Table of Contents

Determine the existence of Cause of Action

A. Define Civil Action, Criminal Action, and Special Proceedings 1
B. Rule 1 Sec 1 1
C. Define Cause of Action (COA) 1
D. Splitting a single cause of action 3
1. Applicable case doctrines 3
2. Discuss Res Judicata and Litis Pendentia 10
E. Rules on joinder of parties 17
1. Applicable case doctrines 19
F. Failure to state a COA and Lack of COA 22
G. Misjoinder of COA 30
1. State the rule 33
2. All case doctrines 34

Determine if the cause is a personal or real action for purposes of

A. Venue and Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter 37
B. Explain Real and Personal action 43
C. Applicable case doctrines 46
D. Rule 4 and its Sections 53

Determine if the case is one in personam or in rem for purposes of

A. Summons 54
B. Explain in Rem, In Personam, Quasi-In Rem 55
C. Effect if in case of invalid summons 57
D. Rule 14 and its sections 60
E. Rule 47 (Annulment of Judgement) 63

Determine if the Court that has Jurisdiction

A. Define Jurisdiction
1. Over the Subject Matter 73
2. Over defendant 77
3. Over the plaintiff 80
4. Over the Res 82
B. Court’s jurisdiction 85
C. All applicable case doctrines on jurisdiction 95
Determine the parties
A. Rules on Parties under Rule 3 112
B. All case doctrines 112

Pleading to File
A. Rule 8 and its sections 131
B. Actionable Document 136
1. How to contest actionable document 137
2. Effect of Valid action to contest Actionable document 138
(Rule 34 Judgement on Pleadings)
C. Compulsory Counterclaim 142
D. Verification & Non Forum Shopping 142
E. Case doctrines on Judgement on Pleadings 147
F. Rules 6 and 7 148
G. Filing of responsive pleadings- Rules 10, 11 and 13 158
H. Effect of Failure to Plead
1. Rule 9 and its sections 173
2. Case Doctrines 174
3. Remedies in case of default 186
I. Dismissal of an action
1. Rule 17 and its sections 186
2. Demurrer to evidence under Rule 33 189
3. Waiver of grounds for dismissal 190
4. Remedy in case of denial of a motion to dismiss 191
STEP 1. DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OF CAUSE OF ACTION
A. DEFINITIONS
Civil Action, is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or
the prevention or redress of a wrong.
Criminal Action, is one by which the State prosecutes a person for an act or omission punishable
by law.
Special Proceeding, is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a
particular fact. 1

B.
RULE 1, SECTION 1 OF RULES OF COURT
RULE 1
SECTION 1. Title of the Rules.- These rules shall be known and cited as the Rules of Court. 2

C. CAUSE OF ACTION
RULE 2
CAUSE OF ACTION
SECTION 1. Ordinary civil actions, basis of.- Every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause
of action.3
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. 4
SECTION 2. Cause of Action, defined.- A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party
violates a right of another.

ELEMENTS OF CAUSE OF ACTION:

1. Existence of legal right in favour of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it
arises or is created;
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 obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain action for
recovery of damages or other appropriate relief.
4. Damages suffered by the plaintiff. 5

SECTION 3. One suit for a single cause of action. - A party may not institute more than one suit for
a single cause of action.

SECTION 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.

SECTION 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:

(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.

SECTION 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. 6

D. SPLITTING A SINGLE CAUSE OF ACTION

Sections 3 and 4, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court proscribe the splitting of a single cause of action:

Section 3. A party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action.

1
Rules of Court, Rule 1 Sec 3.
2
Rules of Court, Rule 1 Sec 1.
3
Rules of Court, Rule 2 Sec 1.
4
Civil Procedure, Justice Gabriel T. Ingles.
5
Civil Procedure, Justice Gabriel T. Ingles.

6Rules of Court, Rule 2 Sec 2-6.

2
 Section 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. 7

A cause of action may give rise to several reliefs, but only one action can be filed.

A cause of action may give rise to several reliefs, but only one action can be filed 8.A single cause of action
or entire claim or demand cannot be split up or divided into two or more different actions. The rule on prohibiting the
splitting of a single cause of action is clear. Section 4, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court expressly states:

Party shall not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action.

Section 3, Rule 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party may not institute more than one
suit for a single cause of action and, if two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the
filing of one on a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as ground for the dismissal of the other or others. 9

A party will not be permitted to split up a single cause of action and make it a basis for several suits.10

A party seeking to enforce a claim must present to the court by the pleadings or proofs or both, all the
grounds upon which he expects a judgment in his favor. He is not at liberty to split up his demands and prosecute it
by piecemeal, or present only a portion of the grounds upon which special relief is sought, and leave the rest to be
presented in a second suit if the first fails.11

The rule against splitting causes of action is not altogether one of original legal right but is one of
interposition based upon principles of public policy and of equity to prevent the inconvenience and hardship incident
to repeated and unnecessary litigation.12

Effect of splitting a single cause of action.

