Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
A. Actions
1. Meaning of ordinary civil actions
One by which a party sues another for the enforcement or
protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong.
2. Meaning of special civil actions
Generally follow the rules on ordinary civil actions, but there
are some special rules only for it sometimes. Thats why its
called special.
What is an action for rescission of a contract? Is it an ordinary
civil action or a special civil action? It is an ordinary civil
action. Annulment of a contract is also an ordinary civil action.
Reformation of an instrument (incapable of PE) falls under
declaratory relief and other similar remedies under Rule 63.
Quieting of title falls under Rule 63 not as declaratory relief
but other similar remedies. Consolidation of ownership falls
under Rule 63 but not under declaratory relief but other similar
remedies. Read the table of contents.
Saan mo ipafile ang application for preliminary attachment
proceeding? Hindi mo yan pina-file separartely kasi yan ay
provisional remedy. Ang titingnan mo ay principal remedy. Kung
saan ang principal remedy, doon ang application for a writ of
preliminary attachment.
Saan mo ipa-file ang support pendent elite? Hindi rin yan pinafile separately kasi provisional rememdy. Yong action for support
ay sa Family Court or sa RTC kung walang FC.
Meron bang action for preliminary injunction? Theres none.
Theres only action for injunction.
Which court has the jurisdiction to issue a provisional remedy?
The court which has jurisdiction over the main action. Can an MTC
issue a provisional remedy? Yes, if the main action is with the
MTC.
3. Meaning of criminal actions
One by which the State prosecutes a person for an act or omission
punishable by law.
The rule does not define personal actions. It says all other
actions not falling under real actions are personal actions. If I
file an action for damages, that is personal action; it has
nothing to do with interest or title or possession to any real
property. The same with an action for collection of a sum of
money.
But not all action which deals with real property is a real
action. Example: you leased an apartment belonging to me for
30k/month. A small apartment with a single room. Then after three
months, when I came to you to collect the rental, I realized that
it changed a lot, the floors which were made of Italian marbles
are now gravel and sand from Boracay, you changed them. When I
asked you why, you said you wished to have an environment that is
as much close to nature as possible. Then I noticed that you tore
down the wall of the apartment and replaced them with nipa wall.
Everything was changed. When I realized it, I suffered from a
mild heart attack. When I was revived I filed an action for
damages for P5 million for destroying my apartment. Is it a real
or a personal action? It is personal action. Its not about title
to the property, its not about possession or interest, its
about damages. He did not want to pay, he resisted so I decided
to file an action for unlawful detainer so I could regain
possession of the premises. Real or personal? It is a real action
because the issue is possession of real property. FE is also a
real action. They are real actions in accordance with the nature
of the action but they are not real actions in accordance with
the objective of the action. Actions for UD and FE are real
actions but they are in personam. An in personam action could be
real.
An annulment of marriage is a personal action, it has nothing to
do with real property, but it is in rem. No privity of real
estate is mentioned or involved. An action for recognition of
myself as a natural child is in personam directed against a
person but it is also personal. An action for declaration of
nullity of marriage is in rem but it is personal.
An action to collect a sum of money is personal and also in
personam. Kasi nga directed to or against a particular defendant.
An action for damages, personal and in personam. Cadastral and
land registration case is real action and also in rem.
When the issue in the Bar exams is the venue of a complaint or an
action, do not ask yourself this way: is it personam, in rem or
B. Cause of Action
1. Meaning of cause of action
It is the act or omission by which a party violates the rights of
another. There is an existence of a right that was violated by
someone who has the obligation to respect that right. In order to
have a cause of action, do you have to prove the damage
sustained? No need. Evidence of damage is not found in the
definition. As long as you can establish a right, and that right
was violated, there is damage automatically without need to prove
it because you will be awarded anyway nominal damages for a
vindication of a right, for the recognition of the right. If you
want to recover actual damages, you have to prove the damage. You
cannot recover actual or compensatory damages without evidence of
the harm sustained.
