I.

Preliminaries

a. Remedial Law distinguished from substantive law

• Substantive Law: It creates, defines and regulates rights and duties concerning life, liberty or property

• Remedial Law: It does not create rights or obligations but lays down the methods by which the rights and obligations
arising from substantive law are protected, enforced and given effect (PROCEDURAL)

b. Prospective effect of the Rules of Court/ Retroactive application of Rules of Court

• The rules shall govern cases brought after they take effect, and also to pending cases, EXCEPT IF THEIR
APPLICATION WOULD NOT BE FEASIBLE

• Rules of procedure, may be made applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage, and
are deemed retroactive in that sense and to that extent

c. Applicability to pending actions; retroactivity

• The rule does not apply:

1. Where the statute itself or by necessary implication provides that pending actions are excepted from its
operation

2. If applying the rule to pending proceedings would impair vested rights

3. When to do so would not be feasible or would work injustice

4. If doing so would involve intricate problems of due process or impair the independence of the courts

d. Rule-making power of the Supreme Court

• 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. (Article 8, Sec 5 (5))

• No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this
Constitution without its advice and concurrence. (Article 6, Sec 30)

e. Power of the SC to suspend the Rules of Court

• The SC has the power to amend, repeal or even establish new rules for a more simplified and inexpensive process,
and the speedy disposition of cases

• Factors that would warrant such suspension:

1. The existence of special or compelling circumstances

2. The merits of the case

3. A cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension rules

4. A lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory

© Celyn Palacol
 5. The rights of other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby

f. Distinctions: Civil action, Criminal Action and Special Proceedings

II. General Principles

a. Nature and classification of Philippine Courts

• Equity Jurisdiction: Rules of fairness and justice

• Equity is not to be applied in all cases. Equity does not apply when there is a law applicable to a given case. It is
availed of only in the absence of a law and is never availed of against statutory law or judicial pronouncements

b. Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

• The doctrine of primary jurisdiction is corollary to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies in which
courts cannot, or will not, determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the
administrative tribunal prior to the resolution of the question by the administrative tribunal, where the question
demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services
of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact

• The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies says that a person challenging an agency decision must first
pursue the agency's available remedies before seeking judicial review. It was created by courts in order to promote
an efficient justice system and autonomous administrative state.

c. Doctrine of Non-Interference or doctrine of judicial stability

• The doctrine of non-interference (doctrine of judicial stability) holds that courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction
cannot interfere with each other’s orders

• The doctrine applies with equal force to administrative bodies

III. Jurisdiction

a. Statute in force at the time of the commencement of action

b. Classification of jurisdiction

i. Original vs Appellate

• Original: When actions or proceedings are originally filed with it (Metropolitan trial Courts, Municipal
Circuit trial courts, Municipal Trial Courts)

• Appellate: When it has the power of review over the decisions or orders of the lower courts (Note:
Appellate courts have a “dual nature” in the sense that they are not only appellate courts but also courts
with original jurisdiction)

• The RTC is likewise, a court of original jurisdiction with respect to cases originally filed with it but is also a
court of appellate jurisdiction with respect to cases decided by the MTC within its territorial jurisdiction

ii. General vs Special

© Celyn Palacol
 • General: Those with competence to decide on their own jurisdiction and take cognizance of all cases,
civil and criminal, of a particular nature

- It may also be considered general if it has the competence to exercise jurisdiction over cases not
falling within the jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person, or body exercising judicial or quasi-
judicial functions

• Special: Those which have jurisdiction only for a particular purpose or are clothed with special powers for
the performance of specified duties beyond which they have no authority of any kind

iii. Exclusive vs Concurrent

• Exclusive: It precludes the idea of co-existence and refers to jurisdiction possessed to the exclusion of
others

• Concurrent: The power of different courts to take cognizance of the same subject matter. Where there is
concurrent jurisdiction, the court first taking cognizance of the case assumes jurisdiction to the exclusion
of other courts

c. Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts and Continuity of Jurisdiction

• Under the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, where courts have concurrent jurisdiction over a subject matter, such
concurrence of jurisdiction does not grant the party seeking relief the absolute freedom to file a petition in any court
of his choice. Pursuant to this doctrine, a case must be filed first before the lowest court possible having the
appropriate jurisdiction, except if one can advance a special reason which would allow a party in direct resort to a
higher court. The principle requires that resort must first be made to the lower-ranked court exercising concurrent
jurisdiction with a higher court.

• The doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction (Continuity of Jurisdiction) means that one jurisdiction has attached, it
cannot be ousted by subsequent happenings or events, although of a character which would have prevented
jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance. The court, once jurisdiction has been acquired, retains that
jurisdiction until it finally disposes of the case.

d. Jurisdiction of various Philippine Courts

e. Aspects of Jurisdiction

i. Jurisdiction over the subject matter

• It is referred to as the power of a particular court to hear the type of case that is then before it. It also
refers to the jurisdiction of the court over the class of cases to which a particular case belongs

• Under the ROC, it is the duty of the court to dismiss an action whenever it appears that the court has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter

• The general rule is that proceedings conducted or decisions made by a court are legally void when there
is an absence of jurisdiction over the subject matter. A court devoid of jurisdiction over the case cannot
make a decision in favor of either party. It can only dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.

• A decision rendered by a court devoid of jurisdiction may be the subject of a collateral attack, if that
jurisdiction defect appears on the face of the record. And where lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter appears on the face of the record, an appellate court may, on its own initiative, dismiss the action.

© Celyn Palacol
 • When the court dismisses the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, it is submitted that
the only authority of the court is to order such dismissal and not to refer or forward the case to another
court with the proper jurisdiction

• A judgment rendered by a body or tribunal that has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case is
no judgment at all.

• Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law which may be either the Constitution or a statute.
Hence, if one wants to know the court with jurisdiction over a complaint for forcible entry, one must look
into the laws on jurisdiction, not the ROC or any procedural rule.

