REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER

Part III of IX
ORDINARY CIVIL ACTIONS
I. General Provisions
A. Rule 1
Section 1. Title of the Rules. — xxx
Sec. 2. In what courts applicable. — These Rules shall apply
in all the courts, except as otherwise provided by the Supreme
Court. (n)
Sec. 3. Cases governed. — These Rules shall govern the
procedure to be observed in actions, civil or criminal, and
special proceedings.
(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. (1a, R2)
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. (n)
(b) A criminal action is one by which the State prosecutes a
person for an act or omission punishable by law. (n)
(c) A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks
to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. (2a, R2)
Memorize!
Civil action – one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or
protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong
Criminal action – one by which the State prosecutes a person for an act
or omission punishable by law.
Special proceeding – a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a
status, a right, or a particular fact
Special civil actions are called so because special rules govern.
Sec. 4. In what cases not applicable. — These Rules shall not
apply to election cases, land registration, cadastral,
naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and other cases not
herein provided for, except by analogy or in a suppletory
character and whenever practicable and convenient. (R143a)
Cases where the Rules apply only by analogy or suppletorily
.1 election cases
.2 land registration
.3 cadastral
.4 naturalization and
.5 insolvency proceedings, and
.6 other cases not herein provided for
Sec. 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 date of the
filing of such later pleading, irrespective of whether the
motion for its admission, if necessary, is denied by the court.
(6a)
Sec. 6. Construction. – These Rules shall be liberally
construed in order to promote their objective of securing a
just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and
proceeding. (2a)
Memorize Sec.6. (Just, Speedy, Inexpensive – catch-all answer in the
bar!)
B. Cases
Cabrera v. Tiano, 8 SCRA 542 (1963) Civil actions are deemed
commenced from date of the filing and docketing of the complaint with
the Clerk of Court, without taking into account the issuance and
service of summons. Commencement of the suit prior to the expiration
of the prescriptive period, interrupts the prescription period.
Sun Insurance v. Asuncion, 170 SCRA 274 (1989) 1) It is not simply the
filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the
payment of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with
jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action. Where the
filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the
docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable
time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary
period. 2) Permissive counterclaims, third party claims and similar
pleadings, shall not be considered filed until and unless the filing fee
prescribed therefore is paid. The court may also allow payment of said
fee within a reasonable time but also in no case beyond its applicable
prescriptive or reglementary period. 3) If the judgment awards a claim
not specified in the pleading, or if specified the same has been left for
determination by the court, the additional filing fee therefor shall
constitute a lien on the judgment.
Escolin: There are some compulsory counterclaim that needs payment
of docket fees, and some which does not.
Hodges v. CA, GR 87617, 184 SCRA (1990) Filing fees should be paid in
full for the court to acquire jurisdiction. Partial payment of docket fees
prevents the court from acquiring jurisdiction and any proceedings
undertaken thereafter is null and void.
Spouses de Leon v. CA, 287 SCRA (1998) An action for rescission of
contract should be treated similar to an action for specific
performance. An action for rescission of contract is one which cannot
be estimated and therefore the docket fee for its filing should be the
flat amount for actions incapable of pecuniary estimation, regardless of
the value of the real property which is the subject of the contract.
Manchester Development v. CA, 149 SCRA 562 (1987)
Facts: Body of the complaint specified amount of damages, but the
prayer did not. Complaint was amended deleting all amounts. Only
after court order did complainant specify the amount, but still only in
the body, not in the prayer.
Held: In civil cases, all pleadings should specify in both the body and
prayer the amount of damages sought. The court does not acquire
jurisdictions until the proper docket fee has been paid. Where an action
is both for specific performance and damages, the docket fees must be
based on the total damages sought to be recovered, even if it is not
spelled out in the prayer. Where the prayer clearly shows that the
action was one for damages, there can be “no honest difference of
opinion” as to the amount of filing fees. Where payment was
insufficient and there was “no honest difference of opinion” as to the
correct amount of filing fees, the court never acquired jurisdiction over
the original complaint. There was thus no complaint to amend. Docket
fees must be based on the original, not amended complaint. A case is
deemed filed only upon payment of the docket fee regardless of the
actual date of filing in court. Henceforth, the amount sought to be
recovered should be stated both in the body of the complaint and in
prayer.
Escolin: The SC in Manchester prohibited plaintiffs in civil cases from
not specifying the amount of damages.
Manuel v. Alfeche, 259 SCRA 475 (1996)
Facts: Complainant in a libel case, where the information stated the
amount of moral damages, did not pay filing fees for the impliedly
instituted civil action.
Held: When a civil action is deemed impliedly instituted with the
criminal, when the amount of damages, other than actual, is alleged in
the complaint or information filed in court, then the corresponding
filing fees shall be paid. However, when the amount of damages is not
so alleged, filing fees need not be paid and shall simply constitute a
first lien on the judgment, except in an award for actual damages. In
no case shall filing fees for actual damages be collected.
Manuel case is applicable to civil cases impliedly instituted with
criminal cases. In purely civil actions, the Manchester ruling applies.
de Leon: Note that under the Criminal Procedure Rules of 2000, filing
fees for actual damages may be collected in case of cases for violation
of BP 22.
