RULES 1-5 1

RULES OF COURT for the recovery of the whole indebtedness. That is a

Took effect: July 1, 1997 violation of a principle under the Civil Code which says
Parts: CivPro, SCA, SpecPro, CrimPro, Evid, Legal Ethics that when there is solidary relationship between two
Revised Rules of Court 1964 debtors, the creditor is given by the CC the authority to
file a complaint against any one of the solidary debtors
Rule-making power of the SC
Pursuant to the provisions of sec 5(5) of Art. VIII of the for the recovery of the whole indebtedness.
Constitution, vesting in it the
1. power to promulgate rules pleading, practice and Retroactive application of ROC
procedure in all courts, Gen. Rule: Procedural rules are prospective in
2. power to promulgate rules concerning the protection application.
and enforcement of constitutional rights, Exception: Rules may be made applicable to pending
3. power to promulgate rules concerning the admission actions and are deemed retroactive in that sense like
to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal our ROC (Rule 144)
assistance to the underprivileged. Exception to the exception: when in the opinion of the
4. power to disapprove rules of procedure of special court their application would not be feasible or would
courts and quasi-judicial bodies work injustice, in w/c event former procedure will apply.
And impliedly from the foregoing powers:
5. power to amend, repeal or even establish new rules; Retroactive application of rules of procedure cannot be
(Consti took away the power of Congress to repeal, violative of any personal rights because in the first place
amend, or supplement rules concerning the no vested right may attach to nor arise therefrom.
foregoing)
6. power to overturn judicial precedents on points of Substantive vs Remedial
remedial law through amendment of ROC.
7. Power to relax or suspend technical or Remedial law or Procedural law
procedural rules or to except a case from their provides a method of enforcing the rights established by
operation when compelling reasons so warrant the substantive law or obtaining redress for their invasion;
suspension or when the purpose of justice requires it.
Example of instances: Substantive law
a. Most persuasive and weighty reasons that part of the law which creates, defines and regulates
b. To relieve litigant from injustice not rights concerning life, liberty, or property, or the powers of
commensurate w/ his failure to comply w/ agencies or instrumentalities for the administration of
prescribe procedure public affairs
c. Good faith of the defaulting party
d. Special or compelling circumstances RULE 1
e. Merits of the case
f. Cause not entirely attributable to his fault or GENERAL PROVISIONS
negligence
g. Lack of showing that it is merely frivolous and Section 2. In what courts applicable.
dilatory
h. Other party will not be unjustly prejudiced Section 3. Cases governed.
i. FAMEN w/o fault The definition of a civil action does not require a prior
j. Peculiar legal and equitable circumstances
violation of a right so that the rightholder may have a
attendant to each case
k. Substantial justice and fair play justification to go to court. In defining civil action, ROC
l. Exercise of sound discretion by the judge do not use the definition of cause of action which
guided by all the attendant circumstances ( requires violation of right
Labao v. Flores 2010)
Civil Actions vs Special Proceedings
Limitations on the rule-making power of the SC
Sec 5(5) of Art. VIII: parties Involves 2 or more Involves at least
1. the rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive parties 1 party or 2 or
procedure for speedy disposition of cases; more parties in
2. the rules shall be uniform for courts of the same proper cases
grade; and cause of Involves a right and a May involve a
3. the rules shall not diminish, increase or modify action violation of such right right, but there
substantive rights. by the defendant need not be a
which causes some violation of this
we cannot simply say that the ROC is no longer damage/prejudice right
procedural simply because there are certain sections upon the plaintiff
that speak about substantive matters formalities Requires the Requires no
application of legal such formalities,
a provision of the ROC which violates substantive law -- remedies in as it may be
rule that when a person dies and then there is a accordance with the granted upon
settlement proceeding and the deceased is a solidary prescribed rules application
debtor together with another one who is still alive, it is governing Ordinary rules of Special rules of
the duty of the creditor to file a claim against the estate rules procedure procedure
 RULES 1-5 2

appeal Cannot be directly Can be

from an and immediately immediately and LOCAL ACTIONS AND TRANSITORY ACTIONS
interlocuto appealed to the directly Relevance: venue
ry order appellate court until appealed to the
Local action Transitory action
after final judgment on appellate court
One that could be One that could be
the merits
instituted in one specific prosecuted in any one of
place several places
Venue depends upon the venue depends upon the
PERSONAL ACTIONS AND REAL ACTIONS
location of the property residence of the plaintiff
Importance: Rule 4 venue involved in the litigation or the defendant at the
Basis: privity on kind of property involved option of the plaintiff

Real Actions: Actions affecting title to or possession of

real property, or interest therein. [Rule 4, Sec. 1 par 1] ACTIONS IN REM, IN PERSONAM AND QUASI IN REM
Importance: Rule 14 Summons; Rule 39 execution
Personal Actions: All other actions are personal actions. Basis: binding effect of the judgment
[Rule 4, Sec.2]
NOTE: Not every action involving a real property is a In Personam Action in Rem Quasi in Rem
real action because the realty may only be incidental to
Directed Directed against the Directed against
the subject matter of the suit. It is important that the
against thing itself particular persons
matter in litigation must also involve any of the following
particular
issues: title to, ownership, possession, or any interest in
persons
real property. (Riano)
Jurisdiction Jurisdiction over the Jurisdiction over the
over the person person of the person of the
Real action Personal action Mixed action
of the defendant is NOT defendant is not
Ownership or Personal Both real and
defendant is required required as long as
possession of property is personal
required jurisdiction over the
real property is sought to be properties are
res is acquired
involved recovered or involved
An action to A proceeding to A
damages for
impose determine the proceeding to
breach of
responsibility or state/condition of a subject the interest
contract or the
liability upon a thing of a named
enforcement of a
person directly defendant over a
contract are
particular property to
sought
an obligation/lien
Founded on Founded on Founded on both
burdening it
privity of real privity of contract
Deal with
estate
the status,
Filed in the court Filed in the court The rules on
ownership or liability
where the where the venue of real
of a particular
property (or any plaintiff or any of actions govern
property but which
portion thereof) the defendants
are intended to
is situated resides, at the
operate on these
plaintiffs option
questions only as
Ex: publiciana; Ex: money Accion
between the
reinvindicatoria; claims, specific Reinvindicatoria
particular parties to
reconveyance; performance, w/ claim for
the proceedings and
partition; replevin damages
not to ascertain or
foreclosure of
cut-off the rights or
mortgage;
interest of all
quieting of title,
possible claimants
ejectment
[Domagas v. Jensen
(2005)]
An action
in personam
concerning real prop
is quasi in rem
 RULES 1-5 3

