I.

Joinder of causes of action (page 187, #2)

1) Joinder of causes of action is the assertion of as many causes of action as a party may have
against another in one pleading alone (Sec. 5, Rule 2, ROC). It is the process of uniting two or
more demands or rights of action in one action.

Illustration: D is the debtor of C for P350k due on January 5, 2017. D likewise owes C P350k due
on February 13, 2017. Both debts are evidenced by distinct promissory notes and incurred for
different reasons. D has not paid the debts despite demand.
Each debt is a separate cause of action because each is the subject of a different transaction.
However, under the rule on joinder of causes of action, C may file a single suit against D for the
collection of both debts, despite the claims being actually separate causes of action and having
arisen out of different transactions

2) When the causes of action accrue in favor of the same plaintiff and against the same
defendants, 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 and that
there exists a question of law or fact common to all the plaintiffs or defendants. This question is
only relevant when there are multiple plaintiffs or multiple defendants.

In the hypothetical just discussed in par.1 (illustration), is C obliged to join the causes of action
against D?

Answer: No. C is not obliged to do so. 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.

II. Example of when an action in rem or quasi in rem is treated as in personam (page 209)
An action in rem or quasi in rem is treated as an action in personam if the defendant presents
himself in the action. This has been clarified by jurisprudence, thus:

“If the defendant, appears, the cause becomes mainly a suit in personam, with the added
incident, that the property attached remains liable, under the control of the court, to answer to
any demand which may be established against the defendant by the final judgement of the court.
But, if there is no appearance of the defendant, and no service of process on him, the case
becomes, in its essential nature, a proceeding in rem, the only effect of the which is to subject
the property attached to the payment of the defendant which the court may find to be due to
the plaintiff.” (Banco-Espanol Filipino v. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921)

III. When summons by publication may be made in an action in personam (page 210)
Summons by publication, as a general rule, will not enable the court to acquire jurisdiction of the
person of the defendant. This jurisprudential rule, is however subject to the exception laid down
under the amended rules which took effect on July 1, 1997.
 a. In Sec. 14 of Rule 14, if the identity of the defendant is unknown or whose whereabouts
are unknown, service may, with leave of court, be effected upon him by publication in a
newspaper of general circulation. Note the words “in any action” in Sec. 14 of Rule 14
b. In Sec. 16 of Rule 14, if the resident defendant is temporarily out of the country, he may
be served by publication with leave of court

While the phrase “summons by publication” does not appear in Sec. 16, the way it
expressly appears in Sec. 14, the rule makes reference to Sec. 15 of Rule 14 which allows
summons by publication. Note also the words “any action” in Sec. 16 of Rule 14 making the rule
applicable even to actions in personam

IV. Examples of actions which survive the death of the party (page 237)
a. Actions to recover real and personal property from the estate
b. Actions to enforce a lien thereon
c. Actions to recover damages for an injury to persons or property
d. Actions to recover personal property (i.e., replevin)
e. Actions to recover real property (i.e., forcible entry, unlawful detainer, accion publiciana,
accion reinvindicatoria)
f. Actions to enforce a lien on the property (foreclosure of mortgages)
g. Action for quieting of title with damages (real action)
h. Ejectment case (real action)
i. Action to recover damages arising from delicts (Sec. 4 of Rule 111 – if the accused dies
before the arraignment, while the criminal case shall be dismissed, such dismissal is
without prejudice to any civil action the offended party may file against the estate of the
deceased. If the accused dies after the arraignment and during the pendency of the
criminal action, the civil liability arising from the crime is extinguished but any
independent civil action may be continued against the estate or legal representative of
the accused upon proper substitution, or against said estate, as the case may be)
j. Actions for the tortious conduct of the defendant

If a party dies during the pendency of any of an action that survives, the action may be continued
by or against the heirs, executor, or administrator of the deceased after proper substitution

If the action does not survive like legal separation, the proper action of the court is to simply
dismiss the case. It follows then that substitution will not be required

V. Class suit; requisites (page 243)

1. A class suit is an action where on or more may sue for the benefit of all if the requisites
for said action are complied with.
2. An action does not become a class suit merely because it is designated as such in the
pleadings. Whether the suit is or is not a class suit depends upon the attendant facts
3. Requisites:
a. The subject matter of the controversy must be of common or general interest to
many persons
 b. The persons are so numerous that it is impracticable to join all as parties
c. The parties actually before the court are sufficiently numerous and representative
as to fully protect the interest of all concerned
d. The representative sue or demand for the benefit of all (Sec. 12, Rule 3, ROC)

VI. Pleadings not allowed in a petition for a writ of amparo or habeas data (page 252)
a. Counterclaim
b. Cross-claim
c. Third-party complaint
d. Reply
e. Intervention (Sec. 11, The Rule on the Writ of Amparo; Sec. 13, The Rule on Habeas Data).
The same provision prohibit the filing of a petition for certiorari, mandamus or prohibition
against any interlocutory order

VII. Defenses not cut off by the admission of genuineness and due execution (page 283)
The following defenses, among others, may be interposed despite the implied admission of the
genuineness and due execution of the document:
a. Payment or non-payment
b. Want of consideration
c. Illegality of consideration
d. Usury
e. Fraud

These defenses are not inconsistent with the admission of the genuineness and due execution of
the instrument and are not, therefore, barred

It is submitted that prescription, release, waiver, statute of frauds, estoppel and former recover
or discharge in bankruptcy are not, likewise, barred, these defenses having no direct relationship
to the concept of ‘genuineness and due execution’

VIII. When trial unnecessary (page 458)

A civil case may be adjudicated upon without the need for a trial in any of the following cases:
a. Where the pleadings of the parties tender no issue at all, a judgement on the pleadings
may be directed by the court (Rule 34, ROC)
b. Where from the pleadings, affidavits, depositions and other papers, there is actually no
genuine issue, the court may render a summary judgement (Rule 35, ROC)
c. Where the parties have entered into a compromise or an amicable settlement either
during the pre-trial or while the trial is in progress (Rule 18, ROC; Art. 2028, NCC)
d. Where the complaint has been dismissed with prejudice or when the dismissal has the
effect of an adjudication on the merits (Sec. 5, Rule 16; Sec. 3, Rule 17; Sec. 5, last par.,
Rule 7, ROC)
e. Where the case falls under the operation of the Rules on Summary Procedure
f. Where the parties agree, in writing, upon the facts involved in the litigation, and submit
the case for judgement on the facts agreed upon, without the introduction of evidence.
If, however, there is no agreement as to all the facts in the case. Trial may be held only as
to the disputed facts (Sec. 6, Rule 30, ROC)