II. Civil Procedure
A. Ordinary Civil Actions (Rules 2-5)
Cause of Action
a. Kinds of actions
1) Real or Personal action
Real action – the subject matter of the action is real property (e.g.
foreclosure of real mortgage)
Personal action – the subject matter of the action is personal property
(e.g. foreclosure of chattel mortgage)
2) Action in personam, in rem, and quasi in
rem
Action in personam – the decision is enforceable only against the
parties
Action in rem – the decision is enforceable against the whole world
Action quasi in rem -
A real action may still be an action in personam.
de Leon: is it proper to say that all special proceedings are actions in
rem?
b. Rule 2
Section 1. Ordinary civil actions, basis of. — Every ordinary
civil action must be based on a cause of action. (n)
Sec. 2. Cause of action, defined. — A cause of action is the
act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. (n)
Memorize!
cause of action – act or omission by which a party violates a right of
another.
Sec. 3. One suit for a single cause of action. — A party may
not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action.
(3a)
Sec. 4. Splitting a single cause of action; effect of. — If two
or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of
action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any
one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others.
(4a)
cf grounds for MtD
Sec. 5. Joinder of causes of action. — A party may in one
pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as many
causes of action as he may have against an opposing party,
subject to the following conditions:
(a) The party joining the causes of action shall comply with
the rules on joinder of parties;
cf Rule 3, Sec. 6
Sec. 6. Permissive joinder of parties. — All persons in whom or against
whom any right to relief in respect to or arising out of the same
transaction or series of transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly,
severally, or in the alternative, may, except as otherwise provided in
these Rules, join as plaintiffs or be joined as defendants in one
complaint, where any question of law or fact common to all such
plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in the action; but the
court may make such orders as may be just to prevent any plaintiff or
defendant from being embarrassed or put to expense in connection
with any proceedings in which he may have no interest. (6)
Escolin: if there is joinder of parties, the cause of action asserted by all
the plaintiffs must based on a common question of law common to all
plaintiffs or to all the defendants.
(b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or
actions governed by special rules;
e.g. forcible entry and unlawful detainer; actions governed by the rules
on summary procedure (e.g. ejectment)
(c) Where the causes of action are between the same
parties but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the
joinder may be allowed in the Regional Trial Court provided
one of the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of said
court and the venue lies therein; and
Joiner of actions in different venues and jurisdictions must be in a RTC,
not MTC
 (d) Where the claims in all the causes of action are
principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount
claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction. (5a)
Joiner of causes of action was introduced in the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure.
Memorize Section 5!
A plaintiff can not split a single cause of action, but he may join several
causes of action against the same defendant, subject to the following
rules
.1 must comply with the rules on joinder of parties
.2 joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed by
special rules (e.g. summary procedure)
.3 where the causes of action are between the same parties but
pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may be
allowed in the RTC provided
.a one of the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC
court and
.b the venue lies within such RTC
.4 where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for
recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test
of jurisdiction.
Sec. 6. Misjoinder of causes of action. – Misjoinder of causes
of action is not a ground for dismissal of an action. A misjoined
cause of action may, on motion of a party or on the initiative of
the court, be severed and proceeded with separately. (n)
cf Rule 31, Sec. 2
Sec. 2. Separate trials. — The court, in furtherance of convenience or
to avoid prejudice, may order a separate trial of any claim, cross-claim,
counterclaim, or third-party complaint, or of any separate issue or of
any number of claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, third-party
complaints or issues.
cf Rule 36, Sec. 5
Sec. 5. Separate judgments. — When more than one claim for relief is
presented in an action, the court, at any stage, upon a determination
of the issues material to a particular claim and all counterclaims arising
out of the transaction or occurrence which is the subject matter of the
claim, may render a separate judgment disposing of such claim. The
judgment shall terminate the action with respect to the claim so
disposed of and the action shall proceed as to the remaining claims. In
case a separate judgment is rendered, the court by order may stay its
enforcement until the rendition of a subsequent judgment or
judgments and may prescribe such conditions as may be necessary to
secure the benefit thereof to the party in whose favor the judgment is
rendered. (5a)
cf Rule 41, Sec. 1 (g)
Section 1. Subject of appeal. — An appeal may be taken from a
judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a
particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be
appealable.
No appeal may be taken from:
(g) A judgment or final order for or against one or more of several
parties or in separate claims, counterclaims, cross-claims and third-
 party complaints, while the main case is pending, unless the court
allows an appeal therefrom; xxx
Escolin: A party generally can not appeal from a judgment on 1 cause
of action in joined causes of action. He must file a leave of court before
appealing, or wait for judgment from all other joined causes of action.
c. Cases
Citizen Surety v. Melencio-Herrera, 38 SCRA 369 (1971) Where the
action is in personam (e.g. action for deficiency judgment(, the Court
could not validly acquire jurisdiction on a non-appearing defendant,
absent a personal service of summons. Without such personal service,
any judgment on a non-appearing defendant would be violative of due
process. Summons by publication cannot confer upon the court
jurisdiction over said defendants, who does not voluntarily submit
himself to the authority of the court. The proper recourse for a creditor
is to locate properties, real or personal, of the resident defendant
debtor and cause them to be attached, in which case, the attachment
converts the action into a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem and the
summons by publication may then accordingly be deemed valid and
effective. The case should not be dismissed but should be held pending
in the court's archives, until plaintiff succeeds in determining the
whereabouts of the defendants' person or properties and causes valid
summons to be served personally or by publication.
Escolin: Citizen Surety could not have availed of summons by
publication because this provision applies only to actions in rem or
quasi in rem. He should have invoked Rule 57, Sec. 1 (f) to convert the
action into quasi in rem
Section 1. Grounds upon which attachment may issue. — At the
commencement of the action or at any time before entry of judgment,
a plaintiff or any proper party may have the property of the adverse
party attached as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that
may be recovered in the following cases:
(f) In an action against a party who does not reside and is not found in
the Philippines, or on whom summons may be served by publication.
