CivProDeanTanRecit PDF

CIVIL PROCEDURE
DEAN FERDINAND A. TAN
By ALBERTSON S. CAJAYON
I Preliminaries
1. What is remedial law?
Prescribes the methods of enforcing those rights and

obligations created by substantive law (Bustos vs.
Lucero, 81 Phil. 640) by providing a procedural system
for obtaining redress for the invasion of rights and
violations of duties and by prescribing rules as to
how suits are filed, tried and decided upon by the
courts.
Branch of law which prescribes the method of

enforcing the rights or obtaining redress for their
invasion.
2. Distinguish remedial law and substantive law.
Substantive law creates, defines and regulates

rights, while adjective or remedial law which
prescribes the method of enforcing the rights or
obtaining redress for their invasion.
Substantive law makes vested rights possible, while

remedial law vests no rights.
Substantive law, as a general rule, is prospective

in application, while statutes regulating the
procedure of courts(remedial law) may be made
applicable to cases pending at the time of their
passage and are retroactive in that sense.
Substantive law is enacted or promulgated by the

Congress, while remedial law is promulgated by the
Supreme Court.
1 Fraternal Order of Leviathan Levithan Sororitas

Substantive law cannot be waived, while remedial
law can be waive or subject to agreement of
parties.
3. What at the four main divisions of remedial law?
A. Civil Procedure Rules 1 71

(a)Ordinary civil actions (Rules 1-56);
(b)Provisional remedies (Rules 57-61); and
(c)Special civil actions (Rules 62-71)
Note: Petitions for Writ of Kalikasan and Writ

of Continuing Mandamus are special civil
actions.
B. Special Proceedings Rules 72 109
C. Criminal Procedure Rules 110 127
D. Rules on Evidence Rule 128 134
4. What is the nature of remedial law?
The rules of procedure are merely tools designed to

facilitate the attainment of justice. They were
conceived and promulgated to effectively aid the court
in the dispensation of justice. Courts are not slaves
to or robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial
discretion. In rendering justice, courts have always
been, as they ought to be, conscientiously guided by
the norm that on the balance, technicalities take a
backseat against substantive rights, and not the other
way around. Thus, if the application of the Rules
would tend to frustrate rather than promote justice,
it is always within the power of the Court to suspend
the rules, or except a particular case from its
operation (SPOUSES ESPEJO vs. ITO, G.R. No. 176511,
August 4, 2009, Third Division, Chico-Nazario, J.).
Procedural rules may be relaxed for persuasive reasons

to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate
with his failure to comply with the prescribed
procedure. More so, when to allow the assailed
decision to go unchecked would set a precedent that
will sanction a violation of substantive law (PHIL.
ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY, et al. vs. JOSEPH JUDE
CARATES, Et al. G.R. No. 181274, June 23, 2010, Third
Division, Villarama, Jr. J.).
5. What are the sources of Remedial Law?
A. 1987 Constitution
B. BP 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980) as

amended by RA 7691(An Act expanding the
Jurisdiction of the MTCs, MuTCs and MCTCs)
C. Rules of Court
D. Supreme Court Administrative Matters and

Circulars
a. Rules on Examination of Child Witness
Section 1. Applicability of the Rule. - Unless

otherwise provided, this Rule shall govern the
examination of child witnesses who are victims of
crime, accused of a crime, and witnesses to crime.
It shall apply in all criminal proceedings and
non-criminal proceedings involving child
witnesses.
b. Rules on Electronic Evidence
Section 2. Cases covered. These Rules shall

apply to all civil actions and proceedings, as
well as quasi-judicial and administrative cases.
(Note: In People vs Enojas, the Court held that
Rules on Electronic Evidence is applicable in
criminal cases).

c. 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
Initiatory pleadings need to be verified, these

rules provide for the procedure on the
following:
(1) acknowledgments;
(2) oaths and affirmations;
(3) jurats;
(4) signature witnessings;
(5) copy certifications;
d. Rules on DNA Evidence
SECTION 1. Scope. This Rule shall apply whenever

DNA evidence, as defined in Section 3 hereof, is
offered, used, or proposed to be offered or used
as evidence in all criminal and civil actions as
well as special proceedings.
e. Judicial Affidavit Rule
Section 1. Scope. - (a) This Rule shall apply to

all actions, proceedings, and incidents requiring
the reception of evidence before:
xxx
E. Supreme Court Decisions
F. New Civil Code
G. Family Code
Article 151 of the Family Code wherein it is provided

that no suit between members of the same family shall
prosper unless it should appear from the verified
complaint or petition that earnest efforts toward a
compromise have been made, but that the same have
failed.
H. PD 1508 Katarungang Pambarangay Decree as amended
by RA 7160 (Local Government Code) Sections 399 -
422

I. Special Laws and Amendments
a. Intellectual Property Code
Section 76. Civil Action for Infringement.
76.1. The making, using, offering for sale,

selling, or importing a patented product or a
product obtained directly or indirectly from a
patented process, or the use of a patented process
without the authorization of the patentee
constitutes patent infringement.
76.2. Any patentee, or anyone possessing any
right, title or interest in and to the patented
invention, whose rights have been infringed, may
bring a civil action before a court of competent
jurisdiction, to recover from the infringer such
damages sustained thereby, plus attorney's fees
and other expenses of litigation, and to secure an
injunction for the protection of his rights.
b. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 902-A
This action, therefore, partakes the nature of an

intra-corporate controversy, the jurisdiction
over which used to belong to the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC), but transferred to the
courts of general jurisdiction or the appropriate
Regional Trial Court (RTC), pursuant to Section 5b
of P.D. No. 902-A, as amended by Section 5.2 of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8799.
J. Special Rules of Court on Alternative Dispute
Resolution
K. Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases
L. Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Court
M. R.A. 1125 (An Act Creating the Court of Appeals)

as amended by R.A. 9503.

N. Presidential Decree No. 1486 (CREATING A SPECIAL
COURT TO BE KNOWN AS 'SANDIGANBAYAN' AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES) as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1606
further amended by RA No. 10660 (AN ACT STRENGTHENING
FURTHER THE FUNCTIONAL AND STRUCTURAL ORGANIZATION OF
THE SANDIGANBAYAN, FURTHER AMENDING PRESIDENTIAL
DECREE NO. 1606, AS AMENDED, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS
THEREFOR).
O. 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure
P. Revised Manual of the Clerk of Court
6. Distinguish Civil Actions, Criminal Actions and

Special Procedure
(a) A civil action is one by which a party sues
another for the enforcement or protection of a right,
or the prevention or redress of a wrong,
A civil action may either be ordinary or special. Both

are governed by the rules for ordinary civil actions,
subject to the specific rules prescribed for a special
civil action.
(b) A criminal action is one by which the State
prosecutes a person for an act or omission punishable
by law.
(c) A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party
seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular
fact.
Civil action involves 2 or more parties (plaintiff and
defendant or petitioner and respondent), criminal
action involves the state and the accused or
respondent, special proceeding may involve only one
party.
Civil action is initiated by a complaint, petition or
statement of claim, criminal action is commenced by a

complaint or information, special proceeding is
commenced by a petition.
Civil action is based on a cause of action, criminal
action is based on an act or omission punishable by
law, special proceeding, except habeas corpus, need
not be based on a cause of action.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO CIVIL PROCEDURE
ARTICLE III
Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life,

liberty, or property without due process of law, nor
shall any person be denied the equal protection of the
laws.
Section 9. Private property shall not be taken for
public use without just compensation. (Basis of Rule
67 Expropriation)
Section 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-
judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall
not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.
Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a
speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial,
quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
ARTICLE VI
Section 30. No law shall be passed increasing the

appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as
provided in this Constitution without its advice and
concurrence.
Section 27 of RA 6770 cannot validly authorize an

appeal to the SC from decisions of the Office of
the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary
cases. It consequently violates the proscription
in Sec. 30, Art. VI of the Constitution against a
law which increases the appellate jurisdiction of
the SC. (Fabian vs. Desierto G.R. No. 129742,
September 16, 1998)
ARTICLE VII
Section 4. Last Par. The Supreme Court, sitting en

banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating
to the election, returns, and qualifications of the
President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its
rules for the purpose.

Section 18. Par. 3. The Supreme Court may review, in
an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the
sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation
of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of
the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate
its decision thereon within thirty days from its
filing.
ARTICLE VIII
Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one

Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be
established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of

justice to settle actual controversies involving
rights which are legally demandable and enforceable,
and to determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to
define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of
the various courts but may not deprive the Supreme
Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in
Section 5 hereof.
No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when
it undermines the security of tenure of its Members.
Section 4(2)
All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty,

international or executive agreement, or law, which
shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all
other cases which under the Rules of Court are
required to be heard en banc, including those
involving the constitutionality, application, or
operation of presidential decrees, proclamations,
orders, instructions, ordinances, and other
regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of
a majority of the Members who actually took part in

the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted
thereon.
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following
powers:
1. Exercise original jurisdiction over cases

affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls, and over petitions for certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas
corpus.
2. Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on
appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of
Court may provide, final judgments and orders of
lower courts in:
a. All cases in which the constitutionality or
validity of any treaty, international or
executive agreement, law, presidential decree,
proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or
regulation is in question.
b. All cases involving the legality of any
tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any
penalty imposed in relation thereto.
c. All cases in which the jurisdiction of any
lower court is in issue.
d. All criminal cases in which the penalty
imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
e. All cases in which only an error or
question of law is involved.(Basis of Rule 56)
Par. 5. Promulgate rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading,
practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission
to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal
assistance to the under-privileged. Such rules shall
provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the
speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all
courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish,
increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of
procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies
shall remain effective unless disapproved by the
Supreme Court. (Statutory Basis of promulgation of
Rules of Court)
Section 6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative
supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.
Section 14. No decision shall be rendered by any court
without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the
facts and the law on which it is based.
No petition for review or motion for reconsideration

of a decision of the court shall be refused due course
or denied without stating the legal basis therefor.
(Basis of Rule 36)
ARTICLE IX
A. COMMON PROVISIONS
Section 7. Each Commission shall decide by a

8.
majority vote of all its Members, any case or matter

brought before it within sixty days from the date of
its submission for decision or resolution. A case or
matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution
upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or
memorandum required by the rules of the Commission or
by the Commission itself. Unless otherwise provided
by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order,
or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the
Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party
within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.
(Basis of Rule 64)
Section 10. All courts existing at the time of the

ratification of this Constitution shall continue to
exercise their jurisdiction, until otherwise provided
by law. The provisions of the existing Rules of
Court, judiciary acts, and procedural laws not
inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain
operative unless amended or repealed by the Supreme
Court or the Congress.

1. In Relation to ARTICLE VIII Section 1
A. Constitutional Court Supreme Court
B. Statutory Courts
a. Court of Appeals
b. Sandiganbayan (PD 1486, PD 1606, RA 10660)
c. Court of Tax Appeals(RA 1125, RA 9282, RA 9503)
d. Shariah Appellate Court
e. Regional Trial Court (BP 129)
f. Shariah District Court (PD 1083)
g. Shariah Circuit Court (PD 1083)
h. Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial

Court, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. (BP 129)
i. Family Courts (Republic Act No. 8369)
C. Are tribal courts part of the judiciary?

