ORDINARY CIVIL ACTIONS

 
 
Preliminary Matters
 
1. Actions in General
 An action is the legal and formal demand of one’s right from another person made
and insisted upon in a court of justice
 In this jurisdiction, it is settled that the terms “action” and “suit” are synonymous
but the determinative operative act which converts a claim into an “action” or
“suit” is the filing of the same with a court of justice.
o Filed elsewhere, as with some body or office not a court of justice, the
claim may not be properly be categorized under either term
 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” (Sec. 3[a], Rule 1,
Rules of Court).
 The purpose of an action is either to protect a right or prevent or redress a wrong
if the action is civil.

1.1. Ordinary Civil Action

(1)     Ordinary civil action is one by which one party sues another, based on a cause
of action, to enforce or protect a right, or to prevent or redress a wrong, whereby
the defendant has performed an act or omitted to do an act in violation of the
rights of the plaintiff. (Sec. 3a) The purpose is primarily compensatory.
• An ordinary civil action is one which is governed by the rules for
ordinary civil actions.[Sec. 3(a), par. 2, Rule 1]

Rules for Ordinary Civil Actions refer to Rule 2 (Cause of Action) until Rule 61
(Provisional Remedies).
● General Rules on Ordinary Civil Action - Rule 2 to Rule 5
● Procedure in Trial Courts - Rule 6 to Rule 39
● Appeals - Rule 40 to Rule 43
● Procedure in the Court of Appeals - Rule 44 to Rule 55
● Procedure in the SC - Rule 56
● Provisional Remedies - Rule 57 to Rule 61

1.2. Special Civil Actio

- Governed by ordinary rule with subject to the specific rule of specific, with special features
not found in the ordinary civil action.
The f o l l o w i n g are the special civil actions as presently embodied in the Rules
of Court:
a. Interpleader;
b. Declaratory relief and similar remedies;
c. Review of judgments and final orders or resolutions of the Commission
on Elections and the Commission on Audit;
d. Certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus;
 e. Quo warranto;
f. Expropriation;
g. Foreclosure of real estate mortgage;
h. Partition;
i. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer;
j. Contempt.

1.3.             Criminal Action
 A criminal action “is one by which the State prosecutes a person for an act or
omission punishable by law” (Sec. 3[b], Rule 1,Rules of Court).
 It has been ruled that “. . . proceedings are to be regarded as criminal when the
purpose is primarily punishment, and civil when the purpose is primarily
compensatory or remedial.
 If it is a criminal action the purpose is to prosecute a person for an act or an
omission punishable by law

1.4.             Special Proceedings

 The rules of ordinary civil actions have suppletory application in special

proceedings. It is provided that: “In the absence of special provisions, the rules
provided for in ordinary actions shall be, as far as practicable, applicable in special
proceedings” (Sec. 2, Rule 72, Rules of Court).
 The purpose of a special proceeding is to establish a status, a right, or a particular
fact (Sec. 3, Rule 1, Rules of Court).
 The following are the special proceedings as they are currently enumerated in Sec. 1
of Rule 72 of the Rules of
 Filing of a petition

 a. Settlement of estate of deceased persons;

 b. Escheat;
 c. Guardianship and custody of children;
 d. Trustees;
 e. Adoption;
 f. Rescission and revocation of adoption;
 g- Hospitalization of insane persons;
 h. Habeas corpus;
 i. Change of name;
 j- Voluntary dissolution of corporations;
 k. Judicial approval of voluntary recognition of minor natural children;
 1. Constitution of family home;
 m. Declaration of absence of death;
 n. Cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry.
 Ching v. Rodriguez, et.al., November 28, 2011

A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a

right, or a particular fact. It is distinguished from an ordinary civil action where a
party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or
redress of a wrong. To initiate a special proceeding, a petition and not a complaint
should be filed

Special proceeding Ordinary Civil Action

which a party seeks to establish a enforcement or protection of a right,
status, a right, or a particular fact or the prevention or redress of a
wrong
a petition a complaint
settlement of the estate of a action for reconveyance and
deceased person such as annulment
advancement of property made by
the decedent,

2. Type of Actions as to Object

2.1.             Action in personam
 A proceeding 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.
 The purpose of a proceeding in personam is to impose through the judgment of a
court, some responsibility or liability directly upon the person of the defendant
(Domagas v. Jensen, 448 SCRA 663, 673; Bar 1994).
o Examples: An action for a sum of money; an action for damages.
 In an action in personam, no one other than the defendant is sought to be held
liable, not the whole world.
 an action in personam is an action against a person on the basis of his personal
liability,
 Hence, a real action may at the same time be an action in personam and not
necessarily an action in rem.

a judgment in rem judgment in personam

is binding upon the whole world, is binding upon the parties and their
such as a judgment in a land successors- in-interest but not upon
registration case or probate of a will; strangers
directing a party to deliver possession
of a property to another
An action for declaration of nullity of
title and recovery of ownership of
real property, or reconveyance, is a
 real action but it is an action in
personam, for it binds a particular
individual only although it concerns
the right to a tangible thing.

proceeding in personam
is a proceeding to enforce personal rights and obligations brought against the
person and is based on the jurisdiction of the person,

The purpose of a proceeding in personam. is to impose, through the

judgment of a court, some responsibility or liability directly upon the person
of the defendant.

An action in personam is said to be one which has for its object a judgment
against the person, as distinguished from a judgment against the property
to determine its state. It has been held that an action in personam is a
proceeding to enforce personal rights or obligations; such action is brought
against the person.

Actions for recovery of real property are in personam

 the aim and object of an action determine its character - determined by its
nature and purpose, and by these only.

2.2.             Action in rem

 an action in rem is an action against the thing itself, instead of against the
person.
 brought against the whole world
 an action is real because it affects title to or possession of land , it does not
automatically follow that the action is already in rem. It is not brought against the
whole world but against the person upon whom the claim is made.

