proceeding?
Held: Declaration of presumptive death under the Family
Code is a Summary proceeding under the Family Code and
not a Special Proceeding under the Rules of Court.
There is no doubt that the petition of Apolinaria Jomoc
required, and is, therefore, a summary proceeding under the
Family Code, not a special proceeding under the Revised
Rules of Court appeal for which calls for the filing of a Record
on Appeal. It being a summary ordinary proceeding, the filing
of a Notice of Appeal from the trial courts order sufficed.

DISTINCTIONS TO TAKE NOTE OF:

Declaration of Absence and
Death under the Rules of
Court
For the purpose of succession.
A special proceeding.
Declaration of Presumptive
Death under the Family
Code
For the purpose of remarriage.
A summary proceeding.

53

OTHER TYPES OF SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
1. Declaration of presumptive death is a special proceeding
under letter (m) Sec 1 Rule 72. (Republic vs. CA)
2. Petition for liquidation of an insolvent corporation is a
special proceeding under letter (j) Sec 1 Rule 72.
Why are liquidation proceedings considered as special
proceedings and not ordinary civil actions?
Liquidation proceedings does not seek for the
enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or
redress of a wrong. but merely entails a declaration by
the court that the corporation is insolvent, which is an
establishment of a status.
3. Transferred cases from SEC to RTC are considered
special proceedings.
A.M. No. 00-8-10-SC, September 4, 2001
RE: TRANSFER OF CASES FROM THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION TO
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
The cases covered by the Interim Rules for Intra-
Corporate Controversies should be considered as
ordinary civil actions. These cases are:
1. Devices or schemes … amounting to fraud or
misrepresentation …
2. Controversies arising out of intra-corporate,
partnership, or association relations, …
3. Controversies in the election or appointment of
directors, trustees, officers, or managers of
corporations, partnerships, or associations;
4. Derivative suits; and
5. Inspection of corporate books.
On the other hand, a PETITION FOR
REHABILITATION, the procedure for which
is provided in the Interim Rules of Procedure
on Corporate Recovery, should be
considered as a SPECIAL PROCEEDING.
4. Arbitrated actions are part of special proceedings by
clear provision of law
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 876
Section 22. Arbitration deemed a special proceeding. -
Arbitration under a contract or submission shall be
deemed a special proceeding, APPEALABLE to the CA.
5. Proceedings for recognition and enforcement of an
arbitration agreement or for vacation, setting aside,
correction or modification of an arbitral award, and any
application with a court for arbitration assistance and
supervision shall be deemed as special proceedings
RA 9285 Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004.
SEC. 47. Venue and Jurisdiction. - Proceedings for
recognition and enforcement of an arbitration agreement
or for vacation, setting aside, correction or modification
of an arbitral award, and any application with a court for
arbitration assistance and supervision shall be deemed
as special proceedings …
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
Why is there a need to distinguish between special
proceedings and ordinary civil actions?
There is a need to make such distinction for the
following reasons: First, is to determine whether or not the
court before which the action is instituted has jurisdiction to
resolve the issues. Second, to determine the proper docket
fees. Third, to determine which reglementary period applies.
And lastly, to determine the kinds of pleadings applicable.
Section 4. In what case not applicable. — These Rules
shall not apply to election cases, land registration,
cadastral, naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and
other cases not herein provided for, except by analogy or in
a suppletory character and whenever practicable and
convenient. (R143a)
Section 4. In what cases not applicable. —These Rules shall
not apply to: [CLINE]
1. election cases,
2. land registration,
3. cadastral,
4. naturalization and
5. insolvency proceedings, and
6. other cases not herein provided for,
except by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever
practicable and convenient. (R143a)
Applicability of the Rules of Court in the excluded cases:
• Although the provision begins with “These rules shall
not apply to…”, it does not mean that the Rules of
Court absolutely do not apply. The Rules of Court are
SUPPLETORY in character.
• As to election cases, there are some cases involving
election that are under the jurisdiction of the courts
(other than COMELEC) just like violation of the
Omnibus Election Code. In such case, the
proceedings will be governed by the rules on criminal
procedure.
• Examples of ―other cases not herein provided for. –
1. Intra-corporate controversies (Ordinary civil
action)
2. Corporate rehabilitation (Special Proceeding)
Section 5. Commencement of action. — A civil action is
commenced by the filing of the original complaint in court. If
an additional defendant is impleaded in a later pleading, the
action is commenced with regard to him on the dated of the
filing of such later pleading, irrespective of whether the
motion for its admission, if necessary, is denied by the
court. (6a)
When is an action deemed commenced?
1. by the filing of the ORIGINAL COMPLAINT in court,
and
2. the payment of the correct DOCKET FEE
What is the significance of determining the time of the
commencement of the action?
This is important to determine the exact date that the
action has commenced because it is from that moment that the
running of the prescriptive period is interrupted.
54

Section 6. Construction. — These Rules shall be liberally
construed in order to promote their objective of securing a
just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and
proceeding. (2a)
Anson Trade Center, Inc. v. Pacific Banking
Corporation
[GR 179999 | 17 March 2009]
Held: Litigation is not a game of technicality, in which one
more deeply schooled and skilled in the subtle art of movement
and position entraps and destroys the other. It is rather a
contest in which each contending party fully and fairly lays
before the court the facts in issue and then, brushing aside as
wholly trivial and indecisive all imperfection of forms and
technicalities of procedure, asks that justice be done upon the
merits. Lawsuits, unlike duels, are not to be won by a rapier‘s
thrust. Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid
to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy,
deserves scant consideration from courts.
Tagabi v. Tanque
[GR 144024 | 27 July 2006]
Held: On technical grounds, Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules
of Court provides that personal service of petitions and other
pleadings is the general rule, while a resort to other modes of
service and filing is the exception. Where recourse is made to
the exception, a written explanation why the service and the
filing were not done personally is indispensable, even when
such explanation by its nature is acceptable and manifest.
Where no explanation is offered to justify the resort to other
modes, the discretionary power of the court to expunge the
pleading becomes mandatory.
The right to appeal is a statutory right and the party who seeks
to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the
Rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost, more so, as
in this case, where petitioners violated the same Rule not only
once but twice. The utter disregard of the rules made by
petitioners cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the
policy of liberal construction and substantial compliance.
Concomitant to a liberal application of the rules of procedure
should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality
not only to explain and justify his failure to abide by the rules
but also to avoid committing the same mistake in the future.
Hence, petitioners repeated failure to comply with the
provisions of Section 11, Rule 13 is enough basis to dismiss
the present petition.
Paredes v. Verano
[GR 164375 | 12 October 2006]
Held: Hence, we pronounce that the absence of counsel for
defendants at pre-trial does not ipso facto authorize the judge
to declare the defendant as in default and order the
presentation of evidence ex parte. It bears stressing that
nothing in the Rules of Court sanctions the presentation of
evidence ex parte upon instances when counsel for defendant
is absent during pre-trial. What should guide judicial action is
the principle that a party-litigant is to be given the fullest
opportunity to establish the merits of his complaint or defense
rather than for him to lose life, liberty or properties on
technicalities.
While counsel is somewhat to blame for his non-attendance at
pre-trial, incidentally the operative act which gave birth to the
controversy at bar, it would be most unfair to penalize
petitioners for what may be the deficiency of their lawyer when
the consequent penalty has no basis in law.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
Lastimoso v. Asayo
[GR 154243 | 22 December 2007]
Held: Respondent-movant's arguments and the fact that the
administrative case against respondent was filed way back in
1997, convinced the Court to suspend the rules of procedure.
The general rule is that the filing of a petition for certiorari does
not toll the running of the period to appeal. However, Section
6, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court provides that the Rules shall be
liberally construed in order to promote their objective of
securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every
action and proceeding.
The present case clearly involves the honor of a police officer
who has rendered years of service to the country. In addition,
it is also understandable why respondent immediately resorted
to the remedy of certiorari instead of pursuing his motion for
reconsideration of the PNP Chief’s decision as an appeal
before the National Appellate Board (NAB). It was quite easy
to get confused as to which body had jurisdiction over his case.
The complaint filed against respondent could fall under both
Sections 41 and 42 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6975 or the
Department of the Interior and Local Government Act of 1990.
Section 41 states that citizens' complaints should be brought
before the People's Law Enforcement Board (PLEB), while
Section 42 states that it is the PNP Chief who has authority to
immediately remove or dismiss a PNP member who is guilty
of conduct unbecoming a police officer.
Other Significant Jurisprudence on PROCEDURAL LAW
• The Rules of Court was conceived and promulgated to set
forth guidelines in the dispensation of justice but not to bind
and chain the hand that dispenses it, for otherwise, courts
will be mere slaves to or robots of technical rules, shorn of
judicial discretion. That is precisely why courts in rendering
real justice have always been, as they in fact ought to be,
conscientiously guided by the norm that when on the
balance, technicalities take a backseat against substantive
rights, and not the other way around. Truly then,
technicalities, in the appropriate language of Justice
Makalintal, "should give way to the realities of the
situation." And the grim reality petitioner will surely face, if
we do not compassionately bend backwards and flex
technicalities in this instance, is the disgrace and misery of
incarceration for a crime which he might not have
committed after all. More so, considering that petitioner's
record as public servant remained unscathed until his
prosecution. Indeed, "while guilt shall not escape,
innocence should not suffer." (De Guzman vs.
Sandiganbayan, April 11, 1996)
• Procedural rules are not to be disdained as mere
technicalities that may be ignored at will to suit the
convenience of a party. Adjective law is important in
insuring the effective enforcement of substantive rights
through the orderly and speedy administration of justice.
These rules are not intended to hamper litigants or
complicate litigation but, indeed, to provide for a system
under which suitors may be heard in the correct form and-
manner and at the prescribed time in a peaceful
confrontation before a judge whose authority they
acknowledge. The other alternative is the settlement of
their conflict through the barrel of a gun. (Santos vs. CA,
July 4, 1991)
55
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG

• It is the common practice of litigants who have no excuse

for not observing the Procedural rules to minimize the
same as mere technicalities. Then they cry for due
process. These procedural rules are in fact intended to
ensure an orderly administration of justice precisely to
guarantee the enjoyment of substantive rights. (Antonio vs.
CA, November 9, 1988)

• Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply

because their nonobservance may have resulted in
prejudice to a party's substantive rights, as in this case.
Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only
when for the most persuasive of reasons they may be
relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not
commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in
not complying with the procedure prescribed. Such
reasons are not present here. We do not find that
compelling justification for the exception sought and so
must sustain the respondent court. While it is true that a
litigation is not a game of technicalities, this does not mean
that the Rules of Court may be ignored at will and at
random to the prejudice of the orderly presentation and
assessment of the issues and their just resolution. Justice
eschews anarchy. (Limpot vs. CA, February 20, 1989)

56

RULE 2
CAUSE OF ACTION
Section 1. Ordinary civil actions, basis of. —Every ordinary
civil action must be based on a cause of action. (n)
Section 2. Cause of action, defined. —A cause of action is
the act or omission by which a party violates a right of
another. (n)
➢ A case cannot be filed without a cause of action.
➢ Cause of Action should exist at the time of the filing of the
case. Causes of action cannot be anticipated.
Surigao Mine Exploration v. Harris (1939)
Held: Unless the plaintiff has a valid and subsisting cause of
action at the time his action is commenced, the defect cannot
be cured or remedied by the acquisition or accrual of one while
the action is pending, and a supplemental complaint or an
amendment setting up such after-accrued cause of action is
not permissible.
ELEMENTS OF A CAUSE OF ACTION
(UNIVERSAL AQUARIUS, INC. vs. Q.C. HUMAN
RESOURCES MANAGEMENT CORPORATION)
1. A RIGHT in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means
and under whatever law it arises or is created;
2. An OBLIGATION on the part of the named defendant
to respect or not to violate such right; and
3. An ACT or OMISSION on the part of such defendant
in VIOLATION of the right of the plaintiff or
constituting a breach of the obligation of the
defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may
maintain an action for recovery of damages or other
appropriate relief.
4. DAMAGE suffered by the plaintiff by reason of the
violation.
➢ It is only upon the occurrence and presence
of the fourth element that a cause of action
arises.
Damnum absque injuria – ―damage without (legal) injury or
―loss or damage for which the law does not afford a legal
remedy.
• Even if there is a violation of a right but the law does
not consider the same an actionable injury, the
plaintiff cannot file a claim.
• Why? Because there is no breach of a legal duty.
o Eg. breach of contract to marry without
incurring damages/expenses
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
BPI Express Card Corporation vs Court of Appeals
[292 SCRA 260]
Facts: Atty. Marasigan was the holder of a BPI credit card.
Due to his delinquency in payment, immediate demand was
given by BPI to pay account. Atty. Marasigan issued a
postdated check. The check was thereafter kept in custody by
BPI and BPI sent him a letter that the card was temporarily
suspended and asked him to refrain from using the credit card.
And on a relevant date, Atty. Marasigan after eating in Café
Adriatico tried to use his card to pay but it was dishonored.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Marasigan has a cause of action
against BPI?
Held: No. Whatever damages he may have suffered was in
the nature of damnum absque injuria and therefore he has no
cause of action absent of 4th element of damage. The
issuance of the postdated check was not effective payment on
the part of Marasigan and thus, the bank was justified in
suspending temporarily his use of the credit card. We do not
dispute the findings of the lower court that private respondent
suffered damages as a result of the cancellation of his credit
card. However, there is a material distinction between
damages and injury. Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right;
damage is the loss, hurt, or harm which results from the injury;
and damages are the recompense or compensation awarded
for the damage suffered. Thus, there can be damage without
injury in those instances in which the loss or harm was not the
result of a violation of a legal duty. In such cases, the
consequences must be borne by the injured person alone, the
law affords no remedy for damages resulting from an act which
does not amount to a legal injury or wrong.
TEST OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF A CAUSE OF
ACTION
Whether or not admitting the facts alleged, the court could
render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the
prayer of the complaint (Misamis Occidental II Cooperative,
Inc. vs. David, 468 SCRA 63; Santos v. de Leon, 470 SCRA
455).
If the court can render a valid judgment although the complaint
is unopposed, then there is, as alleged in the complaint, a valid
cause of action.
Spouses Zepeda v. China Banking Corporation
[GR 172175 | 9 October 2006]
Held: In determining whether an initiatory pleading states a
cause of action, "the test is as follows: admitting the truth of
the facts alleged, can the court render a valid judgment in
accordance with the prayer?"
To be taken into account are only the material allegations in
the complaint; extraneous facts and circumstances or other
matter aliunde are not considered but the court may consider
in addition to the complaint the appended annexes or
documents, other pleadings of the plaintiff, or admissions in
the records
57
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG

De Los Reyes v. Spouses Odones OTHER THINGS TO NOTE:

[GR 178096 | 23 March 2011] 1. With regard to determining whether or not there is res
Held: A complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for judicata, lis pendencia, and/or forum shopping, both
unlawful detainer if it recites the following: cause of action and subject matter are considered.
1. initially, possession of property by the defendant was by 2. Causes of action are not necessary in special
contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff; proceedings
2. eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice 3. Causes of action are needed in labor cases.
by the plaintiff to defendant of the termination of the For example, it must be established that an employee is
latter’s right of possession; entitled to a right and that his employer violated the same.
3. thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the
property and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment RIGHT OF ACTION
thereof; and;
4. within one year from the last demand on defendant to A right of action is the right to presently enforce a cause of
vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted for ejectment. action, while a cause of action consists of the operative facts
which give rise to such right of action. The right of action does
The facts relating to these requisites must be cited in order to not arise until the performance of all conditions precedent to
have a sufficient cause of action for unlawful detainer. the action and may be taken away by the running of the statute
of limitations, through estoppel, or by other circumstances
What is the effect if there is failure to state a sufficient which do not affect the cause of action.
cause of action?
The case will be dismissed because the failure is a cause for Note: It is possible to have a cause of action without a right of
dismissal. action, but there can be no right of action without a cause of
action.
What if the complaint states a sufficient cause of action
but in truth, the plaintiff has no cause of action in real Elements of a RIGHT OF ACTION
life? 1. the plaintiff must have a good CAUSE OF ACTION and
It must be established that the plaintiff has a lack of 2. the plaintiff must have COMPLIANCE OF ALL
cause of action. This can be done by filing a demurrer of CONDITION PRECEDENT to the accrual of the action
evidence. This is tantamount to filing a motion to dismiss on Ex: Neighbors must go first through barangay
the ground of a lack of cause of action. reconciliation. Action brought before expiration of
prescriptive period.
CAUSE OF ACTION vs. SUBJECT MATTER
Cause of Action Right of Action
Definition CAUSE OF ACTION is A RIGHT OF ACTION
A cause of action, broadly defined, is an act or omission of an act or omission of is the present right of
one party in violation of the legal right of the other. one party in violation of the plaintiff to bring an
the legal right of the action and to
The subject matter, on the other hand, is the item with respect other. prosecute that action
to which the controversy has arisen, or concerning which the to final judgment..
wrong has been done, and it is ordinarily the right, the thing, or Governing law Created by Regulated by
the contract under dispute. SUBSTANTIVE law but PROCEDURAL law
depends on procedural and depends on
SUMMARY OF DISTINCTIONS: law substantive law
Cause of Action Subject Matter Kind of right Substantive right Remedial right
CAUSE OF ACTION is an act or SUBJECT MATTER is the item with Time it arises Arises the moment the Arises after the
omission of one party in violation of respect to which the controversy right is violated performance of all
the legal right of the other. has arisen, concerning which the condition precedent
wrong has been done, and it is
ordinarily the right, the thing, or the
Plaintiff status Plaintiff is passive – the Plaintiff is both passive
contract under dispute. plaintiff must wait until and active – the
In a breach of contract, THE BREACH In a breach of contract, THE his right is violated. plaintiff already has a
THEREOF BY THE OBLIGOR is the CONTRACT VIOLATED is the cause of action, but he
cause of action. subject matter must wait until all the
Basis of a civil action Basis of jurisdiction conditions precedent
May only exist in a civil action Exist in all kinds of action necessary for the rise
The WHY of the action The WHAT of the action of the right of action are
Presence of cause of action includes Presence of subject matter does not met.
subject matter necessarily mean the presence of a
cause of action Effect of statute Not affected, a cause of Affected, right of action
Reference upon the law and the Reference upon the law of limitations action will always be may be taken away by
sources of obligation there for as long as the the law
If there is actually no cause of action, If there is actually no jurisdiction elements are there
Error of judgment over the subject matter, Error in
jurisdiction.
Correctible by Appeal Correctible by Certiorari
Susceptible to dismissal on the Susceptible to dismissal on the
ground of lack of cause of action or ground of lack of jurisdiction (rule
failure to state cause of action (Rule 16, sec1(b))
16,sec1(g))
Can be re-filed with the same court by Cannot be re-filed before the same
amending the complaint court by amending the complaints

58

Section 3. One suit for a single cause of action. — A party
may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of
action. (3a)
Section 4. 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. (4a)
SPLITTING OF A CAUSE OF ACTION
SPLITTING A CAUSE OF ACTION is the act of dividing a
single cause of action, claim or demand into two or more parts,
and bringing suit for one of such parts only, intending to
reserve the rest for another separate action. The purpose of
the rule is to avoid harassment and vexation to the defendant
and avoid multiplicity of suits.
Examples:
1. In a suit for breach of contract of carriage or action for
quasi delict, separate cases were filed to collect each the
moral damages, actual damages, loss of earning
capacity and attorney‘s fees.
2. In a suit under a promissory note, separate cases were
filed to collect each the principal, the interest and
attorney‘s fees.
EXAMPLE WHERE THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF THE
RULE AGAINST SPLITTING OF CAUSES OF ACTION
An injured bus passenger involved in a vehicular accident can
file for a breach of contract of carriage against the owner of the
bus and a case for quasi-delict, tort, or culpa aquiliana against
the driver of the bus and the owner. He may also file a criminal
case against for reckless imprudence against the driver. In this
case, there is only one incident. However, from this single
incident arose several causes of action.
Quiogue v. Bautista
[GR L-13159 | 28 February 2962]
Facts: There was a contract of loan which was secured by a
real estate mortgage. When the debtor defaulted on said loan,
the creditor filed an action for foreclosure of mortgage and
another one for payment of debt.
Issue: Whether or not the creditor can file both an action for
foreclosure of mortgage and an action for payment of debt?
Held: No. It was held that a contract embraces only one cause
of action because it may be violated only once even if it
contains several stipulations (Moran, Comments on the Rules
of Court, 1957).
Thus, non-payment of a loan secured by mortgage constitutes
a single cause of action. The creditor cannot split up this single
cause of action into two separate complaints, one for payment
of the debt and another for the foreclosure of the mortgage. If
he does so, the filing of the first complaint will bar the second
complaint.
In other words, the complaint filed for the payment of certain
debt shall be considered as a waiver of the right to foreclose
the mortgage executed thereon.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
Laperal v. Katigbak
[GR L-16951 | 28 February 1962]
Facts: In the instant case, there were two cases filed. The first
one was directed against Kalaw Katigbak and her properties,
the purpose of which was to make her and her properties
responsible for the liability incurred by her spouse. The second
case was filed, still against her, to make the fruits of her
paraphernal property liable.
Issue: Whether or not there was a splitting of a cause of
action?
Held: Yes. The demand or claim has always been against both
spouses, not only personally but also to make their properties
or the fruits thereof responsible. The prayer of the complaint is
to make all their properties liable. An action to make a wife
personally responsible is not different from one to make the
paraphernal property of the wife subject to the same
obligation.
Section 3 of Rule 2 of the Rules of Court prohibits multiplicity
of suits, and any party is prohibited from dividing the causes of
action that he has upon the same claim or demand, or pursuing
the remedies to which he is entitled by virtue of the demand in
one suit after another.
Bank of America v. American Realty Corporation
[GR 133876 | 29 December 1999]
Facts: There were loans secured by real estate mortgages.
One case pertaining to a collection suit was filed before a
foreign court. There were four actions to collect several sums
of money. In the Philippines, the creditor sued the same debtor
for foreclosure of the real estate mortgage.
Issue No. 1: Did the institution of a collection suit before a
foreign court bar the institution of an action for foreclosure?
Held: Yes. 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 (remedies are
alternative and not cumulative). An election of one remedy
operates as a waiver of the other.
Issue No. 2: Would the waiver rule apply where the collection
suit was filed before the foreign courts and the foreclosure suit
in the Philippines?
Held: It is not the nature of the redress which is crucial but the
efficacy of the remedy chosen in addressing the creditor's
cause. Hence, a suit brought before a foreign court having
competence and jurisdiction to entertain the action is deemed,
for this purpose, to be within the contemplation of the remedy
available to the mortgagee-creditor. This pronouncement
would best serve the interest of justice and fair play and further
discourage the noxious practice of splitting up a lone cause of
action.
In a long line of decisions, this Court adopted the well-
imbedded principle in our jurisdiction that there is no judicial
notice of any foreign law. A foreign law must be properly
pleaded and proved as a fact. Thus, if the foreign law involved
is not properly pleaded and proved, our courts will presume
that the foreign law is the same as our local or domestic or
internal law. This is what we refer to as the DOCTRINE OF
PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION. (Philippine law is the same
as English law) The net effect is that he cannot file a case in
the Philippines.
59

NOTE: Even assuming that the foreign was proven and
pleaded, should the judgement decree that the institution of a
collection suit is not a bar to the right to foreclose the
mortgage, the said foreign judgement will not be applied.
The reason for this is because it is contrary to the
public policy against the splitting of causes of action.
This is pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 17 of
the New Civil Code which provides: Prohibitive laws
concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which
have for their object public order, public policy and good
customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments
promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed
upon in a foreign country. (11a)
EFFECTS OF SPLITTING A CAUSE OF ACTION
Forum Shopping
Forum shopping can be committed in three ways:
(1) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action
and with the same prayer, the previous case not having
been resolved yet (where the ground for dismissal is
LITIS PENDENTIA);
(2) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action
and the same prayer, the previous case having been
finally resolved (where the ground for dismissal is RES
JUDICATA); and
(3) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action
but with different prayers (splitting of causes of action,
where the ground for dismissal is also either LITIS
PENDENTIA or RES JUDICATA).
If the forum shopping is not considered willful and
deliberate, the subsequent cases shall be dismissed
without prejudice on one of the two grounds mentioned
above. However, if the forum shopping is willful and
deliberate, BOTH (or ALL, if there are more than two)
actions shall be dismissed with prejudice. (Collantes vs
Court of Appeals, 2007)
RULES TO DETERMNE THE SINGLENESS OF A
CAUSE OF ACTION
Determination of the singleness of a cause of action
The singleness of a cause of action is determined by the
singleness of the delict of wrong committed by the defendant
and not by the number of remedies that the law grants the
injured party. Meaning, a single delict may give rise to 2 or
more possible remedies but it does not mean to say that
injured party can avail of all those remedies simultaneously or
one after another. (Bachrach vs. Icarañgal, 68 Phil 287, 1939)
Example:
1. in a breach of contract, only one between an action
for specific performance or rescission can be elected
2. under the Recto Law, an unpaid seller of personal
properties can only opt one remedy, either rescission,
specific performance or foreclosure of mortgage
3. in credit transactions, for nonpayment of loan, the
bank has the option either to foreclose the mortgage
or collect the loan but not both
4. in collection for sum of money, only one action for the
whole amount can be instituted, it cannot be
breakdown to ½each action.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
NOTE: The remedy is ALTERNATIVE – the availment one
remedy amounts to the abandonment of the others.
General rule: A contract embraces only one cause of action
because it may be violated only once, even if it contains
several stipulations. (Quioque vs. Bautista, February 28, 1962)
Exception: A contract which provides for several stipulations
to be performed at different times gives rise to as many causes
of action as there are violations (Larena vs. Villanueva, 53 Phil
923)
Exception to the exception: In a contract of sale on
installments, when all installments are due and
demandable, the creditor has the right to sue for all due
installments. However, if he chooses to sue for only two
installments at one point instead of all of them, he can no
longer sue for the remaining installments for that would
tantamount to splitting his cause of action. This is o
because all installments under the contract were due and
demandable.
Yet, if not all installments are due and demandable, he may
only sue for those that due and not for those which have
yet to mature. This is because there is no anticipated
default.
Exception to the rule on no anticipated default:
Meaning, the creditor need not wait for the final
installment or for the breach of the stipulations to be
performed at different times to sue for the entire debt.
1. STIPULATION for an acceleration clause
- An acceleration clause is a stipulation stating that, on
the occasion of the mortgagors‘ default, the whole sum
remaining unpaid automatically becomes due and
payable.
2. REPUDIATION
- 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.
When the failure to comply with one of several
stipulations in a continuing contract constitutes a total
breach. (Blossom & Co. vs. Manila Gas Corp, 55 Phil
226)
Example: When a debtor negates the appearance of
his signature on the promissory note, which is payable
on installments, it constitutes a total breach of the note
and there is only 1 cause of action for the whole note
despite the fact that the other installments had not yet
fallen due.
60

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)
JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION
JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION
It is the uniting of two or more demands or rights of action in
one action; the statement of more than one cause of action in
a declaration. It is the union of two or more civil causes of
action, each of which could be made the basis of a separate
suit, in the same complaint, declaration or petition. A plaintiff
may under certain circumstances join several distinct
demands, controversies or rights of action in one declaration,
complaint or petition. (Republic v. Hernandez)
If the party has several causes of action, he may join them in
one pleading or one complaint.
WHAT IS THE NATURE OF JOINDER OF CAUSES OF
ACTIONS?
It is PERMISSIVE and NOT MANDATORY in the absence of
a contrary statutory provision, even though the causes of
action arose from the same factual setting and might under
applicable joinder rules be joined. The plaintiff has the option
to apply the rule on joinder or to simply disregard it.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
TYPES OF JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION
What are the types of joinders?
1. Alternative
2. Cumulative
ALTERNATIVE JOINDER
An alternative joinder of causes of action exists when the
cause of action is against one or another defendant. (OR)
Examples:
a) In an action for breach of contract for carriage of goods,
the consignee may file its claim against either the carrier or
the arrastre operator. The consignee may join both the
carrier and the arrastre operator as defendants and allow
the court to settle his claim against either one of them.
b) In an action for breach of contract of carriage, a passenger
after a collision between his bus and a car may file a case
against either the bus driver or the bus operator for culpa
contractual or car driver for culpa aquiliana. Filing 1 case
naming all 3 as defendants makes the joinder of the causes
of action alternative. Here the court may hold any one of
them liable.
➢ Relate to RULE 3 ROC
Sec. 13. Alternative defendants.
Where the plaintiff is uncertain against who of several
persons he is entitled to relief, he may join any or all of
them as defendants in the alternative, although a right to
relief against one may be inconsistent with a right of relief
against the other.
➢ Relate to RULE 8 ROC
Sec. 2. Alternative causes of action or defenses.
A party may set forth two or more statements of a claim or
defense alternatively or hypothetically, either in one cause
of action or defense or in separate causes of action or
defenses. When two or more statements are made in the
alternative and one of them if made independently would
be sufficient, the pleading is not made insufficient by the
insufficiency of one or more of the alternative statements.
CUMULATIVE JOINDER
A cumulative joinder of causes of action exists when one is
seeking relief for all the causes of action. (AND)
Examples:
a) An action to collect 3 unpaid promissory notes involves 3
causes of action. The claim is not only for either of the
notes but all of them.
b) An action filed by an illegitimate child for compulsory
recognition and support involves 2 cause action and
seeks the grant of not only one but all reliefs prayed for.
It can even be said that the pronouncement in the action
for recognition is a condition precedent for the grant of
relief in the action for support.
c) Application to pronounce the busman as an absentee
with an action to transfer the management of the conjugal
assets to the wife. (Peyer vs Martinez)
d) Action for the declaration of heirship with an action to
recover the land subject of the partition and distribution
proceedings. (Briz vs Briz)
61

