You are on page 1of 2


1. X filed a complaint against Y who filed an answer with 5. Cause of action vs Right of action, Real action vs.
counterclaim. X did not answer the counterclaim, hence Personal Action, Action in rem vs action in personam,
he was declared in default. Can he still present evidence Supplemental Pleading vs. Amended Pleading
on his cause of action? Why?
Cause of action vs Right of action
Yes, because a default in counterclaim does not divest him of a A cause of action refers to the delict or wrong committed by a
standing in court. This is different from default in the main action defendant, whereas the right of action refers to the right of the
(Navarro vs. Bello) plaintiff to institute the action.

2. A entered into separate contracts with X, Y, and Z. All the Real action vs Personal action
obligations are now due and demandable. The failed to Real actions are based on the privity of real estates; while personal
pay. Can A sue them in a single complaint? actions are based on privity of contracts or for the recovery of sum
of money.
Yes because the Totality Rule applies even in cases where a
plaintiff has separate causes of action against two or more Action in rem vs Action in personam
defendants. The totality rule applies if: (1) the causes of action An action in rem is one instituted against the whole world while an
arose out of the same transaction or a series of transactions; and action in personam is one filed against a definite defendant. One
(2) there is a common question of law and fact among them. distinction is that service of summons is not required in an action in
rem to acquire jurisdiction over the action.
3. A filed a complaint for sum of money against B in the
Metropolitan Trial Court, Manila, seeking for the award of Supplemental pleading vs. Amended pleading
Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00). B, the A supplemental pleading does not extinguish the existence of the
defendant, filed an answer with counterclaim alleging that original pleading, while an amended pleading takes the place of the
A is liable to him in the amount of Five hundred thousand original pleading.
pesos (P500,000.00). Assume that Judge Pedro Arreola
would hold A liable, how much can be awarded to B by 6. A filed a complaint against B who served an answer with
way of his counterclaim? Why? counterclaim. A moved to dismiss the action. Give the
effect of such dismissal.
The Judge can award the amount of (P400,000.00) only, because
that is the limit of the court’s jurisdiction. When B submitted his The dismissal of the action does not carry with it the dismissal of
claim against A, he voluntarily submitted the same to the the counterclaim. This is so because of the rule that if a
jurisdiction of the MTC, and he is bound thereby. He is deemed to counterclaim has been pleaded by the defendant prior to the
have waived the excess of his claim beyond 400,000. It is as if B service upon him of the plaintiff’s motion for dismissal, the
set up a counterclaim in the amount of 400,000 (Agustin vs. Baclan dismissal shall be limited to the complaint.
135 SCRA 340 [1985])
The Rules further state that the dismissal shall be without prejudice
4. A filed a suit against B for the recovery of a real property to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in a
at the RTC, Manila. During the pendency of the suit, B separate action unless within 15 days from notice of the motion he
sold the land to C, where a title was issued in favor of C. manifested his preference to have his counterclaim resolved in the
a. Assume that C came to you for advice whether it is same action (Sec. 2 Rule 17)
necessary for him to intervene in the suit to protect
his interest. Advice your client and state the reasons. 7. Compulsory counter claim, example. Permissive
counterclaim, example.
I would advice C that there is no need for him to intervene to
protect his interest as a transferee pendente lite. A transferee Compulsory counterclaim
pendente lite acquires the property subject to the outcome of the Is one which, being cognizable by the regular courts of justice,
case. He merely steps into the shoes of the seller. If the court arises out of or is connected with the transaction or occurrence
renders judgment for the seller, he is protected because he constituting the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim and
acquired it subject to the outcome of the case. If the judgment is for does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of
the opposing party, he is still protected as he acquired the property whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.
subject to the outcome of the case. He stands exactly in the shoes
of the transferor and is bound by any judgment or decree which Example
may be rendered for or against the transferor. (Union Bank of the In accion publiciana filed with the RTC where the value of the land
Philippines vs CA, et al. G.R. 133366, August 5, 1999) is 1,000,000 and defendant claims for reimbursement of 50,000,
the reimbursement would be considered as compulsory because
the original action was filed with the RTC.

Permissive counterclaim 10. May a defendant file a motion to dismiss after filing an
it does not arise out of, nor is it necessarily connected with the answer? Is the rule absolute? Explain.
subject matter of the opposing party’s claim.
As a rule, no, because under the Rules, within the time for a
Generally, a counterclaim is permissive if any of the elements of a pleading a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the grounds
compulsory counterclaim is absent. provided for by the Rules. (Sec.1 Rule 16)

Example “Within the time for pleading” means within the time to answer.
A counterclaim for collection of sum of money filed by a defendant (Tuason & Co. vs. Rafor, 55 SCRA 478). Since the motion to
in an action for a claim for damages against him as the latter was dismiss was filed after the answer. it was filed out of time. (Heirs of
based on the principle of abuse of rights. *Not sure haha Mariano Lagutan vs. Icao, G.R. No. 58057, June 30, 1993). In fact,
after the answer has been filed, the defendant is estopped from
8. Certiorari, prohibition, mandamus filing a motion to dismiss (Ruiz, Jr. vs. CA, G.R. No. 101566, March
6, 1993)
an extraordinary writ annulling or modifying the proceedings of a The rule is not absolute.
tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions when such tribunal, board or officer has acted without or The only exceptions to the rule are: (1) where the ground raised is
in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion lack of jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter; (2) where
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, there being no appeal or the complaint does not state a cause of action; (3) prescription; and
any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary (4) where the evidence that would constitute a ground for the
course of law (Sec. 1, Rule 65). dismissal of the complaint was discovered only during the trial (Phil
Ville Dev. & Housing Corp., et al. vs. Javier, G.R. No. 147738,
Prohibition December 13, 2005)
An extraordinary writ commanding a corporation, board or person,
whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, to
desist from further proceedings when said proceedings are without
or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with abuse of its discretion, there
being no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law (Sec. 2, Rule 65).

an extraordinary writ commanding a tribunal, corporation, board or
person, to do an act required to be done:
a. When he unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which
the law specifically enjoins as a duty, and there is no other plain,
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law; or
b. When one unlawfully excludes another from the use and
enjoyment of a right or office to which the other is entitled (Sec. 3,
Rule 65).

9. A has a claim of ownership over a real property in the

name of B with an assessed value of Php 19,000. He has
another claim of ownership over another parcel of land
under B’s name with an assessed value of Php 15,000,
both located in the City of Manila. Can A join the two (2)
causes of action and file it with the RTC, Manila? Why?

No, for while he can join causes of action in the RTC, yet, the
requirements is that one of the causes of action must fall within the
jurisdiction of the RTC. Since in both causes of action, the
assessed value of the properties do not exceed Php 50,000, then
jurisdiction lies in the MTC.