2.3.             Quasi-in-rem

 An action quasi in rem is one wherein an individual is named as defendant

and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interest therein to the
obligation or lien burdening the property
  An action quasi in rem, also brought against the whole world, is one
brought against persons seeking to subject the property of such persons
to the discharge of the claims assailed.  An individual is named as
defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interests
therein to the obligation or loan burdening the property.
 It deals with status, ownership or liability or a particular property but
which are intended to operate on these questions only as between the
particular parties to the proceedings and not to ascertain or cut off the
rights or interests of all possible claimants.
  Examples of actions quasi in rem are action for partition, action for
accounting, attachment, foreclosure of mortgage.
 Examples of actions quasi in rem: (a) action for partition; (b) action for
accounting. Such actions are essentially for the purpose of affecting the
defendant’s interest in the property and not to render a judgment against
him
 the Court similarly held that attachment and foreclosure proceedings are
both actions quasi in rem., the Court similarly held that attachment and
foreclosure proceedings are both actions quasi in rem. As such, jurisdiction
over the person of the nonresident defendant is not essential. Service of
summons on a non-resident defendant who is not found in the country is
required, not for the purpose of physically acquiring jurisdiction over his
person but simply in pursuance of the requirements of fair play, so that he
may be informed of the pendency of the action against him and the
possibility that property belonging to him or in which he has an interest
may be subjected to a judgment in favor of a resident,
In Summary

(1) An action in rem, one instituted and enforced against the whole world.
(2) An action in personam is one filed against a definite defendant. It is intended to subject the
interest of defendant on a property to an obligation or lien. Jurisdiction over the person
(defendant) is required. It 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. The purpose is to impose through the
judgment of a court, some responsibility or liability directly upon the person of the defendant.
No other than the defendant is liable, not the whole world, as in an action for a sum of money or
an action for damages.

(3) An action quasi in rem, also brought against the whole world, is one brought against persons
seeking to subject the property of such persons to the discharge of the claims assailed. An
individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interests
therein to the obligation or loan burdening the property. It deals with status, ownership or
liability or a particular property but which are intended to operate on these questions only as
between the particular parties to the proceedings and not to ascertain or cut off the rights or
interests of all possible claimants. Examples of actions quasi in rem are action for partition,
action for accounting, attachment, foreclosure of mortgage.

(4) An action in personam is not necessarily a personal action. Nor is a real action necessarily an
action in rem. An in personam or an in rem action is a classification of actions according to
foundation. For instance, an action to recover, title to or possession of real property is a real
action, but it is an action in personam, not brought against the whole world but against the
person upon whom the claim is made.

(5) The distinction is important to determine whether or not jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is required and consequently to determine the type of summons to be employed.
Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide
a case against said defendant where the action is one in personam but not where the action is in
rem or quasi in rem.
 (6) SC sums up the basic rules in Biaco vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank, GR 161417, February
8, 2007:

The question of whether the trial court has jurisdiction depends on the nature of the action –
whether the action is in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem. The rules on service of summons
under Rule 14 likewise apply according to the nature of the action.

An action in personam is an action against a person on the basis of his personal liability. And action
in rem is an action against the thing itself instead of against the person. An action quasi in rem
is one wherein an individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to
subject his interest therein to the obligation or lien burdening the property.

In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to
validly try and decide the case. In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction over the res. Jurisdiction over
the res is acquired either (1) by the seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is
brought into actual custody of the law; or (2) as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in
which the power of the court is recognized and made effective.

Nonetheless, summons must be served upon the defendant not for the purpose of vesting the court
with jurisdiction but merely for satisfying the due process requirements.

Personam Rem Quasi in rem

Jurisdiction depends on the nature of the action
jurisdiction over the jurisdiction over the person Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either
person of the of the defendant is not a 1) by the seizure of the property under legal
defendant is necessary prerequisite to confer process, whereby it is brought into actual
jurisdiction over the res custody of the law; or

(2) as a result of the institution of legal

proceedings, in which the power of the court is
recognized and made effective.

What an action against a one instituted and enforced is one brought against persons seeking to
person on the basis of against the whole world subject the property of such persons to the
his personal liability, discharge of the claims assailed

Purpose to impose through the to subject his interests therein to the

judgment of a court, obligation or loan burdening the property. It
some responsibility or deals with status, ownership or liability or a
liability directly upon particular property but which are intended to
the person of the operate on these questions only as between
defendant the particular parties to the proceedings and
not to ascertain or cut off the rights or
interests of all possible claimants.
Action against against a person on action against the thing also brought against the whole world, is one
the basis of his itself instead of against the brought against persons seeking to subject
personal liability person the property of such persons to the discharge
of the claims assailed. 

summons must be served upon the defendant not for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction but merely for
satisfying the due process requirements
Belen v. Chavez, 549 SCRA 479
An action for the enforcement of a foreign judgment in a complaint for breach of
contract whereby the defendants were ordered to pay the monetary award is in the
nature of an action in personam. In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant who does not voluntarily submit himself to the authority of
the court is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case through
personal service or, if this is not possible and he cannot be personally served,
substituted service as provided in Rule 14, Sections 6-7.

In this case, where the records reveal that the defendants have been permanent
residents of California, U.S.A. since the filing of the action up to the present, service
of summons on their purported address in the Philippines was defective and did not
serve to vest in court jurisdiction over their person. Even if the service of summons
was defective upon non-resident defendants, the appearance of a lawyer impliedly
authorized by the defendants to appear on their behalf, and his filing of numerous
pleadings were sufficient to vest jurisdiction over the persons of said defendants,
and it amounts to voluntary
appearance.

Planters Development Bank v. Chandumal, September 5, 2012

Where the action is in personam and the defendant is in the Philippines, service of
summons may be made through personal service, that is, summons shall be served
by handing to the defendant in person a copy thereof, or if he refuses to receive
and sign for it, by tendering it to him. If the defendant cannot be personally served
with summons within a reasonable time, it is then that substituted service may be
made.

In this case, the sheriff’s return failed to justify a resort to substituted service of
summons. The Return of Summons does not specifically show or indicate in detail
the actual exertion of efforts or any positive step taken by the officer or process
server in attempting to serve the summons personally to the defendant. The return
merely states the alleged whereabouts of the defendant without indicating that
such information was verified from a person who had knowledge thereof.

Biaco v. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank, 515 SCRA 106

In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is

necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case, while in a proceeding in
rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a
prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court provided that the court acquires
jurisdiction over the res.

