Lecture Rule 1 to 3

8/12/2019 Lecture Rule 1 to 3

1/24

Lecture CivPro_AMEV

Rule 1 to 3

RULE 1

GENERAL PROVISONS

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 5(5) of Article VIII of

the Constitution, the Supreme Court hereby adopts and

promulgates the following 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, andlegal assistance to the underprivileged:

Section 1. Title of the Rules.

These Rules shall be known and cited as the Rules of

Court.

the enactment was pursuant to the rule making power of

the court.

SC does not only exercise judicial but also legislative but

only with regards to procedures but not to substantive

law.SBbefore it can only issue mandamus, habeas corpus in

aid of its appellate jurisdiction.

Mateo v People-person charged w/ murder, appealmust made directly to the SC. they transferred it to CA.

St Martin Funeral Homes

Problem: sila naman tanggap ng tanggap ng kaso. In US

there are only 9 members in their SC, They only dispose

of 90 cs per yr bec the harder part of their judicial fn was

to decide what not to decide. Only cases na magkaroon

ng doctrinal ruling. The purpose of the SC is only to lay

down doctrines.

In US, there are several Federal Circuit CA. In the circuit

of Washington DC alone,

Sec. 2. In what courts applicable.

These Rules shall apply in all the courts, except as

otherwise provided by the Supreme Court.

Sec. 3. Cases governed.

These Rules shall govern the procedure to be observed in

actions, civil or criminal, and special proceedings.

(a) A civil actionis one by which a party sues anotherforthe enforcement or protection of a right,or theprevention or redress of a wrong.

- cause of action- better understood.A civil action may either be ordinary or special.Both aregoverned by the rules for ordinary civil actions,subjectto the specific rules prescribed for a special civil action.

classification of civil action : ordinary or special

what does it mean?

special civil action : Rules 62 to 71

general rule: special civil action follows ordinary civil

action except specific rules are provided

(b) A criminal actionis one by which the Stateprosecutes a person for an act or omission punishableby law.

(c) A special proceedingis a remedy by which a partyseeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact.

impt: we have to dist action fr special proceedings

special proceeding :

status : adoption, naturalization

right: App for Land Registration, you are not asking the

court to confer ownership but to CONFIRM a right to that

particular prop and register it under Torrens System.

Fact: Asking for the Probate of a will, Fact: that this is the

Last Will and Testament of .

dist special proceeding from ACTION:

1. SP to establish a status, fact or a right2. Action- requires filing of formal proceeding3. action- 2 definite and particular adverse parties, plaintiff

and defendant

SP- there is no definite adverse party bec the proceeding

is usually against the whole world

eg. Land Registration Case.- all those who might be

minded must come to court bec their rights might be

affected. They have to come now before the court.

Sec. 4. In what cases not applicable.

These Rules shall not apply to election cases, landregistration,cadastral, naturalizationand insolvencyproceedings,and other cases not herein provided for,except by analogy or in a suppletory characterandwhenever practicable and convenient.

take note : election cs- special proceedings to establish a

FACT, Public office as a right

Land Reg:

Insolvency : establish the fact that you are insolvent.

Once you are insolvent you will no longer pay your debts.

- 4 categories actions or proceedingsSec 3 a, b and c- election case: special proceeding to establish a fact that

you are a winner.

- if the protestee dies eg Mayor, the Vice Mayor willbecome the Mayor- thats why he shld be a FORCED

party.

- if you are not a party to a protest but later on declared asthe winner- Special Proceedings. You do not apply the

rules here except when you are in court.

Sec. 5. Commencement of action.

A civil action is commenced by the filing of the originalcomplaintin court. If an additional defendant is


2/24

Lecture CivPro_AMEV

Rule 1 to 3

impleaded in a later pleading,the action is commencedwith regard to him on the date of the filing of such laterpleading,irrespective of whether the motion for itsadmission, if necessary, is denied by the court.

for purposes of tolling of prescriptive pd: 1. make an

extrajudicial demand and 2. judicial demand

There is a contractprescriptive pd is 10 yrs.

motion to dismiss on the ground of prescriptive pd.

SC an action is commenced by filing of a complaint in

court.

The reconing is not the service of summons but the filing

of complaint

However, it is not merely the filing of complaint but also

the filing of APPROPRIATE DOCKET FEE.- to complete the

commencement of action

Manchester : if the proper appellate docket fee is not

paid no filing- no jurisdiction

- however in Sun Insurance v J. Asuncion

Action as to Cause or Foundation:

1. Real Action- over real property, privity in real property- brought for specific recovery of land, tenements

- seeks to recover ownership or possession of RP

e.g. Partition of Property, Mortgage of RP, expropriate

expropriate- transfer title fr owner to expropriator

- you are transferring OWNERSHIP or POSSESSION- An action to annul a real estate mortgage involving a real

property- Personal Action but can also be

- If the annulment of REM done after foreclosure becyoure action is not only the annulment BUT TO RETURN

BACK or REVERSION OF REAL PROPERTY back to the

owner

- jurisdiction is with the RTC- assessed value is more thanP20k or P50k if Metro Manila

- MTC- ejectment suitsunlawful detainer and forcibleentry

2. Personal Actionenforcement for recovery of damages,injury to person or property

relate Jurisdiction to Sec 19

Sec 8 of BP 129Personal action

3. Mixed Action- recovery RP plus damages.

Ouano v PGTT-

1. you only apply No 8 after considering the 1st72. disregard damages

As to the Filing of the Case: Rule 4 - Venue1. localmust be brought in a part place2. transitoryfollows the party wherever he may reside

As to Object-

1. In Personamagainst a specific person and seeksjudgment only against that particular person

2. In Remthe obj is to bar indifferently all who might beminded to an objection against one whom it is sought to

be established.

- against the thing itself and judgment against the wholeworld

eg : Official Gazette

3. Quasi In Rem

Ching v CA-

An action to redeem, or to recover title to or possessionof, real property is not an action in rem or an actionagainst the whole world, like a land registrationproceeding or the probate of a will; it is an action inpersonam, so much so that ajudgment therein is

binding only upon the parties properly impleaded andduly heard or given an opportunity to be heard. Actionsin personam and actions in rem differ in that the formerare directed against specific persons and seek personal

judgments, while the latter are directed against thething or property or status of a person and seek

judgments with respect thereto as against the wholeworld. An action to recover a parcel of land is a realaction but it is an action in personam, for it binds aparticular individual only although it concerns the rightto a tangible thing

If the ACTION IS IN PERSONAM there MUST BE APERSONAL SERVICE OF SUMMONS.

JORGE C. PADERANGA, petitioner, vs. Hon. DIMALANESB. BUISSAN,

the property is located in Osamiz City,Elumba industriesfiled a case in Dipolog Citybeing the main office ofplaintiff and renting a commercial space in Ozamiz.

the contract has no specification of the amt

Paderange repossessed of the lease premises, Elumba

went to Dipolog for Damages and for the fixing of period.

A motion to dismiss filed by PaderangaReal Action-where the RP is located thus must be filed in Ozamiz

SC: you are not only asking for the fixing of the pd not

only for the but the whole thus you are in effect asking

for the REPOSSESSION, it is a Mixed Action.

Confusion on the concepts of Real: Personal, In Rem: In

Personam

, it is indubitable that the action instituted by privaterespondent against petitioner affects the parties alone,not the whole world.Hence, it is an action in personam,i.e., any judgment therein is binding only upon the


3/24

Lecture CivPro_AMEV

Rule 1 to 3

parties properly impleaded. However, this does notautomatically mean that the action for damages and tofix the period of the lease contract is also a personalaction. For, a personal action may not necessarily be anaction in personam and a real action may not at thesame time be an action in rem.In Hernandez v. RuralBank of Lucena, Inc., we held thus In a personalaction, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of personal

property, the enforcement of a contract or the recoveryof damages.In a real action, the plaintiff seeks therecovery of real property, or, as indicated in Section 2(a)of Rule 4, a real action is an action affecting title to realproperty or for the recovery of possession, or forpartition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of amortgage on, real property.An action in personam is anaction against a person on the basis of his personalliability, while an action in rem is an action against thething itself, instead of against the person.Hence, a realaction may at the same time be an action in personam

and not necessarily an action in rem.

While the instant action is for damages arising from analleged breach of the lease contract, it likewise praysfor the fixing of the period of lease at five (5) years . Iffound meritorious, private respondent will be entitledto remain not only as lessee for another five (5) yearsbut also to the recovery of the portion earlier takenfrom him as well. This is because the leased premisesunder the original contract was the whole commercial

space itself and not just the subdivided portion thereof.