REQUISITES FOR JOINDER OF CAUSES OF
ACTION
1. The party joining the causes of action shall comply with
the rules on joinder of parties;
2. The joinder shall not include:
a. special civil actions or
b. actions governed by special rules;
3. Where the causes of action are between the same
parties but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions,
THE JOINDER MAY BE ALLOWED IN THE RTC
Conditions:
a. one of the causes of action falls within the
jurisdiction of said court (RTC) and
b. the venue lies therein;
4. 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 (THE TOTALITY
RULE).
[1] The party joining the causes of action shall comply with
the rules on joinder of parties;
Relate to RULE 3 ROC
Sec. 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.
Central Bank v. Banco Filipino
[GR 173399 | 21 February 2017]
Facts: A case was filed against Central Bank of the Philippines
and its monetary board. In the middle of the proceedings, the
Central Bank was replaced with the Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas (BSP) and its own monetary board.
Banco Filipino filed the case because of the former’s closure.
When the Central bank was replaced by the BSP, Banco
Filipino filed a supplemental complaint or a second amended
complaint because it wanted to implead and include the BSP.
Its reason being to seek damages from Bangko Sentral and its
monetary board for alleged oppression committed by the latter.
It should be taken note that the course of action took place 10
years after the original case against the Central Bank was
instituted.
Issue: Could Banco Filipino join in one case its two causes of
action against both the Central Bank and the BSP?
Held: The joinder of causes of action is indeed allowed under
Section 5, Rule 2 of the 1997 Rules of Court; but if there are
multiple parties, the joinder is made subject to the rules on
joinder of parties under Section 6, Rule 3. Specifically, before
causes of action and parties can be joined in a complaint
involving multiple parties, (1) the right to relief must arise out
of the same transaction or series of transactions and (2) there
must be a question of law or fact common to all the parties.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
First, the reliefs for damages prayed for by respondent did not
arise from the same transaction or series of transactions.
While the damages prayed for in the first
Amended/Supplemental Complaint arose from the closure of
Banco Filipino by the defunct CB and its MB, the damages
prayed for in the Second Amended/Supplemental Complaint
arose from the alleged acts of oppression committed by the
BSP and its MB against respondent.
Second, there is no common question of fact or law between
the parties involved. The acts attributed by Banco Filipino to
the BSP and its MB pertain to events that transpired after this
Court ordered the respondent bank's reopening in 1994.
These acts bear no relation to those alleged in the original
Complaint, which related to the propriety of the closure and
liquidation of respondent as a banking institution way back in
1985.
The only common factor in all these allegations is respondent
bank itself as the alleged aggrieved party. Since the BSP and
its MB cannot be joined as parties, then neither can the causes
of action against them be joined.
[2] The joinder shall not include: special civil actions or
actions governed by special rules;
Reason for the prohibition
1. To avoid confusion because the rules of special civil
actions and actions governed by special rules are peculiar
to them and cannot be applied to ordinary civil actions and
vice versa.
2. To avoid jurisdictional issues because actions governed by
special rules are, more often than not, cognizable by
different tribunals and there can be no joinder if one of the
issues being tried pertains to a tribunal of special
jurisdiction.
Caballes v. Court of Appeals
[GR 163108 | 23 February 2005]
Held: A petition for a writ of habeas corpus cannot be joined
with the special civil action for certiorari because the two
remedies are governed by a different set of rules. Rule 2,
Section 5(b) of the Rules of Court mandates that the joinder of
causes of action shall not include special actions or actions
governed by special rules, thus proscribing the joinder of a
special proceeding with a special civil action.
Salvador v. Patricia
[GR 195834 | 9 November 2016]
Held: Quieting of title is a special civil action. It cannot be
joined with a case for injunction.
Belo Medical Group v. Santos
[GR 185894 | 30 August 2017]
Held: Actions for interpleader and declaratory relief cannot be
joined because both are special civil actions. The rule on
joinder only applies to ordinary civil actions.
62

Terana v. De Sagun
[GR 152131 | 29 April 2009]
Held: An action for reimbursement or for recovery of damages
may not be properly joined with the action for ejectment. The
former is an ordinary civil action requiring a full-blown trial,
while an action for unlawful detainer is a special civil action
which requires a summary procedure. While damages may be
prayed for in an ejectment suit, damages that may be given
may only pertain to back rentals. No other form of damages
may be awarded in the complaint. The same may only be
prayed for in a separate complaint or action.
[3] Where the Causes of Action are Between the Same
parties but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions
Where the causes of action are between the same parties but
pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, THE JOINDER
MAY BE ALLOWED IN THE RTC
Conditions:
a) one of the causes of action falls within the
jurisdiction of said court (RTC) and
b) the venue lies therein;
Meaning, there must be at least 1 cause of action the
jurisdiction of which lies with the RTC and must be against to
the same defendant.
Example:
A‘s Lot 1 & 2, was encroached upon. Lot 1 is under the MTC
in Davao because it is valued at P15,000, while Lot 2 is under
the RTC in Davao because it is valued at P1 million. So A
sought to file an action for forcible entry* and accion publiciana
respectively.
1. If the encroacher of both lots is B, both cases may be
jointly filed with the RTC.
2. If Lot 1 is located in Digos and Lot 2 is in Davao, both
cases may still be jointly filed with the RTC of either
venues.
3. If Lots 1 & 2 are both worth P1 million, and located in
Cotabato and Davao, respectively, both cases may be
jointly filed in either the RTC of Cotabato or Davao.
4. If Lots 1 & 2 are worth P15,000, they are cognizable by
the MTC and CANNOT be jointly filed with the RTC
5. If B encroached Lot 1 and C encroached Lot 2, there
can be no joinder because the parties are not the same.
6. An action for accion publiciana cannot be joined with
forcible entry against B because the latter is a special
civil action.*
[4] 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
THE TOTALITY RULE
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. The totality rule shall only apply when all the
causes of action pertain to recovery of money.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
Pantrangco North Express Inc. v. Standard
Insurance Company
[GR 140746 | 16 March 2005]
Facts: In the instant case, a bus owned by Pantangco collided
with a passenger jeep. Crispin, a passenger of the jeep,
reported the incident to the Talavera Police Station and
respondent Standard Insurance Co., Inc. (Standard), insurer
of the jeepney. The total cost of the repair was P21,415.00, but
respondent Standard paid only P8,000.00. Martina Gicale
shouldered the balance of P13,415.00.
Standard and Martina, respondents, demanded
reimbursement from petitioners Pantranco and its driver
Alexander Buncan, but they refused. This prompted
respondents to file with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch
94, Manila, a complaint for sum of money.
Issue: Does the RTC have jurisdiction over the case?
Held: Yes. As previously stated, respondents cause of action
against petitioners arose out of the same transaction. Thus,
the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims.
Respondent Standards claim is P8,000.00, while that of
respondent Martina Gicale is P13,415.00, or a total of
P21,415.00.
Section 19 of B.P. Blg. 129 provides that the RTC has
exclusive original jurisdiction over all other cases, in which the
demand, exclusive of interest and cost or the value of the
property in controversy, amounts to more than twenty
thousand pesos (P20,000.00). Clearly, it is the RTC that has
jurisdiction over the instant case.
Guingon v. Del Monte
[G.R. L -22042 | 17 August 1967]
FACTS: The insurance policy contains the following clause:
―No action shall lie against the Company unless, as a
condition precedent thereto, the Insured shall have fully
complied with all of the terms of this Policy, nor until the
amount of the Insured's obligation to pay shall have been
finally determined either by judgment against the Insured after
actual trial or by written agreement of the Insured, the claimant,
and the Company.
ISSUE Whether people who are not parties of an insurance
contract can be joined as parties?
RULING YES.
The "no action" clause in the policy of insurance cannot prevail
over the Rules of Court provision aimed at avoiding multiplicity
of suits. When two causes of action are connected with each
other, or grow out of the same transaction, they may be
properly joined, and in such suit all parties against whom the
plaintiff asserts a common or an alternative liability may be
joined as defendants.
Similarly, in the instant suit, Sec. 5 of Rule 2 on "Joinder of
causes of action" and Sec. 6 of Rule 3 on "Permissive joinder
of parties" cannot be superseded, at least with respect to third
persons not a party to the contract, as herein, by a "no action"
clause in the contract of insurance.
63

Jurisprudence: A joinder of causes of action cannot be
allowed when they do not arise from the same transaction
even if the purpose is to prevent multiplicity of suits.
Asset Privatization Trust v. Court of Appeals
[G.R. 81024 | 3 February 2000]
FACTS: Galleon Shipping Corp. obtained foreign loan
guarantee accommodations from DBP (Dev‘t Bank of the
Phil.). One of the solidary debtors named was SIM (Sta. Ines
Melale Forest Products) which was later taken over by
petitioner APT (Asset Priv. Trust). The mortgage of Galleon
was foreclosed but it yielded a deficiency. The solidary
debtors, in anticipation of a suit against them by DBP, to
prevent the same bank to recover the deficiency, filed a
petition for injunction. The injunction was ordered by the court.
Meanwhile, DBP granted the solidary debtors foreign loan
guarantee accommodations but they failed to pay the
amortizations on time. DBP took initial steps to foreclose the
mortgage by taking possession of SIM‘s plant site by posing
45 security guards. SIM filed a Supplemental Pleading alleging
that the act of DBP was in violation of the writ of injunction.
DBP opposed the Supplemental Complaint on the ground that
it introduces another cause of action into the case.
ISSUE: May the proscription against multiplicity of suits be
properly invoked to allow the filing of a supplemental
complaint?
RULING: NO. The original complaint was based on a cause of
action that is entirely different from that stated in the
supplemental complaint which arose out of a different set of
facts.
Granting that SIM‘s purpose in filing the supplemental
complaint was to effect a joinder of causes of action to avoid
multiplicity of suits, it must fail just the same. The Rules of
Court provide that causes of action may be joined provided
that they arise out of the same contract, transaction or relation
between the parties or are for demands for money or are of the
same nature and character.
In this case, hardly do the original and supplemental
complaints meet the required test of "unity in the problem
presented" and "a common question of law and fact involved"
as regards jurisdiction, venue and joinder of parties. The
ultimate problem in the original complaint as far as private
respondents are concerned is how to prevent the DBP from
pursuing the amount of deficiency after an extrajudicial
foreclosure sale of the mortgaged vessels. In the supplemental
complaint, what private respondent SIM seeks to preempt is
the foreclosure of the mortgage of its plant.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
MISJOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION
Section 6. Misjoinder of causes of action. — Misjoinder
of causes of action is not a ground for dismissal of an action.
A misjoined cause of action may, on motion of a party or on
the initiative of the court, be severed and proceeded with
separately. (n)
➢ Meaning, it does not involve a question of jurisdiction nor
does it constitute a jurisdictional defect.
Definition of Misjoinder of Causes of Action
There is MISJOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION is when two
or more causes of action were joined in one complaint when
they should not be joined.
Example:
A joinder of an action for accion publiciana and forcible entry
cannot be had because the latter is a special civil action.
Remedy in case of Misjoinder of Causes of Action
Under Rule 3, Section 11, misjoinder of causes of action is not
a ground for the dismissal of the case. The remedy is to ask
the court that the misjoined case be severed and tried
separately or to order a SEVERANCE of causes of action.
➢ Joinder and Misjoinder of parties is related to
RULE 3. Section 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties.
— 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. Any
claim against a misjoined party may be severed and
proceeded with separately.
RULE 31 ROC. CONSOLIDATION OR SEVERANCE
Section 1. Consolidation.
When actions involving a common question of law or fact are
pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of
any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all
the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders
concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid
unnecessary costs or delay.
➢ If the court deems that there is a common question of fact
or law that would be pending in the same court, then the
court may actually order the consolidation of the same.
Sec. 2. Separate trials.
The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice,
may order a separate trial of any claim, cross-claim,
counterclaim, or third-party complaint, or of any separate issue
or of any number of claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, third-
party complaints or issues.
➢ The court may also order its severance because it may
lead to a better determination of the complaints or issues
in the case.
64
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG

Republic of the Philippines v. Herbieto
[G.R. 156117 | 26 May 2005]
Misjoinder of causes of action and parties do not involve a
question of jurisdiction of the court to hear and proceed with
the case. They are not even accepted grounds for dismissal
thereof. Instead, under the Rules of Court, the misjoinder of
causes of action and parties involve an implied admission of
the court's jurisdiction. It acknowledges the power of the court,
acting upon the motion of a party to the case or on its own
initiative, to order the severance of the misjoined cause of
action, to be proceeded with separately (in case of misjoinder
of causes of action); and/or the dropping of a party and the
severance of any claim against said misjoined party, also to be
proceeded with separately (in case of misjoinder of parties).
Vicente Mijares v. Piccio
[G.R. L-10456 | 22 April 1957 ]
FACTS: On December 24, 1954, Pastora Alvarez Guanzon
filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Cebu against
her husband Jose M. Guanzon containing two causes of
action: one for the annulment of a deed of sale in favor of
Sulpicia Guanzon of certain real properties situated in the
province of Negros Occidental, and the annulment of a deed
of donation inter-vivos in favor of Joven Salvador Guanzon of
another set of real properties situated in the province of Cebu;
and another for the separation of their conjugal properties
which include both real and personal acquired during
marriage.
It maybe stated that there is a misjoinder of causes of action
in the present case not only as regards venue but also as
regards the defendants. With regard to the first, it should be
noted that the first cause of action stated in the complaint
refers to the annulment of a deed of sale real properties
situated in the province of Negros Occidental, and of a deed
of donation inter vivos of another set of real properties situated
in the province of Cebu. They refer to two different transactions
which properties situated in two different provinces. The venue
has therefore been improperly laid as regards the properties in
Negros Occidental. With regard to the second, it also appears
that the deed sale which is sought to be annulled was made in
favor of Sulpicia Guanzon whereas the deed of donation was
made in favor of Joven Salvador Guanzon, and there is
nothing from which it may be inferred that the two defendants
have a common interest that maybe joined in one cause of
action on the contrary their interest is distinct and separate.
They cannot therefore be joined in one cause of action.

On October 19, 1955, plaintiff filed a motion to bring into the

case Sulpicia Guanzon and her husband Vicente Mijares as
parties defendants alleging that their presence there in is
indispensable. This motion was granted and said defendants
were duly summoned in accordance with law.

On January 17, 1956, new defendants Sulpicia Guanzon and

Vicente Mijares filed a motion to dismiss instead of filing an
answer based on three grounds to wit: (1) that venue is
improperly laid, (2) that there is a misjoinder of cause, of action
and of and (3) that the court has no jurisdiction of said
defendants.

After hearing the parties on this motion, the court denied the
same on February 7, 1956, holding that the action is in
personam as it does affect title to real property, that there is no
misjoinder of causes of action, and that it has jurisdiction over
the persons of the movants. The movants filed a motion for the
reconsideration, and when this was denied, they interposed
the present petition for prohibition and certiorari seeking to set
aside the two orders adverted to.

ISSUE: WON there is a misjoinder of causes of action.

RULING: While the rule on joinder of causes of action appears

simple, however, difficulties may arise in its application, for it
does not state specifically the cases where several causes of
action may be joined, each case apparently depending upon
the nature of the transactions involved. But one thing is clear:
That the joining of causes of action must be subject to the rules
regarding venue and joinder of parties. If these rules are
violated, then a misjoinder of causes of action may arise.

65

RULE 3
PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS
Section 1. Who may be parties; plaintiff and defendant. —
Only natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by
law may be parties in a civil action. The term "plaintiff" may
refer to the claiming party, the counter-claimant, the cross-
claimant, or the third (fourth, etc.) — party plaintiff. The term
"defendant" may refer to the original defending party, the
defendant in a counter-claim, the cross-defendant, or the
third (fourth, etc.) — party defendant. (1a)
WHO MAY BE PARTIES:
✓ Natural – Legal personality is determined by birth
✓ Juridical – Legal personality is determined by operation
of law
WHO ARE JURIDICAL PERSONS
ART. 44 CC. The following are juridical persons:
(1) The state and its political subdivisions;
(2) Other corporation, institutions and entities for public
interest or purpose, created by law; their personality
begins as soon as they have been constituted according
to law;
(3) Corporations, partnerships and associations for private
interest or purpose to which the law grants a juridical
personality, separate and distinct from that of each
shareholder, partner or member.
RULE TO DETERMINE WHO MAY BE A PARTY TO A
CAUSE OF ACTION
➢ The susceptibility of a certain entity, whether a natural or
juridical entity, to sue and be sued.
➢ An entity with no legal personality cannot be sued and in
these cases, the persons comprising such entity will be
the ones that will be sued.
EXCEPTION to the rule that only natural and juridical
persons may be a party to a civil action
➢ Entities authorized by law
THE FOLLOWING ARE ENTITIES AUTHORIZED BY LAW
1. Entity without juridical personality as defendant
➢ Rule 3 ROC
➢ Sec. 15 Entity without juridical personality as
DEFENDANT. – Where two or more persons not
organized as an entity with juridical personality enter
into a transaction, they may be sued under the name
by which they are generally or commonly known
provided that in the answer of such defendant, the
names and addresses of the persons composing said
entity must all be revealed.
➢ The authority is only to be sued and not to sue, only
as a defendant not a plaintiff.
2. A labor organization
➢ Although not registered with the Corporation Law (w/
SEC), may become a party in behalf of its members
if they are registered under the Labor Code (w/
Bureau of Labor Relations – DOLE).
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
➢ P.D. 442 LABOR CODE
➢ Article 212. Definitions. "Labor organization" means
any union or association of employees which exists
in whole or in part for the purpose of collective
bargaining or of dealing with employers concerning
terms and conditions of employment.
➢ "Legitimate labor organization" means any labor
organization duly registered with the Department of
Labor and Employment, and includes any branch or
local thereof.
➢ Article 242. Rights of legitimate labor organizations.
A legitimate labor organization shall have the right: To
sue and be sued in its registered name
Example:
➢ If registered with both BLR and SEC
– can still sue and be sued
➢ If registration revoked by BLR but still w/ SEC
– can still sue and be sued, because still
exists as a corporation but no longer a
legitimate labor organization
➢ If registration revoked by SEC but still w/ BLR
– can still sue and be sued
➢ Same with housing organizations and homeowners
associations
– register with HLURB and SEC
3. Corporations by Estoppel
➢ B.P. 68 CORPORATION CODE
➢ Sec. 21. Corporation by estoppel. - All persons who
assume to act as a corporation knowing it to be
without authority to do so shall be liable as general
partners for all debts, liabilities and damages incurred
or arising as a result thereof: Provided, however, That
when any such ostensible corporation is sued on any
transaction entered by it as a corporation or on any
tort committed by it as such, it shall not be allowed to
use as a defense its lack of corporate personality.
4. Unregistered Partnership
➢ CIVIL CODE
o Art. 1768. The partnership has a judicial
personality separate and distinct from that of
each of the partners, even in case of failure to
comply with the requirements of Article 1772,
first paragraph.
o Art. 1772. Every contract of partnership having
a capital of three thousand pesos or more, in
money or property, shall appear in a public
instrument, which must be recorded in the Office
of the SEC.
Failure to comply with the requirements of the preceding
paragraph shall not affect the liability of the partnership and
the members thereof to third persons.
5. Estate of a deceased person
➢ The Administrator or Executor will be the one to sue
for the estate and be sued in its behalf
6. The Roman Catholic Church
➢ B.P. 68 CORPORATION CODE
Sec. 110. Corporation sole. - For the purpose of
administering and managing, as trustee, the affairs,
property and temporalities of any religious
denomination, sect or church, a corporation sole may
66

be formed by the chief archbishop, bishop, priest,
minister, rabbi or other presiding elder of such
religious denomination, sect or church.
7. Dissolved Corporation
➢ B.P. 68 CORPORATION CODE
Sec. 122. Corporate liquidation. - Every corporation
whose charter expires by its own limitation or is
annulled by forfeiture or otherwise, or whose
corporate existence for other purposes is terminated
in any other manner, shall nevertheless be continued
as a body corporate for three (3) years after the time
when it would have been so dissolved, for the
purpose of prosecuting and defending suits by or
against it and enabling it to settle and close its affairs,
to dispose of and convey its property and to distribute
its assets, but not for the purpose of continuing the
business for which it was established.
NOTE: In case of sole proprietorship of a business, the suit
must be for or against the owner and not the name of the
business.
RULE 6 ROC - KINDS OF PLEADINGS
➢ Sec. 3. Complaint.
The complaint is the pleading alleging the plaintiff's
cause or causes of action. The names and residences of
the plaintiff and defendant must be stated in the
complaint.
➢ Sec. 6. Counterclaim.
A counterclaim is any claim which a defending party may
have against an opposing party.
➢ Sec. 8. Cross-claim.
A cross-claim is any claim by one party against a co-party
arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the
subject matter either of the original action or of a
counterclaim therein. Such cross-claim may include a
claim that the party against whom it is asserted is or may
be liable to the cross-claimant for all or part of a claim
asserted in the action against the cross-claimant.
➢ Sec. 11. Third, (fourth, etc.) party complaint.
A third (fourth, etc.) party complaint is a claim that a
defending party may, with leave of court, file against a
person not a party to the action, called the third (fourth,
etc.) party defendant, for contribution, indemnity,
subrogation or any other relief, in respect of his
opponent's claim.
NB: A plaintiff may be a defendant – in a counter claim and in
a counter-cross-claim (and Sec 10 ROC – unwilling co-
plaintiff). The court is obliged to resolve all those claims in one
single action. However, if the court believes that the
counterclaim or cross-claim is best resolved in another case it
can order its severance.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
NECESSITY OF AVERRING LEGAL EXISTENCE OF
AN ORGANIZED ASSOCIATION
Rule 8 ROC
Sec. 4. Capacity. – Facts showing the capacity of a party to
sue or be sued or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in
a representative capacity or the legal existence of an
organized association of persons that is made a party, must
be averred. (Dueñas vs. Santos Subdivision Homeowners)
Duenas v. Santos Subdivision Homeowners Assoc.
[G.R. 149417 | 4 June 2004]
Facts:
• SSHA filed a case and then it failed to aver that it has legal
existence and that it can sue and be sued.
• However, it was contended by the association that they are
also represented by their members, and their members as
natural persons can sue and be sued. They also averred that
they are members of the federation, the federation of
Valenzuela Homeowners Association Inc. which has a
juridical capacity which can sue and be sued.
Issue: What court has jurisdiction?
Held: The Supreme Court said that first, it did not aver that it
is a legal entity with the legal capacity to sue and be sued. That
is a requirement. When you sue, you should be able to aver
your legal capacity to sue.
Second, with regard to its contention that it is represented by
its members the Supreme Court said that it is untenable
because there is no showing of authorization that the members
are authorized to sue in behalf of the association.
Lastly, with the fact that the association is a member of the
federation which has juridical capacity the Supreme Court said
that it is still untenable. The federation has a separate
personality on its own. The fact that you are a member does
not necessarily mean that you are vested with such authority.
Besides, there is no showing that you are authorized by the
federation to bring an action for and its behalf.
Here, the Supreme Court said that for failing to show that it is
a juridical entity, endowed by law with capacity to bring suits in
its own name, SSHA is devoid of any legal capacity,
whatsoever, to institute any action.
EXAMPLE:
You are suing as an association or a corporation with juridical
personality. How do you aver that in the complaint?
If you are the plaintiff: Plaintiff XYZ corporation, is a
corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine laws.
It has its principal office in 1234 Makati City, Philippines. Copy
of the articles of incorporation of XYZ corporation is attached
hereto as annex A.
If you are the defendant: Defendant XYZ corporation, is a
corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine laws.
It has its principal office in 1234 Makati City, Philippines. Copy
of the articles of incorporation of XYZ corporation is attached
hereto as annex A.
That’s how you aver if you are suing a juridical entity.
67

CLASSES OF PARTIES
I. Real Parties in Interest (Section 2)
II. Representative Parties (Section 3, 4, 5)
III. Permissive Parties (Section 6)
IV. Indispensable Parties (Section 7)
V. Necessary Parties (Section 8)
I. REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
SECTION 2. Parties in interest. — 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. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules,
every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name
of the real party in interest.
➢ The PLAINTIFF as the real party in interest must appear
to be the present real owner of the rights sought to be
enforced.
➢ The DEFENDANT as a real party in interest must appear
to be a person whose acts or omission stand as the basis
for the plaintiff‘s cause of action.
NB: The requirement that the party instituting the civil case
must be a real party in interest must consequently extend not
only to the original filing of the case but up to the filing of an
appeal.
Meaning of ― INTEREST
- Means ―material interest or an interest in issue and to
be affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere
interest in the question involved or a mere incidental
interest." (Heirs of Lim vs RTC, September 8,2008)
- If directly to be affected by decree, not a mere curiosity
in the outcome or issues being tackled in the case.
- The interest must be real, which is a present substantial
interest as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a
future, contingent subordinate or inconsequential interest
(Fortich vs. Corona, 289 SCRA 624). You stand to be
affected now and not a case for trifles.
- “de minimis non curat lex” - The law does not concern
itself with trifles
For you to be able to sue, you must be an interested party. You
must be the real arty in interest.
EXAMPLE: There’s a house on your neighborhood and you
saw that X chopped the gate of your neighbor. Can you sue X
for damages to property of your neighbor? Are you the real
party in interest?
You cannot sue. Even if it is true, even if you saw it, you cannot
sue in your name as the plaintiff because you are not the real
party in interest. The court will consider you as stranger to the
suit. You can be a witness when the owner of the house files
a suit against X but you cannot be the plaintiff.
What is a real party in interest? It 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.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
BPI v. Buenaventura
[G.R. 148196 | 30 September 2005]
Held: The Supreme Court said that the plaintiff as the real
party in interest, must appear to be the real owner of the right
sought to be enforced.
Heirs of Lim v. RTC Judge of QC
[G.R. 173891 | 8 September 2008]
Issue: What do we mean by that interest which would vest a
person that kind of personality which would entitle him to bring
a suit?
Held: Interest within the meaning of the rule means material
interest or an interest in issue and to be affected by the decree,
as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved or
a mere incidental interest.
Spouses Oco v. Limbaring
[G.R. 161298 | 31 January 2006]
Held: Real interest is meant present substantial interest as
distinguished from mere expectancy, or a future contingent,
subordinate, or consequential interest.
Before you can bring an action, you should show that you are
the real party in interest and as provided under section 2, you
should bring the action to your name as the real part in interest.
It must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party
in interest.
EXAMPLE: Juan Dela Cruz is the owner of a parcel of land.
Without his consent and with the use of force, Mario Roxas
entered the land of Juan Dela Cruz. Is Juan Dela Cruz the
proper party to institute a case against Mario Roxas, the
intruder?
Yes, because Juan Dela Cruz is the owner of the land. The
case should be brought by his name: Juan Dela Crus vs. Mario
Roxas. He’s the one directly affected for the act of Mario
Roxas.
Assuming Juan Dela Cruz is abroad. Should he go back to the
Philippines to file a complaint?
He can authorize a person to file a case on his behalf; he can
issue a special power of attorney authorizing, let’s say, Pedro
Dela Cruz, his brother, to institute a case. But still, the case
should be brought under the name of Juan Dela Cruz because
he is the real party in interest.
Juan Dela Cruz represented by Pedro Dela Cruz vs. Marion
Roxas.
How about a possessor? Will he be the real party in
interest? It depends on the kind of suit.
Action to recover ownership. If you are bringing an action to
recover ownership, a mere possessor, like a lessee is not
the real party in interest.
Forcible entry. If you are bringing an action for forcible entry,
and you are just the lessee, do you have the personality to
institute the action for forcible entry? Yes, because the issue
in forcible entry is mere possession de facto. Who is first in
possession. As the lessee, you are renting and paying every
68

month when this person suddenly entered the house without
my consent, with force, so I can file an action—a case for
forcible entry against the intruder. In so far as possession is
concerned, the lessee is a real party in interest.
Philippine Trust Co. vs. CA
[G.R. 124658 | 15 December 1999]
Held: Should a lawful possessor be disturbed in his
possession, it is the possessor, not necessarily the owner of
the property, who can bring an action to recover possession.
He is a real party in interest.
Siman v. Leus
[37 PHIL 967 | 27 M arch 1918]
Held: An action for ejectment, for example a property is held
in co-ownership, anyone of the co-owners under Article 487 of
the NCC may bring an action for ejectment.
Samahang Magsasaka vs. Mosquera
[G.R. 152430 | 22 March 2007]
Facts: This is about the implementation of the comprehensive
agrarian reform program. For example your agricultural land
exceeds 5 has, so the excess will be taken by the government.
It will be distributed to qualified farmer beneficiaries. The
government will pay the owner just compensation and the
beneficiaries would like to pay amortizations to the DAR
through the LBP.
Held: The DAR would first have to identify the potential and
qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries who will be awarded the
lot. Here, the mere fact that they were identified as potential
agrarian reform beneficiaries, but without having been
awarded the CLOA, they could not file an action regarding
ownership or possession of that agricultural land over which
they have been selected as potential beneficiaries.
In that case, their interest is not yet present or substantial. It is
actually just contingent, expectancies, because they are just
recommendees. they are just potential beneficiaries. They
have not yet been made owners of the land. They are not the
real parties in interest.
Reversion
In a case for reversion, example a patent. You apply for a
patent before the DENR. What is the basis of the application
of the patent? Because you have been in occupation and
possession of the land. You apply, presupposing that the
land is already alienable and disposable.
After you apply, you will be issued a patent. That patent will
also be the basis in issuing a title under your name.
EXAMPLE:
A applied for a patent, and his application was granted, and
title was issued to him. Now, we have B claiming he is the
actual possessor of the land, he is more qualified over A,
because in reality, A is not the one in possession, it was B who
was in possession.
B files a case for cancellation of title, and reconveyance
against A. Can B be considered the real party in interest in that
cases in the premise that he is the one who has title to acquire
over the land? In that case, B is not the real party in interest.
It must be note that when you are in possession, you are not
yet the owner. The land is in possession of the State. It is
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
awarded to A, based on A’s application that he was in actual
possession. The land is awarded by the State to the individual.
Land has not yet been awarded to B. B is just a potential
owner. If there is a party who shall file an action, it should be
the State. It is actually the State who is defrauded when A
committed misrepresentation in stating in his application that
he is in possession of the land.
The proper party to file the action should be the State, it should
not be B. The proper case should be reversion. If it is true that
B is in possession and A just made a misrepresentation in his
application, the State through the solicitor general should file
an action for reversion. Cancel A’s title and revert back the
ownership of the land to the State and B can apply if he is really
qualified. That is the proper process. B is not the proper party
to institute a case for reconveyance or cancellation of title as
against A.
THESE ARE THE CASES OF:
Figuracion vs. Libi
[539 SCRA 50]
Facts: In 1948, the Cebu City government expropriated a
parcel of land of Galileo Figuracion to be turned into a portion
of N. Escario Street.In 1989, the Sangguniang Panglungsod
approved the reconveyance of the unused portion of the lot to
the successor-in-interest, Isagani Figuracion. A new TCT was
issued to Isagani Figuracion.The Spouses Libi were owners of
an adjacent lot and has been using the said lot as access to
the road. They refused to vacate the lot despite demand. The
lower court ordered that the Spouses Libi remove the fence
they have erected on the said lot. The Spouses Libi filed for
easement, then amended their complaint and shifted cause of
action to one for the annulment of sale to Figuracion with
damages.
Issue: WON the action by the Spouses Libi to annul the
reconveyance of the lot to Figuracion is proper.
Ruling:The Court ruled that the Spouses Libi were not the real-
parties-in-interest to annul the TCT of Figuracion, since they
are not themselves claiming title to or possession of the
lot. Libi alleged that they bought the adjacent lot in the belief
that they had an outlet to N. Escario Street through the lot
owned by the Cebu City government. Clearly, they have no
interest in the title of the lot. Reversion is a proceeding by
which the State seeks the return of lands of the public domain
through the cancellation of private title erroneously or
fraudulently issued over it. The action should be in the name
of the State. Thus, Spouses Libi cannot be considered the
proper parties therein.
The Spouses’ sole interest is the use of the property as access
to N. Escaro
Street. Such interest is tangential to any issue regarding
ownership or possession of the property. Hence, it is not
sufficient to vest in them the legal standing to sue for reversion
of the property. They should have maintained the action for
easement. The wisdom and intent of the City Council to
recognize the right of Isagani Figuracion to repurchase the lot
cannot be gainsaid. The City of Cebu has the power and
authority to sell the expropriated property that is no longer
needed for that purpose for which it was intended. The
Spouses Libi not only lacked the legal personality but also
have no legal basis to challenge the reconveyance.
69