In this case, the judicial foreclosure proceeding instituted by respondent PCRB

undoubtedly vested the trial court with jurisdiction over the res. A judicial
foreclosure proceeding is an action quasi in rem. As such, jurisdiction over the
person of petitioner is not required, it being sufficient that the trial court is vested
with jurisdiction over the subject matter. However, where the trial court only
 acquired jurisdiction over the res, its jurisdiction is limited to a rendition of
judgment on the res—it cannot extend its jurisdiction beyond the res and issue a
judgment enforcing a party’s personal liability. In doing so without first having
acquired jurisdiction over the person of petitioner, as it did, the trial court violated
her constitutional right to due process, warranting the annulment of the judgment
rendered in the case.

Yu v. Pacleb, et.al., February 24, 2009

A proceeding 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. While in an action quasi in rem, an individual is named as
defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interests therein to
the obligation or loan burdening the property.

An action for specific performance praying for the execution of a deed of sale in
connection with an undertaking in a contract, such as the contract to sell, in this
instance, is an action in personam. Being a judgment in personam, Civil Case No.
741-93 is binding only upon the parties properly impleaded therein and duly heard
or given an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, it cannot bind respondent since he
was not a party therein. Neither can respondent be considered as privy thereto
since his signature and that of his late first wife, Angelita Chan, were forged in the
deed of sale.

3. Type of Actions as to Foundation

3.1.             Personal Action

 All other actions are personal actions (Sec. 2, Rule 4, Rules of Court;
Bar 1994).
 An action for a declaration of the nullity of marriage is a personal action. As
such, it may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal
plaintiffs resides, or where any of the principal defendants resides, at the election of
the plaintiff
 an action to recover possession of a personal property is a personal action.
 An action for specific performance with damages is a personal action as long as it
does not involve a claim of or recovery of ownership of or title to real property

3.2.             Real Action
 An action is ‘real’ when it affects title to or possession of real property, or an
interest therein (Sec. 1, Rule 4, Rules of Court).

Examples: Actions for unlawful detainer, forcible entry, accion publiciana, accion
reinvindicatoria, to quiet title or to remove a cloud on a title are real actions.
  An action is real when it is founded upon the privity of real estate. That means
that realty, or an interest therein is the subject matter of the action.
 Not every action however, involving a real property is a real action because the
realty may only be incidental to the subject matter of the suit.
 To be a ‘real’ action, it is not enough that the action must deal with real property. It
is important that the matter in litigation must also involve any of the following
issues: title to,
o ownership,
o possession,
o partition,
o foreclosure of mortgage,
o or any interest in real property.

o Examples: An action for damages to real property, while involving

realty is a personal action because although it involves real property, it does
not involve any of the issues mentioned.
 An action to recover possession of real property plus damages (like accion
publiciana and damages) is fundamentally a real action because possession of the
real property is involved.
o The aspect of damages is merely an incidental part of the main action,
i.e., recovery of possession of real property.
 the rule on venue in real actions shall be applied even if the recovery of damages is
coupled with the recovery of possession of the realty.

Real Personal
Where a complaint is denominated as one for If the action is denominated as one for specific
specific performance but nonetheless prays for the performance, but the plaintiff actually seeks for the
issuance of a deed of sale for a parcel of land for issuance of a deed of assignment in his favor of certain
the plaintiff to acquire ownership of the land, its shares of stocks to regain ownership and possession of
primary objective and nature is one to recover the said shares, the action is not one for specific
parcel of land performance but a personal action for the recovery of
property
the plaintiff prays that the contract be rescinded and Where the allegations as well as the prayer of the
that the defendant be ordered to return possession complaint do not claim ownership of the lots in question
of the hacienda to the plaintiff, or ask for possession of the same but instead merely
seeks for the execution of a deed of sale by the
defendants

to annul or rescind a sale of real property has as its Where an award of a house and lot to the plaintiff was
fundamental and prime objective the recovery of real unilaterally cancelled, an action that seeks to annul the
property, cancellation of the award

An action to foreclose a real estate mortgage an action to compel the mortgagee to accept payment of
the mortgage debt and to release the mortgage i

“to accept the payment being made” by plaintiff An action to annul a contract of loan and its accessory
for the lot to which the latter contracted to buy on an real
installment basis from the former, to pay plaintiff estate mortgage
compensatory damages and attorney’s fees and to
 enjoin the defendant and his agents from
repossessing the lot in question, is one that affects
title to land because although the immediate remedy
is to compel defendant to accept the tender of
payment allegedly made, it is obvious that this relief
is merely the first step to establish plaintiffs
title to real property.

the main relief sought in the action is the delivery

of the certificate of title, said relief, in turn depends
upon who, between the parties, has a better right to
the lot in question. It

Where the sale is fictitious, with absolutely no

consideration, it should be regarded as a non-existent
contract. There being no contract between the parties,
there is nothing in truth to annul by action. The
action therefore, cannot be an action for annulment
of a sale of a fishpond but one for the recovery of a
fishpond,

Significance of the distinction between a personal and a real action

 for the purpose of determining the venue of the action.
 A real action is ‘local,’ i.e., its venue depends upon the location of the property involved in the
litigation.
 A personal action is ‘transitory,’ i.e., its venue depends upon the residence of the plaintiff or the
defendant. A personal action “may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the
principal plaintiffs resides or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or in the
case of a non-resident defendant, where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff”
 involves the venue of an action, the analysis will necessarily involve the following steps:
o (a) a determination whether the action is real or personal; and (b) an application of the
rules on venue under Rule 4. Rules of Court.

In summary:

(1) An action is real when it affects title to or possession of real property, or an interest
therein. All other actions are personal actions.
(2) An action is real when it is founded upon the privity of real estate, which means that the
realty or an interest therein is the subject matter of the action. The issues involved in real
actions are title to, ownership, possession, partition, foreclosure of mortgage or
condemnation of real property.
(3) Not every action involving real property is a real action because the realty may only be
incidental to the subject matter of the suit. Example is an action for damages to real
property, while involving realty is a personal action because although it involves real
property, it does not involve any of the issues mentioned.
(4) Real actions are based on the privity of real estates; while personal actions are based on
privity of contracts or for the recovery of sums of money.
(5) The distinction between real action and personal action is important for the purpose of
determining the venue of the action. A real action is “local”, which means that its venue
depends upon the location of the property involved in the
United Alloy Philippines Corp., et.al., v. UCPB, January 30, 2017

In general, personal actions must be commenced and tried (i) where the plaintiff or
any of the principal plaintiffs resides, (ii) where the defendant or any of the
principal defendants resides, or (iii) in the case of a resident defendant where he
may be found, at the election of the plaintiff. Nevertheless, the parties may agree in
writing to limit the venue of future actions between them to a specified place.