• Since jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred only by the Constitution or by law, it cannot be:

(1) Granted by the agreement of the parties

(2) Acquired, waived, enlarged, or diminished by any act or omission of the parties

(3) Conferred by the acquiescence of the courts

• Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint, as well as by the character of the relief
sought

• Jurisdiction being a matter of substantive law, the established rule is that the statute in force at the time
of the commencement of the action determines the jurisdiction of the court

• Caption of the case is not controlling

• The defenses and evidence do not determine jurisdiction

• The earliest opportunity of a party to raise the issue of jurisdiction is in a motion to dismiss filed before
the filing of the answer

• The prevailing rule is that jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings, even for the first time on appeal. Even if the parties did not raise the issue of jurisdiction,
the reviewing court, on appeal, is not precluded from ruling that the lower court had no jurisdiction over
the case. Hence, the issue may even be tackled motu propio for the first time on appeal

• While it is true that jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings
since it is conferred by law, it is, nevertheless, settled that a party may be barred from raising it on the
ground of estoppel (See page 74, case of Tijam vs Sibonghanoy)

ii. Jurisdiction over the parties

• It refers to the power of the court to make decisions that are binding on persons. It is the legal power of
the court to render a personal judgment against a party to an action or proceeding. It is the power which
a court has over the defendant’s person which is required before a court can enter a personal or an in
personam judgment

• Jurisdiction over the plaintiff is required as soon as he files his complaint or petition because by the
mere filing of the complaint, the plaintiff, in a civil action, voluntarily submits himself to the jurisdiction of
the court

• Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in civil case is acquired either by his voluntary appearance
in court and his submission to its authority or by service of summons

• Generally, a person voluntarily submits to the court’s jurisdiction when he or she participates in the trial
despite improper service of summons

• Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is required in an action in personam. Jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant is not a prerequisite in an action in rem and quasi in rem.

© Celyn Palacol
 iii. Jurisdiction over the issues

• It is the power of the court to try and decide the issues raised in the pleadings of the parties

• Generally, jurisdiction over the issues is conferred and determined by the allegations in the pleadings of
the parties. It may also be determined and conferred by stipulation of the parties as when, in the pre-trial,
the parties enter into stipulations of facts and documents or enter into an agreement simplifying the
issues of the case. It may also be conferred by waiver or failure to object to the presentation of evidence
on a matter not raised in the pleadings.

iv. Jurisdiction over the Res

• It refers to the court’s jurisdiction over the thing or the property which is the subject of the action.

• Jurisdiction over the res may be acquired by the court by placing the property or thing under its custody
or constructive seizure.

v. Estoppel Jurisdiction

vi. Tijam vs Sibonghanoy

• Here, the SC barred a belated objection to jurisdiction that was raised by a party only when an adverse
decision was rendered by the lower court against it and because it raised the issue only after almost 15
years and after seeking affirmative relief from the court and actively participating in all stages of the
proceedings. The doctrine, as declared by the SC in Tijam, is “based upon grounds of public policy and is
principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or
asserted.”

IV. Actions

a. Ordinary civil actions, Special Civil Actions, Criminal actions, Special Proceedings

b. Personal actions and Real Actions

• Sps. Trayvilla vs Sejas

• Heirs of Reterta vs Sps Lopez

© Celyn Palacol
 Ruling: Certiorari, as an extraordinary remedy, is not substitute for appeal due to its being availed
of only when there is no appeal, or plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law.[... the order that the petitioners really wanted to obtain relief from was the order granting the
respondents' motion to dismiss, not the denial of the motion for reconsideration. The fact that the order
granting the motion to dismiss was a final order... for thereby completely disposing of the case, leaving
nothing more for the trial court to do in the action, truly called for an appeal, instead of certiorari, as the
correct remedy.

c. Actions in rem, in personam, and quasi in rem

V. Rule 2 – Cause of action

a. Meaning of cause of action

➢ It is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another

➢ The ff. are the elements of a cause of action:

1. A legal right in favor of the plaintiff

2. A correlative legal duty of the defendant to respect such rights

3. An act or omission by such defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff with a resulting injury or damage to
the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of relief from the defendant

• Heirs of Tomas Dolleton vs Fil-Estate Management

• Right of Action – Multi Realty Development Corporation

• Consular Area Residents Association vs Casanova

b. Test of sufficiency of cause of action and its effects

© Celyn Palacol
 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?

The sufficiency of the statement of the cause of action must appear on the face of the complaint and its existence may be
determined only by the allegations in the complaint, consideration of other facts being proscribed and any attempt to prove
extraneous circumstances not being allowed

In some cases, the Court considered the documents attached to the complaint to truly determine sufficiency of the cause of
action

Effect: A ground for dismissal of the said complaint. When the court finds that the complaint states no cause of action, this
means that the same cannot be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action, but the claiming party has the obligation to offer
evidence to support the allegations constituting the elements of his cause of action

• Misamis Occidental Cooperative vs David

At issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari and in holding that the trial
court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s Motion. We find no error in the ruling of the
Court of Appeals.

In Municipality of Biñan, Laguna v. Court of Appeals,27 decided under the old Rules of Court, we held that a
preliminary hearing permitted under Section 5, Rule 16, is not mandatory even when the same is prayed for. It rests
largely on the sound discretion of the court, thus:
SEC. 5. Pleading grounds as affirmative defenses.- Any of the grounds for dismissal provided for in this rule, except
improper venue, may be pleaded as an affirmative defense, and a preliminary hearing may be had thereon as if a
motion to dismiss had been filed.
The use of the word "may" in the aforequoted provision shows that such a hearing is not mandatory but
discretionary. It is an auxiliary verb indicating liberty, opportunity, permission and possibility.28
Such interpretation is now specifically expressed in the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Section 6, Rule 16 provides
that a grant of preliminary hearing rests on the sound discretion of the court, to wit-
SEC. 6. Pleading grounds as affirmative defenses.- If no motion to dismiss has been filed, any of the grounds for
dismissal provided for in this Rule may be pleaded as an affirmative defense in the answer and, in the discretion of
the court, a preliminary hearing may be had thereon as if a motion to dismiss had been filed. …
Based on the foregoing, a preliminary hearing undeniably is subject to the discretion of the trial court. Absent any
showing that the trial court had acted without jurisdiction or in excess thereof or with such grave abuse of discretion
as would amount to lack of jurisdiction, as in the present case, the trial court’s order granting or dispensing with the
need for a preliminary hearing may not be corrected by certiorari.29

c. Splitting of a single cause of action and its effects

R2 S4 provides that 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 others.

Splitting a single cause of action is the act of instituting two or more suits on the basis of the same cause of action. The
practice of splitting a single cause of action is discouraged because it breeds multiplicity of suits, clogs the court dockets, leads
to vexatious litigation, operates as an instrument of harassment, and generates unnecessary expenses to the parties.