(1a)
Bachrach Motor v. Icarañgal, 68 Phil 287 (1939)
An action for a collection on a loan and an action for foreclosure of the
mortgage that secures such loan are based on one a single cause of
action (i.e. default of the debtor). Such actions can not therefore be
split or filed separately. The filing or judgment on one action will
necessarily bar the filing of the other.
Industrial Finance Corp. v. Apostol, 177 SCRA 521 (1989) A mortgage
creditor may elect to waive his security and instead bring an ordinary
action to collect with the right to execute on all the properties of the
debtor, including the subject-matter of the mortgage. If he fails in the
collection suit, he can not thereafter foreclose on the mortgage.
Escolin: In case of splitting of a single cause of action, the ground for
dismissal is res judicata.
Escolin: If there is one cause of action but two remedies, the plaintiff
should have pleaded alternative remedies in his complaint.
Progressive Development Corp. v. CA, 301 SCRA 637 (1999)
Facts: Pursuant to a lease contract, for non-payment of rentals lessor
repossessed the leased properties and seeks to auction-off movable
property found therein. Lessee files a forcible entry case before the
MTC against the lessor. Settlement was agreed upon which was
reneged by the plaintiff. Lessor seeks to auction-off lessee’s properties
again. Lessee now files a case for damages with the RTC against the
lessor.
Held: The forcible entry and damages case arose from a single cause
of action. Hence, the case for damages may be dismissed.
Escolin: The SC was wrong. Previous jurisprudence ruled that in cases
filed with the MTC, a compulsory counterclaim in excess of the
jurisdiction of the MTC should be filed as a separate action, or if filed in
the same action, the excess is waived.
de Leon: Under Rule 70, if a claim in an ejectment case in the MTC is
for reasonable use of the property, the claim may go beyond the
jurisdiction of the MTC. But if the claim is other than reasonable use of
the property, it must be within the jurisdiction of the MTC.
de Leon: Counterclaims for moral and exemplary damages in
ejectment cases before the MTC should be within the the amounts
prescribed for summary procedure.
Agustin v. Bacalan, 135 SCRA 340 (1985)
Facts: Administrator of estate-lessor files a case for ejectment before
the City Courts against the lessee. Lessee files counterclaim in excess
of the City Court’s jurisdiction. City Court decides for plaintiff. On
appeal, CFI rules for defendant and grants him damages. This became
final. Plaintiff files separate for nullifying the CFI decision on the ground
that the damages awarded was beyond the jurisdiction of the City
Court.
Held: A counterclaim not presented in the lower court can not be
entertained on appeal. Defendant is deemed to have waived his
counterclaim in excess of the City Court’s jurisdiction. It is as though it
has never been brought before City Court. It may not be entertained
on appeal. The amount of judgment, therefore, obtained by the
defendant-appellee on appeal, cannot exceed the jurisdiction of the
court in which the action began. Since the trial court did not acquire
jurisdiction over the defendant's counterclaim in excess of the
jurisdictional amount, the appellate court, likewise, acquired no
jurisdiction over the same by its decisions or otherwise. When court
transcends the limits prescribed for it by law and assumes to act where
it has no jurisdiction, its adjudications will be utterly void and of no
effect either as an estoppel or otherwise. The excess award of the CFI
is therefore null and void. Action to declare nullity of award is proper.
The award not in excess stands.
Escolin: A compulsory counterclaim beyond the jurisdiction of the court
can be filed as a separate action.
Maceda v. CA, 176 SCRA (1989)
Facts: Transferee of leased property files an ejectment case against
the lessee. Lessee sets up counterclaim for reimbursement of
renovation expenses, in excess of the MTC’s jurisdiction. MTC ejects
lessee. RTC reinstates lessee and orders plaintiff to reimburse lessee.
CA affirms RTC but deletes award of reimbursement.
Held: MTC had no jurisdiction over the excess counterclaim. Hence,
neither did the RTC. A counterclaim in excess of the limit may be
pleaded only by way of defense to weaken the plaintiff's claim, but not
to obtain affirmative relief.
Bayang v. CA, 148 SCRA 91 (1987)
Facts: Pending a quieting of title case, defendant dispossesses the
plaintiff. CA rules in favor of plaintiff. Plaintiff now files separate action
for the fruits during the period of dispossession.
Held: Ownership of the land and income from the land is a single cause
of action in case of quieting of title. The claim for the income from the
land was incidental to a claim for ownership of the land. During the
whole period of dispossession, plaintiff made no move to amend his
complaint to include a claim for the income supposedly received by the
defendant. Failure to do so is res judicata to the subsequent case.
Escolin: Plaintiff should have filed a supplementary complaint after the
defendant has dispossessed him.
Parties to Civil Actions
d. Rule 3
Section 1. Who may be parties; plaintiff and defendant. —
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
counterclaim, the cross-defendant, or the third (fourth, etc.)-
party defendant. (1a)
Sec. 2. Parties in interest. — A real party in interest is the
party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in
the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless
otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must
be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in
interest. (2a)
Memorize!
real party in interest – the party who stands to be benefited or injured
by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the
suit.