Section 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. 13

The three tests to ascertain whether two suits relate to single or common cause of action:

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 be sued to substantiate the complaint in the other; and
3. Whether the cause of action in the second case existed at the time of the filing of the first complaint. 14

Determination of whether cause of action is single and entire or separate is by reference to the facts and
circumstances of particular case.

It is not always easy to determine whether in a particular case under consideration, the cause of action is
single and entire or separate. The question must often be determined, not by the general rules but by reference to the
facts and circumstances of the particular case. Where deeds arising out of contract are distinct and separate, they
give rise to separate cause of action for which separate action may be maintained; but it is also true that the same
contract may give rise to different causes of action either by reason of successive breaches thereof or by reason of
different stipulations or provisions of the contract.15

Determination whether a party has only a single and entire cause of action is whether the entire amount arises from
distinct and different acts/contracts.

The true rule which determines whether a party has only a single and entire cause of action for all that is due
him, and which must be sued for in one action, or has a severable demand for which he may maintain separate suits,
is whether the entire amount arises from one and the same act or contract or the several parts arise from distinct and
different acts or contracts. 16

Where there are entirely distinct and separate contracts, they give rise to separate causes of action for
which separate actions may be instituted and presented. When money is payable by installments, a distinct cause of

7Rules of Court, Rule 2 Sec 3 & 4.

8 Rules of Court, Rule 2, Section 3, The City of Bacolod v. San Miguel Brewery, Inc., 140 Phil. 363 (1969))
9 Rules of Court, Rule 2 Sec 4.
10 Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. v. Esteban Icarañgal and Oriental Commercial Co., Inc.
11Stark v. Starr, 94 U.S. 477, 24 L.Ed. 276 (1876).
12 U.S. v. Pan-American Petroleum Co., 55 F.2d 753 (1932).
13
G.R. No. 173783 June 17, 2015 RIVIERA GOLF CLUB, INC., vs. CCA HOLDINGS, B.V.
14
Umale vs Canoga Park Development Corporation, 654 SCRA 155.
15
G.R. NO. 167724 : June 27, 2006 - BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., v. MARGARITA VDA. DE COSCOLLUELA.
16
Meyerotto v. Rommel's Estate, 49 S.W.2d 1081 (1932).

3
action assails upon the following due by each installment and they may be recovered in successive action. On the
other hand, where several claims payable at different times arise out of the same transactions, separate actions may
be brought as each liability accounts. But where no action is brought until more than one is due, all that are due must
be included in one action; and that if an action is brought to recover upon one or more that are due but not upon all
that are due, a recovery in such action will be a bar to a several or other actions brought to recover one or more
claims of the other claims that were due at the time the first action was brought.17

The weight of authority is that in the absence of special controlling circumstances, an open or continuous
running account between the same parties constitutes a single and indivisible demand, the aggregate of all the items
of the account constituting the amount due. But the rule is otherwise where it affirmatively appears that the parties
regarded the different items of the account as separate transactions and not parts of an ordinary running account.
And there may also be, even between the same parties, distinct and separate actions upon which separate actions
may be maintained. 18

Creditor has only single cause of action against the debtor in a loan secured by mortgage.

The nonpayment of a note secured by a mortgage, the creditor has a single cause of action against the
debtor. The single cause of action consists in the recovery of the credit with execution of the suit. In a mortgage credit
transaction, the credit gives rise to a personal action for collection of the money. The mortgage is the guarantee
which gives rise to a mortgage foreclosure suit to collect from the very property that secured the debt. 19

The action of the creditor is anchored on one and the same cause: the nonpayment by the debtor of the debt
to the creditor-mortgagee. Though the debt may be covered by a promissory note or several promissory notes and is
covered by a real estate mortgage, the latter is subsidiary to the former and both refer to one and the same
obligation.20

Remedies of mortgage creditor are alternative.