Spouses Tankiko vs. Cezar et al.
[G.R. 131277 | 2 February 1999]
FACTS: Respondents are applicants for sales patents of a
public land. They question the issuance of an OCT in favor of
the petitioners contending that they are the actual occupants
of the said land and had been paying the taxes religiously.
ISSUE: WON the private respondents may be deemed the
proper parties to initiate the present suit. NO.
HELD: Petitioners insist that respondents had no legal
capacity to file the Complaint, because they were not the
owners of the land but mere applicants for sales patent
thereon. Therefore, petitioners argue that respondents, not
being the real parties in interest, have no legal standing to
institute the Complaint in the trial court.
Verily, the Court stressed that [i]f the suit is not brought in the
name of or against the real party in interest, a motion to
dismiss may be filed on the ground that the complaint states
no cause of action. In fact, a final judgment may be invalidated
if the real parties in interest are not included. This was
underscored by the Court in Arcelona v. CA, in which a final
judgment was nullified because indispensable parties were not
impleaded.
In the present dispute, only the State can file a suit for
reconveyance of a public land. Therefore, not being the
owners of the land but mere applicants for sales patents
thereon, respondents have no personality to file the suit.
Neither will they be directly affected by the judgment in such
suit.
Indeed, [f]or all its conceded merits, equity is available only in
the absence of law and not as its replacement. Equity is
described as justice without legality, which simply means that
it cannot supplant although it may, as often happens,
supplement the law. To grant respondents standing in the
present case is to go against the express language of the
law. Equity cannot give them this privilege. Equity can only
supplement the law, not supplant it.
Having resolved that the respondents have no legal standing
to sue and are not the real parties in interest, we find no more
necessity to take up the other issues. They shall become
important only if a proper suit is instituted by the solicitor
general in the future.
➢ There are several cases also which tells us when a party
has or has no interest therefore, he is not a real party in
interest, the case can be dismissed.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
Rural Bankers Assoc. vs. Tanghal-Salvana
[G.R. 175020 |4 October 2007]
Held: As applied to the present case, this provision has two
requirements:
1) to institute an action, the plaintiff must be the real party in
interest; and
2) the action must be prosecuted in the name of the real
party in interest.
Necessarily, the purposes of this provision are
1) to prevent the prosecution of actions by persons without
any right, title or interest in the case;
2) to require that the actual party entitled to legal relief be the
one to prosecute the action;
3) to avoid a multiplicity of suits; and
4) to discourage litigation and keep it within certain bounds,
pursuant to sound public policy.
QUESTION:
What are the guidelines to know that a person is a real party
in interest? We are talking about civil actions. We must be able
to identify if you are filing a civil case what the source of the
obligation is, entitling the plaintiff to recover from such person.
We learned before in obligations of contracts the sources of
obligations.
Article 1157. Obligations arise from:
(1) Law;
(2) Contracts;
(3) Quasi-contracts;
(4) Acts or omissions punished by law; and
(5) Quasi-delicts.
If you are claiming for anything, damages for example, you
should be able to point out a specific source of obligation. You
cannot recover damages not based on any one of the 5
sources.
If you are filing a civil action, you must be able to identify what
the cause of action is all about.
LAW
EXAMPLE: You are filing a case based on ownership. Do you
have rights under the law? Are you the owner under the law?
For you to determine whether you are the real party in interest.
If the cause of action is based on law. You must be able to
identify what provision of the law if the plaintiff has been
granted by the law such right.
70

CONTRACTS
What have we learned from contracts? The first rule on
contracts in relation to the rule on real parties in interest is the
Rule on Privity of Contracts.
The contract can be enforced only between parties of the
contract, their successors, heirs, or assigns.
GR: Privity of Contracts
If you are filing for a case on breach of contract when you
are not a party to that contract, are you the real party in
interest? NO. If you are a party to the contract and you file
for a case on breach of contract, but your defendant is not
a party to that contract, can you file? NO, because he is not
a party to the contract.
In a BREACH OF CONTRACT, the real parties in interest
are the parties to the contract (the obligor-obligee, debtor-
creditor).
Examples:
1. In a case for breach of contract of carriage, the real
parties in interest are the operator and the passenger
and not the latter‘s parents. (Baliwag Transit vs. CA,
1989)
2. In an action for failure of the tenant to pay rentals, the
real party in interest is the owner of the land and not his
attorney-in-fact. The latter may only file a case in the
name of the real party in interest but never in his own
name. (Salonga vs. Warner Barnes)
XPNS:
1) Article 1311. Contracts take effect only between the
parties, their assigns and heirs, except in case where
the rights and obligations arising from the contract are
not transmissible by their nature, or by stipulation or by
provision of law. The heir is not liable beyond the value
of the property he received from the decedent.
Stipulation Pour Autri even if you are not a party in
the contract but in that contract there is a stipulation in
your favor and you want that enforced, you can file an
action based on that contract.
2) Tortious Interference A and B are parties to a
contract. X causes B to breach his contract with A.
Even if X is not a party to the contract, A can file a case
against X based on his contract with B even if X is not
a party to the contract on the concept of tortious
interference.
3) Voidable contract. You want to annul a contract.
Remember, a contract which is voidable can only be
assailed by the parties to the contract, or their heirs, or
successors in interest. If you are not a party to the
contract you cannot file an action for annulment of
contracts.
4) Void contract. If you are assailing a contract as null and
void, the rule here is, even if you are not a party to the
contract, as long as your interests are already affected,
you can file an action for the declaration of nullity of
contracts. You are a real party in interest if you have an
interest that is directly affected by that contract.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
5) Rescissible contract. Even if you are not a party to the
contract you can rescind a contract like accion
pauliana; a contract entered into in fraud of creditors.
The creditor is not a party to the contract, but he would
be a real party in interest. That is what we have to
determine in case of contractual disputes.
DELICT
Do you have an interest directly affected assuming you are the
victim?
QUASI-DELICT
Under the law on torts, are you the proper person to institute
an action for damages based on torts? It will depend if you are
the victim or your parent got killed. You are still directly affected
even if you are not the real victim because you suffered also
moral damages. You have an interest which is substantial.
QUASI CONTRACT
Kinds:
- Solutio indebiti
- Negotiorum gestio
Are you the real party in interest when you made payment by
mistake, and you are claiming for compensation? Yes.
Those are the 5 sources of obligations. For you to determine
whether or not you are the real party in interest, you have to
consider what is your cause of action.
Alfredo N. Aguila v. CA
[G.R. 127347 | 25 November 1999]
Any decision rendered against a person who is not a real party
in interest in the case cannot be executed. Hence, a complaint
filed against such a person should be dismissed for FAILURE
TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION, not for the lack of
personality to sue and be sued because there can be no cause
of action against one who cannot be a party to a civil action.
Rural Bankers Assoc. vs. Tanghal-Salvana
[G.R. 175020 |4 October 2007]
Held: A person who is not a party to the contract cannot sue
or be sued based on that contract unless he is an assignee.
Uy vs. CA
[314 SCRA 69 | 9 September 1999]
Petitioners are not parties to the contract of sale between their
principals and NHA. They are mere agents of the owners of
the land subject of the sale. As agents, they only render some
service or do something in representation or on behalf of their
principals. The rendering of such service did not make them
parties to the contracts of sale executed in behalf of the
latter. Since a contract may be violated only by the parties
thereto as against each other, the real parties-in-interest,
either as plaintiff or defendant, in an action upon that contract
must, generally, either be parties to said contract.
As petitioners are not parties, heirs, assignees, or
beneficiaries of a stipulation pour autrui under the contracts of
sale, they do not, under substantive law, possess the right they
seek to enforce. Therefore, they are not the real parties-in-
interest in this case.
71

Petitioners not being the real parties-in-interest, any decision
rendered herein would be pointless since the same would not
bind the real parties-in-interest.
These cases summarize the rule in determining whether or not
a person is the real party in interest.
EFFECT
What is the effect if the plaintiff is not a real party in
interest and in fact filed a case? Should it be dismissed
immediately?
Spouses Oco vs. Limbaring
[G.R. 161298 | 31 January 2006]
Held: When the plaintiff is not the real party in interest, the
case is dismissible on the ground of lack of cause of action.
When there is no statement that the plaintiff has a right, the
defendant has to observe the right of a plaintiff and the
defendant violated the right, the complaint failed to state a
cause of action.
Failure to include the name of the party in the pleading
General Rule: The mere failure to include the name of a party
in the title of a complaint is not fatal by itself.
Vlason Enterprises vs. CA
[G.R. 121662 -64 | 6 July 1999]
Held: The mere failure to include the name of a party in the
title of a complaint is not fatal by itself.
The inclusion of the names of all the parties in the title of a
complaint is a formal requirement under Section 3, Rule 7.
However, the rules of pleadings require courts to pierce the
form and go into the substance, and not to be misled by a false
or wrong name given to a pleading.
The averments are controlling, not the title. If the body
indicates the defendant as a party to the action, his omission
to the title is not fatal. Although the general rule requires the
inclusion of the names of all the parties in the title of a
complaint, the non-inclusion of one or some of them is not fatal
to the cause of action of a plaintiff, provided there is a
statement in the body of the petition indicating that a defendant
was made a party to such action.
Defendant’s name:
STATUS TITLE COMPLAINT BODY
Valid Absent Present Present
Valid Present Absent Present
Fatal Absent Absent Present
Real Party in Interest in Other Cases
In declaration of nullity of marriage
A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage
may be filed solely by the husband or wife.
Exceptions:
(1) Nullity of marriage cases commenced BEFORE the
effectivity of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (March 15, 2003);
(2) Marriages celebrated during the effectivity of the Civil
Code. (before August 3, 1988).
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
Juan De Dios Carlos v. Felicidad Sandoval
[G.R. 179922 | 16 December 2008]
RULING: Under the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity
of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, the
petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage may not
be filed by any party outside of the marriage. The Rule made
it exclusively a right of the spouses by stating:
SEC. 2. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void
marriages. – (a) Who may file. - A petition for declaration of
absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the
husband or the wife.
While A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC declares that a petition for
declaration of absolute nullity of marriage may be filed solely
by the husband or the wife, it does not mean that the
compulsory or intestate heirs are without any recourse under
the law. They can still protect their successional right, for
compulsory or intestate heirs can still question the validity of
the marriage of the spouses, not in a proceeding for
declaration of nullity but upon the death of a spouse in a
proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased
spouse filed in the regular courts.
It is emphasized, however, that the Rule does not apply to
cases already commenced before March 15, 2003 although
the marriage involved is within the coverage of the Family
Code.
Petitioner commenced the nullity of marriage case against
respondent Felicidad in 1995. The marriage in controversy
was celebrated on May 14, 1962. Which law would govern
depends upon when the marriage took place.
The marriage having been solemnized prior to the effectivity of
the Family Code, the applicable law is the Civil Code which
was the law in effect at the time of its celebration. But the Civil
Code is silent as to who may bring an action to declare the
marriage void. Does this mean that any person can bring an
action for the declaration of nullity of marriage?
We respond in the negative. The absence of a provision in the
Civil Code cannot be construed as a license for any person to
institute a nullity of marriage case. Such person must appear
to be 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. Elsewise stated, plaintiff must be the real party-in-interest.
For it is basic in procedural law that every action must be
prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party-in-
interest.
When Inclusion of All Parties in Interest May be Dispensed
With.
General Rule: If there are several parties in interest, they shall
be included in the case whether indispensable or not.
Exceptions:
1. a class suit (Rule 3, Sec. 12)
2. an entity without juridical personality (Rule 3, Sec. 15)
3. any co-owner may bring an action for ejectment (Art. 487,
Civil Code)
72
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG

Summary of Remedies Example: In the title, the name of the defendant was not
mentioned, but in the body of the complaint the defendant was
Situation Remedy Ground mentioned.
Plaintiff is not a natural or Defendant can Lack of
juridical person or an file a motion to personality THERE IS NO REMEDY because even if you file a motion to
entity authorized by the dismiss. to sue and dismiss, the court will not dismiss it. What controls is the
law to file a cause of be sued. averments of the pleading or the complaint, as long as the
action. name of the defendant is mentioned in the body of the
complaint.
Plaintiff has legal or Defendant can Failure to
juridical personality but he file motion to state a
is not the real party in dismiss. cause of Locus Standi Compared with Real Party in Interest
interest. action.
Defendant is not a natural Defendant can Failure to More or less similar to the concept of real parties in interest.
or juridical person or an file a motion to file a cause
entity authorized by the dismiss. of action. Locus standi – right of appearance in a court of justice on a
law nor a real party in given question.
interest.
Usually, when we speak of PUBLIC SUITS, this term: locus
• Ground for dismissal: standi is relevant. It is the personal and substantial interest in
Party impleaded in the complaint is not authorized to a case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct
be a real party in interest (Section 1d of Rule 16): injury as a result of the governmental act that is being
- He is not the real party in interest; or challenged. The gist is what is your personal stake as to the
- He does not have the capacity to sue. outcome of a controversy. Real parties in interest on the other
hand is in PRIVATE SUITS in civil actions. It is governed by
If the plaintiff is not a natural person, or he is not a juridical the Rules of Court, particularly Rule 3 Section 2. The action
person or entity recognized by law. must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party
in interest.
Example: Cutie the dog cannot be the plaintiff in an action for
damages, only its owner has the capacity to sue. Locus Standi Real Party in Interest
Public Suit Private Suit
Remedy of Defendant: FILE A MOTION TO DISMISS OR AN Cause of Action Complex Determination
ANSWER ALLEGING THE GROUND AS AN AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE. The ground is the plaintiff has no legal capacity to Here, the plaintiff who asserts a "public right" in assailing an
sue allegedly illegal official action, does so as a representative of
the general public. He may be a person who is affected no
• Ground for dismissal: differently from any other person. He could be suing as a
Pleading or complaint fails to state a cause of action "stranger," or in the category of a "citizen," or “taxpayer." In
(Section 1g of Rule 16). either case, he has to adequately show that he is entitled to
seek judicial protection. In other words, he has to make out a
You cannot have a cause of action over something which has sufficient interest in the vindication of the public order and the
no personality. securing of relief as a "citizen" or "taxpayer.

Example: Cutie the dog cannot be the defendant in an action
for damages.
Remedy of Defendant: FILE A MOTION TO DISMISS. The
ground is that there is no cause of action.
• Ground for dismissal:
Plaintiff is a natural person, and it has the legal
capacity to sue, but, he is not a party in interest.
(Section 1g of Rule 16).
Example: X does not have a cause of action to file damages
over house of a neighbor which was destroyed by another
person because he is not the owner of the house.
Remedy of Defendant: FILE A MOTION TO DISMISS. The
ground is failure to state a cause of action. The plaintiff is not
the one who possesses the right which has been violated by
the defendant.
• Ground for dismissal:
Plaintiff failed to include the name of the party in the
title of the complaint
➢ In PRIVATE SUITS - standing is governed by the ―real-
parties-in interest‖ rule as contained in Section 2, Rule 3 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. It provides
that ―every action must be prosecuted or defended in the
name of the real party in interest.‖ The plaintiff‘s standing
is based on his own right to the relief sought.
➢ In PUBLIC SUITS – Locus standi or legal standing has
been defined as a personal and substantial interest in a
case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct
injury as a result of the governmental act that is being
challenged.
The difficulty of determining locus standi arises in public
suits. Here, the plaintiff who asserts a "public right" in
assailing an allegedly illegal official action, does so as a
representative of the general public. He may be a person
who is affected no differently from any other person. He
could be suing as a "stranger," or in the category of a
"citizen," or ‗taxpayer." In either case, he has to
adequately show that he is entitled to seek judicial
protection. In other words, he has to make out a sufficient
interest in the vindication of the public order and the
securing of relief as a "citizen" or "taxpayer.

73

TEST TO DETERMINE WON THE PETITIONER HAS
LOCUS STANDI TO BRING AN ACTION:
DIRECT INJURY TEST – The person who impugns the validity
of a statute must have "a personal and substantial interest in
the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain direct injury
as a result."
People vs. Vera
[G.R. L-45685 | 16 November 1937]
The unchallenged rule is that the person who impugns the
validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial
interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will
sustained, direct injury as a result of its enforcement.
General Rule: Direct injury test
Exception: When the issue is of TRANSCDENDENTAL
IMPORTANCE.
Oposa v. Factoran
[G.R. 101083 | 3 0 July 1993]
SC upheld the right of the people to a balanced and healthful
ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. The
people of today were allowed to sue for a future right under the
concept of inter-generational responsibility.
ISSUE: Was there direct injury upon the plaintiffs?
RULING: No, but the issue is of transcendental importance.
So as discussed…
DISTINCTION BETWEEN REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST &
LOCUS STANDI
Locus Standi – It Is the right of appearance in a Court of
Justice in a given question. The concept applies only to those
issues which are of public interest. The plaintiff represents the
petition as a representative of the general public. The party
filing the act must have an actual stake in the controversy. Test
used is the Direct Injury Test, although, there are times when
the same is disregarded by virtue of the doctrine of
transcendental importance.
DETERMINANTS OF TRANSCENDENTAL IMPORTANCE
Francisco Jr. v. House of Representatives
[G.R. 160261 | 10 November 2003]
This concerns the 2nd impeachment complaint against then
Chief Justice, Hilario Davide. Why? Because, then, he was set
to be within the 1 Year bar provided by the Constitution. So,
here, petitions for injunction were filed against the House of
Representatives to declare the 2nd impeachment complaint
and any act proceeding thereon as null and void. So that was
the petition. For the purpose of our discussion, we will just
tackle whether or not petitioners here had legal standing to
institute the action. There are several cases cited also here by
the SC. So here actually in the end, the petitions were received
on the ground of transcendental importance.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
What do we mean by transcendental importance? There
being no doctrinal definition of transcendental importance, the
following instructive determinants formulated by former
Supreme Court Justice Florentino P. Feliciano are instructive:
(1) the character of the funds or other assets involved in
the case;
(2) the presence of a clear case of disregard of a
constitutional or statutory prohibition by the public
respondent agency or instrumentality of the
government; and
(3) the lack of any other party with a more direct and
specific interest in raising the questions being raised.
Applying these determinants, this Court is satisfied that the
issues raised herein are indeed of transcendental importance.
COMMENT: Now, even if in the concept of transcendental
importance or even in locus standi, there is still a need that the
party instituting the petition has an interest. You cannot just let
the Court assume that you have an interest. You have to plead
that in the petition. So the court said that, “the party must, at
the very least, even if the Court adopts the doctrine of liberality,
the party should have an interest in the matter and he must at
the very least, still plead, the existence of that interest. This is
because the Court must take judicial notice that the party has
an interest.
So, here, the petitioners or intervenors… Intervention was also
mentioned here, because just like a party in an intervention,
when you intervene, you must also have an interest in the
matter in adjudication. So whether you are a plaintiff or an
intervenor, you must have an interest. So here, Macalintal and
Quadra, they sought to join the other petitioners so they
wanted to intervene in that case.
Also the Nagmamalasakit na Mananangol ng Manggagawang
Pilipino, ok what was their interest, they invoke their right as
citizens to intervene, alleging that they will suffer if this
insidious claim of the minority members of the house of
representatives is successful. And the SC said the requisite for
intervention, meaning they must have an interest in the matter
in adjudication, was complied with. So they have the same
interest as the other petitioners here, the World War II
Veterans Legionaires of the Philippines.
Pimental also, the reason for his intervention was for the
limited purpose of being of record and arguing a point that
differs with that of the senate president Drilon. He alleges that
submitting to the SC jurisdiction as the Senate President would
undermine the independence of the Senate which should sit
as an impeachment court once the articles of impeachment
are already transmitted from the House of Representatives. So
the SC said clearly, Senator Pimentel had a legal interest in
the manner in litigation, being a member of congress whose
interest aren’t directly affected.
And then, here, there was another person, Soriano. His motion
to intervene must be denied, because the reason for his
intervention was, he asserted his interest as a taxpayer. Now,
if your claim is that you’re interested as a taxpayer, the SC said
that, “you must allege that there is an expenditure of public
funds.” In this case, there was no claim or allegation that
taxpayer’s money was being used in violation of the
constitutional protection against abuses of legislative power.
So there was no allegation that there was a misapplication of
public funds of the congress or that public money was being
diverted from its proper purpose.
74
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG

David Et. Al. v. Macapagal-Arroyo Et. Al. Summary

[G.R. 171396, 171409, 171485, 171483, 171400]
The petition here was, they challenged the factual basis of Based on the cases decided by the SC, when can a party be
Presidential Proclamation No. 1017, Declaring a State of accorded locus standi in Constitutional Issues or in cases
National Emergency and calling out the AFP and PNP to involving public suits:
suppress lawless violence. So they stated that the proximate 1. If the case involves Constitutional Issues;
cause behind the executive orders or issuances was that some 2. If you are suing as a taxpayer, there must be a claim
of the members of the military, leftist insurgents of the New of disbursement of public funds or that the tax
People’s Army (NPA) and some members of the political measure is unconstitutional;
opposition made a plot to assassinate President Gloria 3. If you are suing in your capacity as a voter, there must
Macapagal Arroyo. So, they questioned that factual basis. be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the
election law in question;
Who are the petitioners here? We have, Cacho-Olivares and 4. If you are suing as a concerned citizen, there must be
Tribune Publishing Company, Inc., are publishers, they allege a showing that the issues are of transcendental
direct injury, resulting from illegal arrest and unlawful search importance, which must be settled early, and
committed by police operatives pursuant to the Presidential 5. For legislators, there must be a claim that the official
Proclamation. SC said, they had legal standing. action complained of, infringes upon their
prerogatives as legislators.
Congressmen, here, alleged that there was usurpation of
legislative powers. They also raise the issue of whether or not So, you can consider these requirements in determining
the concurrence of congress is necessary in that proclamation. whether or not the petitioner has locus standi.
SC said, they had standing.
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN LOCUS STANDI AND REAL
Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU) alleged that the Presidential PARTY IN INTEREST
Proclamation violated its right to peaceful assembly. SC said Locus Standi Real Party in Interest
they had legal standing. They took judicial notice of the Both rules are directed towards ensuring that only certain parties
announcement of the office of the president banning all rallies can maintain an action. Because even in public suits, not just
and cancelling all permits for public assembly following the anyone can file a suit, there are requirements.
issuance of the presidential proclamation. Public Suit Private Suit
Cause of Action Complex Determination
Is based on constitutional Strictly a concept of civil
IBP – actually the SC said the IBP had no legal standing here,
undertakings. procedure, it only deals with the
because ‘the mere invocation of the IBP of its duty to preserve matter of filing of civil cases.
the law and nothing more, while true, is not sufficient to Broader as it encompasses Involves only private suits
constitute legal standing. This is too general an interest which both public and private suits. specifically civil actions.
is shared with other groups and the whole citizenry. However, WoN the parties have sustained WoN the party stands to be
in view of the transcendental importance, of the case, the or are in immediate danger of benefited in the suit or entitled
Court declared here that the IBP had locus standi. sustaining some direct injury as to the avails of the suit.
a result of its enforcement.
So, ordinarily, on the basis of the direct injury test, they had By way of exception: By way of exception:
The requirement of standing is The exceptions found under the
no legal standing. But on the basis of the transcendental
relaxed if the issue involved is ROC such as: stipulation pour
importance, then the SC said, they had locus standi. one of transcendental autrui, contract made to defraud
importance. creditors, derivative suit,
Loren Legarda, she invoked her personality as a tax payer, as contracts entered into by a
a part of the suit. SC said she has no personality because, partnership.
there are no allegations of legal disbursement of public funds.
The fact that she is a former senator is of no consequence.
She can no longer sue as a legislator on the allegation that her
prerogatives have been impaired by the presidential
proclamation and general order. How about her claim that she
was a media personality? SC said, it will not likewise incur
because there is no showing that the enforcement of these
issuances prevented her from the exercise of her profession.
How about her submission that she had a pending electoral
contest before the PET. SC said it has no relevance because
she has not shown that the issuances of the proclamation and
the general order will affect the result of her protest.

However, again, on the concept of transcendental, the Court

may relax the standing rules. So here, please remember the
principles of the SC on locus standi:
➢ General Test: Direct Injury Test
➢ Exception: Transcendental Importance

Although, you discussed these cases in your constitutional

law. So, we will not discuss the remaining. This is just an
illustration. Just read the other cases assigned to you.

