ORDINARY CIVIL ACTIONS

Rule 02
CAUSE OF ACTION

SECTION 1. Ordinary civil actions, basis of. -

Every ordinary civil action must be based on a
cause of action. (n)

Section 1 of Rule 1 is entitled cause of action. Section 1 expresses the principle

that every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action. In other
words, there cannot be a case unless you have a cause of action.

Under Rule 16, one of the grounds for a motion to dismiss is that your pleading
states no cause of action.

Sec. 1 makes no reference to a special civil action.

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)

1. Q: Define cause of action.

A: CAUSE OF ACTION is an act or omission by which a party violates a right
of another. And based on Sec. 1 hereof, it is required that every ordinary civil
action must be based on a cause of action (Anchor Savings Bank v. Furigay, 693
SCRA 384, 395, March 13, 2013).

2. Action v. Cause of action

An action is the suit filed in court or the remedy availed for the enforcement or
protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong (Sec. 3a Rule 1).

The cause of action forms the basis or foundation of such remedy.

3. Three Elements of a cause of action:

1. Existence of legal right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means

and under whatever law it arises or is created;
JBD 62
 2. a correlative obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect
and not to violate such right; and
3. an act or omission on the part of such defendant in violation of the
right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the
defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain action for
recovery of damages or other appropriate relief (Anchor Savings Bank v.
Furigay).

Briefly stated, it is the reason why the litigation has come about, it is the
act or omission of defendant resulting in the violation of someone’s right.
(Phil. National Construction v CA, 514 SCRA 569; Agrarian Reform
Beneficiaries Association v. Nicolas GR No. 168394, Oct. 6, 2008)

Note that even a right that exists, which, is legal by itself, can result in the
violation of another’s right and become the source of liability, such as when one
in the exercise or performance of a duty, does not act with justice, nor observe
honesty and good faith thus, violating Art. 19 of the New Civil Code.

Fourth element

There is a fourth element added by some cases and commentators – the

element of damage suffered by the plaintiff.

Even if there is violation, if there is no damage, then what relief are you
asking for? There can be no action where no damage is sustained.

As a matter of fact, in a recent case, the SC remarked that wrong or injury

without damage does not constitute a cause of action since damages are merely
part of the remedy allowed for the injury caused by a breach or wrong.

Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right while damage is the loss, hurt, or
harm, which, results from the injury.

4. Cause of Action in Specific Cases

1. A borrows money from B promising to pay on a date certain. Upon due date,
A did not pay. Does B have a cause of action? Let us examine whether the
elements are present.
RIGHT - the right of the creditor to get back his money;
OBLIGATION – The defendant has the obligation to pay back the loan
under the law on contracts;
VIOLATION or delict or wrong – the account fell due and the debtor is
supposed to pay the creditor, but the former did not pay the latter;
DAMAGE. – the creditor cannot get back his money.

JBD 63
Where the cause of action rests on a promissory note, filing the action before the
due date of the obligation would be premature because the obligation is one with
a period. Whenever a period is designated in an obligation, the obligation
becomes demandable only when the period arrives. Such period is presumed to
be for the benefit of both parties and of course, also of the debtor. He cannot be
charged before the due date (Art. 1196, Civil Code) unless he loses the right to
make use of the period (Art. 1198, Civil Code).

D borrowed money from you last year payable in January2010 but because you
are in dire need of money you demanded payment. Suppose D does not pay can
you file an action to collect the amount from him? Do you have a cause of
action?

RIGHT – the creditor has the right to collect;

OBLIGATION – every debtor has the obligation to pay;
DAMAGE – I have not recovered the money;
DELICT or wrong – there is NO delict yet.

Why? There is no delict yet because the account is payable next year. So, it is
still premature to file a collection case now because one element is missing. It is
not based on a cause of action and is dismissible under Rule 16.

2. In breach of contract cases, a cause of action does not require an allegation of

the negligence of the defendant but merely the following elements:
a.) The existence of a contract, and
b.) The breach of the contract. (Calalas v. CA SCRA 356; FGU Insurance Corp.
v. GP Sarmeinto Trucking Corp. 386 SCRA 312)
Thus, if a carrier is sued based on a breach of contract of carriage, negligence
need not be proved by the plaintiff, negligence not being an element of the cause
of action of a suit predicated on a breach of contract. This is true whether or not
the defendant is a public or a private carrier. However, where the defendant is a
common carrier there is an additional reason for dispensing with proof of
negligence, i.e., negligence of the common carrier is presumed. (Art. 1735 & Art.
1756 CC)

3. Damages arising from culpa aquiliana. You are crossing the street and you
are bumped by X who was driving a car causing you injuries and being
hospitalized. You also failed to report for work.

RIGHT – it is the right of every person not to be molested. You have the
right to walk peacefully and not to be harmed;

JBD 64
 OBLIGATION – it is the obligation of every person driving to be careful so
that he will not bump other people. You do not have to enter into a
contract with a person saying you will not bump him;
DELICT or wrong – because of your recklessness, you violated his right by
injuring him;
DAMAGE – I have to spend money in the hospital and I lost my income.

In quasi delict, negligence, as an element, must be alleged and proved. (Art. 2176
CC) but the negligence of those persons described under Art. 2180 of the Civil
Code, although based on quasi delict is presumed.

Under Art. 2180, following the well-recognized doctrine of vicarious liability,

certain persons like the father, mother, guardian, owners and managers of an
establishment or enterprise, employee, the State, and teachers or heads of
establishments of arts and trades are, under specified conditions, liable for acts of
persons for whom they are responsible.

Thus, an employer for instance, is liable for the damage caused by his employees
and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. The
employer’s negligence in the selection and supervision of his employee is
presumed and his liability shall only cease if he successfully proves his
observance of the diligence required of a good father of a family to prevent
damage.

