Civil Procedure Rules on Real Parties in Interest

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 03
2001 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Please check for errors > Parties to Civil Actions
Rule 03
PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS
CLASSES OF PARTIES: R.R.P.I.N.
I. Real Parties in Interest

II. Representative Parties
III. Permissive Parties
IV. Indispensable Parties
V. Necessary Parties
Sec. 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 other third (fourth, etc.)-party defendant.
(1a)
Q: Who may be parties to a civil case?

A: Only natural or juridical persons or entities authorized by law may be
parties in a civil action. So, you cannot sue or be sued unless you are a person. A
dead man cannot sue and he cannot be sued because he has no more
personality.
That is why in one case, Brod Pito sued the firm name, “Paningkamot Store.”
So, it is “Brod Pito vs. Paningkamot Store.” The SC said, that is wrong.
Paningkamot Store is not a person. PangaIan ng tindahan iyan. The correct
procedure is you sue the owner because he is the real person. But the defect is
not really substantial. It is only a formal defect that can easily be corrected.
“ENTITIES AUTHORIZED BY LAW”
Q: Give an example of an entity authorized by law which can be sued

although it is not a person.
A: The best example is Section 15 of this rule.
Section 15. Entity without juridical personality as defendant.-

When two or more persons not organized as an entity with
juridical personality enter into u 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.
Another example of an entity authorized by law which may not be a natural or

juridical person is a labor union under the Labor Code. It is an entity authorized
Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 74
by law to file a case in behalf of the of its members. Although it may not have
been incorporated under the Corporation Law but registered under the Labor
Code.
Q: Who are the plaintiffs, defendants?

A: The term PLAINTIFF may refer to the claiming party, the original plaintiff,
the counter-claimant, the cross-claimant, the third (fourth, etc.)- party plaintiff. So,
the word ‘plaintiff’ covers them.
The term DEFENDANT may refer to the original defending party, the
defendant in a counterclaim, the cross-defendant, or other third (fourth, etc.)-
party defendant. These are explained in Rule 6, Sections 6, 8 & 11.
I. REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
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)
Q: Who is a real party in interest?

A: A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by
the judgment in the suit. (Section 2)
That is a new sentence taken form jurisprudence because the prior rule never
gave a definition of real parties in interest but jurisprudence gives a definition.
That definition is taken from the leading case of SALONGA VS. WARNER
BARNES & CO. (88 Phil. 125). That is exactly how it is defined and that definition
has been repeated through the years.
every action must be prosecuted or defended

in the name of the real party in interest
So a complaint is dismissible if it is not made in the name of the real party in

interest.
In an action to recover a piece of land , you do not file a case against tenant.
He is not the real party in interest. You must file the case against the owner of the
land.

When you are riding in a bus which collided and you were injured, do not file a
case against the driver for damages. Your contract is not with the driver. Your
contract is with the operator. So you file a case of culpa contractual against the
owner or operator.
GENERAL RULE: In a breach of contract, the real parties in interest are the
parties to the contract. So strangers, as a rule, have no business suing in a
contract because they are not real parties in interest.
EXCEPTION: When there is a stipulation in the contract favorable to a third
person (stipulation pour autrui – Art. 1311, NCC) Example: Third-Party Liability
(TPL) in insurance. A insured his car with B for TPL. A bumped C. C can file a
case against A and B to recover from the insurance contract.
BALIWAG TRANSIT vs. COURT OF APPEALS

169 SCRA 649 [1989 BAR]
FACTS: A student who was riding in one of the Baliwag buses met an
accident. So, an action was filed where the parents and the injured boy
were the co-plaintiffs against Baliwag Transit. While the case was going
on, the boy entered into amicable settlement with the bus company.
Based on the settlement, Baliwag moved to dismiss the case. The
parents objected, “We are objecting because we are also plaintiffs. We
didn’t know about the settlement. We were the ones who spent money,
therefore it should not be dismissed simply because our son is
withdrawing the case.”
HELD: The parents are not the real party in interest. The were not the
passengers. The real parties in a contract of carriage are the parties to
the contract itself. “In the absence of any contract of carriage between
the transportation company and the parents of the injured party, the
parents are not real parties in interest in an action for breach of
contract.”
SALONGA vs. WARNER BARNES

88 Phil. 125 [Bar Problem]
FACTS: Aiza Guadolope decided to go abroad but she has properties

in the Philippines. So she executed a special power of attorney in favor
of Ken A. Sabayah: “You have the full power to administer, to collect all
my money; to withdraw my money in the bank; with full power to sue
these people who owe me; with the authority to hire a lawyer; and enter
into a contract. Practically, you are my alter ego.” And then Aiza went
abroad.
Ken started to manage the property. One of the tenants failed to pay
rentals. So in accordance with the authority, he hired a lawyer. In

preparation of the complaint, it was stated that, “ Ken, plaintiff vs. Lewee
Yoda, defendant.”
ISSUE: Is the action properly filed?
HELD: NO. The real property in interest is the principal, the owner of
the property. Ken is only an attorney-in-fact. An attorney-in-fact cannot
use in his own name because he is not the real party in interest. Ken is
given the authority to sue, to manage, hire a lawyer but not as the
plaintiff because the real party in interest is Aiza. The complaint should
be named as “Aiza, plaintiff vs. Leewee Yoda, defendant.
Q: Suppose Ken, the lawyer will amend the complaint: “Ken, as

attorney-in-fact of Aiza, plaintiff vs. Leewee Yoda, defendant” is the complaint
properly filed.
A: NO. This is even worse because Ken is admitting that he is only an
attorney-in-fact. The more reason na nahalata ka that he is not the real party in
interest. If Ken wants to include the name, it should be: “Aiza, plaintiff,
represented by Ken, his attorney-in-fact vs. Leewee Yoda, defendant.”
Q: Does the law require Aiza to come here to file the case?
A: NO. Take note that the law does not require the principal (A) to come back
to file the case because, the law does not say “every action must be prosecuted
and defendant BY the real party in interest.” Hindi naman sinabing “by” eh. So an
attorney-in-fact can prosecute or defend a party but in the name of the real party
in interest. The real party in interest has submitted to the jurisdiction of the court
by filing the complaint through his lawyer.
II. REPRESENTATIVE PARTY
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)
Section 3 is a relaxation of Section 2 because under Section 2, you cannot

sue and be sued if you are not the real party in interest. But Section 3 allows one
who is not a real party in interest to sue and be sued in behalf of somebody else.
It is possible if you can qualify as a representative party.