75

II. REPRESENTATIVE PARTIES
Section 3. Representatives as parties. — Where the action
is allowed to be prosecuted and defended by a
representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity,
the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and
shall be deemed to be the real property in interest. A
representative may be a trustee of an expert trust, a
guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party
authorized by law or these Rules. An agent acting in his own
name and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal may
sue or be sued without joining the principal except when the
contract involves things belonging to the principal. (3a)
For example, the owner of the property is abroad, and his
property is being occupied in the Philippines and he wants to
file a case. What will he do, does he have to go back to the
Philippines just to file a case? Actually, he can just authorize
some other person to institute the case, for and on his behalf.
He can issue a special power of attorney for the purpose.
Now, the question here is, we already discussed that for you
to be able to file a case, you must be a real party in interest.
Now, the real party in interest is in the US, the owner. He
authorizes Juan dela Cruz to file a case for him. Juan dela
Cruz is not the party-in-interest, it is the owner in the US. Here
what’s the title of the case? It should be the name of the real
party in interest (e.g. Brad Pitt represented by Juan Dela Cruz
v. Nikki Tan).
For example, it is a corporation. A corporation on its own diba,
it cannot act so it has to be represented by its officers. SO,
kung magfile ng case ang corporation, it has to be represented
also by the proper authorized officer-representative. Kasi
usually, kapag corporation ang inyong client, and naa says
giauthorize na magfile ng case, it’s not an SPA which gives the
authorization. It should be a board resolution, coming from
the corporation or Secretary’s Certificate showing that he was
authorized under a board resolution.
So, XYZ Corporation, represented by its chairman, Juan Dela
Cruz v. Brad Pitt for example, so, the real party in interest must
be named, it could be the plaintiff or defendant. Kung si Brad
Pitt naman nagfile ng case against XYZ corporation, as
represented by its president, so Brad Pitt v. XYZ Corporation,
represented by its chairman, Juan Dela Cruz. So that is how
you allege the names of the parties in the action. The
beneficiary should be included in the title of the case. And off
course, the beneficiary is the real-party-in-interest.
REPRESENTATIVES OF REAL PARTIES-IN-INTEREST
So, who may be the representatives, the rule says, trustee of
an express trust, guardian, executor or administrator or a party
authorized by law or these rules:
1. Trustee of an express trust
The law is specific (there is also implied trust – do you
know the concept of a constructive or implied trust? This
is discussed in land registration cases. For example, A
because of fraud, he was able to acquire land which is
supposedly owned by B and register it under his name.
So under the law, there is already an implied or
constructive trust created in favor of B the real owner. As
against A, the one who employed fraud and he can file
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
an action for reconveyance, to recover the property
based on the concept of implied trust. This is different
from express trust because here, in reality in an implied
trust, there is actually NO fiduciary relationship, because
gideceive gani ni A si B, so how can they have a fiduciary
relation. It is the law which creates the trust.
In express trust – for example, daghan na kaayo kog
yuta, di ko gusto mahibalo sa world nan aa koy yuta. So
mupalit kog land, ang akong land ibutang nako under the
name of X. So sa register of deeds, ang Makita didto,
kung naay chismoso nga magtan-aw-tan-aw. Si X ang
naka title didto, pero in reality akoa diay to. How do I
prove nga akoa diay toh? Naa koy agreement, trust
agreement with me and X. Where X acknowledged that
he does not own the land and the land is owned by me,
and it is just based in trust.
So for example, you are just a trustee of an express trust,
you must also disclose your principal. That is a
requirement, under Rule 3 Section 3.
Philippine Airlines Inc. v. Heald Lumber Company
[G.R. L -11497 | 16 August 1957]
So, the trustee asked about this requirement of naming the
beneficiary, in an express trust would apply only if it is an
express trust. It will not apply in an implied trust.
2. Guardian
A guardian for example of a minor or an incompetent has
to be represented by a guardian and for example there is
property. So, there is a guardian and a ward. The
property owned by the ward and it is occupied by another
person, so the guardian would have to file a case against
the occupants. But, because the property is owned by the
ward, so you have to litigate under the name of the ward.
So, if the ward is Juan Dela Cruz, the title will be Juan
Dela Cruz represented by Brad Pitt v. Mr. X. So that is
how you designate.
3. Executor or Administrator
This applies when a person dies and he has an estate, in
the meantime that the estate is not yet distributed to the
heirs or is not yet partitioned. So, who will take care of
the estate? Especially, if there are debts. There is
usually, an executor or administrator appointed. You call
the person ‘administrator’ when for example, katong
namatay, he left a will, but without naming the one who
will take charge of his estate, or if wala jud syay will. The
Executor, is the person named in the will, who is charged
to take care of his estate.
Now, if a case is to be filed, for and in behalf of the estate,
it is ordinarily filed by the executor or administrator, if
there is already one appointed. So, the case will have to
be Estate of Juan Dela Cruz represented by
Administrator Brad Pitt. So, you have to name the real
beneficiary, which is the Estate. Or if it is a case filed
against the estate, you cannot just say, Juan Dela Cruz
v. Brad Pitt or the Estate of Brad Pitt, because a
deceased person has no more personality. He has to be
represented by his executor or administrator.
76

Ching v. Court of Appeals
[G.R. L-59731 | 11 January 1990]
Here, it should be instituted against the executor or
administrator because the Court cannot take jurisdiction over
the person of the deceased. Since he is dead, he has to be
represented by his executor or administrator.
Rioferio Et. Al. v. Court of Appeals
[G.R. 129008 | 13 January 2004]
General Rule: Suits for or against the estate shall be
commenced by the executor or administrator if there is already
one appointed.
Exception: What if there is no administrator or executor yet?
Daghan man ana nga mahitabo Kanang namatay na ang
parents unya daghan sila properties, ug daghan sila nga mga
anak. Nagaway pa ang mga anak, unya wala sila kabalo, they
have to appoint somebody. So you have to file a case, and
because the person is already dead, you don’t know who to
file against. Or if you are one of the heirs, and there is a
property occupied by another person and you want to recover
it. Because the administrator or executor is yet to be
appointed, can you still begin the suit? YES. If there is no
administrator or executor yet, the heirs themselves can sue,
because from the moment of death of the decedent, his rights
and obligations are already transmitted to his heirs. So, his
right to file ejectment upon his death is transmitted to the heirs.
So, the heirs can file the case, for and in behalf of the estate,
if there is no administrator/executor. But if there is already,
then the case has to be filed by him.
2 Exceptions Where Even Though There is Already an
Administrator/Executor the Heirs Can Still File A Case:
a. If the executor or administrator is unwilling to or
refuses to bring the suit – so they cannot be
prejudiced;
b. If the suit is against the executor or administrator –
when the administrator or executor is alleged to have
participated in the act complained of and he is made
a party defendant.
However, the real party-in-interest is still the estate, although
represented by the executor or administrator, or parties
authorized by law.
As I mentioned, if your have a Special Power of Attorney,
you can institute the action. But, you have to file that in the
name of the principal, as represented by you as the attorney
or agent in fact, or for corporations, as officers authorized
under a board resolution.
4. Receivers and Similar Persons
Under Rule 59, Section 6
General powers of receiver. — Subject to the control of
the court in which the action or proceeding is pending a
receiver shall have the power to bring and defend, in
such capacity, actions in his own name; to take and keep
possession of the property in controversy; to receive
rents; to collect debts due to himself as receiver or to the
fund, property, estate, person, or corporation of which he
is the receiver; to compound for and compromise the
same; to make transfers; to pay outstanding debts; to
divide the money and other property that shall remain
among the persons legally entitled to receive the same;
and generally to do such acts respecting the property as
the court may authorize. However, funds in the hands of
a receiver may be invested only by order of the court
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
upon the written consent of all the parties to the action.
(7a)
No action may be filed by or against a receiver without
leave of the court which appointed him. (n)
Example: If there is a bank or corporation that becomes
insolvent. So, he has creditors and off course, the assets
of the corporation are not sufficient to pay off all these
obligations. A receiver can be appointed, and he will take
charge of the affairs of the corporation. The receiver will
be the one to apportion the assets of the corporation, so
that these, assets may be paid to the creditors. So in the
meantime that these corporations are under receivership
and there are assets owned by the corporations and it
also has collectibles. Who will file the case, is it the
corporation or the receiver? Under Section 6 Rule 59, it
is the Receiver who has the power to do so. Generally,
the Receiver can file actions. No action may be filed
against the receiver without leave of court of the court
who appointed him.
If for example, the company is already under
receivership, dapat, the case should be filed by the
appointed receiver. Kung naa pud kay lead na case,
dapat it should be filed against the corporation as
represented by the receiver. And again, please
remember with leave of court, for you to be allowed to file
a case against the receiver or by or against the receiver.
So, if the case if filed by the receiver against the
corporation, the receiver also has to ask for leave of
court.
5. Unions
Can the union file for and in behalf of its members? Does
the union require, specific individual special power of
attorney from the members? NO.
Davao Free Workers Front Et. Al. v. Court of
Industrial Relations Et. Al.
[G.R. L -29356 | 31 October 1974 ]
It is the function precisely of a labor union such as petitioner to
carry the representation of its members particularly against the
employer's unfair labor practices against it and its members
and to file an action for their benefit and behalf without joining
them and to avoid the cumbersome procedure of joining each
and every member as a separate party (as authorized under
Rule 3, section 3).
The petitioner union is thus authorized to ask for execution in
due course of the strike duration pay as awarded on behalf of
its members and the court a quo in the course of
implementation and execution of the judgment may call upon
the union as well as the striking members and the company's
payrolls for the proper verification of the individual members
entitled to receive the strike duration pay as awarded.
SUMMARY
1. Trustee of an express trust;
2. Guardian of a Ward;
3. Executor or Administrator in behalf of the estate of
the deceased;
4. The receiver for the entity under receivership;
5. The union for the representation of its members.
77

LAST SENTENCE OF SECTION 3
An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an
undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without joining the
principal except when the contract involves things belonging
to the principal.
RULE: If you’re an agent, the law allows you to sue in your
own name, without disclosing the principal.
EXCEPTION: Except, if the suit involves things belonging to
the principal.
Example: Juan Dela Cruz as an agent of Brad Pitt was
authorized to sell Brad Pitt’s land in Davao. So naa sya
authority to sell, and then he sold it but by installment. So, now
the buyer failed to pay the balance. So, he paid down payment,
but not the balance. So Juan Dela Cruz has to institute a case
against the buyer. So here, dili pwede nga sa name ni Juan
Dela Cruz and suit because, the property belongs to Brad Pitt,
the money and the contract to sell are also his. Here, the agent
has to include the principal in the suit.
RATIOALE BEHIND DISCLOSURE OF PRINCIPAL
What is the reason why the agent has to disclose the principal?
To prevent any prejudice to the principal. Kay wala ta kabalo,
sige syag pangolecta kay buyer, wala nya gi disclose si
principal. Unya wala diay kabalo si principal nga nagacollect
na diay si agent. So that is why the principal has to be
disclosed.
Balayan Bay v. National Livelihood
[G.R. 194589 | 21 September 2015]
Here, Balayan Bay is a bank authorized by the Central Bank
to operate as a banking business. NLDC is a government
institution created to promote and generate the development
of livelihood and community based enterprises. NLDC filed a
case for collection against Balayan Bay, the bank. So, the case
was raffled to the RTC. While the case was pending in the
RTC, the bank was placed under receivership. So here,
because the bank was placed under receivership, originally
the defendant was Balayan Bay, so NLDC filed a motion for
substitution of party. It wanted to substitute Balayan Bay with
the receiver. So, PDIC is the receiver.
ISSUE: Is it proper to substitute Balayan Bay with the
Receiver?
The allegation here of NLDC was that when the receiver was
appointed, the assets and operations of the bank were already
transferred to the receiver. Transfer of interest pendente lite
was the justification of NLDC. Should there have been
substitution?
SC said the properties of the insolvent bank are NOT
transferred by law to the statutory receiver, but rather, these
assets are just held in trust to be distributed to the creditors,
after liquidation proceedings in accordance with the rules on
concurrence and preference of payments. Hence, the debtor’s
properties are deemed to have been conveyed to the liquidator
in trust for the benefit of the creditors, stock holders and other
persons in interest. Additionally, the debtor-bank’s legal
personality is no dissolved by virtue of being placed under
receivership by the monetary board. The bank retains its
juridical personality even if placed under conservatorship. It is
neither replaced nor substituted by the conservator who
should only take charge of the assets, liabilities and the
management of the institution.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
DISCUSSION: Here, the proper procedure is, the bank is NOT
substituted. The bank remains to be the real party-in-interest.
It was not dissolved by the mere fact that it was placed under
receivership. However, they should have impleaded the PDIC
as receiver in a representative capacity. This is because, as
we have discussed, suits against an insolvent corporation
must be instituted against the receiver and you must seek for
leave of court to do that. But NOT to substitute, rather it is to
implead PDIC as representative of the bank which was placed
under receivership, pursuant to RULE 3 SECTION 3. Here, the
representative is NOT the real party-in-interest, it is still the
bank.
EFFECTS OF FAILURE TO INCLUDE THE NAME OF THE
BENEFICIARY-PRINCIPAL IN THE TITLE OF THE CASE
1. The case may be dismissed if the plaintiff, suing for
another is NOT authorized:
➢ MAY BE CURED BY AMENDMENT;
➢ Under jurisprudence, a simple mistake consisting in
the failure to implead a person represented is a
mere FORMAL DEFECT, for as long as it can be
found in the complaint that there is basis for such
authority.
2. The case may be dismissed if there is improper
service of summons to the defendant:
➢ MAY BE CURED by the service of an ALIAS
SUMMONS.
JURISPRUDENCE: An agent is NOT a real party in interest in
a suit against the principal. An agent is a real party in interest
in a case where he purchased the land from the owner.
NOTE: An agent is not prohibited to prosecute the case of the
principal but he must prosecute it in the name of the latter, who
is the real party in interest.
Salonga v. Warner
[G.R. L-2246 | 88 PHIL 128 | 31 January 1951]
FACTS: In a contract of insurance over shipment, the plaintiff
filed a case against the agent of the insurance company in the
Philippines. The plaintiff won in the case. The agent contended
that it is not the real party in interest against whom the suit
should be brought. It is claimed that the action should have
rather been filed against its principal, the insurance company.
ISSUE: Is an agent of an insurance company in the Philippines
a real party in interest in a claim against the insurance
company?
RULING: NO. The real party in interest is the party who would
be benefited or injured by the judgment, or the "party entitled
to the avails of the suit". And in the case at bar, the agent was
issued upon in his capacity as agent of the insurance company
in spite of the fact that the insurance contract has not been
signed by it. The agent did not assume any obligation
thereunder either as agent or as a principal. It cannot,
therefore, be made liable under said contract, and hence it can
be said that this case was filed against one who is not the real
party in interest.
Why when a contract involves things belonging to the
principal, you cannot sue the agent without joining the
principal?
➢ To avoid prejudice to the economic interest of the
principal by the unauthorized act of his agent
➢ When it is an agency to sell a land it must be in the
form of a Special Power of Attorney
78

KINDS OF REPRESENTATIVE PARTIES UNDER
THE RULES
1. Spouses as parties (Section 4);
2. Guardians of minors / incompetents (Section 5).
Section 4. Spouses as parties. — Husband and wife shall
sue or be sued jointly, except as provided by law. (4a)
Spouses as Parties
Unitas Personae
They should be sued together as one person under the law.
Syempre mag-asawa so considered as one. Here, when you
sue, you sue jointly, unless as provided by law.
Do you remember the regime of property relations as provided
by the Family Code and upon the effectivity of the Family
Code? Before the Family Code, the default property regime
was conjugal partnership of gains. When you marry, you retain
your property but whatever is acquired of your joint effort or
industry, that is acquired by your conjugal partnership of gains.
But under the Family Code, if you did not execute any
prenuptial agreement, the Default property regime is Absolute
Community of Property, although there are still separate
properties. Like, for example, during the marriage, you acquire
properties by gratuitous title like by donation, inheritance, that
will be your separate property. But, if you execute a prenuptial
agreement, you can have any property regime, like complete
separation. So, here, if the property is the separate property of
the spouse, not jointly owned by the spouses, you can sue.
EXAMPLE:
What if for example, absolute community property ang ilahang
property regime. And then, you failed to implead the husband.
Will the action be dismissed because you failed to implead the
husband in violation of Section 4? NO. The complaint can be
amended to clear the defect of party-plaintiffs.
➢ Art. 75 FC … In the absence of a marriage settlement,
or when the regime agreed upon is void, the system of
absolute community of property as established in this
Code shall govern.
➢ Therefore, if the case/claim involves ACOP, the husband
and the wife as joined administrators must sue or be sued
together.
➢ Art. 73 FC. Either spouse may exercise any legitimate
profession, occupation, business or activity without the
consent of the other. The latter may object only on valid,
serious, and moral grounds.
➢ Art. 96 FC. The administration and enjoyment of the
community property shall belong to both spouses jointly.
Instances When Suit May Be Instituted Against Any One
of the Spouses
1. When they have a complete separation of property;
Art. 145 FC. Each spouse shall own, dispose of,
possess, administer and enjoy his or her own separate
estate, without need of the consent of the other. …
2. Even if they have an absolute community or conjugal
partnership regime, the property involved is the separate
property of either the husband or the wife;
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
Art. 111 FC. A spouse of age may mortgage, encumber,
alienate or otherwise dispose of his or her exclusive property,
without the consent of the other spouse, and appear alone in
court to litigate with regard to the same.
CUYUGAN v. DIZON
[GRN L-208 | August 29, 1947]
FACTS: Plaintiff leased to the defendant several parcels of
land. During the outbreak of the war, the defendant defaulted
in payment of rentals. Plaintiff filed a case to rescind the
contract of lease. Judgment was rendered in favor the plaintiff.
The defendant attacked the validity of the judgment on the
ground that the plaintiff's husband was not joined as plaintiff. It
is contended, with support of law and authorities, that even
though the subject matter of the contract is a separate property
of the wife, yet the suit seeks to recover rents which under
Article 1401 of the Civil Code belong to the conjugal
partnership.
ISSUE Should the case be dismissed for failure of the plaintiff
to join her husband?
RULING: NO. The complaint may and should be amended
here, to cure the defect of party plaintiffs, after final decision is
rendered. As this Court had occasion to say in Quison vs.
Salud (12 Phil., 109, 116), "a second action would be but a
repetition of the first and would involve both parties, plaintiffs
and defendant, in much additional expense and would cause
much delay, in that way defeating the purpose of the section,
which is expressly stated to be 'that the actual merits of the
controversy may speedily be determined without regard to
technicalities and in the most expeditious and inexpensive
manner." This procedure is all the more reasonable in the
present case because it does not appear nor is there the
slightest hint that the plaintiff's husband is hostile to his wife's
demand or claims any interest in the suit adverse to hers' or
that the defendant, by any possibility, has any evidence to
present with reference to the husband.
The case should not be dismissed for failure to include the
husband, nor should the case be remanded nor a new trial
ordered. The complaint may and should be amended to cure
the defect of party-plaintiffs after a final decision has been
rendered. Section 11 Rule 2 and Section 2 Rule 17 expressly
authorizes such procedure even after final decision.
Why should it not be dismissed? This is because the more
important consideration is to prevent multiplicity of suits. SC
says a second action would be but a repetition of the first and
would involve both parties, plaintiffs and defendants, which
would incur much additional expense and much additional
delay that it may defeat the purpose of said section, which is
expressly stated to be that the action merits of the controversy
may be speedy determined without regard to technicalities and
in the most expeditious and inexpensive manner.
Here, SC says, this procedure is all the more reasonable in the
present case because it does not appear that the plaintiff’s
husband is hostile to his wife’s demands or claims, or any
interest in the suit adverse to hers, or that the defendant by
any possibility has any evidence to present with reference to
the husband. Hence, it is NOT a ground to dismiss, just
amend.
79

Section 5. Minor or incompetent persons. — A minor or a
person alleged to be incompetent, may sue or be sued, with
the assistance of his FATHER, MOTHER, GUARDIAN, or if
he has none, a GUARDIAN AD LITEM. (5a)
How do you sue a minor or incompetent person?
The rule says, with the assistance of his father, mother or
guardian or if he has non, a guardian ad litem.
MINORS: Off course, we know what minors are, those who
are below 18 years of age.
INCOMPETENT PERSONS: They are the ones mentioned in
Rule 92 Section 2.
GUARDIANSHIP
A guardianship is a trust relation of the most sacred character,
in which one person, called the guardian acts for another
called the ward whom the law regards as incapable of
managing his own affairs. A guardianship is designed to
further the ward’s well-being, not that of the guardian. It is
intended to preserve the ward’s property, as well as to render
any assistance that the ward may personally require. It has
been stated that while custody involves immediate care and
control, guardianship indicates not only those responsibilities,
but those of one in loco parentis as well.
SECTION 2. RULE 92. Meaning of the word incompetent.
Under this rule, the word incompetent includes persons
suffering the penalty of civil interdiction or who are hospitalized
lepers, prodigals, deaf and dumb who are unable to read and
write, those who are of unsound mind, but by reason of age,
disease, weak mind, and other similar causes, cannot, without
outside aid, take care of themselves and manage their
property, becoming thereby an easy prey for deceit and
exploitation.
If you are going to sue a minor or incompetent person, you
should sue him together with his guardian or representative or
guardian ad litem.
Definition of Guardian Ad Litem
A GUARDIAN AD LITEM is the legal guardian appointed by
the court if the minor or incapacitated person has no father,
mother or guardian.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
III. PERMISSIVE PARTIES
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)
This provision presumes that there are several parties and the
plaintiff wishes to file one case against all of them. So, you join
the parties. Is that allowed? YES, provided that all the
requisites are present.
REQUISITES FOR PERMISSIVE JOINDER OF PARTIES
1. There is a Right to relief in favor of or against the parties
joined in respect to or arising out of the same transaction
or series of transactions;
2. There is a Question of law or fact common to the parties
joined in the action;
3. Such Joinder is not otherwise proscribed by the
provisions of the rules on jurisdiction and venue.
As we have discussed before, this is different from joinder of
causes of action, because if you have several causes of
actions, you can join them. If you are filing these several
causes of action against one party, wala kay problema. But if
you are filing these causes of action, it may be one cause of
action or several causes of action against several parties, you
have to comply not only with the rule on Joinder of Causes of
Action but also with the Rule on Joinder of Parties.
Remember that you have to comply here also with the Rule on
Joinder of Causes of Action before you can even consider
Joinder of Parties. Diba, if you are filing the case, for example
if you have two causes of action against different parties and
one pertains to the RTC and one pertains to the MTC. You
should file it in the RTC. And you cannot join a SPECIAL
PROCEEDING with an ORDINARY CIVIL ACTION.
Pantranco North Express v. Standard Insurance
Company, Inc.
[G.R. 140746 | 16 March 2005]
There was a passenger Jeepney, which was being driven by
Crispin Gicale. The jeepney was owned by Martina, Gicale’s
mother. It was raining and the jeepney was driving along the
National Highway of Nueva Ecija. There was a passenger bus
owned by Pantranco North Express which was trailing behind
the jeepney. When the two vehicles were negotiating a curve
along the highway, the passenger bus overtook the jeepney
and sped away. In so doing, the passenger bus hit the left rear
side of the jeepney and sped away.
Crispin the jeepney driver reported the incident and had his
jeep repaired which costed P21,415. But the Jeepney
insurance, Standard Insurance paid the P8000. So the one
who shouldered the balance was the owner, Martina.
80

Standard and Martina filed a case for damages against
Pantranco and the driver. They sued on the basis of quasi-
delict, because Pantranco refused to reimburse them.
One of Pantranco’s defenses was that the Court had no
jurisdiction over the case. The case was filed with the RTC.
According to Pantranco, it should be filed with the MTC
because, the claim of the owner of the Jeepney is P13,000,
the claim of the insurance company is P8000. Previously,
before the amendment of BP 129, when the demand amounts
to more than P20,000, it is the RTC which has jurisdiction,
below such amount it is the MTC which has jurisdiction. Thus,
it alleged that the case should have been filed with the MTC.
RULING: In joinder of causes of actions in relation to joinder
of parties, there is the totality rule. It is the totality of the claim
which is the basis of jurisdiction. If you total the P13,000 and
the P8,000, that will be P21,000. And under the law in force at
that time, it should be with the jurisdiction of the RTC. Would
the totality rule apply here? It will ultimately boil down to the
question of was there a proper joinder of parties. Kay ang
totality rule mag-apply na sya kung proper ang joinder of
parties.
Measured against the requirements, as discussed:
1. There is a Right to relief in favor of or against the parties
joined in respect to or arising out of the same transaction
or series of transactions;
2. There is a Question of law or fact common to the parties
joined in the action;
3. Such Joinder is not otherwise proscribed by the
provisions of the rules on jurisdiction and venue.
The SC said, there is a single transaction common to all, which
is Pantranco’s bus hitting the rear side of the jeepney. There
is also a common question of fact, which is whether or not
Pantranco and the driver were negligent. So, there being a
single transaction common to all respondents, consequently,
they have the same causes of action against petitioners.
Test to Determine Identity of Causes of Action
To determine identity of causes of action, it must be
ascertained whether the same evidence, which is necessary
to sustain the second cause of action would have been
sufficient to authorize a recovery in the first. This entails that in
both cases, you will be presenting the same evidence.
Here, if you would insist that you file several cases, it would
result to multiplicity of suits. You will be presenting the same
evidence in the first case and the same in the second case.
Such joinder of parties and causes of action, avoids multiplicity
of suits and ensures the convenience and orderly
administration of justice. Hence, the case should not be
dismissed because it was well within the jurisdiction of the RTC
by virtue of the fact that there was a proper joinder of causes
of action and joiner of parties.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
REASONS WHY THE LAW ENCOURAGES PERMISSIVE
JOINDER OF PARTIES
1. to promote convenience of the trial
2. to prevent multiplicity of suits
3. to expedite the termination of the litigation, and
4. to attain economy of procedure under which several
demands arising out of the same occurrence may be tried
together thus avoiding the repetition of evidence relating
to facts common to the general demands
REMEMBER
When there is a joinder of parties, necessarily there is a joinder
of causes of actions. That is why again, you have to comply
both with the requirements of joinder of parties and joinder of
causes of action. But if there is a joinder of causes of actions,
it does not necessary imply that there is a joiner of parties
because you might have several causes of action against one
party only. So that’s why, in that case you will only have to
comply with the requirements of joinder of causes of action.
Nature of Permissive Joinder of Parties
Permissive joinder of parties is NOT MANDATORY. A party in
interest may opt to file a case individually or join in action
together with other parties in interest against the defendant.
However, the law encourages permissive joinder of parties.
Despite this, whenever the joinder of parties is properly made,
the Court cannot dismiss the case. Because it is intended to
prevent multiplicity of suits. In fact, whenever there is a
misjoinder, as we have discussed before, it is not a ground
for dismissing the entire case.
Example: With respect to the party who is not a real party-in-
interest, and who is simply improperly joined, his case can be
dismissed, but NOT the entire case. But, if it is a joinder of
causes of action and the joinder is found to be improper, the
court will just order the severance of the different causes of
action and have each of them proceed independently.
Example: It is NOT MANDATORY to join the parties in the
case, although it is advisable. For instance, you have A and B
as debtors. They signed a promissory note, ‘we promise to pay
X the sum of 1Million 30 days from date.’ And then, they did
not pay. So X sent a demand letter, there was NO payment,
then there was default. Can he file one case for collection of
sum of money against both debtors A and B? Can they be
joined? YES. There is NO prohibition. He has a cause of action
against both and there’s no rule that is violated by that. The
cause of action against A and against B arose out of the same
transaction, they even signed one promissory note.
What if he files a case only against A? Will his case be
dismissed because he did not include B? NO, because
actually the obligation of A and B is joint, so each debt is
separate and distinct from each other. So, non-joinder of a
party is not a ground for the dismissal of a case. It is not
mandatory although it is advisable.
81

Example:
Joined as Defendants
➢ Passenger of a common carrier after a collision with
another common carrier can implead both its operator
and alternatively the other operator. The drivers of both
the carriers can also be impleaded in the alternative.
There are 4 different causes of action against 4 different
parties because one is for breach of contract of carriage
and the other is quasi delict or a criminal liability as the
case may be.
Joined as Plaintiff
➢ Passengers of a common carrier after a collision may file
an action against the operator individually, each of them
have their respective causes of action or they may sue
together as plaintiffs.
➢ After a collision between a private car (at fault) and a
public bus, the operator and driver of the bus and its
passengers may join in one complaint for damages
against the negligent driver of the private car.
➢ Persons labeled as ―jueteng kings‖ in an article of a
paper may file an action for damages for libel together as
plaintiffs against the editor and publisher.
NB: When there is a joinder of parties, necessarily, there is
also AUTOMATIC joinder of causes of action. But there could
be a joinder of causes of action without a joinder of parties.
IV. INDISPENSABLE PARTIES
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)
INDISPENSABLE PARTY
An INDISPENSABLE PARTY is a party-in-interest without
whom there can be no final determination of an action. The
interests of such indispensable party in the subject matter of
the suit and the relief are so bound with those of the other
parties that his legal presence as a party to the proceeding is
an absolute necessity. As a rule, an indispensable party‘s
interest in the subject matter is such that a complete and
efficient determination of the equities and rights of the parties
is not possible if he is not joined. (DE GALICIA vs. MERCADO,
G.R. No. 146744)
An indispensable party is one who must have a direct interest
in the litigation; and if this interest is such that it cannot be
separated from that of the parties to the suit, if the court cannot
render justice between the parties in his absence, if the decree
will have an injurious effect upon his interest, or if the final
determination of the controversy in his absence will be
inconsistent with equity and good conscience. (REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES vs. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN,
G.R. No. 152154)
It has also been considered that an indispensable party is a
person in whose absence there cannot be a determination
between the parties already before the court which is effective,
complete or equitable. Further, an indispensable party is one
who must be included in an action before it may properly go
forward. (CASALS vs. TAYUD GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB
INC)
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
Here, we have the concept of indispensable parties. The rule
says COMPULSORY JOINDER – meaning they have to be
joined in the case.
Who are indispensable parties? These are parties-in-
interest without whom no final determination can be had of an
action.
Maclaring Lucman v. Malawi Et. Al.
[G.R. 159794 | 19 December 2006]
An indispensable party is a party who has such an interest in
the controversy or subject matter that a final adjudication
cannot be made, in his absence, without injuring or affecting
that interest, a party who has not only an interest in the subject
matter of the controversy, but also has an interest of such
nature that a final decree cannot be made without affecting his
interest or leaving the controversy in such a condition that its
final determination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and
good conscience. It has also been considered that an
indispensable party is a person in whose absence there
cannot be a determination between the parties already before
the court which is effective, complete, or equitable. Further, an
indispensable party is one who must be included in an action
before it may properly go forward.
A person is NOT an indispensable party, however, if his
interest in the controversy or subject matter is separable from
the interest of the other parties, so that it will not necessarily
be directly or injuriously affected by a decree which does
complete justice between them. Also, a person is not an
indispensable party if his presence would merely permit
complete relief between him and those already parties to the
action, or if he has no interest in the subject matter of the
action. It is not a sufficient reason to declare a person to be an
indispensable party that his presence will avoid multiple
litigation.
DISCUSSION: You cannot secure a complete determination
of the case without joining the indispensable party.
Republic of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan
[G.R. 152154 | 15 July 2003]
There are two essential tests of an indispensable party:
(1) can relief be afforded the plaintiff without the presence of
the other party? and
(2) can the case be decided on its merits without
prejudicing the rights of the other party?
There is, however, no fixed formula for determining who is an
indispensable party; this can only be determined in the context
and by the facts of the particular suit or litigation.
82

