You are on page 1of 2

Civ Pro

1st Rule
A contract which provides for several stipulations to be performed at different times gives rise to as many causes of
action as there are violations.
Example: One promissory payable in installments at different times. Every installment is one cause of action.
Sa example ni Sir, while pending ang case para sa payment sa 1st installment, ang 2nd and 3rd installments kay nagdue
na pud. Dili muapply ang res judicata kay wala pa nagdue ang 2nd ug 3rd pagfile safirst. Pwede magfile ug
supplemental complaint sa 3rd then supplemental complaint pud sa 4th tapos iconsolidate or hulat sya mahuman ang
case sa 1st installment then file ug case para sa 2nd and 3rd installments. (Sakto ni?, mao ako nadunggan. hehe)
2nd Rule
All obligations on installment which have matured at the time of the suit must be interpreted as one cause of action in
one complaint and those not so included will be barred.
Sa example ni Sir, nag due na ang 1st, 2nd, 3rd ug 4th tapos sa 3rd ug 4th iya gifile, after, nag file napud sya sa 1st ug
2nd. Dili pwede, splitting cause of action, dapat giapil na niya ang 1st ug 2nd sa iya pagfile kay tanan man nagdue
na(one cause of action only).
3rd Rule (Acceleration Clause)
Even when there are several stipulations in a continuing contract, when the failure to comply with one of several
stipulations constitutes a total breach. It is a term in loan agreements that require the borrower to pay off the loan
immediately if certain conditions are met.
Example: 1st installment fell due but the debtor repudiates the entire note. A case must be filed for the entire amount of
loan whether due or not.

Civil Procedure 3

Section 10
Emata v. IAC, 174 SCRA 464

Taxpayers Suit
Locus standi
Section 12
Tatad vs Garcia GR# 114222 April 06, 1995 Oposa vs Factoran supra
Kilosbayan Inc vs Teofisto Guingona, Jr. 232 Section 13
scra 110
Emata v. IAC supra
Oposa vs Factoran GR# 101083 July 30, 1993
Section 17
Rule 3
Heirs of Mayor Nemencio Galvez vs. CA GR# 119193 March 29, 1996
Section 1
St. Anne Medical Center v. Parel 176 SCRA Rule4
Philippine Banking Corporation v. Tensuan, 230 SCRA 413
Gesmundo, et al. v. JRB Realty Corporation, et al., 234 SCRA 153
Ching v. Court of Appeals 181 SCRA 9
BPI vs. IAC 206 SCRA 408
Barlin vs. Ramirez 7 Phil. Rep., 41
Paderanga vs Buissan 286 SCRA 786
Section 2
Hernandez vs DBP 71 SCRA 85? pero 290,292 naa.
Ralla v. Ralla 199 SCRA 495
Nasser v. Court of Appeals 191 SCRA 783
Dela Pea v. CA GR# 81827 March 28, 1994
Law on libel (sa venue)
U.P. v. Ligot-Telan 227 SCRA 342
Sweet Lines, Inc. v. Bernardo Teves, et al. 83 SCRA 361
Galarosa v. Valencia, 227 SCRA 728
Polytrade Corporation v. Blanco, 30 SCRA 187
Tanpingco v. IAC, 207 SCRA 652
Baritua vs CA GR# 100748 February 03, 1997
US vs. Reyes GR# 79253 March 1, 1993
Sustiguer v. Tamayo 176 SCRA 579
Board of Optometry vs. Colet GR# 122241
July 30, 1996
Smith Bell Co. vs. Court of Appeals GR#
110668 February 06, 1997
Section 4
Read: Womens Act.(Wala naku nasulat)
Stasa, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 182 SCRA 879
G-Tractors, Inc., Vs CA, 135 SCRA 192
Cases on indispensable parties
U.P. v. Ligot-Telan supra
Galarosa v. Valencia supra
Tay Chun Suy v. CA, 212 SCRA 713
National Development Co. vs. Court of
Appeals, 211 SCRA 422
Barfel Dev. Co. v. CA, 223 SCRA 268
Nocom vs. Camerino GR#182984 February
10, 2009
Section 8
Quilisadio v. Court of Appeals, 182 SCRA 401
United Paracale Mining Company vs. CA
GR#104721 May 31, 1994
Barfel Dev. Co. v. CA supra