Judgment is Judgment is binding Judgment is binding for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the attached
binding only on the whole world upon particular properties in case defendant cannot be served w/
upon parties persons summons. The judgment will be limited to value of
impleaded or property attached. Court cannot order the defendant to
their pay the plaintiff.
successors in
interest Reconversion - If the defendant answers the
complaint or files an appeal, the case is reconverted
EXAMPLES: into in personam. The court can order defendant to
pay.
Personam:
specific performance; There must be actual subjection of a property to
money claims attachment before the publication of the summons will
interdictal (Domagas vs. Jensen 2005) enable the court to acquire jurisdiction over the res.

Section 4. In what case not applicable.

In Rem:
annulment of marriage; Section 5. Commencement of action.
naturalization There are certain civil actions usually SCA which are
habeas data not commenced by a filing of a complaint. Instead, we
land registration
file for a petition.
probate of will
forfeiture proceeding
recognition of child Cases are deemed filed only upon payment of docket
expropriation fee regardless of actual date of filing of the complaint.
amparo
habeas data Section 6. Construction. liberally in favor of just,
custody of children speedy, and inexpensive disposition of cases
injuction
Exception: when public policy requires it be applied
Habeas corpus (SC: although does not have the strictly, like reglementary periods on appeal.
features of other SpecPro such as no respondent, it is within the inherent power of the SC (not other
there is publication, it is still in rem purpose is to courts) to suspend its own rules in a particular case in
determine state of a thing produce the body) order to do justice.
Generally, SpecPro are in rem since there is no
respondent, and there is requisite of publication.
Exception: Reversion proceeding there is plaintiff
Republic, there is defendant- one who acquired CIVIL ACTIONS
property in violation of laws. A civil action w/ element ORDINARY CIVIL ACTIONS
of escheat.
RULE 2
Quasi in rem: CAUSE OF ACTION
partition;
foreclosure of real estate mortgage Section 1. Ordinary civil actions, basis of.
right of easement
Does not mean that all SCAs do not require cause of
attachment
action
reivindicatoria
publiciana Example of SCA w/c does not require cause of action:
reconveyance Interpleader, declaratory relief, expropriation, and
quieting of title partition.
replevin One of the grounds for motion to dismiss is that the
pleading states no cause of action (Rule 16).
An action in rem could be either real or personal action in
the same way that an action in personam could also be Section 2. Cause of action, defined.
real or personal.
Example of personal action in rem probate of a will
Swagman v CA 2005: A complaint whose action has
involving personal prop and cash, recognition of child
not yet accrued cannot be cured or remedied by an
amended or supplemental pleading The curing
Example of real action in personam reinvindicatoria,
effect under Rule 10 Sec 5 is applicable only if a cause
interdictal
of action in fact exists at the time the complaint is filed,
but the complaint is defective for failure to allege the
Converting action in personam to quasi in rem
essential facts. If there is no cause of action that has
through preliminary attachment (Rule 57) purpose:
 RULES 1-5 4

yet accrued and a complaint is filed, the court will have Cause of action Right of action
no authority to decide even if it matures and becomes delict or wrong right of plaintiff to institute
defaulted during the trial of the case. Ex. loan w/ committed; the action
installment. Remedy: filing a new complaint not Reason for the action Remedy or means for relief
supplemental pleading because there could be violation created by substantive regulated by procedural
of jurisdiction. law; law
not affected by may be taken away by
3 Main Elements of Cause of Action affirmative defenses like affirmative defenses
a. A right pertaining to the plaintiff, prescription, estoppel
b. A correlative obligation of the defendant, and reason for the action remedy or means afforded
c. A violation of plaintiff's right by the defendant or at determined by facts as determined by substantive
least threat to violate the right base on the definition alleged in the complaint law
of a civil action. (INJURY) and not the prayer
there can be no action where no injury is sustained. therein
Ex of wrong w/c is not actionable not complied w/ Does not prescribe prescribes
condition precedent.
There can be no right of action without a cause of
d. additional element: damage suffered by plaintiff (but
action being first established
not indispensable because it is not necessary for the
plaintiff to allege that he suffered damages ex.
Failure to state cause of action - pleading states no
Specific performance w/o damages
cause of action or no general allegation on conditions
Damnum absque injuria damage w/o injury no precedent = ground for MTD [Rule 16, Sec.1(g)]
cause of action; but injury w/o damage may have
cause of action Absence or a lack of cause of action. refers to the
failure to prove or to establish by evidence ones stated
Example: a debtor borrows money from a creditor. Then
cause of action. ; not a ground for MTD.
when it is already due, still, the debtor does not want to
pay.
Subject matter v Cause of action
Right: right of creditor to get back his money
Subject matter - the thing or wrongful act, contract or
Obligation: the defendant has the obligation to pay back
property which is directly involved in the action
the loan under the law on contracts
In a breach of contract, the contract violated is the
Violation: the account fell due and the debtor is supposed
subject matter while the breach thereof by the obligor is
to pay the creditor, but through former did not pay the
the cause of action
latter.
Damage: the creditor cannot get back his money.
Promissory note w/o date of maturity court will fix the
date (A. 1197 NCC)
Cause of action v Right of action