When an injury is caused to another by the negligence of the employee there

instantly arises the juris tantum presumption of law that there was negligence on
the part of the employer either in the selection or in the supervision, or both of
the employee. The liability of the employer is direct and immediate and is not
conditioned upon a prior recourse against the negligent employee and a prior
showing of the insolvency of such employee. Therefore, it is incumbent upon
the employer to prove his exercise of diligence of a good father of a family in the
selection and supervision of the employee (Manliclic vs. Calaunan GR No.
150157 January 25, 2007)

4. In an unlawful detainer case, the cause of action does not accrue unless there
is a demand to vacate and is not complied with. If, however, the suit is based
on expiration of the lease, notice and demand are not required. (Labastida v.
CA, 287 SCRA 662)

5. Of course, when you file a complaint against somebody, you do not prepare
the complaint by enumerating the elements. In other words, you just narrate the
facts. It is up for the defendant to analyze. It is the duty of the lawyer to analyze
the complaint whether the 4 elements are present.

JBD 65
5. Cause of action must be unmistakably stated; “failure to state a cause of
action” is a ground for dismissal-

The mere existence of a cause of action is not sufficient for a complaint to

prosper. Even if in reality the plaintiff has a cause of action against the
defendant, the complaint may be dismissed if the complaint or the pleading
asserting the claim “states no cause of action”. (Sec. 1[g], Rule 16).
This means that the cause of action must unmistakably be stated or alleged in
the complaint or that all the elements of the cause of action required by
substantive law must clearly appear from the mere reading of the complaint. To
avoid an early dismissal of the complaint, the simple dictum to be followed is: “If
you have a cause of action, then by all means, state it! State all of its elements in
your pleading!”
Where there is a defect or an insufficiency in the statement of the cause of
action, a complaint may be dismissed not because of the absence or a lack of a
cause of action but because the complaint “states no cause of action”. The
dismissal will therefore, be anchored on a “failure to state a cause of action.”

The failure to state a cause of action does not mean that the plaintiff has “no
cause of action.” It only means that the plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient for
the court to know that the rights of the plaintiff were violated by the defendant.
Thus, even if indeed the plaintiff suffered injury, if the same is not set forth in the
complaint, the pleading will state no cause of action even if factually or in reality
the plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendant.

Lack of cause of action v. failure to state a cause of action

In other words, failure to state a cause of action is not the same as lack or
absence of a cause of action. The ground for dismissal thru a motion to dismiss
under Rule 16, which the defendant can avail before filing an answer, is not lack
or absence of cause of action but failure to state a cause of action. And whether
this ground exists or not is determined by the allegations in the complaint.

This is not to say the lack or absence of a cause of action cannot lead to a
dismissal of the action. It can, but whether that ground exists or not can only be
determined after the presentation of evidence by the plaintiff. Hence, the
remedy is a demurrer to evidence under Rule 33 (Manila Banking Corporation
v. University of Baguio, 516 SCRA 379-380).

Further, “failure to state a cause of action” is not the same as “failure to

establish a cause of action”. The latter is used in connection with the factual
basis of the cause of action.
In Luzon Development Bank v. Conquilla, 470 SCRA 533, 546-547, the Court
said that usually a declaration that the plaintiff failed to establish a cause of
action is postponed until after the parties are given the opportunity to present
all relevant evidence on questions of fact. Hence, it would not be correct for a

JBD 66
trial court to dismiss a complaint on the ground of “failure to establish its cause
of action” without giving the parties an opportunity to present their evidence.

Test to determine whether the plaintiff has sufficiently stated a cause of

action-

It is whether or not admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid
judgment in accordance with the prayer in the complaint (Misamis Occidental II
Cooperative Inc. v. David, 468 SCRA 63, 72)

6. Cause of Action not an issue in administrative cases

While the existence of a cause of action is one that is essential to the existence
of a civil action, in administrative cases however, the issue is not whether the
complainant has a cause of action against the respondent, but whether the
respondent has breached the norms and standards of the office. (Mutia v.
Purisima, 494 SCRA 448)

7. CAUSE OF ACTION vs. RIGHT OF ACTION

Another important subject in procedure is distinguishing a cause of action

from a right of action.

Q: Define right of action.

A: Right of action is the right of the plaintiff to bring an action and to
prosecute that action to final judgment. (Marquez vs. Varela, 92 Phil. 373)
It is the right of a person to commence and prosecute an action to obtain the
relief sought.

Q: What are the ELEMENTS of a right of action?

A: There are three elements:

1.) the plaintiff must have a good cause of action;

2.) must be instituted by the proper party; and,
3.) he/she must have performed all conditions precedent to the filing of the
action.

So, you cannot have a right of action unless you first have a cause of action.
That is why the SC said in the case of

DE GUZMAN, JR. vs. COURT OF APPEALS

192 SCRA 507

HELD: “The right of action springs from the cause of action, but does
not accrue until all the facts which constitute the cause of action have

JBD 67
 occurred. When there is an invasion of primary rights, then and not
until then does the adjective or remedial law become operative, and
under it arise rights of action. There can be no right of action until there
has been a wrong – a violation of a legal right – and it is then given by
the adjective law.”

So, there can be no right of action until there has been a wrong, a violation of a
legal right. There can be no right of action unless there is first a cause of action.

And you must comply with the conditions precedent. You cannot file a case
unless you comply with certain conditions and the best illustration of this
element is the case of

PHIL. AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE CO. vs. SWEETLINES

212 SCRA 194

FACTS: This involves shipped cargoes from Manila to Davao but the
goods were damaged while in transit. Based on the damaged cargoes,
the consignee filed a case against the carrier. Actually, in the bill of
lading, there is a stipulation that if the consignee wants to file a case
arising from the contract of carriage against the carrier, the consignee
must first send a notice of loss to the carrier and then if the carrier will
not honor it, that is the time the consignee can file a case before the
court. Now, he went to court directly without filing a notice of loss to
the carrier.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is a right of action.

HELD: There is NO right of action because the consignee did not

comply with the conditions precedent.
“The right of action does not arise until the performance of all
conditions precedent to the action. Performance or fulfillment of all
conditions precedent upon which a right of action depends must be
sufficiently alleged, considering that the burden of proof to show that a
party has a right of action is upon the person initiating the suit.”
“More particularly, where the contract of shipment contains a
reasonable requirement of giving notice of loss of or injury to the goods,
the giving of such notice is a condition precedent to the action for loss or
injury or the right to enforce the carrier’s liability.”