Sec. 3. Representatives as parties. — Where the action is
allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a representative or
someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall be
included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the
real party in interest. A representative may be a trustee of an
express 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. (3a)
Sec. 4. Spouses as parties. — Husband and wife shall sue or
be sued jointly, except as provided by law. (4a)
Sec. 5. Minor or incompetent persons. — A minor or a person
alleged to be incompetent, may sue or be sued, with the
assistance of his father, mother, guardian, or if he has none, a
guardian ad litem. (5a)
 Sec. 6. Permissive joinder of parties. — All persons in whom
or against whom any right to relief in respect to or arising out
of the same transaction or series of transactions is alleged to
exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative, may,
except as otherwise provided in these Rules, join as plaintiffs
or be joined as defendants in one complaint, where any
question of law or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all
such defendants may arise in the action; but the court may
make such orders as may be just to prevent any plaintiff or
defendant from being embarrassed or put to expense in
connection with any proceedings in which he may have no
interest. (6)
Memorize!
Rule on permissive joinder of parties – All persons in whom or against
whom any right to relief in respect to or arising out of the same
transaction or series of transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly,
severally, or in the alternative, may join as plaintiffs or be joined as
defendants in one complaint, where any question of law or fact
common to all such plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in the
action
Misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground to dismiss a case. The
proper remedy is to severe the other cause of action and to try
separately.
Sec. 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. —
Parties in interest without whom no final determination can be
had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or
defendants. (7)
Memorize! Key word “final”
indispensable parties — parties in interest without whom no final
determination can be had of an action
Failure to implead an indispensable party is ground to dismiss the
case.
Sec. 8. Necessary party. — A necessary party is one who is
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. (8a)
Memorize! Key word “complete”
necessary party – one who is 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.
Failure to implead a necessary party is a waiver of the claim against
such party. It is not ground to dismiss the case.
Sec. 9. Non-joinder of necessary parties to be pleaded. —
Whenever in any pleading in which a claim is asserted a
necessary party is not joined, the pleader shall set forth his
name, if known, and shall state why he is omitted. Should the
court find the reason for the omission unmeritorious, it may
order the inclusion of the omitted necessary party if
jurisdiction over his person may be obtained.
 The failure to comply with the order for his inclusion,
without justifiable cause, shall be deemed a waiver of the
claim against such party.
The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent the
court from proceeding in the action, and the judgment
rendered therein shall be without prejudice to the rights of
such necessary party. (8a, 9a)
When necessary party not pleaded
.1 the pleader shall set forth his name, if known, and shall state why
he is omitted
.2 Should the court find the reason for the omission unmeritorious, it
may order the inclusion of the omitted necessary party if jurisdiction
over his person may be obtained.
.3 failure to comply with the order for his inclusion, without justifiable
cause, shall be deemed a waiver of the claim against such party.
.4 The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent the court
from proceeding in the action, and the judgment rendered therein
shall be without prejudice to the rights of such necessary party.
Sec. 10. Unwilling co-plaintiff. — If the consent of any party
who should be joined as plaintiff can not be obtained, he may
be made a defendant and the reason therefor shall be stated
in the complaint. (10)
Sec. 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. — Neither
misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is ground for dismissal of
an action. Parties may be dropped or added by order of the
court on motion of any party or on its own initiative at any
stage of the action and on such terms as are just. Any claim
against a misjoined party may be severed and proceeded with
separately. (11a)
de Leon: The non-joinder of a party which does not cause dismissal
refers to necessary parties. Non-joinder of an indispensable party is a
ground to dismiss the action .
Sec. 12. Class suit. — When the subject matter of the
controversy is one of common or general interest to many
persons so numerous that it is impracticable to join all as
parties, a number of them which the court finds to be
sufficiently numerous and representative as to fully protect
the interests of all concerned may sue or defend for the
benefit of all. Any party in interest shall have the right to
intervene to protect his individual interest. (12a)
Memorize!
Requisites of a Class Suit
.1 the subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general
interest
.2 to many persons so numerous it is impracticable to join all as
parties
.3 a number of them which the court finds to be sufficiently numerous
and representative as to fully protect the interests of all concerned
sues or defends for the benefit of all
.4 Any party in interest shall have the right to intervene to protect his
individual interest.
Sec. 13. Alternative defendants. — Where the plaintiff is
uncertain against who of several persons he is entitled to
relief, he may join any or all of them as defendants in the
alternative, although a right to relief against one may be
inconsistent with a right of relief against the other. (13a)
Sec. 14. Unknown identity or name of defendant. —
Whenever the identity or name of a defendant is unknown, he
may be sued as the unknown owner, heir, devisee, or by such
other designation as the case may require; when his identity
or true name is discovered, the pleading must be amended
accordingly. (14)
Sec. 15. Entity without juridical personality as defendant. —
When two or more persons not organized as an entity with
juridical personality enter into a transaction, they may be sued
under the name by which they are generally or commonly
known.
In the answer of such defendant, the names and addresses
of the persons composing said entity must all be revealed.
(15a)
cf Rule 14, Sec. 8
Sec. 8. Service upon entity without juridical personality. — When
persons associated in an entity without juridical personality are sued
under the name by which they are generally or commonly known,
service may be effected upon all the defendants by serving upon any
one of them, or upon the person in charge of the office or place of
business maintained in such name. But such service shall not bind
individually any person whose connection with the entity has, upon
due notice, been severed before the action was brought. (9a)
Chang Kai Shek v. CA, 172 SCRA 389 (1989)
Facts: Dismissed teacher sues unincorporated school. Plaintiff tries to
amend to implead school officials, but CFI dismissed the case. CA
reverses.
Held: The school can not invoke its non-compliance with the law to
escape being sued. It is now in estoppel.
Sec. 16. Death of party; duty of counsel. — Whenever a
party to a pending action dies, and the claim is not thereby
extinguished, it shall be the duty of his counsel to inform the
court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact
thereof, and to give the name and address of his legal
representative or representatives. Failure of counsel to comply
with this duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action.