EXAMPLES OF CASES WHERE THERE ARE
INDISPENSABLE PARTIES THAT SHOULD BE JOINED
BUT WERE NOT JOINED
De Lara v. De Lara
[G.R. 1111 | 16 May 1903]
Action for Partition. These are co-owners of the same property
and one of them would like to ask for partition. In an action for
partition, all the co-owners are indispensable parties. You
cannot file a case for partition impleading only one or two, but
not all of the co-owners. This is because in a partition you will
be dividing the entire property. Thus, it would affect the interest
of all of the co-owners. So, you cannot just divide the property
without impleading all of the co-owners, actually, the case will
be dismissed.
Karam v. Court of Appeals
Annulment of Partition. They are heirs, who executed an
extrajudicial settlement of the estate. One of them complained
because there was allegedly omission of some heirs. So, if you
want to annul partition you must include all the heirs. You
cannot just file against some. They are all indispensable
parties.
Salida v. Cabotage
Action for recovery of ownership of land. Against whom do you
file the case? Off-course, against the person who alleges to be
the owner of the land. He is an indispensable party. For
example, there is an occupant in a property who is a lessee or
a tenant. But he is admitting that he is a lessor or a tenant.
When you file a case for recovery of ownership, X the owner
or the one who alleges to be the owner is an indispensable
party. If you file the case against the possessor only, it will not
be a complete determination of the case, because, X or the
one purporting to be the owner will be ousted from the property
in case of a n adverse decision against the possessor. So, in
that case, the judgement will not be enforceable as against him
because he is not impleaded in the case, he will not be
affected.
But, if your case is merely about possession de facto, such as
forcible entry, or who has a better right to possession for
example, then you can file against the possessor and not really
against the owner of the property. So, it really depends upon
the nature of the case, for you to determine who is an
indispensable party.
Gabactin v. Land Bank of the Philippines
Are you familiar with cases involving acquisition of land by the
Department of Agrarian Reform? Like for example if you are a
landowner, although karon kay naglapse na man ang
CARPER law. Katong June 13, 2014 di na sila makacover, but
before pwede. If you are an owner of an agricultural land,
exceeding 5 Hectares. The excess of 5 hectares can be
covered by CARP, unless you fall under the exceptions
provided by law. So, the excess will be covered and awarded
to agrarian reform beneficiaries. The landowner will be paid
just compensation for the land. Which will be computed by the
Land Bank of the Philippines. And then katong mga
beneficiaries sang land, they will be awarded the land but they
will pay the Land Bank the amortizations. That is the process.
In that case, the DAR will notify the landowner that his land will
now be subjected to coverage. And then the Land Bank will
now compute the just compensation. And then the land owner
can either contest on the basis for the coverage because the
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
land is excluded from the coverage or not subject to coverage
at all, or he may just be concerned with the just compensation.
For example, if you are the land owner and you are not
agreeable to the compensation as computed by land bank. In
this case, the SC affirmed that if you file a case, for example
for the determination of just compensation, you implead not
only the DAR, you also implead the Land Bank. The land
bank in such cases is an indispensable party because the land
bank is the one that will compute and pay the just
compensation and it is also to the land bank where the
beneficiaries will pay the amortizations. Thus, even in the
preliminary stage of the determination of just compensation,
land bank’s task is inseparably interwoven with that of the
DAR.
So, here, the SC said that there would never be a judicial
determination of just compensation absent Land Bank’s
participation. Logically, it follows that Land bank is an
indispensable party in the determination of just compensation
in cases arising from Agrarian Reform Program.
Effect of Failure to Implead Indispensable Party
Should the case just proceed? Dismissed?
Cua v. Tan
[G.R. 181455 -56 | 4 December 2009]
Failure to implead indispensable parties renders the action
vulnerable to dismissal.
Lucman v. Malawi Et. Al.
[G.R. 159794 | 19 December 2006]
The presence of indispensable parties is a condition for the
exercise of juridical power and when an indispensable party is
not before the court, the action should be dismissed. The
absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent
actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act,
not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present.
The joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory. Without the
presence of indispensable parties to the suit, the judgment of
the court cannot attain real finality. Strangers to a case are not
bound by the judgment rendered by the court.
Rationale:
The rights of the parties are intertwined such as in the case of
co-owners or heirs. Thus, it is not possible to have the
judgement effective only as to the ones who are present
because such judgement prejudices the rights of those who
are not impleaded. Thus, it is not possible to proceed without
impleading all the indispensable parties.
83

EXCEPTION
Republic v. Sandiganbayan
[G.R. 152154 | 15 July 2003]
Have you read this case about ill-gotten wealth? There were
several foundations set-up and the funds were placed under
the names of these foundations para matago ang money. In
the case, those foundations were not impleaded. So it was
alleged that you cannot proceed with the case, because these
foundations are indispensable parties. They ought to be joined
in the case for a final determination.
SC looked for a way para malusutan jud sya. SC says they are
NOT indispensable parties because Imelda Marcos already
admitted in her manifestation in the Sandiganbayan that she
was the sole beneficiary of 90% of the subject matter in
controversy, with the remaining 10% belonging to the estate of
Ferdinand Marcos.
In the present case, there was an admission by respondent
Imelda Marcos in her May 26, 1998 Manifestation before the
Sandiganbayan that she was the sole beneficiary of 90% of
the subject matter in controversy with the remaining 10%
belonging to the estate of Ferdinand Marcos. Viewed against
this admission, the foreign foundations were not indispensable
parties. Their non-participation in the proceedings did not
prevent the court from deciding the case on its merits and
according full relief to petitioner Republic. The judgment
ordering the return of the $356 million was neither inimical to
the foundations' interests nor inconsistent with equity and good
conscience. The admission of respondent Imelda Marcos only
confirmed what was already generally known: that the
foundations were established precisely to hide the money
stolen by the Marcos spouses from petitioner Republic. It
negated whatever illusion there was, if any, that the foreign
foundations owned even a nominal part of the assets in
question.
So, dili daw sila indispensable parties. However, the SC said:
assuming arguendo, however, that the foundations were
indispensable parties, the failure of petitioner to implead them
was a curable error, as held in the previously cited case
of Republic vs. Sandiganbayan:
"Even in those cases where it might reasonably be argued that
the failure of the Government to implead the sequestered
corporations as defendants is indeed a procedural abberation,
as where said firms were allegedly used, and actively
cooperated with the defendants, as instruments or conduits for
conversion of public funds and property or illicit or fraudulent
obtention of favored government contracts, etc., slight
reflection would nevertheless lead to the conclusion that the
defect is not fatal, but one correctible under applicable
adjective rules – e.g., Section 10, Rule 5 of the Rules of Court
[specifying the remedy of amendment during trial to authorize
or to conform to the evidence]; Section 1, Rule 20 [governing
amendments before trial], in relation to the rule respecting
omission of so-called necessary or indispensable parties, set
out in Section 11, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. It is relevant in
this context to advert to the old familiar doctrines that the
omission to implead such parties "is a mere technical defect
which can be cured at any stage of the proceedings even after
judgment"; and that, particularly in the case of indispensable
parties, since their presence and participation is essential to
the very life of the action, for without them no judgment may
be rendered, amendments of the complaint in order to implead
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
them should be freely allowed, even on appeal, in fact even
after rendition of judgment by this Court, where it appears that
the complaint otherwise indicates their identity and character
as such indispensable parties."
Generally, an indispensable party must be impleaded for the
complete determination of the suit. However, failure to join an
indispensable party does not divest the court of jurisdiction
since the rule regarding indispensable parties is founded on
equitable considerations and is not jurisdictional. Thus, the
court is not divested of its power to render a decision even in
the absence of indispensable parties, though such judgment is
not binding on the non-joined party.
NOTE: SC ruling in this case is different. Though, you have to
take into account the peculiar facts in this case. Though ang
ruling gyud niya is dili man indispensable party si foundation.
Assuming lang ni for the sake of argument.
General Rule: The absence of indispensable party will
prevent the court from proceeding with the case. The case
should be dismissed because when it appears of record that
there are other persons interested in the subject matter in
litigation who were not made parties to the action, it is the duty
of the Court to suspend the trial until such parties are made
either plaintiffs or defendants. Where the petition failed to join
as party-defendant the proceeding made in court, the same
should be dismissed.
Off course, when you say indispensable party, that party is
necessarily a real party in interest. Because, that is precisely
the reason why he is indispensable. He will directly or indirectly
be benefited from the result of the suit and in addition in his
absence there can be no complete determination of the case.
Two essential tests of an indispensable party
(If YES, not an indispensable party, if NO, indispensable party)
1. Can relief be afforded the plaintiff without the
presence of the other party?
2. Can the case be decided on its merits without
prejudicing the rights of the other party?
Example:
1. all co-owners, in an action for partition of land (De Lara
vs. De Lara, 2 Phil 294)
2. all heirs, in an action for annulment of partition of land
(Caram vs. CA, 101 Phil 315)
3. the owner/all co-owners of the land (and not the tenant
as possessor), in an action for recovery of ownership of
land (Sanidad vs. Cabotaje, 5 Phil 204; Manza vs.
Santiago, 96 Phil 938)
4. the possessor, in an action for ejectment or recovery of
possession of land
5. the Land bank of the Philippines, in an expropriation
proceeding for the acquisition of private agricultural lands
(Gabatin vs. Land bank of the Philippines, G.R. No.
148223)
6. all co-owners of the estate such as heirs and transferees,
in a case for the determination of hereditary rights (Cua
vs. Vargas, G.R. No. 156536)
84

V. NECESSARY PARTIES
Section 8. Necessary party. – 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. (8a)
Definition of Necessary Party
A NECESSARY PARTY ought to be joined whenever possible
in order to adjudicate the whole controversy and avoid
multiplicity of suits, but if for some reason or another he cannot
be joined, the court may proceed without him and the judgment
shall not prejudice his rights. (Borlasa vs. Politico, 47 Phil 345)
Okay lang na wala sya, pero kinahanglan man naa sya. Pero
kung wala sya dili pud ma dismiss ang case, kay dili man sya
indispensable. Pero dapat naa sya para naay complete
settlement of the claim subject of the action.
Example:
1. the principal debtor, in an action for collection of debt
instituted by the creditor against the surety (Vaño vs.
Alo, 95 Phil 495)
2. the guarantor or surety, in an action for recovery of debt
instituted by the creditor against the principal debtor
(Vaño vs. Alo, 95 Phil 495)
• Not an indispensable party because creditor can
proceed against the principal debtor but it is more
beneficial to include the guarantor. In case of surety,
either the principal debtor or the surety need not be
impleaded as long as full satisfaction of the debt can
be recovered from any one of the solidary debtors
because when you sue one you don‘t really need to
sue another. However in case when the principal
debtor or the surety is unable to pay, you can implead
the other parties as a necessary party.
3. the second mortgagee, in an action for foreclosure of a
real estate mortgage instituted by the first mortgagee
(Somes vs. Government of the Phil., 62 Phil 432)
4. the corporation, in a derivative suit
5. the contractor in a labor-only contracting is NOT a
necessary party in a labor case because the contractor
is a mere representative of the principal/employer
whose personality, as against that of the workers, is
merged with that of the principal/employer. (Coca-Cola
Bottlers Phil. vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 184977)
• Atty. Espejo: Bizzare because they are applying civil
procedure rules to an action which should be
governed by special rules on labor cases.
Example:
Joint and indivisible obligation – A and B promised to deliver
to X a car. As to their liability the obligation is joint because in
the absence of agreement as to solidarity. But their obligation
is also to deliver an indivisible object, so, a car, you cannot
divide a car. If X files a case only against A it is possible
because it is a joint obligation. But can he demand the delivery
of the entire car? NO, because it is a joint obligation although,
indivisible ang subject matter. So, in that case he has to join B
in that case so that he can compel the delivery of the entire
car. What if he didn’t join B? Can he not recover? Actually kung
mag default ang isa ka party in a joint and indivisible obligation,
example, di gyud makadeliver si A sa car. When there is
already default, the obligation is converted into a monetary
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
obligation. So he can just opt to collect the share of A as
converted into a monetary obligation. Pero kung car gyud
mismo ang iyaha nga gusto, he cannot collect without joining
B. In that case, B becomes indispensable. But again, when
there is already default, the obligation is converted into a
monetary obligation. So he can just recover from A only the
monetary value of the car, or depende kung kinsa ang
nagdefault sa duha, sya ang liable for damages.
Vaño vs. Alo
[95 Phil 495 | 30 July 1954]
Collection of Debt, instituted by the creditor against the surety.
Is it necessary to join the principal debtor? Actually, it is
necessary to join the principal debtor, but if you didn’t include
him in the case, the case will still proceed. This is because the
obligation of the surety is solidary with that of the principal. So
you can opt to file the case against the principal debtor or
against the surety. But you can also file against both. So, sila
na bahala diha kung unsa ang ilang defenses against each
other. But in that case, the principal debtor is a necessary party
but if the case is filed against the surety only, it will not result
in the dismissal of the case or vice versa.
Somes vs. Government of the Philippines
[62 Phil 432 |30 October 1935]
Action for foreclosure of real estate mortgage instituted by the
first mortgagee. Actually in this case, the property was
mortgaged several times, naay first mortgage, naay second
mortgage. Off course under the hierarchy of rights, mas naay
superior rights ang first mortgagee kaysa sa second
mortgagee. If the first mortgagee files a case for foreclosure of
mortgage, does he have to implead the second mortgagee?
Actually, it is not required. Although, the second mortgagee
can be considered as a necessary party because it will settle
all the issues in the case, but it will not prevent the foreclosure
by the first mortgagee. Ang mahitabo ana kung ginplead nya
si second mortgagee, so if he filed a case against the debtor
and the second mortgagee, upon foreclosure of the mortgage,
if there is excess, the second mortgagee can still get
something. If there is still something left after the satisfaction
of the debt with the second mortgagee then the remainder will
be returned to the debtor. So, didto lang kutob kung kinsa ang
maabtan sa proceeds sa foreclosure of mortgage.
Coca-Cola Bottlers Phil. vs. Dela Cruz
[G.R. No. 184977 | 7 December 2009]
In labor contracting, a bona fide labor contractor will have a
trilateral relationship between the company and the contractor,
between the contractor and the employees, and the
employees and the company. Under the labor code, there is a
certain provision there that if the contractor failed to pay the
wages of the employees, the company becomes liable for a
limited purpose only, insofar as it has not settled its obligation
with the contractor. But if the contractor is not a bona fide labor
contractor, under the law, the company will be considered as
the direct employer of the employees hired by the contractor.
The contractor will be considered merely as an agent of the
company. In this case, Coca-cola bottlers hired a contracting
agency for its security guards. Here, the contractor was not
impleaded. The contractor is a necessary party. You cannot
have a complete settlement of the case without impleading the
security agency. SC says in this case that because there was
a finding of labor only contracting, it was only the agent of the
company. Thus there was no need to implead the security
agency in the suit, because in the first place it’s not even a
necessary party.
85
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG

INDISPENSABLE NECESSARY
BASIS
PARTY PARTY
EFFECTS: NON-JOINDER
When they are Must be joined Ought to be
joined. under any and all joined whenever Section 9. Non-joinder of necessary parties to be pleaded.
conditions. possible in order — Whenever in any pleading in which a claim is asserted a
to adjudicate the necessary party is not joined, the pleader shall set forth his
whole name, if known, and shall state why he is omitted. Should
controversy and the court find the reason for the omission unmeritorious, it
avoid multiplicity may order the inclusion of the omitted necessary party if
of suits. jurisdiction over his person may be obtained.
Reason for the His presence In order to The failure to comply with the order for his inclusion, without
Joinder. being a condition adjudicate the justifiable cause, shall be deemed a waiver of the claim
sine qua non of whole against such party.
the exercise of controversy and The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent the
judicial review, as avoid multiplicity court from proceeding in the action, and the judgment
a of suits, for rendered therein shall be without prejudice to the rights of
PREREQUISITE. CONVENIENCE. such necessary party. (8a, 9a)
Effect of his Without him, no Without him, the
absence. final determination court may NON-JOINDER OF PARTIES
can be had of the proceed BUT the Definition of Non-Joinder of Parties
action. judgement shall NON-JOINDER OF PARTIES means that there is a party who
not prejudice his ought to be joined but was not joined
rights.
Example:
Who has the right to appeal? • When A and B are solidary creditors of debtor C. C
BOTH indispensable party and necessary party has a right to paid B. B did not give A his share. A sues C, not
appeal. knowing of the payment made by C to B. Naturally, B
Gabatin v. Land Bank of the Philippines ought to be included as a party plaintiff but B refuses
[G.R. No. 148223, November 25, 2004] to sue. (Apply Section 10 also)
RULING We find the argument of the petitioners that only • When a necessary party is not included
indispensable parties can appeal to be incorrect.
Effects of not joining in the action the necessary party?
There is nothing in the Rules of Court that prohibits a party in 1. The court can proceed in the action, it can render
an action before the lower court to make an appeal merely on judgment but such judgment should not bind a
the ground that he is not an indispensable party. The Rules of necessary party.
Court does not distinguish whether the appellant is an 2. Non-joinder being a mere procedural defect, the court
indispensable party or not. To avail of the remedy, the only may at any time order the inclusion of such a
requirement is that the person appealing must have a present necessary party. (it is not a jurisdictional effect but
interest in the subject matter of the litigation and must be only a procedural defect)
aggrieved or prejudiced by the judgment. A party, in turn, is
deemed aggrieved or prejudiced when his interest, recognized DISCUSSION
by law in the subject matter of the lawsuit, is injuriously When we say necessary party, his presence is also necessary
affected by the judgment, order or decree. The fact that a for the determination of the case but it shall not prevent the
person is made a party to a case before the lower court, and court from proceeding.
eventually be made liable if the judgment be against him,
necessarily entitles him to exercise his right to appeal. To For example, a principal debtor and surety, you can sue any
prohibit such party to appeal is nothing less than an outright one of them because their liability is solidary. They are all
violation of the rules on fair play. necessary party but if you sue only the principal, the case can
still proceed or if you sue only the surety, the case can still
proceed. But you have to explain to the court why you are
suing only the surety and not the principal. It would be better if
apil and principal because the surety is made to pay and he
can also ask for the reimbursement from the principal that
would give a complete determination of the case. But again it
will not prevent the court from acquiring the jurisdiction of the
case and proceeding.

Should the reason for the omission be unmeritorious then the

court may order the inclusion of the omitted party if jurisdiction
over his person may be obtained. For example, naa siya sa
abroad so obviously you cannot obtain jurisdiction over his
person so that would be reasonable ground why the necessary
party is not included in the pleading.

86
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG

For example, the court ordered the inclusion of the necessary

party but magulo si plaintiff he did not include. So that would Misjoinder meaning you joined the party in a case but he is not
be consider as a waiver of his claim over that necessary party supposed to be joined probably because the cause of action
whom he did not include in the pleading. So that would be the does not arise out of the same transaction. What is the effect?
effect.
You will just separate. It is not ground for dismissal of
And the judgement render in the court, for example the complain. Parties may be dropped on order of court or motion
necessary party is not included, shall be without prejudice to of party or at his own initiative.
the rights of necessary party.
Example:
• When a secretary has a debt to the plaintiff which
RULES ON PARTIES remains unpaid but both secretary and her employer
are impleaded thinking that the employer is the one
with the money.
SUMMARY
• When both the driver and his employer were sue or
the former‘s personal debt.
RULES ON PLAINTIFFS AS PARTIES
• When a there is no common question of fact or law
• unwilling co-plaintiff (Sec. 10)
involving the joined parties.
RULES ON PLAINTIFFS/DEFENDANTS AS PARTIES
• class suit (Sec. 11)
RULES ON DEFENDANTS AS PARTIES
Republic of the Philippines v. Herbieto
[G.R. 156117 | 26 May 2005]
• alternative defendants (Sec. 12)
Facts: Herbieto brothers, Jeremias and David, filed before the
• unknown identity or name of defendant (Sec. 13)
MTC a single application for registration of two parcels of land.
MTC granted the registration and confirmed of the title of
SECTION 10. Unwilling co-plaintiff. – If the consent of any
respondent Jeremias over Lot No. 8422 and of respondent
party who should be joined as plaintiff can not be obtained,
David over Lot. Petitioner Republic opposed and alleged that
he may be made a defendant and the reason therefor shall
the application for registration suffers from fatal infirmity as the
be stated in the complaint. (10)
subject of the application consisted of two parcels of land
individually and separately owned by two applicants. Petitioner
When a plaintiff may be a defendant
Republic contends that it is implicit in the provisions of PD No.
(1) counter claim
1529 as amended, that the application for registration of title
(2) counter-cross-claim.
to land shall be filed by a single applicant; multiple applicants
(3) unwilling co-plaintiff
may file a single application only in case they are co-owners.
While an application may cover two parcels of land, it is
NOTE: This is the remedy against an unwilling co-plaintiff who
allowed only when the subject parcels of land belong to the
is an INDISPENSABLE PARTY because the case cannot
same applicant or applicants (in case the subject parcels of
proceed in the absence of his consent.
land are co-owned) and are situated within the same province.
Where the authority of the courts to proceed is conferred by a
Complaint: ― C is also a defendant being impleaded here
statute and when the manner of obtaining jurisdiction is
under Section 10 of Rule 3 as an unwilling co-plaintiff for the
mandatory, it must be strictly complied with or the proceedings
reason that…
will be utterly void.
Q: Do you remember the rule for example husband and wife,
Since the respondents failed to comply with the procedure for
they must sue or be sued jointly?
land registration under the Property Registration Decree, the
A: For example the subject matter involves property belonging
proceedings held before the MTC is void, as the latter did not
to the absolute property of community and husband and wife
acquire jurisdiction over it.
are separate in fact na but not legally separated. The husband
Issue: WON MTC acquired jurisdiction in this case.
would want to file a case regarding their absolute property and
the wife refuses. He cannot obtain consent of the wife. Well,
Held: NO. The Property Registration Decree is silent,
under Section 10, he can still file a case and nonconsenting
however, as to the present situation wherein two applicants
wife can be just impleaded or included as defendant. The
filed a single application for two parcels of land, but are
plaintiff should state the reason why instead making the wife
seeking the separate and individual registration of the parcels
as co-plaintiff is now a defendant.
of land in their respective names. Since the Property
Registration Decree failed to provide for such a situation, then
Section 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. —
this Court refers to the Rules of Court to determine the proper
Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is ground for
course of action. Section 34 of the Property Registration
dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or added by
Decree itself provides that, [t]he Rules of Court shall, insofar
order of the court on motion of any party or on its own
as not inconsistent with the provisions of this Decree, be
initiative at any stage the action and on such terms as are
applicable to land registration and cadastral cases by analogy
just. Any claim against a misjoined party may be severed
or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and
and proceeded with separately. (11a)
convenient.
Definition of Misjoinder of Causes of Action
There is MISJOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION is when two
or more causes of action were joined in one complaint when
they should not be joined.

87

Considering every application for land registration filed in strict
accordance with the Property Registration Decree as a single
cause of action, then the defect in the joint application for
registration filed by the respondents with the MTC constitutes
a misjoinder of causes of action and parties. Instead of a single
or joint application for registration, respondents Jeremias and
David, more appropriately, should have filed separate
applications for registration of Lots No. 8422 and 8423,
respectively.
Misjoinder of causes of action and parties do not involve a
question of jurisdiction of the court to hear and proceed with
the case. They are not even accepted grounds for dismissal
thereof. Instead, under the Rules of Court, the misjoinder of
causes of action and parties involve an implied admission of
the courts jurisdiction. It acknowledges the power of the court,
acting upon the motion of a party to the case or on its own
initiative, to order the severance of the misjoined cause of
action, to be proceeded with separately (in case of misjoinder
of causes of action); and/or the dropping of a party and the
severance of any claim against said misjoined party, also to be
proceeded with separately (in case of misjoinder of parties).
The misjoinder of causes of action and parties in the present
Petition may have been corrected by the MTC motu propio or
on motion of the petitioner Republic. It is regrettable, however,
that the MTC failed to detect the misjoinder when the
application for registration was still pending before it; and more
regrettable that the petitioner Republic did not call the attention
of the MTC to the fact by filing a motion for severance of the
causes of action and parties, raising the issue of misjoinder
only before this Court.
Although the misjoinder of causes of action and parties in the
present Petition did not affect the jurisdiction of the MTC over
the land registration proceeding, this Court, nonetheless, has
discovered a defect in the publication of the Notice of Initial
Hearing, which bars the MTC from assuming jurisdiction to
hear and proceed with respondents application for registration.
The late publication of the Notice of Initial Hearing in the
newspaper of general circulation is tantamount to no
publication at all, having the same ultimate result. Owing to
such defect in the publication of the Notice, the MTC failed to
constructively seize the Subject Lots and to acquire jurisdiction
over respondents application for registration thereof.
Tanggalon katong party na misjoined and tried separately.
Take note: nonjoinder mentioned here should refer to a party
who is not indispensable party because generally when a party
is indispensable, he has to be joined. ALL INDISPENSABLE
PARTIES ARE REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST. THEREFORE,
THEY MUST BE JOINED.
If you fail to include an indispensable party, the COURT WILL
CANNOT PROCEED. IT IS GROUND FOR DISMISSAL OF
THE CASE. So we should make distinction between
necessary and indispensable party.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
Antonio Lim Tanhu v. Hon. Jose R. Ramolete
[G.R. No. L -40098, August 29 , 1975]:
FACTS: Originally, the complaint filed by respondent Tan Put
only against the spouses-petitioners Antonio Lim Tanhu and
Dy Ochay. Subsequently, in an amended complaint, their son
Lim Teck Chuan and the other spouses-petitioners Alfonso
Leonardo Ng Sua and Co Oyo and their son Eng Chong
Leonardo were included as defendants. In said amended
complaint, respondent Tan alleged that she "is the widow of
Tee Hoon Lim Po Chuan, who was a partner in the commercial
partnership, Glory Commercial Company ... with Antonio Lim
Tanhu and Alfonso Ng Sua that "defendant Antonio Lim
Tanhu, Alfonso Leonardo Ng Sua, Lim Teck Chuan, and Eng
Chong Leonardo, through fraud and machination, took actual
and active management of the partnership and although Tee
Hoon Lim Po Chuan was the manager of Glory Commercial
Company, defendants managed to use the funds of the
partnership to purchase lands and building's. Two defendants-
spouses the Lim Tanhus and Ng Suas, were all "declared in
DEFAULT when they failed to appear at the pre-trial. Plaintiff
unexpectedly filed Motion to drop defendants Lim Teck Chuan
and Eng Chong Leonardo which was granted by the court and
rendered a decision against the defaulted parties.
ISSUE: WON the court erred in granting the motion to drop the
defendants.
HELD: Noticeably, His Honor has employed the same
equivocal terminology as in plaintiff's motion of October 18,
1974 by referring to the action he had taken as being
"dismissal of the complaint against them or their being dropped
therefrom", without perceiving that the reason for the evidently
intentional ambiguity is transparent. The apparent idea is to
rely on the theory that under Section 11 of Rule 3, parties may
be dropped by the court upon motion of any party at any stage
of the action, hence "it is the absolute right prerogative of the
plaintiff to choose—the parties he desires to sue, without
dictation or imposition by the court or the adverse party." In
other words, the ambivalent pose is suggested that plaintiff's
motion of October 18, 1974 was not predicated on Section 2
of Rule 17 but more on Section 11 of Rule 3. But the truth is
that nothing can be more incorrect. To start with, the latter rule
does not comprehend whimsical and irrational dropping or
adding of parties in a complaint. What it really contemplates is
erroneous or mistaken non-joinder and misjoinder of parties.
No one is free to join anybody in a complaint in court only to
drop him unceremoniously later at the pleasure of the plaintiff.
The rule presupposes that the original inclusion had been
made in the honest conviction that it was proper and the
subsequent dropping is requested because it has turned out
that such inclusion was a mistake. And this is the reason why
the rule ordains that the dropping be "on such terms as are
just" — just to all the other parties.
In the case at bar, there is nothing in the record to legally justify
the dropping of the non-defaulted defendants, Lim and
Leonardo. The motion of October 18, 1974 cites none. From
all appearances, plaintiff just decided to ask for it, without any
relevant explanation at all. Usually, the court in granting such
a motion inquires for the reasons and in the appropriate
instances directs the granting of some form of compensation
for the trouble undergone by the defendant in answering the
complaint, preparing for or proceeding partially to trial, hiring
counsel and making corresponding expenses in the premises.
Nothing of these, appears in the order in question. Most
importantly, His Honor ought to have considered that the
88