Right of action - the right of the plaintiff to bring an action

and to prosecute that action to final judgment.
elements:
1. cause of action
2. performed all conditions precedent to the filing of
the action,
i.e.
i.prior barangay conciliation;
ii.arbitration clause in contracts;
iii.certification on non-forum shopping;
iv.exhaustion of administrative remedies
v.for family members, earnest efforts toward a
compromise
vi.tender of payment before consignation
another limitation to right of action is state immunity.
Section 3. One suit for a single cause of action.
Splitting a cause of action - dividing one cause of action
into different parts and making each part a basis for a
separate complaint (ex. In a suit under a promissory note,
the filing of various cases where one is to collect the
principal, the other is to collect interest and still another is
to collect attorney's fees)
Reason for prohibition:
To prevent repeated litigation
To protect the defendant from unnecessary vexation.
Nemo debet vexare pro una et eadem causa (No
man shall be twice vexed for one and the same
cause);
To avoid the costs and expenses incident to
numerous suits.
To avoid conflicting decisions of different courts

Section 4. Splitting a single cause of action; effect of.
Effects of Splitting a Cause of Action
1. The filing of one is available as a ground for the
dismissal of other (Litis pendentia - there is another
action pending between the same parties for the same
cause) Rule 16 Sec 1(e)
2. A judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a
ground for the dismissal of the others (Res adjudicata -
barred by prior judgment) Rule 16 Sec 1(f)
Litis pendencia and res judicata are both not
waivable defenses and if the defendant did not
raise these issues, the court, on their own, can
order the dismissal. (Rule 9)
3. Forum shopping (Rule 7 sec 5) not curable by mere
amendment but a cause for dismissal upon motion and
hearing w/o prejudice plus indirect contempt if false
certification or non-compliance; if willful and deliberate,
summary dismissal w/ prejudice and direct contempt.
(w/o prejudice to admin and crim charges).
If no Cert on Non-Forum shopping ground for MTD
(failure to state cause of action) and (condition
precedent not complied w/ Jara
Waivable unlike litis pendentia and res judicata.
There must be a motion to dismiss; Omnibus motion
rule applies. Court cannot motu propio dismiss.
More advantageous than other remedies: since all
cases will be dismissed and the dismissal could be
w/ prejudice if willful and deliberate -Jara
When a person violates the rule on splitting of cause
of action he also violates the rule on forum shopping.
What case should be dismissed?
In litis pendencia, only one will be dismissed and retain
the other.
Lakas: factors:
- 2nd case will be dismissed based on the rule on
priority on time;
- 1st action to be dismissed when the 1st action
was filed merely to preempt or anticipate the
later action (interest of justice rule)
- Whichever is the appropriate vehicle for
litigating the issues (appropriateness rule)
Jara:
- 2nd case will be dismissed based on the rule on
priority on time;
- But actually, discretion lies in the defendant on
which case he will file a MTD
In res judicata, the remaining case which is pending will
be dismissed.
In forum shopping under Rule 7 the court can order the
dismissal of all pending cases but the dismissal is w/o
prejudice unless found to be willful and deliberate.
RULES 1-5 5
How do you determine the singleness of a cause of
action?
By the singleness of the delict or wrong committed by
defendant; NOT by the number of remedies that the law
grants the injured party. Ex. One cause of action (non-
payment under Recto Law) several remedies rescind,
exact fulfillment, foreclose.
If there is one cause of action and several remedies,
plead alternative remedies in the complaint.
Common standard The singleness of a cause of
action lies in the singleness of the delict/wrong and
the rights violated of a person or several persons.
One wrongful act could give rise to several causes of
action depending on the number of rights violated
belonging to different persons.
If one wrongful act and there are several rights violated
determine whether these rights belong to the same
person or to different persons.
Example: One negligent act injures 2 different
persons = 2 causes of action; One negligent act
damages 3 houses belonging to one person = 1
cause of action
If only 1 injury resulted from several wrongful acts, only
1 cause of action arises.
Example: two negligent acts by two persons injure
1 person = 1 cause of action
EXAMPLE 1: Sale; 1 seller and 2 buyers =
- if seller breached, separate causes of action for the 2
buyers.
- If the 2 buyers breached, qualify if only one contract
and if joint or solidary;
- if joint, 2 causes of action for their respective
shares;
- if solidary, one cause of action.
- If separate contracts, 2 causes of action
EXAMPLE 2: Sale of land; 1 vendor and 3 vendees=
If vendor breach 3 caused of action; they are each
owner of their respective interest in the undivided
thing
If vendees breach 3 causes of action
Tests to ascertain whether two or more suits relate to
a single or common cause action:
1. Same evidence test whether the same evidence
would support and sustain both the 1st and 2nd cause of
action
2. Same defense test whether the defenses in one case
may be used to substantiate the complaint in the other
3. Whether the cause of action in the 2nd case existed at
the time of the filing of the 1st complaint (Umale v.
Canoga Park Devt 2011)
 RULES 1-5 6

RULES IN DETERMINING SINGLENESS OF CAUSE OF Section 5. Joinder of causes of action.

ACTION (IN CASE OF BREACH OF CONTRACT)
Rule 1 (one contract, one cause of action)
A contract embraces only one cause of action because it
may be violated only once, even it contains several
stipulations (Quioque v Bautista).
- ex. Delivery of 3 different goods under 1 contract
No demand no delay, no cause of action yet
Rule 2 (contract on installment basis, as many causes
of action as there are violations)
A contract which provides for several stipulations to be
performed at different times gives rise to as many causes
of action as there are violations (Larena v Villanueva)
- ex. a case involving a rents in a contract of lease
- ex. a loan payable in installment. Absent an
acceleration clause, each installment due and unpaid
will give rise to one cause of action
Joinder of causes of action
The rules allow a plaintiff to allege as many causes of
action as he may have against the same defendant.
Correlate w/:
Rule 31 consolidation of action;
Rule 36 Sec 5 separate judgments court may
render one judgment while others proceed or court
may stay enforcement until rendition of others.
Rule 41, Sec 1 cannot appeal one cause of action
while main case is pending unless court allows. Must
file leave of court or just wait for the others.
Note: you cannot file more than one case when you have
only one cause of action but the law allows (in fact
encourages) you to file one case for more than one cause
of action

