CIVIL PROCEDURE

a. Procedure – is the means by which the power or authority of a court to hear and decide a class of
cases is put into action (Manila Rail Road Co. (MRR Co.) vs. Atty. Gen., 20 Phil. 523). It is the
method of conducting a judicial proceeding. It includes whatever is embraced in the technical terms
pleadings, practice and evidence.

b. Civil Procedure – is a body of law concerned with methods, procedures and practices used in civil
litigation (Black’s Law dictionary, 6th ed.) prescribes the start and end of
it is important in a sense that it gives order in the court. It prescribes a time or limit to enforce your
right. It gives prescription to action. It does not condone lapses for a long period of time.

A. RULE 1: GENERAL PROVISION

RULE 1

General Provisions

Section 1. Title of the Rules. — These Rule shall be known and cited as the Rules of Court. (1)

Section 2. In what courts applicable. — These Rules shall apply in all the courts, except as otherwise provided by
the Supreme Court. (n)

Section 3. Cases governed. — These Rules shall govern the procedure to be observed in actions, civil or criminal
and special proceedings.

(a) 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)

(b) A criminal action is one by which the State prosecutes a person for an act or omission punishable by
law. (n)

(c) A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular
fact. (2a, R2)

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 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)

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)
2. SUBSTANTIVE LAW VS PROCEDURAL LAW

A substantive law creates, defines or regulates rights and duties concerning life, liberty or property, or the
powers of agencies or instrumentalities for the administration of public affairs, whereas rules of procedure are
provisions prescribing the method by which substantive rights may be enforced in courts of justice.

Remedial Law does not create rights or obligations but lays down the methods by which the rights and obligations
arising from subtantive law are protected, enforced and given effect. In other words, is that aspect of law which
provides a method for enforcing rights,n preventing the violation of such rights and obtaining redress for their
violations. It is also known as adjective law, prescribes the practice, method, and procedure by which substantive
law is enforced and made effective.

The Supreme Court's sole prerogative to issue, amend, or repeal procedural rules is limited to the preservation of
substantive rights, i.e., the former should not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights.[4] Fabian v. Hon.
Desierto[5] laid down the test for determining whether a rule is substantive or procedural in nature.

If the rule takes away a vested right, it is not procedural. If the rule creates a right such as the right to appeal, it may
be classified as a substantive matter; but if it operates as a means of implementing an existing right then the rule
deals merely with procedure.

C. APPLICATION OF THE RULES

Section 2. In what courts applicable. — These Rules shall apply in all the courts, except as otherwise provided by
the Supreme Court. (n)

D. CONSTRUCTION

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)

It means that the act should be broadly applied to effect its purposes, rather than restrictively or technically applied
according to its strict terms.

In other words, the legislature is signalling that when courts eventually come to intepret the statute, if there is an
ambiguity or conflict, they should resolve it according to the general principles of the legislature was trying to do
with the legislation.

As an counter-example, criminal laws are usually strictly construed, meaning that the prosecution must meet all of
the exact terms of the statute to get a conviction, because of the rights of the accused.

Speedy and
E. RULE 2. CAUSE OF ACTION

Civil Actions

Ordinary Civil Actions

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 cause of action is an act or omission by which a party violates a right of another [Sec. 2, Rule 2]

Without a cause of action, one cannot seek judicial relief for a violation of one’s rights because every ordinary
civil action must bebased on a cause of action [Sec. 1, Rule 2]

Bases of cause of action

A cause of action stems from the sources of obligations under Art. 1156 of the CC

a. Law,

b. Contract,

c. Quasi-contract,

d. Acts and omissions punishable by law, or

e. Quasi-delict

Elements of a cause of action

a. Plaintiff’s legal right;

b. Defendant’s correlative obligation to respect plaintiff’s right; and

c. Defendant’s act/omission in violation of plaintiff’s right

When cause of action must exist

A cause of action must exist at the time of the filing of the complaint – else, the case shall be dismissible for being
a groundless suit.
Right of Action versus Cause of Action

(1) A cause of action refers to the delict or wrong committed by the defendants, whereas right of action refers to
the right of the plaintiff to institute the action;

(2) A cause of action is determined by the pleadings; whereas a right of action is determined by the substantive law;

(3) A right of action may be taken away by the running of the statute of limitations, by estoppels or other
circumstances which do not at all affect the cause of action (Marquez v. Varela, 92 Phil. 373) .