Do you need a COA for every civil action? No. Only in ordinary
civil actions are COAs mandatory. The concept of a COA ad defined
in Sec.2 of Rule 2 does not always fit a special civil action. A
declaratory relief for example, you want the court to state what
your rights are under a law, a treaty, a statute, a deed, a will,
before a violation occurs. In a COA definition, there is a cause
of action. Here in declaratory relief, there is none. Thats why
the definition of a COA does not fit. Also for interpleader where
you are asking the court to decide who between 2 persons is the
rightful claimant. It is filed a person whose rights are not
violated. He cannot just determine who among 2 persons is the
rightful owner of a property being claimed from me. There is no
violation of my right. Also the definition of a COA does not
apply to an administrative proceeding. You will be charged
administratively not because of a violation of a right of another
but because you violated a rule. If you violated a Civil Service
rule, you will be charged administratively. It does not also
apply to a criminal case.
2. Right of Action versus Cause of action
The concept of COA is substantive law. A COA while defined in the
ROC is not coming from the Rules; the essence comes from
substantive law. A right of action is procedural. It is a right
to file the case. There cannot be w ROA without a COA. Article
1156 of the Civil Code enumerates the sources of a COA: law,
contracts, quasi contracts, delicts, quasi delicts, and acts and
omissions punished by law. Thats why when you are asked in civil
procedure, what is the basis of your COA? Your basis will either
be the law, the contract which is breached, a crime etc.
I borrowed money from X. On the due date of the obligation I did
not pay. That he has a COA against me? Not yet because I still
have not violated his right. He has no demand to pay. If he comes
to me and demand payment but I do not pay and just turned my
back, I know violate his right to be paid upon demand. He now has
a COA. If on the due date of the obligation, he comes to me and
said I am reminding you of you debt to me. I did not pay. Is
there a violation? No, because it was not a demand, it was just a
reminder. The demand must be clear and unequivocal requirement to
comply with an obligation. If you did not demand from me on the
due date of the obligation, the implication is that you
voluntarily extended the obligation with a period. Thats why
1169 provides, no demand no delay.
3. Failure to state a cause of action
The allegations of a complaint run: the defendant borrowed P1M
from the plaintiff. The defendant under promissory note hereto
attached as Exh. A and forming an integral part of the complaint
mentions that the debt is payable on Aug. 1, 2010. Until now the
debt remains unpaid Is there a correct statement of a COA? No;
from the allegations, judgment cannot be rendered in favor of the
plaintiff because there was no allegation of a sufficient COA.
You will notice only the debt was mentioned, and the due date; it
did not mention that there was demand to pay. The complaint was
defective. Sa totoo, nagdemand sha pero hindi lang nya sinabi sa
complaint. Actually he has a COA, but when he made the complaint,
he did not state it. Its not a case of an absence of a COA. Its
a case of failure to state a COA. Aside from the demand, the
allegations must also include the fact that the debt is already
due and demandable. These are the elements; if incomplete,
failure to state COA!
Absence of a COA is not a ground for a motion to dismiss; it is a
ground for demurrer to evidence according to the SC. Meaning
there is no evidence that you do have a COA, demurrer to evidence
is anchored on insufficiency of evidence.
4. Test of the sufficiency of a cause of action
Assuming that the allegations of the plaintiff are true, will the
court be able to render judgment on the basis of the allegations
of the plaintiff? If the answer is yes, it is sufficient.
But when can the court not be able to render a judgment? If the
elements of the COA are not present. Example: you sued me for
breach of contract; what are the 2 essential elements that must
be found in the complaint? 1. The existence of the contract; 2.
The violation of the contract. It is sufficient.
The test for
the validity
mentioned in
the basis of
10
criminal action against the driver. The civil action for quasidelict against the driver is a separate civil action under Art.
33 of the CC. They can be filed separately and may proceed
independently of the criminal action and regardless of the
results of the latter.
An obligation that is divisible gives rise to separate causes of
actions. Example: an obligation payable in installments; each
installments that will not be paid can be a source of a distinct
COA. But if you wait for 5 defaults before filing the action on
the 6th default, then you can no longer file an action for each,
you have to lump in one action all the previous defaults.
The doctrine of anticipatory breach: if there are 12 installments
and on the 1st installment the debtor already said that he can
never ever pay any installment, you cannot file an action for all
12 installments, only 1 installment because of the doctrine of
anticipatory breach. Only 1 action can be filed even if there are
divisible obligations. The rationale being to avoid court dockets
to be clogged. Ang marami pwedeng pag-isahin pero ang isa hindi
pwedeng paramihin.