Rule 3 (contract on installment basis, one cause of

Q: Under section 5, is the creditor obliged to file one
action for all due and demandable obligations)
complaint for the three promissory notes?
All obligations/installments which have become due, A: No, because joinder of causes of action is
demandable and were defaulted at the time of the suit permissive.
constitute a single cause of action and must be integrated
in one complaint, and those not included would be barred Alternatively or Cumulatively
(Larena v Villanueva)
Causes of action may be joined either: (a) alternatively
- ex. First installment fell due. No action filed.
or (b) cumulatively (or otherwise means cumulative)
Subsequently, second installment fell due. An action
is to be filed. The first and second obligations
Alternative Joinder - exists when one is seeking
constitute a single cause of action.
relief for either causes of action.
Rule 4 (Anticipatory Breach of Contract, one cause of
Cumulative Joinder - exists when one is seeking
action)
relief for all of his causes of action
An unqualified and positive refusal to perform a contract,
though the performance thereof is not yet due, may, if the
Correlate with Rule 3, Sec 13 (alternative defendants)
renunciation goes into the whole contract, be treated as a
and Rule 8, Sec 2 (alternative causes of action or
complete breach which will entitle the injured party to
defenses).
bring his action at once (Blossom vs. Manila Gas 1930).
The general rule is that the creditor cannot compel the
Conditions/ Limitations: (Sec. 6 of Rule 3)
debtor to perform obligation before maturity. But if debtor
Joinder of parties/ jurisdiction /venue/ rules w/c govern
repudiates the obligation or shows intention of not
complying, then civil law considers that as a breach of
1. Comply with rules on joinder of parties --- applicable
contract (Art. 1198 NCC debtor loses benefit of a period
only if 2 or more parties are joined and not when there
Ex. 1st installment fell due; creditor demanded; debtor
is only 1 plaintiff and 1 defendant
denies entire obligation creditor can file a complaint
for the entire obligation.
2. Shall not include SCA or actions governed by special
rules (i.e. interpleader, quo warranto, ejectment cases,
Rule 5 (Acceleration Clause, one cause of action)
those covered by summary procedures and small
When the failure to comply with one of several stipulations
claims cases)
in a continuing contract constitutes a total breach, he can
file a complaint for the entire contract.
3. Court has both jurisdiction and venue;
Ex. a provision in contract w/c states that nonpayment
Exception: where the causes of action are between
of any installment will cause the whole obligation to be
the same parties pertain to different venues or
due, entitling the creditor to file one complaint for the
jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the
entire obligation only one cause of action; he cannot
Regional Trial Court provided one of the causes of
split it anymore.
action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and the
venue lies therein.

4. Totality test Where there are several claims or causes
of actions between the same or different parties,
embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the
demand shall be the totality of the claims in all causes
of action, irrespective of the causes of action arose
out of the same or different transactions. (BP 129)
The totality test in Rule 2 of Rules of Court
appears to be of a more limited scope. In B.P.
129, the totality test refers to all claims of causes
of action that are embodied in one complaint,
whether they pertain to the same or different
parties or they arise out of the same or different
transaction. The totality test in Rule 2 speaks only
about causes of action for recovery of money. The
totality of money claims will be determinative of
the jurisdiction of the courts.
Illustrations:
one from MTC, another from RTC = joinder in RTC
allowed
one from RTC Manila, another from RTC Davao =
joinder in either of the two allowed
one from MTC, another from MTC = joinder not
allowed. One must at least be under RTC's
jurisdiction
one filed by A in RTC Manila, another filed by B in
RTC QC = joinder not allowed. Must be same
parties; but joinder of parties is allowed if it complies
w/ sec 6 rule 3.
real action MTC and ejectment MTC = joinder not
allowed, one case is governed by summary
procedure.
partition RTC and collection suit RTC = joinder not
allowed, partition is SCA.
Ejectment case against 10 squatters = joinder
allowed but only if venue pertains to the same MTC.
Certiorari w/ Habeas Corpus
A petition for certiorari which is a special civil action
could be filed together with a petition for habeas corpus
which not a special civil but it is in fact a special
proceeding and therefore the procedure followed by 2
different petitions are different. That should be
disallowed under Section 5, but that is allowed
according to the SC by way of exception. (pro hac vice)
(reason: SC can suspend the rules)
Section 6. Misjoinder of causes of action.
Remedy: not to dismiss the case but ask the court or
motu proprio that misjoined case be severed and tried
separately. The court will drop the cause of action not w/n
its jurisdiction but will continue w/ that w/n its jurisdiction.
If issue of misjoinder not raised and trial proceeded,
decision of the court will still be valid and binding as
long as the trial court has jurisdiction over the misjoined
causes.
RULES 1-5 7
Correlate with Rule 3, Section 11 (misjoinder and non-
joinder of parties) - both are also not grounds for
dismissal
Joinder of causes of action is always permissive hence
no provision on non-joinder of causes of action, while
there is compulsory joinder of parties and hence there
is a provision for non-joinder of parties.
RULE 3
PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS
Classes of Parties (RRPIN)
1. Real Party in Interest
2. Representative Parties
3. Permissive Parties
4. Indispensable Parties
5. Necessary Parties
Section 1. Who may be parties; plaintiff and defendant.
Requisite to be a party in a civil action:
1. A natural person, juridical person or entities
authorized by law:
2. Has legal capacity to sue
3. A real party-in-interest
Ex. Juridical person:
The State and its political subdivisions;
corporations, institutions created by law; and
corporations, partnerships and associations to which
the law grants a juridical personality, separate and
distinct from that of each shareholder, partner or
member [Art. 44, CC]
NOTE: sole proprietorship is not vested with juridical
personality
Foreign Corporation
If licensed to engage in business in the Philippines, it
may sue or be sued in our courts;
If not licensed but engaged in business in the
Philippines, it cannot sue, but it may be sued in our
courts;
If not engaged in business in the Philippines, it may
sue in courts on a single isolated transaction, but it
cannot be sued in our courts on such transaction.
Ex. of entity authorized by law:
estate of a deceased
political party incorporated under Corporation Code
corporation by estoppel
contract of partnership having a capital of P3,000.00
or more but which fails to comply with the registration
requirements is nevertheless liable as a partnership
to third persons.
legitimate labor organization may sue and be sued in
its registered name.
Roman Catholic Church
A dissolved corporation may prosecute and defend
suits by or against it provided that the suits (i) occur
within three years after its dissolution, and (ii) the