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 a Single Cause of Action and its Effects

The act of instituting two or more suits on the basis of the same cause of action [Sec. 4, Rule 2], or splitting a
single cause of action, is prohibited by the Rules. Such is referred to as “splitting a single cause of action”. A party
may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action. [Sec. 3, Rule 2] Such violates the policy against
multiplicity of suits, whose primary objective is to avoid unduly burdening the dockets of the court.

Tests to determine a “single” cause of action

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

a. Whether the same evidence would support and sustain both causes of action (Same Evidence Test);

b. Whether the defenses in one case may be used to substantiate the complaint in the other; and

c. Whether the cause of action in the second case existed at the time of filing of the first complaint. [Umale v.
Canoga Park Development Corp., G.R. No. 167246 (2011)]

Plaintiff's remedy if other reliefs not included in the complaint: Amendment

In the event that a plaintiff has omitted to include in the complaint one or several other reliefs to which he may be
entitled, the proper remedy of the plaintiff is not to institute another or several other actions – instead he should
move to amend the complaint to include the omitted relief or reliefs [Bayang v. CA, G.R. No. L-53564 (1987)]

Dismissal as effect of splitting of 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
[Sec. 4, Rule 2] The defendant facing a complaint which is infirm due to the plaintiff splitting causes of action may
either allege the infirmity as an Affirmative Defense in his Answer [Sec. 5(b), Rule 6], or file a Motion to Dismiss
on the following grounds:

a. There is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause [Sec. 12 (a)(2), Rule 15], or

b. The cause of action is barred by a prior judgment. [Sec. 12 (a)(3), Rule 15]

Section 5. Joinder of causes of action. — A party may in one pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as
many causes of action as he may have against an opposing party, subject to the following conditions:

(a) The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the rules on joinder of parties;

(b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed by special rules;

(c) Where the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions,
the joinder may be allowed in the Regional Trial Court provided one of the causes of action falls within the
jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein; and

(d) Where the claims in all the causes action are principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount
claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction. (5a)

Joinder and Misjoinder of Causes of Action

Joinder of causes of action - It is the assertion of as many causes of action as a party may have against another in
one pleading alone. [Sec. 5, Rule 2] It is the process of uniting two or more demands or rights of action in one
action. [1 Riano 187, 2016 Bantam Ed.]

Rationale

To avoid a multiplicity of suits and to expedite disposition of litigation at minimum cost. [Ada v. Baylon, G.R. No.
182435 (2012)]

Rule merely permissive

The rule however is purely permissive as there is no positive provision of law or any rule of jurisprudence which
compels a party to join all his causes of action and bring them at one and the same time. [Nabus v. CA, G.R. No.
91670 (1991)]

Requisites

a. The plaintiff asserts numerous causes of action in one pleading

b. The causes of action are against the opposing party

c. The party joining the causes of action complies with the rules on joinder of parties under Sec 6, Rule 3, and

d. The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed by special rules.

Where 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 are within that court’s jurisdiction and venue lies
therein. [Sec. 5, Rule 2]

Totality Rule applies in Joinder of Actions

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
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)

Misjoinder of causes of action

There is misjoinder of causes of action when conditions for joinder under Section 5, Rule 2 are not met. [Perez v.
Hermano, G.R. No. 147417 (2005)]

An erroneously joined cause of action may, on motion of a party or on the initiative of the court, be severed and
proceeded with separately. Misjoinder is not a ground for dismissal of an action [Sec. 6, Rule 2]

Subject to waiver

If there is no objection to the improper joinder or the court did not motu proprio direct a severance, then there
exists no bar in the simultaneous adjudication of all the erroneously joined causes of action, as long as the court
trying the case has jurisdiction over all of the causes of action therein notwithstanding the misjoinder [Ada v.
Baylon, G.R. No. 182435 (2012)]