Such tribal courts are not a part of the Philippine
judicial system which consists of the Supreme Court
and the lower courts which have been established by
law (Sec. 1, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution). They do
not possess judicial power. Like the pangkats or
conciliation panels created by P.D. No. 1508 in the
barangays, they are advisory and conciliatory bodies
whose principal objective is to bring together the
parties to a dispute and persuade them to make peace,
settle, and compromise. (Sps. Badua vs Cordillera
Bodong Administration)

D. Are military courts/commissions/tribunals judicial
courts?
Military commissions or tribunals, by whatever name

they are called, are not courts within the Philippine
judicial system. (Olaguer vs Military Commission)
E. Distinguish judge and court.

a. A court is a tribunal clothed with the power and
authority to entertain and resolve legal disputes
between the parties to carry out the dispensation of
justice in accordance with law; while a judge is a
public officer who exercises the power of the court in
the dispensation of justice.
b. A court is more of a permanent status or existence;
while a judge is merely temporary.
F. What is the nature of Philippine courts? Court of

law or court of equity?
Under the system of procedure which obtains in the

Philippine Islands, both legal and equitable relief is
dispensed in the same tribunal. (US vs Tamparong) If
there is no applicable law on a particular matter or
issue, common precepts of what is right or wrong is
applied.
A court of equity is a court having jurisdiction
in equity or administering justice in accordance with
the principles of equity; while a court of law decides
a case according to what the promulgated law is.
2. In relation to rule making power of the Supreme
Court.
The Supreme Court may promulgate procedural rules in

all courts. It has the sole prerogative to amend,
repeal or even establish new rules for a more
simplified and inexpensive process, and the speedy
disposition of cases. (Neypes vs CA)

3. In relation to Sec. 30, Art VI
It is suggested, however, that the provisions of Rule

43 should apply only to "ordinary" quasi-judicial
agencies, but not to the Office of the Ombudsman which
is a "high constitutional body." We see no reason for
this distinction for, if hierarchical rank should be a
criterion, that proposition thereby disregards the
fact that Rule 43 even includes the Office of the
President and the Civil Service Commission, although
the latter is even an independent constitutional
commission, unlike the Office of the Ombudsman which
is a constitutionally-mandated but statutorily created
body.
xxx
As a consequence of our ratiocination that Section 27
of Republic Act No. 6770 should be struck down as
unconstitutional, and in line with the regulatory
philosophy adopted in appeals from quasi-judicial
agencies in the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure,
appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman
in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken
to the Court of Appeals under the provisions of Rule
43. (Fabian vs Desierto)
Civil Procedure Proper
1. Jurisdiction - Power or authority given by the law

to a court or tribunal to hear (Rule 30) and determine
(Rule 36) certain controversies and to implement its
decision (Rule 39).
2. Venue - is the place where the case is to be
heard or tried.
3. Jurisdiction and venue are distinguished as

follows:
a. Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and

determine a case; venue is the place where the
case is to be heard or tried.
b. Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law;
venue, of procedural law.
c. Jurisdiction establishes a relation between

the court and the subject-matter; venue, a
relation between plaintiff and defendant, or
petitioner and respondent.
d. Jurisdiction is fixed by law and cannot be

conferred by the parties; venue may be conferred
by the act or agreement of the parties (Manila
Railroad Co. vs. Attorney-General, 20 Phil.
523).
In criminal cases, the venue of the crime goes

into the territorial jurisdiction of the court
(Lopez vs. Paras, L-25795, Oct. 29, 1966),
hence where the criminal action is instituted
not in the place specified by the Rules and
declared by the substantive law as within the
territorial jurisdiction of the trial court, the
motion to quash should be grounded on lack of
jurisdiction, and not improper venue.
4. The authority to decide a case and not the

decision rendered therein is what makes up
jurisdiction. Where there is jurisdiction, the
decision of all questions arising in the case is
but an exercise of jurisdiction (De la Cruz vs.
Moir, 36 Phil. 213; Associated Labor Union vs.
Ramolete, L-23527, Mar. 31, 1965). Consequently,
a court may have jurisdiction over the case but
at the same time act in excess of such
jurisdiction.

5. Requisites for the exercise of jurisdiction
and how the court acquires such jurisdiction:
a. Jurisdiction over the plaintiff or petitioner:

This is acquired by the filing of the complaint,
petition or initiatory pleading before the court
by the plaintiff or petitioner.
b. Jurisdiction over the defendant or respondent:

This is acquired by the voluntary appearance or
submission by the defendant or respondent to the
court or by coercive process issued by the
court to him, generally by the service of
summons (Sharuff vs. Bubla, L-17029, Sept.
30, 1964; Aban vs. Enage, L-30666, Feb. 25,
1983).
c. Jurisdiction over the subject-matter: This is

conferred by law and, unlike jurisdiction over the
parties, cannot be conferred on the court by the
voluntary act or agreement of the parties.
d. Jurisdiction over the issues of the case: This

is determined and conferred by the pleadings
filed in the case by the parties, or by their
agreement in a pre-trial order or stipulation,
or, at times, by their implied consent as by the
failure of a party to object to evidence on an
issue not covered by the pleadings, as provided in
Sec. 5, Rule 10 (see Lazo, et al. vs. Republic
Surety & Insurance Co., Inc., L-27365, Jan. 30,
1970).
e. Jurisdiction over the res (or the property or

thing which is the subject of the litigation):
This is acquired by the actual or constructive
seizure by the court of the thing in question,
thus placing it in custodia legis, as in
attachment or garnishment ; or by provision of
law which recognizes in the court the power to
deal with the property or subject-matter within
its territorial juris diction, as in land
registration proceedings or suits involving civil
status or real property in the Philippines of a
nonresident defendant.
In two instances, the court acquires jurisdiction

to try the case, even if it has not acquired
jurisdiction over the person of a nonresident
defendant, as long as it has jurisdiction over
the res, as when the action involves the personal
status of the plaintiff or property in the
Philippines in which the defendant claims an
interest (see Sec. 15, Rule 14). In such cases,
the service of summons by publication and notice
to the defendant is merely to comply with due
process requirements (Banco Espanol-Filipino vs.
Palanca, 37 Phil. 921; De Midgely vs. Ferandos, et
al., L-34314, May 13, 1975). Under Sec. 133 of the
Corporation Code, while a foreign corporation
doing business in the Philippines without a
license cannot sue or intervene in any action
here; it may be sued or proceeded against before
our court s or administrative tribunals.
6. As a general proposition, the jurisdiction of

the court is determined by the statute in force at
the time of the commencement of the action (People
vs. Paderna, L-28518, Jan. 29, 1968), unless such
statute provides for its retroactive application,
as where it is a curative legislation (Atlas
Fertilizer Corp. vs. Navarro, etc., et al.,
G.R. No.72074, April 30, 1987).

7. Under our present statutory and jurisprudential
taxonomy, jurisdiction is classified, based on its
nature, as follows:
a. General jurisdiction, or the power to

adjudicate all controversies except those
expressly withheld from the plenary powers of the
court;
b. Original jurisdiction, or the power of the

court to take judicial cognizance of a case
instituted for judicial action for the first time
under conditions provided by law; and
c. Appellate jurisdiction, or the authority of a

court higher in rank to reexamine the final order
or judgment of a lower court which tried the case
now elevated for judicial review.
d. Exclusive jurisdiction, or the power to

adjudicate a case or proceeding to the exclusion
of all other courts at that stage; and
e. Concurrent jurisdiction, sometimes referred to

as confluent or coordinate jurisdiction,
which is the power conferred upon different
courts, whether of the same or different ranks,
to take cognizance at the same stage of the
same case in the same or different judicial
territories.
f. Also, under B.P. Blg. 129, delegated

jurisdiction is provided for, i.e., the grant of
authority to inferior courts to hear and
determine cadastral an d land registration cases
under certain conditions (see Sec. 34, infra);
and

g. special jurisdiction, which is the power of
inferior courts to hear and decide petitions for
a writ of habeas corpus or applications for bail
in the absence of all the Regional Trial
Judges in the province or city (see Sec. 35,
infra). This latter type of jurisdiction was
formerly included, with variations, in what was
known as the interlocutory jurisdiction of
inferior courts under the Judiciary Act.
h. territorial jurisdiction of a court, which

refers to the geographical area within which its
powers can be exercised. As already stated, this
assumes importance in criminal cases wherein
considerations of the territory vis-a-vis the
locus of the crime determine not only the
venue of the case but the jurisdiction of the
court; and, in civil cases, the venue of real or
mixed actions. In all cases, the Supreme Court
and the Court of Appeals have national
jurisdiction; the Regional Trial Courts have
regional jurisdiction; and the inferior courts
have such territorial jurisdiction as may be
defined by the Supreme Court pursuant to Secs,
25, 28 and 31 , B.P. Blg. 129.
i. special or limited jurisdiction - which

restricts the court' s jurisdiction only to
particular cases and subject to such limitations
as may be provided by the governing law.
j. ancillary jurisdiction - the power of the

courts to settle issues which are incidental to the
main issue.
k. residual jurisdiction prior to the transmittal

of the original record or the record on appeal, the
court may issue orders for the protection and
preservation of the rights of the parties which do

not involve any matter litigated by the appeal,
approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent
litigants, order execution pending appeal in
accordance with 2 of Rule 39, and allow withdrawal
of the appeal.
8. Doctrine of primary jurisdiction
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction holds that if a

case is such that its determination requires the
expertise, specialized training and knowledge of the
proper administrative bodies, relief must first be
obtained in an administrative proceeding before a
remedy is supplied by the courts even if the matter
may well be within their proper jurisdiction. It
applies where a claim is originally cognizable in the
courts, and comes into play whenever enforcement of
the claim requires the resolution of issues which,
under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the
special competence of an administrative agency. In
such a case, the court in which the claim is sought
to be enforced may suspend the judicial process
pending referral of such issues to the administrative
body for its view or, if the parties would not be
unfairly disadvantaged, dismiss the case without
prejudice.
The objective of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction

is to guide the court in determining whether it should
refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until after
an administrative agency has determined some question
or some aspect of some question arising in the
proceeding before the court.24.
THE PROVINCE OF AKLAN, Petitioner, -versus- JODY KING

CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORP., Respondent.
G.R. Nos. 197592 & 202623, NOV. 27,

9. Distinguish Appeal by Petition for Review on
Certiorari under Rule 45 and Petition for Certiorari
under Rule 65.
There are well-settled distinctions between these two
rules, among which are the following:
(a) Certiorari under Rule 45 although called a

petition for review on certiorari, is a mode of
appeal (Sec. 2[c], Rule 41, Rules of Court), while
certiorari under Rule 65 is a special civil action
that is an original and independent action and not a
mode of appeal (Rule 65, Rules of Court; Agrarian
Reform Beneficiaries Association vs. Nicolas, G.R.
No. 168394, October 6, 2008).
Certiorari under Rule 45 is but a continuation of the

appellate process over the original case. Certiorari
under Rule 65 is not a part of the appellate process
but an independent action (Norsk Hydro [Phils.] G.R.
No. 162871, January 31, 2007; Agrarian reform
Beneficiaries Association vs. Nicolas, G.R. No.
168394, October 6, 2008).
(b) Because it is a mode of appeal, certiorari under

Rule 45 seeks to review final judgments or final
orders while certiorari under Rule 65 may be directed
against an interlocutory order or matters where no
appeal may be taken from (Sec. 1, Rule 41, Rules of
Court).
(c) Certiorari under Rule 45 as a rule, raises only

questions of law (DMA Shipping Philippines, Inc. vs.
Cabilar, 452 SCRA 551, February 28, 2005) while
certiorari under Rule 65 raises questions of
jurisdiction because a tribunal, board or officer
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has
acted without jurisdiction or in excess of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion

amounting to lack of jurisdiction (Sec. 1, Rule 65,
Rules of Court; Aggabao vs. COMELEC, 449 SCRA 4000,
January 26, 2005).
The purpose of a Rule 65 petition is to annul the

proceedings of a lower tribunal and prevent an
unlawful and oppressive exercise of legal authority
(Agrarian reform Beneficiaries Association vs.
Nicolas, G.R. No. 168394, October 6, 2008).
(d) An appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 shall be

filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of
judgment or final order appealed from (Sec. 2, Rule
45, Rules of Court), while a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 shall be filed not later than sixty
(60) days from notice of judgment, order or
resolution sought to be assailed and in case a motion
for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed,
whether such motion is required or not, the sixty
(60) day period shall be counted from notice of
denial of said motion (Sec. 4, Rule 65, Rules of
Court; A.M. No. 00-2-03 amending Sec. 4 of Rule 65
effective September 1,2000; Systems Factors
Corporation vs. NLRC, 346 SCRA 149, 152 [2000]).
(e) Certiorari under Rule 45 does not require a prior

motion for reconsideration while certiorari under
Rule 65 requires as a general rule, a prior motion
for reconsideration (Progressive Development
Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 637).
(f) Certiorari under Rule 45 stays the judgment

appealed from while certiorari does not stay the
judgment or order subject of the petition unless
enjoined or restrained (Sec. 7, Rule 65, Rules of
Court).
(g) In certiorari under Rule 45, the parties are the

original parties with the appealing party as the
petitioner and the adverse party as respondent
without impleading the lower court or its judge (Sec.
4[a], Rule 45, Rules of Court; Cebu Women's Club vs.
De la Victoria, 327 SCRA 533; Marquez vs. Court of
Appeals, 329 SCRA 567), while in certiorari under
Rule 65, the tribunal, board, officer exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions is impleaded as
respondent (Sec. 5, Rule 65, Rules of Court).
In an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45, the

petitioner and respondent are also the original
parties to the action in the lower court. In
certiorari as an original action, the parties are the
aggrieved party against the lower court or quasi-
judicial agency and the prevailing parties, who
thereby respectively become the petitioner and
respondents (Yasuda vs. Court of Appeals, 330 SCRA
385).
(h) Certiorari as a special civil action is filed

with the Regional Trial Court (Sec. 21, BP 129 as
amended), the Court of Appeals Sec. 9, BP 129 as
amended) or with the Supreme Court (Sec. 5[1], Art.
VIII, Constitution of the Philippines) or with the
Sandiganbayan, whereas certiorari as a mode of appeal
is filed with the Supreme Court (Sec. 1, Rule 45,
Rules of Court).
10. Exhaustion of administrative remedies
The general rule is that before a party may seek the

intervention of the court, he should first avail of
all the means afforded him by administrative
processes. The issues which administrative agencies
are authorized to decide should not be summarily
taken from them and submitted to a court without
first giving such administrative agency the
opportunity to dispose of the same after due
deliberation.