suits are in connection with the settlement and
closure of its affairs.
Section 2. Parties in interest.
Ex. The owner not the tenant, the operator not the driver,
the passenger not the parents of the passenger, the
principal not the attorney-in-fact designated
"In" the name not "by" the name
- must be in the name of the real party in interest but need
not be actually be prosecuted or defended by him. Action
may be prosecuted or defended by another.
Gen Rule: in breach of contract, the parties to the
contract are the real party in interest.
Except:
a. when with stipulation favorable to a third person
(stipulation pour autrui -Art. 1311) ex. TPL in
insurance
b. rescission of contracts entered into in fraud of
creditors
Meaning of real interest
Present, direct, substantial and material interest not
mere expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate,
or consequential interest (Republic v Agunoy)
Lack of legal capacity to sue - plaintiffs general
disability to sue, such as on account of minority, insanity,
incompetence, lack of juridical personality or any other
general disqualifications. A ground for a MTD (Rule 16,
Sec 1(d).
Lack of legal personality to sue - plaintiff is not the real
party in interest. Ground for MTD based on the failure of
complaint to state a cause of action. [Rule 16 (1) (g)]
Indispensable party vs. Real party-in-interest
An indispensable party is always the real-party-in-interest,
but the real-party-in-interest is not necessarily an
indispensable party nor a necessary party.
Ex. in a case filed by a co-owner for recovery of co-
owned prop, the other co-owners are real-party-in-
interest but not indispensable;
General rule: Actions must be filed against real parties in
interest
Exceptions:
1. class suit
2. entity without juridical personality
3. any co-owner may bring an action for ejectment
Section 3. Representatives as parties.
The plaintiff must implead both the representative party
and the real-party-in-interest
Ex.
Trustee for express trust
Guardian for the ward
Executor or administrator for the estate
Agent for the principal
RULES 1-5 8
Failure to implead real-party-in-interest is dismissible on
a MTD (failure to state cause of action)
trustee for implied trust is not a representative. There
must an actual agreement in order to prosecute or
defend in ones name. Implied trusts are merely
presumed by law.
Section 4. Spouses as parties.
Gen. Rule: Husband and wife shall sue and be sued
jointly.
Exceptions (as provided by law):
1. a co-owner or a partner can file a case on behalf of the
other co-owners or partners.
SC: As long as one of the spouses who acts as
plaintiff continues to recognize the existence of the
co-ownership, there is nothing wrong if the other
spouse is not included in that complaint. In the family
code, husband and the wife are treated for purposes
of actions as co-owners of the properties acquired
during the marriage. Hence, filing of the complaint by
husband alone will not be a violation of the rules of
court. The wife will not be an indispensable nor a
necessary party. But he must admit in the allegations
that he is simply acting as a co-owner of the
property.
But if he alleges that he is the sole owner, then he
should implead the wife because he is no longer
filing a complaint in representation of the co-
ownership but instead he now denies the existence
of that co-ownership.
2. complete separation of property; or with respect to
his/her exclusive property
Section 5. Minor or incompetent persons.
Although under Family Courts Act, a guardianship
proceeding is cognizable exclusively by a family court,
still an inferior court can appoint a guardian ad litem w/c
is an incident or collateral to the main action. The
guardianship proceeding in Family Courts Act does not
refer to the appointment of guardian ad litem, it refers to
general guardianship.
Section 6. Permissive joinder of parties.
Requisites of permissive joinder of parties:
1. There is a right to relief in favor of or against the
parties joined in respect to or arising out of the same
transaction or series of transactions
2. There is a question of law or fact common to the
parties joined in the action
Optional; not mandatory
nature of the case cannot be different because of the
requirement of common question of law or fact.
Reasons why the law encourages it:
a. To promote convenience in trial