The rule against splitting a single cause of action applies not only to complaints but also to counterclaims and cross-claims. A
cause of action may give rise to several reliefs, but only one action can be filed, not one action for each relief.

© Celyn Palacol
 Also, a single act may sometimes violate several rights of a person. Nevertheless, the plaintiff has only on cause of action
regardless of the number of rights violated.

The 3 tests to ascertain whether two suits relate to a single or common cause of action:

1. Whether the same evidence would support and sustain both the first and second causes of action

2. Whether the defenses in one case may be used to substantiate the complaint in the other

3. Whether the cause of action in the second case existed at the time of the filing of the first complaint

The remedy of the defendant is to file a motion to dismiss.

• Marilag vs Martinez

To lay down the basics, litis pendentia, as a ground for the dismissal of a civil action, refers to that situation
wherein another action is pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, such that the
second action becomes unnecessary and vexatious. For the bar of litis pendentia to be invoked, the following
requisites must concur: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both
actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the
identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the pending case, regardless of
which party is successful would amount to res judicata in the other.31 The underlying principle of litis pendentia is the
theory that a party is not allowed to vex another more than once regarding the same subject matter and for the
same cause of action. This theory is founded on the public policy that the same subject matter should not be the
subject of controversy in courts more than once, in order that possible conflicting judgments may be avoided for the
sake of the stability of the rights and status of persons, and also to avoid the costs and expenses incident to
numerous suits.32 Consequently, a party will not be permitted to split up a single cause of action and make it a basis
for several suits as the whole cause must be determined in one action.33To be sure, splitting a cause of action is
a mode of forum shopping by filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action, but with different
prayers, where the round of dismissal is litis pendentia for res judicata, as the case may be).34redarclaw



In this relation, it must be noted that the question of whether a cause of action is single and entire or separate is not
always easy to determine and the same must often be resolved, not by the general rules, but by reference to the
facts and circumstances of the particular case. The true rule, therefore, is whether the entire amount arises from
one and the same act or contract which must, thus, be sued for in one action, or the several parts arise
from distinct and different acts or contracts, for which a party may maintain separate suits.35redarclaw



In loan contracts secured by a real estate mortgage, the rule is that the creditor-mortgagee has a single cause of
action against the debtor mortgagor, i.e., to recover the debt, through the filing of a personal action for
collection of sum of money or the institution of a real action to foreclose on the mortgage security. The two
remedies are alternative,36 not cumulative or successive,37 and each remedy is complete by itself. Thus, if the
creditor-mortgagee opts to foreclose the real estate mortgage, he waives the action for the collection of the unpaid
debt,38except only for the recovery of whatever deficiency may remain in the outstanding obligation of the debtor-
mortgagor after deducting the bid price in the public auction sale of the mortgaged properties.39 Accordingly,
a deficiency judgment shall only issue after it is established that the mortgaged property was sold at public auction
for an amount less than the outstanding obligation.

• Yap vs. First E-Bank Corporation

Hence, this appeal9 where petitioners argue that, when Sammy was sued for six counts of violation of BP 22, PDCP
should have been deemed to have simultaneously filed for collection of the amount represented by the checks. The
civil aspect of the case was naturally an action for collection of Sammy's obligation to PDCP. PDCP clearly elected a
remedy. PDCP should not be allowed to pursue another, like foreclosure of mortgage. The argument is not
convincing.

© Celyn Palacol
 1. The criminal action for violation of [BP] 22 shall be deemed to necessarily include the corresponding civil
action, and no reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed or recognized.
2. Upon the filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the offended party shall pay in full the filing fees
based upon the amount of the check involved, which shall be considered as the actual damages claimed, in
accordance with the filing fees in Section 7 (a) and Section 8 (a), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, and last amended
by Administrative Circular No. 11-94 effective August 1, 1994. Where the offended party seeks to enforce against
the accused civil liability by way of liquidated, moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, he shall pay the
corresponding filing fees therefore based on the amounts thereof as alleged either in his complaint or in the
information. If not so alleged but any of these damages are awarded by the court, the amount of such fees shall
constitute a first lien on the judgment.
3. Where the civil action has heretofore been filed separately and trial thereof has not yet commenced, it may be
consolidated with the criminal action upon application with the court trying the latter case. If the application is
granted, the trial of both actions shall proceed in accordance with the pertinent procedure outlined in Section 2 (a) of
Rule 111 governing the proceedings in the actions as thus consolidated.
• Umale vs Canoga Park Development Corp

As a ground for the dismissal of a civil action, litis pendentia refers to a situation where two actions are pending
between the same parties for the same cause of action, so that one of them becomes unnecessary and
vexatious. [19]



Litis pendentia exists when the following requisites are present: identity of the parties in the two actions; substantial
identity in the causes of action and in the reliefs sought by the parties; and the identity between the two actions
should be such that any judgment that may be rendered in one case, regardless of which party is successful, would
amount to res judicata in the other.

• Chu et al vs Cunanan

Issues:
Was Civil Case No. 12251 barred by res judicata although the compromise agreement did not expressly include
Benelda Estate as a party and although the compromise agreement made no reference to the lots now registered in
Benelda Estate's name?

Ruling:

We deny the petition for review. A compromise agreement is a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal
concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced.[19] It encompasses the objects specifically
stated therein, although it may include other objects... by necessary implication,[20] and is binding on the
contracting parties, being expressly acknowledged as a juridical agreement between them.[21] It has the effect and
authority of res judicata upon the parties.[

, the petitioners were guilty of splitting their single cause of action to enforce or rescind the deed of sale with
assumption of mortgage. Splitting a single cause of action is the act of dividing a single or indivisible cause of action
into several parts or... claims and instituting two or more actions upon them.[26] A single cause of action or entire
claim or demand cannot be split up or divided in order to be made the subject of two or more different actions.

• Riviera Golf Club vs CCA Holdings

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.
In both Civil Case No. 01-611 and Civil Case No. 03-399, CCA Holdings imputed the same wrongful act - the
alleged violations of the terms and conditions of the Management and Royalty Agreements. In Civil Case No.
01-611, CCA Holdings' cause of action rests on Riviera Golfs failure to pay the licensing fees, reimbursement
claims, and monthly management and incentive fees. In Civil Case No. 03-399 on the other hand, CCA Holdings'
cause of action hinges on the damages it allegedly incurred as a result of Riviera Golfs premature termination of the
Management and Royalty Agreements

© Celyn Palacol
 d. Joinder and Misjoinder of causes of action

R2 S5: 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 RTC provided one of the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of said court
and the venue lies therein

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

R2 S6: 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.