Paglaum Management v. Union Bank, June 18, 2012

According to the Rules, real actions shall be commenced and tried in the court that
has jurisdiction over the area where the property is situated. In this case, all the
mortgaged properties are located in the Province of Cebu. Thus, following the
general rule, PAGLAUM and HealthTech should have filed their case in Cebu, and
not in Makati.

However, the Rules provide an exception, in that real actions can be commenced
and tried in a court other than where the property is situated in instances where
the parties have previously and validly agreed in writing on the exclusive venue
thereof. In the case at bar, the parties claim that such an agreement exists. The
only dispute is whether the venue that should be followed is that contained in the
Real Estate Mortgages, as contended by Union Bank, or that in the Restructuring
Agreement, as posited by PAGLAUM and HealthTech. This Court rules that the
venue stipulation in the Restructuring Agreement should be controlling.

These provisions of the Real Estate Mortgages and the later Restructuring
Agreement clearly reveal the intention of the parties to implement a restrictive
venue stipulation, which applies not only to the principal obligation, but also to the
mortgages. The phrase “waiving any other venue” plainly shows that the choice of
Makati City as the venue for actions arising out of or in connection with the
Restructuring Agreement and the Collateral, with the Real Estate Mortgages being
explicitly defined as such, is exclusive.
 Even if this Court were to consider the venue stipulations under the Real Estate
Mortgages, it must be underscored that those provisions did not contain words
showing exclusivity or restrictiveness. In fact, in the Real Estate Mortgages dated 11
February 1994, the phrase “parties hereto waiving” – from the entire phrase “the
parties hereto waiving any other venue” – was stricken from the final executed
contract. Following the ruling in Sps. Lantin as earlier quoted, in the absence of
qualifying or restrictive words, the venue stipulation should only be deemed as an
agreement on an additional forum, and not as a restriction on a specified place

3. Cause of Action

 A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates the rights of
another (Sec. 2, Rule 2, Rules of Court)
 It is the delict or wrong by which the defendant violates the right or rights of the
plaintiff 
 Without a cause of action, one cannot seek judicial relief for a violation of one’s
rights because every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action [Sec.
1, Rule 2]
 “the fact or combination of facts which affords a party a right to judicial interference in his
behalf’
 When cause of action is required -Sec. 1, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court requires
that every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action
 Note that the rule makes no reference to a special civil action.

Ubas, Sr. v. Chan, February 6, 2017

Cause of action is defined as the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another.
It is well- settled that the existence of a cause of action is determined by the allegations in the
complaint. In this case, petitioner’s cause of action is anchored on his claim that respondent
personally entered into a contract with him for the delivery of construction materials
amounting to P1,500,000.00, which was, however, left unpaid. He also avers that respondent
is guilty of fraud in the performance of said obligation because the subject checks issued to
him by respondent were dishonored on the ground of stop payment. As proof, petitioner
offered in evidence, among others, the demand letter he sent to respondent detailing the
serial numbers of the checks that were issued by the latter, including the dates and amounts
thereof. He also offered the dishonored checks which were in his possession.

4.1.             Elements of cause of action

1. A right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it
arises or is created;
2. An obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to
violate such right; and
3. Act or omission on the part of such defendant in violation of the right of the
plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the
plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of
damages or other appropriate relief
  Although the first two elements may exist , a cause of action arises
only upon the occurrence of the last element, giving the plaintiff the
right to maintain an action in court for recovery of damages or other
appropriate relief
 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.

 NCC 19 - legal may nevertheless become the source of liability and may result
in the violation of another person’s right

Relucio v. Lopez, 373 SCRA 578

A cause of action is an act or omission of one party the defendant in violation of the
legal right of the other.” The elements of a cause of action are: (1) a right in favor of
the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an
obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right;
and (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant in violation of the right of
the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff
for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages.

Juana Complex I HOA v. Fil-Estate Land, March 5, 2012

Section 2, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court defines a cause of action as an act or omission
by which a party violates the right of another. A complaint states a cause of action
when it contains three (3) essential elements of a cause of action, namely: (1) the
legal right of the plaintiff, (2) the correlative obligation of the defendant, and (3) the
act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right.

In the present case, the Court finds the allegations in the complaint sufficient to
establish a cause of action. First, JCHA, et al.’s averments in the complaint show a
demandable right over La Paz Road. Second, there is an alleged violation of such right
committed by Fil-Estate, et al. when they excavated the road and prevented the
commuters and motorists from using the same. Third, JCHA, et al. consequently
suffered injury and that a valid judgment could have been rendered in accordance
with the relief sought therein

4.2.             Cause of action vis-à-vis Right 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)

cause of action right of action

the delict or wrong committed by the right of the plaintiff to institute the
defendants action
determined by the pleadings determined by the substantive law
Not affected by SL, E and other may be taken away by the running of
circumstances the statute of limitations, by
estoppels or other circumstances

action cause of action

is the suit filed in court for the
enforcement or protection of a right, or the basis of the action filed
the prevention or redress of a wrong

4.3.             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.
[Heirs of Maramag v. Maramag, G.R. No. 181132 (2009)]
 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 ncourse of hearings related to the case [Heirs of
Maramag v. Maramag, G.R. No.181132 (2009)]

Diaz, Jr. v. Valenciano, Jr., December 6, 2017

In Bachrach Corporation v. CA, to ascertain the identity of causes of action, the test
is to look into whether or not the same evidence fully supports and establishes both
the present and the former causes of action. If the answer is in the affirmative, the
former judgment would be a bar; otherwise, that prior judgment would not serve as
such a bar to the subsequent action.