BAR QUESTION:
Distinctions between a CAUSE OF ACTION and a RIGHT OF ACTION
1.) Cause of action is the delict or wrong committed by the defendant, whereas
Right of action refers to the right of the plaintiff to institute the action;

JBD 68
 2.) Cause of action is created by substantive law (e.g. rights under the Civil
Code), whereas Right of action is regulated by procedural law;
“Right of action is a remedial right belonging to some persons,
while cause of action is a formal statement of the operative facts that
give rise to such remedial right.” (De Guzman vs. CA, supra)

3.) Right of action may be taken away by the running of the statute of
limitations, by estoppel or other circumstances, which do not affect at all
the cause of action.

EXAMPLE: When a debtor borrows money and he does not pay. His
failure to pay is the cause of action. After 10 years, the right to collect
has prescribed and you cannot recover anything. Actually, what is
barred is his right of action, not the cause of action because the moment
he does not pay, there is already a wrong and you cannot erase a wrong.
The cause of action is not affected by prescription. In fact, the Civil Code
provides that the obligation is converted into natural obligation, which
is based on equity rather than a right.

When we say that the action has prescribed we should mean that what has
prescribed is the right of action not the cause of action.

8. Relief, Remedy and Subject Matter of the action-

Relief (what you want) is the redress, protection, award or coercive measure
which the plaintiff prays the court to render in his favor as consequence of the
delict committed by the defendant while remedy (how to get what you want) is
the procedure or appropriate legal form of relief of action which may be availed
of by the plaintiff as the means to obtain the desired relief.
Subject matter is the thing, wrongful act, contract or property, which is
directly involved in the action, concerning which the wrong has been done and
with respect to which the controversy has arisen.

SPLITTING A CAUSE OF ACTION

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)

Section 3 is known as the rule against splitting the cause of action.

1. Purpose:
To avoid the following:
1. Multiplicity of suits;
2.Conflicting decisions; and
3.Unnecessary vexation and harassment of defendants.
JBD 69
 This applies not only to complaints but also to counterclaims and cross-claims.

2. What is splitting a single cause of action?

A: Splitting a cause of action is the act of instituting two or more suits for the
same cause of action.
It is the practice of dividing one cause of action into different parts and
making each part a subject of a different complaint. (Bachrach vs. Icariñgal, 68
Phil. 287)
In splitting a cause of action, the pleader divides a single cause of action, claim
or demand into two or more parts, brings a suit for one of such parts with the
intent to reserve the rest for another separate action. (Quadra v. CA 497 SCRA
221)

EXAMPLE: In a suit under a promissory note, you file a case to collect the
principal; another action to collect the interest; another action to collect attorney’s
fees. So, there is only one note and you sue me three times but there is only one
cause of action. Now, under the law, you have split your cause of action. You
should file only one case to recover the principal and the interest as well as the
attorney’s fees.

EXAMPLE: Damage (injury) suit: X, while walking, was bumped by a

vehicle. He filed one case against the owner of the vehicle for reimbursement of
hospital expenses; one case to recover his expenses for medicine; another one for
doctor’s fees; then another case for the lost income.

3. The number of causes of action not determined by the number of rights

violated-

A single act may sometimes violate several rights of a person. Nevertheless

the plaintiff has only one cause of action regardless of the number of rights
violated.

The reason lies on the definition of a cause of action as the act or omission by
which a party violates a right of another. It is not defined on the basis of the right
or rights violated but the act or omission in violation of such right.

Example-
If a car owner sustains injuries to his person and damage to his car as a result of
the negligent driving of the defendant, two rights of the plaintiff have been
violated, namely, his personal right to be safe in his person and his property
right to have his car intact and free from any damage. Under the circumstances,
the plaintiff can only file a single action for the recovery of damages for both
types of injuries. Filing an action to recover damages to his person and later for

JBD 70
damages to his car would be splitting a single cause of action. This is because
there is one act of violation.

If, however, a passenger in the same car was also injured, the injuries to the
passenger gives rise to a cause of action separate and distinct from those
sustained by the car owner because distinct rights belonging to different
persons have been violated. The injured passenger may file a suit against the
defendant separate from the suit filed by the car owner.

A cause of action for the reconveyance of title over property does not include
a cause of action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer. They are distinct causes
of action. What is involved in an ejectment case is (the right to) possession de
facto or material possession (and the cause of action is the act of dispossession).
In an action for reconveyance, the issue is (right of) ownership, (the cause of
action is the act of depriving one of ownership). (Tecson v. Gutierez, 452 SCRA
781; de la Cruz v. CA, 133 SCRA 520).

The action for forcible entry should include not only the plea for restoration of
possession but also claims for damages arising out of the forcible entry. The
claim for damages cannot be filed separately (Progressive Development
Corporation, Inc. vs. CA 301 SCRA 637).

The same principle applies to an action to recover the possession of a land.

The action must also include the recovery of the fruits already taken from the
land and appropriated by the defendant. A suit for recovery of the land and a
separate suit to recover the fruits will not be sustained. Also, when one files a
complaint for unlawful detainer on the ground of non-payment of rentals, the
complaint must include the recovery of the rentals in arrears, such recovery
being an integral part of the cause of action for unlawful detainer.

A tenant illegally ejected from the land is entitled to two reliefs – one for
reinstatement and another for damages. Since both reliefs arose from the same
cause of action, they should be alleged in one complaint (Gozon vs. Vda. De
Barrameda 11 SCRA 376).

An action for the recovery of taxes should also include the demand for
surcharges resulting from the delinquency in the payment of said taxes. The non-
payment of taxes gave rise to two reliefs: (a) the recovery of the unpaid taxes;
and (b) the recovery of the surcharges resulting from non-payment of the taxes.
These two reliefs are results of a single cause of action and which should be
pursued in a single complaint (City of Bacolod vs. San Miguel Brewery, Inc. 29
SCRA 819).

JBD 71
 A bank cannot file a civil action against the debtor for the collection of the
debt and then subsequently file an action to foreclose the mortgage. This would
be splitting a single cause of action (Danao vs. CA 154 SCRA 446; Industrial
Finance Corp. vs. Apostol 177 SCRA 521).