If the court has no jurisdiction to try the misjoined action, then it must be severed. Otherwise, adjudication
rendered by the court with respect to it would be a nullity. [Ada v. Baylon, G.R. No. 182435 (2012)]

1) Real and personal actions

Real Action Personal Action

It is an action It refers to all other
affecting title to or actions which are
possession of real not real actions.
property, or interest [Sec. 2, Rule 4]
therein. [See Sec. 1,
Rule 4]

Why distinction is important

In order to determine the proper venue of the action. [Sec.1, Rule 4 in relation to Sec. 2, Rule 4]

For purposes of determining venue, the question of whether or not the venue has been properly laid depends to a
great extent on the kind of action (real or personal) presented by the complaint. [PICOP v. Samson, G.R. No. L-
30175 (1975)

2) Actions in personam, in rem and quasi in rem

Why distinction is important

● To determine the binding effect of a decision the court may render over a party, whether impleaded or not
[Paderanga v. Buissan, G.R. No. 49475 (1993)]
● To determine whether or not jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is required, and the type of summons to
be employed [1 Riano 206, 2016 Bantam Ed.]

Action in rem Action in personam Action quasi in rem

Definition Action against the thing One which seeks to Names a person as
or res itself, instead of enforce personal rights defendant, but its object is
against the person and obligations brought to subject that person's
against then person. interest in a property to a
corresponding lien or
obligation
Jurisdiction Not a prerequisite to Necessary for the court to Not a prerequisite to
over confer jurisdiction on validly try and decide the confer jurisdiction on the
the the court, provided that case which can be made court, provided that the
person the latter has jurisdiction through service of latter has jurisdiction over
over the res summons the res
How Jurisdiction over the res Jurisdiction is acquired Jurisdiction over the res is
jurisdiction is acquired either through service acquired either
is acquired of summons as provided in
(a) by the seizure of the the Rule 14 or voluntary (a) by the seizure of the
property under legal appearance property under legal
process, whereby it is process, whereby it is
brought into actual brought into actual custody
custody of the law, or of the law, or
(b) as a result of the
(b) as a result of the institution of legal
institution of legal proceedings, in which the
proceedings, in which power of the court is
the power of the court is recognized and made
recognized and made effective
effective
Binding The decision is binding Any judgment therein is Judgments therein are
effect as against the whole binding only upon the binding only upon the
of world parties properly impleaded parties who joined in the
decisions action.
Examples Petition for adoption, Action for a sum of money; Attachment, foreclosure of
annulment of marriage, action for damages mortgage, action for
or correction of entries partition and action for
in the birth certificate accounting

3) Right of action vs cause of action

1. Right of Action is the remedial right or right to relief granted by law to a party to institute an action against a
person who has committed a delict or wrong against him while Cause of Action is the delict or wrongful act or
omission committed by the defendant in violation of the primary rights of the plaintiff.

2. RA - Right to sue as a consequence of the delict. CA - The delict or wrong.

3. A right of action is determined by substantive law. The cause of action of the plaintiff is determined by the
averments in the pleading regarding the acts committed by the defendant.

***There can be no right of action without a cause of action being first established.

Distinguish: Failure of the Complaint to State a Cause of Action and Lack of Cause of Action

The cause of action must unmistakably be alleged in the complaint, such that all the elements required by
substantive law must clearly appear from a mere reading of the complaint. [1 Riano 240, 2014 Bantam Ed.]