outright dropping of the non-defaulted defendants Lim and
Leonardo, over their objection at that, would certainly be unjust
not only to the petitioners, their own parents, who would in
consequence be entirely defenseless, but also to Lim and
Leonardo themselves who would naturally correspondingly
suffer from the eventual judgment against their parents.
Respondent court paid no heed at all to the mandate that such
dropping must be on such terms as are just" — meaning to all
concerned with its legal and factual effects.
For example you file a case against a person, you are not even
sure if you have cause of action against it. He can file
counterclaim against you on the basis that you do not have
causes of action and he is just unnecessarily dragged in the
case and because of that he spent for attorney fees and
damages if the his inclusion in the case you filed is unjustified.
That is one of the risk that you have to consider.
Republic v. Sandiganbayan
[173 SCRA 72 | 1989]
Misjoinder or non-joinder of parties as a defense against an
action for dismissal of an action can only be invoked if such
misjoinder or non-joinder is made in good faith, that is, when
there was belief of priority which however turned out to be
wrong.
Section 12. Class suit. — When the subject matter of the
controversy is one of common or general interest to many
persons so numerous that it is impracticable to join all as
parties, a number of them which the court finds to be
sufficiently numerous and representative as to fully protect
the interests of all concerned may sue or defend for the
benefit of all. Any party in interest shall have the right to
intervene to protect his individual interest. (12a)
CLASS SUIT
This is an exception to the general rule that all real parties in
interest or indispensable parties must be included in the case
because in a class suit all are real parties in interest and
indispensable parties.
But the rule allows a sufficient number of them to file a case
not necessarily all. But the effect is that the person filing the
case, represents the members who have the same interest.
The class suit is also known as the VIRTUAL
REPRESENTATION. It is adopted from common law.
• Practicability/Impracticable– won something can be
done.
• Practicality/Impractical – won it is advisable to do
something given the constraints.
Requisites of a valid class suit:
1. The subject matter of the controversy is one of the
common or general interest to many persons.
2. The parties are so numerous that it is impracticable to
join and bring them all before the court.
A number of them which the court finds them to be numerous
and sufficient to be a representative as to protect their interest
may sue and defend for the benefit of all.
What is numerous? Of course, if naa kay 5000 then 2 lang. di
na siya numerous.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
Meaning of Numerous
An element of a class suit is the adequacy of representation.
the adequacy of representation. (MVRS Publications, Inc. vs.
Islamic Da’wah Council of the Phil.)
➢ In determining the question of fair and adequate
representation of members of a class, the court must
consider
a. whether the interest of the named party is
coextensive with the interest of the other
members of the class;
b. the proportion of those made parties as it so
bears to the total membership of the class;
and,
c. any other factor bearing on the ability of the
named party to speak for the rest of the
class.
When Inclusion of All Parties in Interest is Dispensed With
General:
ALL parties in interest must be included in the case; otherwise
the court has the option to order their inclusion. If there are
several parties in interest, they shall be included in the case
whether indispensable or not.
Exception:
a CLASS SUIT, which also known as the ―DOCTRINE OF
VIRTUAL REPRESENTATION‖ – meaning the representation
of some for the benefit of all
➢ comes from the common law term from England and
America which actual applied to trusts and estates when
the participation in one proceeding of one
heir/beneficiary can sometimes be deemed sufficient to
protect the interest of the unborn, unascertainable, or
minor beneficiaries who could not otherwise appear, in
other words: I am suing the estate to get my share to
benefit my own heirs in the future.
Examples when a class suit is ALLOWED
1. a tax payer‘s suit, which is filed by a number of persons
in favor of all tax payers in the Philippines
2. Because of impracticability to bring all members of an
association to court, a class suit may be filed by some
of the members against its officers to render accounting
of all the amounts raffled. (Borlasa vs. Polistico, 1925)
3. When minors, duly represented by their parents filed a
case against the DENR Secretary to cancel all existing
Timber License Agreement (TLA). The court allowed
the class suit on the bases of inter-generational
responsibility to preserve a balanced and healthful
ecology. (Oposa vs. Factoran, 1993)
Examples when a class suit is NOT allowed
1. An association of squatters cannot represent all its
members in an action to annul the title of the owner of
the land. It is because the squatters do not have a
common interest as the interest of one squatter is only
as to the property he occupies. (Sulo ng Bayan vs.
Araneta, 1976)
2. There can be no class suit filed by the survivors of the
deceased passengers after the sinking of a vessel
because the survivors have no interest in the death of
the other passengers. However, a permissive joinder of
parties may be filed in the presence of a common
question of fact and law. (Bulig-Bulig Kita Kamag-anak
Assoc. vs. Sulpicio, 1989)
89

NOTE: In case of doubt, a class suit should not be allowed
because class suit is an exception to the general rule that
all parties should be included.
MVRS Publications, Inc. v. Islamic Da’wah Council
of the Philippines
[G.R. 135306 | 28 January 2003]
Facts: ISLAMIC DA'WAH COUNCIL OF THE PHILIPPINES,
INC., a local federation of more than 70 Muslim religious
organizations, and individual Muslims ABDULRAHMAN R.T.
LINZAG, IBRAHIM F.P. ARCILLA, ABDUL RASHID DE
GUZMAN, AL-FARED DA SILVA and IBRAHIM B.A. JUNIO,
filed in the RTC of Manila a complaint for damages in their own
behalf and as a class suit in behalf of the Muslim members
nationwide against MVRS PUBLICATIONS, INC., MARS C.
LACONSAY, MYLA C. AGUJA and AGUSTINO G. BINEGAS,
JR., arising from an article published of Bulgar, a daily
tabloid. The complaint alleged that the libelous statement was
insulting and damaging to the Muslims; that these words
alluding to the pig as the God of the Muslims was not only
published out of sheer ignorance but with intent to hurt the
feelings, cast insult and disparage the Muslims and Islam, as
a religion in this country, in violation of law, public policy, good
morals and human relations; that on account of these libelous
words Bulgar insulted not only the Muslims in the Philippines
but the entire Muslim world.
Issue: WON the case may be filed in a class suit.
Held: In the present case, there was no fairly identifiable
person who was allegedly injured by the Bulgar article. Since
the persons allegedly defamed could not be identifiable,
private respondents have no individual causes of action;
hence, they cannot sue for a class allegedly
disparaged. Private respondents must have a cause of action
in common with the class to which they belong to in order for
the case to prosper.
An individual Muslim has a reputation that is personal,
separate and distinct in the community.Each Muslim, as part
of the larger Muslim community in the Philippines of over five
(5) million people, belongs to a different trade and profession;
each has a varying interest and a divergent political and
religious view -some may be conservative, others liberal. A
Muslim may find the article dishonorable, even blasphemous;
others may find it as an opportunity to strengthen their faith
and educate the non-believers and the "infidels." There is no
injury to the reputation of the individual Muslims who constitute
this community that can give rise to an action for group
libel. Each reputation is personal in character to every person.
Together, the Muslims do not have a single common
reputation that will give them a common or general interest in
the subject matter of the controversy.
In any case, respondents' lack of cause of action cannot be
cured by the filing of a class suit. As correctly pointed out by
Mr. Justice Jose C. Vitug during the deliberations, "an element
of a class suit is the adequacy of representation. In
determining the question of fair and adequate representation
of members of a class, the court must consider (a) whether the
interest of the named party is coextensive with the interest of
the other members of the class; (b) the proportion of those
made parties as it so bears to the total membership of the
class; and, (c) any other factor bearing on the ability of the
named party to speak for the rest of the class.[47]
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
The rules require that courts must make sure that the persons
intervening should be sufficiently numerous to fully protect the
interests of all concerned. In the present controversy, Islamic
Dawah Council of the Philippines, Inc., seeks in effect to assert
the interests not only of the Muslims in the Philippines but of
the whole Muslim world as well. Private respondents obviously
lack the sufficiency of numbers to represent such a global
group; neither have they been able to demonstrate the identity
of their interests with those they seek to represent. Unless it
can be shown that there can be a safe guaranty that those
absent will be adequately represented by those present, a
class suit, given its magnitude in this instance, would be
unavailing."
DISCUSSION:
There is no hard and fast rule, we cannot say that 20% or 40%.
It really depends on the circumstances of the case. Taking into
account the guidelines provided in the case of MVRS
PUBLICATIONS, INC. VS ISLAMIC DA’WAH COUNCIL OF
THE PHIL.
There is also warning given by the SC in cases involving class
suits which was held in the case of BOARD OF OPTOMETRY
VS COLET: courts must exercise utmost caution before
allowing a class suit, which is the exception to the requirement
of joinder of all indispensable parties. For while no difficulty
may arise of the decision secured is favourable to the plaintiff,
a quandary would result if the decision were otherwise as
those who were deemed impleaded by their self-appointed
representatives would certainly claim denial of due process.
Board of Optometry v. Colet
[G.R. 122241 | 30 July 1996]
FACTS: Republic Act No. 8050, entitled “An Act Regulating
the Practice of Optometry Education, Integrating Optometrists,
and for Other Purposes,” otherwise known as the Revised
Optometry Law of 1995, was approved into law . Private
respondents filed before RTC a petition for declaratory relief
and for prohibition and injunction, with a prayer for a temporary
restraining order against the officers and employees
implementing the said order.
It was found out that it merely listed the names of the alleged
presidents as well as their profession and home addresses of
Optometry Practitioner Association of the Philippines (OPAP);
Cenevis Optometrist Association (COA); Association of
Christian-Muslim Optometrist (ACMO); and Southern
Mindanao Optometrist Association of the Philippines
(SMOAP). They failed to indicate the details as to the juridical
personality and addresses of these alleged associations,
except for Acebedo Optical Co., Inc.
Further the names of Miguel Acebedo, representing Acebedo
Optical Co., Inc.; Miriam F. Llave, representing the OPAP; and
Republica A. Panol, did not appear in the registration books of
the Board of Optometry to be authorized optometry
practitioners in the Philippines. Private respondents COA and
ACMO were neither registered with the SEC.
ISSUE: WON petitioners have legal standing to file the case.
90

HELD: There is serious doubt as to the existence of private
respondents OPAP, COA, ACMO, and SMOAP. For one, the
body of the petition in Civil Case No. 95-74770 makes no
mention of these associations nor states their
addresses. Further, nowhere is it claimed therein that they are
juridical entities. These run counter to Section 4, Rule 8 of the
Rules of Court, which provides that facts showing the capacity
of a party to sue or the legal existence of an organized
association of persons that is made a party must be
averred. Second, not even in the sworn statements of the
alleged presidents representing the associations, which were
offered in evidence in support of the application for a writ of
preliminary injunction, were such associations mentioned or
named. Finally, in their Comment on the instant petition, the
private respondents chose to remain silent on the issue of the
juridical personality of their associations.
For having failed to show that they are juridical entities, private
respondents OPAP, COA, ACMO, and SMOAP must then be
deemed to be devoid of legal personality to bring an action,
such as Civil Case No. 95-74770.
A real party in interest under Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of
Court is a party who stands to be benefited or injured by the
judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the
suit.
In the case at bench, since OPAP, COA, ACMO, and SMOAP
were not shown to be juridical entities, they cannot, for obvious
reasons, be deemed real parties in interest. Moreover, since
the names of private respondents Miguel Acebedo, Miriam F.
Llave, and Republica A. Panol do not appear in the
registration books of the Board of Optometry as authorized
optometry practitioners in the Philippines, they do not have the
requisite personal and substantial interest in the case.Even
further, although private respondents Roberto Rodis, Jr., Cyril
Corales, and Elmer Villarosa claim to be practicing
optometrists, the petition in Civil Case No. 95-74770 is bereft
of any allegation to make them real parties in interest to
challenge the constitutionality of R.A. No. 8050.
Issue 2: WON they may file the case in the capacity of
taxpayer class suit.
Held: As a class suit, Civil Case No. 95-74770 must fail. Not
only did the private respondents fail to allege this in their
petition, they likewise failed to allege the existence and prove
the requisites of a class suit, viz., the subject matter of the
controversy is one of common or general interest to many
persons, and the parties are so numerous that it is
impracticable to bring them all before the court.
Courts must exercise utmost caution before allowing a class
suit, which is the exception to the requirement of joinder of all
indispensable parties. For while no difficulty may arise if the
decision secured is favorable to the plaintiffs, a quandary
would result if the decision were otherwise as those who were
deemed impleaded by their self-appointed representatives
would certainly claim denial of due process.
EXAMPLE
For example, there are 5000 person affected and they have
common interest. The court allowed 200 of them to file a class
suit, again under the virtual representation even if this 200
persons have no special power of attorney coming from the
rest of the group they are considered to be their
representatives. And the case which they filed, they are filing
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
in behalf of the rest 500. Whatever maybe the ruling of the
court in that case, that will affect the rest of the group. That
would be consider as a bar to a subsequent actions involving
the same case which could be file by the rest na wa niapil.
Katong 5000 will be bound by the decision of the court. They
cannot sue as it would constitute as res judicata or litis
pendicia if pending.
Borlasa v. Polistico
[G.R. L-22909 | 28 January 1925]
HELD: A taxpayer’s suit which is filed by a number of persons
in favour of all tax payers in the Philippines because of
impractibility to bring all the members of an association to
court, a class suit may be filed by some of the members
against its officers to render accounting of the amounts raffled.
Oposa v. Factoran
[G.R. 101083 | 30 July 1993]
HELD: When minors, duly represented by their parents filed a
case against the DENR Secretary to cancel all existing Timber
License Agreement (TLA). The court allowed the class suit on
the bases of intergenerational responsibility to preserve a
balanced and healthful ecology.
Here, their number is sufficient because they represent not
only those living but also those who are yet to be born under
intergenerational concept. So you cannot implead all. There is
common interest and those who are filing the case are already
represented.
Sulo ng Bayan v. Araneta
[G.R. L -31061 | 17 August 1976]
Issue: whether the complaint filed by the corporation in behalf
of its member may be treated as class suit.
Held: An association of squatters cannot represent all its
members in an action to annul the title of the owner of the land.
It is because the squatters do not have a common interest as
the interest of one squatter is only as to the property he
occupies.
In order that a class suit may prosper, the following
requisites must be present:
1. That the subject matter of the controversy is one of
common or general interest to many persons; and
2. That the parties are so numerous that it is impracticable
to bring them all before court.
Here, there is only on plaintiff, and the plaintiff does not even
have an interest in the subject matter of the controversy and
cannot therefore, represent its members or stockholders who
claim to own in their individual capacities ownership of the said
property.
SULONG NG BAYAN has no common interest with the
members of the corporation.
Diba ang class suit, although daghan ang parties na may
common interest a sufficient number of them would be enough
to file a case in the court. Pero in this case, there was only 1
plaintiff. And that party plaintiff has no common interest with
the corporation because the properties of members are not
properties of corporation. The interest of the members in the
land is not the interest of the members in the land. Infact,
between the parties, they do not have common interest.
91
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG

Manila International Airport Authority v. Rivera LLANA’S SUPERMARKET VS NLRC

Village REPRESENTATIVE
BASIS CLASS SUIT
[G.R. 143873 | 30 September 2005] SUIT
Held: Petition cannot be considered a class suit under Sec. Magnitude of Limited to one or few People who are
12, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, the requisites therefor not representation persons so numerous as
to make them
being present in the case, notably because the petition does
impracticable to
not allege the existence and prove the requisites of a class join
suit. Petition should be construed as a suit brought by the Number of right There are MULTIPLE There is only
homeowners association as the representative of the or cause of action rights or causes of action ONE right or
members thereof under Sec. 3, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. cause of action
In this case, the petition filed with the trial court sufficiently To whom the right pertaining separately to pertaining
avers that the homeowners association, through its President, of causes of SEVERAL, DISTINCT IN COMMON to
is suing in a representative capacity as authorized under the action pertain to PERSONS many persons,
Board Resolution attached to the petition. Although the names not separately or
severally to
of the individual members of the homeowners association who distinct
are the beneficiaries and real parties-in-interest in the suit individuals
were not indicated in the title of the petition, this defect can be Object of the suit For convenience, to to obtain relief
cured by the simple expedient of requiring the association to avoid a cumbersome for or against
disclose the names of the principals and to amend the title and procedure of joining all numerous
averments of the petition accordingly. parties in the complaint. persons as a
group or as an
Rivera here is filing the case as a representative it was stated Example: The Labor integral entity
Code allows a union to and not as
in the pleading. Even if there is defect, the SC said it can be
file a representative suit separate,
cured by amendment. This is different from the case of SULO in favor of its members. distinct
NG BAYAN because there was no allegation or pleading that individuals
he filed the suit in a representative capacity. It was filed relying whose rights or
on the concept of the class suit. liabilities are
separate from
Santiago Cua v. Miguel Ocampo Tan and independent
of those
[G.R. 181455 -56 | 4 December 2009] affecting the
RULING: It is well settled in this jurisdiction that where others
corporate directors are guilty of a breach of trust — not of mere
error of judgment or abuse of discretion — and intra-corporate
Llana’s Supermarket v. NLRC
remedy is futile or useless, a stockholder may institute a suit
[G.R. 111014 | 31 May 1996]
in behalf of himself and other stockholders and for the benefit
HELD: What makes the situation a proper case for a class suit
of the corporation, to bring about a redress of the wrong
is the circumstance that there is only one right or cause of
inflicted directly upon the corporation and indirectly upon the
action pertaining or belonging in common to many
stockholders.
persons (Italics supplied), not separately or severally to
distinct individuals x x x The object of the suit is to obtain relief
Suits by stockholders or members of a corporation based on
for or against numerous persons as a group or as an integral
wrongful or fraudulent acts of directors or other persons may
entity, and not as separate, distinct individuals whose rights or
be classified into individual suits, class suits, and derivative
liabilities are separate from and independent of those affecting
suits. Where a stockholder or member is denied the right of
the others x x x The other factor that serves to distinguish the
inspection, his suit would be individual because the wrong is
rule on class suits x x x is x x x the numerousness of parties
done to him personally and not to the other stockholders or the
involved x x x The rule is that for a class suit to be allowed, it
corporation. Where the wrong is done to a group of
is needful inter alia that the parties be so numerous that it
stockholders, as where preferred stockholders‘ rights are
would be impracticable to bring them all before the court.
violated, a class or representative suit will be proper for the
protection of all stockholders belonging to the same group. But
In the present case, there are multiple rights or causes of
where the acts complained of constitute a wrong to the
action pertaining separately to several, distinct employees who
corporation itself, the cause of action belongs to the
are members of respondent Union.
corporation and not to the individual stockholder or member.
However, in cases of mismanagement where the wrongful acts
When a labor union instituted a case in behalf of its members,
are committed by the directors or trustees themselves,
that is not class suit. The subject matter of the case does not
common law gradually recognized the right of a stockholder to
pertain to only 1 cause of action. There are several causes of
sue on behalf of a corporation in what eventually became
action belonging to the members. So that should be
known as a "derivative suit."
considered as a representative suit pursuant to Section 3,
Rules of Court. Labor Unions were allowed to file a case as a
representative because it has personality to sue or be sued.

92

SUMMARY
➢ CLASS SUIT – many parties but only 1 cause of action
➢ REPRESENTATIVE SUIT – many parties with multiple
causes of action,
➢ DERIVATIVE SUIT – a stockholder with at least 1 share
may file a suit in behalf of the corporation concerning an
intra-corporate matter (Rule 8 of the Interim Rules of
Procedure for Intra-corporate controversies) Every
derivative suit is necessarily grounded on an alleged
violation by the board of directors of its fiduciary duties,
committed by mismanagement, misrepresentation, or
fraud, with the latter two situations already implying bad
faith.
Florete, Jr. v. Florete
[G.R. 174909 | 20 January 2016]
Held: derivative suit "is an action filed by stockholders to
enforce a corporate action."84 A derivative suit, therefore,
concerns "a wrong to the corporation itself."85 The real party in
interest is the corporation, not the stockholders filing the suit.
The stockholders are technically nominal parties but are
nonetheless the active persons who pursue the action for and
on behalf of the corporation.
Although in most every case of wrong to the corporation, each
stockholder is necessarily affected because the value of his
interest therein would be impaired, this fact of itself is not
sufficient to give him an individual cause of action since the
corporation is a person distinct and separate from him, and
can and should itself sue the wrongdoer.
The determination of the appropriate remedy hinges on the
object of the wrong done. When the object is a specific
stockholder or a definite class of stockholders, an individual
suit or class/representative suit must be resorted to. When the
object of the wrong done is the corporation itself or "the whole
body of its stock and property without any severance or
distribution among individual holders," it is a derivative suit that
a stockholder must resort to.
➢ The court ruled in this case that acts alleged by the
stockholders affect not the only the individual stock
holders but the general group of stock holders. It affects
the corporation itself. It will affect the existence of the
corporation. So this is proper for the concept of derivative
suit.
➢ You do not need a board of resolution to instute a
derivative suit. The case may still be filed in behalf of the
corporation.
Puede ang representative if for example the corporation itself
would like to file a case and the president may be authorized
by the corporation to file the case.
Class suit may also be instituted for example, there is common
interest belonging to only one specific class like preferred
stock holders nay silay common or general interest which is
affected so they actually file a case as long as the requisites
are present. Possible gihapon. Depende lang sa
circumstances.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
What are the reasons why an individual suit is not
allowed?
Asset Privatization Trust v. Court of Appeals
[G.R. 121171 | 29 December 1998]
The reasons given for not allowing direct individual suit are:
(1) x x x ―the universally recognized doctrine that a
stockholder in a corporation has no legal or equitable
title to the corporate property; that both of these are in
the corporation itself for the benefit of the
stockholders.‖ In other words, to allow shareholders to
sue separately would conflict with the separate
corporate entity principle;
(2) x x x that the prior rights of the creditors may be
prejudiced. Thus, our Supreme Court held in the case
of Evangelista v. Santos, that ―the stockholders may
not directly claim those damages for themselves for
that would result in the appropriation by, and the
distribution among them of part of the corporate assets
before the dissolution of the corporation and the
liquidation of its debts and liabilities, something which
cannot be legally done in view of Section 16 of the
Corporation Law xxx;‖
(3) the filing of such suits would conflict with the duty of the
management to sue for the protection of all concerned;
(4) it would produce wasteful multiplicity of suits; and
(5) it would involve confusion in ascertaining the effect of
partial recovery by an individual on the damages
recoverable by the corporation for the same act.
Requisites of derivative suit:
RULE 8, SECTION 1 OF INTERIM RULES OF PROCEDURE.
(1) He was a stockholder or member at the time the acts
or transactions subject of the action occurred and at the
time the action was filed;
(2) He exerted all reasonable efforts, and alleges the same
with particularity in the complaint, to exhaust all
remedies available under the articles of incorporation,
by-laws, laws or rules governing the corporation or
partnership to obtain the relief he desires;
(3) No appraisal rights are available for the act or acts
complained of; and
(4) The suit is not a nuisance or harassment suit.
• In case of nuisance or harassment suit, the court
shall forthwith dismiss the case.
APPRAISAL RIGHT Appraisal right means that a stockholder
who dissented and voted against the proposed corporate
action, may choose to get out of the corporation by demanding
payment of the fair market value of his shares.
93

I. Alternative Defendants
Section 13. Alternative defendants. — Where the plaintiff
is uncertain against who of several persons he is entitled to
relief, he may join any or all of them as defendants in the
alternative, although a right to relief against one may be
inconsistent with a right of relief against the other.
EXAMPLE: Passenger si A sa bus. Nag racing ang bus at ang
ibang car because of that nagkabanggaan sila so nagsuffer
siya ng damages. It was not shown na si A ay negligent, so he
can sue both. He can sue in alternative. He is not certain
against who should be sued.
Cross-reference
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 8. Sec. 2. Alternative causes of action or defenses.
A party may set forth two or more statements of a claim or
defense alternatively or hypothetically, either in one cause of
action or defense or in separate causes of action or defenses.
When two or more statements are made in the alternative and
one of them if made independently would be sufficient, the
pleading is not made insufficient by the insufficiency of one or
more of the alternative statements.
NOTE: The Rules only provide for ―alternative
DEFENDANTS‖ but not for ―alternative PLAINTIFFS‖.
Alternative Plaintiffs
Although the law is silent, there is no reason why ―alternative
plaintiffs‖ should not be allowed.
Plaintiffs may join in the alternative under the same principle
as alternative joinder of defendants. When several persons are
uncertain as to who among them is entitled to relief from a
certain defendant, they may join as plaintiffs in the alternative.
This is also sanctioned by the rule on permissive joinder of
parties. Thus, the principal and his agent may join as plaintiffs
in the alternative against a defendant. If the agency is proved,
the relief is awarded to the principal. If not, award then is made
to the agent.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
II. Unknown Identity/Name of Defendant
Section 14. Unknown identity or name of defendant. —
Whenever the identity or name of a defendant is unknown,
he may be sued as the unknown owner heir devisee, or by
such other designation as the case may require, when his
identity or true name is discovered, the pleading must be
amended accordingly. (14)
Example: You have a land in Jacinto Street na 4 hectares and
then 1, 000 and occupants. You cannot possibly get all their
names. What you can do is to file a case against them and
then indicate as Jane Do muna for a mean time. You can later
amend your pleadings to indicate their names.
Example: In a culpa acquiliana case and the name of the
driver who hit the pedestrian is not known, the case may be
titled as follows:
ABC, plaintiff vs. The Driver of Honda Vehicle With
Plate No. 1234, defendant”
In the event the name of the driver is discovered, you only have
to amend the complaint as follows:
ABC, plaintiff vs. DEF, defendant”
III. Entity without Juridical Personality
Section 15. Entity without juridical personality as
defendant. — When two or more persons not organized as
an entity with juridical personality enter into a transaction,
they may be sued under the name by which they are
generally or commonly known.
When Inclusion of All Parties in Interest is Dispensed With
General Rule:
If there are several parties in interest, they shall be included in
the case whether indispensable or not.
Exception:
1. a class suit (Rule 3, Sec. 12)
2. an ENTITY WITHOUT JURIDICAL PERSONALITY
(Rule 3, Sec. 15)
3. Any co-owner may bring an action for ejectment (art.
487, Civil Code)
This is an exception to the general rule that only natural or
juridical persons, or entities authorized by law may may sue or
be sued. Here, even if that is without any juridical personality,
they can be sued.
Example: Upat sila na nakipagtransaction sayo, na
corporation daw sila pero wala nimo na verify if may
registration sila sa SEC. They call themselves as powerpuff
girls. So if yan ang kabalhan nimo na pangalan and
nagkaproblema mo sa transaction. And that is also that name
they are known. You can sue them under that name. Although
later on, you may amend the pleadings if you found out their
names.
94
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG

EFFECT OF DEATH ON CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM

DEATH DELICTS

REVIEW IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULE 111, SEC. 4 ROC. Effect of death on civil actions.
In Criminal Law, every person criminally liable for a felony is The death of the accused after arraignment and during the
also civilly liable (Article 100) and that death extinguishes pendency of the criminal action shall extinguish the civil liability
criminal liability (Article 89). arising from the delict. However, the independent civil action
instituted under section 3 of this Rule or which thereafter is
As to penalties: instituted to enforce liability arising from other sources of
Art. 89 RPC. How criminal liability is totally obligation may be continued against the estate or legal
extinguished.Criminal liability is totally extinguished: representative of the accused after proper substitution or
By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties and against said estate, as the case may be. The heirs of the
as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only accused may be substituted for the deceased without requiring
when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment. the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court
may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs. xxx
As to Civil Liability:
Art. 112 RPC. Extinction of civil liability. If the accused dies before arraignment, the case shall be
Civil liability established in Articles 100, 101, 102, and 103 of dismissed without prejudice to any civil action the offended
this Code shall be extinguished in the same manner as party may file against the estate of the deceased.
obligations, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Law.
• Article 100 refers to civil liability arising from the TYPE OF WHEN DEATH EFFECT
commission of an offense. ACTION OCCURED
• Article 101 refers to civil liability for crimes committed Civil action that is After arraignment The civil liability
deemed impliedly and during the arising from the
under justifying and exempting circumstances.
instituted with the pendency of the delict shall be
• Article 102 refers to subsidiary civil liability of criminal case. criminal action extinguished.
innkeepers, tavernkeepers and proprietors of
establishments. Independent civil Before arraignment The case shall be
• Article 103 refers to subsidiary civil liability of action or separate dismissed without
employers, teachers, persons, and corporations civil action instituted prejudice to any civil
engaged in any kind of industry for felonies to enforce liability action the offended
committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, arising from other party may file
sources of against the estate of
apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their
obligations the deceased.
duties.
After arraignment Such actions may
These liabilities are extinguished in the same manner as and during the be continued
obligations, thus: pendency of the against the estate
criminal action or legal
Art. 1231 CC. Obligations are extinguished: representative of
(1) By payment or performance: the accused after
(2) By the loss of the thing due: proper substitution
or against said
(3) By the condonation or remission of the debt; estate, as the case
(4) By the confusion or merger of the rights of creditor may be.
and debtor; The heirs of the
(5) By compensation; accused may be
(6) By novation. substituted for the
deceased without
Other causes of extinguishment of obligations, such as requiring the
annulment, rescission, fulfillment of a resolutory condition, and appointment of an
executor or
prescription, are governed elsewhere in this Code. (1156a) administrator and
the court may
Art. 113 RPC. Obligation to satisfy civil liability. appoint a guardian
Except in case of extinction of his civil liability as provided in ad litem for the
the next preceding article the offender shall continue to be minor heirs.
obliged to satisfy the civil liability resulting from the crime
committed by him, notwithstanding the fact that he has served After there is Such judgment
his sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty or other rights, already final shall be enforced in
judgment the manner
or has not been required to serve the same by reason of
especially provided
amnesty, pardon, commutation of sentence or any other in these rules for
reason. prosecuting claims
against the estate of
the deceased.