While it may be that the instant complaint does notexplicitly pray for recovery of possession, such is thenecessary consequence thereof.The instant action

therefore does not operate to efface the fundamentaland prime objective of the nature of the case which is to

recover the one-half portion repossessed by the lessor,

herein petitioner. Indeed, where the ultimate purpose ofan action involves title to or seeks recovery ofpossession, partition or condemnation of, orforeclosure of mortgage on, real property, such anaction must be deemed a real action and must perforcebe commenced and tried in the province where theproperty or any part thereof lies.

NICANOR G. DE GUZMAN, JR.,petitioner, vs. HON.COURT OF APPEALS

Quasi in RemIndividual is named as a defendant, allproceedings the sale and disposition of prop are

classified as Quasi in Rem

- judgment is conclusive only bet the parties- quasi in Rem, by entering into a lien- it can be directed

against the res but it is only bet you. any person can still

ask for recovery of the title.

Sec 3 (a) An action means an ordinary suit in a court ofjustice, by which one party prosecutes another for theenforcement or protection of a right, or the prosecutionor redress of a wrong.

Shld every action have a cause of action? Yes.

What is a cause of Action? A cause of action is the fact orcombination of facts which affords a party a right to

judicial interference in his behalf.

What are the elements?

1. a party has a right2.

defendant has an obligation to respect such right3. act or omissionof the defendant in violation of plaintiffsright

Ordinary Civil Action : must have a cause of action

Special Proceedings: not necessary to have an act or

omission

The term right of action is the right to commence andmaintain an action. 5 In the law on pleadings, right ofaction is distinguished from cause of action in that theformer is a remedial right belonging to some persons,while the latter is a formal statement of the operativefacts that give rise to such remedial right.The former isa matter of right and depends on the substantive law,while the latter is a matter of statement and is governedby the law of procedure.

In this case, is there a sufficient cause of action? Yes

From the allegation of the complaint in this case it

appears that, (1) petitioner has a primary right, becauseof having paid his obligation to private respondent,tohave the checks he issued to cover the amount returned

to him or otherwise cancelled by private respondent; and

(2) the primary right of was violated when privaterespondent demanded payment of a settled obligation

relying on the very checks of petitioner he had notreturned. Consequently, on account of such demand forpayment for an obligation duly settled, the petitionerthereby suffered damages 13 and should be affordedsuch relief as prayed for in the complaint.

you can only have a right when it is demandable and

enforceable

no right of action- superior right of non-suability of the

State.

- there can be no right against the authority fr which theright depends.

What are the reqts of Right of Action?1. plaintiff must have sufficient cause of action2. conformed with the condition precedents in filing a

cause of action.

What is the condition precedent before filing an actionwith the court?

Conciliation with the Katarungang Pambrgy.

When will you object? Motion to Dismiss or Answer if not

it is deemed waived

3. must be a real part in interest


4/24

Lecture CivPro_AMEV

Rule 1 to 3

Dist Cause of Action v Right of Action

1. RP- right to institute the action2. CA_ pleadings

RP- Substantive

3. RP- will be affected by statute of limitations. etcRelief v Remedy

1.

Relief- redress, protection, award sought by the plaintiff2. Remedy- appropriate legal form of Reliefkinuha sayo possession ng Property

remedyaccion publiciana, ejectment

What determines the nature of an action?

- Allegation of the complaints and not the reliefdemanded.

- Paderanga v Buissan : while the relief is only to seek pdof lease but if the effect will result in asking the

reconveyance or repossession of of prop, then it is a

real action bec it is determined by the allegations of the

complaint and not by the relief demanded.

- allegations can not be changed by plaintiffs reply todefendants answer

How many suits may a party may institute for a single

cause of action?

Rule 2

Sec. 3. One suit for a single cause of action.

A party may not institute more than one suit for a single

cause of action.

What is splitting a single cause of action? dividing a single

cause of action into separate parts

What is the effect?

Sec. 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.

the filing of the 1st

will be an abatement on another

action and judgment on merits in 1 will belitis pendentia - filing of the 1

stwill be an abatement on

another action

res judicataif the 1st

action a judgment has already

rendered the 2nd

will be dismissed on the ground of res

judicata

Reason fr the prohibition on splitting cause of action?

- the rules against pleading a cause action is preventrepeated litigation bet the same parties in regard the

same subject of controversy. To protect defendant fr

unnecessary vexation, cost on numerous suits.

- multiplicity of suits which is not condusive to the properadmin of justice

What is the test if the cause of action is single?

- there shld be only 1 action for a single cause of action(delict or wrong committed by act or omission of

defendant in violation of that right)

INDUSTRIAL FINANCE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.HON. SERGIO A. F. APOSTOL

In 1968, spouses Joaquin Padilla and Socorro Padillabought on credit three units of Isuzu trucksfrom theIndustrial Transport and Equipment, Inc. They executeda promissory notefor P159,600, the balance of thepurchase price, securing payment thereof by a chattelmortgage of said trucksand, as additional collateral, areal estate mortgage on their property coveredbyTransfer Certificate of Title No. T-133625 in favor of the

seller. 1 Subsequently, Industrial Transport andEquipment, Inc. indorsed the note and assigned the realestate mortgage to petitioner Industrial FinanceCorporation(IFC), which assignment was duly registeredin the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City and annotatedon the titleof the mortgaged realty.

On May 15, 1970, in view of the failure of the Padillas topay several installments on the note, the assignee IFCsued Joaquin Padilla in the Court of First Instance ofRizal (Quezon City) for the recovery of the unpaidbalance on the note including attorney's fees.

they were able to secure judgment based on the

promissory note.the new owner sought for the cancellation of mortgage

lien

Industrial Finance objected.

there are 2 remedies available : ordinary colln suit(w/c

they filed) and foreclosure of mortgage

- there shld be only 1 action for a single cause of action(delict or wrong committed by act or omission of

defendant in violation of that right)

- payment of principal and interest- there is only 1 delictwhich is NON-pyt (act or omission)

- non pyt of interest still arose fr one wrong w/c is failureto pay the principal.

judgment was rendered based on the PN, can the

mortgage be cancelled? Yes bec to allow this recognizing

the right of mortgagee to foreclose will rise another suit

for the same delict or wrong.

In a principal contract there is a subsidiary contract: eg

Mortgage, which can not exist w/o the principal. They

are intertwined w/ each other. Failure of pyt: you have 2

remedies, invoking 1 will be abandoning the other

remedy.


5/24

Lecture CivPro_AMEV

Rule 1 to 3

I promise to pay P1m, on or before dates specified:

a. on or before jan 31p100kb. on or before feb 28100k

and so on

- each installment constitutes separate delicts, you can fileaction per month.

- can you file 3 actions? one for Jan, Feb and March? No.All installment due must all be included otherwise it willconstitute splitting.

Contract has many parts:

a. use cementb. use steelc. plywood

etc.

Shld you sue several actions based on several pars? No.

All violation son the contract must already be in a single

action otherwise it will be splitting cause of action.

When there is only 1 delict or wrong, there shld only be 1

cause of action regardless of number of rights violatedsuch.

single delict or wrong must be a violation of only 1

contract or tran otherwise it may give rise to separate

cause of action

Bahrach

Deprivation of your right as a co-owner : You are asking

for an action for partition and accounting: this must be a

single cause of action.

Bayang v CA

Sometime in November 1969, Juan Bayang filed acomplaint for quieting of title with damages againstBenigno Biong in the Court of First Instance of Surigaodel Norte,Branch I, docketed as Civil Case No. 1892. 1 In1970, while the case was pending, Biong succeeded indispossessing the plaintiff of the land in questionandremained there until January 25, 1978. 2 On February 21,

1972, the case was decided in favor of Biong,but theCourt of Appeals on December 8, 1977, reversed thetrial court, declaring in the dispositive portion of its

decision:"WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is reversed

and appellants are hereby declared owner of the

property in litigation, and defendant-appellee are (sic)

hereby ordered to pay appellant the sum of P56.40 asthe latter's share in the proceeds from the sale of thecopraderived from the third harvest of coconuts fromthe same land, and P1,000.00 as attorney's fees, and

costs of litigation." 3

This decision became final on February 2, 1978. cdasia

On February 6, 1978, Bayang filed a second case,docketed as Civil Case No. 2589, with the CFI of Surigao

del Norte, Branch II, seeking to recover from Biong theincomes earned from the same land from 1970 up tothe quarterly incomes from 1978 until the said land wasdelivered to the plaintiff.

The petitioner would draw a distinction between the

land in dispute in Civil Case No. 1892 and the incomefrom that land being claimedin Civil Case No. 2589. Butthat is in our view splitting hairs to split a cause of action.