Nonetheless, the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies and the corollary doctrine of
primary jurisdiction, which are based on sound public
policy and practical considerations, are not
inflexible rules. There are many accepted exceptions,
such as: (a) where there is estoppel on the part of
the party invoking the doctrine; (b) where the
challenged administrative act is patently illegal,
amounting to lack of jurisdiction; (c) where there is
unreasonable delay or official inaction that will
irretrievably prejudice the complainant; (d) where
the amount involved is relatively small so as to make
the rule impractical and oppressive; (e) where the
question involved is purely legal and will ultimately
have to be decided by the courts of justice; (f)
where judicial intervention is urgent; (g) when its
application may cause great and irreparable damage;
(h) where the controverted acts violate due process;
(i) when the issue of non-exhaustion of
administrative remedies has been rendered moot; (j)
when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy; (k) when strong public interest is involved;
and, (l) in quo warranto proceedings.
11. Doctrine of non-interference
Courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot

interfere with each others orders. The principle also
bars a court from reviewing or interfering with the
judgment of a co-equal court over which it has no
appellate jurisdiction or power of review.
As a general rule, No court has the authority to

interfere by injunction with the judgment of another
court of coordinate jurisdiction or to pass upon or
scrutinize and much less declare as unjust a judgment
of another court. However, the doctrine does not
apply where a third party claimant is involved (Santos
v. Bayhon, G.R. No. 88643, July 23, 1991).
12. Doctrine of Continuing Jurisdiction
The general principle that once a court has acquired

jurisdiction, that jurisdiction continues until the
court has done all that it can do to exercise that
jurisdiction. See Doctrine of adherence of
jurisdiction.
13. Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction.
The principle that once a court has acquired

jurisdiction, that jurisdiction continues until the
court has done all that it can do in the exercise of
that jurisdiction. 2. The doctrine holding that [e]ven
the finality of the judgment does not totally deprive
the court of jurisdiction over the case. What the
court loses is the power to amend, modify or alter the
judgment. Even after the judgment has become final,
the court retains jurisdiction to enforce and execute
it [Echegaray v. Sec. of Justice, 301 SCRA 96]. Also
called Doctrine of continuity of jurisdiction.
14. Doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
An established policy that parties must observe the

hierarchy of courts before they can seek relief
directly from th[e Sup.] Court. Therationale for this
rule is twofold: (a) it would be an imposition upon
the limited time of th[e Sup.] Court; and (b) it would
inevitably result in a delay, intended or otherwise,
in the adjudication of cases, which in some instances,
had to be remanded or referred to the lower court as
the proper forum under the rules of procedure, or as
better equipped to resolve the issues because th[e
Sup.] Court is not a trier of facts. [Heirs of Hinog
v. Melicor, GR 140954, 12 Apr. 2005, 455 SCRA 460].

JURISDICTION OF VARIOUS COURTS
I. SUPREME COURT
A. Original Exclusive
Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus

against:
Court of Appeals;
Court of Tax Appeals;
Sandiganbayan;
Commission on Elections; and
Commission on Audit
Ombudsman in criminal cases(Salvador vs
Mapa)
B. Concurrent with the Court of Appeals
a. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or
mandamus against:
Regional Trial Courts;

Civil Service Commission;
Central Board of Assessment Appeals;
National Labor Relations Commission; and
Other quasi-judicial agencies.
b. Petition for Writ of Kalikasan.
C. With the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan,

Regional Trial Courts, and Sharia District Court
(1) Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or

mandamus against courts of the first level
and other bodies; and
(2) Petitions for habeas corpus and quo

warranto, Writ of Amparo, Habeas Data and
Continuing Mandamus(not Sharia DC).

D. With Regional Trial Courts
Actions against ambassadors, other public

ministers and consuls.
Appellate
A. Petitions for review on certiorari against:

a. Court of Appeals;
b. Court of Tax Appeals;
c. Sandiganbayan; and
d. Regional Trial Courts in cases involving
1. Constitutionality or validity of a
treaty, international or executive agreement,
law, presidential decree, proclamation, order,
instruction, ordinance, or regulation;
2. Legality of a tax, impost, assessment,
toll or a penalty in relation thereto;
3. Jurisdiction of a lower court; and
4. Only errors or questions of law.
II. COURT OF APPEALS

A. Original
Exclusive:
Actions for annulment of judgments of regional
Trial Courts.
Concurrent:
a. With the Supreme Court (see Par. 2, sub- par, a.

on the original jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court); and

b. With the Supreme Court and the Regional Trial
Courts (see Par. 2, sub-par, b., loc. cit.).
Appellate:
Ordinary appeals from:
a. Regional Trial Courts, except in cases

exclusively appealable to the Supreme Court, supra;
and
b. Family Courts.
Appeal by petition for review from:
a. Civil Service Commission;

b. Central Board of Assessment Appeals;
c. Land Registration Authority;
d. Social Security Commission;
e. Office of the President;
f. Civil Aeronautics Board;
g. Bureaus under the Intellectual Property Office;
h. National Electrification Administration;
i. Energy Regulatory Board;
j. National Telecommunications Commission;
k. Department of Agrarian Reform under R.A. 6657;
l. Government Service Insurance System;
m. Employees Compensation Commission;
n. Agricultural Inventions Board;
o. Insurance Commission;
p. Philippine Atomic Energy Commission;
q. Board of Investments;
r. Office of the Ombudsman, in administrative
disciplinary cases; and
s. Any other quasi-judicial agency,
instrumentality, board or commission in the

exercise of its quasi-judicial functions, such as
voluntary arbitrators.
t. Petitions for review from the Regional Trial
Courts in cases appealed thereto from the lower
courts.
III. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Exclusive Original Jurisdiction

1. Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. Regional
Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original
jurisdiction:
(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of
the litigation is incapable of pecuniary
estimation;
(2) In all civil actions which involve the title

to, or possession of, real property, or any
interest therein, where the assessed value of the
property involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos
(P20,000.00) or for civil actions in Metro Manila,
where such the value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos
(50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into
and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings,
original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts,
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
(3) In all actions in admiralty and maritime

jurisdiction where he demand or claim exceeds
Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) or , in
Metro Manila, where such demand or claim exceeds
Four hundred thousand pesos (400,000.00);
(4) In all matters of probate, both testate and

intestate, where the gross value of the estate
exceeds Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00)
or, in probate matters in Metro Manila, where such

gross value exceeds Four hundred thousand pesos
(400,000.00);
(5) In all actions involving the contract of

marriage and marital relations;
(6) In all cases not within the exclusive

jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or
body exercising jurisdiction or any court,
tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions;
(7) In all civil actions and special proceedings

falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction
of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of
the Courts of Agrarian Relations as now provided
by law; and
(8) In all other cases in which the demand,

exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs or
the value of the property in controversy exceeds
Three hundred thousand pesos (300,000.00) or, in
such other abovementioned items exceeds Four
hundred thousand pesos (400,000.00). (as amended
by R.A. No. 7691*)
2. Section 10. Annulment of judgments or final

orders of Municipal Trial Courts. An action to
annul a judgment or final order of a Municipal
Trial Court shall be filed in the Regional Trial
Court having jurisdiction over the former.
3. Civil cases for Copyright infringement cases
under the provisions of the Intellectual Property
Code.
4. Child and Family Cases under the Family Courts.
R.A. 8369 Family Court s Act of 1997
Exclusive original jurisdiction in the following civil

cases or proceedings:
a. Petitions for guardianship, custody of children,
habeas corpus in relation to the latter;
b. Petitions for adoption of children and the

revocation thereof;
c. Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration

of nullity of marriage and those relating to marital
status and property relations of husband and wife or
those living together under different status and
agreements , and petitions for dissolution of
conjugal partnership of gains;
d. Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment;
e. Summary judicial proceedings brought under the

provisions of Executive Order No. 209 (Family Code of
the Philippines);
f. Petitions for declaration of status of children as

abandoned, dependent or neglected children, petitions
for voluntary or involuntary commitment of children;
the suspension, termination, or restoration of
parental authority under P.D. 603, Executive Order No.
56 (Series of 1986), and other related laws;
g. Petitions for the constitution of the family home;
h. Cases of domestic violence against women and children,

as defined therein, but which do not constitute criminal
offenses subject to criminal proceedings and penalties
5. Civil Forfeiture of monetary instrument, property

or proceeds representing, involving or relating to
unlawful activity, or to money laundering offenses.
6. Original Jurisdiction of the RTC under the

Special Rules on Alternative Dispute Resolution:
a. Questioning the existence, validity, and
enforceability of an arbitration agreement;

b. For judicial relief from a ruling of an arbitral
tribunal on a preliminary question of upholding or
declining jurisdiction;
c. For interim measure of protection;
d. For appointment of arbitrator;
e. Challenging the appointment of arbitrator;
f. Terminate the mandate of arbitrator;
g. For assistance in taking evidence;
h. For protective order;
i. Confirmation, correction/modification or
vacation of a domestic arbitral award;
j. to recognize and enforce, set aside an arbitral
award;
k. Recognize and enforce a foreign arbitral award.
7. Intra-Corporate Disputes
Appellate
All cases decided by lower courts in their

respective territorial jurisdictions.

IV. METROPOLITAN, MUNICIPAL, AND MUNICIPAL
CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS
Original
Exclusive
a. Actions involving personal property valued at

not more than P300,000 or, in Metro Manila,
P400,000;
b. Actions demanding sum s of money not

exceeding P300,000 or, in Metro Manila,
P400,000, exclusive of interest, damages,
attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs;
c. Actions in admiralty and maritime juris

diction where the demand or claim does not
exceed P300.000 or, in Metro Manila , P400,000,
exclusive of interest, damages, attorney's fees,
litigation expenses, and costs;
d. Probate proceedings, testate or intestate,

where the gross value of the estate does not
exceed P300,000 or, in Metro Manila, P400.000;
e. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases;
f. Actions involving title to or possession of real

property, or any interest therein , where the
assessed value does not exceed P20.000 or, in Metro
Manila, P50.000, exclusive of interest, damages,
attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs;
and
g. Provisional remedies where the principal action

is within their jurisdiction.