It has been held however, that an action to collect the amount of the loan will
not preclude a subsequent action for the rescission of the mortgage based on
violation of the conditions of the mortgage (Enriquez vs. Ramos 7 SCRA 26).

4. Splitting a single cause of action prohibited-

Examples of application of the rule against splitting a single cause of action

May a lessee file with MeTC an action for forcible entry and damages against the lessor
and a separate suit with RTC for moral and exemplary damages plus actual and
compensatory damages based on the same forcible entry?
NO. Claims for damages sprung from the main incident being heard before MeTC.
Unlawful taking or detention of property of another is only one single cause of action
regardless of number of rights that may have been violated. All such rights should be
alleged in a single complaint as constituting one single cause of action (Progressive
Development Corp. vs. CA, 301 SCRA 637 [1999])

The cause of action in the earlier Annulment Case is the alleged nullity of the REM (due
to its allegedly falsified or spurious nature) which is allegedly violative of
Goodland’s right to the mortgaged property. It serves as the basis for the prayer for
the nullification of the REM. The Injunction Case involves the same cause of action,
inasmuch as it also invokes the nullity of the REM as the basis for the prayer for the
nullification of the extrajudicial foreclosure and for injunction against consolidation of
title. While the main relief sought in the Annulment Case (nullification of the REM) is
ostensibly different from the main relief sought in the Injunction Case (nullification of
the extrajudicial foreclosure and injunction against consolidation of title), the cause of
action which serves as the basis for the said reliefs remains the same — the alleged
nullity of the REM. Thus, what is involved here is the third way of committing forum
shopping, i.e., filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action, but with different
prayers. (Asia United Bank vs. Goodland Company, Inc ., G.R. No. 191388, March 9,
2011)

This rule applies not only to complaints but also to counterclaims and cross-
claims. (Mariscal v. CA, 311 SCRA 51)

Example: The act of a defendant in taking possession of the plaintiff’s land by

means of force and intimidation constitutes a single act of dispossession but
gives rise to two reliefs to the plaintiff: (a) recovery of possession, and (b)
damages arising from the loss of possession. Both of these reliefs result from a
single wrong hence, constitute but a single cause of action. Each of them cannot

JBD 72
be the subject of two separate actions. IT is procedurally erroneous for the
plaintiff to file an action to recover possession and another action for damages.
Both remedies must be alleged and claimed in only one complaint. To file a
separate action for each relief is to split a single cause of action.

Now if the defendant denies plaintiff’s allegations and avers by way of

counterclaim that the action is just plain harassment and claims for damages,
attorney’s fees and litigation" expenses, he cannot file 3 counterclaims. There is
only one act of violation, the filing of a baseless suit to harass.

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)

1. Remedy of defendant-
The remedy of the defendant is a motion to dismiss or if such motion is not filed,
to allege it in the answer as an affirmative defense.

2. Q: What are the effects of splitting a cause of action?

A: Under Section 4, the following are the effects:

1.) The filing of one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the other. This
assumes a situation where there is already another action pending
between the same parties for the same cause. This is one ground for
dismissal of a case, LITIS PENDENTIA. (Rule 16 – Motion to Dismiss,
Section 1 [e])
2.) a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for the
dismissal of the others. This refers to a judgment that is final and
executory. That is what you call barred by prior judgment or RES
ADJUDICATA, which is also a ground for dismissal under Rule 16,
Section 1 [f].

EXAMPLE: A collection case was already decided a long time ago

dismissing it because the court found that the promissory note was a
forgery. Now, you are reviving the same case – you are filing again.
Under Section 4, the judgment in the first case years ago would be cited
as a basis for the dismissal of the second case.

Note that if the ground is pendency of another action, the phraseology of the
rule (Sec. 4 R 2) no longer confines the dismissal to the second action. As to
which action should be dismissed would depend upon judicial discretion and
the prevailing circumstances of the case.

JBD 73
3. Singleness of a cause of action-

Q: How do you determine the singleness of a cause of action?

A: The singleness of a cause of action is determined by the singleness of the
delict or wrong committed by the defendant and not by the number of
remedies that the law grants the injured party. Meaning, a single delict may
give rise to two or more possible remedies but it does not mean to say the injured
party can avail of all those remedies simultaneously or one after another.
(Bachrach vs. Icariñgal, supra; David vs. De la Cruz, L-11656, April 18, 1958)

EXAMPLE: Obligations and Contracts: A violation or a breach of contract

could give rise to a civil action for specific performance or a civil action for
rescission of contract. However, it does not mean to say that the injured party
can file both or one after the other. Otherwise, he will be splitting his cause of
action.

EXAMPLE: There is the Recto Law (on Sales) which provides for 3 remedies
of an unpaid seller of personal properties: (1) rescind the contract of sale; (2)
exact fulfillment of obligation; and (3) foreclosure of mortgage. But even the law
on Sales is very clear: the choice of one automatically bars resort to the other
because it will be against splitting the cause of action.

EXAMPLE: Credit Transactions: A bank has two (2) possible remedies against
a debtor for non-payment of a loan secured by a mortgage say, of a piece of land:
(1) foreclose the mortgage on the land; or (2) file an action to collect the loan.
Here, the bank cannot file a case against the debtor to collect the loan and at the
same time file an action to foreclose the mortgage for it will be splitting the cause
of action. So it is either you enforce the principal contract of loan, or, you enforce
the accessory contract of mortgage. This is what happened in the case of

DANAO vs. COURT OF APPEALS

154 SCRA 446

FACTS: The Danao spouses borrowed money from the bank,

mortgaged their property and then they failed to pay. The bank filed a
civil action to collect the loan. After filing a civil action to collect the
loan, the bank instituted an action to foreclose the mortgage.

HELD: “Anent real properties in particular, the Court has laid down
the rule that a mortgage creditor may institute against the mortgage
debtor either a personal action for debt or a real action to foreclose the
mortgage. In other words, he may pursue either of the two remedies,
but not both.”
“Evidently, the prior recourse of the creditor bank in filing a civil
action against the Danao spouses and subsequently resorting to the
complaint of foreclosure proceedings, are not only a demonstration of

JBD 74
 the prohibited splitting up of a cause of action but also of the resulting
vexation and oppression to the debtor.”