Failure to state a cause of action is no longer a ground for a motion to dismiss under the Amended Rules. It is,
however, one of the enumerated Affirmative Defenses that must be set out in the Answer or else it is deemed
waived. [Sec 12, Rule 8]

The complaint must contain a concise statement of the ultimate or essential facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause
of action. The focus is on sufficiency, not veracity, of the material allegations. [Anchor Savings Bank v. Furigay, G.R.
No. 191178 (2013)]

Failure to State Action Lack of Cause of Cause of Action

Refers to the insufficiency of the allegations in the Refers to a situation where the evidence failed to prove
pleading. the cause of action.
The proper remedy when there is a failure to state a The proper remedy when the complaint is not based on
cause of action is to allege the same as an a cause of action is to file a Demurrer of Evidence.
affirmative defense in the Answer. [Sec. 12(4), Rule 8] [Rule 33]

Failure to State Cause of Action

(1) The mere existence of a cause of action is not sufficient for a complaint to prosper. Even if in reality the
plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendant, the complaint may be dismissed if the complaint or the
pleading asserting the claim ―states no cause of action‖. This means that the cause of action must unmistakably be
stated or alleged in the complaint or that all the elements of the cause of action required by substantive law must
clearly appear from the mere reading of the complaint. To avoid an early dismissal of the complaint, the simple
dictum to be followed is: ―If you have a cause of action, then by all means, state it!‖ Where there is a defect or an
insufficiency in the statement of the cause of action, a complaint may be dismissed not because of an absence or a
lack of cause of action by because the complaint states no cause of action. The dismissal will therefore, be
anchored on a ―failure to state a cause of action‖.

(2) It doesn‘t mean that the plaintiff has no cause of action. It only means that the plaintiff‘s allegations are
insufficient for the court to know that the rights of the plaintiff were violated by the defendant. Thus, even if indeed
the plaintiff suffered injury, if the same is not set forth in the complaint, the pleading will state no cause of action
even if in reality the plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendant.

Test of Sufficiency of Cause of Action

The test of sufficiency of a cause of action rests on whether, hypothetically admitting the facts alleged in the
complaint to be true, the court can render a valid judgment upon the same, in accordance with the prayer in the
complaint.

However, there is no hypothetical admission of the veracity of the allegations if

a. The falsity of the allegations is subject to judicial notice;

b. The allegations are legally impossible;

c. The allegations refer to facts which are inadmissible in evidence;

d. By the record or document in the pleading, the allegations appear unfounded; or

e. There is evidence which has been presented to the court by stipulation of the parties or in the course of hearings
related to the case

How to determine existence of cause of action

General rule:
Determination shall be based only on facts alleged in the complaint and from no other, and the court cannot
consider other matters aliunde. Aliunde means from another source
Umale (Petitioner) vs Canoga Park Development Corp. (Respondent), G.R. No. 167246, July 20,2011 (on Splitting
of Cause of Action)

Facts:

The parties entered into a Contract of Lease on an eight hundred sixty (860)-square-meter prime lot
located in Ortigas Center, Pasig City owned by the respondent Canoga Development Corporation. The
respondent Canoga Development Corporation acquired the subject lot from Ortigas & Co. Ltd.
Partnership through a Deed of Absolute Sale, subject to the some conditions
Before the lease contract expired, the Canoga Development Corporation filed an unlawful detainer case
against the petitioner before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC)-Branch 68, Pasig City. The
respondent Canoga Development Corporation used as a ground for ejectment the petitioner’s (Umale)
violation of stipulations in the lease contract regarding the use of the property.
Unlawful detainer is the legal proceeding that should be taken if the person possessing the property (the
"possessor") initially had a legal right to possess the property and the possession had become illegal for one reason
or another.

The respondent used as a ground for ejectment the petitioner's violation of stipulations in the
lease contract regarding the use of the property.
Under this contract, the petitioner shall use the leased lot as a parking space for light
vehicles and as a site for a small drivers' canteen, and may not utilize the subject premises
for other purposes without the respondent's prior written consent. The petitioner, however,
constructed restaurant buildings and other commercial establishments on the lot, without
first securing the required written consent from the respondent, and the necessary permits
from the Association and the Ortigas & Co. Ltd. Partnership. The petitioner also subleased the
property to various merchants-tenants in violation of the lease contract.