Joinder of causes of action is the assertion of as many causes of action as a party may have against another in one pleading
alone. It is the process of uniting two or more demands or rights of action in one action.

This provision requires that before there can be a proper joinder of parties, a right to relief exists in favor of or against several
persons whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative, and that right to relief arises out of the same transaction or series of
transaction and that there exists a question of law or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all such defendants.

The plaintiff may join, in a single statement of claim, one or more separate small claim against a defendant provided that the
total claimed, exclusive of interests and costs, does not exceed P100,000.

• Perez vs Hernano

By a joinder of actions, or more properly, a joinder of causes of action, is meant 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.
As can easily be inferred from the above definitions, a party is generally not required to join in one suit several
distinct causes of action. The joinder of separate causes of action, where allowable, 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. Modern statutes and rules governing joinders are
intended to avoid a multiplicity of suits and to promote the efficient administration of justice wherever this may be
done without prejudice to the rights of the litigants. To achieve these ends, they are liberally construed.
While joinder of causes of action is largely left to the option of a party litigant, Section 5, Rule 2 of our present Rules
allows causes of action to be joined in one complaint conditioned upon the following requisites: (a) it will not violate
the rules on jurisdiction, venue and joinder of parties; and (b) the causes of action 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

• Danilo vs Pedro

• Totality Rule (BP 129, Sec. 33)

Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in civil
cases. – Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings, testate and intestate, including the
grant of provisional remedies in proper cases, where the value of the personal property, estate, or amount of the
demand does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila where such personal
property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) exclusive
of interest damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the amount of which must be
specifically alleged: Provided, 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;

© Celyn Palacol
 (2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer: Provided, That when, in such
cases, the defendant raises the question of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be
resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the
issue of possession.
(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any
interest therein where the assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand
pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand
pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and
costs: Provided, That value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots. (as
amended by R.A. No. 7691)
• Flores vs Mallare-Philipps

The Court rules that the application of the totality rule under Section 33(l) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 and Section
11 of the Interim Rules is subject to the requirements for the permissive joinder of parties under Section 6 of Rule 3
which provides as follows:

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.
VI. Rule 3 – Parties to civil actions

a. Natural and Juridical Persons, Entities Authorized by law

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. 

The juridical persons who may be parties to a civil action are:

1. The State and its political subdivisions
2. Other corporations, institutions and entities for public interest or purpose, created by law
3. Corporations, partnerships and associations for private interest and purpose to which the law grants a juridical
personality, separate and distinct from that of each shareholder, partner or member
Entities authorized by law to be parties:
1. Contract of partnership
2. The estate of a deceased
3. A legitimate labor organization
4. The Roman Catholic Church
5. A dissolved corporation

• Versoza vs Fernandez

the demurrer to the amended complaint of a general character, being directed to the questions of the jurisdiction of
the court, the right of the plaintiff to maintain the action, and the sufficiency of the facts stated to constitute a ground
of action. None of the points presented in the demurrer are well founded. Several points of some interest are
discussed in the learned opinion of the trial court, and several of his conclusions have been here subjected to
criticism in the brief of the appellant; but in view of the fact that these matters have not been put in issue by special
demurrers and of the further fact that the complaint is certainly sufficient in respect to the right of the plaintiff to
compel the proper performance of trust, we can deem it advisable merely to reverse the judgment and overrule, as
we hereby do overrule, the demurrer, with the result that the defendants will be required to answer.

b. Real 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.

© Celyn Palacol
 To be a real party in interest, the interest must be “real” which is a present substantial interest as distinguished from a mere
expectancy or a future, contingent subordinate or consequential interest.

• Evangelista vs Santiago

This being the case and likewise being clear that plaintiffs were not the lawful owners of the land subject of this
case, for they did not comply with PD 892, the said plaintiffs do not have the legal standing to bring before this Court
the instant complaint…

Before anything else, it should be clarified that "the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue"23 and "the pleading
asserting the claim states no cause of action"24 are two different grounds for a motion to dismiss or are two different
affirmative defenses. Failure to distinguish between "the lack of legal capacity to sue" from "the lack of personality to
sue" is a fairly common mistake. The difference between the two is explained by this Court in Columbia Pictures,
Inc. v. Court of Appeals:25
Among the grounds for a motion to dismiss under the Rules of Court are lack of legal capacity to sue and that the
complaint states no cause of action. Lack of legal capacity to sue means that the plaintiff is not in the exercise of his
civil rights, or does not have the necessary qualification to appear in the case, or does not have the character or
representation he claims. On the other hand, a case is dismissible for lack of personality to sue upon proof that the
plaintiff is not the real party-in-interest, hence grounded on failure to state a cause of action. The term "lack of
capacity to sue" should not be confused with the term "lack of personality to sue." While the former refers to a
plaintiff’s general disability to sue, such as on account of minority, insanity, incompetence, lack of juridical
personality or any other general disqualifications of a party, the latter refers to the fact that the plaintiff is not the real
party- in-interest. Correspondingly, the first can be a ground for a motion to dismiss based on the ground of lack of
legal capacity to sue; whereas the second can be used as a ground for a motion to dismiss based on the fact that
the complaint, on the face thereof, evidently states no cause of action.

c. 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.

• V-gent Inc vs Morning Star Travel and Tours

V-Gent maintains that the MeTC determined that it was the real party-in-interest. It argues that since Morning Star
did not appeal this specific finding with the RTC, then the MeTC's ruling on this point had already become final and
conclusive; therefore, Morning Star can no longer revive the issue before the CA.



We disagree with V-Gent.



The MeTC dismissed V-Gent's complaint against Morning Starrer for failure to prove its claim. This dismissal meant
that the plaintiff did not prove a violation of its right for which the defendant should be held liable. This ruling was
plainly a judgment in Morning Star's favor and one that it had no cause to question. Indeed, it would be legally
illogical for Morning Star to file an appeal to question a ruling of dismissal in its favor.

Rule 3, Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides the exception  when an agent may sue or be sued without
joining the principal.