4. In Umale v. Canoga Park Development Corporation, 654 SCRA 155, 162, the
Court enumerated certain tests to determine whether two suits relate to a
single or common cause of action, thus:

1. whether the same evidence would support and sustain both the first
and second causes of action (also known as the “same evidence” test;
2. whether the defenses in one case may used to substantiate the
complaint in the other;
3. whether the cause of action in the second case existed at the time of
the filing of the first complaint.

5. Rules in determining the singleness of a cause of action in contracts with

several stipulations-

RULE #1 (General Rule):

A contract embraces only one cause of action because
it may be violated only once, even if it contains several
but indivisible stipulations. (Quioque vs. Bautista, L-
13159, Feb. 28, 1962)

EXAMPLE: P enters into a contract with N which contains 3 stipulations: (#1)

that next month, P will deliver to N 100 sacks of rice; (#2) on the same date, P
will also deliver to N 100 sacks of corn; and (#3) on the same date, P will also
deliver to N 100 sacks of sugar. When the day arrived, nothing was delivered. So
three stipulations were violated.

Q: How many causes of action does N have against P?

A: ONE. The contract is only one cause of action even if it contains several
stipulations. The cause of action is not based on the number of paragraphs
violated but on the contract itself.

RULE #2 (Exception to the General 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. (Larena vs.
Villanueva, 53 Phil. 923)

JBD 75
 EXAMPLE: A loan with a promissory note where the principal amount is
payable in installment. The first installment is payable in 2008, the second
installment in this year, and the third installment is payable in 2010 without any
acceleration clause. So, there is only one contract of loan but the principal is
payable in three installments at different times.
For non- payment of the first installment, the creditor has a cause of action
and can file one case.
Q: Next year, he did not pay the second installment, can the creditor file
another case?
A: YES, because this time it is the exception. Every installment is one cause of
action even if there is only one note. Remember that they are to be performed at
different times.

RULE #3 (Exception to the exception):

All obligations, arising from one contract which,
have matured at the time of the suit must be integrated
as one cause of action in one complaint, and those not so
included would be barred. (Larena vs. Villanueva, 53
Phil. 923)

EXAMPLE: In 2008, the debtor did not pay but the creditor did not file any
case. Then this year, the second installment was not also paid.

Q: Is the creditor correct if he files two separate actions?

A: He is wrong. When all the installment are already due and the creditor has
not filed any case for the collection of the first installment, this time, when he
files for collection of the unpaid second installment, everything must be
integrated. If you do not file a claim for one, it is deemed barred.

So for example, if you will wait for the entire note to mature, you cannot
apply rule 2. You should only file one action and you go back to the general rule.

6. Doctrine of Anticipatory Breach

RULE #4 (Exception to Rule #2)

An unqualified and positive refusal to
perform a contract, though the performance thereof is
not yet due, may, if the renunciation goes into the whole
contract, be treated as a complete breach, which will
entitle the injured party to bring the action at once.
(Blossom & Co. vs. Manila Gas Corp., 55 Phil. 226)

JBD 76
 EXAMPLE: Let us suppose that in the preceding problems when the first
installment fell due the creditor demanded payment for the first installment from
the debtor but the latter refused to pay claiming that there was no loan and the
promissory note is a forgery how many causes of action are there?

Now, in that kind of statement, he is not only repudiating the first installment.
He is repudiating the entire note. So under rule #4, the creditor can file a case for
the entire loan because it has been repudiated. If you only file only one for the
first installment which fell due, then another for the others, it will be useless
because he will still maintain the same position. So you do not wait anymore for
the 2nd and 3rd installments to fall due. You file only one case for the entire
breach. There is a total breach for a continuing obligation and there is now only
one cause of action for the entire promissory note. (Blossoms & Co. v. Manila Gas
Corporation, 55 Phil. 226) The anticipatory breach committed by the defendant
entitles the plaintiff to only one cause of action.

JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION

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:
x x x x x

1. Q: What do you mean by joinder of causes of action?

A: Joinder of causes of action is the provision of the Rules, which allows a
party to join in one pleading two or more causes of actions against the opposing
party.

It is the assertion of as many causes of action as a party may have against

another in one pleading. It is the process of uniting two or more demands or
rights of action in one action.

2. THE PRINCIPLE:
You cannot file or split into more than one case when you have only one cause of
action but the law allows you to file one case for several causes of action.

Splitting a cause of action and joinder of causes of action

Splitting is prohibited because it causes multiplicity of

suits and double vexation on the part of the defendant while
JBD 77
joinder is encouraged because it minimizes multiplicity of
suits and inconvenience on the part of the parties.

Example:
D is the debtor of C for P350,000.00 due on January 5, 2008 with interest. D
likewise owes C P350,000.00 due on February 13, 2008 also with interest. Both
debts are evidenced by distinct promissory notes. D did not pay both debts
despite demand. How many causes of action are there?

There are two because there are two contracts and therefore two violations.

No splitting a single cause of action-

So C can file two separate actions for collection because there are two separate
acts of violation considering that there are two contracts or transactions entered
into.
A violation or splitting of a cause of action will be committed however, if for
each promissory note C will file one case to collect the principal amount and
another case to collect the interest. This is because there can only be one violation
for ach transaction. (In other words, the number of transactions can indicate the
number of violations, thus, the number of causes of action.

Joinder of causes of action-

But can C file only one action by joining the two causes of action?
Yes under this Section 5. C may file a single suit against D for the collection of
both debts, despite the claims being actually separate causes of actions and
having arisen out of different transactions.

Whether or not the causes of action arose out of the same transaction or series
of transactions in order to join the causes of action, when relevant-

When the causes of action accrue in favor of the same plaintiff and against the
same defendant, i.e., there is only one plaintiff and one defendant, it is not
necessary to ask whether or not the causes of action arose out of the same
transaction or series of transactions in order to join the causes of action. This
question is only relevant when there are multiple plaintiffs or multiple
defendants.