However, in this case where a person occupies the land of another at the latter’s
tolerance or permission, without any contract between them, what must be· proven is
that such possession is by mere tolerance, and that there was a breach of implied
promise to vacate the land upon demand.
 The refusal to comply with the earlier demand letter sent to Salvador, Sr. creates a
different cause of action different from the one created by the refusal to comply with
the second demand letter by Salvador, Sr. The first deals with possession by mere
tolerance while the second refers to possession by tolerance which only arose when
they neglected to execute the earlier judgment.

BSP v. Legaspi, March 2, 2016

In Fluor Daniel, Inc.-Philippines v. E.B. Villarosa and Partners Co., Ltd., this Court ruled
that in determining the sufficiency of a cause of action, the courts should also
consider the attachments to the complaint thus:

We have ruled that a complaint should not be dismissed for insufficiency of cause of
action if it appears clearly from the complaint and its attachments that the plaintiff is
entitled to relief. The converse is also true. The complaint may be dismissed for lack
of cause of action if it is obvious from the complaint and its annexes that the plaintiff
is not entitled to any relief.

Hence, being an annex to BSP's complaint, the tax declaration showing the assessed
value of the property is deemed a part of the complaint and should be considered
together with it in determining that the RTC has exclusive original jurisdiction

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 [Manaloto
v. Veloso III, G.R. No. 171635 (2010)]

Exception:
Instances when the SC considered matters aside from the facts alleged in the
complaint, such as:
a. Documents attached to the complaint [Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries
Association v. Nicolas, G.R. No. 168394 (2008)] – this case refers to actionable
documents which by express provision of the ROC are deemed part of the
pleading.
b. Appended annexes, other pleadings, and admissions on record [Zepeda v. China
Banking Corp., G.R. No. 172175 (2006)] – the jurisprudence establishing this
supposed exception ultimately points to dismissals based on a lack of a cause of
action, opposed to a failure of the complaint to state a cause of action.

4.4.             Failure to state cause of action as distinguished from 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)]

Asia Brewery Inc. v. Equitable PCI, April 25, 2017

If the Complaint fails to state a cause of action, a motion to dismiss must be made
before a responsive pleading is filed; and the issue can be resolved only on the basis
of the allegations in the initiatory pleading. On the other hand, if the Complaint lacks
a cause of action, the motion to dismiss must be filed after the plaintiff has rested its
case

Butuan Development Corp. v. CA, April 5, 2017

Failure to state a cause of action is different from lack of cause of action. Failure to
state a cause of action refers to the insufficiency of the pleading, and is a ground for
dismissal under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. On the other hand, lack of cause action
refers to a situation where the evidence does not prove the cause of action alleged in
the pleading. The remedy in the first is to move for the dismissal of the pleading, while
the remedy in the second is to demur to the evidence.

Guillermo v. Philippine Information Agency, March 15, 2017

It is well to point out that the plaintiff's cause of action should not merely be "stated"
but, importantly, the statement thereof should be "sufficient." This is why the
elementary test in a motion to dismiss on such ground is whether or not the complaint
alleges facts which if true would justify the relief demanded. As a corollary, it has
been held that only ultimate facts and not legal conclusions or evidentiary facts are
considered for purposes of applying the test. This is consistent with Section 1, Rule 8
of the Rules of Court which states that the complaint need only allege the ultimate
facts or the essential facts constituting the plaintiffs cause of action. A fact is essential
if they cannot be stricken out without leaving the statement of the cause of action
inadequate. Since the inquiry is into the sufficiency, not the veracity, of the material
allegations, it follows that the analysis should be confined to the four comers of the
complaint, and no other. Thus, to determine the sufficiency of a cause of action in a
motion to dismiss, only the facts alleged in the complaint should be considered, in
relation to whether its prayer may be granted.
4.5.             Joinder and Misjoinder of causes of action
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
 The plaintiff asserts numerous causes of action in one pleading
 The causes of action are against the opposing party
 The party joining the causes of action complies with the rules on joinder of
parties under Sec 6, Rule 3, and
 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

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)]
 4.6.             Splitting a single cause of action and its effect

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 [Dynamic Builders & Construction
Co Inc v. Presbitero, Jr. G.R. No. 174202 (2015)]

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]

Goodland Co. v. AUB, March 14, 2012

The Court in Mondragon Leisure and Resorts Corporation v. United Coconut
Planters Bank provides that there is forum shopping when the following elements are
present:

(a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in
both actions[;]
 (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on
the same facts[;] and
(c) the identity of the two preceding particulars[,] such that any judgment
rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful,
amount to res judicata in the action underconsideration; said requisites
[are] also constitutive of the requisites for auter action pendant or lis
pendens."

All the foregoing elements are present in this case. There can be no dispute that the
prayer for relief in the two cases was based on the same attendant facts in the
execution of REMs over petitioner's properties in favor of AUB. There is also identity
of parties notwithstanding that in the first case, only one bank officer (Co), the notary
public (Pelicano) and the Register of Deeds were impleaded along with AUB as
defendants, whereas in the second case, AUB and its two officers (Chan and Del
Mundo), along with the RTC Clerk of Court (Escasinas, Jr.), Sheriff (Magsajo) and
the Register of Deeds of Makati City (Ortile) were the named defendants. The parties
in both cases are substantially the same as they represent the same interests and
offices/positions, and who were impleaded in their respective capacities with
corresponding liabilities/duties under the claims asserted. With respect to identity of
cause of action, a cause of action is defined in Section 2, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court
as the act or omission by which a party violates the right of another.

PNB v. Gateway Property Holdings, February 15, 2012

Carlet v. Court of Appeals states that:

As regards identity of causes of action, the test often used in determining whether
causes of action are identical is to ascertain whether the same evidence which is
necessary to sustain the second action
would have been sufficient to authorize a recovery in the first, even if the forms or
nature of the two actions be different. If the same facts or evidence would sustain
both actions, the two actions are
considered the same within the rule that the judgment in the former is a bar to the
subsequent action; otherwise, it is not.

In the case at bar, a perusal of the allegations in Civil Case Nos. TM-1022
(Annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage) and TM-1108 (Annulment of the
Foreclosure Sale) reveal that the said cases invoke the same fundamental issue, i.e.,
the temporary nature of the security that was to be provided by the mortgaged
properties of GPHI. To repeat, in the original complaint in Civil Case No. TM-1022
(Annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage), GPHI's main argument was that the
agreement between GEC and PNB was that the mortgaged properties of GPHI would
merely stand as temporary securities pending the outcome of Civil Case No. 98-782,
the case filed by GEC against LBP.