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 party-in-interest. A representative may be a trustee of an express 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.

© Celyn Palacol
 • Oposa vs Factoran

The petitioners have the right to bring action to the judicial power of the Court.
1. The case at bar is subject to judicial review by the Court. Justice Davide, Jr. precisely identified in his opinion the
requisites for a case to be subjected for the judicial review by the Court. According to him, the subject matter of the
complaint is of common interest, making this civil case a class suit and proving the existence of an actual controversy. He
strengthens this conclusion by citing in the decision Section 1, Article 7 of the 1987 Constitution.

2. The petitioners can file a class suit because they represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn. Their
personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of intergenerational
responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter
expounded, considers the “rhythm and harmony of nature.” Nature means the created world in its entirety. Such rhythm
and harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal and
conservation of the country’s forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural resources
to the end that their exploration, development and utilization be equitably accessible to the present as well as future
generations.

3. Every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a
balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minors’ assertion of their right to a sound environment
constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations
to come

• Resident Marine Mammals of Tanon Strait vs Reyes

As the representatives of Resident Marine Mammals, the human petitioners assert that they have the obligation to
build awareness among the affected residents of Tañon Strait as well as to protect the environment, especially in
light of the government's failure, as primary steward, to do its duty under the doctrine of public trust.4

Resident Marine Mammals and the human petitioners also assert that through this case, this court will have the
opportunity to lower the threshold for locus standi as an exercise of "epistolary jurisdiction."
The rule is two-pronged. First, it defines .a representative as a party who is not bound to directly or actually benefit
or suffer from the judgment, but instead brings a case in favor of an identified real party in interest.10 The
representative is an outsider to the cause of action. Second, the rule provides a list of who may be considered as
"representatives." It is not an exhaustive list, but the rule limits the coverage only to those authorized by law or the
Rules of Court.11
These requirements should apply even in cases involving the environment, which means that for the Petition of the
human petitioners to prosper, they must show that (a) the Resident Marine Mammals are real parties in interest; and
(b) that the human petitioners are authorized by law or the Rules to act in a representative capacity.
d. Indispensable Parties

An indispensable party is a real party in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action. It is one whose
interest in the subject matter of the suit and the relief sought are so inextricably intertwined with the other parties that his legal
presence as a party to the proceeding is an absolute necessity. On the contrary, a party is not indispensable to the suit if his
interest in the controversy or subject matter is distinct and divisible from the interest of the other parties and will not necessarily
be prejudiced by a judgment which does complete justice to the parties in court.

• In the matter of the Heirship of the Late Rodirgurz

© Celyn Palacol
 First, petitioner has no personality to file the instant petition. The requirement of personality is sanctioned by Section
1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which essentially provides that a person aggrieved by any act of a tribunal, board
or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction may file a petition for certiorari.

• Cerezo vs Tuazon

The petition has no merit. As the issues are interrelated, we shall discuss them jointly. Contrary to Mrs. Cerezo's
assertion, Foronda is not an indispensable party to the case. An indispensable party is one whose interest is
affected by the court's action in the litigation, and without whom no final resolution of the case is possible. However,
Mrs. Cerezo's liability as an employer in an action for a quasi-delict is not only solidary, it is also primary and direct.
Foronda is not an indispensable party to the final resolution of Tuazon's action for damages against Mrs. Cerezo.
The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for a quasi-delict is solidary. Where there is a solidary
obligation on the part of debtors, as in this case, each debtor is liable for the entire obligation. Hence, each debtor is
liable to... pay for the entire obligation in full. There is no merger or renunciation of rights, but only mutual
representation. Where the obligation of the parties is solidary, either of the parties is indispensable, and the other is
not even a necessary party... because complete relief is available from either. Therefore, jurisdiction over Foronda is
not even necessary as Tuazon may collect damages from Mrs. Cerezo alone. We hold that the trial court had
jurisdiction and was competent to decide the case in favor of Tuazon and against Mrs. Cerezo even in the absence
of Foronda. Contrary to Mrs. Cerezo's contention, Foronda is not an indispensable party to the present case. It is
not even... necessary for Tuazon to reserve the filing of a separate civil action because he opted to file a civil action
for damages against Mrs. Cerezo who is primarily and directly liable for her own civil negligence.

• Foster-Gallego vs Spouses Galang

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.55 A person is not an
indispensable party if his interest in the controversy or subject matter is separable from the interest of the other
parties, so that he will not necessarily be injuriously affected by a decree that does complete justice between the
other parties.56 He is also not indispensable if his presence would merely permit complete relief between him and
those already parties to the action or will simply avoid multiple litigations.57

Petitioner, whose title RTC-Branch 138 cancelled, is not an indispensable party to the action for quieting of title. The
assailed decision quieting title in favor of the Spouses Galang has no appreciable effect on petitioners title.
Petitioners title could still be cancelled with or without the trial courts declaration that the Spouses Galang are the
owners of the Property at this time.58 ςr

Further, the assailed decision does not bind petitioner. The rules on quieting of title59 expressly provide that any
declaration in a suit to quiet title shall not prejudice persons who are not parties to the action. Given that the trial
court denied petitioners intervention and struck it off from the records, petitioner is not a party to the instant case.
Suits to quiet title are actions quasi in rem, and the judgment in such proceedings is conclusive only between the
parties to the action.60 ςrνll

e. Necessary parties

Non-joinder of necessary parties to be pleaded. — Whenever in any pleading in which a claim is asserted a necessary
party is not joined, the pleader shall set forth his name, if known, and shall state why he is omitted. Should the court
find the reason for the omission unmeritorious, it may order the inclusion of the omitted necessary party if
jurisdiction over his person may be obtained.

The failure to comply with the order for his inclusion, without justifiable cause, shall be deemed a waiver of the claim
against such party.

The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent the court from proceeding in the action, and the judgment
rendered therein shall be without prejudice to the rights of such necessary party.

© Celyn Palacol
 A necessary party is one who is not indispensable but who ought to be joined as a party to the case 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.

A final determination of the case can be had among the parties already impleaded where a necessary party, for some justifiable
reason, is not joined. But a necessary party should be joined so those already parties may obtain complete relief.