Example: GUARDIAN. Suppose Judee, a minor was injured. A case for

damages has to be filed in behalf of the minor. A minor cannot sue and be sued
but she is the real party in interest. The law allows the parents to come in and
also be the plaintiff. The parents are what we the representative party. The law
still requires for the minor to be included in the case. The law states that “the
beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be
the real party in interest.”
Example: TRUSTEE; EXECUTOR; ADMINISTRATOR. Another example is a

trustee of an express trust, or executor or administrator of the estate of a
deceased person. When a person dies, what survives after him is his estate
which represent everything that is left behind. This later on will be given to his
heirs. But for the meantime under the law on succession, the executor or
administrator will take charge of his property.
Q: If the estate of the deceased has some collectibles, who will file the case?
A: The administrator or executor as the representative party. If you want to sue
the estate, you should sue the estate through the administrator or executor.
CHING vs. COURT OF APPEALS

181 SCRA 9
FACTS: Angel Maya wanted to sue Devil John who owe her a sum of
money. The problem is, she cannot locate John’s whereabouts. Also,
Maya was not certain whether John is dead or alive. So, to play it safe,
what the Maya did was to file a case against the “defendant and/or the
estate of defendant.” Maya obtained a judgment against the ‘defendant
and/or the estate of defendant.’
Later on when the judgment was enforced, it turned out that the John
was already dead (tsk! tsk!) but he has properties left behind. So, they
started to take hold of their properties. Now, the heirs of the John
challenged the decision.
ISSUE: Whether or not there was a valid judgment against the

‘defendant/or the estate of the defendant.”
HELD: The decision is void. “The decision of the lower court insofar
as the deceased is concerned, is void for lack of jurisdiction over his
person. He was not, and he could not have been validly served with
summons. He had no more civil personality. His juridical personality, that
is fitness to be subject of legal relations, was lost through death (Arts. 37
and 42 Civil Code).”
“The same conclusion would still inevitably be reached
notwithstanding joinder of B’s estate as co-defendant. It is a well-settled
rule that an estate can sue or be sued through an executor or
administrator in his representative capacity.”

So, the Court cited Section 3. In order to bind the estate, you should sue the
executor or the administrator of his estate. So, either way, the case cannot
prosper.
Note Rule 59 sec 43 – receiver can be sued as a representative party
The last sentence of Section 3:
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.
The agent cannot sue because the principal is the real party in interest. But
when an agent acts in his own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed
principal, he may sue and be sued, EXCEPT when the contract involves things
belonging to the principal. Under the exception, the principal has really to be
included. The agent cannot file a case where the principal will lose his property
without being named as part to the case.
Sec 4. Spouses as parties. - Husband and wife shall sue or be

sued jointly, except as provided by law. (4a)
Normally, the husband and the wife should sue and be sued together. Even if
the wife borrowed money alone and you want to sue the woman, still the
husband should be included. Why? In the property relationship between the
husband and wife, they are governed by absolute community or conjugal
partnership. Whether you like it or not, the implication of the wife is also the
implication of the husband because of the property relationship.
In the same manner, if the wife wants to collect, even if the husband does not
know anything about it, the husband should still be named as party plaintiff, on
the ground again that in the income that she can get redounds to the benefit of
the conjugal partnership.
And there were decided cases in the part where even if for example, a wife
sues without the husband, the defect is not fatal but merely format. The complaint
should not be dismissed. All that is to be done is to amend the complaint
impleading the husband. (Cuyugan vs. Dizon, 76 Phil. 80)
Q: Give an exception to that general rule that husband and wife shall sue or
be sued jointly.
A: The EXCEPTION is in case of Complete Separation of Property (Article
145, Family Code), and under Article 111, Family Code:

Art. 111. A spouse of age may mortgage, alienate, encumber

or otherwise dispose of his or her exclusive property without the
consent of the other spouse and appear alone in court to litigate
with regard to the same. (Family Code)
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)
Section 5 is related to Section 3. The minor or incompetent person must be

assisted by the parents and considered as representative party. Incompetent
persons includes insane people or mentally retarded people. They are supposed
to be under the custody of other persons, the guardians. If no guardian, the court
has to appoint a guardian called the guardian ad litem.
III. PERMISSIVE PARTY
Sec 6. Permissive joinder of parties. - All persons in whom or

against 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)
Section 6 is known as permissive joinder of parties. This is related to Section

5 [a] of Rule 2 on joinder of causes of action because when there is proper
joinder of parties, necessarily there is also automatic joinder of causes of action.
But there could be joinder of causes of action without joinder of parties.
Q: May two or more persons join in one complaint as plaintiffs? Or can two or
more persons be joined together as defendants?
A: YES, under two conditions, to wit:
1.) There is a right to relief in favor of or against or against the parties joined
in respect to or arising out of the same transaction or series of
transactions; and
2.) There is a question of law or fact common to the parties joined in the
action.
PROBLEM: Suppose some passengers riding a particular common carrier are

injured because of an accident. All of them want to sue the operator of the carrier
for damages arising out of the breach of contract of carriage. Under the Law on
Transportation, its possible for each passenger to file his own case because our
causes of action are different from each other. But can they be joined together in
one complaint against the common carrier?
A: YES because there is a common question of law or fact in the causes of
actions of the injured passengers: the evidence is identical; the issues whether
the carrier is at fault are the came; the witnesses for both parties will be the
same; the report will be the same; the defense of the operator against one party
will be the same defense as against the other passenger. So, since there is a
common denominator on their causes of action, they can be joined.
It would be different if the passengers were riding on different buses belonging

to the same company, and all of them met an accident. What happened to
Passenger No. 1 does not concern Passenger No. 2. The evidence will not be
the same. So, there is no common denominator – no common question of fact.
Therefore, they cannot be joined.
PROBLEM: Suppose a story appeared in the Inquirer where 5 people were

called as jueteng kings. They were allegedly involved in jueteng – these are the
jueteng kings: Ken, Kenneth, Francis, Thad and Sheriff. Now, the five of them
want to sue the Inquirer for damages arising from libel. Is it possible for the five
(5) people named in the article to file only one complaint against the editor and
publisher of the Inquirer?
A: YES because it is of the same story. Their names appeared in the same
story. It is not a different issue. So there is a common question of fact & law in
their cause of action.
PROBLEM: Myra, while driving a car, bumped another vehicle, injuring the
driver and causing injury to other passengers. So, there are three offended
parties : the owner of the vehicle, the driver of the vehicle , and the passenger.
There are three(3) causes of action. Can they join in one complaint against Myra,
the owner of the car which bumped them?
A: YES because there is a common question of fact and law. There is only one
accident.
Q: But suppose the three of them will file 3 separate cases against Myra,
puwede?
A: Puwede, because permissive joinder of parties is not mandatory. Kaya nga
‘permissive’ eh! It is not mandatory but optional although the law encourages
permissive joinder of parities.
Note: if there are joinder of parties, there are joinder of cause of actions, but
there can be a joinder of cause of actions without joinder parties

Q: Why does the law encourage joinder of parties?