The subject-matter is essentially the same in both casesas the income is only a consequence or accessory of thedisputed property. We cannot agree that there areinvolved here two causes of action calling for two

separate cases. The claim for the income from the landwas incidental to, and should have been raised byBayang in his earlier claim for, ownership of the land.

- when you filed the action- you must have includedeverything

How many actions for Breach of Contract containing sec

1. gen rule: contract has only 1 cause of actionmay beviolated only ones

2. a contract- everytime installment is not paid, can be filed but all due

obligations must be included or else they will be barred.

- when the failure to compoly on 1 of sev stipulation in acontinuing constituting a single breachfile only one

action

- eg of stipulation on cont contract w/ separate breach- in the event that borrower does not pay installment the

entire will become due- acceleration clause- wag mong

paghiwalayin.

consolidation of the amount until it became P500k-

comment of sir : MTC can render judgment in excess.

ELEANOR ERICA STRONG ET AL.,plaintiffs-appellees, vs.FRANCISCO GUTIERREZ REPIDE

defenses not raised are deemed waived

The partyCcan only file 1 suit for 1 cause of action. Asuit for colln will bar foreclosure otherwise it willconstitute splitting.

if a plaintiff is riding in a bus and another bus bumpedinto it and was injured. You can sue them in thealternative. Insurance Co v Warner Burns- if you are notsure who is liable you can sue them in the alternative.You filed a case against the owner of ithe vehicle whichis breach of contrant against the other is quasi delict.You also filed a criminal case against the driver forreckless imprudence. Included therein is civil liab arisingfr quasi-delict. The other driver was sued by the driverfor Tort. Other driver sued the driver for the criminalcase, can it be done? Is it not splitting cause of action?


6/24

Lecture CivPro_AMEV

Rule 1 to 3

Owner A sued B for Tort bec he failed to observe thediligence of a good father of a family in the supervisionof the ee. Filed also criminal cs for negligence. Drivealso sued him for negligence. Can it be done?

is it not a fact that it arose in the same delict or wrong?

Owner sues B, vehicle for crim cs filed another action onthe same act for tort, is it not arising from the same

delict or wrong on the assumption that there is noreservation (deemed instituted) after that he went toanother court filing another case for negligence. Canthat be done?

Casupanan v Laroya: when a criminal cs is filed what isdeemed instituted is only the civil liab arising fr theoffense charged and not on other sources of obli. Youcan do that even it arose out of the same omission.

What is a cause of action? right-obligation-act oromission

1. right: civil liab arising fr crime Art 100right : arising fr quais-delict

- in these instances it is allowedNCC- double recovery is not allowed

Sec. 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 onjoinder of parties;

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

- unlawful detainer and forcible entry- within thejurisdiction of MTC- ejectment

c. Where the causes of action are between the samepartiesbut 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

- these rules apply only with the RTC and not with MTC

- same parties dapat.

if the RTC has jurisdiction on ATLEAST 1 cause of action

and it has venue in atleast 1 action it can be heared by

the court

1. collection of money: p1m and2. recovery of ownership of RP located in Sulu

- you can file it in Angeles

if the property of the RP is only P10kyou can also file it

in RTC bec the P1m collection suit is w/in the jurisdiction

of RTC

(d) Where the claims in all the causes of action are

principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amountclaimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.TOTALITYRULE

the totality rule applies only for RECOVERY OF MONEY.

1ST

: p100K- mtc, 2ND

P150K-MTC, 3RD

100K-JOINDER- RTC

alternative-

INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. WARNER, BARNES

you sue them in the alternative- your claim is based on

different right- breach of contract and quasi-delict.

Rule 2 Sec 5

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

Sec. 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.

The 1st

rule is that it shld comply with the rule on the

joinder of parties.

Rule 3 Sec. 6. Permissive joinder of parties.

All persons in whom or against whom any right to reliefin respect to or arising out of the same transaction orseries 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 lawor fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all suchdefendants may arise in the action; but the court maymake 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.

REMEDIO V. FLORES, petitioner, vs. HON. JUDGE HEILIAS. MALLARE-PHILLIPPS, IGNACIO BINONGCAL &FERNANDO CALION

in this case 1 plaintiff- 2 defendants who were not able

to pay purchase pr ice of tires in a separate trans---held:

misjoinder

defendant 111k

defendant 210k

filed it is RTC of Baguio


7/24

Lecture CivPro_AMEV

Rule 1 to 3

Held: RTC has no jurisdiction.

RTC- 20k

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 jurisdictionover civil actions andprobate proceedings, testate and intestate, includingthe grant of provisional remedies in proper cases,wherethe value of the personal property, estate, or amount ofthe demand does not exceed One hundred thousandpesos (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 ofwhatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, andcosts, the amount of which must be specifically alleged:Provided, That where there are several claims or causesof action between the same or different parties,

embodied in the same complaint, the amount of thedemand shall be the totality of the claims in all thecauses of action, irrespective of whether the causes ofaction arose out of the same or different transactions; -BASIS OF TOTALITY RULE

BASIS OF Rule 2 Sec 5 (d) Where the claims in all thecauses of action are principally for recovery of money,

the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test ofjurisdiction.TOTALITY RULE

but he case was dismissed bec it is a misjoinder ofpartiesthen there is also a misjoinder of causes ofaction. You drop the misjoined then wala na p20k thenwala ng jurisdiction ang RTC.

1st

rule : totality Rule

2nd

Rule : misjoinder bec it does not arise from same orseveral tran and there is no common qn of fact.

Case:

I have a House and Lot and you will be my exclusiveselling agent and I give you a pd of 60 days then you willreceive 5% of the purchase price. What the agentsought the help of B with a separate agreement. B wasable to find a buyer. But the owner does not want topay. I have no agreement with you but only to myagent. Is there a misjoinder?

the law does not require that there is privity bet theparties joined with the opposing party. What is reqd isthat there is the right of relief for and against the party

jointIn this case it is a series of tran involving the same

thing which is right to commission bec of the agencyand there is a common qn of fact and law.

Filing Fee

Rules:

1. Manchester devt corp. If the filing fee is not properlymade, the court has no jurisdiction

2. Sun Insurance. A party may be given a reasonable timeto pay the appropriate docket fee provided that it is notbeyond the prescriptive period.

when is a civil case filed? filing of original cs in court andpayment of docket fee

Cabrera vs Tejano: the 10 yr is not the service ofsummon but the filing of case in court.

3. when the amt is not specified the party may be given areasonable time to specify damages that he is asking tohave a basis for comp of proper docket fee.

Rule 141.

1. Pyt of fees- in full

Ayala v Madayag

Sabio filed a case against Ayala, for specificperformance with damages before the sala of J.Madayag

Ayala moved to dismiss bec the prescribed docket feewas not paid and it also failed to specify the amt ofdamages both in the body and prayer the amt ofexemplary damages they are seeking. The plaintiffs paidonly P1k. The Spouses Sabio argued that anyway theycan pay it later on the basis of - where the judgmentawards a claim not specified in the pleading, or if

specified, the same has been left for the determination

of the court, the additional filing fee therefor shall

constitute a lien on the judgment"only damages that

may arise after the filing of complaintDAMAGES

PENDENTE LITE

BP 129

(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive ofinterest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees,

litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the property

in controversy exceeds One hundred thousand pesos

(100,000.00) or, in such other abovementioned items

exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (200,000.00)

bank filed a complaint must include all ACCRUED interest

for purposes of Jurisdiction. What does exclude interest?

interest that accrues pendent lite.

eg MTC 300k- umutang ka ng P200k, at the time of filing

of complaint my interest p60k including interest accruing

while case is pending, while case is pending nag-accrue

na, umabot ng p500k. MTC can award bec din a kasali

ung for purposes of jurisdiction.

Sabio alleged that they need not state it now. those are

the only damages that will arise PENDENTE LITE which

the court may award. You will pay filing fee there

constituting a LIEN on the judgment.


8/24

Lecture CivPro_AMEV

Rule 1 to 3

Cabrera v Tejano

- Institution ; FILING OF CASE AND PYT OF DOCKET FEE INFULL.

JOE HODGES,petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS

3 lawyers filed separate action against Hodges for

Defamatory stmt w.o pyt of proper docket

As early as Lazaro vs. Endencia, 4 this Court held that an

appeal is not deemed perfected if the appellate court

docket fee is not fully paid. In Lee vs. Republic, 5 this

Court ruled that a declaration of intention to be a Filipino

citizen produced no legal effect until the required filing

fee is paid. In Malimit vs. Degamo, 6 We held that the

date of payment of the docket fee must be considered

the real date of filing of a petition for quo warranto and

not the date it was mailed. In Magaspi vs. Ramolete, 7

the well-settled rule was reiterated that a case is deemed

filed only upon payment of the docket fee regardless of

the actual date of its filling in court. 8

The rule in Manchester was relaxed in Sun Insurance vs.