• Caravan Travel and Tours International vs Abejar

Having exercised substitute parental authority, respondent suffered actual loss and is, thus, a real party in interest in
this case. It is particularly noticeable that Article 1902 stresses the passive subject of the obligation to pay damages
caused by his fault or negligence. The article does not limit or specify the active subjects, much less the relation that
must exist between the victim of the culpa aquiliana and the person who may recover damages, thus warranting the
inference that, in principle, anybody who suffers any damage from culpa aquiliana, whether a relative or not of the
victim, may recover damages from the person responsible therefor

f. Indigent parties

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 or the payment thereof, without
prejudice to such other sanctions as the court may impose.

• Spouses Algura vs City of Naga

The position of petitioners on the need to use Rule 3, Section 21 on their application to litigate as indigent litigants
brings to the fore the issue on whether a trial court has to apply both Rule 141, Section 16 and Rule 3, Section 21
on such applications or should the court apply only Rule 141, Section 16 and discard Rule 3, Section 21 as having
been superseded by Rule 141, Section 16 on Legal Fees.

The Court rules that Rule 3, Section 21 and Rule 141, Section 16 (later amended as Rule 141, Section 18 on March
1, 2000 and subsequently amended by Rule 141, Section 19 on August 16, 2003, which is now the present rule) are
still valid and enforceable rules on indigent litigants.

Furthermore, Rule 141 on indigent litigants was amended twice and yet, despite these two amendments, there was
no attempt to delete Section 21 from said Rule 3. This clearly evinces the desire of the Court to maintain the two (2)
rules on indigent litigants to cover applications to litigate as an indigent litigant.

The Court opts to reconcile Rule 3, Section 21 and Rule 141, Section 19 because it is a settled principle that when
conflicts are seen between two provisions, all efforts must be made to harmonize them. Hence, every statute [or
rule] must be so construed and harmonized with other statutes [or rules] as to form a uniform system of
jurisprudence.

© Celyn Palacol
 In the light of the foregoing considerations, therefore, the two (2) rules can stand together and are compatible with
each other. When an application to litigate as an indigent litigant is filed, the court shall scrutinize the affidavits and
supporting documents submitted by the applicant to determine if the applicant complies with the income and
property standards prescribed in the present Section 19 of Rule 141 that is, the applicants gross income and that of
the applicants immediate family do not exceed an amount double the monthly minimum wage of an employee; and
the applicant does not own real property with a fair market value of more than PhP 300,000.00. If the trial court finds
that the applicant meets the income and property requirements, the authority to litigate as indigent litigant is
automatically granted and the grant is a matter of right.

However, if the trial court finds that one or both requirements have not been met, then it would set a hearing to
enable the applicant to prove that the applicant has no money or property sufficient and available for food, shelter
and basic necessities for himself and his family. In that hearing, the adverse party may adduce countervailing
evidence to disprove the evidence presented by the applicant; after which the trial court will rule on the application
depending on the evidence adduced. In addition, Section 21 of Rule 3 also provides that the adverse party may
later still contest the grant of such authority at any time before judgment is rendered by the trial court, possibly
based on newly discovered evidence not obtained at the time the application was heard. If the court determines
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 or the payment of prescribed fees shall be made, without prejudice to
such other sanctions as the court may impose.

The Court concedes that Rule 141, Section 19 provides specific standards while Rule 3, Section 21 does not clearly
draw the limits of the entitlement to the exemption. Knowing that the litigants may abuse the grant of authority, the
trial court must use sound discretion and scrutinize evidence strictly in granting exemptions, aware that the
applicant has not hurdled the precise standards under Rule 141. The trial court must also guard against abuse and
misuse of the privilege to litigate as an indigent litigant to prevent the filing of exorbitant claims which would
otherwise be regulated by a legal fee requirement.

Thus, the trial court should have applied Rule 3, Section 21 to the application of the Alguras after their affidavits and
supporting documents showed that petitioners did not satisfy the twin requirements on gross monthly income and
ownership of real property under Rule 141. Instead of disqualifying the Alguras as indigent litigants, the trial court
should have called a hearing as required by Rule 3, Section 21 to enable the petitioners to adduce evidence to
show that they didn’t have property and money sufficient and available for food, shelter, and basic necessities for
them and their family. In that hearing, the respondents would have had the right to also present evidence to refute
the allegations and evidence in support of the application of the petitioners to litigate as indigent litigants. Since this
Court is not a trier of facts, it will have to remand the case to the trial court to determine whether petitioners can be
considered as indigent litigants using the standards set in Rule 3, Section 21.

Recapitulating the rules on indigent litigants, therefore, if the applicant for exemption meets the salary and property
requirements under Section 19 of Rule 141, then the grant of the application is mandatory. On the other hand, when
the application does not satisfy one or both requirements, then the application should not be denied outright;
instead, the court should apply the indigency test under Section 21 of Rule 3 and use its sound discretion in
determining the merits of the prayer for exemption

g. Alternative Defendants

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.

Just as the rule allows a suit against defendants in the alternative, the rule also allows alternative causes of action and
alternative defenses.

h. Compulsory and permissive joinder of parties

© Celyn Palacol
 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.

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

i. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties

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 the action and on such terms as are just. Any claim against a misjoined party may be severed and proceeded
with separately.

A party is misjoined when he is made to a party to the action although he should not be impleaded. A party is not joined when
he is supposed to be joined but is not impleaded in the action.

Even if neither misjoinder nor non-joinder is a ground for dismissal of the action, the failure to obey the order of the court to
drop or add a party is a ground for the dismissal of the complaint.

• Divinagracia vs Parilla

Issue: WON the action for partition proper without impleading Mateo, Sr.’s children

Held: No because the co-heirs are indispensable parties. They have rights over the subject land and, as such,
should be impleaded as indispensable parties in an action for partition. An indispensable party is one whose interest
will be affected by the court’s action in the litigation, and without whom no final determination of the case can be
had. The party’s interest in the subject matter of the suit and in the relief sought are so inextricably intertwined with
the other parties’ that his legal presence as a party to the proceeding is an absolute necessity. In his absence, there
cannot be a resolution of the dispute of the parties before the court which is effective, complete, or equitable. Thus,
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. (Domingo v. Scheer). The non-joinder of
indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed
to be indispensable.

j. Class suit

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.