Delegated (Section 34, BP 129)
Cadastral or land registration cases covering lots

where there is no controversy or opposition, or
contested lots the value of which does not exceed P
100,000, as may be assigned by the Supreme Court.
Special (Section 35, BP 129)
Petitions for habeas corpus in the absence of all

the Regional Trial Judge s in the province or city.
Summary Procedure (Exclusive Original)
a. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases

irrespective of the amount of damages or unpaid
rentals sought to be recovered; and
b. All other court cases, except probate

proceedings, where the total claim does not exceed
P200,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
V. Shari'a District Court
Original jurisdiction.
(1) The Shari'a District Court shall have

exclusive original jurisdiction over:
(a) All cases involving custody, guardianship,

legitimacy, paternity and filiation arising
under this Code;
(b) All cases involving disposition,

distribution and settlement of the estate of
deceased Muslims, probate of wills, issuance of
letters of administration or appointment of
administrators or executors regardless of the
nature or the aggregate value of the property
shall be under the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the Sharia District Courts
(Article 143(b) of Presidential Decree No.
1083, otherwise known as the Code of Muslim
Personal Laws of the Philippines cited in
MONTAER vs. SHARIA DISTRICT COURT, G.R. No.
174975, January 20, 2009, First Division, Puno,
C.J.).
(c) Petitions for the declaration of absence

and death and for the cancellation or
correction of entries in the Muslim Registries
mentioned in Title VI of Book Two of this Code;
(d) All actions arising from customary

contracts in which the parties are Muslims, if
they have not specified which law shall govern
their relations; and
(e) All petitions for mandamus, prohibition,

injunction, certiorari, habeas corpus, and all
other auxiliary writs and processes in aid of
its appellate jurisdiction.
(2) Concurrently with existing civil courts, the

Shari'a District Court shall have original
jurisdiction over:
(a) Petitions by Muslims for the constitution

of a family home, change of name and commitment
of an insane person to an asylum;
(b) All other personal and real actions not

mentioned in paragraph 1 (d) wherein the
parties involved are Muslims except those for
forcible entry and unlawful detainer, which
shall fall under the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the Municipal Circuit Court;
and

(c) All special civil actions for interpleader
or declaratory relief wherein the parties are
Muslims or the property involved belongs
exclusively to Muslims.
Appellate jurisdiction.
(1) Shari'a District Courts shall have appellate

jurisdiction over all cases tried in the Shari'a
Circuit Courts within their territorial
jurisdiction.
IV. Shari'a Circuit Courts
The Shari'a Circuit Courts shall have exclusive

original jurisdiction over;
(2) All civil actions and proceedings between

parties who are Muslims or have been married in
accordance with Article 13 involving disputes
relating to:
(a) Marriage;
(b) Divorce recognized under this Code;
(c) Betrothal or breach of contract to marry;
(d) Customary dower (mahr);
(e) Disposition and distribution of property

upon divorce;
(f) Maintenance and support, and consolatory

gifts, (mut'a); and
(g) Restitution of marital rights.
(3) All cases involving disputes relative to

communal properties.

VI. Sandiganbayan
Exclusive and original jurisdiction
Over civil cases for the forfeiture of illegally

acquired wealth under R.A. 1379(AN ACT DECLARING
FORFEITURE IN FAVOR OF THE STATE ANY PROPERTY FOUND
TO HAVE BEEN UNLAWFULLY ACQUIRED BY ANY PUBLIC
OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE).
Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction
Over final judgment, resolutions, or orders of

Regional Trial Courts whether in the exercise of
their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate
jurisdiction.
VII. Court Of Tax Appeals
Exclusive appellate jurisdiction
To review by appeal:
1. Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal

Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments,
refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other
charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other
matters arising under the National Internal
Revenue or other laws administered by the Bureau
of Internal Revenue;
"2. Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal

Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments,
refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other
charges, penalties in relations thereto, or other
matters arising under the National Internal

Revenue Code or other laws administered by the
Bureau of Internal Revenue, where the National
Internal Revenue Code provides a specific period
of action, in which case the inaction shall be
deemed a denial;
"3. Decisions, orders or resolutions of the

Regional Trial Courts in local tax cases
originally decided or resolved by them in the
exercise of their original or appellate
jurisdiction;
"4. Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in

cases involving liability for customs duties, fees
or other money charges, seizure, detention or
release of property affected, fines, forfeitures
or other penalties in relation thereto, or other
matters arising under the Customs Law or other
laws administered by the Bureau of Customs;
"5. Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment

Appeals in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction over cases involving the assessment
and taxation of real property originally decided
by the provincial or city board of assessment
appeals;
"6. Decisions of the Secretary of Finance on

customs cases elevated to him automatically for
review from decisions of the Commissioner of
Customs which are adverse to the Government under
Section 2315 of the Tariff and Customs Code;
"7. Decisions of the Secretary of Trade and

Industry, in the case of nonagricultural product,
commodity or article, and the Secretary of
Agriculture in the case of agricultural product,
commodity or article, involving dumping and
countervailing duties under Section 301 and 302,

respectively, of the Tariff and Customs Code, and
safeguard measures under Republic Act No. 8800,
where either party may appeal the decision to
impose or not to impose said duties.
Decisions of the CTA Division are reviewable by

the CTA en banc.
Section 11. Section 18 of the same Act is hereby
amended as follows:
"SEC. 18. Appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals En

Banc. - No civil proceeding involving matter
arising under the National Internal Revenue Code,
the Tariff and Customs Code or the Local
Government Code shall be maintained, except as
herein provided, until and unless an appeal has
been previously filed with the CTA and disposed of
in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
"A party adversely affected by a resolution of a

Division of the CTA on a motion for
reconsideration or new trial, may file a petition
for review with the CTA en banc."
"SEC. 19. Review by Certiorari. - A party

adversely affected by a decision or ruling of the
CTA en banc may file with the Supreme Court a
verified petition for review on certiorari
pursuant to Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure."

Commencement of a Civil Action
A. Commencement of action
Section 5. Commencement of action. A civil

action is commenced by the filing of the original
complaint in court. If an additional defendant is
impleaded in a later pleading, the action is
commenced with regard to him on the dated of the
filing of such later pleading, irrespective of
whether the motion for its admission, if
necessary, is denied by the court.
Section 1. Ordinary civil actions, basis of.
Every ordinary civil action must be based on a
cause of action.
When the complaint is filed and the prescribed
fees are paid, the action is deemed commenced.
1. What is a cause of action, right of action and

action?
Cause of action - A cause of action is the act or

omission by which a party violates a right of
another.
Right of action - is the right to presently
enforce a cause of action, a remedial right
affording redress for the infringement of a
legal right belonging to some definite person.
Action suit for the enforcement or protection
of a right or redress or prevention of a wrong.
2. Elements of Cause of Action:
1) A legal right of the plaintiff;

2) A correlative duty of the defendant to respect
plaintiffs right; and
3) An act or omission of the defendant in
violation of the plaintiffs right with
consequential injury or damage to the plaintiff
for which he may maintain an action for recovery
or other relief (Relucio vs. Lopez, 373 SCRA 578,
2002).
3. Elements of Right of Action:
a) Existence of the cause of action;

b) Performance of all conditions precedent; and
c) The action must be instituted by the proper
party.
4. Right of Action versus Cause of Action
Right of action is the right to commence and

prosecute an action to obtain the relief sought,
while cause of action is the act or omission by
which a party violates the right of another (Rule
2, Sec. 2).
5. Failure to State Cause of Action
Where there is failure to state a cause of action

in a pleading, the remedy of the defendant is to
move for its dismissal on the ground that the
pleading asserting the claim states no cause of
action. Rule 16, Sec 1 (g)
6. Test of Sufficiency of Action
Whether or not admitting the facts alleged, the

court could render a valid judgment upon the same
in accordance with the prayer in the complaint
(Misamis Occidental II Cooperative, Inc. v. David,
468 SCRA 63).
The question of whether the complaint states a

cause of action is determined by its averments
regarding the acts committed by the defendant.
Thus, it must contain a concise statement of the
ultimate or essential facts constituting the
plaintiffs cause of action. To be taken into
account are only the material allegations in the
complaint; extraneous facts and circumstances or
other matters aliunde are not considered.
The test of sufficiency of facts alleged in the

complaint as constituting a cause of action is
whether or not admitting the facts alleged, the
court could render a valid verdict in accordance
with the prayer of said complaint. Stated
differently, if the allegations in the complaint
furnish sufficient basis by which the complaint
can be maintained, the same should not be
dismissed regardless of the defense that may be
asserted by the defendant. (Juana Complex I
Homeowners Association, Inc., et al. vs. Fil-
Estate Land, Inc., G.R. No. 152272, March 5, 2012)
7. Splitting a Single Cause of Action and its Effects
a. Splitting a single cause of Action
The act of dividing a single cause of action, claim

or demand into two or more parts, and bringing the
suit for one of such parts only, intending to
reserve the rest for another separate action is the
prohibited act of splitting a single cause of action
(Regalado).
b. Effects
If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of

the same cause of action, the filing of one or a
judgment upon the merits in any one is available as
a ground for the dismissal of the others (Rule 2,
Sec. 4).
When a single cause of action is split, the remedy

of the defendant is to move for its dismissal under
Rule 16 on the ground that:
1) There is another action pending between the

same parties for the same cause, or litis
pendentia (Sec. 1[e]); or
2) If the first action has already been finally

terminated, on the ground of res judicata (Sec.
1[f]).
The well-entrenched rule is that "a party cannot, by

varying the form of action, or adopting a different
method of presenting his case, escape the operation
of the principle that one and the same cause of
action shall not be twice litigated. This Court has
laid down the test in determining whether or not the
causes of action in the first and second cases are
identical, to wit: would the same evidence support
and establish both the present and former cause of
action? If so, the former recovery is a bar; if
otherwise, it does not stand in the way of the
former action. (Goodland Company, Inc., vs. Asia
United Bank, Abraham Co, Atty. Joel T. Pelicano And
The Register Of Deeds Of Makati City, G.R. No.
195561, March 14, 2012)

B. Kinds of Actions
1. For the purpose of determination of venue
a. Real Action - Actions affecting title to

or possession of real property, or interest
therein. It is important that the matter in
litigation must also involve any of the
following issues: title to, ownership,
possession, partition, foreclosure of mortgage
or any interest in real property.
Examples:
- Accion reivindicatoria .
- An action to recover possession of real

property plus damages
- where a complaint is denominated as one for
specific performance but nonetheless prays for
the issuance of a deed of sale for a parcel of
land for the plaintiff to acquire ownership of
the land, its primary objective and nature is
one to recover the parcel of land itself and
thus, is deemed a real action (Gochan vs.
Gochan)
- Where it is alleged in the complaint that
the defendant breached the contract, so that the
plaintiff prays that the contract be rescinded
and that the defendant be ordered to return
possession of the hacienda to the plaintiff, the
ultimate purpose or end of the action is to
recover possession of real property and not a
mere breach of contract (De Jesus vs. Coloso)
- Where the action to annul or rescind a sale
of real property has as its fundamental and
prime objective the recovery of real property,
the action is real (Emergency Loan Pawnshop,
Inc. vs. Court of Appeals)
- An action to foreclose a real estate
mortgage is a real action.
- Although 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 is not possible for the
court to decide the main relief without passing
upon the claim of the parties with respect to
the title to and the possession of the lot in
question. The action is a real action (Espineli
vs. Santiago)
- 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 but
one for the recovery of a fishpond, a real
action (Pascual vs. Pascual)
b. Personal action - One which is not founded

upon the privity of real rights or real
property. In a personal action, the plaintiff
seeks the recovery of personal property, the
enforcement of a contract or the recovery of
damage
Examples:
- Action for a sum of money, action for

damages to real property

- An action for a declaration of the nullity
of marriage, An action for specific
performance is a personal action as long as
it does not involve a claim of or recovery
of ownership of real property (Siosoco vs.
Court of Appeals)
- Where the allegations as well as the

prayer of the complaint do not claim
ownership of the lots in question or ask for
possession of the same but instead seeks for
the execution of a deed of sale by the
defendants in favor of the plaintiff, the
action is a personal action (Adamos vs. J.M.
Tuason & Co., Inc.)
- Where an award of a house and lot to the

plaintiff was unilaterally cancelled, an
action that seeks to annul the cancellation
of the award over the said house and lot is
a personal action The action does not
involve title to ownership or possession of
real property. The nature of the action is
one to compel the recognition of the
validity of the previous award by seeking a
declaration that the cancellation is null
and void (Hernandez vs. Development Bank of
the Philippines)
- but an action to compel the mortgagee to

accept payment of the mortgage debt and to
release the mortgage is a personal action
(Hernandez vs. Rural Bank of Lucena)
- An action to annul a contract of loan and

its accessory real estate mortgage is a
personal action.

c. Mixed action: One brought for protection
or recovery of real property an d also for an
award for damage s sustained. Example: Accion
publiciana with a claim for damages.
2. For the purpose of determining

jurisdiction/service of summons.
a. Action in rem - One which is not directed only
against particular persons but against the thing
itself and the object of which is to bar
indifferently all who might be minded to make any
objection against the right sought to be enforced,
hence the judgment therein is binding theoretically
upon the whole world.
Example: Expropriation.
b. Action in personam: One which is directed
against particular persons on the basis of their
personal liability to establish a claim against
them and the judgment wherein binding only upon the
parties impleaded or their successors in interest
is.
Example: for breach of contract.
c. Action quasi in rem: One directed against

particular persons but the purpose of which is to
bar and bind not only said persons but any other
person who claims any interest in the property or
right subject of the suit.
Example: Judicial foreclosure of a mortgage
(Ocampo vs. Domalanta), Partition, Attachment.