Hon. Maximiano Asuncion, 10 whereby this Court

declared that the trial court may allow payment of the

fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond theapplicable prescriptive or reglementary period.Nevertheless, in Sun Insurance, this Court reiterated the

rule that it is the payment of the prescribed docket fee

that vests the trial Court with jurisdiction over the

subject matter or nature of the case.

reglementary pd:In election protest you must file theaction 10 days fr the proclamation. SC : it will not be

tolerated anymore, bayad ka. kung sa 12thka nagbayadwala na.

ARTURO Q. SALIENTES, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON.PACITA CANIZARES-NYE

On September 29, 1987, petitioner Arturo Q. Salientes,in his capacity as receiver of and representing the heirsof the registered co-owners of Maysilo Estate, filed acomplaint before the Regional Trial Court , seeking torecover possession of a portion of said estate allegedlyoccupied illegally by Destilleria Limtuaco & Co.,Inc. to

the extent of 6,885 square meters, more or less, valuedat P500,000.00 and praying among others for an Orderto said company to pay Salientes "actual or

compensatory damages in the amount of not less than

P500,000.00 and such other exemplary damages as theHonorable Court may allow . . ."

Where the action involves real property and a relatedclaim for damages as well, the legal fees shall beassessed on the basis of both(a) the value of thepropertyand (b) the total amount of related damagessought. The Court acquiresjurisdiction over the action ifthe filing of the initiatory pleading is accompanied by

the payment of the requisite fees , or, if the fees are notpaid at the time of the filing of the pleading, as of thetime of full payment of the fees within such reasonabletime as the court may grant, unless, of course,prescription has set in the meantime.But where as inthe case at bar the fees prescribed for an actioninvolving real property have been paid, but theamounts of certain related damages (actual, moral and

nominal) being demanded are unspecified, the actionmay not be dismissed.The Court undeniably has

jurisdiction over the action involving the real property,acquiring it upon the filing of the complaint or similarpleading and payment of the prescribed fee.And it isnot divested of that authority by the circumstance that it

may not have acquired jurisdiction over the

accompanying claims for damages because of lack of

specification thereof. What should be done is simply toexpunge those claims for damages as to which noamounts are stated, . . . or allow, on motion, areasonable time for the amendment of the complaints

so as to allege the precise amount of each item ofdamages and accept payment of the requisite feestherefor within the relevant prescriptive period."

- this is a mixed action Real and Personal- paid fee in the real action but not to personal- dinismiss

lahat: wrong! yung di lang nabayaran ang tanggalin mo.

SUN INSURANCE OFFICE, LTD., (SIOL), E.B. PHILIPPS ANDD.J. WARBY, petitioners, vs. HON. MAXIMIANO C.ASUNCION,

3 Basic Rules in Sun Insurance

Thus, the Court rules as follows:

1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint orappropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of theprescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with

jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of theaction. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is notaccompanied by payment of the docket fee, the courtmay allow payment of the fee within a reasonable timebut in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive orreglementary period.

2. The same rule applies to permissive

counterclaims, third-party claims and similar pleadings,which shall not be considered filed until and unless thefiling fee prescribed therefor is paid. The court may alsoallow payment of said fee within a reasonable time butalso in no case beyond its applicable prescriptive orreglementary period.

- compulsory are excluded

Under Rules 141 SEC 7

a. permissive or compulsory-


9/24

Lecture CivPro_AMEV

Rule 1 to 3

3. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction overa claim by the filing of the appropriate pleading andpayment of the prescribed filing fee but, subsequently,the judgment awards a claim not specified in thepleading,or if specified the same has been left fordetermination by the court, the additional filing feetherefor shall constitute a lien on the judgment.It shallbe the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly

authorized deputy to enforce said lien and assess and

collect the additional fee.

-= Ayala

The exception contemplated as to claims not specifiedor to claims although specified are left fordetermination of the court is limited only to anydamages that may arise after the filing of the complaintor similar pleading for then it will not be possible forthe claimant to specify nor speculate as to the amountthereof.

MAERSK-TABACALERA SHIPPING AGENCY (FILIPINAS),INC.,petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS

"On May 21, 1985, a complaint for damages was filed byplaintiff Monet's Export and Manufacturing Corporation(Monet's) and/or Vicente Tagleagainst defendantsMaersk Tabacalera Shipping (Maersk) and the New AsiaEnterprises (New Asia) and/or Manuel Ranola,alleging,among other things, that plaintiff, like defendant NewAsia, is engaged in the export of locally-madehandicrafts and products,while defendant Maersk Lineis engaged in furnishing containerized services throughwhich Monet's and New Asia normally ship their goods;that on March 11, 1984, plaintiff, after complying withall the export and custom requirements,loaded itsgoods in Maersk's container to be delivered on or beforeMarch 15, 1984 to Manila for immediate transshipmentto its port of destination;that through fraud and malice,and without prior notice to Monet's, Maersk unloadedthe goods at New Asia's factory site at Tagas, Daraga,Albay to give way to the latter's own export shipment;that Monet's shipment was later returned to itswarehouseat Banag, Daraga, Albay; and that because ofthis occurrence, Monet's had to secure another shipper,thereby incurring unnecessary expensesas well as

suffering mental anguish, worry and sleepless nightsthinking of the possibility of losing its trading partnerswhich would seriously doubtMonet's capacity as arespectable exporter. Monet's likewise alleged having

suffered actual, moral and exemplary damages (

Monet did not pay the correct filing fee on its claims foractual, moral and exemplary damages, the amounts ofwhich were not specified in the body and prayer of itscomplaint,

Maersk should have raised its objection to the trial

court's jurisdiction when the case was still in that court. It

should not have waited for an adverse decision by the

Court of Appeals before waking up to raise the question

of jurisdiction.

Since this is a case where some of the claims (for moraland exemplary damages) were not specified in theplaintiff's pleading and were left for determination bythe court, the applicable rule is the third rule setout in

the decision of this Court in Sun Insurance Office Ltd., etal. vs. Hon. Maximiano Asuncion, e al., 170 SCRA 274, to

wit:

"3. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a

claim by the filing of the appropriate pleading and

payment of the prescribed filing fee but, subsequently,

the judgment awards a claim not specific, in the pleading

or if specified the same has been left for determination

by the court, the additional filing fee therefore shall

constitute a lien on the judgment. It shall be the

responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized

deputy to enforce said lien and assess and collect the

additional fee."- but bayad pa rin, it will constitute a lien on the

judgment but can not be a ground for dismissal of thecase. It was raised too late.

-ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTIONCORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALSand HOME INSURANCE AND GUARANTY CORPORATION

petitioner Original Development and ConstructionCorporation (ODECOR for brevity) filed a complaint forbreach of contract and damages against private

respondent Home Insurance and Guaranty Corporation(HIGC for short), National Home Mortgage FinanceCorporation (NHMFC for short) and Caloocan City PublicSchool Teachers Association (CCPSTA for brevitysimultaneously they paid 2 checks and P86 based onone numerical figure which is p2mrepresenting takingout 22 proceeds fr lot buyers

ODECOR's first complaint as well as its amendedcomplaint vaguely asserted its claim for actual,consequential, exemplary and moral damages, "theamount of which will be proved at the trial" and the

demand for attorney's fees as "equivalent to 25% of the

total monetary liability and other expenses of litigationand costs of this suit". Such terms are certainly notdefinite enough to support the computation of theproper docket fees.While it is not required that theexact amountsbe stated, the plaintiff must ascertain, inthis estimation, the sums he wants and the sumsrequired to determine the amount of such docket andother fees.Thus, it is evident that the complaint did notstate enough facts and sums to enable the Clerk ofCourt of the lower court to compute the docket feespayable and left to the judge "mere guesswork" as tothese amounts, which is fatal.


10/24

Lecture CivPro_AMEV

Rule 1 to 3

INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT ANDDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, vs. HON. COURT OFAPPEALS, HON. SALVADOR TENSUAN and FILIPINASCARBON AND MINING CORPORATION

The fact that the main action or principal relief soughtin the complaint is for specific performance and/or

rescission is only determinative of jurisdiction in thesensethat, regardless of the amount of incidental oradditional claims for damages, the case is within theexclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court.This does not mean, however, that the separate claimsfor damages therein are exempt from the payment ofdocket fees. The prayer in private respondent's secondamended complaint 8 reveals that, in addition to theprincipal relief of specific performance and/orrescission, it categorically and unconditionally seeks thepayment of actual, moral and exemplary damages, withattorney's fees and expenses of litigation.