MTC decide in favor of the respondent Canoga Development Corporation. RTC-Branch 155 affirmed.
The case, however, was re-raffled to the RTC-Branch 267, granted the petitioner’s motion, thereby reversing and
setting aside the MTC-Branch 68 decision. Accordingly, Civil Case No. 8084 was dismissed for being
prematurely filed. Thus, the respondent filed a petition for review with the CA.
During the pendency of the petition for review, the respondent Canoga Development Corporation filed on May
3, 2002 another case for unlawful detainer against the petitioner (Umale) before the MTC. Respondent used as a
ground for ejectment the expiration of the parties’ lease contract.
MTC rendered a decision in favor of the respondent. On appeal, the RTC-Branch 68 reversed and set
aside the decision of the MTC-Branch 71, and dismissed Civil Case No. 9210 on the ground of litis pendentia.
Aggrieved by the reversal, the respondent filed a Petition for Review under Rule 42 of the Rules of
Court with the CA. The respondent argued that there exists no litis pendentia between Civil Case Nos. 8084 and
9210 because the two cases involved different grounds for ejectment, i.e., the first case was filed because of
violations of the lease contract, while the second case was filed due to the expiration of the lease contract. The
respondent emphasized that the second case was filed based on an event or a cause not yet in existence at the
time of the filing of the first case. The lease contract expired on January 15, 2002, while the first case was filed
on October 10, 2000.
On August 20, 2004, the CA nullified and set aside the assailed decision of the RTC-Branch 68, and
ruled that there was no litis pendentia because the two civil cases have different causes of action. The decision of
the MTC- Branch 71 was ordered reinstated. Subsequently, the petitioner's motion for reconsideration was
denied; hence, the filing of the present petition for review on certiorari.

Issue:

Whether Civil Case Nos. 8084 and 9210 involve the same cause of action.

Held:

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.

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.

The SC rule that Civil Case Nos. 8084 and 9210 involve different causes of action.

Generally, a suit may only be instituted for a single cause of action. If two or more suits are instituted on the basis
of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment on the merits in any one is ground for the dismissal of
the others.
Several tests exist to ascertain whether two suits relate to a single or common cause of action, such as whether the
same evidence would support and sustain both the first and second causes of action (also known as the “same
evidence” test),or whether the defenses in one case may be used to substantiate the complaint in the other. Also
fundamental is the test of determining whether the cause of action in the second case
existed at the time of the filing of the first complaint.

Of the three tests cited, the third one is especially applicable to the present case, i.e., whether the cause of action in
the second case existed at the time of the filing of the first complaint – and to which we answer in the negative.

The facts clearly show that the filing of the first ejectment case was grounded on the petitioner’s violation of
stipulations in the lease contract, while the filing of the second case was based on the expiration of the lease
contract.

At the time the respondent filed the first ejectment complaint on October 10, 2000, the lease contract between the
parties was still in effect. The lease was fixed for a period of two (2) years, from January 16, 2000, and in the
absence of a renewal agreed upon by the parties, the lease remained effective until January 15, 2002. It was only at
the expiration of the lease contract that the cause of action in the second ejectment complaint accrued and made
available to the respondent as a ground for ejecting the petitioner.

Thus, the cause of action in the second case was not yet in existence at the time of filing of the first ejectment
case. Thus, the respondent cannot be said to have committed a willful and deliberate forum shopping.

Hence, petition is DENIED

FRIAS VS ALCAYDE (FOR RECIT)

FACTS:
Petitioner Bobie Rose D.V. Frias, as lessor and respondent Rolando Alcayde, as lessee, entered into a
Contract of Lease involving a residential house and lot. Respondent refused to perform any of his
contractual obligations for 24 months. Hence, the petitioner filed for a complaint for unlawful detainer
against the respondents.
Unlawful detainer is the legal proceeding that should be taken if the person possessing the property (the
"possessor") initially had a legal right to possess the property and the possession had become illegal for one reason
or another.