C. Kinds of Pleadings
1. Pleading - These are written statements of the

respective claims and defenses of the parties
submitted to the court for appropriate judgment
(Rule 6, Sec. 1).
a. Initiatory Pleading a pleading that

initiates an action.
Examples:
1. Original Complaint
2. Permissive Counterclaim
3. Cross Claim
4. Third, 4th, etc. party Complaint
5. Complaint in intervention
6. Petition in special civil actions
7. Petition in special proceedings
8. Counter counter claim
b. Responsive Pleading a pleading that

responds to allegations in the adverse partys
pleading.
Examples:
1. Answer to original complaint
2. Answer to permissive counterclaim
3. Answer to cross claim
4. Answer to 3rd, 4th, etc complaint
5. Answer to complaint in intervention
6. Comment or objection to petition
7. Compulsory counterclaim
8. Reply
9. Answer to counter claim
10. Answer to counter cross claim
NOTE: a MOTION, POSITION PAPER, OR MEMORANDUM is

not a pleading.

2. Kinds of pleadings
a) Complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim, third

(fourth, etc.)-party complaint, complaint-in-
intervention - The complaint is the pleading
alleging the plaintiff's cause or causes of
action. The names and residences of the plaintiff
and defendant must be stated in the complaint.
(Rule 6, Sec. 3)
b) Answer - An answer is a pleading in which a

defending party sets forth his defenses. (Rule 6,
Sec. 4)
Kinds of defenses:
1) Negative Defenses - The specific denial

(Sec. 10, Rule 9) of the material fact/s
alleged in the pleading of the claimant
essential to his cause/s of action. (Sec. 5[a])
Kinds of denial:
1) Absolute denial - the defendant must specify

each material allegation of fact the truth of
which he does not admit and setting forth the
substance of the matters upon which he relies
to support his denial, whenever practicable.
2) Partial denial - the defendant shall specify

so much of it as is true and material and shall
deny the remainder.
3) Disavowal of knowledge - the defendant shall

state in his pleading that he does not have
knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of a material averment.
The defendant must positively state how it is

that he is ignorant of the facts as alleged.
This denial does not apply where the facts as
to which want of knowledge is asserted, is so
plainly and necessarily within the defendants
knowledge, that his averment of ignorance must
be palpably untrue. It is as if that no denial
at all has been made.
Negative Pregnant a form of negative

expression which carries with it an affirmation
or at least an implication of some kind
favorable to the adverse party. It is a denial
pregnant with an admission of the substantial
facts alleged in the pleading.
Where a fact is alleged with qualifying or

modifying language and the words of the
allegation are so qualified or modified are
literally denied, has been held that the
qualifying circumstances alone are denied while
the fact itself is admitted (Republic vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152154, July 15, 2003).
Example: In Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, it was

alleged that it was clearly and overwhelmingly
showed how the respondents stashed away the
countrys wealth to Switzerland amounting to
$356M and hid the same under layers of
foundations and corporate entities to prevent
detection.
Negative Pregnant: The respondents specifically

denies the allegations for it was false, the
truth being that respondents properties in the
bank were lawfully acquired. Thus, it was
implied that they admit that it was stashed to
Switzerland.
2. Affirmative Defenses - an allegation of a

new matter which while hypothetically admitting
the material allegations in the pleading of the
claimant, would nevertheless prevent or bar
recovery by him.
Kinds of affirmative defenses:
Affirmative defenses include fraud, statute of

limitations, release, payment, illegality,
statute of frauds, estoppel, former recovery,
discharge in bankruptcy and any other matter by
way of confession and avoidance. (Sec. 5[b])
c. Counterclaim It is any claim which a

defending party may have against an opposing party
(Rule 6, Sec. 6).
Nature of a counterclaim
A counterclaim is in the nature of a cross

complaint such that it must be answered within 10
days from service. It is a cause of action against
plaintiff.
Counterclaim must be within the jurisdiction of

the court
Where to file: A counterclaim which is filed

before the MTC must be within the jurisdiction of
said court as to the amount and the nature
thereof.
A court (if MTC) has no jurisdiction to hear and

determine a set-off or counterclaim in excess of
its jurisdiction. A counterclaim beyond the
courts jurisdiction may only be pleaded by way of
defense, the purpose of which is to defeat or
weaken the plaintiffs claim, but NOT to obtain
affirmative relief.

Counterclaim cannot exceed the jurisdiction of the
court
MOREOVER, the amount of judgment obtained by the

defendant on appeal cannot exceed the jurisdiction
of the court in which the action began. Since the
trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the
counterclaim in excess of the jurisdictional
amount, the appellate court likewise did not have
jurisdiction over the same. In such a case, the
award in excess of the jurisdiction of the trial
court is void (Agustin v. Bacalan, L-16000 March
18, 1985).
Effect if counterclaim in excess of the

jurisdiction of the court
A counterclaim, even if otherwise compulsory, but

the amount exceeds the jurisdiction of the
inferior court, will only be considered
permissive. Hence, the fact that it is not set-up
in the inferior court will not bar plaintiff from
instituting a separate action to prosecute it
(Calo v. Ajax, L-20865, March 13, 1968).
Counterclaim in the RTC no limit: Requirement
A counterclaim may be entertained by the RTC

regardless of the amount involved provided that,
in addition to the other requirements, it is
cognizable by the regular courts of justice
(Regalado, 2010).

d. Compulsory Counterclaim (Sec. 7)
Requisites:
1) It must arise out of, or be necessarily

connected with the transaction or occurrence that is
the subject matter of the opposing partys claim;
2) It does not require for its adjudication the
presence of third parties of whom the court cannot
acquire jurisdiction; and
3) It must be cognizable by the regular courts.
4) The trial court has jurisdiction to entertain
the claim both as to the amount and the nature
thereof, EXCEPT that in an original action before the
RTC, the counterclaim may be considered compulsory
regardless of the amount.
5) It must be existing at the time the defendant
files his answer (Sec. 8, Rule 11).
Test of Compulsoriness:
The logical relationship between the claim and
counterclaim.
e. Permissive Counterclaim
It is a counterclaim which does not arise out of

or is necessarily connected with the subject matter of
the opposing partys claim. It is not barred even of
it is not set up in the original action.
Effect if counterclaim counterclaim is not raised:
General rule:
A compulsory counterclaim not set up in the answer

is deemed barred.

Exceptions:
a) If it is a counterclaim which either matured or

was acquired by a party after serving his answer. In
this case, it may be pleaded by filing a supplemental
answer or pleading before judgment.
b) When a pleader fails to set-up a counterclaim

through oversight, inadvertence, excusable negligence,
or when justice requires, he may, by leave of court,
set-up the counterclaim by amendment of the pleadings
before judgment (Sec. 10, Rule 11).
Effect if compulsory counterclaim is not answered
A plaintiff who fails or chooses not to answer a

compulsory counterclaim may not be declared in default
principally because the issues raised in the
counterclaim are deemed automatically joined by the
allegations of the complaint (Gojo v. Goyala, G.R.
No. 26768, Oct. 30, 1970).
Motion to dismiss with compulsory counterclaim is

incompatible
The filing of a motion to dismiss and the setting

up of a compulsory counterclaim are incompatible
remedies. In the event that a defending party has a
ground for dismissal and a compulsory counterclaim at
the same time, he must choose only one remedy. If he
decides to file a motion to dismiss, he cannot set up
his counterclaim. But if he opts to set up his
counterclaim, he may still plead his ground for
dismissal as an affirmative defense in his answer
(Regalado, 2010).

Effect on the counterclaim when the complaint is
dismissed
Under the 1997 Rules, the dismissal of the main

complaint will not correspondingly result in the
dismissal of the counterclaim where the defendant had
already filed and served the answer with counterclaims
upon the plaintiff. The defendant has the option of
prosecuting the counterclaim in the same or in a
separate action (Riguera, Primer Reviewer on Remedial
Law).
1) If no motion to dismiss has been filed, any of

the grounds for dismissal provided for in this Rule
(Rule 16) may be pleaded as an affirmative defense in
the answer and, in the discretion of the court, a
preliminary hearing may be had thereon as if a motion
to dismiss had been filed.
The dismissal of the complaint under this section

shall be without prejudice to the prosecution in the
same or separate action of a counterclaim pleaded in
the answer (Sec. 6, Rule 16).
2) Where the plaintiff himself files a motion to

dismiss his complaint after the defendant has pleaded
his answer with a counterclaim, the dismissal shall be
limited to the complaint and is without prejudice to
the right of the defendant to prosecute his
counterclaim in a separate action unless within 15
days from notice of the motion he manifests his
preference to have his counterclaim resolved in the
same action (Sec. 2, Rule 17).
3) If the dismissal is due to the fault of the

plaintiff and a counterclaim has been set up by the
defendant, the latter may prosecute such counterclaim
in the same or in a separate action (Sec. 3, Rule 17;
Riano).

f. Cross-Claims
It is any claim by one party against a co-party

arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is
the subject matter either of the original action or of
a counterclaim therein (Rule 6 Sec. 8).
The dismissal of the complaint carries with it the

dismissal of a cross-claim which is purely defensive
(but NOT a cross-claim seeking affirmative relief)
Reason: It has no independent existence and based

entirely on the complaint.
g. Third (fourth, etc.) party complaints
It is a claim that a defending party may, with

leave of court, file against a person not a party to
the action, called the third (fourth, etc.)-party
defendant for:
a. contribution,
b. indemnity,
c. subrogation or
d. any other relief in respect to his opponents
claim (Rule 6, Sec. 11).
Application of third- party complaint
Explaining the application of Section 12, Rule 6,

supra, the Court said in Balbastro v. Court of
Appeals, to wit: Section 12 of Rule 6 of the Revised
Rules of Court authorizes a defendant to bring into a
lawsuit any person "not a party to the action . . .
for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other
relief in respect of his opponent's claim." From its
explicit language it does not compel the defendant to
bring the third-parties into the litigation, rather it
simply permits the inclusion of anyone who meets the
standard set forth in the rule. The secondary or
derivative liability of the third-party is central
whether the basis is indemnity, subrogation,
contribution, express or implied warranty or some
other theory. The impleader of new parties under this
rule is proper only when a right to relief exists
under the applicable substantive law. This rule is
merely a procedural mechanism, and cannot be utilized
unless there is some substantive basis under
applicable law.
Apart from the requirement that the third-party

complainant should assert a derivative or secondary
claim for relief from the third-party defendant there
are other limitations on said partys ability to
implead. The rule requires that the third-party
defendant is "not a party to the action" for otherwise
the proper procedure for asserting a claim against one
who is already a party to the suit is by means of
counterclaim or cross-claim under sections 6 and 7 of
Rule 6. In addition to the aforecited requirement, the
claim against the third-party defendant must be based
upon plaintiff's claim against the original defendant
(third-party claimant). The crucial characteristic of
a claim under section 12 of Rule 6, is that the
original "defendant is attempting to transfer to the
third-party defendant the liability asserted against
him by the original plaintiff. (Philtranco Service
Enterprises, Inc., Vs. Felix Paras And Inland
Trailways, Inc., And Hon. Court Of Appeals, G.R. No.
161909, April 25, 2012)
Third-party complaint: Requisites
Accordingly, the requisites for a third-party