LEONARDO A. AURELIO and YAO BUN SHIONG,petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, NinthDivision, HON. JUDGE ALOYSIUS C. ALDAY

Sabio's "Counter-Complaint" is a compulsorycounterclaim, not a third-party complaint, hence, noseparate filing fee may be required for asserting it .

PARTIES

RULE 3

PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS

Section 1. Who may be parties;plaintiff and defendant.

Only natural or juridical persons, or entities authorizedby 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

counterclaim, the cross-defendant, or the third (fourth,

etc.) party defendant.

may a labor union be a party? yes, provided it is

registered

juridical person is one that is created by law. Labor unionis a corp registered w/ DOLE

homeowners association- registered w/ Home Financed

Mortgaged Association

if it is not registered is it only an association.no

personality

San Juan de Dios and Santa Isabel- if signed by

Archbishop of Manila it is approved no need for Corp

Papers.

Ching v CA

bought a property 5 yrs after died

13 yrs after his death plaintiff filed petition

summon by publication, he was declared in default for

failing to answer

heirs of Ching learned abt the judgment: annulment- no

jurisdiction in the person of Ching

Defense- action quasi in rem, fr in personam

SC: no, it is still in personam which requires personal

service of summons.

if person cant be located can use publication. but the

court did not apply it? the person is already dead.

basic in service of summon can only be served if person is

still alive even for substituted service where person shld

also be alive bec it requires natural and juridical person.

A person who is dead is not a natural person thus you

can no longer serve summons.

but there are exceptions

May a civil association of persons not legally organizedmay sue and be sued?

- eg Friday Grp. hehehe- no, it is not registered. Only natural and juridical person.

You go to proper authority to seek primay franchise bec

you want to ask govt to recognize you as a person. There

is only one natural person, tayo no need to seek for

recognition. Upon birth we have inalienable rights.Municipal Corporation:

A corporation is an artificial being having rights, pro and

fn recognized by law.

- an artificial being created by law.- it is artificial bec it does not exist in reality.

there are exceptions to the rule:

1. Class Suit: when the parties are so numerous that it isimpractible to bring them into court

Sec. 12. Class suit.

When the subject matter of the controversy is one ofcommon or general interest to many persons sonumerousthat it is impracticable to join all as parties, anumber 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 rightto intervene to protect his individual interest.

2. Sec. 15. Entity without juridical personality as defendant.When two or more persons not organized as an entity

with juridical personality enter into a transaction, they


11/24

Lecture CivPro_AMEV

Rule 1 to 3

may be sued under the name by which they are generally

or commonly known.

In the answer of such defendant, the names and

addresses of the persons composing said entity must all

be revealed.

- juansing Hardware v Mendoza3.

NCC 487- co-ownership- anyone may bring an action forejectment ---on the property co-owned

May foreign corp sue in our courts?

It depends.

Gen Rule:

HANG LUNG BANK, LTD.,petitioner, vs. HON.FELINTRIYE G. SAULOG

petitioner Hang Lung Bank, Ltd., which was not doing

business in the Philippines, entered into two (2)continuing guarantee agreementswith Cordova ChinSan in Hongkongwhereby the latter agreed to pay ondemand all sums of money which may be due the bankfrom Worlder Enterprises to the extent of the totalamount of two hundred fifty thousand Hongkongdollars (HK $250,000).

Worlder Enterprises having defaulted in its payment,petitioner filed in the Supreme Court of Hongkong acollection suit against Worlder Enterprises and ChinSan. Summonses were allegedly served upon Worlder

Enterprises and Chin San at their addresses in Hongkongbut they failed to respond thereto

Cordova has property in the Phils.

When the case was filed RTC dismissed the claim upon

Motion to Dismiss br defendant bec there is no cause of

action bec the bank cannot sue in our courts bec it has

no license to do business in the Phils.

A foreign corp can only sue if it has license.

"SEC. 69. No foreign corporation or corporation

formed, organized, or existing under any laws otherthan those of the Philippines shall be permitted totransact business in the Philippines or maintain by itselfor assignee any suitfor the recovery of any debt, claim,or demand whatever, unless it shall have the license

prescribed in the section immediately preceding. Any

officer, director or agent of the corporation or any

person transacting business for any foreign corporation

not having the license prescribed shall be punished by

imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than

two years or by a fine of not less than two hundred pesos

nor more than one thousand pesos, or by both such

imprisonment and fine, in the discretion of the Court."

In this case can Hang Lung bank sue?

it is not the lack of the prescribed license(to do businessin the Philippines) but doing business without license,

which bars a foreign corporation from access to ourcourts."

CONVERSE RUBBER CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.UNIVERSAL RUBBER PRODUCTS, INC

Respondent (Phil) Universal Rubber Products, Inc. filedan application with the Philippine Patent office forregistration of the trademark "UNIVERSAL CONVERSEAND DEVICE" used on rubber shoes and rubber slippers.

Petitioner Converse Rubber Corporation (foreign) filedits opposition to the application for registration on

groundsthat-It is unfortunate that respondent Director of Patentshas concluded that since the petitioner is not licensedto do business in the country and is actually not doingbusiness on its own in the Philippines, it has no name toprotect in the forumand thus, it is futile for it toestablish that "CONVERSE" as part of its corporate name

identifies its rubber shoes. That a foreign corporationhas a right to maintain an action in the forum even if itis not licensed to do business and is not actually doingbusiness on its own thereinhas been enunciated manytimes by this Court

the rule is that it is not the lack of license but doingbusiness w/o a license is the bar fr our court

there is an ISOLATED TRANSACTION rule- you can sue

The ruling in the aforecited case is in consonance with

the Convention of the Union of Paris for the Protection of

Industrial Property to which the Philippines became a

party on September 27, 1965. Article 8 thereof provides

that "a trade name [corporate name] shall be protectedin all the countries of the Union without the obligationof filing or registration, whether or not it forms part ofthe trademark."

THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, petitioner, vs.K.M.K. GANI, INDRAPAL & CO., and the HONORABLECOURT OF TAX APPEALS

foreign corp as plaintiff ha? that

if a foreign corp is doing bus w/o a license you can sue it

anytime butthe foreign corp can not.

We are cognizant of the fact that under the "isolatedtransaction rule," only foreign corporations and not just


12/24

Lecture CivPro_AMEV

Rule 1 to 3

any business organization or entity can avail themselvesof the privilege of suing before Philippine courts evenwithout a license. Counsel Armando S. Padilla statedbefore the respondent Court of Tax Appeals that his

clients are "suing upon a singular and isolated

transaction." But there is no proof to show that K.M.K.

and INDRAPAL are indeed what they are represented to

be. It has been simply stated by Attorney Padilla that

K.M.K. Gani is "a single proprietorship," whileINDRAPAL is "a firm," and both are "doing business inaccordance with the laws of Singapore . . .," withspecified addresses in Singapore. In cases of this nature,

these allegations are not sufficient to clothe a claimant of

suspected smuggled goods of juridical personality and

existence. The "isolated transaction rule" refers only toforeign corporations. Here the petitioners are notforeign corporations. They do not even pretend to beso.

MERRILL LYNCH FUTURES, INC., petitioner, vs. HON.COURT OF APPEALS, and the SPOUSES PEDRO M. LARAand ELISA G. LARA

principle of estoppel against Lara spouses because theywillingly transacted with Merrill Futures knowing that itis a foreign corp doing bus in the Phil w/o a license.