Joinder in small claims cases-

Sec. 6, of AM No. 08-8-7-SC, as amended provides that the plaintiff may join, in a
single statement of claim, one or more separate small claims against a defendant
provided that the total amount claimed, exclusive of interests and costs, does not
exceed P100,000.00.

3. Joinder is not mandatory-

JBD 78
 Q: Under Section 5, is the creditor obliged to file one complaint for the 2
promissory notes?
A: NO. Joinder of causes of action is permissive. He may or may not.

In the example, is C obliged to join the causes of action against D?

No. He may file a single suit for each of the claims if he desires because each
debt is a separate cause of action. Joinder of causes of action is not compulsory. It
is merely permissive.

4. Modes of joinder – Alternative or cumulative

Q: How may causes of action be joined?

A: Causes of action may be joined either: (a) alternatively or (b) cumulatively.

A CUMULATIVE JOINDER exists when you are seeking relief for all your causes
of action. This is illustrated in the examples above involving two promissory
notes.

An ALTERNATIVE JOINDER exists when your cause of action is either one or

the other. You are not seeking relief from both but from either one.

Examples:
1. A is the importer of the goods that were shipped on board a carrier.
Upon reaching Cebu City, they were unloaded by the arrastre or
stevedoring operator. But when the goods were delivered to A they were
already in a damaged condition. A complained to the arrastre, which
denied liability claiming that the goods were damaged already before
unloading. Then when A went to the carrier, it passed the blame to the
arrastre.
A here has two (2) possible causes of action: (1) an action against the
stevedoring operator under the contract of depositary under the law on
Credit Transaction; Or, (2) an action against the carrier under the Law on
Transportation. So there are 2 possible causes of action.

Q: Can A file a complaint incorporating the two (arrastre and the

carrier) both as defendants?
A: YES, that is allowed. This is alternative joinder because A is not
claiming from both of them, but either one or the other.

2. C is a passenger riding on a public utility vehicle, which collided with

another vehicle and she is not sure who is at fault. If the fault lies with the
other vehicle, and the driver of the bus where C was riding is not at fault,
then her cause of action against the other vehicle is quasi-delict. But if the

JBD 79
 fault lies with the driver of the bus where she was riding, her cause of
action is culpa contractual. So she has 2 possible causes of action.

Q: Is it possible for C to file one complaint naming both, the drivers, or

both operators as defendants?
A: YES. Either of them is liable to her. That is alternative joinder of
causes of action.

That is why the manner of joining the defendants alternatively or otherwise

should be correlated with Rule 3, Section 13 and Rule 8, Section 2:

RULE 3, 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)

RULE 8, SEC. 2. Alternative causes of action

or defenses. - A party may set forth two or more
statements of a claim or defense alternatively or
hypothetically, either in one cause of action or
defense or in separate causes of action or
defenses. When two or more statements are made in
the alternative and one of them if made
independently would be sufficient, the pleading is
not made insufficient by the insufficiency of one
or more of the alternative statements. (2)

5. Conditions for proper joinder of causes of action-

Under Section 5, joinder of causes of action is allowed under the following
conditions:
a.) The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the rules on
joinder of parties;
b.) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed by
special rules;
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
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)

JBD 80
 a.) The party joining the causes of action shall comply
with the rules on joinder of parties

Joinder of causes of action when there are several parties-

The rule on joinder of parties is Rule 3, Section 6 which provides that two (2)
or more persons can join as plaintiffs in one complaint or can be joined as
defendants in one complaint, provided there is a common question of fact or
law involved in that case. In other words, before there can be a proper joinder
of causes of action there must be a proper joinder of parties. Proper joinder of
parties requires that the right to relief should arise out of the same transaction
or series of transactions and that there exists a common question of law or fact.
(A more extensive discussion on joinder of parties in Sec. 6, Rule 3)

When the causes of action accrue in favor of the same plaintiff and against the
same defendant, i.e., there is only one plaintiff and one defendant, it is not
necessary to ask whether or not the causes of actions arose of the same
transaction or series of transactions as stated beforehand. This question is only
relevant when there are multiple plaintiffs or multiple defendants. So in our
hypothetical case where D borrowed from C two separate amounts of
P350,000.00 each covered by two separate promissory notes, C can opt to file one
complaint joining together the two causes of action arising from the violations of
the promissory notes.

EXAMPLE: Two or more passengers riding on the same bus met an accident. All
of them were injured. Every passenger who gets injured has a cause of action
separate and distinct from each other because there are separate contracts of
carriage violated. So they decided to file a damage suit.

Q: Can they be joined in one complaint?

A: YES because there is a common question of fact or law. They are riding on
the same bus, meeting the same accident, against the same operator. So there is a
joinder of parties under Rule 3. And if the joinder of parties under Rule 3 is
proper, then their causes of action can also be joined under Rule 2 because the
condition is: “shall comply with the rules on joinder of parties.”

Q: Suppose these passengers were riding on different buses owned by the

same operator. All of them met an accident. Well of course the same kind of case:
damage suit, breach of contract against the same operator. Now, can their causes
of action be joined?
A: NO. They cannot be joined because there are several transactions and there
is no common question of fact or law. The defense of the operator here is
different from his defense there. Meaning, passenger A has nothing to do with
the complaint of passenger B because there is no common denominator between
them. So if you cannot join them under Rule 3, the joinder of causes of action
under Rule 2 is also improper.

JBD 81
Distinguish joinder of causes of actions from joinder of parties-

Joinder of causes of action refers to the procedural device whereby a party

who asserts various claims against the same or several parties, files all his
claims against them in a single complaint. The joinder will not involve a joinder
of parties when the causes of action joined accrued in favor of the same plaintiff
against the same defendant, i.e., there is only one plaintiff against the same
defendant. This means that a joinder of causes of action will not necessarily
involve a joinder of parties.