The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted
for the deceased, without requiring the appointment of an
executor or administrator and the court may appoint a
guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.
The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or
representatives to appear and be substituted within a period
of thirty (30) days from notice.
If no legal representative is named by the counsel for the
deceased party, or if the one so named shall fail to appear
within the specified period, the court may order the opposing
party, within a specified time, to procure the appointment of
an executor or administrator for the estate of the deceased
and the latter shall immediately appear for and on behalf of
the deceased. The court charges in procuring such
appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may be
recovered as costs. (16a, 17a)
Sec. 20. Action on contractual money claims. — When the
action is for recovery of money arising from contract, express
or implied, and the defendant dies before entry of final
judgment in the court in which the action was pending at the
time of such death, it shall not be dismissed but shall instead
be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment. A
favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff therein shall be
enforced in the manner especially provided in these Rules for
prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased person.
(21a)
Money claims are now not extinguished by the death of a party.
The court can not cite in contempt a legal representative who refuses
to appear in court.
cf Rule 78, Sec. 6 which shows that the plaintiff-creditor may apply for
letters of administration.
Rule 78 Letters Testamentary and of Administration, When and to
Whom Issued
Sec. 6. When and to whom letters of administration granted. – If
no executor is named in the will, or the executor or executors are
incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to give bond, or a person dies
intestate, administration shall be granted:
(a) To the surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of
kin, or both, in the discretion of the court, or to such person as such
surviving husband or wife, or next of kin, requests to have appointed, if
competent and willing to serve;
(b) If such surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next
of kin, or the person selected by them, be incompetent or unwilling, or
if the husband or widow, or next of kin, neglects for thirty (30) days
after the death of the person to apply for administration or to request
that administration be granted to some other person, it may be
granted to one or more of the principal creditors, if competent and
willing to serve;
(c) If there is no such creditor competent and willing to serve, it
may be granted to such other person as the court may select.
“Next of kin” is someone who will inherit next to the spouse. The
remedy in case conflict of interest where a creditor being appointed
administrator is in Rule 86, Sec. 8, is to appoint a special administrator
where the creditor appointed will have to file his claim.
Rule 86 Claims Against Estate
Sec. 8. Claim of executor or administrator against an estate. – If the
executor or administrator has a claim against the estate he represents,
he shall give notice thereof, in writing, to the court, and the court shall
appoint a special administrator, who shall, in the adjustment of such
claim, have the same power and be subject to the same liability as the
general administrator or executor in the settlement of other claims.
The court may order the executor or administrator to pay to the special
administrator necessary funds to defend such claim.
If the plaintiff wins in a money claim, he must present a writ of
execution with the probate court as a claim in the estate proceedings.
If the plaintiff wins in a non-money claim, the writ of execution may be
enforced without going to the probate court.
cf Rule 39, Sec. 7
Rule 39, Execution Satisfaction and Effect of Judgments
Sec. 7. Execution in case of death of party. — In case of the death of
party, execution may issue or be enforced in the following manner:
(a) In case of the death of the judgment obligee, upon the application
of his executor or administrator, or successor in interest;
(b) In case of the death of the judgment obligor, against his executor
or administrator or successor in interest, if the judgment be for the
recovery of real or personal property, or the enforcement of the lien
thereon;
(c) In case of the death of the judgment obligor, after execution is
actually levied upon any of his property, the same may be sold for the
satisfaction of the judgment obligation, and the officer making the sale
shall account to the corresponding executor or administrator for any
surplus in his hands. (7a)
If the judgment creditor dies after the final judgment, the judgment will
be executed upon initiative of the executor or administrator. If the
judgment debtor dies after the final judgment, and the judgment is a
real action or action for damages, the executor or administrator
substitutes the decedent and judgment is executed. But if the case is
for a sum of money, and if he dies before levy was executed, the
judgment is filed as a claim before the estate proceedings. But if levy
was already made, the sale of the property proceeds, the proceeds is
delivered to the plaintiff and the excess is delivered to the
executor/administrator.
cf Rule 87, Sec. 1
Sec. 1. Actions which may and which may not be brought against
executor or administrator. - No action upon a claim for the recovery of
money or debt or interest thereon shall be commenced against the
executor or administrator; but actions to recover real or personal
property, or an interest therein, from the estate, or to enforce a lien
thereon, and actions to recover damages for an injury to person or
property, real or personal, may be commenced against him.
If the defendant dies before a case may be filed
.1 for recovery of sum of money – file a claim before the estate
proceedings, where the creditor will have to present evidence on
the validity of his claim; because the amount sought to be collected
is definite
.2 for recovery of property – file a separate case against the
executor/administrator; because the amount of the claim is
unliquidated
.3 for damages for injury – file a separate case before the courts.
de Leon’s Rules: If the defendant dies
.1 before a case is filed
.a for recovery of a sum of money – file a claim before the estate
proceedings, where the creditor will have to present evidence on
the validity of his claim
 .b real action and action for damages – file a separate case against
the executor/administrator
.2 after a case is filed but before judgment
.a for recovery of a sum of money – case shall not be dismissed but
shall instead be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment;
the judgment is then filed as a claim in the estate proceedings;
Regalado, p. 101: Decedent’s legal representative should be
substituted for the decedent.
.b real action and action for damages
)1 heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted,
without requiring the appointment of an executor or
administrator and the court may appoint a guardian ad litem
for the minor heirs.