A: The following are the reasons:
1.) to promote convenience in trial;

2.) to prevent multiplicity of suits;
3.) to expedite the termination of the litigation; and
4.) to attain economy of procedure under which several demands arising
out of the same occurrence may be tried together thus avoiding the
repetition of evidence relating to facts common to the general demands.
Code: C,PM,ET,EP
Now, take note that when there is joinder of parties, there is automatically a
joinder of causes of action. That is why one of the conditions of limitations in
joinder of causes of action is you must observe the rule on joinder of parties. If
joinder of parties is improper under Rule 3, the joinder of causes of action is also
proper under Rule 2, Section 5
Principle: WHEN THERE IS JOINDER OF PARTIES, THERE IS ALSO A

JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION. BUT THERE CAN BE A JOINDER OF
CAUSES OF ACTION WITHOUT A JOINDER OF PARTIES.
Paano yun?
EXAMPLE: When there is only one plaintiff and one defendant: Suppose
Melissa will secure three (3) loans from me.
Q: How many causes of action do I have if Melissa will not pay me?
A: Three (3) man ba!
Q: Now, can I join them in one complaint?

A: Yes.
Q: Is there joinder of causes of action?

A: Yes.
Q: Is there joinder of parties?

A: NONE, because there is only one plaintiff and one defendant.
So, there can be joinder of causes of action without joinder of parties because
there is only one plaintiff and one defendant. But if you join parties in Rule 3,
automatically, there is joinder of causes of action. This is the relationship of these
two provisions.
Finally, the last two types of parties to the action are the so-called
indispensable parties and necessary parties. (Section 7 and Section 8,
respectively)
INDISPENSABLE PARTY and NECESSARY PARTIES

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)
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)
Take note that under the Old Rules, Section 8, the party there was called
‘proper party.’ Now they change the word from ‘proper party’ to ‘necessary party.’
This re-adopts the old name under the 1940 Rules. Under the old rules, the
parties were either indispensable or necessary. Then under the 1964 Rule, it was
changed from ‘necessary’ to ‘proper.’ Now, under the new rule, back to its old
name: ‘necessary party.’
Q: Distinguish indispensable from necessary party.

A: An INDISPENSABLE PARTY must be joined under any and all conditions,
his presence being a sine qua non of the exercise of judicial power, for without
him, no final determination can be had of the action. (Borlasa vs. Polistico, 47
Phil. 345)
A NECESSARY PARTY ought to be joined whenever possible in order to
adjudicate the whole controversy and avoid multiplicity of suits, but if for some
reason or another he cannot be joined, the court may proceed without him and
the judgment shall not prejudice his rights. (Ibid.)
Q: Give examples of indispensable party.

A: In an action for partition of land, all the co-owners thereof are indispensable
parties. (De Lara vs. De Lara, 2 Phil. 294) In an action for annulment of partition,
all of the heirs must be made parties. (Caram vs. CA, 101 Phil. 315) In an action
for recovery of ownership of land, the person who claims to be the owner of the
land is the indispensable party defendant and not the one in possession as
tenant. (Sanidad vs. Cabotaje, 5 Phil. 204; Manza vs. Santiago, 96 Phil. 938)
Q: Give examples of necessary party.

A: In an action for collection of debt instituted by the creditor against the
surety, the principal debtor is merely a necessary party. (Vaño vs. Alo, 95 Phil.
495) In an action for recovery of debt instituted by the creditor against the
debtor, the guarantor or surety is merely a necessary party. (Ibid.) In an action for
foreclosure of a real estate mortgage instituted by the first mortgagee, the
second mortgagee is merely a necessary party. (Somes vs. Gov’t of Phil., 62
Phil. 432)
REVIEW: What is the difference between a surety and a guarantor? The

liability of guarantor to the creditor is only secondary. Meaning, the guarantor is
only liable to the creditor if the principal debtor cannot pay like when the debtor is
insolvent. On the other hand, a surety is principally liable to the creditor whether
or not the debtor can pay.
PROBLEM: In credit transactions, there is a creditor, debtor and surety.

Debtor borrowed money from the creditor, then another acted as the surety. Now,
suppose the debtor will not pay, the creditor files now a case against the surety
without the debtor. The debtor was not included in the case.
Q: Can the case proceed even without the debtor being sued?
A: YES, the case may proceed.
Now, the surety may be ordered to pay. Pero bag binayaran ng surety iyong
creditor, what will he do next? He will now sue the principal debtor for
reimbursement. Meaning, there is still a future case. Thus, there could be no
complete relief between those who are parties. So, the debtor is a necessary
party, and not indispensable. But it is advisable to join the debtor in one case,
para pag nag-claim ang creditor from the surety, the latter can automatically
claim from the debtor. Pang-one time ba!
PROBLEM: Kuya Mortz borrowed money from Doña Eugenia a.k.a. Genie.
Ate Maya is the guarantor. The Doña Genie filed a case against Kuya Mortz. She
did not include the guarantor.
Q: Can the case proceed even without the guarantor?
Q: YES because the guarantor is merely a necessary party. And if the debtor
turns out to be insolvent, the creditor will now file another case against the
guarantor.
REVIEW: What is the difference between joint debtors and solidary debtors?
In solidary, the creditor can collect the whole obligation from any of the debtors
without prejudice to the right of the latter for reimbursement of his share in the
obligation from his co-debtors. On the other hand, in joint obligation, the creditor
can only get from a debtor the latter’s share in the whole obligation. Meaning, the
creditor cannot compel the debtor to pay the share of his co-debtor. Kanya-kanya
tayo.
PROBLEM: Manuel and Cathy are JOINT debtors of P100,000 (50-50