6. Joinder and misjoinder of causes of action
Presupposes there are several COAs that you could combine in 1
complaint. It is different from consolidation, you dont call it
consolidation.
Requisites of Joinder of Causes of Action:
a. The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the
rules on joinder of parties; (applicable only if there are
several plaintiffs or several defendants; example: 1 plaintiff
vs. several defendants or several plaintiffs vs. 1 defendant;
several plaintiffs vs. several defendants)
b. The joinder shall NOT include special civil action or actions
governed by special rules;
c. Where the causes of action are between the same parties but
pertain to different venues or jurisdiction, the joinder may be
allowed in the RTC provided one of the causes of action falls
within the jurisdiction of the RTC and the venue lies therein;
11
d. Where the claims in all the COA are principally for recovery
of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of
jurisdiction.
If given a problem on joinder, immediately look at the number
of parties. if there is only 1 plaintiff and 1 defendant, go to
the 2nd requirement of the Rule. Skip the first. The keyword is a
one-on-one situation. Example: Pedro filed an action against D.
This is one-on-one, dont look at joinder of parties. But if it
says: several plaintiffs vs. 1 defendant or 1 plaintiff vs.
several defendants, look at joinder of parties (ramble
situation).
Plaintiff vs. Defendant. Defendant owes P P350,000 on a
separate promissory note. He also have another PN in favor of P
for P375,000. And another separate PN for P200,000. And another
for P100,000. How many COA are there if all the debts fall due
and demands have been made but unable to pay? Four because each
PN is a separate obligation. Can P file separate suits? Yes. But
there can be also only 1 action filed against the defendant; this
is a proper subject of joinder. Whether or not they come from
different transactions is totally immaterial because this is a
one-on-one situation. If filed under 1 complaint, you follow the
totality rule so RTC will have jurisdiction.
Suppose that the defendant is also a lessee of P who has failed
to pay rentals and there has already been a demand to pay and
vacate, can this action be joined with the action above? No.
There is now UD which is a special civil action expressly
prohibited by the 2nd rule on joinder of COAs.
Suppose there are 4 defendants, all neighbors who owe P amounts
of money; demand has been made, but still did not pay. Can P join
them in one complaint? Now you look at the rule on joinder of
parties, Sec. 6 of Rule 3.
Requisites of Permissive Joinder of Parties:
Right to relief arises out of the same transaction or series of
transactions, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative;
There is a question of law or fact common to all the plaintiffs
and defendants;
Such joinder is not otherwise proscribed by the provisions of the
Rules on jurisdiction and venue.
The above are separate PNs executed by different people, these
are transactions totally unrelated to each other, therefore they
12
13
Foreclosure of mortgage
Unlawful detainer
l. Forcible Entry
If it is a one-on-one case, do not anymore look at the rule on
joinder of parties, look if there is a special civil action. If
there is, then it must be severed.
A joinder of COA and of parties is not compulsory. It is
permissive.
C. Parties to Civil Actions
Is the word plaintiff always the original plaintiff? No. can the
original defendant become the plaintiff in the same proceeding?
Yes; when he file a counterclaim, a cross-claim, a third-party
complaint, he is a plaintiff in that sense. The original
plaintiff also becomes a defendant in these instances.
Who may be parties to a civil action? Can a natural person be a
party? Yes. Can a juridical person be a party? Yes. Can some
neither natural nor juridical person be a party? Only natural
persons, or juridical persons, or entities authorized by law may
be parties to a civil action. Under the Labor Code, a labor
organization duly registered in accordance by the Code can file
suits.
Know the concept of real parties in interest, their definition
will be in the exams, Dean Riano can feel it.
1. Real Parties in interest; Indispensable parties;
Representatives as parties; Necessary parties; Indigent Parties;
Alternative defendants
Real parties in interest
Parties who stand to be benefited or injured by the judgment in
the suit, or the parties entitled to the avails of the suit.
Its not enough to be a natural person, its not enough to be a
juridical person, its not enough to be an entity authorized by
law, in order to sue or be sued or be a party to a civil action.
What is important is you have to be a real party in interest.
There are 2 general types of real parties in interest:
14
15
16
17
18
19