A class suit is an action where one or more may sue for the benefit of all if the requisites for said action are complied with. For
a class suit to prosper, the ff. requisites must concur:
1. The subject matter of the controversy must be of common or general interest to many persons
2. The persons are so numerous that it is impracticable to join all as parties
3. The parties actually before the court are sufficiently numerous and representative as to fully protect the interests of all
concerned
4. The representatives sue or defend for the benefit of all
A class suit do not require a commonality of interest in the questions involved in the suit. What is required by the
Rules is a common or general interest in the subject matter of the litigation.

When the interests of the parties in the subject matter are conflicting, a class suit will not prosper.

© Celyn Palacol
 No class suit by a corporation to recover property of its members.

No class suit to recover real property individually held.

k. Suits against entities without judicial personality

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.

In the answer of such defendant, the name and addresses of the persons composing said entity must all be revealed.

l. Effect of death of party litigant

  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.

• Spouses dela cruz vs Joaquin

ISSUE: WON the trial court lost jurisdiction over the case upon the death of Pedro Joaquin?

HELD: NO. When a party to a pending action dies and the claim is not extinguished, the Rules of Court require a
substitution of the deceased. The procedure is specifically governed by Section 16 of Rule 3. The rule on the
substitution of parties was crafted to protect every party’s right to due process. The estate of the deceased party will
continue to be properly represented in the suit through the duly appointed legal representative. A formal substitution
by heirs is not necessary when as in the present case, they themselves voluntarily appear, participate in the case,
and present evidence in defense of the deceased. These actions negate any claim that the right to due process was
violated. The records of the present case contain a “Motion for Substitution of Party Plaintiff” filed before the CA.
The rule on the substitution by heirs is not a matter of jurisdiction, but a requirement of due process. Thus, when
due process is not violated, as when the right of the representative or heir is recognized and protected,
noncompliance or belated formal compliance with the Rules cannot affect the validity of a promulgated decision.
Mere failure to substitute for a deceased plaintiff is not a sufficient ground to nullify a trial court’s decision. The
alleging party must prove that there was an undeniable violation of due process.

• Gaffney vs Butler

It is settled that courts cannot grant a relief not prayed for in the pleadings or in excess of what is being sought by
the party.38 Due process considerations justify this requirement.39 It is improper to enter an order which exceeds the
scope of relief sought by the pleadings, absent notice which affords the opposing party an opportunity to be heard
with respect to the proposed relief.

© Celyn Palacol
 • San Juan vs Cruz

note that the parties articulated their stance in their respective pleadings not only on the timeliness of the petition
for certiorari in the CA but also on the validity of the assailed December 2, 2003 Order of the trial court. Ordinarily, in
view of the dismissal of the petition because it was time-barred, the Court will no longer delve into and resolve the
other issues raised in the petition. However, in this case, we find it appropriate and necessary to resolve once and
for all the issue of whether there is a need for the appointment of an administrator of the estate of Oscar Casa, or
whether it is enough that he be substituted by his heirs.

Section 16, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure reads:

Sec. 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 this 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.

The rule is a revision of Section 17, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court which reads:
Death of party. – After a party dies and the claim is not thereby extinguished, the court shall order, upon proper
notice, the legal representative of the deceased to appear and to be substituted for the deceased, within a period of
thirty (30) days, or within such time as may be granted. If the legal representative fails to appear within said time,
the court may order the opposing party to procure the appointment of a legal representative of the deceased within
a time to be specified by the court, and the representative shall immediately appear for and on behalf of the interest
of the deceased. The court charges involved in procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may
be recovered as costs. 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 guardian ad litem for the minor
heirs.36

The second paragraph of the rule is plain and explicit: 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.37 The
pronouncement of this Court in Lawas v. Court of Appeals38 (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.39

m. Death or separation of a party who is a public officer

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 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. 

© Celyn Palacol
 n. Incompetency or incapacity

Incompetency or incapacity. — 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

o. Transfer of interest

Transfer of interest. — In case of any transfer of interest, the action may be continued by or against the original party,
unless the court upon motion directs the person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted in the action or
joined with the original party.

Transferees are bound by the proceedings and judgment in the case, such that there is no need for them to be included or
impleaded by name.

p. Notice to Solicitor General

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 a representative duly designated by him.

VII. Rule 4 – VENUE

Venue is the place, or the geographical area, in which a court with jurisdiction may hear and determine a case, or the place where a
case is to be tried.

Venue is procedural and not substantive. In civil case, venue is not a matter of jurisdiction.

a. Venue vs. Jurisdiction

Venue Jurisdiction

Refers to the place where the case is to be heard or tried Refers to the authority of the court to hear and determine a
case

Procedural law A matter of substantive law

May be waived if not invoked either in a motion to dismiss or Cannot be waived by the parties
in the answer

May be conferred by the act or agreement of the parties Fixed by law and cannot be conferred by the parties

x The court may dismiss an action motu propio in case of lack of

jurisdiction over the subject matter

• Nocum vs Lucio Tan

It is settled that jurisdiction is conferred by law based on the facts alleged in the complaint since the latter comprises
a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's causes of action. In the case at bar, after
examining... the original complaint, we find that the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the case when the case was filed
before it. From the allegations thereof, respondent's cause of action is for damages arising from libel, the jurisdiction
of which is vested with the RTC. Article

360 of the Revised Penal Code provides that it is a Court of First Instance[12] that is specifically designated to try a
libel case. Petitioners are confusing jurisdiction with venue. A former colleague, the Hon. Florenz D. Regalado,[14]
differentiated jurisdiction and venue as follows: (a) Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a case; venue

© Celyn Palacol
 is the place where the... case is to be heard or tried; (b) Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law; venue, of
procedural law; (c) Jurisdiction establishes a relation between the court and the subject matter; venue, a relation
between plaintiff and defendant, or petitioner and respondent; and, (d)

Jurisdiction is fixed by law and cannot be conferred by the parties; venue may be conferred by the act or agreement
of the parties.

In the case at bar, the additional allegations in the Amended Complaint that the article and the caricature were
printed and first published in the City of Makati referred only to the question of venue and not jurisdiction.

These additional allegations would neither confer... jurisdiction on the RTC nor would respondent's failure to include
the same in the original complaint divest the lower court of its jurisdiction over the case. Respondent's failure to
allege these allegations gave the lower court the power, upon motion by a party, to... dismiss the complaint on the
ground that venue was not properly laid.

In Laquian v. Baltazar,[15] this Court construed the term "jurisdiction" in Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code as
referring to the place where actions for libel shall be filed or "venue."