sharing). Doña Eugenia is the creditor. Both did not pay Doña Eugenia.
Q: If Doña Eugenia files a case against Manuel only, can the case proceed
without Cathy?
A: YES but Doña Eugenia can only collect from Manuel up to P50,000 only
because of their joint obligation. Cathy is only necessary insofar as Manuel’s
share is concern. But Manuel is indispensable party insofar as his share is
concerned.
Q: But if Doña Eugenia wants to collect the entire P100,000, what should she
do?
A: She should file a case against both Manuel and Cathy.
PROBLEM: Manuel and Cathy are SOLIDARY debtors of P100,000 (50-50

sharing). Doña Eugenia is the creditor. Both did not pay Doña Eugenia.
Q: If Doña Eugenia files a case against Manuel only, can the case proceed
without Cathy?
A: YES and Manuel is required to pay Doña Eugenia the whole amount of the
debt because of solidary obligation. Then Manuel can proceed against Cathy for
reimbursement. Be is merely necessary party.
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)
If you do not implead a necessary party, you must give an explanation why did
you not implead him. The law requires as much as possible that all parties be
impleaded to avoid multiplicity of suits. EXAMPLE: Tato “The Hunk” files a case
against Andre “The Hippie”, a surety, without including Sheriff “The Punk” as the
debtor. In the complaint of Tato, he shall explain why he is not including Sheriff.
Assuming that a necessary party cannot be impleaded, his non-inclusion does

not prevent the court from proceeding with the action. The judgment rendered
shall be without prejudice to the rights of such necessary party.
However, if the court finds no valid reason for not impleading a party, the court
may order the inclusion of the necessary party under Section 9. And take note
that under the new rules, the failure to comply with the order of inclusion without
justifiable cause shall be deemed a waiver of the claim against such (necessary)
party.
EXAMPLE: If Tato, without justifiable cause, refuses to include Sheriff despite

the order of the court, and later on, Andre cannot also pay Tato, there is no way
now for Tato to go against Sheriff anymore because he (Tato) failed to comply
with the order of inclusion without justifiable cause.
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)
This is particularly true with INDISPENSABLE parties – the case cannot

proceed without you.
EXAMPLE : There are 4 brothers and 1 sister. They have to file a case against
somebody to recover property which they believe was owned by their parents.
Then, brother 4 say to sister 1, “Let us file a case.” But sabi ni sister 1, “Pilitin mo
muna ako.” Then she says, “Ayoko nga, hindi mo ako pinilit eh!” Meaning, all of
them will suffer because ayaw ni sister 1 mag-file ng kaso.
Q: Now, what is the remedy of the 4 brothers?

A: Under Section 10, include the one who refused as one of the defendants. If
there is unwilling plaintiff, name him as defendant whether he likes it or not.
MISJOINDER AND NON-JOINDER OF PARTIES
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)
This is similar to Section 6 of Rule 2 – misjoinder of causes of action is not a

ground for dismissal of an action. Misjoinder or non-joinder at parties is not a
ground for a motion to dismiss because at any stage of the case, the court can
order a misjoined party to be removed or a party not joined to be included.
Q: Do you know what ‘MISJOINDER of parties’ mean?

A: It means that two or more parties should not be joined but they are
improperly joined. A good example is, if there is no common question of fact or
law. Meaning, you do not have any business to be here but you are joined or
misjoined. That is what we call misjoinder of parties. It is also known as “spurious
class suit.”
Well, ‘NON-JOINDER’ is different. A party who should be joined was not

joined such as a necessary party.
Q: What happens if a party is misjoined or if there is a non-joinder, should the

case be dismissed?
A: No, that is not a ground for dismissal.
Q: So what is the remedy then?

A: The remedy is to order the removal of the party who is misjoined, or to
order the inclusion of the party who should be joined. And that is not a defect
which should cause the dismissal of the case because the court can always
issue an order ordering the removal of a misjoined party or the inclusion of
joinder of a party who should be included.
Q: Does it mean to say therefore, that the plaintiff has the license to include
anybody in an action? Like for example, I have a case against somebody in the
class, the trouble is in the meantime, I cannot identify who among you who did
the wrong to me. So I will file a case against all of you. Anyway later on, I can
dump you kung hindi ka talaga sabit. Now, is this allowed?
A: NO. That is not a license. What the law contemplates, according to the SC,
the party was joined in good faith believing that he was a defendant but actually it
turned out to be wrong. So, you have no right to sue anybody just like that. That
is not an excuse for suing any party left and right. In the case of
REPUBLIC vs. SANDIGANBAYAN

173 SCRA 72 [1989]
HELD: Section 11 of Rule 3 “does not comprehend whimsical and

irrational dropping or adding of parties in a complaint. What. it really
contemplates is erroneous or mistaken non-joinder and misjoinder of
parties. No one is free to join anybody in a complaint in court only to
drop him unceremoniously later at the pleasure of the plaintiff The rule
presupposes that the original inclusion had been made in the honest
conviction that it was proper and the subsequent dropping is requested
because it turned out that such inclusion was a mistake.”
CLASS SUIT
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)
As a GENERAL RULE, if there are several real parties in interest, they shall
be included in the case whether indispensable or necessary. Example: There are
30 of us. The general rule is that all parties in interest, indispensable or
necessary shall be included.
EXCEPTION to the General Rule: Class Suit. Meaning, some of you will sue
to represent the rest. That is also known as the “DOCTRINE OF VIRTUAL
REPRESENTATION.” The concept of a class suit was first enunciated in the old
case of

BORLAZA vs. POLISTICO

47 Phil. 345
FACTS: This case has something to do with raffle. A group of people

decided to form an association which they called “Turnuhang Polistico.”
You become a member of this association by contributing a certain sum
of money. And then every Sunday after mass, half of the collection will
go to the treasurer of the association. The other half will be raffled off.
This has been going on for months and years. The time came when the
funds of the association became very big. Some of the members, in
behalf of all the members, decided to file a case against the officers to
render an accounting of all the amounts. The real parties in interest
would be the members.
ISSUE: Is the suit filed by some members in behalf of some members

proper?
HELD: YES, because if We will require all the members to appear, it

will be quite impossible. Therefore, some members must be made to
sue but only in behalf of all the members who are not around and it is
impracticable to bring them all to the court. A number of them may sue
for the benefit of all.
Q: What are the CONDITIONS FOR A VALID CLASS SUIT ?