95

SUMMARY
1. Death of a Party (§. 16)
2. Death in Actions on Contractual Money Claims (§.
20)
3. Death or separation of a party who is a public officer
(§. 17)
I. Death of a Party
Section 16. Death of party; duty of counsel. — Whenever a
party to a pending action dies, and the claim is not thereby
extinguished, it shall be the duty of his counsel to inform the
court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact
thereof, and to give the name and address of his legal
representative or representatives. Failure of counsel to
comply with his duty shall be a ground for disciplinary
action.
The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted
for the deceased, without requiring the appointment of an
executor or administrator and the court may appoint a
guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.
The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or
representatives to appear and be substituted within a period
of thirty (30) days from notice.
If no legal representative is named by the counsel for the
deceased party, or if the one so named shall fail to appear
within the specified period, the court may order the
opposing party, within a specified time to procure the
appointment of an executor or administrator for the estate
of the deceased and the latter shall immediately appear for
and on behalf of the deceased. The court charges in
procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the opposing
party, may be recovered as costs.
DUTY OF COUNSEL IN CIVIL CASES
To INFORM the court within 30 DAYS after such death of the
fact thereof, and to give the name and address of his
deceased‘s legal representative or representatives
Example:
• by furnishing the court the death certificate
• by informing the court orally in open court
• by means of a written manifestation or motion
PURPOSE OF REQUIRING COUNSEL TO INFORM
For the court to be able to order a SUBSTITUTION OF
PARTIES in cases where the claim is not extinguished by
death.
EFFECT OF FAILURE OF COUNSEL TO INFORM
1) Ground for disciplinary action against counsel
2) The proceedings and judgment will not be invalidated
if the action survives the death of such party
This refers to the case that a party dies. It could be the plaintiff
or defendant. This will also apply if the action survives. There
is substitution. If there is no yet administrator or executor, the
heirs will be substituted. If ang client nimo ang namatay, of
course managsa ka (di ako sure sa spelling) if ipadayon nimo
ang case because the relationship of the client and lawyer is
extinguished from the moment of death of client kasi personal
ang relationship. Kausapin nimo ang heirs if gusto ba nila na
ikaw ang magpadayon sa ilang kaso.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
Upon the death of the client, it is the duty of the counsel to
inform the court so that court can order the substitution of party
when the action is not validly extinguished. Meaning we are
referring to action not extinguished by the death of the party.
We can categorize the different types of action as to whether
it survives or not. So when they survive, meaning they will
continue notwithstanding the death of the party. When we say
action that survives, it pertains to properties, patrimonial rights
of person, primarily the rights are attached to the property
although certain damages may be suffered by the party. But it
is really attached to the property.
Examples of action which survives:
✓ Action for forcible entry and unlawful detainer – so if
that case is pending and the party dies, the action will
continue.
✓ Under Article 1357 of the New Civil Code, action by
the party or against the party to compel the execution
of public document – you can still file the action
because it is not extinguished.
✓ Action to recover possession – it could be accion
publiciana (action to recover ownership).
✓ Action arising from money claim – It is covered by
Section 20 of Rule 3.
Examples of action which do not survive: (upon the death
of either party, the action is extinguished)
✓ Action for legal separation
✓ Action for custody – for example you are filing that on
the basis of parental authority. Parental authority is
terminated upon the death of the parent.
✓ Action for support – extinguished upon the death of
person entitled to support or who will support. It
cannot be inherited by their heirs.
✓ Right to revoke a donation by reason of ingratitude –
if the donor dies, wala na because his right to revoke
dies with him.
When the action pertains to the properties, they generally
survive. If the action pertains to purely personal rights, they do
not survive. They die with the death of the party. It is either the
plaintiff or defendant.
*Civil liability arising from crime
Article 100 refers to civil liability arising from the commission
of an offense.
Example, you file a case against a theft. In that case, we have
criminal case and civil case. Civil case is deemed instituted
with the criminal case. You do not have to file a separate civil
action to recover from the accused because the civil action is
deemed instituted.
Q: what happens if the case is pending, a party dies?
A: we have to make distinction first. If it is the private
complainant who dies then the criminal aspect will continue. It
does not matter because the complainant is just a witness. The
State is the real party in interest in criminal cases.
Q: How about the civil liabilities?
A: Still, it will continue, the accused can still be held civilly liable
despite the death of the private complainant.
Q: how about the accused dies pending the case?
A: Civil liability arising from the crime shall be extinguished
along with the criminal case (so dismissed na ang kaso). They
will never no substitution.
96

Q: how about the liability of the accused? Wala na bang pag
asa si private complainant to recover at all because the
accused already died?
A: if you can predicate your claim on another source apart from
the crime or delict, you can file a separate civil case. You will
file another civil case. It will not be litigated in the same criminal
case, except when we are talking about BP 22 because in BP
22, all the corresponding action are deemed instituted with the
criminal case. So we can apply Section 16 if it is BP 22.
Q: how about the accused died prior to the arraignment?
A: even if it is BP 22, it will be dismissed because the court
has not acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
Basta sa criminal case, as long as na-arraign siya, okay na
maproceed ang case. Pero kung dili siya na-arraign, the case
will be dismissed.
EFFECT OF DEATH ON CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM
DELICTS
RULE 111, SEC. 4 ROC. Effect of death on civil actions.
The death of the accused after arraignment and during the
pendency of the criminal action shall extinguish the civil
liability arising from the delict. However, the independent
civil action instituted under section 3 of this Rule or which
thereafter is instituted to enforce liability arising from other
sources of obligation may be continued against the estate
or legal representative of the accused after proper
substitution or against said estate, as the case may be. The
heirs of the accused may be substituted for the deceased
without requiring the appointment of an executor or
administrator and the court may appoint a guardian ad litem
for the minor heirs. xxx
If the accused dies before arraignment, the case shall be
dismissed without prejudice to any civil action the offended
party may file against the estate of the deceased.
Example walay civil liability na-institute with the criminal case
maybe because you reserve the filing of the civil case or it is
instituted before the criminal case. What happens if the
accused died?
A: so you institute a separate civil action.
You have to make distinction. If the separate civil action that
you are filing is also based on the crime, it requires prior
conviction of the accused. In fact, in one case, the SC
dismissed the separate civil action filed by the private
complainant seeking to recover civil liability arising from the
crime itself because the criminal action was not yet concluded.
When you are seeking civil liability arising from the crime itself,
there has to be prior conviction.
Q: If it is civil action based on another source; nay pending na
criminal case (reckless imprudence resulting to damage to
property) and you file separate civil action against the
employee and employer (quasi-delict), then namatay si
accused. Would that affect the civil case that you filed?
A: no because it is based on quasi-delict. It is an action which
survives.
Q: So what will happen na namatay ang defendant?
A: There will be substitution pursuant to Section 16 of Rule 3.
Such action may be continued against the estate or legal
representative of the accused after proper substitution. Kung
walay executor or administrator, then against the heirs. Heirs
may be substituted without requiring appointment of executor
or administrator.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
The counsel has the duty to inform the court within 30 days
after such death and to give the name and address of legal
representatives. So that the court can order the substitution.
EFFECT OF DELAY IN GIVING INFORMATION
Although filed late, for as long as it effectively informs the
court of the death of the litigant FREES her counsel of any
liability for failure to make a report of death.
Jurisprudence: This is the only representation that the
counsel can undertake after the death of a client as the fact of
death terminated any further lawyer-client relationship
Sumaljag v. Spouses Literato
[G.R. 149787 | 18 Jun 2008]
Court: This is the only representation that the counsel can
undertake after the death of a client as the fact of death
terminated any further lawyer-client relationship.
We rule that he did not. The "legal representatives" that the
provision speaks of, refer to those authorized by law - the
administrator, executor or guardian who, under the rule on
settlement of estate of deceased persons, is constituted to
take over the estate of the deceased. Significantly, the person
given as a substitute was not one of those mentioned under
Section 16, Rule 3. Rather, he is a counterclaim co-defendant
of the deceased whose proffered justification for the requested
substitution is the transfer to him of the interests of the
deceased in the litigation prior to her death. The reason for the
Rule is to protect all concerned who may be affected by the
intervening death, particularly the deceased and her estate.
We note in this respect that the Notice that counsel filed in fact
reflects a claim against the interest of the deceased through
the transfer of her remaining interest in the litigation to another
party. Plain common sense tells us that the transferee who has
his own interest to protect, cannot at the same time represent
and fully protect the interest of the deceased transferor.
Third, counsel has every authority to manifest to the court
CHANGES IN INTEREST that transpire in the course of
litigation. Thus, counsel could have validly manifested to the
court the transfer of Josefa's interests in the subject matter of
litigation pursuant to Section 19, Rule 3. But this can happen
only while the client-transferor was alive and while the
manifesting counsel was still the effective and authorized
counsel for the client transferor, not after the death of the client
when the lawyer client relationship has terminated. It is not for
counsel, after the death of his client, to make such
manifestation because he then has lost the authority to speak
for and bind his client. Thus, at most, the petitioner can be said
to be a transferee pendente lite whose status is pending with
the lower court.
Q: based in this case, who are the legal representatives? A:
the executor, administrator.
Q: how about the heirs? A: if there is already legal
representative then the legal representative.
Q: if no legal representative? A: the heirs.
Q: if there is pending appointment of administrator or
executor? Kinsa ang isubstitue? A: still the heirs.
Q: what is the effect if the lawyer fails to notify about the death
of his client? A: Lawyer can be subject to disciplinary action. It
will not invalidate the case.
97

Charles Limbauan v. Faustino Acosta
[G.R. No. 148606 | June 30, 2008]
RULING: It is well settled that the failure of counsel to comply
with his duty under Section 16 to inform the court of the death
of his client and no substitution of such party is effected, will
not invalidate the proceedings and the judgment thereon if the
action survives the death of such party. Moreover, the decision
rendered shall bind his successor-in-interest. The instant
action for unlawful detainer, like any action for recovery of real
property, is a real action and as such survives the death of
Faustino Acosta. His heirs have taken his place and now
represent his interests in the instant petition. Hence, the
present case cannot be rendered moot despite the death of
respondent
Cardenas v. Heirs of Spouses Aguilar
[G.R. 191079 | 2 M arch 2016]
COURT: The purpose behind the rule on substitution is the
protection of the right of every party to due process. It is to
ensure that the deceased party would continue to be properly
represented in the suit through the duly appointed legal
representative of his estate. Non-compliance with the rule on
substitution would render the proceedings and the judgment of
the trial court infirm because the court acquires no jurisdiction
over the persons of the legal representatives or of the heirs on
whom the trial and the judgment would be binding.
The rationale behind the rule on substitution is to apprise the
heir or the substitute that he is being brought to the jurisdiction
of the court in lieu of the deceased party by operation of law.
Because upon the death of a person, his properties, rights and
obligations are transmitted to his heirs.
Failure to notify the heirs or failure to substitute would be a
violation of the right of the heirs or legal representative. This
would now affect the jurisdiction of the court in so far as the
person of the heir or legal representative is concern.
However, even though there is no proper substitution, there is
actually no violation of the rights of the heirs because the heirs
was also co-defendant in that case. So, she continued to
participate in the case. She had every opportunity to be heard.
Formal substitution of heirs is not necessary when the
heirs themselves voluntarily appeared, participated in the
case and presented evidence in defense of deceased
defendant. Attending the case at bench, after all, are these
particular circumstances which negate petitioner's
belated and seemingly ostensible claim of violation of her
rights to due process. We should not lose sight of the
principle underlying the general rule that formal
substitution of heirs must be effectuated for them to be
bound by a subsequent judgment.
Spouses Ibanez v. Harper
[G.R. 194272 | 15 February 2017]
COURT: Here, while there may have been a failure to strictly
observe the provisions of the rules and there was no formal
substitution of heirs, the heirs of Francisco, represented by
James, voluntarily appeared and actively participated in the
case, particularly in the enforcement of the Hatol. As the
records show, they have filed multiple pleadings and moved
several times to implement the Hatol to protect Francisco's
interest. Following our rulings in Vda. de Salazar and Berot, a
formal substitution of parties is no longer required under the
circumstances.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
The trial court therefore committed grave abuse of discretion
when it declared that Harper cannot be made a party in the
case because of the lack of a valid substitution. 77 Its refusal to
recognize Francisco's heirs deprived them of the opportunity
to exact compliance with whatever rights they may have under
the terms of the Amended Compromise Agreement.
Q: How about there is delay? Is there any effect?
A: the timeliness is not an issue as long as it is eventually
reported,
San Juan Jr. v. Judge Cruz
[G.R. 167321 | 31 July 2006]
Court: the heirs may be allowed to be substituted for the
deceased without requiring the appointment of an
administrator or executor. However, if within the specified
period a legal representative fails to appear, the court may
order the opposing counsel, within a specified period, to
process the appointment of an administrator or executor who
shall immediately appear for the estate of the deceased. The
pronouncement of this Court in Lawas v. Court of Appeals
(relied upon by petitioner), that priority is given to the legal
representative of the deceased (the executor or administrator)
and that it is only in case of unreasonable delay in the
appointment of an executor or administrator, or in cases where
the heirs resort to an extrajudicial settlement of the estate that
the court may adopt the alternative of allowing the heirs of the
deceased to be substituted for the deceased, is no longer true.
Gochan v. Young
[G.R. 131889 | 12 March 2001]
COURT: The above-quoted rules, while permitting an executor
or administrator to represent or to bring suits on behalf of the
deceased, do not prohibit the heirs from representing the
deceased. These rules are easily applicable to cases in which
an administrator has already been appointed. But no rule
categorically addresses the situation in which special
proceedings for the settlement of an estate have already been
instituted, yet no administrator has been appointed. In such
instances, the heirs cannot be expected to wait for the
appointment of an administrator; then wait further to see if the
administrator appointed would care enough to file a suit to
protect the rights and the interests of the deceased; and in the
meantime do nothing while the rights and the properties of the
decedent are violated or dissipated.
The Rules are to be interpreted liberally in order to promote
their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive
disposition of every action and proceeding. They cannot be
interpreted in such a way as to unnecessarily put undue
hardships on litigants. For the protection of the interests of the
decedent, this Court has in previous instances recognized the
heirs as proper representatives of the decedent, even when
there is already an administrator appointed by the court. When
no administrator has been appointed, as in this case, there is
all the more reason to recognize the heirs as the proper
representatives of the deceased. Since the Rules do not
specifically prohibit them from representing the deceased, and
since no administrator had as yet been appointed at the time
of the institution of the Complaint with the SEC, we see nothing
wrong with the fact that it was the heirs of John D. Young, Sr.
who represented his estate in the case filed before the SEC.
98

Saligumba v. Palanog
[G.R. 143365 | 4 December 2008]
COURT: Under the express terms of Section 17 (now Section
16), in case of death of a party, and upon proper notice, it is
the duty of the court to order the legal representative or heir of
the deceased to appear for the deceased. Section 17 is explicit
that the duty of the court to order the legal representative or
heir to appear arises only "upon proper notice." The notation
"PartyDeceased" on the unserved notices could not be the
"proper notice" contemplated by the rule. As the trial court
could not be expected to know or take judicial notice of the
death of a party without the proper manifestation from counsel,
the trial court was well within its jurisdiction to proceed as it did
with the case.
The rules operate on the PRESUMPTION that the attorney for
the deceased party is in a better position than the attorney for
the adverse party to know about the death of his client and to
inform the court of the name and address of his legal
representative.
Cardenas v. Spouses Aguilar
[G.R. 191079 | 02 March 2016]
COURT: The original lawyer did not stop representing the
deceased. It would be absurd to think that the lawyer would
continue to represent somebody if nobody is paying him his
fees. The lawyer continued to represent him in the litigation
before the trial court which lasted for about two more years. A
dead party cannot pay him any fee. With or without payment
of fees, the fact remains that the said counsel was allowed by
the petitioner who was well aware of the instant litigation to
continue appearing as counsel until August 23, 1993 when the
challenged decision was rendered.
Meaning may nagpalouy (di ko sure ang spelling) sa kanya na
heirs. Otherwise sino ang magbayad sa kanya? For how many
years, sige rag siyag appear. It is absurd to represent
somebody if nobody is paying his fees.
Without notifying the court about the death, the proceeding of
the case will not be disturbed. But if nanotify na ang court and
still the court did not order the substitution of the parties, then
it will now affect the jurisdiction of the court to proceed without
proper substitution.
Ronald Allan Poe v. Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo
[P.E.T. CASE No. 002, March 29, 2005 ]
ISSUE: May the widow substitute/intervene for the protestant
who died during the pendency of the latter‘s protest case?
RULING: The fundamental rule applicable in a presidential
election protest is Rule 14 of the PET Rules. It provides, Rule
14. Election Protest.–Only the registered candidate for
President or for Vice-President of the Philippines who received
the second or third highest number of votes may contest the
election of the President or the Vice-President, as the case
may be, xxx Pursuant to this rule, only two persons, the 2nd
and 3rd placers, may contest the election. By this express
enumeration, the rule makers have in effect determined the
real parties in interest concerning an on-going election contest.
Thus, we consistently rejected substitution by the widow or the
heirs in election contests where the protestant dies during the
pendency of the protest.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
This is not to say that death of the protestant necessarily
abates the pending action. We have held as early as Vda. de
De Mesa (1966) that while the right to a public office is
personal and exclusive to the public officer, an ELECTION
PROTEST is not purely personal and exclusive to the
protestant or to the protestee such that the death of either
would oust the court of all authority to continue the protest
proceedings. Hence, we have allowed substitution and
intervention but only by a real party in interest. In Vda. de De
Mesa(1966) , we permitted substitution by the vice-mayor
since the vice-mayor succeeds to the office of the mayor that
becomes vacant if the one duly elected cannot assume office.
In our view, if persons not real parties in the action could be
allowed to intervene, proceedings will be unnecessarily
complicated, expensive and interminable – and this is not the
policy of the law. It is far more prudent to abide by the existing
strict limitations on intervention and substitution under the law
and the rules.
II. Death or Separation of a Party who is a Public Officer
Section 17. Death or separation of a party who is a public
officer.
When a public officer is a party in an action in his official
capacity and during its pendency dies, resigns, or otherwise
ceases to hold office, the action may be continued and
maintained by or against his successor if, within thirty (30)
days after the successor takes office or such time as may
be granted by the court, it is satisfactorily shown to the court
by any party that there is a substantial need for continuing
or maintaining it and that the successor adopts or continues
or threatens to adopt or continue the action of his
predecessor. Before a substitution is made, the party or
officer to be affected, unless expressly assenting thereto,
shall be given reasonable notice of the application therefor
and accorded an opportunity to be heard.
This applies to the situation when the public officer is made a
party in a case in his official capacity. During the pendency of
the case he dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold office.
What happens? The procedure is given in Section 17:
The action may be continued and maintained by or against his
successor if, within thirty (30) days after the successor takes
office or such time as may be granted by the court, it is
satisfactorily shown to the court that there is a substantial need
for continuing or maintaining it and that the successor adopts
or continues or threatens to adopt or continue the action.
There are certain requirements here. What you have to
remember is the suit is against a public officer in his official
capacity. For example, mandamus. There’s an action, a
petition for mandamus to compel him to do something in his
official capacity and he then he ceases to hold office because
again he might have died, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold
office and of course someone should have succeeded his
office.
If the office also ceases, what happens to the act complained
of? Actually it is also gone. It is because he is the one acting
in his official capacity pursuant to his office but he has no
successor, there is no office. So there is a successor.
99
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG

What are the possibilities in this particular Held: The Supreme Court said that considering the attendant
situation? circumstances in the case at bench, the failure to make the
1. He has a successor and the successor intends to substitution pursuant to the Section 17 of Rule 3 it is a
adopt or to continue the act by reason of which the procedural defect. Because here, there was no substitution
action was filed in the first place effected.
What happens if in such case the successor maintains and
continues the act? There is a need for substitution. The action However in this particular case, the appointed OIC to the
will be continued. positions vacated by the respondents, no longer pursued the
2. Even if there is a successor he does not intend to closure policy of Mayor Galvez, so the corresponding license
continue the act of his predecessor. was subsequently granted already. So number 1, although
What happens now? Then the case becomes moot and there are successors to the office, the successors did not
academic. continue the policy of the predecessors. The closure policy no
longer existed. There was also no substitution made, and in
SITUATION: fact there was no need for substitution because the issue
A public officer is a party in an action in his official capacity became moot and academic.
and during its pendency:
DIES, RESIGNS, OR OTHERWISE CEASES TO HOLD Thus, the Supreme Court said that the mandamus petition
OFFICE should have been dismissed number 1 for non-compliance
and someone SUCCEEDS to his office with the substitution procedure pursuant to Rule 3, Section 17
of the Rules of Court. The substitution procedure under
Possibility 1: Possibility 2: Section 17 of Rule 3 would apply only if the two requisites are
Successor adopts or Successor does not intend to present:
continues or threatens to continue the policy in - There is a successor; and
adopt or continue the policy question. - The successor continues the policy or the action fo
in question and it is the predecessor.
satisfactorily shown to the
court by any party that there There was no compliance with the requisites here of Section
is a substantial need for 17.
continuing or maintaining
the action. Subsequent Events After the filing
The action may be The case will be dismissed.
continued and maintained 1. Incompetency or incapacity of a party
by or against his successor. 2. Transfer of interest of a party
Thus, there is substitution.
Section 18. Incompetency or incapacity. – If a party
EXAMPLE: You file an action to compel a public official not to becomes incompetent or incapacitated, the court, upon
close the road. And then he dies and his successor doesn’t motion with notice, may allow the action to be continued by
care “go ahead and pass the road.” The case becomes moot or against the incompetent or incapacitated person assisted
and academic, the case will be dismissed. by his legal guardian or guardian ad litem.

EFFECT OF NON-SUBSTITUTION Here instead of death there is incompetency or incapacity like

The case can be dismissed for non-compliance with the either party becomes insane or may suffers punishment which
substitution procedure carries with it the accessory penalty of civil interdiction.

What happens? There can also be substitution. In a sense, he

Heirs of Mayor Nemencio Galvez vs. Court of
Appeals
[G.R. 119193 | 29 March 1996]
Facts: There was a petition for mandamus and prohibition
seeking to compel the mayor to issue a municipal license and
permit to resume the operations in Balagtas sports arena at
Balagtas, Bulacan and to enjoin the Mayor and the
Sangguniang Bayan of Balagtas Bulacan from implementing
Resolution 08-85 which ordered the closure of the public
arena.
By the time of the EDSA revolution on 1986, there was a
replacement en masse of the local government officers. The
local government positions which were held by the
respondents in the case where deemed abated and they were
replaced. They had ceased to hold office. Mayor Galvez
himself also died subsequently.
will be represented by his guardian or legal representative. In
a sense, the same party but now represented by his guardian
or legal representative upon motion with notice.
This is not motu propio, meaning, without a motion from either
party, it will not be ordered. It is discretionary. The court may
allow the action to be continued by or against the incompetent
as assisted by a legal representative or guardian ad litem.
Difference between Sec. 18 and Sec. 3
• In Sec. 18, the party becomes incompetent or insane
AFTER the case is filed.
• BUT in Sec. 3, on representative party, the
beneficiary, who is the real party in interest was
already incompetent or insane BEFORE the case is
filed.

Issue: What happens as to the substitutes? Did they continue

the act complained of?

100

Section 19. Transfer of Interest. – If a party becomes
incompetent or incapacitated, the court, upon motion with
notice, may allow the action to be continued by or against
the incompetent or incapacitated person assisted by his
legal guardian or guardian ad litem.
Here, there is transfer pendente lite. I think we have already
discussed in Section 16: During the pendency of the case, the
property subject to litigation was sold. So what happens?
Original owner is not interested because he already sold the
property to another person. There is a transfer of interest.
What are the options?
1. The case can still be continued with the original
parties;
2. The transferee can be substituted in the case of the
original party; or
3. They can be joined, the original party and the
transferee can be joined together in that action.
It depends upon the court upon motion.
III. Death in Actions on Contractual Money Claims
Section 20. Action on Contractual Money Claims. – When
the action is for recovery of money arising from contract,
express or implied, and the defendant dies before entry of
final judgment in the court in which the action was pending
at the time of such death, it shall not be dismissed but shall
instead be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment.
A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff therein shall
be enforced in the manner especially provided in these
Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of a
deceased person.
EFFECT OF DEATH OF PARTY IN A PENDING CIVIL
ACTION
➢ In any civil action, there are three main stages of litigation
proper, excluding the preliminary stages and appeal –
TRIAL, JUDGMENT and EXECUTION.
➢ Such effect will depend whether the action is one which
does not survive or one which survives. Majority of cases
fall within the 2nd category.
• How to determine if an action is one that survives or
one that does not survive?
Section 20 specifically applies on action on contractual money
claims; claims arising from contracts expressed or implied, as
distinguished from other sources of obligations.
What section 20 contemplates is there is already a pending
case involving a money claim arising from a contract express
or implied and one of the party dies. There are three stages of
the litigation mentioned here:
➢ During trial;
➢ After judgment; and
➢ During execution
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
What happens if a party dies?
• Defendant dies – When he dies during trial, the action shall
not be dismissed but shall be instead be allowed to continue
until entry of final judgement. If there is already a judgement
what happens ordinarily if there is a money claim and the
creditor for example secures a favorable decision, the court
says you have to pay the creditor 1 million plus interest of
6% per annum counted from the date after finality of
judgement. It will not be immediately implemented except
when debtor voluntarily pays, which does not almost really
happen. The winning party will file for a motion for a writ of
execution. The court will approve that. The sheriff will
execute the motion and will demand from the debtor to pay.
If the debtor does not pay, the sheriff will levy on the
properties of the debtor.
What happens to the judgement? A favorable judgment
obtained by the plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the manner
especially provided in these Rules for prosecuting claims
against the estate of a deceased person. He cannot execute
that before the court. He should file that favorable judgement
as a money claim in the estate proceeding whether testate or
intestate.
*Testate: with will; Intestate no will
Rule 86 Section 5. Claims which must be filed under the notice. If not
filed, barred; exceptions. — All claims for money against the decent,
arising from contract, express or implied, whether the same be due,
not due, or contingent, all claims for funeral expenses and expense for
the last sickness of the decedent, and judgment for money against the
decent, must be filed within the time limited in the notice; otherwise
they are barred forever, except that they may be set forth as
counterclaims in any action that the executor or administrator may
bring against the claimants. Where an executor or administrator
commences an action, or prosecutes an action already commenced
by the deceased in his lifetime, the debtor may set forth by answer the
claims he has against the decedent, instead of presenting them
independently to the court as herein provided, and mutual claims may
be set off against each other in such action; and if final judgment is
rendered in favor of the defendant, the amount so determined shall be
considered the true balance against the estate, as though the claim
had been presented directly before the court in the administration
proceedings. Claims not yet due, or contingent, may be approved at
their present value.
You will file it as a money claim in the estate of the decedent.
EXAMPLE: The debtor dies, there is already an intestate
proceeding. On your part you filed a case against the debtor
for collection and then there is substitution, the case
continued, and the creditors in the estate proceedings already
filed a claim. Take note that in the settlement of estate there
is statute of money claims, there is a period in which claims of
creditors may be presented in the testate or intestate
proceeding.
The case dragged on because either there was no judge, your
lawyer was not present, it was a holiday so it took a long time
before the case was decided upon. The creditors already
started, and you are still not sure if you will win the case. What
will you do? You can present your Contingent Claim in the
event you win. You file your contingent claim to preserve your
right to collect from the estate during the settlement of the
estate whether testate and intestate. But if you already have a
decision, you can present that judgement as a money claim or
as a claim in the estate of the deceased debtor.
Plaintiff dies – what we apply is Section 16, there is no
problem.
101