action are, firstly, that the party to be impleaded
must not yet be a party to the action; secondly, that
the claim against the third-party defendant must
belong to the original defendant; thirdly, the claim
of the original defendant against the third-party
defendant must be based upon the plaintiffs claim
against the original defendant; and, fourthly, the
defendant is attempting to transfer to the third-party
defendant the liability asserted against him by the
original plaintiff.
As the foregoing indicates, the claim that the

third-party complaint asserts against the third-party
defendant must be predicated on substantive law.
(Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc., Vs. Felix Paras
And Inland Trailways, Inc., And Hon. Court Of Appeals,
G.R. No. 161909, April 25, 2012)
Third-party complaint need not be based on same claim
The third-party claim need not be based on the

same theory as the main claim. For example, there are
cases in which the third-party claim is based on an
express indemnity contract and the original complaint
is framed in terms of negligence. Similarly, there
need not be any legal relationship between the third-
party defendant and any of the other parties to the
action. Impleader also is proper even though the third
partys liability is contingent, and technically does
not come into existence until the original defendants
liability has been established. In addition, the words
is or may be liable in Rule 14(a) make it clear that
impleader is proper even though the third-party
defendants liability is not automatically established
once the third-party plaintiffs liability to the
original plaintiff has been determined. (Philtranco
Service Enterprises, Inc., Vs. Felix Paras And Inland
Trailways, Inc., And Hon. Court Of Appeals, G.R. No.
161909, April 25, 2012)
h. Complaint in Intervention
A pleading wherein an intervenor asserts a claim

against either or all of the original parties (Rule
19, Sec. 3).
i. Reply
A reply is a pleading, the office or function of

which is to deny, or allege facts in denial or
avoidance of new matters alleged by way of defense in
the answer and thereby join or make issue as to such
new matters. If a party does not file such reply, all
the new matters alleged in the answer are deemed
controverted. (Rule 6, Sec. 10).

FLOW OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
I. Condition Precedents
1. Barangay Conciliation (Sec. 412, LGC)
2. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
3. Earnest efforts towards amicable settlement

between members of the family (Art. 151 Family
Code)
4. Prior resort to an alternative dispute

resolution.
II. Barangay Conciliation
1. General rule:
The lupon tagapamayapa of each barangay shall have

authority to bring together the parties residing
in the same city or municipality for amicable
settlement of ALL disputes
EXCEPT
a. Where one party is the government, or any

subdivision or instrumentality thereof; however,
when it is only one of the contending parties, a
confrontation should still be undertaken among the
other parties (Gegare v. CA, G.R. No. 83907.
September 13, 1989)
b. Where one party is a public officer or employee,
and the dispute relates to the performance of his
official functions;
c. Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding 1
year or a fine exceeding P5,000;
d. Offenses where there is no private offended party;
e. Where the dispute involves real properties located
in different cities or municipalities unless the

parties thereto agree to submit their differences
to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon;
f. Disputes involving parties who actually reside in
barangays of different cities or municipalities,
except where such barangay units adjoin each other
and the parties thereto agree to submit their
differences to amicable settlement by an
appropriate lupon;
g. Such other classes of disputes which the President
may determine in the interest of justice or upon
the recommendation of the Sec. of Justice; and
h. Where one of the parties is a juridical entity
(Sec. 408, R.A. 7160)
i. Where the dispute arises from the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law
j. The submission of disputes before the Lupon prior
to their filing with the court or other government
offices are not applicable to labor cases.
(Montoya v. Escayo, G.R. No. 82211-12 March 21,
1989)
k. An action for annulment of a compromise judgment
which as a general rule is immediately executory
and accordingly, beyond the authority of the
Barangay Court to change or modify.(Sanchez v.
Tupaz, G.R. No. 76690 February 29, 1988)
l. Proceedings where relief is sought under R.A. No.
9262 or the Anti-Violence against Women and their
Children Act (Sec. 33, R.A. No. 9262)
2. Other Instances where parties may go directly to

court without the need of prior barangay
conciliation:
a. Where the accused is under detention

b. Where a person has otherwise been deprived of
personal liberty calling for habeas corpus
proceedings;

c. Where actions are coupled with provisional
remedies such as preliminary injunction,
attachment, replevin and support pendent lite; and
d. Where the action may otherwise be barred by the
statute of limitations. (Section 412, LGC)
3. Barangay conciliation not required in case of

juridical entity:
Referral of a dispute to the Lupon is required

only in cases involving natural persons, and not
where any of the parties is a juridical person such
as a corporation, partnership, corporation sole,
testate or intestate, estate, etc. (Vda. De Borromeo
v. Pogoy, G.R. No. L-63277. November 29, 1983)
4. Nature and effects of non-compliance with

barangay conciliation:
As cited in the case Sanchez v. Tupaz, referral to

the Lupon is compulsory (as ruled in the cited case
of Morato vs. Go, 125 SCRA 444), [1983] and non-
compliance of the same could affect the sufficiency
of the cause of action and make the complaint
vulnerable to dismissal on the ground of lack of
cause of action or prematurity (Peregrina vs. Panis,
133 SCRA 75).
5. Venue of barangay conciliation.
1. Disputes between or among persons actually

residing in the same barangay shall be brought for
amicable settlement before the Lupon of said
barangay.
2. Actual residents of different barangays within

the same city or municipality shall be brought in
the barangay where the respondent or any of the
respondents actually resides, at the election of the
complainant
3. All disputes which involved real property or
any interest therein shall be brought in the
barangay where the real property or any part thereof
is situated.
4. Disputes arising at the workplace where the

contending parties are employed or at the
institution where the contending parties are
enrolled to study, the barangay where such workplace
or institution is located. (Sec. 409, LGC).
6. Nature of Amicable Settlement
An amicable settlement reached at the barangay

conciliation proceedings, like the Kasunduang Pag-
aayos in this case, is binding between the
contracting parties and, upon its perfection, is
immediately executory insofar as it is not contrary
to law, good morals, good customs, public order and
public policy. This is in accord with the broad
precept of Article 2037 of the Civil Code. (Crisanta
Alcaraz Miguel vs. Jerry D. Montanez, G.R. No.
191336, January 25, 2012)
7. Effect of amicable settlement:
Being a by-product of mutual concessions and good

faith of the parties, an amicable settlement has the
force and effect of res judicata even if not
judicially approved. It transcends being a mere
contract binding only upon the parties thereto, and
is akin to a judgment that is subject to execution
in accordance with the Rules. (Crisanta Alcaraz
Miguel vs. Jerry D. Montanez, G.R. No. 191336,
January 25, 2012)

8. Modes of execution of amicable settlement or
arbitration award:
Thus, under Section 417 of the Local Government

Code, such amicable settlement or arbitration award
may be enforced by
(1) Execution by the Barangay Lupon within six (6)

months from the date of settlement, or
(2) by filing an action to enforce such settlement

in the appropriate city or municipal court, if
beyond the six-month period.
a. Execution before the barangay:
Under the first remedy, the proceedings are

covered by the Local Government Code and the
Katarungang Pambarangay Implementing Rules and
Regulations. The Punong Barangay is called upon
during the hearing to determine solely the fact of
non-compliance of the terms of the settlement and to
give the defaulting party another chance at
voluntarily complying with his obligation under the
settlement.
b. Execution before the court:
Under the second remedy, the proceedings are

governed by the Rules of Court, as amended. The
cause of action is the amicable settlement itself,
which, by operation of law, has the force and effect
of a final judgment.
c. Execution is available only when there is no

repudiation of the amicable settlement:
It must be emphasized, however, that enforcement

by execution of the amicable settlement, either
under the first or the second remedy, is only
applicable if the contracting parties have not
repudiated such settlement within ten (10) days from
the date thereof in accordance with Section 416 of
the Local Government Code.
d. Remedies if a party repudiated the settlement
If the amicable settlement is repudiated by one

party, either expressly or impliedly, the other
party has two options, namely, (1) to enforce the
compromise in accordance with the Local Government
Code or Rules of Court as the case may be, or (2)
to consider it rescinded and insist upon his
original demand. This is in accord with Article
2041 of the Civil Code, which qualifies the broad
application of Article 2037, viz: If one of the
parties fails or refuses to abide by the
compromise, the other party may either enforce the
compromise or regard it as rescinded and insist
upon his original demand.
In the case at bar, the Revised Katarungang

Pambarangay Law provides for a two-tiered mode of
enforcement of an amicable settlement, to wit:
(a) by execution by the Punong Barangay which is

quasi-judicial and summary in nature on mere
motion of the party entitled thereto; and
(b) an action in regular form, which remedy is
judicial.
However, the mode of enforcement does not rule out

the right of rescission under Art. 2041 of the
Civil Code. The availability of the right of
rescission is apparent from the wording of Sec.
417 itself which provides that the amicable
settlement "may" be enforced by execution by the
lupon within six (6) months from its date or by
action in the appropriate city or municipal court,
if beyond that period. The use of the word "may"
clearly makes the procedure provided in the
Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law directory or
merely optional in nature.
The CA took off on the wrong premise that

enforcement of the Kasunduang Pag-aayos is the
proper remedy, and therefore erred in its
conclusion that the case should be remanded to the
trial court. The fact that the petitioner opted to
rescind the Kasunduang Pag-aayos means that she is
insisting upon the undertaking of the respondent
under the original loan contract. Thus, the CA
should have decided the case on the merits, as an
appeal before it, and not prolong the
determination of the issues by remanding it to the
trial court. Pertinently, evidence abounds that
the respondent has failed to comply with his loan
obligation. In fact, the Kasunduang Pag-aayos is
the well nigh incontrovertible proof of the
respondents indebtedness with the petitioner as
it was executed precisely to give the respondent a
second chance to make good on his undertaking. And
since the respondent still reneged in paying his
indebtedness, justice demands that he must be held
answerable therefor. (Crisanta Alcaraz Miguel vs.
Jerry D. Montanez, G.R. No. 191336, January 25,
2012)
9. Is a Motion to Dismiss allowed in summary
proceedings (in general)?
Yes, as a general rule a motion to dismiss is a

prohibited motion under the Rules on Summary
Procedure as provided for by Sec. 19(1). But under
the same provision, it accepts of certain
exceptions. A motion to dismiss may be filed in a
summary proceeding on the following grounds: a.
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or
b. failure to comply with the preceding section.
Basis:
Sec. 19. Prohibited pleadings and motions.
The following pleadings, motions or petitions
shall not be allowed in the cases covered by this
Rule:
(a) Motion to dismiss the complaint or to quash
the complaint or information except on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter,
or failure to comply with the preceding section
(Referral to Lupon).
Sec. 18. Referral to Lupon. Cases requiring

referral to the Lupon for conciliation under the
provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1508 where
there is no showing of compliance with such
requirement, shall be dismissed without prejudice
and may be revived only after such requirement
shall have been complied with. This provision
shall not apply to criminal cases where the
accused was arrested without a warrant.
Note: In unlawful detainer or forcible entry
cases, which are falls under the Rules on Summary
Procedure, there is an additional ground for a
motion to dismiss.
However in small claims cases and environmental

cases, a motion to dismiss is absolutely
prohibited.
Section 13. Prohibited pleadings and motions. The
following petitions, motions, or pleadings shall not
be allowed:
1. Motion to dismiss the complaint except on the

ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter, or failure to comply with section 12;
Section 12. Referral for conciliation. Cases

requiring referral for conciliation, where there
is no showing of compliance with such requirement,

shall be dismissed without prejudice, and may be
revived only after that requirement shall have
been complied with.
Under Section 12, Rule 70, it provides referral to

conciliation in general, it may include earnest
efforts between family members, as provided for by
Art. 151 of the Family Code. Thus, in unlawful
detainer or forcible entry cases the following
grounds may be allowed in a motion to dismiss: a.
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; b.
failure to comply with referral to Lupon; and c.
failure to comply with Art. 151 of the Family
Code.
10. What is the remedy in case there is failure to

comply with referral to barangay conciliation?
The remedy is to file a Motion to Dismiss on the

ground of failure to comply with the condition
precedent.
Basis:
Rule 16. Section 1. Grounds. Within the time for
but before filing the answer to the complaint or
pleading asserting a claim, a motion to dismiss
may be made on any of the following grounds:
(j) That a condition precedent for filing the

claim has not been complied with.
Note: The nature of the dismissal is without
prejudice.
11. What is the remedy of the plaintiff/claiming

party if the complaint is dismissed?
The following are the remedies:

a. Before the finality of the order of
dismissal, comply with the requirements and file a
motion to revive; or
b. After the order of dismissal becomes final

and executory, re-file the case after compliance
with the condition precedent.
Note: an order of dismissal becomes final and
executory after 15 days from notice of the order.
12. Is there motu propio dismissal for failure to
comply with baranagay conciliation?
As a general rule no, Sec. 1, Rule 9 provides only

four grounds for motu propio dismissal of an action.
The following are: a. court has no jurisdiction over
the subject matter; b. that there is another action
pending between the same parties for the same cause;
or c. that the action is barred by a prior judgment;
or d. that the action is barred by statute of
limitations.
As an exception to the general rule, under the Rules

on Summary procedure and Small Claims Cases, failure
to comply with condition precedent is a ground for
motu propio dismissal of a case.
Section 9 of the Rule of Procedure of Small Claims

Cases provides:
Section 9. Dismissal of the Claim. - After the court

determines that the case falls under this Rule, it
may, from an examination of the allegations of the
Statement of Claim and such evidence attached thereto,
by itself, dismiss the case outright of any of the
grounds apparent from the Claim for the dismissal of a
civil action.
Section 4 of the Rules on Summary Procedure provides:

Sec. 4. Duty of court. After the court determines
that the case falls under summary procedure, it may,
from an examination of the allegations therein and
such evidence as may be attached thereto, dismiss the
case outright on any of the grounds apparent therefrom
for the dismissal of a civil action.
13. What is the remedy in case of denial of Motion to

Dismiss on the ground of failure to comply with
condition precedent?
The remedy is to file an answer within the balance of

the period granted to file an answer and raising as an
affirmative defense the ground for dismissal, but
which in no case shall be less than five days. Proceed
with the trial, and when the decision is adverse, file
an appeal raising as an error the denial of the motion
to dismiss. But if the denial is tainted with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, the remedy is to file a Petition for
Certiorari under Rule 65.

II. Filing of a Complaint
1. Complaint - The complaint is the pleading alleging

the plaintiff's cause or causes of action. The names
and residences of the plaintiff and defendant must be
stated in the complaint.
Note:
a. The complaint, if the case is not among those
excepted from undergoing barangay conciliation, must
specifically alleged that there is compliance with
barangay conciliation. If the complaint fails to
allege such, the remedy is to file a motion to dismiss
on the ground of failure to comply with condition
precedent.
If there is really compliance and in case a

motion to dismiss is filed, since a motion to
dismiss is not a responsive pleading, the plaintif f
may amend the complaint as a matter of right .
b. When it appears from the pleadings or the

evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction
over the subject matter, that there is another action
pending between the same parties for the same cause,
or that the action is barred by a prior judgment or by
statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the
claim motu propio or the defendant may file a motion
to dismiss.
Remedy of plaintiff in case of grant of dismissal

will depend if the dismissal is with prejudice or not.
If without prejudice, the remedy is to refile the
case. If with prejudice, appeal is the proper remedy.
If the grounds are either paragraphs f (res

judicata & prescription), h (That the claim or demand
set forth in the plaintiff's pleading has been paid,
waived, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished) or i
(That the claim on which the action is founded is
enforceable under the provisions of the statute of
frauds) of Section 1, Rule 16, the dismissal is with
prejudice.
III Venue
1. Real Actions and Personal Actions: Issue as to

venue:
Real Actions are actions affecting title to or the

recovery of possession of real property, or an
interest therein, or forcible entry and detainer
actions. A real action is local, i.e., its venue
depends upon the location of the property involved
in the litigation.
Section 1. Venue of real actions. Actions affecting
title to or possession of real property, or interest
therein, 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 trial court of the
municipality or city wherein the real property
involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.
Personal Actions are actions founded on privity of
contract or for the enforcement or resolution of a
contract, or for recovery of personal property
(Feria Noche, Civil Procedure Annotated, Vol. I). A
personal action is transitory, i.e., its venue
depends upon the residence of the plaintiff or the
defendant at the option of the plaintiff.
Section 2. Venue of personal actions. All other

actions 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.
2. Non Residents defendants
Section 3. Venue of actions against nonresidents. If

any of the defendants does not reside and is not found
in the Philippines, and the action affects the
personal status of the plaintiff, or any property of
said defendant located in the Philippines, the action
may be commenced and tried in the court of the place
where the plaintiff resides, or where the property or
any portion thereof is situated or found. (2[c]a)
3. Exception to Exclusivity of Venue
Section 4. When Rule not applicable. This Rule shall

not apply.
(a) In those cases where a specific rule or law

provides otherwise; or
(b) Where the parties have validly agreed in

writing before the filing of the action on the
exclusive venue thereof.
Note: For Sec. 4(b) to apply, the following must

concur:
a. The parties have validly agreed in writing;
b. The agreement in writing was made prior to
the filing of the action; and
c. Explicit stipulation of exclusive venue.
4. Remedy if filed in improper venue
File a motion to dismiss on the ground that

venue is improperly laid.
If motion is granted, the remedy of the

plaintiff is to refile the action in proper venue,
since the dismissal is without prejudice.
Note: In under the Rules of Summary Procedure,
small claims cases and environmental cases, motion
to dismiss on the ground of improper venue is not
allowed. The remedy is to file an answer and raise
an affirmative defense.
IV. PARTIES
1. Only natural or juridical persons, or entities

authorized by law may be parties in a civil action.
The term "plaintiff" may refer to the claiming party,
the counter-claimant, the cross-claimant, or the third
(fourth, etc.) party plaintiff. The term "defendant"
may refer to the original defending party, the
defendant in a counter-claim, the cross-defendant, or
the third (fourth, etc.) party defendant.
Note: The following are examples of entities

authorized by law who may be parties in a civil
action:
a. state or its political subdivision;
b. labor organizations;
c. partnerships by estoppel;
d. corporation by estoppel;
e. foreign corporations, as provided for by IPC.
2. Parties to Civil Actions:
Real parties-in-interest; indispensable parties;

representatives as parties; necessary parties;
indigent parties; alternative defendants
A. Real Party in Interest (Rule 3, Sec. 2)
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.

General Rule: Unless otherwise authorized by law or
these Rules, every action must be prosecuted and
defended in the name of the real party in interest.
Exception: An exception to the rule that every
action must be prosecuted or defended in the name
of the real party in interest is in the case of
representatives as parties (Rule 3, Section 3) To
be a real party-in-interest, the interest must be
real, which is a present substantial interest as
distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future,
contingent subordinate or consequential interest
(Fortich v. Corona, 289 SCRA 624). It is an
interest that is material and direct, as
distinguished from a mere incidental interest in
the question (Samaniego v. Aguila, 334 SCRA 438).
a. Meaning of interest.
Interest within the meaning of the Rules of Court

means material interest or an interest in issue to
be affected by the decree or judgment of the case,
as distinguished from mere curiosity about the
question involved. A real party in interest is the
party who, by the substantive law, has the right
sought to be enforced.
Applying the foregoing rule, it is clear that Atty.

Aceron is not a real party in interest in the case
below as he does not stand to be benefited or
injured by any judgment therein. He was merely
appointed by the petitioners as their attorney -in-
fact for the limited purpose of filing and
prosecuting the complaint against the respondents.
Such appointment, however, does not mean that he is
subrogated into the rights of petitioners and ought
to be considered as a real party in interest.
(Theodore And Nancy Ang, Represented By Eldrige
Marvin B. Ceron, Vs. Spouses Alan And Em Ang,
Respondents. G.R. No. 186993, August 22, 2012 )

b. Effect of Failure to include Real Party in
Interest
Real party in interest applies both to the

plaintiff and defendant. The suit may be dismissed
if neither of them is a Real party in interest.
c. REMEDY where Real Party in Interest is NOT

impleaded:
Amendment of the pleadings or the complaint may be

deemed amended to include the RPII.
If the suit is not brought in the name of or
against the real party in interest, a motion to
dismiss may be filed on the ground that the
complaint states no cause of action (Sec. 1[g],
Rule 16; Regalado, 2010).
d. Only parties to the contract may sue. However, a

beneficiary of a stipulation pour autrui may demand
its fulfillment.
e. In Oposa v. Factoran (G.R. No. 101083, 1993),

minors represented by their parents were held as
real parties in interest to file an action to annul
timber licenses issued by the state under the
following principles:
a) Inter-generational responsibility;
b) Inter-generational justice;
c) The right of the Filipinos to a balanced and
healthful ecology; and
d) Minors represent themselves and the generation
to come.
f. Court requires that an action must be brought in

the name but not necessarily by the real party in
interest. In fact, the practice is for an attorney
in fact to bring the action in the name of the
plaintiff (Tuason v. Bolanos, G.R. No. L-25894,
Jan. 30, 1971).
B. Indispensable parties
Those without whom no final determination can be

had of an action; they must be joined under all
conditions (Rule 3, Sec.7).
The definition in the Rules of Court, Section 7,

Rule 3 thereof, of indispensable parties as
"parties in interest without whom no final
determination can be had of an action" has been
jurisprudentially amplified. In Sps. Garcia v.
Garcia, et.al., this Court held that:
An indispensable party is a party who has such

an interest in the controversy or subject matter
that a final adjudication cannot be made, in his
absence, without injuring or affecting that
interest, a party who has not only an interest
in the subject matter of the controversy, but
also has an interest of such nature that a final
decree cannot be made without affecting his
interest or leaving the controversy in such a
condition that its final determination may be
wholly inconsistent with equity and good
conscience. It has also been considered tha t an
indispensable party is a person in whose absence
there cannot be a determination between the
parties already before the court which is
effective, complete, or equitable. Further, an
indispensable party is one who must be included
in an action before it may properly go forward.
(Simny G. Guy, Geraldine G. Guy, Gladys G. Yao,
And The Heirs of the Late Grace G. Cheu Vs.
Gilbert G. Guy, G.R. No. 189486, September 05,
2012)
The nature of the solidary obligation under the

surety does not make one an indispensable party.
An indispensable party is a party-in-interest
without whom no final determination can be had
of an action, and who shall be joined
mandatorily either as plaintiffs or defendants.
The presence of indispensable parties is
necessary to vest the court with jurisdiction,
thus, without their presence to a suit or
proceeding, the judgment of a court cannot
attain real finality. The absence of an
indispensable party renders all subsequent
actions of the court null and void for want of
authority to act, not only as to the absent
parties but even as to those present. (Living @
Sense, Inc. Vs. Malayan Insurance Company, Inc.
G.R. No. 193753. September 26, 2012)
a. Purpose of the rules
The purpose of the rules on joinder of

indispensable parties is a complete determination
of all issues not only between the parties
themselves, but also as regards other persons who
may be affected by the judgment. A decision valid
on its face cannot attain real finality where there
is want of indispensable parties. (Philip L. Go,
Pacifico Q. Lim And Andrew Q. Lim, Vs. Distinction
Properties Development And Construction, Inc. G.R.
No. 194024, April 25, 2012)
b.Burden of procuring indispensable parties li s

with the plaintiff:
The burden of procuring the presence of all

indispensable parties is on the plaintiff. (39
Amjur [sic] 885). The evident purpose of the rule
is to prevent the multiplicity of suits by
requiring the person arresting a right against the
defendant to include with him, either as
coplaintiffs or as co-defendants, all persons
standing in the same position, so that the whole
matter in dispute may be determined once and for

all in one litigation. (Palarca v. Baginsi, 38
Phil. 177, 178).
c. Effects of non-joinder of indispensable parties
The presence of all indispensable parties is a

condition sine qua non for the exercise of judicial
power. It is precisely when an indispensable party
is not before the court that the action should be
dismissed (Sepulveda, Sr. v. Pelaez, G.R. No.
152195, 31 January 2005).
The court cannot proceed without their presence.