A: Under Section 12, the following are the conditions of a valid class suit:
1. The subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general

interest to many persons (such as the funds of the association in the
case of POLISTICO); and
2. The parties are so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all
before the court.
In which case a number of them which the court finds to be sufficient and
numerous and representative as to fully protect the interests of all concerned
may sue or defend for the benefit of all. Example is a taxpayer’s suit – filed in
behalf of all the taxpayers in the Philippines. And there is no specific number of
persons that is provided by law.
Now, we will go to some interesting cases on class suit decided by the

Supreme Court:
SULO NG BAYAN vs. ARANETA, INC.

72 SCRA 347 [1976]
FACTS: This concerns the big property of the Araneta’s in Quezon

City. It has been the subject matter of litigation for the past years – 3 or 4
decades. It is a big track of land in Quezon City occupied by so many

people who want to acquire it. They are questioning the title of the
Araneta’s
So, Sulo (torch) ng Bayan is the association of squatters. Since the
properties of the Araneta is very big, they subdivided it – kanya-kanyang
lote. Then a case was filed by Sulo ng bayan Association against
Araneta to annul the title of the latter.
ISSUE #1: Whether or not the action was file in the name of the real
in interest.
HELD: Sulo ng Bayan is not the real party in interest. It violates
Section 2 – “the action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of
the real parties in interest.” The members occupying the land are the
plaintiffs. The association is not the one occupying the lot. So, the first
question is, who should be the plaintiff? It should be the members.
ISSUE #2: Whether or not the action was properly pleaded as a class
suit
HELD: NO. This is the more important reason why they cannot qualify
as a class suit: In a class suit, the subject matter is of common interest
to all. Meaning, lahat tayo is interesado. To illustrate:
You are Occupant No. 1, which lot do you occupy? “Here (a particular
lot).” Meron ka bang interest diyan? “Meron.” Do you have an interest in
that (another lot) portion? “Wala.” If that is so, then the subject matter is
not of common interest. The interest of one occupant is only on the lot
he occupies. Meaning, “My neighbor does not have an interest on the lot
I occupied.”
What should be done is that all of them to sue together to cover the entire
property, for each one has a lot. So, in that case, Section 6 should be applied –
permissive joinder of parties because there is a common question of fact. This is
more of permissive joinder of Parties rather than a class suit. That’s why you can
confuse Section 6 with Section 12. But the permissive joinder of parties
kailangan, lahat kayoi nandiyan. Hindi puwede na I will represent you. Kanya-
kanya yan but they can join together. Unlike in a class suit, the subject matter is
of interest to everybody and we cannot all be joined because we are so
numerous.
(Note: Joinder of parties – is spurious class suit in US jurisprudence)
BULIG-BULIG KITA KAMAGANAK ASSOCIATION, ET AL vs.

SULPICIO LINES
May 19, 1989
RE: Doña Paz Tragedy – iyong lumubog na barko owned by Sulpicio

Lines.

FACTS: There we so many relatives who filed a case against Sulpicio

Lines and there was an attempt to file a class suit in behalf of everyone
who were drowned including those who were not identified.
HELD: That cannot be. The survivors have no interest in the death of
other passengers. The interest in this case is individual. What would
have been proper is permissive joinder of parties because of common
question of tact or law, but not class suit.
OPOSA vs. FACTORAN

224 SCRA 12 [1993]
FACTS: Oposa et al were all minors. Some were small boys duly
represented by their parents. They filed a case against then DENR
Secretary Factoran. The prayer in the case is to order the DENR to
cancel all existing Timber License Agreements (TLA’s), to cease and
desist from proceeding, accepting, processing, renewing all accruing
new TLA’s. So, in effect, it prays for a total log ban in the country to
preserve the remaining forest all over the Philippines.
These young boys sue with their parents. They are suing in their
behalf, in behalf of the other citizens who are of their age because they
stand to suffer if the environment will be deteriorated. They say that they
are entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural
resources of our country’s rich tropical rainforests. They say, the case
was tiled for themselves and others for the preservation of our rainforest
and we are so numerous that it is impracticable to bring all plaintiffs to
court. They say that they represent their generations and generations
yet unborn.
HELD: The civil case is indeed a class suit. The case however has a
special and novel element. The personality of the minors to sue for the
succeeding generations is based on the concept of inter-generational
responsibility insofar as a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned.
Every generation has a responsibility to preserve the ecology. The
minors’ right to a sound environment constitute at the same time the
performance of the obligation to ensure the protection of the rights or the
generations to come.
Q: In case of doubt, should a class suit be allowed?

A: NO. When the issue is not so clear, a class suit should not be allowed
because class suit is an exception to the general rule that all parties should be
included.
CADALIN vs. POEA ADMINISTRATOR

238 SCRA 721 [1995]

HELD: While it is true that class suit is allowed, it should be allowed

with caution because the fact that you represent others is only a fiction
of law. For all you know, those others may not want to be represented.
So okey lang kung manalo ang kaso. Eh kung matalo ang kaso? All
others start blaming you. That is why the court is extra-cautious in
allowing class suits because they are the exceptions to the condition
sine qua non requiring joinder of all indispensable parties.
In an improperly instituted class suit, there would be no problem it the
decision secured is favorable to the plaintiffs. The problem arises where
the decision is adverse to them. In which case, the parties who are
impleaded through their self-appointed representatives would surely
plead denial of due process.
Q: Distinguish a representative suit from a class suit.