 
5. Parties

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

Who may be parties

Natural persons [Sec. 1, Rule 3]

Juridical persons [Sec. 1, Rule 3]
- The State and its political subdivisions
- Other corporations, institutions and entities for public interest or public purpose, created by
law, and
- 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 [Art. 44, Civil Code]

Entities authorized by law [Sec. 1, Rule 3]

• A corporation by estoppel is precluded from denying its existence, and the members are liable as
general partners [Sec. 21, Corporation Code]
• A partnership with capital of at least P3,000 which fails to comply with the registration requirements is
liable as a partnership to third persons [Arts. 1768, 1772, Civil Code]
• The estate of a deceased person is a juridical entity that has a personality of its own [Nazareno v. C.A.,
G.R. No. 138842 (2000), citing Limjoco v. Intestate Estate of Fragrante, G.R. No. L-770 (1948)]
• A legitimate labor union may sue and be sued in its registered name [Art. 251(e), Labor Code]
 The Roman Catholic Church may be a party; as to its properties, the Archbishop of diocese to which
they belong may be a party [Barlin v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 2832 (1906);Versoza v. Fernandez, G.R. No.
32276(1930)]
 A dissolved corporation may prosecute and defend suits by or against it provided that the suits (i) occur
within three (3) years after its dissolution, an (ii) the suits are in connection with the
 settlement and closure of its affairs [Sec. 139, Revised Corporation Code] [1 Riano 214, 2016 Bantam
Ed.]
• Two or more persons not organized as an entity with juridical personality but enter into a transaction
[Sec. 15, Rule 3]

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]

5.1.             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. [Rayo v. Metrobank, G.R. No. 165142 (2007)]

It should be material and direct, as distinguished from a mere incidental interest

[Mayor Rhustom Dagadag v. Tongnawa, G.R. No. 161166-67 (2005)]

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

a. Amendment of pleadings [Alonso v.Villamor, G.R. No. L-2352 (1910)]; or
b. 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)]

5.2.             Indispensable Party; Necessary Party; Representatives as parties; Indigent

party; Alternative Defendants
A real party-in-interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action
[Sec. 7, Rule 3]

An indispensable party is one whose interest in the subject matter of the suit and the
relief sought are so inextricably intertwined with the other parties that his legal
presence as a party to the proceeding is an absolute necessity. [Benedicto-Munoz v.
Cacho-Olivares, G.R. No. 179121 (2015)]
A party is not indispensable if his interest in the controversy or subject matter is
distinct and divisible from the interest of the other parties and will not necessarily be
prejudiced by a judgment which does not complete justice to the parties in court.
[Benedicto-Munoz v. Cacho-Olivares, G.R. No. 179121 (2015)]

iii. Representatives as Parties

A representative may be a trustee of an express trust, a guardian, an executor or

administrator, or a party authorized by law or the ROC. [Sec. 3, Rule 3]

Beneficiary to be included in the title of the case

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.
[Sec. 3, Rule 3]

Minor or incompetent person as party

A minor or a person alleged to be incompetent may sue or be sued, with the assistance
of his father, mother, guardian, or if he has none, a guardian ad litem. [Sec. 5, Rule 3]

iv. Necessary Parties

A necessary party is not one who is indispensable but, rather, one who ought to be
joined as a party if complete relief is to be accorded as to those already parties, or for
a complete determination or settlement of the
claim subject of the action. [Sec. 8, Rule 3]
Summary of rules for indigent litigants
If the applicant for exemption meets the salary and property requirements under
Sec. 19 of Rule 141, then the grant of the application is mandatory.

On the other hand, when the application does not satisfy one or both requirements,
then the application should not be denied outright; instead, the court should apply the
"indigency test" under Sec. 21, Rule 3 and use its sound discretion in determining the
merits of the prayer for exemption. [Sps. Algura v. City of Naga, G.R. No. 150135
(2006)]

vi. Alternative Defendants

Where the plaintiff is uncertain against whom of several persons he is entitled to

relief, he may join any or all of them in the alternative, although a right to relief
against one may be inconsistent with a right to relief against the other [Sec. 13, Rule
3]

5.3.             Compulsory and Permissive Joinder of parties

General Rule:
The joinder of parties is permissive

Exception:
It is compulsory when the one involved is an indispensable party.
[Crisologo v. JEWN Agro-Industrial Corporation, G.R. No. 196894 (2014)]

i. Compulsory Joinder

Parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action (i.e.
indispensable parties) shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. [Sec. 7, Rule
3]

Effect of non-joinder of indispensable parties

The absence of an indispensable party renders
all subsequent actions of the trial court null and void for want of authority to act,
not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present. [Moldes v. Villanueva,
G.R. No. 161955 (2012)]

Failure to implead an indispensable party is not a ground for dismissal of an action, as

the remedy in such a case is to implead the party claimed to be indispensable,
considering that the parties may be added by order of the court, on motion of the
party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action. [Galido v. Magrare, G.R. No.
206584 (2016)]

Effect of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties; when ordered by the court

It is when the order of the court to implead an indispensable party goes unheeded
that the case may be dismissed. The court has authority to dismiss a complaint due
 to the fault of the plaintiff when he does not comply with any order of the court
[Plasabas v. CA, G.R. No. 166519 (2009)]

Effect of non-joinder of necessary parties

Non-joinder of a necessary party does not prevent the court from proceeding in the
action. The judgment rendered therein shall not prejudice the rights of such
necessary party [Sec. 9, par. 3, Rule 3]

Remedy in case of non-joinder of necessary parties

When a pleading asserting a claim omits to join
a necessary party, the pleader must:
k. Set forth the name of the necessary party, if known, and
l. State the reason why he is omitted [Sec. 9, par. 1, Rule 3]

Should the court find the reason for the non- joinder of a necessary party
unmeritorious, it may order the inclusion of such necessary party, if jurisdiction over
his person may be obtained. Failure to comply with such order without justifiable
cause shall be deemed a waiver of the claim against such party [Sec. 9, pars. 1-2,
Rule 3]

ii. Permissive Joinder

All persons in whom or against whom any right to relief in respect to or arising out of
the same transaction or series of transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly,
severally, or in the alternative, may except as otherwise provided in these Rules, join
as plaintiffs or be joined as defendants in one complaint, where any question of law
or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in the action;
but the court may make such orders as may be just to prevent any plaintiff or
defendant from being embarrassed or put to expense in connection with any
proceedings in which he may have no interest [Sec. 6, Rule 3]

Requisites
c. The right to relief arises out of the same transaction or series of transactions;
d. There is a question of law or fact common to all the plaintiffs or defendants; and
e. Such joinder is not otherwise proscribed by the provisions of the ROC on jurisdiction
and venue [1 Regalado 91, 2010 Ed.]