Any judgment rendered by the court would be null
and void.
Settled is the rule that joinder of indispensable

parties is compulsory being a sine qua non for the
exercise of judicial power, and, it is precisely
when an indispensable party is not before the
court that the action should be dismissed for such
absence renders all subsequent actions of the court
null and void for want of authority to act, not
only as to the absent parties but even as to those
present. (Simny G. Guy, Geraldine G. Guy, Gladys G.
Yao, And The Heirs of the Late Grace G. Cheu Vs.
Gilbert G. Guy, G.R. No. 189486, September 05,
2012)
C. Representative as parties
Someone acting in a fiduciary capacity (i.e.

trustees of an express trust, guardians, executors
or administrators). In this case, the rule requires
that the name of the beneficiary shall be included
in the title of the case and shall be deemed as the
real party in interest (Rule 3, Sec. 3).
The petitioners reliance on Section 3, Rule 3 of

the Rules of Court to support their conclusion that
Atty. Aceron is likewise a party in interest in the
case below is misplaced. Section 3, Rule 3 of the
Rules of Court provides that:
Sec. 3. Representatives as parties. Where the

action is allowed to be prosecuted and 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 property in interest. A representative may be
a trustee of an expert trust, a guardian, an
executor or administrator, or a party authorized by
law or these Rules. An agent acting in his own name
and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal may
sue or be sued without joining the principal except
when the contract involves things belonging to the
principal.
Nowhere in the rule cited above is it stated or, at

the very least implied, that the representative is
likewise deemed as the real party in interest. The
said rule simply states that, in actions which are
allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a
representative, the beneficiary shall be deemed the
real party in interest and, hence, should be
included in the title of the case.
Indeed, to construe the express requirement of
residence under the rules on venue as applicable to
the attorney-in-fact of the plaintiff would
abrogate the meaning of a "real party in interest",
as defined in Section 2 of Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules
of Court vis--vis Section 3 of the same Rule.
(Theodore And Nancy Ang, Represented By Eldrige
Marvin B. Ceron, Vs. Spouses Alan And Em Ang,
Respondents. G.R. No. 186993, August 22, 2012)

D. Necessary Parties
Those who are not indispensable but 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; may or may not be joined
(i.e. joint debtor is a necessary party in a suit
against his co-debtor) (Rule 3, Sec. 8).
E. Indigent Parties
A party may be authorized to litigate his action,

claim or defense as an indigent if the court, upon
an ex parte application and hearing, is satisfied
that the party is one who has no money or property
sufficient and available for food, shelter and
basic necessities for himself and his family.
F. Effects of declaration of indigency:
Such authority shall include an exemption from

payment of docket and other lawful fees, and of
transcripts of stenographic notes which the court
may order to be furnished him. The amount of the
docket and other lawful fees which the indigent was
exempted from paying shall be a lien on any
judgment rendered in the case favorable to the
indigent, unless the court otherwise provides.
(Rule 3, Sec. 21)
Exemption from Payment of Legal fees (Sec.19. Rule

141)
Requisites:
1) Party must have a gross income and that of
their immediate family do not exceed an amount
double the monthly minimum wage of an employee; and

2) Party do not own real property with a fair
market value as stated in the current tax
declaration of more than P300,000.00.
Grant of the application mandatory if requisites
are present: If the applicant for exemption meets
the salary and property requirements under Section
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 Section 21 of Rule 3 and
use its sound discretion in determining the merits
of the prayer for exemption (Algura v. LGU, G.R.
No. 150135, October 30, 2006).
G. Alternative Defendants
Where the plaintiff is uncertain against who of

several persons he is entitled to relief, he may
join any or all of them as defendants in the
alternative, although a right to relief against one
may be inconsistent with a right to relief against
the other. (Rule 3, Section 13)
3.3.2. Compulsory and Permissive Joinder of Parties
H. Compulsory Joinder of Parties
Those without whom no final determination can be

had of an action; they must be joined under all
conditions (Rule 3, Sec.7). (indispensable pa rties
must be joined compulsorily)
I. Permissive Joinder of Parties (Rule 3, Sec. 6)

Requisites:
a) There must be a right to relief in respect to or

arises out of the same transaction or series of
transactions;

b) There is a question of law or fact common to all
the plaintiffs or all the defendants; and
c) Such joinder is not proscribed by the provisions

of the rules on jurisdiction and venue.
What is series of transaction?
Series of transaction means separate dealings

with the parties but all of which dealings are
directly connected with the same type of subject -
matter of the suit (Regalado).
J. Misjoinder and Non-joinder of Parties
Both are NOT grounds for the dismissal of the

action. Parties may be dropped or added by order of
the court motu proprio or on motion of any party at
any stage of the action and on such terms as are
just. (Rule 3, Section 11)
K. Class Suit
A suit brought by or defended by a represent ative

member or members of a large group of persons on
behalf of all the members of the group. (Rule 3,
Section 12)
Requisites:
1) The subject matter of controversy is of common
or general interest to many persons;
2) Persons are so numerous that it is impracticable
to join all as parties;
3) Parties actually before the court are
sufficiently numerous and representative so that
all interests concerned are fully protected;
4) The representatives sue or defend for th e
benefit of all. (Rule 3, Section 12)

The complaint must specially state that the same is
being brought in behalf of others with whom parties
share a common interest (Borlasa v. Polistico, 47
Phil. 345).
In case of conflict no class suit:
If there is a conflict of interest between those

sought to be represented and those who filed the
action, the class suit will NOT prosper (Ibaez v.
Roman Catholic Church, 12 Phil. 227).
Legal capacity is a requirement in class suit:
The party bringing the class suit must have legal

capacity to do so (Chinese Flour Importers Assoc.
v. Price Stabilization Board, 9 Phil. 461).
Nature of taxpayers suit/derivative suit = Class

suit:
A taxpayers suit or a stockholders derivative

suit is in the nature of class suit, although
subject to the other requisites of the
corresponding governing law especially on the issue
of locus standi (Regalado P.97).
Any party in interest shall have the right to

intervene to protect his individual interest. (This
is an instance when a person may intervene as a
matter of right).
Common or general interest:
In this case, the suit is clearly one that benefits

all commuters and motorists who use La Paz Road. As
succinctly stated by the CA: The subject matter of
the instant case, i.e., the closure and excavation
of the La Paz Road, is initially shown to be of
common or general interest to many persons. The
records reveal that numerous individuals have filed
manifestations with the lower court, conveying
their intention to join private respondents in the
suit and claiming that they are similarly situated
with private respondents for they were also
prejudiced by the acts of petitioners in closing
and excavating the La Paz Road. Moreover, the
individuals sought to be represented by private
respondents in the suit are so numerous that it is
impracticable to join them all as parties and be
named individually as plaintiffs in the complaint.
These individuals claim to be residents of various
barangays in Bian, Laguna and other barangays in
San Pedro, Laguna. (Juana Complex I Homeowners
Association, Inc., et al. vs. Fil-Estate Land,
Inc., G.R. No. 152272, March 5, 2012)
L. Suits against entities without juridical

personality (Section 15)
Under Section 1 of Rule 3, only natural or

juridical persons or entities authorized by law may
be parties in a civil action. However, an entity
without juridical personality be sued as a
defendant when it has entered into a transaction
with the plaintiff.
Two or more persons not organized as an entity with

juridical personality to enter into a transaction
may be sued under the name by which they are
generally or commonly known but they cannot sue
under such name.
In the answer of such defendant, the names and

addresses of the persons composing said entity must
all be revealed (See Sec. 8, Rule 14 as to the
manner of the service of summons of such entities).
With respect to judgments to be rendered in this
situation, Sec. 6 of Rule 36 provides that when
judgment is rendered against two or more persons
associated in an entity without juridical
personality, the judgment shall set out their
individual or proper names if known (Regalado,
2010).
M. Effect of death of party-litigant
Whenever a party to a pending action dies AND the

claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the
duty of his counsel:
1) To inform the court within 30 days after such

death of the fact thereof; and
2) To give the name and address of the deceased
partys legal representative/s. (Rule 3, Sec.16)
Failure to comply is a ground for disciplinary

action:
Failure to comply by counsel shall be a ground for

disciplinary action.
Duty of the counsel to inform the court applies on
appeal
The duty of counsel also applies to death of a

party in cases pending appeal (Riviera Filipina v.
CA, G.R. No. 117355, April 5, 2002).
No summons is required in case of substitution:
No summonses are required to be served on

substitute defendants. Instead, the order of
substitution shall be served upon the parties
substituted in the action; otherwise, the court
does not acquire jurisdiction over the substitute
party (Ferreria, et al. v. Vda. De Gonzales, et
al., 104 Phil. 143). Proceedings conducted b y the
trial court after the death of the defendant, and
without such substitution, are null and void (Lawas

v. CA, et al., L-45809, 12 Dec. 1986)(Regalado,
2010).
Legal representatives given priority:
The rule is that in the substitution of the

deceased, priority is given to his legal
representatives, i.e., the executor or
administrator of his estate. The court may allow
the substitution by the heirs instead IF there is
unreasonable delay in the appointment of an
executor or administrator or when the estate was
extrajudicially settled (Regalado, 201).

CivProDeanTanRecit PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

CivProDeanTanRecit PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

CIVIL PROCEDURE

DEAN FERDINAND A. TAN

1. What is remedial law?

Prescribes the methods of enforcing those rights and

Branch of law which prescribes the method of

2. Distinguish remedial law and substantive law.

Substantive law creates, defines and regulates

Substantive law makes vested rights possible, while

Substantive law, as a general rule, is prospective

Substantive law is enacted or promulgated by the

1 Fraternal Order of Leviathan Levithan Sororitas

3. What at the four main divisions of remedial law?

A. Civil Procedure Rules 1 71

Note: Petitions for Writ of Kalikasan and Writ

B. Special Proceedings Rules 72 109

C. Criminal Procedure Rules 110 127

D. Rules on Evidence Rule 128 134

4. What is the nature of remedial law?

The rules of procedure are merely tools designed to

Procedural rules may be relaxed for persuasive reasons

5. What are the sources of Remedial Law?

B. BP 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980) as

D. Supreme Court Administrative Matters and

a. Rules on Examination of Child Witness

Section 1. Applicability of the Rule. - Unless

b. Rules on Electronic Evidence

Section 2. Cases covered. These Rules shall

3 Fraternal Order of Leviathan Levithan Sororitas

Initiatory pleadings need to be verified, these

d. Rules on DNA Evidence

SECTION 1. Scope. This Rule shall apply whenever

e. Judicial Affidavit Rule

Section 1. Scope. - (a) This Rule shall apply to

F. New Civil Code

Article 151 of the Family Code wherein it is provided

4 Fraternal Order of Leviathan Levithan Sororitas

a. Intellectual Property Code

Section 76. Civil Action for Infringement.

76.1. The making, using, offering for sale,

This action, therefore, partakes the nature of an

K. Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases

L. Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Court

M. R.A. 1125 (An Act Creating the Court of Appeals)

5 Fraternal Order of Leviathan Levithan Sororitas

P. Revised Manual of the Clerk of Court

6. Distinguish Civil Actions, Criminal Actions and

A civil action may either be ordinary or special. Both

6 Fraternal Order of Leviathan Levithan Sororitas

7 Fraternal Order of Leviathan Levithan Sororitas

Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life,

Section 30. No law shall be passed increasing the

Section 27 of RA 6770 cannot validly authorize an

Section 4. Last Par. The Supreme Court, sitting en

8 Fraternal Order of Leviathan Levithan Sororitas

Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of

All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty,

9 Fraternal Order of Leviathan Levithan Sororitas

1. Exercise original jurisdiction over cases

No petition for review or motion for reconsideration

Section 7. Each Commission shall decide by a

majority vote of all its Members, any case or matter

Section 10. All courts existing at the time of the