A: In the case of
LIANA’S SUPERMARKET vs. NLRC

257 SCRA 186 [May 31, 1996]
FACTS: A labor union filed a case against the employer in behalf of

hundreds of employees. Is this a representative suit or a class suit?
HELD: “What makes the situation a proper case for a class suit is the
circumstance that there is only one right or cause of action pertaining or
belonging in common to many persons, not separately or severally to
distinct individuals. The object of the suit is to obtain relief for or against
numerous persons as a group or as an integral entity, and not as
separate, distinct individuals whose rights or liabilities are separate from
and independent of those affecting the others.”
In a representative suit, there are different causes of action pertaining
different persons.
“In the present case, there are multiple rights or causes of action
pertaining separately to several, distinct employees who are members of
respondent Union. Therefore, the applicable rule is that provided in Rule
3 on Representative Parties. Nonetheless, as provided for in the Labor
Code, a legitimate labor organization has the right to sue and be sued in
its registered name. This authorizes a union to file a representative suit
for the benefit of its members in the interest of avoiding an otherwise
cumbersome procedure of joining all union members in the complaint,
even if they number by the hundreds.” For convenience, the Labor Code
allows a union to file a representative suit.
It is important to note the following:

1. CLASS SUIT
2. REPRESENTATIVE SUIT

3. DERIVATIVE SUIT – only peculiar to the corporation law where the

minority files a suit in behalf of the entire corporation because
intra-corporate remedy is useless.
ALTERNATIVE DEFENDANTS
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)
Alternative defendants is also related to alternative causes of action – even if

your right against one is inconsistent with your right to relief against the other
party, you may file a suit against the alternative defendant. (c.f. Rule 2, Section
5 – Joinder of Causes of Action)
You filed a case against the operators of two vehicles. In effect, your cause of
action is either culpa aquiliana or culpa contractual. Is that not inconsistent? The
law says, “although a right to relief against one may be inconsistent with a right
against the other.” In other words, even if the two causes of action is inconsistent
with each other, it is allowed.
As a matter of fact, this is the best policy because the plaintiff is a sure winner.
The only question is, who among the two will be held liable.
Although the law is silent, if there is such a thing as “alternative defendants,”

there is no reason why the grounds for “alternative plaintiffs” should not be
allowed.
Q: (Taken from Remedial Law Reviewer by Nuevas) May plaintiff join in the
alternative?
A: YES, plaintiffs may join in the alternative under the same principle as
alternative joinder of defendants. When several persons are uncertain as to who
among them is entitled to relief from a certain defendant, they may join as
plaintiffs in the alternative. This is also sanctioned by the rule on permissive
joinder of parties (Pajota vs. Jante, L-6014, Feb. 8, 1955). Thus, the principal and
his agent may join as plaintiffs in the alternative against a defendant. If the
agency is proved, the relief is awarded to the principal. If not, award is then made
to the agent.
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 accord. (14)
Q: Can you sue somebody who is unknown?

A: YES, under Section 14.
BAR PROBLEM: While Leyva “The Rapper” was walking on the street. He
was bumped by a car, say a Toyota Altis, 2001 model, color blue. Now, so far, he
could not determine who is the owner. If you are the lawyer of the Leyva, how
would you sue the defendant?
A: Under Section, I will sue the owner of that car as an unknown defendant. I
can place in my complaint, “Leyva ‘the rapper’, plaintiff, vs. the registered owner
of Toyota Altis, 2001 model, color blue a with plate number so and so.” And later
if you discover the true identity of the owner, we can amend the complaint to
place the name of the defendant.
Section 14 is similar with Rule 110 in Criminal Procedure – a case may be

filed against an unknown accused.
RULE 110, SEC. 7. Name of the accused. – The complaint or

information must state the name and surname of the accused or
any appellation or nickname by which he has been or is known.
If his name cannot be ascertained, he must be described under a
fictitious name with a statement that his true name is unknown.
If the true name of the accused is thereafter disclosed by him
or appears in some other manner to the court, such true name
shall be inserted in the or information and record. (7a)
complaint
ENTITY WITHOUT JURIDICAL PERSONALITY AS DEFENDANT
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.
Rule 1, Section 1 provides that only natural of juridical persons may be sued.
Entity without juridical personality as defendant. Under the old law, this was
known as suing two or more persons involved in a business under a common
name. When two or more persons transact in a business under a common name,
they may be sued under their common name.
Q: Who are really the defendants here? A: The persons involved.
Now, it is worded in this manner: “When two or more persons not organized as
an entity with juridical personality,” instead of a ‘common name.’ You cannot sue
the entity because it has no juridical personality. But you do not also know the
members of that entity, so the law allows you to file a case against the entity.
Under the second paragraph of Section 15, when the defendants file an
answer, they must file under their names as they are really the real parties in
interest. When the lawyer answers the complaint, he is duty-bound to provide
the names of all the defendants.
Q: How do you summon this kind of defendant?

A: Rule 14, Section 8:
RULE 14, 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)
Correlate this with Rule 36, Section 6:
Sec. 6. Judgment against entity without juridical personality.

When judgment is rendered against two or more persons sued
as an entity without juridical personality, the judgment shall set
out their individual or proper names, if known. (6a)
GENERAL RULE: actions must be filed against real parties in interest.

EXCEPTIONS: (When may an action be filed without naming all the parties in
involved?)
1. Class suit (Section 12, Rule 3);

2. Entity without juridical personality (Section 15, Rule 3);
3. Any co-owners may bring an action for ejectment (Article 487, New Civil
Code)
EFFECT OF DEATH OF A PARTY
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. (16,
17a)
Whenever a party to a pending action dies, and the claim is not thereby
extinguished, it shall be the duty of his counsel to
1. inform the court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact
thereof, and
2. 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

First of all, there are cases when a party to a pending action dies and the
claim is not thereby extinguished (this is what they called an action which
survives as we will explain later) and there are certain actions where if a party
dies, the claim is automatically extinguished. Meaning, the death of a party
causes death of the action. But these are very few. Majority of cases when the
party dies, the case or the cause of action continues.
It is the duty of the lawyer of the deceased to inform the court within 30 days
after the death of the party thereof. He must inform the court and give the name
and address of his legal representative/s (e.g. administrator of executor of the
estate)
Well of course, under the rule in legal ethics, the lawyer-client relationship is
automatically terminated by the death of the client because the lawyer-client
relationship is personal. But procedurally, you must tell the court and you must
give the name of the legal representative. The latter may re-hire the lawyer but
under a new contract.