In Escribano v. Avila,[16] pursuant to Republic Act No. 4363,[17] we laid down the following rules on the venue of
the criminal and civil actions in written defamations.

General rule: The action may be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where the libelous article is
printed and first published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the
offense.

If the offended party is a public officer with office in Manila at the time the offense was committed, the venue is
Manila or the city or province where the libelous article is printed and first published.

Where an offended party is a public official with office outside of Manila, the venue is the province or the city where
he held office at the time of the commission of the offense or where the libelous article is printed and first published.

If an offended party is a private person, the venue is his place of residence at the time of the commission of the
offense or where the libelous article is printed and first published.
The common feature of the foregoing rules is that whether the offended party is a public officer or a private person,
he has always the option to file the action in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where the libelous
article is printed or first... published.

It is elementary that objections to venue in CIVIL ACTIONS arising from libel may be waived since they do not
involve a question of jurisdiction.

The laying of venue is procedural rather than substantive, relating as it does to jurisdiction of the court over the
person... rather than the subject matter. Venue relates to trial and not to jurisdiction.

It is a procedural, not a jurisdictional, matter.

It relates to the place of trial or geographical location in which an action or proceeding should be brought... and not
to the jurisdiction of the court.

In contrast, in criminal actions, it... is fundamental that venue is jurisdictional it being an essential element of
jurisdiction.[23]

© Celyn Palacol
 Petitioners' argument that the lower court has no jurisdiction over the case because respondent failed to allege the
place where the libelous articles were printed and first published would have been tenable if the case filed were a
criminal case. The failure of the... original complaint to contain such information would be fatal because this fact
involves the issue of venue which goes into the territorial jurisdiction of the court. This is not to be because the case
before us is a civil action where venue is not... jurisdictional.

As discussed above, the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter upon the filing of the original complaint.
It did not lose jurisdiction over the same when it dismissed it on the ground of improper venue. The amendment
merely laid down the proper venue of the case.

b. Venue in civil cases vs Criminal cases

Jurisprudence holds that venue in criminal cases is jurisdictional. Because venue is an essential element of jurisdiction, where
the information is filed in a place where the offense was not committed, the information may be quashed for “lack of
jurisdiction” over the offense charged and not merely “improper venue.” Also, because venue is jurisdictional in a criminal case,
it cannot be waived by the parties. This is not so in a civil case where improper venue is not equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
Because it is merely procedural, the parties to a civil case can waive the venue of a case.

c. Venue of real actions

Venue of real actions. — Actions affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein, shall be
commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved, or a
portion thereof, is situated.

Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced and tried in the municipal trial court of the municipality or
city wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated

d. Venue of personal actions

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.

e. Venue of actions against non-residents

Venue of actions against nonresidents. — If any of the defendants does not reside and is not found in the Philippines,
and the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff, or any property of said defendant located in the Philippines,
the action may be commenced and tried in the court of the place where the plaintiff resides, or where the property or
any portion thereof is situated or found

f. When the rules on venue does not apply

(a) In those cases where a specific rule or law provides otherwise; or

(b) Where the parties have validly agreed in writing before the filing of the action on the exclusive venue thereof.

• Ley Construction & Development vs Sedan

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.

© Celyn Palacol
 Based on these provisions, the venue for personal actions shall - as a general rule - lie with the court which has
jurisdiction where the plaintiff or the defendant resides, at the election of the plaintiff.33 As an exception, parties may,
through a written instrument, restrict the filing of said actions in a certain exclusive venue.

Written stipulations as to venue may be restrictive in the sense that the suit may be filed only in the place agreed
upon, or merely permissive in that the parties may file their suit not only in the place agreed upon but also in the
places fixed by law. As in any other agreement, what is essential is the ascertainment of the intention of the parties
respecting the matter.



As regards restrictive stipulations on venue, jurisprudence instructs that it must be shown that such stipulation is
exclusive. In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, such as "exclusively," "waiving for this purpose any other
venue," "shall only" preceding the designation of venue, "to the exclusion of the other courts," or words of similar
import, the stipulation should be deemed as merely an agreement on an additional forum, not as limiting venue to
the specified place.

• Unimasters Conglomerations Inc vs CA

The essential question really is that posed in the first and second assigned errors, i.e., what construction should be
placed on the stipulation in the Dealership Agreement that "(a)ll suits arising out of this Agreement shall be filed
with/in the proper Courts of Quezon City."

Rule 4 of the Rules of Court sets forth the principles generally governing the venue of actions, whether real or
personal, or involving persons who neither reside nor are found in the Philippines or otherwise. Agreements on
venue are explicitly allowed. "By written agreement of the parties the venue of an action may be changed or
transferred from one province to another."11 Parties may by stipulation waive the legal venue and such waiver is
valid and effective being merely a personal privilege, which is not contrary to public policy or prejudicial to third
persons. It is a general principle that a person may renounce any right which the law gives unless such renunciation
would be against public policy.12chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Written stipulations as to venue may be restrictive in the sense that the suit may be filed only in the place agreed
upon, or merely permissive in that the parties may file their suit not only in the place agreed upon but also in the
places fixed by law (Rule 4, specifically). As in any other agreement, what is essential is the ascertainment of the
intention of the parties respecting the matter.

g. Effects of Stipulation on venue

The parties may agree on a specific venue which could be in a place where neither of them resides. In real actions, like
unlawful detainer, the parties may stipulate on a venue other than the place where the real property is situated.

The parties may stipulate on the venue as long as the agreement is:

a. In writing

b. Made before the filing of the action

c. Exclusive as to the venue

It must be emphasized that the mere stipulation on the venue of an action, however, is not enough to preclude parties from
bringing a case in other venues. The parties must be able to show that such stipulation is exclusive. In the absence of
qualifying or restrictive words, the stipulation should be deemed as merely an agreement on an additional forum, not as limiting
venue to the specified place.

h. Rule 8, Sec 12

© Celyn Palacol
 Striking out of pleading or matter contained therein. — Upon motion made by a party before responding to a pleading or, if no
responsive pleading is permitted by these Rules, upon motion made by a party within twenty (20) days after the service of the
pleading upon him, or upon the court's own initiative at any time, the court may order any pleading to be stricken out or that
any sham or false, redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter be stricken out therefrom

© Celyn Palacol