)2 If no legal representative appears, the court may order the
opposing party, within a specified time, to procure the
appointment of an executor or administrator for the estate of
the deceased and the latter shall immediately appear for and
on behalf of the deceased. Priority to in the appointment to
)a Surviving spouse, or next of kin
)b one or more of the principal creditors, if competent and
willing to serve
)c other person as the court may select.
)3 in case conflict of interest where a creditor being appointed
administrator is to appoint a special administrator where the
creditor appointed will have to file his own claim
.3 after judgment but before execution
.a for sum of money – present the writ of execution as a claim
before the probate court
.b real action and action for damages – substitute the defendant
with his administrator or executor, and enforce the writ against
him without going to the probate court
.4 after levy on execution (applies only to recovery of a sum of money)
– continue with the auction sale and the officer making the sale
shall deliver the proceeds to the plaintiff, and account to the
executor or administrator for any excess
Sec. 17. Death or separation of a party who is a public
officer. — When a public officer is a party in an action in his
official capacity and during its pendency dies, resigns, or
otherwise ceases to hold office, the action may be continued
and maintained by or against his successor if, within thirty
(30) days after the successor takes office or such time as may
be granted by the court, it is satisfactorily shown to the court
by any party that there is a substantial need for continuing or
maintaining it and that the successor adopts or continues or
threatens to adopt or continue the action of his predecessor.
Before a substitution is made, the party or officer to be
affected, unless expressly assenting thereto, shall be given
reasonable notice of the application therefor and accorded an
opportunity to be heard. (18a)
 Sec. 18. Incompetency or incapacity. — If a party becomes
incompetent or incapacitated, the court, upon motion with
notice, may allow the action to be continued by or against the
incompetent or incapacitated person assisted by his legal
guardian or guardian ad litem. (19a)
Sec. 19. Transfer of interest. — In case of any transfer of
interest, the action may be continued by or against the original
party, unless the court upon motion directs the person to
whom the interest is transferred to be substituted in the
action or joined with the original party. (20)
Sec. 20. Action on contractual money claims. — xxx (moved
to under Rule 3, Sec. 16)
Sec. 21. Indigent party. — 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.
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.
Any adverse party may contest the grant of such authority
at any time before judgment is rendered by the trial court. If
the court should determine after hearing that the party
declared as an indigent is in fact a person with sufficient
income or property, the proper docket and other lawful fees
shall be assessed and collected by the clerk of court. If
payment is not made within the time fixed by the court,
execution shall issue for the payment thereof, without
prejudice to such other sanctions as the court may impose.
(22a)
Indigent party — one who has no money or property sufficient and
available for food, shelter and basic necessities for himself and his
family.
Sec. 22. Notice to the Solicitor General. — In any action
involving the validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, executive
order, presidential decree, rules or regulations, the court, in
its discretion, may require the appearance of the Solicitor
General who may be heard in person or through a
representative duly designated by him. (23a)
e. Cases
Juasing Hardware v. Mendoza, 115 SCRA 783 (1982) Correction of the
designation of the plaintiff (from name of sole proprietorship to name
of individual owner) is merely formal, not substantial, and hence may
be corrected at any stage of the action.
Chang Kai Shek v. CA, 172 SCRA 389 (1989) An unincorporated entity
sued as such can not invoke its non-compliance with the law to escape
being sued. It is now in estoppel.
Hang Lung Bank v. Saulog, 201 SCRA 137 (1991) License as a
requirement for a foreign corporation to sue applies only to foreign
corporations doing business in the Philippines. “Isolated Transaction
Rule” – unlicensed foreign corporation not doing business may sue on
an isolated transaction
Commissioner of Customs v. KMK Gani, 182 SCRA 591 (1990)
Unlicensed foreign corporations not engaged in business may sue in
the Philippines based on an isolated transaction. Fact of not doing
business must be alleged in the suit.
Escolin: In Commissioner of Customs, KMK’s personality was not
recognized because it was not able to prove that it was a duly formed
corporation by presenting a certification from the government of its
country of origin. Unlike in Hang Lung, the foreign corporation was able
to prove its corporate existence under the foreign law.
de Leon: Even if a plaintiff foreign entity is not required to obtain a
license because it is not doing business, it must still prove its due
incorporation in its country of origin.
Merrill Lynch v. CA, 211 SCRA 824 (1992)
Facts: Unlicensed foreign corporation sues for recovery of money. They
were doing business in the Philippines.
Held: The defendant is estopped to deny the capacity of the foreign
corporation to sue, having dealt with the corporation.
USA v. Reyes, 219 SCRA 192 (1993) The doctrine of immunity from suit
will not apply and may not be invoked where the public official is being
sued in his private and personal capacity as an ordinary citizen. The
cloak of protection afforded the officers and agents of the government
is removed the moment they are sued in their individual capacity. This
situation usually arises where the public official acts without authority
or in excess of the powers vested in him. A public official may be liable
in his personal private capacity for whatever damage he may have
caused by his act done with malice and in bad faith, or beyond the
scope of his authority or jurisdiction.
Flores v. Mallare-Philips, 144 SCRA 377 (1986)
Facts: Plaintiff files 1 complaint against 2 distinct defendants before
the RTC under distinct separate causes of action. Total amount of the
claim is with RTC jurisdiction, but individual claim is under MTC
jurisdiction. RTC dismisses the complaint .
Held: In cases of joinder of causes of action, the amount of the demand
shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of action irrespective
of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different
transactions. In cases of permissive joinder of parties, whether as
plaintiffs or as defendants, the total of all the claims shall now furnish
the jurisdictional test. However, there should be a proper joinder of
parties for the totality rule to apply. In this case, the 2 causes of action
did not arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions and
there was not common question of law or fact. There was improper
joining of parties, hence the totality rule does not apply. MTC has
jurisdiction.