The purpose there is for substitution so that the legal representative will be
ordered substituted. And there is a new provision under the new rules. That is,
failure of the counsel to comply with his duty shall be a ground for disciplinary
action. That is not found in the prior rule. So, the lawyer can be subjected to
So the provision continues, “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.
So, other than the legal representative, before anything else, the
representative refers to the executor or administrator, and the other alternative
will be the heirs, such as the surviving children, wife or spouse.
Although there was a case decided by the SC way back in 1986 in the case of
LAWAS vs. COURT OF APPEALS

146 SCRA 173
HELD: “The priority of substitution would be the executor or

administrator not the heirs.
The heirs would only be allowed to be substituted if there is an
(1) unreasonable delay in the appointment of administrator or

executor, or
(2) when the heirs resort to extrajudicial partition.
But outside of those two reason, the law always

gives priority to the administrator or executor.”
Under the rule, priority is given co the legal representative of the deceased.
That is, the executor or the administrator of his estate. Many courts do not
enforce it strictly. Normally, patay na, “O! Ito ang heirs o!” “OK! Substitute!”
Actually, that is wrong based on LAWAS case. The priority is given to the admin-
istrator or executor. It is only when there is unreasonable delay in the
appointment, or when the heirs resort to extrajudicial partition because there is
no more administrator or executor in extrajudicial settlement.
VDA. DE SALAZAR vs. COURT OF APPEALS

250 SCRA 303 [November 23, 1995]
FACTS: This is an ejectment. case. The defendant died while the

case is going on. What is the procedure? There should be substitution.
But there was no substitution in the case for ten years, until it was

decided. The court was not informed of the death of the defendant. Until
finally, there was a decision.
ISSUE: When there is failure to effectuate the substitution of heirs

before the rendition of judgment, is the judgment jurisdictionally
detective? Because here, the case continued eh, in which somebody is
already dead.
HELD: NO, “the judgment is valid where the heirs themselves

appeared before the trial court and participated in the proceedings.
Therein, they presented evidence in defense of the deceased defendant.
It is undeniably evident that the heirs themselves sought their day in
court and exercised their right to due process.”
In other words, when there was a defect the heirs however cannot used that
because they themselves appeared and continued the case. So, in effect, there
was estoppel.
EFFECT OF DEATH OF A PARTY ON MONEY CLAIMS
Now, one of the radical changes again introduced by the new rules is the
effect of the death of the defendant in a money claim – action to collect a sum of
money.
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)
The best example here is an action to collect an unpaid loan. And while the
case is pending the defendant died. What will happen to the case? The law says:
If the defendant dies before the entry of the final judgment in the court at the time
of death, it shall not be dismissed but it shall instead be allowed to continue until
entry of final judgment.
Under the OLD RULES, the case shall be dismissed. So, the civil case is not
suspended but it will be dismissed. Eh, paano 'yung utang? Now, you file a case
against the estate of the deceased under the Rules on Special Proceedings. But
definitely the civil case hindi na matuloy . . . patay na iyon when the defendant
dies.

Now, under the NEW RULE, the case will not be dismissed but rather, the
case will now continue until entry of final judgment. That is a radical change of
procedure! So the case will not be dismissed. It shall be allowed to continue until
entry of final judgement. Meaning, until it becomes final and executory.
Q: But of course, if the judgment is favorable to you (the plaintiff), can you
move to execute? Can you move to execute the decision against or buy the
property of the defendant?
A: NO, because the law provides, “xxx a favorable judgment obtained by the
plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the manner specially provided in these Rules
for prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased person.”
Q: And what is that procedure?

A: YOU FILE A CLAIM against the estate under Section 5, Rule 86 of the
Rules of Court, but there will be no execution.
[Note: SEE OUTLINE OF THIS RULE.]
Q: We are talking of death of a party in a pending civil action. While there is a

case and a party dies, what will happen to the case?
A: I will distinguish – Anong klaseng kaso iyar. Is that an ACTION WHICH
DOES NOT SURVIVE or an ACTION WHICH SURVIVES?

1.) ACTION WHICH DOES NOT SURVIVE

An action which does not survive is an action which is abated upon the death
of a party. The case cannot go on once a party dies. And normally, that refers
to actions which are purely personal in character like an action for annulment
of marriages, an action for declaration of the nullity of marriage or, an action
for legal separation, or an action for support. These are the cases arising from
the Family Code.
Example: The husband files a case against the wife for annulment
of marriage or legal separation. One of them dies. Wala nang
substitution, TAPOS NA! When one of the parties dies, the marriage
is dissolved. There is nothing to annul because the marriage is
already dissolved. So, these are the actions which are purely
personal .
Q: So, what is the effect of the death of the party in actions which
does not survived?
A: The case is dismissed!
However, these cases are very few. Majority of the cases are damage
suit, recovery of possession, recovery of land, recovery of unpaid loans,
etc. So, these are what you call actions which survive. Meaning , if a party
dies, you cannot say that the case is terminated upon the death of the
party. So, ano ang mga kaso na iyan?
2.) ACTIONS WHICH SURVIVE – Is it a contractual money claim or non-

contractual claim? If it is a contractual claim, who died – is it the plaintiff or
is it the defendant? If the defendant is the one who died, when did he die?
2a.) Actions which survive; CONTRACTUAL MONEY CLAIMS:
2a1.) If it is the plaintiff who dies, the case will continue. The heirs or
legal representatives will proceed. So, there is substitution.
2a2.) If it is the defendant who dies, the question is: KAILAN NAMATAY?
Before entry of final judgment or after entry? This is where Section 20 will
come in.
2a2a.) If the defendant died before entry of final judgment, you apply
Section 20 of Rule 3. Meaning, the case shall not be dismissed but shall
be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment. And the 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, and that is Section 5 of Rule
86.
2a2b.) If the defendant died after the entry of the final judgment but
before execution (after the judgment became final but before there could
be levy or execution) you cannot move to execute. Again, you apply

Section 5 of Rule 86 which is the governing rule – you file your judgment
as a claim against the estate of the deceased defendant. [Section 5,
Rule 86 - Please refer to your codals.] The purpose there is, so that the
creditor will share with the other creditors pro-rata in the distribution of
the estate.
2a2c) If the defendant died after levy or execution but before the
auction sale – meaning, the property was already levied by the sheriff
bago pa namatay – we will now apply Section 7[c] of Rule 39:
Rule 39, 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:
xxxxxx
(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)
Meaning, after the levy, namatay, auction sale proceeds as

scheduled. And if there is an excess, the excess shall be delivered to the
administrator of executor.
2b.) Actions which survive; NON-CONTRACTUAL MONEY CLAIMS:

EXAMPLE: an action for recovery of property, real or personal
like replevin, forcible entry, unlawful detainer, action publiciana,
action reinvidicatoria, or action for damages, (damages that is not
the same for transaction of money because damages arising from
culpa aquiliana is one not arising from contract.)
If a party dies in an action which survives which is a non-

contractual money claim, obviously, there is substitution of parties.
So, what are these non-contractual money claims which survive?
These are those mentioned in Section 7 of Rule 86 and Section 1 of
Rule 87. That is in the study of Special Proceedings on settlement of
the estate of a deceased person.
So, that is the outline in the light of the amendments of the Rules of Court.
Note: What Section 20 says is that: before the case can be decided and the
defendant dies (in actions involving money claims) the case shall not be
dismissed but shall instead be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment.
BUT CONTINUE AGAINST WHOM? Against the deceased? Now, to my mind,
you correlate this with Section 16 --- there should still be substitution.