Joinder of parties is a procedural device that may be employed when there

are various causes of actions that accrue in favor of one or more plaintiffs
against one or more defendants, i.e., there is a plurality of parties. A joinder of
parties requires that before parties can be joined under a single complaint the
right to relief must arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions
and there must be a common question of law or fact. A joinder of parties may
or may not be involved in a joinder of causes of action.

b.) The joinder shall not include special civil actions

or actions governed by special rules

The special civil actions:

Rule 62 Interpleader;
Rule 63 Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies;
Rule 64 Review of Judgments and Final Orders or Resolutions of the Comelec
and COA;
Rule 65 Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus;
Rule 66 Quo Warranto;
Rule 67 Expropriation;
Rule 68 Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage;
Rule 69 Partition;
Rule 70 Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer and
Rule 71 Contempt

Assume that aside from the above claims of C against D, C who happens to be
the lessor of D wants to eject D from the apartment occupied by D as lessee. May
the action be joined with the claims for money?

No. An action for ejectment is a special action which cannot be joined with
ordinary action. The joinder does not include special civil actions or those
governed by special rules. The reason is confusion in the application of
procedural rules would certainly arise from the joinder of ordinary and special
civil actions in a single complaint.

JBD 82
 Assume that C has the following causes of action against D: (a) P1M based on
a PN; (b) P1M based on torts; and (c) foreclosure of real estate mortgage. May the
causes of action be joined?

Yes, except the foreclosure of real estate mortgage, which is a special civil
action.

UNION GLASS AND CONTAINER CORP. vs. SEC

126 SCRA 31

FACTS: (This is still a good ruling) A stockholder of a corporation

who is also the creditor of the corporation decided to file one complaint
against the corporation asserting several causes of action, among them is
his right as a stockholder under the Corporation Code and also his right
as a creditor under the Civil Code.

HELD: The joinder is improper. In the first place, one is governed by

a quasi-judicial body (SEC). So how can the RTC try a case when the
cause of action is pertaining to the SEC and it is governed by the special
rules of the SEC? So you cannot join that.

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

Examples of “but pertain to different venues or different jurisdictions”

1. Different jurisdictions but one is with the RTC and common venue

Problem-
M encroached on two parcels of land belonging to me both located IN Cebu City.
In one parcel of land, the assessed value is only P20,000. In another parcel of
land, the assessed value is P1 million. I would like to file a case of accion
publiciana against him. The first accion publiciana is triable by the MTC
(P20,000). The other accion publiciana is triable by the RTC.
Q: Can I join them?
A: YES, and it must be filed it in the RTC. The jurisdiction of the RTC will
prevail. Venue, of course, is Cebu City.

PROBLEM: M encroached on my land in Lapulapu with an assessed value of

P20,000. And then he encroached in another land of mine in Cebu City with an
assessed value of P1 million. You will notice that in the Lapulapu land, the

JBD 83
jurisdiction is in the MTC for the case accion publiciana and the venue is
Lapulapu because the property is situated there. In the other case, the
jurisdiction is in the RTC and the venue is Cebu City.
Q: Can I file a case against M joining the 2 cases?
A: YES.

Q: Where is now the governing venue?

A: The venue of the RTC case prevails. Therefore, the case must be filed in
Cebu City.

2. Common RTC jurisdiction but different venues-

PROBLEM: M encroached on my land in Lapulapu with an assessed value of

P1 million. And then he encroached in another land of mine in Cebu City with an
assessed value of P1 million also. You will notice that in the Lapulapu land, the
jurisdiction is RTC for the case accion publiciana. In the other case, the
jurisdiction is also in the RTC of Cebu City. So both actions, RTC.
Q: In which RTC will you file the case joining the causes of action?
A: Either Lapulapu or Cebu City because both are RTCs.

3. Same MTC jurisdiction-

PROBLEM: M encroached on my land in Lapulapu with an assessed value of

P20,000. And then he encroached in another land of mine in Cebu City with an
assessed value of P20,000 also. In the Lapulapu land, the jurisdiction is MTC for
the case accion publiciana. In the other case, the jurisdiction is also in the MTC.
So both actions, MTC.
Q: Can I join in one complaint the 2 actions?
A: NO, because the law says provided one of the causes of action falls within
the jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein. One of them belongs to
the RTC. In the example, both belong to the MTC.
4. Different parties and no common transaction or question of fact and law-

PROBLEM: M encroached on my land more than one year ago and the land has
an assessed value of only P20,000. So if I will file an accion publiciana, it has to
be filed with the MTC. On the other hand, A encroached my other parcel of land
more than one year ago and the assessed value of the land is P1 million. So my
cause of action there is also accion publiciana but triable by the RTC. So I
decided to file a case naming both of them as defendants.
Q: Can they be joined under Section 5?
A: NO. The law allows only if it is between the same parties. This time the
parties are not the same. Plus the fact that you might violate paragraph [a] –
there is no common question of fact and law between them.

6. Where a special civil action is involved-

JBD 84
 PROBLEM: M encroached on my land in Cebu City one month ago and then
he encroached on another land of mine (assessed value of P1 million) also located
in Cebu City two years ago. Therefore, one case is forcible entry triable by the
MTC and the latter is accion publiciana triable by the RTC.
Q: Can I join them under paragraph [c] although they belong to MTC and
RTC?
A: NO, you cannot join them because of paragraph [b] – a forcible entry is
special civil action which is also governed by the Summary Procedure. You
cannot join a special civil action. So what is violated here is not paragraph [c] but
paragraph [b].

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

The last is only a repetition of the old rule: TOTALITY RULE. There is nothing
new here. So judiciary law, totality rule, basta sums of money.

As can be gleaned from Sec. 6(a) and (c) of the Truth in Lending Act, the
violation of the said Act gives rise to both criminal and civil liabilities. Rule 2,
Section 5 of the Rules of Court allows these actions to be joined in one petition.
(UCPB vs. Sps. Samuel and Odette Beluso, GR No. 159912, Aug. 17, 2007).

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)

There is misjoinder when two (2) or more causes of action were joined in one
complaint when they should no be joined.

EXAMPLE: A case joining an accion publiciana case and a forcible entry case
which is not proper because a special civil action (forcible entry) cannot be
joined. In this case there is misjoinder of causes of action.