ONE WHO HAS DEALT WITH A CORPORATION OFFOREIGN ORIGIN AS A CORPORATE ENTITY IS ESTOPPEDTO DENY ITS CORPORATE EXISTENCE AND CAPACITY TOSUE CASE AT BAR. In other words, if it be true thatduring all the time that they were transacting with ML

FUTURES, the Laras were fully aware of its lack oflicense to do business in the Philippines, and in relationto those transactions had made payments to, andreceived money from it for several years,the question iswhether or not the Lara Spouses are now estopped toimpugn ML FUTURES capacity to sue them in the courtsof the forum.The rule is that a party is estopped tochallenge the personality of a corporation after havingacknowledged the same by entering into a contractwith it. [SEE Ohta Development Co. v. Steamship'Pompey,' et al., 49 Phil. 117 120 (1926); Asia banking

Corporation v. Standard Products Co., 46 Phil. 144

(1924)] And the "doctrine of estoppel to deny corporateexistence applies to foreign as well as to domestic

corporations;" [14 C.J. 227] "one who has dealt with acorporation of foreign origin as a corporate entity isestopped to deny its corporate existence and capacity."[36 Am Jur 2d, pp. 296-297, although there is authority

that said doctrine "does not, by analogy, require that

such person be held estopped to deny that the

corporation has complied with the local statutes

imposing conditions, restrictions, and regulations on

foreign corporations and that it has acquired thereby the

right to do business in the state"] The principle "will be

applied to prevent a person contracting with a foreign

corporations from later taking advantage of itsnoncompliance with the statutes, chiefly in cases wheresuch person has received the benefits of the contract(Sherwood v. Alvis, 83 Ala 115, 3 So 307, limited and

distinguished in Dudley v. Collier, 87 Ala 431, 6 So 304;

Spinney v. Miller 114 Iowa 210, 86 NW 317), where such

person has acted as agent for the corporation and has

violated his fiduciary obligations as such, and where the

statute does not provide that the contract shall be void,

but merely fixes a special penalty for violation of the

statute." The doctrine was adopted by this Court as early

as 1924 in Asia Banking Corporation v. Standard Products

Co., in which the following pronouncement was made:

"The general rule that in the absence of fraud a person

who has contracted or otherwise dealt with an

association in such a way as to recognize and in effect

admit its legal existence as corporate body is thereby

estopped to deny its corporate existence in any actionleading out of or involving such contract or dealing,

unless its existence is attacked for causes which havearisen since making the contract or other dealing reliedon as an estoppel and this applies to foreign as well asdomestic corporations. (14 C.J. 227; Chinese Chamber ofCommerce vs. Pua Te Ching, 14 Phil. 222)." There would

seem to be no question that the Laras received benefitsgenerated by their business relations with ML FUTURES.Those business relations, according to the Laras

themselves, spanned a period of seven (7) years; andthey evidently found those relations to be of such

profitability as warranted their maintaining them for that

not insignificant period of time; otherwise, it is

reasonably certain that they would have terminated their

dealings with ML FUTURES much, much earlier. In fact,

even as regards their last transaction, in which the Larasallegedly suffered a loss in the sum of US$160,749.69,the Laras nonetheless still received some monetaryadvantage, for ML FUTURES credited them with theamount of US $75,913.42 then due to them, thusreducing their debt to US $84,836.27.Given these facts,and assuming that the Lara Spouses were aware from the

outset that ML FUTURES had no license to do business in

this country and MLPI, no authority to act as broker for

it, it would appear quite inequitable for the Laras to

evade payment of an otherwise legitimate indebtedness

due and owing to ML FUTURES upon the plea that itshould not have done business in this country in the first

place, or that its agent in this country, MLPI, had no

license either to operate as a "commodity and/or

financial futures broker."

JUASING HARDWARE, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLERAFAEL T. MENDOZA

Finally, there is no law authorizing sole proprietorships

like petitioner to bring suit in court. The law merelyrecognizes the existence of a sole proprietorship as aform of business organization conducted for profit by a


13/24

Lecture CivPro_AMEV

Rule 1 to 3

single individual, and requires the proprietor or ownerthereof to secure licenses and permits, register thebusiness name, and pay taxes to the nationalgovernment.It does not vest juridical or legalpersonality upon the sole proprietorship nor empowerit to file or defend an action in court. Cdpr

Thus, the complaint in the court below should have been

filed in the name of the owner of Juasing Hardware. CHIANG KAl SHEK SCHOOL, petitioner, vs. COURT OFAPPEALS and FAUSTINA FRANCO OH

An unpleasant surprise awaited Fausta F. Oh when shereported for work at the Chiang Kai Shek School inSorsogon on the first week of July, 1968. She was toldshe had no assignment for the next semester. Oh wasshocked. She had been teaching in the school since 1932

for a continuous period of almost 33 years. And now, outof the blue, and for no apparent or given reason, this

abrupt dismissal.

The original defendant was the Chiang Kai Shek Schoolbut when it filed a motion to dismiss on the ground thatit could not be sued, the complaint was amended . 2Certain officials of the school were also impleaded tomake them solidarily liable with the school.

SCHOOL HAVING REPRESENTED ITSELF AS POSSESSEDOF JURIDICAL PERSONALITY ESTOPPED FROM DENYINGTHE SAME. There is no question that havingcontracted with the private respondent every year forthirty two years and thus represented itself aspossessed of juridical personality to do so, the

petitioner Chiang Kai Shek School is now estopped fromdenying such personality to defeat her claim against it.

According to Article 1431 of the Civil Code, "throughestoppel an admission or representation is renderedconclusive upon the person making it and cannot bedenied or disproved as against the person relying on it

Suability of the State

- is it a juridical person? yes.- it was incorporated by the social contract- we created

the concept of the sovereign.

1. you apply non-suability- pyt of damagesbut w/ regards in stopping it fr doing something w/c is

not correct, the State cannot invoke immunity.

- Tanada v Tuvera- Smart entered into a contract w/ COMELEC, can you

mandamus them to proceed? Yes. you can sue COMELEC,

di ka naman humihingi ng pera---damages.

2. when State sues a private individual, individual can sue3. exercise of Proprietary fn4. GOCCHMF, NAWASA, LBP,

5. suit against officials or its agents.recite___

PABLO RALLA v . PEDRO RALLA

In a decision dated July 25, 1986, the Court of Appeals 4

reversed the trial court and reinstated thedisinheritance clause after finding that the requisites ofa valid disinheritance had been complied with in thewill.The appellate court noted that Pedro hadthreatened to kill his father, who was afraid of him andhad earlier sued him for slander and grave oraldefamation.

validly disinherited heir, and not claiming to be acreditor of his deceased father, Pedro Ralla had no legalpersonality to question the deed of sale datedNovember 29, 1957, between Rosendo Ralla and his sonPablo.Legally speaking, Pedro Ralla was a stranger tothe transaction as he did not stand to benefit from itsannulment. His disinheritance had rendered him horsde combat.

In absolute Community except donation during

marriage.

JESUS M. IBONILLA v. PROVINCE OF CEBU, CEBU STATECOLLEGE OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

province of Cebu donated parcels of land to Cebu Agri

School w/ a condition that if it ceases to operate

donation will be revoked

Cebu Agri merged or became an extension of Cebu State

College thus Province req for revocation

- parents, teachers, officersnot real party in interest

bec not owners.

VSC COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES, INC., petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS, OSCAR ESTOPACE and JOSESILAPAN,

leases in the Market filed a complaint questioning the

title of VSC- lessor to the subjected land

leases- estopped fr qn title of lessor

leases- not real party in interest but the govt theirs isonly an expectancy

Sec. 2. Parties in interest.

A real party in interest is the party who stands to be

benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the

party entitled to the avails of the suit. (representative)Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every

action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of

the real party in interest.


14/24

Lecture CivPro_AMEV

Rule 1 to 3

Sec. 3. Representatives as parties.

Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted or

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 anexpress trust, a guardian, an executor or administrator,

or a party authorized by law or these Rules. An agentacting in his own name and for the benefit of anundisclosed principal may sue or be sued without

joining the principal except when the contract involvesthings belonging to the principal.

why can there be no representative in an implied trust?

- based on fraud and the obli of the trustee is to deliverback and he cannot use it.

an agent may be sued alone

1. when he acts in his own name2. 1897- binds himself3. exceeds the limit of his authority w/o informing the party

that he exceeded.

J.M. TUASON & CO., INC.,represented by its ManagingPARTNER, GREGORIO ARANETA, INC

to recover possession of registered land situated inbarrio Tatalon, Quezon City.

plaintiffnamed in the title but not necessarily by the

real party in interest

defendantOCEAN of the land--- title of plaintiff

obtained thru fraud- 1 yr after decree- can no longer qn

the title

an assignee for a valuable consideration- is a real party ininterest even the assignment is only for colln

Carlos v 100 P 28

Only parties to a contract may sue are the heirs of the deceased real party in interest?

yes. If the action arises out of a right pertaining to the

deceased and it is one of those actions w/c survive

heirs are real party in interest. provided no pending

settlement proceeding of the decedent in court

Derivative Suit- you are a minority stockholder. yungmajority ninanakawan na ang corp. You can sue as

minority stockholder. It is the corp who is the real party

in interest and you derive it. The minority who brings the

action and actively prosecuted it is a mere nominal

plaintiff but it is allowed by law.

the action must still be prosecuted in the

Sec. 4. Spouses as parties.