But assuming, there was no substitution and the heirs fought in the case;
there is waiver because the defect is procedural. Just like what happened in the
case of VDA. DE SALAZAR. Actually, what Section 20 emphasized is that, the
action shall not be dismissed but shall continue – to emphasize that it is now
different compared with the prior RULE. But obviously, there will always be a
substitution
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)
This applies only when the public officer is party to an action in his official
capacity. If he (1) dies; (2) resigns; or (3) cease to hold office, there will be a
succession.
Q: What will happen to the case?

A: The following:
1.) If the successor intends to continue with the policy.
EXAMPLE: Mayor Pascua threatened to demolished the building

of Mr. Nuere as a hazard. If Mayor Pascua dies, Vice-Mayor Angeles
becomes the mayor. If Vice-Mayor Angeles who is now the mayor
says that he will continue with the demolition, he will be substituted
and he is given 30 days to comment.
2.) If the successor does not adopt the policy, the case will be dismissed.
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)

EXAMPLE: Francis files a case against Kenneth. While the case is pending,
Kenneth becomes insane. (tsk! tsk!) The case will continue but Kenneth has to
be assisted by his guardian ad litem Thad.
This is related to Rule 3, Section 3 on representative party but in Section 3,

Kenneth was already insane before the case is filed. [inborn na yan eh!]
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)
EXAMPLE: Rudolpho files a case against Leweh to recover a piece of land.

While the case is pending, Leweh sold the land to Erec. Erec now assumes the
risk and takes the property subject to the outcome of the case.
Q: Can the case continue against Leweh?
A: YES.
1.) If Leweh loses and cannot pay, Erec is subsidiary liable; case will
continue but you are bound
2.) Leweh can be removed and Erec will be substituted; or
3.) Leweh can stay and Erec will be added.
In all 3 cases, Erec will be bound by the judgment.
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)

In criminal cases, the court assigns a counsel de officio. Under the

Constitution on Bill of Rights, no person shall be denied access to courts by
reason of poverty.
(in forma pauperis?)
In civil cases, a plaintiff need not pay docket fee if he is an indigent if he files
an application (ex-party application) to allow him to litigate as an indigent litigant.
But if the indigent wins, he has to pay the fees – file now, pay later) – the amount
shall be a lien on any favorable judgment.
The third paragraph is new. The other party may contest the claim of the
indigent if he is really an indigent or not.
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)
EXAMPLE: Inday files a case against Kenneth Bruce Lim for declaration of
nullity on the ground of psychological incapacity. Kenneth alleges that Article 38
of the Family Code is unconstitutional. So the court will rule on the validity of the
law in which case, the Solicitor General has to be involved in the case to defend
the validity of the law.
REASON: The Solicitor General is the legal counsel of the Republic of the
Philippines whose duty is to defend all the official acts of the Government.

Civil Procedure Rules on Real Parties in Interest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil Procedure Rules on Real Parties in Interest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 03

CLASSES OF PARTIES: R.R.P.I.N.

I. Real Parties in Interest

Sec. 1. Who may be parties; plaintiff and defendant. - Only

Q: Who may be parties to a civil case?

“ENTITIES AUTHORIZED BY LAW”

Q: Give an example of an entity authorized by law which can be sued

Section 15. Entity without juridical personality as defendant.-

Another example of an entity authorized by law which may not be a natural or

Q: Who are the plaintiffs, defendants?

I. REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST

Sec 2. Parties in interest. - A real party in interest is the party

Q: Who is a real party in interest?

every action must be prosecuted or defended

So a complaint is dismissible if it is not made in the name of the real party in

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 75

BALIWAG TRANSIT vs. COURT OF APPEALS

SALONGA vs. WARNER BARNES

FACTS: Aiza Guadolope decided to go abroad but she has properties

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 76

ISSUE: Is the action properly filed?

Q: Suppose Ken, the lawyer will amend the complaint: “Ken, as

II. REPRESENTATIVE PARTY

Sec. 3. Representatives as parties. - Where the action is allowed

Section 3 is a relaxation of Section 2 because under Section 2, you cannot

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 77

Example: GUARDIAN. Suppose Judee, a minor was injured. A case for

Example: TRUSTEE; EXECUTOR; ADMINISTRATOR. Another example is a

CHING vs. COURT OF APPEALS

ISSUE: Whether or not there was a valid judgment against the

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 78

Note Rule 59 sec 43 – receiver can be sued as a representative party

The last sentence of Section 3:

An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an

Sec 4. Spouses as parties. - Husband and wife shall sue or be

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 79

Art. 111. A spouse of age may mortgage, alienate, encumber

Sec 5. Minor or incompetent persons. - A minor or a person

Section 5 is related to Section 3. The minor or incompetent person must be

III. PERMISSIVE PARTY

Sec 6. Permissive joinder of parties. - All persons in whom or

Section 6 is known as permissive joinder of parties. This is related to Section

PROBLEM: Suppose some passengers riding a particular common carrier are

It would be different if the passengers were riding on different buses belonging

PROBLEM: Suppose a story appeared in the Inquirer where 5 people were

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 81

Q: Why does the law encourage joinder of parties?

1.) to promote convenience in trial;

Principle: WHEN THERE IS JOINDER OF PARTIES, THERE IS ALSO A

Q: Now, can I join them in one complaint?

Q: Is there joinder of causes of action?

Q: Is there joinder of parties?

INDISPENSABLE PARTY and NECESSARY PARTIES

Sec. 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. Parties in

Sec. 8. Necessary party. A necessary party is one who is not

Q: Distinguish indispensable from necessary party.

Q: Give examples of indispensable party.

Q: Give examples of necessary party.

REVIEW: What is the difference between a surety and a guarantor? The

PROBLEM: In credit transactions, there is a creditor, debtor and surety.

PROBLEM: Manuel and Cathy are JOINT debtors of P100,000 (50-50

PROBLEM: Manuel and Cathy are SOLIDARY debtors of P100,000 (50-50

Sec. 9. Non-joinder of necessary parties to be pleaded. Whenever