Ralla v. Ralla, 199 SCRA 495 (1991)
Facts: Validly disinherited son sues for annulment of sale of property
from the decedent to another heir.
Held: The disinherited son has no legal standing to question the
validity of the sale. He is not a real party in interest as he does not
stand to be benefited or injured by the judgment or a party entitled to
the avails of the suit. “Interest” means material interest.
Mansion Biscuit v. CA, 250 SCRA 195 (1995) Death of the accused
pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as
well as the civil liability based solely thereon. However, the claim for
civil liability survives, if the same may also be predicated on a source
of obligation other than delict. Where the civil liability survives, an
action for recovery therefor may be pursued but only by way of filing a
separate civil action against the executor/administrator or the estate of
the accused, depending on the source of obligation. In cases where in
the civil action is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, the
statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted during
the pendency of the criminal case.
Nuñal v. CA, 221 SCRA 26 (1993)
Facts: Frank and Mary had children, one of whom was Mary Lyon
Martin. They also owned a parcel of land. They died. Luisa Lyon Nuñal
was in possession of the land. Emma Lyon de Leon in her behalf and as
guardian ad litem of the minor heirs of Frank and Mary (but not
including Mary Lyon Martin) sued Luisa Lyon, now deceased and herein
represented by her heirs, for partition and accounting. CFI ordered the
partition but dismissed the complaint for accounting. Affirmed by the
CA, with a finding that Mary Lyon Martin was a child of Frank and Mary,
but the order of partitioning did not include Mary Lyon Martin. Decision
became final and writ of execution was issued.
Thereafter, Mary Lyon Martin filed a motion to quash the order of
execution with preliminary injunction. Eventually, the lower court
ordered the inclusion of Mary Lyon Martin in the partitioning as a co-
owner, invoking the fact that the earlier decision had a finding that
Mary Lyon Martin is one of the children of Frank and Mary. CA affirms.
Held: When a final judgment becomes executory, it thereby becomes
immutable and unalterable. The judgment may no longer be modified
in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is
perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless
of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the Court
rendering it or by the highest Court of land. The only recognized
exceptions are the correction of clerical errors or the making of so-
called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party,
and, of course, where the judgment is void. Any amendment. or
alteration which substantially affects a final and executory judgment is
null and void for lack of jurisdiction, including the entire proceedings
held for that purpose.
In the case at bar, the decision of the trial court has become final and
executory. Thus, upon its finality, the trial judge lost his jurisdiction
over the case. Consequently, any modification that he would make, as
in this case, the inclusion of Mary Lyon Martin would be in excess of his
authority. The remedy of Mary Lyon Martin is to file an independent
suit against the parties and all other heirs for her share in the subject
property, in order that all the parties in interest can prove their
respective claims.
Escolin: Once a judgment has been rendered, even if it is not yet final,
intervention may no longer be allowed. It is not necessary for the
judgment of partition be final before the excluded heir may not be
allowed to intervene. cf Rule 19, Sec. 2
Sec. 2. Time to intervene. - The motion to intervene may be filed at
any time before rendition of judgment by the trial court. xxx
Robles v. CA, 83 SCRA 180 (1978)
Facts: Heirs sign power of attorney authorizing an heir to sell land
inherited. One heir did not sign. The land was sold and registered.
Excluded heir now sues the buyer and the RoD to “cancel” the buyer’s
title. TC dismisses the case on ground that the vendors should have
been impleaded as an indispensable party
Held: The action is not really one for cancellation of title, but really one
questioning RoD’s acceptance of the PoA as a Declaration of heirship.
The vendors are not indispensable parties. The action for cancellation
pertains only to plaintiff’s rights as an excluded heir, and does not
affect the rights and interests of the vendors. In reality, plaintiff’s
action is one of legal redemption where the vendors are clearly not
indispensable parties. Besides, the defendant RoD had the option of
impleading the vendors as 3rd party defendants if he wanted to.
Imson v. CA, 239 SCRA 58 (1994)
Facts: Plaintiff sues for damages from a vehicular accident. Beneficial
owner and the driver were declared in default. Compromise was
reached with the insurer and the claim against him was withdrawn.
Registered owners now seek dismissal of the claims against them as
well.
Held: The case should proceed. The rule is dismissal of the case
against an indispensable party results in dismissal of the case against
the other indispensable parties. The insurer is merely a necessary
party. Dismissal of the case against him will not result to dismissal of
the claim against the other defendants.
Escolin: The insurer is not an indispensable party to the case. The only
indispensable party here is the driver of the truck. All the others are
mere necessary parties.
Mina v. Pacson, 6 SCRA 775 (1962)
Facts: Plaintiffs Mina are the illegitimate children of Joaquin Mina.
Joaquin executed a two deeds of absolute sale to Crispino Medina and
Cresencia Mina (legitimate child). These deeds bear the conformity of
Joaquin’s wife Antonia. Joaquin died in 1958. Plainitffs Mina sued
Crispino and Cresencia for declaration of nullity of the deeds of sale
and that defendants be required to deliver to plaintiffs ¼ of said
properties together with moral damages (1st case). The RTC directed
plaintiffs to amend their complaint to include Antonia and other
intestate heirs of Joaquin. Plaintiffs failed to comply, so 1st case was
dismissed. Thereafter plainitffs Mina brought another action with the
same pleading with an additional prayer for recognition as Joaquin’s
illegitimate children (2nd case). Defendants filed a MTD on the ground
of res judicata. The court thereby dismissed the 2nd case. Plaintiffs now
contend that there is no res judicata because the 1st dismissal was
void.