Husband and wife shall sue or be sued jointly, except asprovided by law.

except:

1. legal separation2. separation of prop agreed in the settlement3. transferred to the wife by judicial decree4. donation inter vivos and mortis causa- you can not sue5. civil liab arising fr a criminal offense6. litigation is incidental to occupation, profession,

business where wife is engaged7. quasi-delict8. suit bet H and W

May a married woman sue alone with respect to hersep paraphernal? yes

but not to the fruits of paraphernal pro- forming part ofthe community prop.- eg fruits of rental

effect of failure to join the husband in the suit- wife as

real party in interest has a capacity to sue, defect ismerely procedural and can be amended.

May a H alone maintain an action w/ respect toparaphernal prop of the wife? no except for fruits

reyes v dela rosa

minor assisted by her father. slander against her honoragainst the W. In the suit H was not included.

SC: it is not necessaryto join bec NCC civil liab arising frcrim offense H need not be joined

While a married woman sep paraphernal prop butwhen damages for the paraphernal H must be included.fruits

Lim v Dee

Appeal by plaintiff from the order of the Manila court of

first instance dismissing, upon motion and without trial,

his complaint to recover his wife's share (and its fruits)

in the estate left by her deceased father. He includedhis wife as codefendant because she was unwilling tosue with him.Dee Chian Hong died intestate in Manilaon February 1, 1945 leaving valuable stock in financialand commercial institutions,Crispina Dee was one ofhis legitimate children and the other fourteendefendants were other heirs. In March 1946these otherheirs executed an extrajudical settlement of the estate,dividing it among themselves, and in fraud of Crispina,awarded nothing to her. In April 1948plaintiffBienvenide, Lim married Crispina; and in March 1954hefiled his action demanding a new partition, delivery of


15/24

Lecture CivPro_AMEV

Rule 1 to 3

Crispina's inheritance.together with its income, andattorney's fees. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss onthe grounds of lack of personality and prescription.Crispina submitted a motion to dismiss, alleging thatplaintiff's complaint usurped a cause of actioncompletely hers, and that she had never authorized himto institute any action concerning the estate of herdeecased father. After hearing the parties, the courtdismissed the action. The contract of partition was notvoid, but merely voidable in so far as it concernsstrangers who had mistakenly been included in thepartition, as alleged by plaintiff. Consequently, so longas it was not avoided, the contract had its effects; andwhen plaintiff married Crispina in 1948 such partitionagreement was existing. Wherefore, to all intents andpurposes there was no inheritance brought by her tothe marriage; hence, her husband acquired no rightsthereto. Not only that but the wife objects to the action,and under Article 1382 of the Civil Codethe husbandmay not maintain actions of any kind whatsoever with

respect to the paraphernal property, without theintervention or consent of the wife. Anyway, herconduct practically amounts to a renunciation or

disposition of her share or paraphernal property.

Sec. 5. Minor or incompetent persons.

A minor or a person alleged to be incompetent, may sue

or be sued, with the assistanceof his father, mother,guardian, or if he has none, a guardian ad litem.

Juan Dela Cruz- a minor herein assisted by his father

if no father or mother- guardian if none guardian ad

litem(to the litigation- court apptd)

Sec. 6. Permissive joinder of parties.

All persons in whom or against whom any right to relief

in respect to or arising out of the same transaction orseries 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 lawor fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all suchdefendants may arise in the action; but the court maymake 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.

when is a joinder of action permissive?

1. All persons in whom or against whom any right to reliefin respect to or arising out of the same transaction orseries of transactions is alleged to exist,

2. any question of law or fact common to all such plaintiffsor to all such defendants may arise in the action;

Labor : one ee has his own contract with the er---late,

absence etc

if we are ees we try to form a union. er dismissed us-

union busting- same tran- engaging in union busting w/common qn of fact and law.

owner of 10 door apt. 5 of tenants failed to payno

commonality, no same tran or series of tran.

but where there is agency, owner appts agent then appt

sub-agent- can agent and sub-agent join to sue? yes,

series of tranagency. their right to relief is collection.

when is joinder of parties compulsory?

Sec. 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties.

Parties in interest without whom no final determinationcan be had of an action(indispensable parties)shall be

joined either as plaintiffs or defendants.

who is an indispensable party? w/o him being a party no

final determination can be had in the action.

e.g. A asked for reconveyance of title, plaintiff filed an

action for reconveyance. respondent was able to

mortgage it, which is registered. Is the ME indispensable?

yes, bec if you annul the title you will also annul themortgage, you will prejudice the ME

If you buy a prop, then here comes Lino filing a suit

saying that he has a better title. Can you claim that

Vendor shld be included? you can sue the vendee alone,

no need to sue the vendor. You have a complete relief

against the vendee alone having the title.

co-owners- you can not have a complete relief , it will

prejudice the rights of other co-owners who were not

joined.

partition: lahat ng co-owners dapat isali mo lahat.

Sec. 8. Necessary party.

A necessary party is one who is not indispensablebutwho ought to be joined as a party if complete relief is tobe accorded as to those already parties, or for acomplete determination or settlement of the claim

subject of the action.


16/24

Lecture CivPro_AMEV

Rule 1 to 3

I sold the property to you, then you sold it to another.

lino claiming better title. lino sued both what will be the

effect?

if only to vendee- vendee has the natural right to go

against the vendor filing a 3rd

party complaint. relief is

only as w/ lino and you but as to your claim as to the

warrantee of the vendoe the peaceable possession andtitle ---complete relief---pati vendee may relief na rin

can the creditor sue alone the principal debtor w/o

surety? yes, he can sue either. solidarily liable.

joinder of partied can be compulsory is persons are

INDISPENSABLE PARTIES

WHO is an indispensable? Sec 7

Parties in interest without whom no final determinationcan be had of an action(indispensable parties)shall be

joined either as plaintiffs or defendants.eg. co-ownsership, if you want to seek partition of the

prop- you must include all of the co-owners bec failure to

include one may prejudice his rights.

mortgagee- no valid judgment for annulment of title, bec

the ME is an indispensable party might be prejudiced if

not include.

what is an indispensable is not included?

gen rule: judgment is Void. bec an indispensable party-

w/o whom no final determination can be had

an indispensable partys presence is sine qua non in the

exercise of judicial power.

necessary party: if he can not be joined for not reason or

another, may be excluded and judgment will not

eg. against the surety-principal debtor is only a proper

party, not indispensable bec surety is solidarily liable thus

complte relief may be granted.

- indispensable party is not only is the pt of view of if he isa defendant but relief to plaintiff.

- in an action to annul a partition- indispensable party- action for recognition- all the heirs are indispensable

party bec if an illegitimate will be recognized the

hereditary rights of legitimates will will diminished.

- where the widow not includedindispensable- entitledto one legitimate heir.

- if A sells his prop to B and X files an action against B thebuyer, A is not indispensable party bec complete relief

may given to X w/o including A.

- Robles v CA

- A sold his prop to B, later plaintiff brother of A claimingto be a co-owner- recover his share fr B. Is A an

indispensable? No, but the defendant B may file a 3rd

oarty complaint against A based on warranty against

eviction.

- Nunal v CA- - de leon for her self as guardian ad litem filed a partition

suit against Luisa Nunal. Judgment was redenred by RTC

ordering partition. CA affirmed. Order of Exectution.

During the execution, Marie filed a motion to quash the

execution on the ground that she is a co-owner.

- court ordered to include Marie in the distribution- CA ordered inclusion of new party in the partition- SC- decision of RTC is civil c is final, trial judge lost

jurisdiction on the cs. Judge can no longer modify during

the pd of execution to include Marie bec it will amt toamending a final and executor judgment

- The remedy of Mary Lyon Martin is to file anindependent suit against the parties in Civil Case No.872 and all other heirs for her share in the subjectproperty, in order that all the parties in interest canprove their respective claims.

Metrobank Cs

- MBTC was not included as ME, suit was only against theowner, while REM is annotated. Judgment is null and

void bec MBTC was not included. It was apparent in the

certificate that there is a ME (difference fr Nunal Cs)

Sec. 9. 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 forthhis 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 omittednecessary party if jurisdiction over his person may beobtained.

The failure to comply with the order for his inclusion,

without justifiable cause,shall be deemed a waiver ofthe claim against such party.

order inclusion if not-penalty

eg. Surety and Principal debtor.

Creditor sues only the surety, but since allegation isonly a surety , must name the principal and state why


17/24

Lecture CivPro_AMEV

Rule 1 to 3

he was not included (reason: his whereabts is unknow,fugitive fr justice, migrated to Vietnam.

if the court issues an order for the inclusion ofnecessary and plaintiff refuses. what is the penalty?

shall be deemed a waiver of the claim against suchparty.