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. One of the conditions for such
joinder of causes of action is that the party joining the causes of action shall comply
with the rules on joinder of parties. [Sec. 5, Rule 2]

5.4.             Misjoinder and Non-Joinder of Parties

Misjoinder
When one is made a party to the action although he should not be impleaded. [1
Riano 285, 2014 Bantam Ed.]
 Non-joinder
When one is supposed to be joined but is not impleaded in the action. [1 Riano 285,
2014 Bantam Ed.]

Effect of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties

Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is a ground for dismissal of an action
[Sec. 11, Rule 3]

Objections to defects in parties

Objections should be made at the earliest opportunity. Thus, objections to misjoinder
cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. [Lapanday Agricultural & Development
Corporation v. Estita, G.R. No. 162109 (2005)]

5.5.             Class Suit

Requisites
a. Subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general interest to many
persons;
b. The persons are so numerous that it is impracticable to join them all as parties;
c. The court finds a number of them sufficiently numerous and representative of the
class as to fully protect the interests of all concerned; and
d. The representative sues or defends for the benefit of all. [Sec. 12, Rule 3]

Only general interest in the subject matter

of litigation required
A class suit does not require a commonality of interest in the questions involved in
the suit. What is required by the Rules is a common or general interest in the subject
matter of the litigation [Mathay v. Consolidated Bank & Trust Company, G.R. No. L-
23136 (1974)]

Right to intervene
In a class suit, any party in interest shall have the right to intervene to protect his
individual interest [Sec. 12, Rule 3]

No dismissal upon the instance of plaintiff or due to compromise

A class suit shall not be dismissed or
compromised without the approval of the court [Sec. 2, Rule 17]

Examples of Class Suits

m. Taxpayer’s suit
A taxpayer's suit or a stockholder's derivative suit is in the nature of a class suit,
although subject to the other requisites of the corresponding governing law
especially on the issue of locus standi [1 Regalado 99, 2010 Ed.]

n. Derivative suit
A derivative suit is an action brought by a stockholder on behalf of the corporation to
enforce corporate rights against the corporation’s directors, officers or other insiders.
Under the Revised Corporation Code, the directors or officers, as provided under the
by-laws, have the right to decide whether or not a corporation should sue. Since
these directors or officers will never be willing to sue themselves, or impugn their
wrongful or fraudulent decisions, stockholders are permitted by law to bring an
action in the name of the corporation to hold these directors and officers
accountable. In derivative suits, the real party in interest is the corporation, while the
stockholder is a mere nominal party [Ang v. Ang, G.R. No. 201675 (2013)]

Not a Class Suit

There is no class suit in an action filed by associations of sugar planters to recover
damages on behalf of individual planters for an
allegedly libelous article in an international magazine. There is no common or
general interest in the reputation of a specific individual. Each of the sugar planters
has a separate and distinct reputation in the community not shared by the others
[Newsweek, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 63559 (1986)]

There is no class suit in an action for damages filed by the relatives of the fatalities in
a plane crash. There is no common or general interest in the injuries or death of all
passengers in the plane. Each has a distinct and separate interest which must be
proven individually [1 Riano 244, 2016 Bantam Ed.]

5.6.             Suits against entities without juridical personality

Requisites
a. There are 2 or more persons not organized as a juridical entity; and
b. They enter into a transaction. [Sec. 15, Rule 3]

Persons associated in an entity without juridical personality may be sued under the
name by which they are generally or commonly known. [Sec. 15, Rule 3]

Note: The authority to be a party under Sec. 15, Rule 3 is confined only to being a
defendant and not as a plaintiff. This is evident from the words, “they may be used”
[1 Riano 265, 2014 Bantam Ed.]

When persons associated in an entity without juridical personality are sued, the
service of summons may be effected upon all the defendants by serving upon any of
them, or upon the person in charge of the office or place of business maintained
under such name. [Sec. 7, Rule 14]

5.7.             Effect of death of a litigant

Duty of counsel upon death of client

o. Inform court of such fact within 30 days after the death; and
p. Give the name and address of the legal
representative. [Sec. 16, Rule 3]

Effect of failure to comply

Failure to comply is a ground for disciplinary action [Sec. 16, Rule 3]
 Action of court upon notice of death
Upon receipt of notice, the court shall determine if the claim is extinguished by such
death.
f. Claim does not survive: substitution would not be ordered
g. Claim survives: the court shall order the legal representative of the deceased to
appear and be substituted for him within 30 days [Sec. 16, Rule 3]
[1 Riano 286, 2014 Bantam Ed., suggesting Aguas v. Llemos, G.R. No. L-18107 (1962)]

Survival of Action
Survival depends on the nature of the action
and the damage sought.