The MeTC ruled in favor of the petitioner and ordered respondent to vacate the premises, to pay the
accrued rental with interest.
Respondent filed a petition for annulment of judgement to RTC claiming that the decision of MeTC
does not bind him since the court did not acquire jurisdiction over his persons for 2 reasons:
1. Complaint has no cause of action for failure to make a prior demand to pay and to vacate
2. Non-referral of the case before barangay
RTC decided in favor of the respondent, that the decision of the MeTC does not bind the respondent
since the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person.
Petitioner escalated the case to the Court of Appeals. Petitioner maintains that since an annulment of
judgment is a personal action, it is necessary for the RTC to acquire jurisdiction over her person.
CA decided that a petition for annulment of judgment is not an action in personam, thus the court need
not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in not dismissing respondents petition for annulment of judgment on the
ground that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the petitioner.
RULING:
Yes. The SC held that the petition for annulment of judgment is one in personam because only the
party’s interest is affected. Annulment of judgment is NOT ENFORCEABLE against the whole world.
In the case at bar, the petition cannot be converted either to an action in rem or quasi in rem since
THERE WAS NO SHOWING THAT THE RESPONDENT ATTACHED ANY OF THE PROPERTIES
OF THE PETITIONER LOCATED WITHIN THE PHILIPPINES.
Here, the SC discusses the types of civil actions.
An action in personam is a proceeding to enforce personal rights and obligations brought against the
person and is based on the jurisdiction of the person, although it may involve his right to, or the
exercise of ownership of, specific property, or seek to compel him to control or dispose of it in
accordance with the mandate of the court, some responsibility or liability directly upon the person of
the defendant.
Actions in rem are actions against the thing itself. They are binding upon the whole world. 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.
A proceeding quasi in rem is one brought against persons seeking to subject the property of such
persons to the discharge of the claims assailed. In an action quasi in rem, an individual is names as
defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interests therein to the obligation or loan
burdening the property. In an action quasi in rem, an individual is named as defendant. But, unlike suits
in rem, a quasi in rem judgment is conclusive only between the parties.

RULE 3
PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTION
Plaintiff - May refer to the claiming party, counter-claimant, cross-claimant, or third-party plaintiff.
[Sec. 1, Rule 3]
Defendant - May refer to the original defending party, the defendant in a counterclaim, the cross-
defendant, or the third (fourth, etc.)-party defendant. [Sec. 1, Rule 3]
Also includes an unwilling co-plaintiff – any party who should be joined as plaintiff but whose
consent cannot be obtained. He may be made a defendant and the reason therefore shall be stated in the
complaint. [Sec. 10, Rule 3]
Who may be parties
1. Natural persons [Sec. 1, Rule 3]
2. Juridical persons [Sec. 1, Rule 3]
a. The State and its political subdivisions
b. Other corporations, institutions and entities for public interest or public purpose, created by
law, and
c. Corporations, partnerships, and associations for private interest or purpose to which the law
grants a judicial personality, separate and distinct from that of each shareholder, partner, or member
d. [Art. 44, Civil Code]

Legal capacity to sue

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. [Sec. 4, Rule 8]
a. Real Parties in Interest; Indispensable Parties; Representatives as Parties; Necessary Parties; Indigent
Parties; Alternative Defendants
i. Real Parties in Interest
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 [Sec. 2, Rule 3]
Nature of interest
The interest must be real, which is a present and substantial interest, as distinguished from a mere
expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest.
It should be material and direct, as distinguished from a mere incidental interest
Why necessary to determine the real party in interest
General rule: Every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.
Exception: Unless otherwise provided by law or the Rules. [Sec. 2, Rule 3]
If the suit is not brought in the name of or against the real party-in-interest, the defendant must set out
in his answer as an Affirmative Defense the ground that the complaint “states no cause of action.” [Sec
12, Rule 8]
Spouses as parties
General rule: Husband and wife shall sue and be sued jointly.
Exception: As provided by law. [Sec. 4, Rule 3]

Remedies for the Plaintiff

1. Amendment of pleadings [Alonso v.
Villamor, G.R. No. L-2352 (1910)]; or
2. Complaint may be deemed amended to
include the real party-in-interest [Balquidra
v. CFI Capiz, G.R. No. L-40490 (1977)]
When real party-in-interest bound despite
not being formally impleaded
As an exception, the real litigant may be held
bound as a party even if not formally
impleaded, provided he had his day in court.
[Albert v. University Publishing Co., G.R. No. L-
9300 (1958)]