Held: To order an amendment to a complaint within a certain period in
order to implead as party plaintiff or defendant one who is not a party
to the case lies within the discretion of the Court. Where it appears
that the person to be impleaded is an indispensable party, the party to
whom such order is directed has no other choice but to comply with it.
His refusal or failure to comply with the order is a ground for the
dismissal of his complaint and is res judicata to a 2nd complaint.
Casenas v. Rosales, 19 SCRA 463 (1967)
Facts: Arañas and Caseñas filed a complaint for specific performance
and enforcement of their alleged right under a certain deed of sale,
and damages against the spouses Rosales. After answer has been filed
and before trial, counsel for plaintiffs informed the trial court that
plaintiff Arañas and defendant Rosales had both died. The lower court
directed the surviving plaintiff, Caseñas, to amend the complaint to
effect the necessary substitution of parties thereon. Caseñas failed to
do this, so the TC dismissed the case. The dismissal became final.
Thereafter, Caseñas filed another complaint against the widow Rosales
and heirs of the late Rosales "to quiet, and for reconveyance of, title to
real property, with damages." This suit referred itself to the very same
property litigated in the previous dismissed case. and asserted exactly
the same allegations as those made in the former complaint.
Defendants filed MTD on ground of res judicata. TC dismissed the case.
Held: When certain of the parties died and due notice thereof was
given to the trial court, it devolved on the said court to order, not the
amendment of the complaint, but the appearance of the legal
representatives of the deceased. An order to amend the complaint,
before the proper substitution of parties has been effected, is void and
imposes upon the plaintiff no duty to comply therewith to the end that
an order dismissing the said complaint, for such non-compliance,
would similarly be void.
Escolin: where the defendant dies pending the case, the duty of the
court is to order the substitution of the defendant, not to order the
amendment of the complaint to implead the heirs of the defendant
de Leon: In Mina, the court ordered the amendment of the complaint to
implead an indispensable party. The order was proper, hence failure to
comply was a valid ground for dismissal of the complaint. In Casenas,
the court ordered the amendment of the complaint to implead the
heirs of a deceased party. The order was improper because the proper
procedure was to substitute. Hence failure to comply was not a valid
ground for dismissal of the complaint.
Escolin: Heirs of the decedent are indispensable parties in an action to
for support by an illegitimate child of the decedent.
Vda dela Cruz v. CA, 88 SCRA 695 (1979)
Facts: Defendant in an ejectment case died before judgment could be
rendered. TC acknowledged in its decision that the defendant had died.
Decision became final and was executed. Heirs of the defendant now
filed a motion to substitute the deceased and to set aside as null void
the decisions, orders, writ of execution and sale at public auction made
and entered against the latter. TC allowed substitution, but denied
setting aside of the decision and execution. CA reverses.
Held: In case of the death of a party and due notice is given to the trial
court, it is the duty of the court to order the legal representative of the
deceased to appear for him. In the case at bar, no legal representative
was ever summoned appear in court. No legal representative appeared
to be substituted. The plaintiffs did not procure the appointment of
such legal representatives. As a result, the continuance of a
proceeding during the pendency of which a party thereto dies, without
such having been validly substituted in accordance with the rules,
amounts to lack of jurisdiction.
Escolin: It is the duty of the court to order substitution and such
substitution is mandatory otherwise the court does not acquire
jurisdiction.
de Leon: If the heirs ordered to substitute refuses to appear, they may
not be held in contempt. The remedy is for the creditor to procure the
appointment of an administrator for the estate and then substitute him
for the decedent.
Vda. de Haberer v. CA, 104 SCRA 534 (1981)
Facts: TC dismisses 11 complaints for recovery of parcel of land.
Plaintiff dies pending appeal. Counsel notifies the court of appellant’s
death, and prayed for suspension of the period for filing an appellant’s
brief pending appointment of an executor. CA denies extension and
dismisses the appeal.
Held: The RoC requires appearance of the deceased legal
representatives instead of dismissing the case. Dismissal of an appeal
on the ground of failure to file appellant’s brief must be in accordance
with the tenets of justice and fair play. The extension should have been
granted.
Vda. de Salazar v. CA, 250 SCRA 305 (1995) Formal substitution of
heirs is not necessary when the heirs themselves voluntarily appeared,
participated in the case and presented evidence in defense of
deceased defendant.
Acar v. Rosal, 19 SCRA 625 (1967) An applicant for leave to sue in
forma pauperis, need not be a pauper; the fact that he is able-bodied
and may earn the necessary money is no answer to his statement that
he has not sufficient means to prosecute the action or to secure the
costs. It suffices that plaintiff is indigent, though not a public charge.
“Indigents” are persons who have no property or source of income
sufficient for their support aside from their own labor, though self-
supporting when able to work and in employment. It is in this sense of
being indigent that "pauper" is taken when referring to suits in forma
pauperis. In class suits, the nominal plaintiffs directly bear the cost of
the suit. The proof of the indigence of the nominal parties is enough to
support a petition to sue as pauper litigants. It need not be proved that
every beneficiary of the class suit is indigent. The remedy in case of
denial of a meritorious petition to sue as pauper litigants is mandamus.
Appeal is unavailing because the plaintiffs were not even accorded the
status of litigants.
Venue of Actions
f. Distinctions between Venue and Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction – authority to hear and decide a case, established by
substantive law, establishes relation between court and subject
matter; fixed by law and can not be conferred by the party
Venue – place of trial, established by procedural law, establishes
relation between parties; conferred by agreement of parties, can be
fixed by agreement