b. To prevent multiplicity of suit
c. To expedite the termination of the litigation
d. To attain economy of procedure
Joinder of parties vs. joinder of causes of action
Where there is joinder of parties, there is automatically a
joinder of causes of action. But there can be a joinder of
causes of action without a joinder of parties.
If there is an issue of jurisdiction in joinder of parties
apply Rule 2 Sec 5. (Court should have both jurisdiction
and venue; Exception: where the causes of action are
between the same parties 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.)
Ex. one complaint with eleven causes of action, against
eleven squatters.
Section 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties.
Indispensable Party must be joined under any and all
conditions, his presence being a condition sine qua non of
the exercise of judicial power, for without him, no final
determination can be had of the action.
Examples:
partition of land all co-owners
in ejectment however, co-owners are not
indispensable
annulment of partition all of the heirs
recovery of ownership of land person who claims to
be the owner of the land
collection suit creditor and debtor
collection suit for the entire amount all joint debtors
collection suit for his share only one joint debtor
collection suit for the entire amount any solidary
debtor
Foreclosure of mortgage
mortagagor and mortgagee are indispensable parties
the 1st mortgagee is an indispensable party as
compared to the 2nd or 3rd mortgagee. The
foreclosure by the 2nd or 3rd mortgagee w/o
impleading the 1st mortgagee will not bind the latter
as he can still foreclose his mortgage.
the 2nd or 3rd and so on mortgagees are not
indispensable parties. They are only necessary
parties. They are only impleaded so that they shall
lose their right of redemption w/c would eventually be
exercised against the 1st mortgagee who bought the
property in public sale if they are not impleaded.
A person is NOT an indispensable party if his interest in
the controversy or subject matter is separable from the
interest of the other parties, so that it will not
RULES 1-5 9
necessarily be directly or injuriously affected by a
decree which does not complete justice between them.
In Vehicular Accident (driver and operator-owner) If
quasi-delict case, owner is neither indispensable nor
necessary party since liability is solidary. If culpa-
contractual, only the owner is indispensable. If criminal
case, owner is necessary party, since liability is
subsidiary.
Section 8. Necessary party.
Necessary Party ought to be joined whenever possible
in order have complete relief as to those already parties or
for a complete determination of the claim - to adjudicate
the whole controversy and avoid multiplicity of suits. But if
for some reason he cannot be joined, the court may
proceed without him and the judgment shall not prejudice
his rights.
Examples:
collection suit instituted by the creditor against the
surety -- principal debtor
collection suit instituted by the creditor against the
debtor -- the guarantor or surety
foreclosure of real estate mortgage instituted by the first
mortgagee -- the second mortgagor
collection suit against one joint debtor for his share
the other joint debtors
collection suit against one solidary debtor for the entire
amount the other solidary debtors complete relief
may be accorded to the plaintiff but there is still the
issue of reimbursement among the solidary debtors.
Accident damage suit against truck driver/owner
insurer of a truck under CTPL.
when there are two or more debtors of the same
indebtedness, the presumption is that they are only joint
debtors. if there is no express stipulation between the
parties, the debtors should share equally in the liability.
(NCC)
Section 9. Non-joinder of necessary parties to be
pleaded.
Pleader shall state why a necessary party is not
pleaded
Court determines whether or not he is to be impleaded
If the court orders amendment and pleader defies, dont
apply Rule 17 (dismissal), instead it will be a deemed
waiver of the claim against such party (Rule 3).
Section 10. Unwilling co-plaintiff.
Particularly true in the case of indispensable party
because the case cannot proceed without such party.
He is impleaded as defendant because he cannot be
compelled to act as a plaintiff
He has not violated the rights of the plaintiff hence he
does not have to file a responsive pleading but he can
file a counter-claim against the plaintiff (there is no
prohibition)
 RULES 1-5 10

Purpose is to subject him to jurisdiction of the court. Indispensable Parties Necessary Parties
No rule on unwilling co-defendant every defendant is w/o whom no final
Ought to be joined if
unwilling. complete relief is to be
determination
accorded
If not impleaded, If not impleaded,
Section 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties.
judgment is not valid judgment still valid
Failure to comply w/ the
Misjoinder two or more parties should not be joined but Failure to comply w/ the order of inclusion
they were improperly joined order to implead waiver of the claim
dismissal against the necessary
Non-Joinder a party who should be joined party
(indispensable) was not joined

Section 12. Class suit.

Both are not grounds for dismissal. Objections to the
defect should be made at the earliest opportunity by
General Rule: If there are several real parties in interest,
means of a Motion to Strike the Names of the Parties,
they shall be included in the case whether indispensable
otherwise deemed waived.
or necessary, whether plaintiff or defendant.
However, the rule on misjoinder or non-joinder of
Exception: Class suit (Doctrine of Virtual
parties does not comprehend whimsical and irrational
Representation) some will sue or be sued to represent
dropping or adding of parties in a complaint.
the rest
Remedies for non-joinder of indispensable party (2
views): Conditions of a Valid Class Suit:

1. MTD for failure to state cause of action (Rule 16)
Some SC cases: (Rule 16 - dismissal w/o
prejudice). Reason: proceedings taken by the court
are void; court will just be spending useless his time.
If the court tried the case w/o an indispensable party,
the decision will never become final and executory.
The court cannot motu proprio dismiss the case
for non-joinder of indispensable party failure to
state cause of action not one of those non-waivables
under Rule 9.
2. Dismissal under Rule 17 for failure to obey order to
implead
Failure to implead an indispensable party is not a
ground for dismissal under Rule 16. The MTD should
be denied and a reasonable opportunity will be given
for his inclusion by amendment of the complaint.
if the plaintiff disobeys the order, the court (on motion
or motu propio) can now order the dismissal of the
case founded on Rule 17 (failure to comply w/ court
order) effect of an adjudication upon the merits,
unless the court otherwise provides
remedy of the plaintiff is to MR(decision contrary to
law), then appeal since it is an adjudication upon the
merits.
Sec 7 vs. Sec 11
Sec 7 (compulsory joinder of indispensable party ground
to dismiss) and Sec 11 (non-joinder - not ground to
dismiss) does not contradict. Sec 11 is the general rule
while sec 7 (applies to indispensable party only) is the
exception
1. The subject matter of the controversy is one of
common or general interest to many persons
2. The parties are so numerous that it is impracticable
to bring them all before the court
3. Parties bringing the class suit are sufficiently
numerous and representative of the class and can
fully protect the interests of all concerned;
4. The representative sues/defends for the benefit of
all.
The object of the suit is to obtain relief for or against
numerous persons as a group, not as separate,
distinct individuals
In a class suit, the interests of the members of the class
are not specified.
A class suit shall not be dismissed on motion of the
plaintiff or be compromised w/o approval of the court
(Rule 17)
Instance where there is no class suit:
1. conflicting interests
2. filed by corporation to recover property of its
members
3. to recover real property individually held
4. to recover damages for personal reputation (there is
no common or general interest in reputation of a
specific individual)
5. each person has separate interests in a property
Class Suit vs. Joinder of Parties
In a class suit, there is only one cause of action
belonging to many persons; In permissive joinder of
parties, there are several causes of action belonging
separately and distinctly to several persons.
Ex. one complaint for forcible entry with 1000 causes of
action, against 1000 squatters not a class suit but a
permissive joinder of parties. Cognizable by the MTC
(same venue and jurisdiction) No common interest,
each squatter is interested only in protecting the area
he occupies.