SUMMARY OF SECTION 20
1.) Is this an action which survives?
- If this is an action which does not survive, then the action
would be dismissed, there would be no substitution.
Sumaljag v. Spouses Literato
[G.R. 149787 | 18 June 2008]
The question as to whether an action survives or not depends
on the nature of the action and the damage sued for. In the
causes of action which survive, the wrong complained of
affects primarily and principally property and property rights,
the injuries to the person being merely incidental (patrimonial
rights) while in the causes of action which do not survive, the
injury complained of is to the person, the property and rights
of property affected being incidental.
Here the Supreme Court discussed the distinction of an action
which survive and an action which does not survive.
Assuming it is an action which survives, meaning it would be
continued. The next question is:
2.) Is it a contractual money claim, or a non-contractual claim?
If it is based on contract whether express or implied, the third
question you need to answer is:
3.) Who died?
- If it is just the plaintiff, there would only be substitution
- If defendant died, take note when the debt occurred.
If the debt occur during trial before judgement; the action shall
continue, it shall not be dismissed. Apply Rule 86 Section5.
If defendant dies before final judgment but pending execution,
the Rules provide that the plaintiff cannot execute the
favorable decision. Apply Rule 86 Section 5.
If the defendant died after entry of final judgment and there has
already been an execution but before the auction sale. The
auction sale will proceed just like an ordinary civil action
pursuant to Rule 39 Section 7(c).
Section 7. Execution in case of death of party.
(c) In case of the death of the judgment obligor, after execution is
actually levied upon any of his property, the same may be sold for the
satisfaction of the judgment obligation, and the officer making the sale
shall account to the corrsponding executor or administrator for any
surplus in his hands.
EXAMPLE:
Defendant debtor dies. Maybe he died in the trial, or after trial,
where there is a decision but there has been no execution,
there’s already a final judgement.
The favorable decision should not be a subject of ordinary
execution proceedings, it will be presented as a claim in the
settlement of the estate of the deceased debtor.
The problem is when there is no instituted proceeding. Usually,
the heirs execute an extrajudicial settlement. Under the rule,
when there is an execution of an extrajudicial settlement, there
is are annotations at the back that properties to be partitioned
are subject to the claims of creditors which may be presented
from 3 years from the time of the execution.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
If you are the creditor and there was no instituted estate
proceeding, where will you file a claim? Can you file a claim
against the heirs themselves? Well, you can institute the
intestate proceeding as a creditor; you are an interested party.
Why is it that you cannot immediately file a collection case?
Because, upon the death of the person all of his creditors
except those that are preferred are placed in the same
position. You might not be the only creditor, and if the estate
of the decedent is not sufficient to pay all of the debts, that will
be distributed proportionately.
If you will be given the right to file directly a case against the
heirs, even in reality, if you are not a preferred creditor, in effect
you become a preferred creditor because you’ll be allowed to
recover the debt from the estate in its full amount which must
not be the case because all creditors must participate in
proportion to their respective credit. That’s why there must be
a testate or intestate proceeding instituted so that creditors
may file their claim against the estate and participate in the
distribution of the estate.
EXAMPLE: In Section 20, the rule applies when there is
already a pending case. But what if the defendant or the debtor
died before a case is filed? Can the creditor file a case? Can
the defendant still claim his credit?
I think we discussed this already. If you haven’t yet filed a case,
what you do is you file your claim in the settlement of the estate
of the deceased debtor pursuant to Rule 86 Section 5 which
we discussed. Because upon the debt of the person his assets
are not available for all his creditors.
What happens after the settlement is that we follow the rule on
concurrence and preference of creditors.
If you are a preferred creditor, you would be prioritized, if not
you do not have preference, and you participate
proportionately with the other creditors.
As we said, Section 20 applies to contractual money claims
but we discussed in Section 16 that whether it is contractual or
non-contractual money claim, as long as the action survives, it
would not be dismissed. There would just be substitution.
If contractual money claims, we follow the procedure on
Section 20. If it is not a contractual money claim, the
procedure, before the case is filed or if there has been a case
filed but defendant dies pending a case, we apply Rule 87. File
a case against the executor, administrator, or the heirs
themselves.
RULE 87
Actions By and Against Executors and Administrators
Section 1. Actions which may and which may not be brought against
executor or administrator. — No action upon a claim for the recovery
of money or debt or interest thereon shall be commenced against the
executor or administrator; but to recover real or personal property, or
an interest therein, from the estate, or to enforce a lien thereon, and
actions to recover damages for an injury to person or property, real or
personal, may be commenced against him.
If there is no executor/administrator you can file a case but
against the heirs, that is if you are not referring to a contractual
money claim.
102
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG

There is a special case, for example when it is a mortgage. A. CONTRACTUAL money claims
The debtor during his lifetime borrowed money from the A contractual money claim is founded on contract,
creditor. To secure the debt he mortgaged his land to the express or implied.
creditor. So, debtor-mortgagor mortgaged his land to creditor- Example: Collection of an unpaid loan
mortgagee. 1. death of the PLAINTIFF
The case will continue and the court the orders
The debtor-mortgagor the dies. How can we recover? That is the substitution of the deceased by his legal
governed by Rule 86 Section 7. representative or heirs.
2. death of the DEFENDANT
Section 7. Mortgage debt due from estate. — A creditor holding a a. BEFORE entry of final judgment
claim against the deceased secured by mortgage or other collateral The action shall not be dismissed but shall
security, may abandon the security and prosecute his claim in the instead be allowed to continue until entry
manner provided in this rule, and share in the general distribution of of final judgment. The plaintiff cannot
the assets of the estate; or he may foreclose his mortgage or realize execute the final judgment. A favorable
upon his security, by action in court, making the executor or
administrator a party defendant, and if there is a judgment for a
judgment obtained by the plaintiff therein
deficiency, after the sale of the mortgaged premises, or the property shall be enforced in the manner especially
pledged, in the foreclosure or other proceeding to realize upon the provided in these Rules for prosecuting
security, he may claim his deficiency judgment in the manner provided claims against the estate of a deceased
in the preceding section or he may rely upon his mortgage or other person.
security alone, and foreclosure the same at any time within the period ➢ Apply Rule 3, Section 20 and
of the statute of limitations, and in that event he shall not be admitted then Rule 86, Section 5.*
as a creditor, and shall receive no share in the distribution of the other b. AFTER entry of final judgment but
assets of estate; but nothing herein contained shall prohibit the
executor or administrator from redeeming the property mortgaged or
BEFORE levy or execution
pledged, by paying the debt for which it is held as security, under the The plaintiff cannot execute the final
direction of the court, if the court shall adjudge it to be for the best judgment. A favorable judgment obtained
interest of the estate that such redemption shall be made. by the plaintiff therein shall be enforced in
the manner especially provided in these
In summary as discussed in the case of: Rules for prosecuting claims against the
PNB vs. CA estate of a deceased person.
Issue: What are the remedies of the creditor mortgagee under ➢ Apply Rule3, Section 20 and then
the law? Rule 86, Section 5.*
c. AFTER levy or execution but BEFORE the
Held: The remedies are alternative: auction sale
(1) to waive the mortgage and claim the entire debt from The property levied may be sold for the
the estate of the mortgagor as an ordinary claim satisfaction of the judgment obligation,
(intestate/ testate proceedings) and any surplus is accounted for.
(2) to foreclose the mortgage judicially and prove any ➢ Apply Rule 39, 7(c) of the Rules
deficiency as an ordinary claim; and of Court. **
(3) to rely on the mortgage exclusively, foreclosing the
same at any time before it is barred by prescription B. NON-CONTRACTUAL money claims
without right to file a claim for any deficiency. A non-contractual money claim is founded on other
sources of obligations (such as a quasi-delict),
This is not an ordinary claim. When you file a foreclosure of property and property rights other than by a contract.
mortgage it is under Rule 87 Section1. Examples:
1. action for recovery of property
2. forcible entry
SUMMARY
3. unlawful detainer
4. accion publiciana
I. Actions which do NOT Survive the death of a party 5. accion reinvindicatoria
An action which does not survive is an action which is abated 6. action for damages (this does not arise from
or dismissed upon the death of a party. It normally refers to contract but from culpa aquiliana)
actions that are purely personal in character.
Examples: There is substitution of parties, and thus may be
1. actions for annulment of marriage, declaration of covered by the estate of the deceased defendant.
nullity of marriage, or legal separation because upon ➢ Apply Rule 3, Section 20 and then Rule 86,
the death of the defendant spouse, the marriage is Section 7 and Rule 87, Section 1. ***
already dissolved
2. action for support because upon the death of either
parties, any judgment cannot be enforced anyway

II. Actions which SURVIVE the death of a party

An action which survives is an action which shall not be
dismissed but shall instead be allowed to continue until entry
of final judgment. These are actions that are based on
contract, property and other sources of obligations

103

Section 21. Indigent Party. – A party may be authorized to
litigate his action, claim or defense as an indigent if the
court, upon an ex parte application and hearing, is satisfied
that the party is one who has no money or property
sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic
necessities for himself and his family.
Such authority shall include an exemption from payment of
docket and other lawful fees, and of transcripts of
stenographic notes which the court may order to be
furnished him. The amount of the docket and other lawful
fees which the indigent was exempted from paying shall be
a lien on any judgment rendered in the case favorable to
the indigent, unless the court otherwise provides.
Any adverse party may contest the grant of such authority
at any time before judgment is rendered by the trial court. If
the court should determine after hearing that the party
declared as an indigent is in fact a person with sufficient
income or property, the proper docket and other lawful fees
shall be assessed and collected by the clerk of court. If
payment is not made within the time fixed by the court,
execution shall issue for the payment thereof, without
prejudice to such other sanctions as the court may impose.
A party is indigent; it is the plaintiff. When you file cases, it is
the plaintiff who files the docket fees.
Section 21 is a suit in forma pauperis; a party is allowed to sue
as an indigent party. So how can you sue as an indigent party.
Ordinarily you cannot loan docket fees or pay them in
installment. Here, the court may authorize a party to sue as a
pauper litigant.
How? Take note of the procedure.
There should be an ex parte application (no need to notify the
other party) and hearing (you would prove the court that you
have no money or property sufficient and available for food,
shelter and basic necessities for himself and his family).
Later on when the indigent litigant wins the case, the docket
fees would still be computed and be considered as a lien on
the judgment that would be awarded to the indigent litigant.
In relation to this, we will have a discussion on docket fees:
How to apply as an indigent litigant?
It is possible to file an application to sue as an indigent litigant
ex-parte.
When a complaint is filed, the application can be included.
Upon receipt by the clerk of court, it will be forwarded to the
judge because at that time, docket fees are yet to be assessed
and paid. If the judge orders that the applicant is allowed to
sue as an indigent applicant, the same will be raffled to a court
branch. If not, then the applicant will be ordered to pay the
assessed docket fees.
What is the effect is docket fess are not paid?
The payment of the same has jurisdictional effect. The court
cannot acquire jurisdiction over the case unless the proper
docket fees are paid.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
This is different from jurisdiction over the subject matter. Even
if the case is filed before the proper court, without the payment
of docket fees, the latter cannot try and hear the said case for
lack of jurisdiction.
Manchester Development Corp. vs. CA
[G.R. 75919 | 7 May 1987)
Facts: In an action for recovery of ownership and possession
of a parcel of land with damages, the amount of damages
sought was not specified in the prayer although the body of the
complaint alleges the amount of over P78 Million as damages
suffered by plaintiff. Hence, only P60 was paid as docket fees.
When ordered by the court, the plaintiff amended the
complaint, reduced the damages to P10 Million and paid the
additional docket fees in the amount of P410 only when the
case was decided by the SC.
Issue: Did the court acquired jurisdiction over the case by
amendment of the complaint and payment of the proper docket
fees? – No.
Held: Non-payment of the correct docket fees is actually fatal
in the determination won the court had jurisdiction at the time
of filing. The Court acquires jurisdiction over any case only
upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee, therefore the
payment of the docket fees is not only mandatory but also
jurisdictional.
Neither can the amendment of the complaint thereby vest
jurisdiction upon the Court. For all legal purposes there is no
such original complaint that was duly filed which could be
amended. Consequently, the order admitting the amended
complaint and all subsequent proceedings and actions taken
by the trial court are null and void. The basis of assessment of
the docket fee should be the amount of damages sought in the
original complaint and not in the amended complaint. An
amendment of the complaint or similar pleading will not
thereby vest jurisdiction in the Court, much less the payment
of the docket fee based on the amounts sought in the amended
pleading.
However, the ruling in Manchester was modified by the ruling
of the Supreme Court in the case of Sun Insurance vs. Court
of Appeals:
Sun Insurance v. Court of Appeals
[G.R. 923383 | 17 July 1989]
Facts: This case was for the refund of the premium and the
issuance of the writ of preliminary attachment with damages.
Private respondent paid erroneous docket fees. When
assessed by the court of the proper docket fees, he
demonstrated willingness to abide.
Issue: Is the Manchester case is applicable in the case at bar?
– No.
Held: In Manchester, petitioner did not pay any additional
docket fee until the case was decided by this Court. Hence,
due to the fraud committed on the government, the SC held
that the court a quo did not acquire jurisdiction over the case
and that the amended complaint could not have been admitted
inasmuch as the original complaint was null and void.
104

In the present case, a more liberal interpretation of the rules is
called for considering that, unlike Manchester, private
respondent demonstrated his willingness to abide by the rules
by paying the additional docket fees as required. The
promulgation of the decision in Manchester must have had that
sobering influence on private respondent who thus paid the
additional docket fee as ordered by the respondent court. It
triggered his change of stance by manifesting his willingness
to pay such additional docket fee as may be ordered.
Clarificatory and Additional Rules (Sun Insurance vs. CA,
1989):
1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or
appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of the
prescribed docket fee that vests a trial court with
jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the
action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not
accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the court
may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable
time but in no case beyond the applicable
prescriptive or reglementary period.
NOTE: If there is a failure to pay the correct docket fees on
time, the action may prescribe.
2. The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims,
third-party claims and similar pleadings, which shall
not be considered filed until and unless the filing fee
prescribed therefor is paid. The court may also allow
payment of said fee within a reasonable time but also
in no case beyond its applicable prescriptive or
reglementary period.
3. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim
by the filing of the appropriate pleading and payment
of the prescribed filing fee but, subsequently, the
judgment awards a claim not specified in the
pleading, or if specified the same has been left for
determination by the court, the additional filing fee
therefor shall constitute a lien on the judgment. It
shall be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his
duly authorized deputy to enforce said lien and
assess and collect the additional fee.
Tacay vs RTC of Tagum
[G.R. 88075-77 | 20 December 1989]
Facts: This is a case for the recovery of possession land
(accion publiciana) and damages. The plaintiff paid docket
fees based on assessed value of the land – meaning that he
paid the fees for the accion publiciana case. However, he did
not pay the fees for the damages. The defendant moved to
dismiss the case because the docket fees for the damages
were not paid.
Issue: Is it proper to dismiss the case? – No.
Held: Where an action involves real property and the related
claim for damages as well, the legal fees shall be assessed on
both the value of the property and the total amount of claimed
damages sought.
DISCSSION: In this case, the plaintiff failed to pay the docket
fees for the claimed damages. Such a failure could result in
either of the following: the first result is the claim for
damages being expunged from the records and be
dismissed.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
However, the case of Sun Insurance must be taken into
consideration, meaning that the plaintiff can be given a
reasonable time in which he is to pay the docket fees for the
damages.
The second result is the plaintiff being given a reasonable
amount of time to amend the complaint so that he can
allege the exact amount of damages and have him pay the
assessed docket fee within the requisite prescriptive
period.
Either way, the entire case will not be dismissed because the
court had already acquired jurisdiction over the case for accion
publiciana. The question is with respect to the amount of
damages. Regarding this, the court can exercise either of the
two options.
De la Paz vs. CA
[G.R. 120150 | 27 May 2000]
Facts: Dela Paz filed a complaint for infringement of patent
with prayer for payment of reasonable compensation and for
damages against respondents Pilipinas Shell Petroleum
Corp., Caltex (Phils.), Mobil Oil Philippines Inc. and Petrophil
Corporation. There was no mention in the complaint of the
amount of damages being claimed but petitioner alleged that
the conservative estimate of the combined gross sales of his
invention by respondents is P934,213,780.00 annually, and
during trial the estimated yearly royalty due him from
respondents to be P236,572,350.00.
During the hearing, it was discovered that he paid docket fees
worth Php 252.00 based on his claim for attorney’s fees worth
Php 200,000.00. The then defendants moved for dismissal on
the ground of failure to pay the correct amount of docket fees.
Instead of granting the motion to dismiss, the RTC ordered
petitioner to pay the additional docket fee in the sum of
P945,636.90, computed at P4.00 per P1,000.00 in excess of
the first P150,000.00 based on P236,572,350.00. The
petitioner then moved for reconsideration on the ground that
he could not afford the amounts imposed. Subsequently, the
RTC issued an order allowing petitioner to pay the required
additional docket fee after the termination of the case, to be
deducted from whatever judgment in damages shall be
awarded by the Court.
The case was then elevated to the Supreme Court. In the
interim, the Court promulgated its ruling in Pilipinas Shell
Incoporated vs. Court of Appeals. It held that it is not possible
to have the docket fees be paid only after judgement has been
rendered – that “nowhere can a justification be found to
convert payment of docket fees to something akin to a
contingent fee which would depend on the result of the case.
Under the circumstances, the Court would stand to lose the
filing fees should the party be later adjudged to be not entitled
to any claim at all.”
The Court directed that the proceedings before the trial
court resume upon payment of all lawful fees or upon
exemption from payment thereof upon proper application
to litigate as pauper.
So, in the case of De la Paz, subsequently, the plaintiff filed an
application to litigate as a pauper litigant pursuant to the ruling
in Pilipinas Shell. In the meantime, he also paid certain
amounts as partial payments for docket fees. He paid around
105

Php50,000. The motion to litigate as a pauper was denied.
Subsequently, he filed a second motion to amend his
complaint to lower his claim for damages so that his docket
fees would also be lowered.
The defendants claimed that the plaintiff could no longer move
for the same because his cause of action had already
prescribed. They also cited Manchester by stating that he
never paid the docket fees on time and as such, he could not
be allowed to amend.
Issue: Whether or not his petition should be dismissed?
Ruling: No. During the pendency of the civil case with the CA
and later with the SC, an injunction was issued by both courts
restraining the trial court from proceeding with the case until
further orders. This made it legally impossible for petitioner
to pay the additional docket fee required in the lower
court. Hence, instead of dismissing the complaint, this
Court ordered the resumption of the proceedings of the
case upon full payment of the prescribed docket fees as
assessed by the Clerk of Court or upon exemption from
payment of the docket upon proper application by
petitioner to litigate as a pauper.
Also, there is nothing in Pilipinas Shell vs. Court of Appeals
which stated that petitioner should pay the additional docket
fee in the sum of P945,636.90, otherwise the lower court would
dismiss petitioner’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
ON THE CLAIM OF PRESCRIPTION:
After the trial court ruled that the payment for the additional
docket fee could be deducted from whatever judgment in
damages shall be awarded by the court, an injunction was
issued by the Court of Appeals and, later, the Supreme
Court, during the pendency of the case which preserved
the status quo among the parties. Even if he wanted to,
petitioner could not have amended his complaint to lower
the amount of his claim to accommodate his finances for
purposes of paying the prescribed docket fee during the
reglementary period. Hence, although the case was decided
in 1989, petitioner was given the chance to pay the required
docket as assessed by the clerk of court or to seek exemption
from payment upon proper application to litigate as pauper.
Prescinding from the foregoing, if petitioner had been given the
chance to pay the correct docket fee even beyond the alleged
prescriptive period, there was no reason why he could not
have amended his complaint and lowered his claim to
accommodate his finances in order to pay the prescribed
docket fees. Inasmuch as this Court has not specified the
period within which petitioner should comply with its ruling, it
is understood that the same was to be done within a
reasonable period of time. Of course, what is reasonable
is relative according to the factual circumstances of the
case. In the case at bar, this Court finds that the filing of
the second amended complaint a year after the denial of
petitioner’s motion to litigate as pauper had been denied
was reasonable.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
ON MANNER OF PAYMENT BY INSTALLMENT:
Here, petitioner has continuously paid additional sums for the
prescribed docket fees amounting to at least P50,000.00,
almost equivalent to his annual gross income of P56,271.24.
Clearly, the subsequent amendments of his complaint were
done for no other reason than to accommodate his finances
(not to evade payment of docket fees). Hence, while
petitioner’s manner of paying the docket fees in
installments should normally be disallowed, it would be
more unfair for this Court to sanction respondents’
conduct of prolonging the proceedings of the case in a
patent design to wear out the petitioner before
conveniently raising the issue of prescription. Equity
demands that procedural rules be relaxed considering the
peculiar circumstances availing in the case at bar. It
would be grossly unjust if petitioner’s claim against
respondents, who have allegedly reaped the profits of his
lifetime work, would be dismissed for the sole reason that
his finances are not sufficient to allow him to file his claim.
Ruby Shelter Builders v. Foraman
[G.R. 175914 | 10 February 2009]
Held: Considering that respondent’s complaint is a real action,
the Rule requires that "the assessed value of the property, or
if there is none, the estimated value thereof shall be alleged by
the claimant and shall be the basis in computing the fees." The
docket fees for which must be computed in accordance with
Section 7(1), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended.
A real action indisputably involves real property. The docket
fees for a real action would still be determined in accordance
with the value of the real property involved therein; the only
difference is in what constitutes the acceptable value.
In computing the docket fees for cases involving real
properties, the courts, instead of relying on the assessed
or estimated value, would now be using the fair market
value of the real properties (as stated in the Tax
Declaration or the Zonal Valuation of the Bureau of
Internal Revenue, whichever is higher) or, in the absence
thereof, the stated value of the same.
Metropolitan Bank v. Perez
[G.R. 181842 | 5 February 2010]
In this case, which concerns an allegation of a breach of a
lease contract, Metrobank alleged that Perez did not pay the
docket fees for the claim of unpaid rentals – thereby claiming
that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the case. The
contention was made after the CA rendered a decision in favor
of Perez.
Held: The ensuing months in which the leased premises would
be rendered vacant could not be determined at the time of the
filing of the complaint. It bears recalling that the building
constructed on respondents leased premises was specifically
constructed to house a bank, hence, the idle period before
another occupant with like business may opt to lease would be
difficult to project.
On Metrobanks raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction over the
complaint for respondent’s failure to pay the correct docket
fees, apropos is the ruling in National Steel Corporation v.
Court of Appeals:
106

Although the payment of the proper docket fees is a
jurisdictional requirement, the trial court may allow the plaintiff
in an action to pay the same within a reasonable time before
the expiration of the applicable prescriptive or reglementary
period. If the plaintiff fails to comply with this requirement, the
defendant should timely raise the issue of jurisdiction or
else he would be considered in estoppel. In the latter case,
the balance between the appropriate docket fees and the
amount actually paid by the plaintiff will be considered a
lien on any award he may obtain in his favor.
Metrobank raised the issue of jurisdiction only before the
appellate court after it and its co-petitioner participated in the
proceedings before the trial court. While lack of jurisdiction
may be raised at any time, a party may be held in estoppel if,
as in the present case, it has actively taken part in the
proceedings being questioned.
The foregoing disposition notwithstanding, respondent is liable
for the balance between the actual fees paid and the correct
payable filing fees to include an assessment on the award of
unrealized income, following Section 2 of Rule 141 which
provides:
SEC. 2. Fees in lien. Where the court in its final judgment
awards a claim not alleged, or a relief different from, or more
than that claimed in the pleading, the party concerned shall
pay the additional fees which shall constitute a lien on the
judgment in satisfaction of said lien. The clerk of court shall
assess and collect the corresponding fee. The exception
contemplated as to claims not specified or to claims although
specified are left for determination of the court is limited only
to any damages that may arise after the filing of the
complaint or similar pleading for then it will not be possible
for the claimant to specify nor speculate as to the amount
thereof.
Camaso v. TSM Shipping Lines, Inc.
[G.R. 223290 | 7 November 2016]
In this case, petitioner used a personal check to pay his appeal
fee. Under the Rules, the use of personal checks to pay docket
fees is not allowed.
Held: Verily, the failure to pay the required docket fees per se
should not necessarily lead to the dismissal of a case. It has
long been settled that while the court acquires jurisdiction
over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed
docket fees, its non-payment at the time of filing of the
initiatory pleading does not automatically cause its
dismissal provided that:
(a) the fees are paid within a reasonable period; and
(b) there was no intention on the part of the claimant to
defraud the government.
Lacson v. Perez
[G.R. 147780 | 10 May 2001]
Facts:In this case, the lawyer of the heirs in a probate case
filed a motion for attorney’s fees.
Issue: Is there a need to pay docket fees for the motion? –
Yes.
Held: In the case at bar, the "motion for attorney's fees" was
clearly in the nature of an action commenced by a lawyer
against his clients for attorney's fees. The very decision of the
court states:
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG
This case is an out-growth from Sp. Proc. No. 127-87 of same
Court which was long decided (sic). It resulted from the filing
of a petition for attorney's fees by the lawyer of the petitioner's
heirs in the case against the latter. Upon the filing of the
petition for attorney's fees, the heir- respondents (sic) were
accordingly summoned to answer the petition as if it were a
complaint against said heirs who retained the petitioner as
their lawyer in the said case. In that event, the parties should
have known, the respondent court in particular, that docket
fees should have been priorly paid before the court could
lawfully act on the case, and decide it.
It may be true that the claim for attorney's fees was but an
incident in the main case, still, it is not an escape valve
from the payment of docket fees because as in all actions,
whether separate or as an offshoot of a pending
proceeding, the payment of docket fees is mandatory.
Assuming, therefore, ex gratia argumenti, that Atty. Serquina's
demand for attorney's fees in the sum of P68,000.00 is valid,
he, Atty. Serquina, should have paid the fees in question
before the respondent court could validly try his "motion".
Pascual v. CA
[G.R. 120575 | 16 December 1998]
Held: While not exactly a ground for annulment, the Court has
held that it is the payment of the prescribed docket fee that
vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or
nature of the action. Petitioner avers that the intestate court
had no jurisdiction to award the disputed attorney’s fees before
private respondent paid docket fees, as required in Lacson v.
Reyes.
The argument is untenable. The Court required in Lacson
the payment of a separate docket fee, since the lawyer’s
motion for attorney’s fees was in the nature of an action
commenced by a lawyer against his client. In contrast, the
private respondent filed a claim for his attorney’s fees
against the estate of Don Andres. The difference in the
modes of action taken renders Lacson inapplicable to the
case at bar.
Sheker v. Estate of Sheker
[G.R. 157912 | 13 December 2007]
Held: The certification of non-forum shopping is required only
for complaints and other initiatory pleadings. The RTC erred
in ruling that a contingent money claim against the estate
of a decedent is an initiatory pleading. In the present case,
the whole probate proceeding was initiated upon the filing of
the petition for allowance of the decedent's will. Under
Sections 1 and 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court, after granting
letters of testamentary or of administration, all persons having
money claims against the decedent are mandated to file or
notify the court and the estate administrator of their respective
money claims; otherwise, they would be barred, subject to
certain exceptions.
Such being the case, a money claim against an estate is more
akin to a motion for creditors' claims to be recognized and
taken into consideration in the proper disposition of the
properties of the estate. In Arquiza v. Court of Appeals, the
Court explained thus:
107
 CIVIL PROCEDURE 2018
BAYQUEN | LUZ | MANGATE | PIANG

x x x The office of a motion is not to initiate new litigation, but

to bring a material but incidental matter arising in the progress
of the case in which the motion is filed. A motion is not an
independent right or remedy,but is confined to incidental
matters in the progress of a cause. It relates to some question
that is collateral to the main object of the action and is
connected with and dependent upon the principal remedy.
(Emphasis supplied)

A money claim is only an incidental matter in the main

action for the settlement of the decedent's estate; more so
if the claim is contingent since the claimant cannot even
institute a separate action for a mere contingent claim.
Hence, herein petitioner's contingent money claim, not being
an initiatory pleading, does not require a certification against
non-forum shopping. As such, it also does not require te
payment of docket fees.

On the issue of filing fees, the Court ruled in Pascual v. Court

of Appeals, that the trial court has jurisdiction to act on a
money claim (attorney's fees) against an estate for services
rendered by a lawyer to the administratrix to assist her in
fulfilling her duties to the estate even without payment of
separate docket fees because the filing fees shall constitute a
lien on the judgment pursuant to Section 2, Rule 141 of the
Rules of Court, or the trial court may order the payment of such
filing fees within a reasonable time. After all, the trial court had
already assumed jurisdiction over the action for settlement of
the estate. Clearly, therefore, non-payment of filing fees for
a money claim against the estate is not one of the grounds
for dismissing a money claim against the estate.

DISCUSSION: The rule promulgated in this case is also

applicable to the rule on certificates of non-forum shopping.

Section 22. Notice to the Solicitor General.—In any

action involving the validity of any treaty, law, ordinance,
executive order, presidential decree, rules or regulations,
the court, in its discretion, may require the appearance of
the Solicitor General who may be heard in person or
through a representative duly designated by him. (23a)

The Solicitor General

The Solicitor General is the legal counsel of the Republic of
the Philippines whose duty is to defend all the official acts of
the Government.

108