Court may order the opposing party, within a

specific time, to procure the appointment of an administrator or executor of the
estate in the ff. cases
q. No legal representative is named; or
r. The one so named fails to appear within the specified period. [Sec. 16, Rule 3]

Substitution

Summons not necessary

The substitute defendant need not be summoned. The order of substitution shall be
served upon the parties substituted for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the
substitute party [Ferreria v. Vda de Gonzales, G.R. No. L- 11567 (1986)]
Effect of failure to order substitution Results in failure to acquire jurisdiction over
the representative or heirs of the deceased party. Consequently, any judgment
rendered against such deceased party shall be null and void for lack of jurisdiction
over the persons of the legal representative or of the heirs upon whom the trial and
the judgment would be binding [The Heirs of Vda. De Haberer v. Court of Appeals,
et al., G.R. Nos. L-42699 to L-2709 (1981)]

Rule in case of death or separation of party who is a public officer

The action may be continued or maintained by or against his successor [Sec. 17, Rule
3] Requisites:
h. A public officer is a party to an action in his official capacity;
i. During the pendency of the action, he dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold
office;
j. Within 30 days after the successor takes office or such time as may be granted by
the court, any party shows to the satisfaction of the court, that
• there is a substantial need for continuing or maintaining such action; and
• the successor adopts or continues his predecessor’s action, or threatens to
do so
k. Before a substitution is made, the party or officer to be affected shall be
given

reasonable notice of the application

therefor and accorded an opportunity to be heard UNLESS he expressly assents
thereto
[Sec. 17, Rule 3]

Action on contractual money claims

Shall not be dismissed but shall instead be allowed to continue until entry of final
judgment [Sec. 20, Rule 3]

Requisites
a. Action is for recovery of money,
b. The claim arose from express or implied contract, and
c. Defendant dies before the entry of final judgment in the court in which the
action was pending. [Sec. 20, Rule 3]

Effect
If the plaintiff obtains a favorable judgment, said judgment shall be enforced
following the procedure provided for in the ROC for prosecuting claims against the
estate of a deceased person [Sec. 20, Rule 3] He/She is not supposed to file a motion
for the issuance of an order and writ of execution of the
judgment [1 Riano 201, 2014 Bantam Ed.]

5.8.             Incompetency or Incapacity of Party

5.9.             Transfer in interest

5.10.          Role of the Solicitor General

6. Venue

Venue refers to the place where a civil action may be tried; in civil cases, it essentially concerns a
rule of procedure which looks primarily at the convenience of the litigants. [Gumabon, et al. v.
Larin, G.R. No. 142523, (2001)]

In civil cases, it is a procedural matter and not jurisdictional, as compared to criminal cases,
where the venue is jurisdictional.

Venue relates only to the place of trial or the geographical location in which an action or
proceeding should be brought. It is intended to accord convenience to the parties and does not
equate to the jurisdiction of the court. [Dolot v. Paje, G.R. 199199 (2013)]

Choosing the venue of an action is not left entirely to a plaintiff’s caprice; the matter is
regulated by the ROC. [Ang v. Sps. Ang, G.R.
No. 186993 (2012)]

On dismissal based on improper venue

Improper venue is no longer one of the grounds for a motion to dismiss under the Amended
Rules. However, the ground of the venue being improperly laid is one of those that may be set as
an Affirmative Defense in the answer. The failure to raise the affirmative defense in the answer
will constitute a waiver of such. [Sec 12, Rule 8]

However, the court may make a motu proprio dismissal for improper venue, inter alia, in actions
covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure [Sec. 4], Rule of Procedure for Small Claims cases
[Sec. 9], and in ejectment cases. [Sec. 5, Rule 70]

6.1.             Venue vis-à-vis Jurisdiction

6.2.             Venue of real actions

Real actions shall be commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction
over the area wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof is situated.

Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced and tried in the municipal
court of the municipality or city wherein the real property involved, or a portion
thereof, is situated.
[Sec. 1, Rule 4]

The rule, in its simplified form, means that if the action is real, the action is local, as
opposed to transitory, and the venue is the place where the real property involved,
or any portion thereof, is situated. [1 Riano 151, 2016 Bantam Ed.]

Where the subject-matter of the action involves various parcels of land situated in
different provinces, the venue is determined by the singularity or plurality of the
transactions involving said parcels of land. Thus, where said parcels are the objects of
one and the same transaction, the venue is in the court of any of the provinces
wherein a parcel of land is situated. [1 Regalado 118, 2010 Ed., citing El
Hogar Filipino v. Seva, G.R. No. 36627 (1932)]

6.3.             Venue of personal actions

All other actions may be commenced and tried,

at the plaintiff’s election:
a. Where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or
b. Where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or
c. In case of a non-resident defendant, where he may be found. [Sec. 2, Rule 4]

The plaintiff or the defendant must be residents of the place where the action has
been instituted at the time the action is commenced [Ang v. Sps. Ang, G.R. No.
186993 (2012)]

Definition of residence
The term “resides” as employed in the rule means the place of abode, whether
permanent or temporary, of the plaintiff or defendant, as distinguished from
“domicile” which denotes a fixed permanent residence to which, when absent, one
has the intention of returning. [Dangwa Transportation Company v. Sarmiento, G.R.
No. L-22795 (1977)]

The residence of a person is his personal, actual or physical habitation or his actual
residence or place of abode, which may not necessarily be his legal residence or
domicile provided he resides therein with continuity and consistency [Boleyley v.
Villanueva, G.R. No. 128734 (1999)]
 A corporation cannot be allowed to file personal actions in a place other than its
principal place of business unless such place is also the residence of a co-plaintiff or
defendant. [Davao Light v. CA, G.R. No.
111685 (2001)]

6.4.             Venue of actions against non-resident defendants

Non-resident found in the Philippines

s. Personal action: where the nonresident defendant may be found, as authorized by
Sec. 2, Rule 4, but with an additional alternative venue, i.e., the residence of any of
the principal plaintiffs, pursuant to Secs. 2 and 3, Rule 4. [1 Regalado 121, 2010
Ed.]
t. Real action: in the proper court which has
jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof is
situated. [Sec. 1, Rule 4]

Non-resident not found in the Philippines, and the action affects:

l. Personal status of plaintiff – where
plaintiff resides, or
m. Property of defendant in the Philippines
– where the property, or any portion thereof, is situated or found [Sec. 3, Rule 4]

6.5.             When rule is not applicable

 
  d. When the Rules on Venue Do Not Apply

a. Cases where a specific rule or law provides otherwise; examples:

1. Quo warranto proceeding commenced by the Solicitor General, [Sec. 7, Rule 66]
• The action may be brought in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or in a Regional
Trial Court in the City of Manila.
2. Petition for a continuing writ of
mandamus, and [Sec. 2, Rule 8, Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases]
• The petition shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the
territory where the actionable neglect or omission occurred or with the Court of Appeals or
the Supreme Court.
3. Civil and criminal action for damages in written defamation. [Art. 360, RPC]
• Note that for written defamations, the default venue would be the
place where the libelous article is