Quasi-party persons in whose behalf a class suit is
brought.
Oposa vs Factoran: person may file a complaint on
behalf of children who are yet unborn. Personality of the
minors to sue for the succeeding generation is based on
the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as a
balanced and healthful ecology is concerned.
SC: all the members of the class that is involved in the
litigation are considered as indispensable parties but
they need not be identified individually in the pleadings
submitted to the court an exception to our rule that
indispensable parties must be impleaded in an existing
action. Reason: a member of a class in a class suit
always has a right to intervene (Rule 3, Sec 12)
Intervention usually is a matter that is given to the
discretion of the trial court but whenever a member of a
class in a class suit files a motion for intervention, the
court does not have a discretion to deny the
intervention.
Under the Circular on Kalikasan, there is a section
called citizen suit - the propriety of a person filing, a
kalikasan case on behalf of persons who are yet
unborn. But from a procedural point of view, that will be
a class suit.
Derivative Suit -- minority files a suit in behalf of the
entire corporation because intra-corporate remedy is
useless (Only peculiar to Corporation Law) an example
of a class suit.
Class suit Representative suit
only one cause of action many causes of action
belonging to many persons pertaining separately to
several people
Only the names of those All names of the
representing the class beneficiaries must be
appear in the title included in the title
Those representing the The representative chosen
class must be real parties need not be a real party in
in interest interest
Section 13. Alternative defendants.
This is allowed even if the two causes of action are
inconsistent with each other
Ex. Vehicular accident not sure if A or B caused the
accident.
There is also alternative causes of action (Rule 2) and
alternative defenses (Rule 8)
Gen. Rule: no alternative decision, except Rule 60
replevin either to deliver prop or pay value .
There could be plaintiffs in alternative although there is
nothing in the rules. Procedural laws should be liberally
construed. Jara.
Ex. Right violated but not sure who owns it. ---relate
to Interpleader Rule 62
RULES 1-5 11
Section 14. Unknown identity or name of defendant.
Similar to Rule 110, Sec. 7
Usual in replevin cases due to possible transfers of
possession
There is no such thing as unknown plaintiff. He must
identify himself
Section 15. Entity without juridical personality as
defendant. --- may be sued under the name by which
they are generally/commonly known, but they cannot sue
under such name
Correlate w/:
Rule 14, Sec, 8: Service upon entity without juridical
personality: Service upon all the defendants by
serving upon any of them, or upon the person in
charge of the office or place of business
Rule 36, Sec. 6: Judgment against entity without
juridical personality: shall set out their individual
names, if known.
Section 16. Death of party; duty of counsel. (either
the plaintiff or the defendant)
Steps:
1. Lawyer has duty to inform the court within 30 days after
the death of the party and to give the name and
address of the legal representatives of the deceased
Failure to comply = ground for disciplinary action
2. Court issues an order of substitution, directing the heirs
to appear before the court and to act as substitute
plaintiff/defendant.
If the trial court does not observe the procedure
mentioned in rule 3, after having been notified of a
death of a litigant, and there is no substitution made
by the court, the proceedings taken by the court as
well as the judgment rendered by the court are void
(Brioso v. Rili-Mariano, 2003)
However, despite non-substitution of the deceased
defendant in ejecment cases, the decision of the
court is nevertheless binding upon the successor-in-
interest. (Florendo Jr. v Coloma 1984)
If there is no substitution but the heirs voluntarily
appeared in the case = deemed as waiver; defect is
procedural
3. The court cannot compel an heir of a deceased litigant
to act as a substitute party in the case. If the heirs
refuse to act as substitute parties, then the court will
have to go to the next step given in rule 3. That is to
require the other party in the case to seek the
appointment of an administrator or executor of the
estate.
the appointment of an executor or administrator of
estate of course can only be done in a settlement
court (probate court). if the first case is pending

before a RTC, the appointment of an executor or
administrator could be secured from an inferior
court acting as a settlement court.
Prerogative of who to appoint administrator or
executor lies w/ the probate court complying w/ the
rules on preference.
The appointed executor or administrator cannot
refuse to accept designation as a substitute litigant
because it is his duty.
Case will be pursued until the judgment is finally
entered. The matter can only be submitted to the
settlement court if there is already an entry of
judgment.
The previous pronouncement by SC that priority of
substitution is given to executor or administrator is
no longer true (San Juan v. Cruz 2006)
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
the death of the husband or the wife in marriage
related cases will lead to the dismissal of the case if
the death takes place before entry of the judgment
rendered by the court.(SC circular)
Section 17. Death or separation of a party who is a
public officer.
Applies only when PO is a party to an action in his
official capacity
If the PO resigns, dies, or ceases to hold office, there
will be succession:
1. If the successor intends to continue with the policy,
he will be substituted and be given 30 days to
comment.
2. If the successor does not adopt the policy, the case
will be dismissed.
Section 18. Incompetency or incapacity
Different from Rule 3, Sec.3 where the party is already
incompetent or incapacitated before the case is filed
Section 19. Transfer of interest.
Assignment prior to filing of action
Assignee is a real party in interest/ indispensable party.
Assignor is not an indispensable nor a necessary party.
Ex. assignment of right (credit) before filing complaint
Debtors consent is not necessary. But notice is
required. If payment before notice obli
extinguished.
Transfer of interest pendente lite
Assignee is not an indispensable party nor even a
necessary party. He is bound by the judgment whether
impleaded or not.
Transferor remains indispensible party
RULES 1-5 12
Gen. Rule: the action may proceed without the need to
implead him assignee.
Exception: When the substitution by or joinder of the
transferee is ordered by court.
Court need not be notified of the transfer
The debtor in assignment pendente lite has the right to
extinguish the debt by reimbursing or compelling the
assignee to accept an amount = the price paid as
consideration for the assignment plus judicial costs,
interest on the price from day of payment (Art. 1634
NCC). this will only apply to a right in litigation w/c is
sold.
in litigation = from the time of answer
Ex. Debt is 1m; assigned for 700k the debtor
may pay to assignee pendent lite only 700k
The case will be dismissed if the plaintiffs interest is
transferred to defendant unless there are several
plaintiffs, in which case the remaining plaintiffs can
proceed with their own cause of action.
Section 20. Action and contractual money claims.
Effect of Death of a Party on Money Claims
1. will not result in the dismissal
2. deceased shall be substituted by his legal
representatives
3. execution shall not issue in favor of the winning
plaintiff. It should be filed as a claim against the
decedents estate without need of proving the claim.
Sec. 21.Indigent party.
Salaried employee may be indigent litigant as long as
he has no money or prop for himself or family.
Rule on pauper litigant
In CRIMINAL cases, court assigns counsel de officio
In CIVIL cases, court will not assign a counsel for
free but the plaintiff need not pay the docket fees if
he applied as an indigent litigant. But if he wins, he
has to pay the fees.
In both cases, a plaintiff or a defendant, and the
accused in criminal cases may apply with the PAO or
IBP to obtain free legal services, if qualified.
Sec. 22. Notice to the Solicitor General.
RULE 4
VENUE OF ACTIONS
Venue- place where action must be instituted and tried.
In civil cases it is only procedural (venue); In criminal
cases it is jurisdictional (territorial jurisdiction).
Rule on venue applies only to trial courts. They dont
apply to appellate courts. There is no rule on venue in
so far as the SC is concerned because there is only
one SC. CA has 3 stations in Manila, Cebu, and CDO,
but there is still only one CA and one venue, these are
mere stations and places of holding sessions.
 RULES 1-5 13