SERVICEWIDE SPECIALISTS INCORPORATED, petitioner,vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

motor vehicle1st

owner from Carmark-Filinvest

1st

owner- deed of sale w/ assumption of mortgage to 2nd

owner

then 3rd

owner Dollente

but as to the 4th

owner there was only a deed of sale but

no assumption of mortgage.

SWS- foreclosure/replevin only to Custodio (on who is

possession) w/o impleading Dollente the mortgagor and

w/o service of summons. It appeared that there is a newbuyer4

thone but not recorded.

Mortgagor was dropped fr the complaint.

Qn: whether or not Mortgagor shld be impleaded.

The answer has to be in the affirmative.In a suit forreplevin, a clear right of possession must be established.

A foreclosure under a chattel mortgage may properly becommenced only once there is default on the part ofthe mortgagor of his obligation secured by themortgage.---shld establish a) CM and 2) default in pyt.

these facts that there is a loan and default of pyt, will

not be established w/o the existence of theindispensable party who is the mortgagor.

Difference with REM: you cannot hide the land bec ifyou have the title, it is presumed that you are theowner- caveat emptor- let the buyer beware exceptgood faith and bought it fr a store (w/ receipt).

Replevinis a possessory action, mere step toforeclose. In REM, di tumatakbo yan. You can rely onthe title and if there are no circumstances that will putyou on notice to make further investigation, you areconsidered a buyer in good faith, pag di nagbayad-foreclose which is not applicable in personal properties-kung bibili ka nito, you have to see it, eg motor vehicle-you will not buy it unless you see it, you shld get it 1

st,

how? replevin.

A replevin suit- you must 1st

establish your rught aspossessor as owner or Mortgagee, you must establishyour right of possession but before this you shldestablish the fact that there is a 1. loan, 2. chattel 3.default. To establish these 3 things is to make theMortgagor an indispensable parties.

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.

Sec. 10. Unwilling co-plaintiff.

If the consent of any party who should be joined as

plaintiff can not be obtained, he may be made a

defendant and the reason therefor shall be stated in thecomplaint.

Sec. 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties.

Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is groundfor dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped oradded by order of the court on motion of any party or on

its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such

terms as are just. Any claim against a misjoined party

may be severed and proceeded with separately.

If initially there is non-inclusion of indispensable party,

you shld not immediately file a motion to dismiss, you set

a hearing as a judge,l and you find him as indispensable

party, require the plaintiff the inclusion

what if the party refuses to include the indispensable

party? penalty?

If necessary : waiver of claim as to the necessary party

If indispensable party: The inclusion is MANDATORY,

indispensable nga!!! the action will be dismissed!!!

penalty: DISMISSAL but initially the non-inclusion is not a

ground for a motion to dismiss, why? court may order

the

if Joinder is not proper: not a ground for dismissal, court

may order joinder of parties.

Mina v Pacson

Plaintiffs Ligaya, Jaime, Silvina, Fausta, Pablo and Miguel,

all surnamed Mina, are alleged to be the illegitimatechildren of the deceased Joaquin Mina with plaintiffPilar Lazo from1933-1958, while married to AntoniaPacson.

Joaquin Mina died in August, 1958, leaving nodescendants nor ascendants except his widow, thedefendant herein Antonia Pacson. On April 9, 1958,Joaquin Mina, then still living, executed a deed ofabsolute sale(Annex "B" to Complaint) of three parcelsof land situated in the municipality of Muoz, NuevaEcija, in favor of the defendants Crispino Medina andCresencia Mina for the sum of P12,000. On April 15,1958 again he executed another deed of sale (Annex "C"to Complaint) of 13 parcels of land covered by 12


18/24

Lecture CivPro_AMEV

Rule 1 to 3

transfer certificates of title to the same spousesCrispino Medina and Cresencia Mina.

plaintiffs are hereby directed to amend their complaintwithin fifteen (15) days from receipt hereof by includingas party defendant the surviving widow of the deceasedJoaquin Mina and other necessary parties.

dismissal based on res judicata is proper

the present action should be considered barred inrespect to the action for the annulment of the deeds ofsale and as regards the defendants spouses CrispinoMedina and Cresencia Mina; but as to the case for thedeclaration of the plaintiffs as illegitimate children andheirs of the deceased Joaquin Mina this latter case isnot barred by the previous action as above explainedand may still be prosecuted.

Sec. 12. Class suit.

When the subject matter of the controversy is one of

common or general interest to many persons so

numerous that it is impracticable to join all as parties, a

number of them which the court finds to be sufficiently

numerous and representative as to fully protect the

interests of all concerned may sue or defend for the

benefit of all. Any party in interest shall have the right to

intervene to protect his individual interest.

- an exceptional situation when there are numerouspersons in the same plight and all of them constituting

common constituency. Permits the action to proceedwhen the class is SUFFIECIENTLY represenatted to enable

the court to deal w/ the issus properly.

reqts:

1. subj matterone of common general interest to manypersons

2. parties are SO NUMEROUS that it is impractible to bringthem all to court

Acar v Rosal

- sugar workers. Sugar Act 1964- in every picul of sugarsold, (haciendero, miller, warehouseman, govt andsacada- workers in the field)

- 9k of them were not paid. Imagine preparation the cs for9k petitioners. How many pp in the title of the case.

- Class Suit- association

VICTORIANO BORLASAS, ET AL.,plaintiffs-appellants, vs.VICENTE POLISTICO, ET AL

- each member pd a fixed sum per wk and the lucky nowas entitled to all money collected during the wk.

- so much money was accumulated, members becamenumerous

- action for acctg, dissolution, funds and prop filedagainst Polistico

- since numerous membersproper cs of CLASS SUIT- common and gen interest to all members, parties are so

numerous impracticable to bring them all to court,plaintiffs are enough to represent everyone.

Sec. 13. Alternative defendants.

Where the plaintiff is uncertain against who of several

persons he is entitled to relief, he may join any or all of

them as defendants in the alternative, although a rightto relief against one may be inconsistent with a right ofrelief against the other.

eg. Insurance Co of America v Warner

- there is a vehicular collision. The other vehicle, you arenot sure who between the drivers are negligent. Basis:contract of carriage and on the other bus : tort

- the right of relief to one is based on contract while theother is based on tort

- even causes of action are inconsistent, eg .suing in thealternative causes of action

Sec. 14. Unknown identity or name of defendant.

Whenever the identity or name of a defendant is

unknown, he may be sued as the unknown owner, heir,

devisee, or by such other designation as the case may

require; when his identity or true name is discovered, thepleading must be amended accord.

Sec. 15. Entity without juridical personality asdefendant.

When two or more persons not organized as an entitywith juridical personalityenter into a transaction, theymay be sued under the name by which they are generally

or commonly known.

In the answer of such defendant, the names and

addresses of the persons composing said entity must all

be revealed

- 2 or more persons, transact businessas an entity but notreally organized as an entity, they may be sued under the

name by which they are commonly known.

- eg. May ABC and Co sue the bank? no, bec no juridicalpersonality

- This applies only when the defendant is unorganizedentity but not as plaintiff

- why? this is for the protection of the public.


19/24

Lecture CivPro_AMEV

Rule 1 to 3

- eg. Luisa and Sons bakery: assume it is a dept store,bought TV fr them, if you are the public, you will no

longer ask who are these Luisa and Sons, but later you

found out that there is a defect in the TV, you sue Juan

dela Cruz v Unknown defendants doing business under

the name of Luisa and Sons.

- refers only to entities w/o juridical personality.- but these juridical personality can not sue in that name

What is the effect of death?

If an action is filed by a party, will the death of the partywill bring abt the death of the cs?

- if the action is purely personal in nature- the action willalso die with the party

- if the action is an action that survivesannulment of marriagepersonal

support- personal

annulment of contract of sale- will survive

- legal separation based on infidelity, concubinage oradultery- personal

- most of the actions usually survives. what are these?- what is the procedure, if the party dies pendente lite?

sec 16

1. counsel to inform the court within thirty (30) daysafter such :

a.)death of the factthereof,

b.) and to give the name and address of his legalrepresentative or representatives

2. The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to besubstituted for the deceased.

3. court shall forthwith order said legal representative orrepresentatives to appear and be substitutedwithin aperiod of thirty (30) days from notice.

a. that death cert is attached

b. names and address of legal rep

- that they appear w/in 30 days to be substituted to the

person of the deceased.

the order will ORDER and not to serve summon. Why?

They merely stepped into the shoes of the deceased with

whom the court already jurisdciton while he was alive.

Jurisdiction was already vested.

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 factthereof, and to give the name andaddress of his legal repre

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jay-r-munoz-valerio
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Lecture Rule 1 to 3

Documents