Example: If an action for forcible entry is joined in one complaint with the
causes of actions based on several promissory notes, the complaint should not be
dismissed based on the misjoinder of the forcible entry case. Instead, the cause of
action predicated on forcible entry may be severed from the complaint upon
motion of a party or by the court motu proprio and proceeded with separately in
another action.

JBD 85
 Under Section 6, if there is misjoinder, you do not dismiss the case. The
remedy is to ask the court that the misjoined case be severed and tried
separately. Now, the counterpart, which is still present is misjoinder of parties
under Rule 3, Section 11:

RULE 3, Sec. 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of

parties. - Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of
parties 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.
A claim against a misjoined party may be severed
and proceeded with separately. (11a)

So misjoinder of parties and misjoinder of causes of action are not grounds for
dismissal of an action. Just remove the misjoined cause of action or the misjoined
party.

Reviewer
Cause of Action
1. Meaning of cause of action
Cause of action defined - a cause of action is the act or omission by which a party
violates a right of another (Rule 2, Sec. 2).

Elements of cause of action:

1. legal right of plaintiff
2. corresponding obligation of defendant to respect or not to violate such right
3. act or omission of defendant which violates the legal right of plaintiff constituting a
breach of the obligation of defendant to plaintiff

2. Right of Action versus Cause of action

1. Cause of action
a. reason for bringing an action
b. formal statement of the operative facts that give rise to remedial rights.
c. matter of procedure and is governed by the pleadings filed by the parties
d. not affected by affirmative defenses (fraud, prescription, estoppel, etc.)

2. Right of action
a. remedy for bringing an action
b. the remedial right to litigate because of the operative facts
c. matter of right and depends on substantive law
d. affected by affirmative defenses (fraud, prescription, estoppel, etc.)

3. Failure to state a cause of action

Elements of a Cause of Action
A cause of action exists if the following elements are present:
1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or
is created;
JBD 86
2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right;
and
3) act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or
constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter
may maintain an action for recovery of damages. (Parañaque Kings Enterprises, Inc. vs.
Court of Appeals , G.R. No. 11538; February 16, 1997.)

The fundamental test for failure to state a cause of action is whether, admitting the
veracity of what appears on the face and within the four corners of the complaint,
plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for. Stated otherwise, may the court render a valid
judgment upon the facts alleged therein? Indeed, the inquiry is into the
SUFFICIENCY, not the veracity of the material allegations. If the allegations in the
complaint furnish sufficient basis on which it can be maintained, it should not be
dismissed regardless of the defenses that may be presented by defendants. (AC Enterprise
vs. Frabelle Properties Corp ., G.R. No. 166744, November 2, 2006,).

4. Test of the sufficiency of a cause of action

How to determine cause of action – by the FACTS ALLEGED in the complaint. Only
issue: ADMITTING such alleged facts TO BE TRUE, may the court render a VALID
JUDGMENT in accordance with the prayer in the complaint?
In determining whether the complaint states a cause of action, the ANNEXES
ATTACHED to the complaint may be considered, they being part of the complaint.

5. Splitting a single cause of action and its effects

Rule 2, 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.
Basic rule in filing of action (Rule 2, Secs. 3-4)
1. For one cause of action (one delict or wrong), file only ONE ACTION or suit.
Generally, NO SPLITTING A SINGLE CAUSE OF ACTION. Reasons:
a. to avoid multiplicity of suits;
b. to minimize expenses, inconvenience and harassment.

2. Remedy against splitting a single cause of action (two complaints separately filed
for one action) - defendant may file:
a. motion to dismiss on the ground of
(1) litis pendentia , if first complaint is still pending (Rule 16, Sec. 1 [e])
(2) res judicata , if first complaint is terminated by final judgment (Rule 16, Sec. 1 [f])

b. answer alleging either of above grounds as affirmative defense (Rule 16, Sec. 6)
If defendant fails to raise ground on time, he is deemed to have WAIVED them. Splitting
must be questioned in the trial court; cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

Splitting a cause of action prohibited

6. Joinder and misjoinder of causes of action

Joinder of causes of action is the assertion of as many causes of action as a party may
JBD 87
have against an opposing party in one pleading alone. It is not compulsory, but merely
permissive.(Rule 2, Sec. 5)

What are the requisites for joinder of causes of action? (Rule 2, Sec. 5)
1. Compliance with the rule on permissive joinder of parties under Rule 3, Sec. 6.
Must arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions AND there is a common
question of law or fact.
Ex. A, owner of a property, can file an ejectment complaint against B, C and D who are
occupying his property without his consent..

2. A party cannot join in an ordinary action any of the special civil actions. – Reason:
special civil actions are governed by special rules.
Ex. P500,000 collection cannot be joined with partition because the latter is a special civil
action.

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 ONE OF THE CAUSES OF ACTION falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC
and the venue lies therein.
Exception: ejectment case may not be joined with an action within the jurisdiction of the
RTC as the same comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC.
Unless the defendant did not object thereto, answered the complaint, and went to trial
because he is precluded from assailing any judgment against him on the ground of
estoppel or laches (Valderrama vs. CA, 252 SCRA 406 [1996]).

N.B. An action for recovery of possession of property is a real action. Thus, it should be
filed in the place where the property is located, pursuant to Rule 4, Section 1.(Decena vs.
Piquero, G.R. No. 155736, March 31, 2005).

N.B. As to joinder in the MTC, it must have jurisdiction over ALL THE CAUSES OF
ACTION and must have common venue.

4. Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for recovery of money,
jurisdiction is determined by the AGGREGATE OR TOTAL AMOUNT claimed (totality
rule).
N.B. The totality rule applies only to the MTC – totality of claims cannot exceed the
jurisdictional amount of the MTC.

There is no totality rule for the RTC because its jurisdictional amount is without limit.
Exception-
In tax cases where the limit is below P1 million. Amounts of P1 million or more fall
within the jurisdiction of the CTA.

Misjoinder of causes of action not ground for dismissal of an action

A misjoined cause may, on motion of a party or on the initiative of the court, be severed
and proceeded with separately (Rule 2, Sec. 6).
Note: Unlike splitting of a cause of action, a misjoinder is NOT a ground for the
dismissal of an action.

JBD 88
JBD 89