Jurisdiction Venue (civil cases)

Authority of the court to hear Place where the case is Section 2 vs section 3: Section2- non-resident and in
the Philippines while Section3 - non-resident and not in
the case tried
the Philippines

Venue is waivable and Gen Rule: non-resident how is not in Philippines = cannot
Jurisdiction over subject
can be subject of sue him in the Philippine court because the latter cannot
matter cannot be waived acquire jurisdiction over his person. Process served by the
agreement
court is not enforceable beyond the territorial limits of the
Philippines.
Governed by substantive Governed by procedural
law BP 129 law rule- rule 4 Exception:
1. The action that affects the personal status of the
plaintiff (action in rem) e.g. acknowledgment,
Refers to the relation of the Relation between the annulment of marriage,
2. The action affects the property or any portion
parties to the court parties
thereof of said defendants located here in the
Philippines; (in rem or quasi in rem)

Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is

Limits the courts authority Limits plaintiffs rights essential in action in personam not in actions in rem or
quasi in rem so long as the court does not render
personal judgment against the defendant.

If plaintiff is non-resident and not found in the Phil

Ground for MTD: venue was IMPROPERLY LAID.
The trial court cannot motu propio dismiss a case on
the ground of improper venue
Exception: may motu propio dismiss case on the
ground of improper venue in an action covered by the
rules on summary procedure and small claims cases
Section 1. Venue of real actions.
If case involves two properties located in two different
places:
(a) if the properties are the object of the same
transaction, file it in any of the two places
(b) If they are the subjects of two distinct transactions,
separate actions should be filed in each place
unless properly joined.
See examples of real actions in previous discussion
Sec. 2. Venue of personal actions
Personal action is Called Transitory Action
Provision refers to Principal defendant and principal
plaintiff and not just a mere nominal defendant and
plaintiff. e.g. a sheriff in an action to annul an execution
sale is a nominal party
See examples of personal actions in previous
discussion
Venue of mixed action:
The feature of an action as a real action will prevail over
its feature as a personal action.
Residence of the parties
actual or physical residence, not the domicile
Residence of a corporation- the place where its head
office is situated as stated in the AOI
Non-resident defendant in the Phil
or in case of a non-resident defendants where he may
be found- in the Philippines. E.g. balikbayan on
vacation.
same rules on venue, court will still acquire jurisdiction
over his person by the filing of the complaint.
Sec. 4. When Rule onot applicable.
When Ordinary Rule on Venue not applicable:
1. Law otherwise provides
Civil action arising from LIBEL art. 360 of RPC
(a) Province or city where the article was printed
and first published or
(b) where any of the offended parties actually
resides at the time of the commission of the
offense or
(c) If one of the offended party is a public officer,
where the article was printed and first published
or where he held office at the time of the
commission of the offense.
Art. 8, sec 5 of constitution- the SC may order a
change of venue or place of trial to avoid a
miscarriage of justice.
2. Rule otherwise provides
Rules on venue applies to Summary Procedure and
Small Claims cases (suppletory application)
3. Agreement of parties
agreement must state that the case can ONLY,
SOLELY or EXCLUSIVELY be filed in the place
agreed upon (restrictive words)
Word shall not enough - becomes only optional
or just an additional place where to file the suit.
Requisites for a venue to be exclusive:
1. In writing
2. Executed by the parties before the filing of the
action (After commencement of action, parties may
still agree on venue but it will be subject to the
discretion of the court to recognize it.)
3. feature of exclusivity;

Sec. 3. Venue of actions against non-residents.

 RULES 1-5 14

Means of waiving venue:

1. Failure to object via motion to dismiss
2. Affirmative relief sought in court where the case is
filed
3. Voluntary submission to the court where the case is
filed
4. Laches

Sweetlines vs. Teves 1978:

If the agreement concerning venue will cause undue
burden of remedies to a plaintiff or violates public policy,
then the agreement can be set aside by the court. The
rule on venue is designed for the convenience of the
plaintiff, the injured party.

RULE 5
UNIFORM PROCEDURE IN TRIAL COURTS

Section 1. Uniform procedure.

Sec. 2. Meaning of terms.