A mortgage creditor may institute two alternative remedies against the mortgage debtor, either a personal
action for the collection of debt, or a real action to foreclose the mortgage, but not both. Each remedy is complete by
itself.21

In loan contracts secured by a real estate mortgage, the rule is that the creditor-mortgagee has a single
cause of action against the debtor-mortgagor, i.e., to recover the debt, through the filing of a personal action for
collection of sum of money or the institution of a real action to foreclose on the mortgage security. The two remedies
are alternative, 22not cumulative or successive,23 and each remedy is complete by itself. Thus, if the creditor-
mortgagee opts to foreclose the real estate mortgage, he waives the action for the collection of the unpaid debt,
except only for the recovery of whatever deficiency may remain in the outstanding obligation of the debtor-mortgagor
after deducting the bid price in the public auction sale of the mortgaged properties. Accordingly, a deficiency
judgment shall only issue after it is established that the mortgaged property was sold at public auction for an amount
less than the outstanding obligation.24

Ensuing collection case was anchored on the promissory note; the same does not constitute a separate and distinct
contract of loan which would have given rise to a separate cause of action upon breach.

While the ensuing collection case was anchored on the promissory note executed by respondent who was
not the original debtor, the same does not constitute a separate and distinct contract of loan which would have given
rise to a separate cause of action upon breach. Notably, records are bereft of any indication that respondent's
agreement to pay Rafael's loan obligation and the execution of the subject PN extinguished by novation the contract
of loan between Rafael and petitioner, in the absence of express agreement or any act of equal import. Well-settled is
the rule that novation is never presumed, but must be clearly and unequivocally shown. Thus, in order for a new
agreement to supersede the old one, the parties to a contract must expressly agree that they are abrogating their old
contract in favor of a new one, which was not shown here.25

As petitioner had already instituted judicial foreclosure proceedings over the mortgaged property, she is now
barred from availing herself of an ordinary action for collection, regardless of whether or not the decision in the
foreclosure case had attained finality. In fine, the dismissal of the collection case is in order. Considering, however,
that respondent's claim for return of excess payment partakes of the nature of a compulsory counterclaim and, thus,
survives the dismissal of petitioner's collection suit, the same should be resolved based on its own merits and
evidentiary support. 26

Compromise agreement allowing splitting causes of action is null and void.

17
Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Brown, 65 S.W.2d 1064 (1933)
18
Id at 16.
19
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Altimar, Inc., 716 F. 7011.
20
G.R. NO. 167724 : June 27, 2006 BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., v. MARGARITA VDA. DE COSCOLLUELA.
21
Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. V. Esteban Icara Ãgal and Oriental Commercial Co., Inc., supra note 25, at 294-295.
22
Flore v. Lindo, Jr., 664 Phil. 210
23
Allandale Sports line, Inc. v. The Good Dev 't. Corp., 595 Phil. 265
24
Spouses Tanchan v. Allied Banking Corporation, 592 Phil. 252, 273-274 (2008).
25
G.R. No. 201892 JULY 22, 2015 NORLINDA S. MARILAG vs. MARCELINO B. MARTINEZ.
26
Agner v. BP IF amity Savings Bank.

4
 A compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put
an end to one already commenced. Like any other contract, a compromise agreement must be consistent with the
requisites and principles of contracts. While it is true that the agreement is binding between the parties and becomes
the law between them, it is also a rule that to be valid, a compromise agreement must not be contrary to law, morals,
good customs, and public policy. 27

Paragraph 4 of compromise agreement allows the splitting of causes of action and res judicata, this
provision of the Compromise Agreement should be invalidated for being repugnant to our public policy. 28

No splitting cause of action in cases of unlawful detainer and collection of sum of money involving the same real
property.

Indeed, in the instant case, Agustin's filing of a complaint for collection of sum of money other than those
sustained as a result of their dispossession or those caused by the loss of their use and occupation of their properties
could not thus be considered as splitting of a cause of action. The cause of action is different. There is no splitting of
action because the complaint for collection of money prays for the payment of the differential amount representing the
unpaid balance in rental fees after the deduction of the actual payment made by Lajave. Since the damages prayed
for in the collection case before the MeTC pertain to deficiency in the rental payments for the contested period before
the dispossession, the claims have no direct relation to the loss of possession of the premises. Insofar as the
collection case is concerned, Agustin's claim had to do with Lajave's deficiency in the payment of rentals only, without
regard to the unlawfulness of the occupancy. This cannot be litigated in the ejectment suits before the MeTC by
reason of misjoinder of causes of action.

It must be emphasized anew that in forcible entry or unlawful detainer cases, the only damage that can be
recovered is the fair rental value or the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the leased property.
The reason for this is that in such cases, the only issue raised in ejectment cases is that of rightful possession;
hence, the damages which could be recovered are those which the plaintiff could have sustained as a mere
possessor, or those caused by the loss of the use and occupation of the property, and not the damages which he
may have suffered but which have no direct relation to his loss of material possession. 29

Recovery of personal property with damages for detention states a single cause of action
A complaint for the recovery of personal property with damages for detention states a single cause of action,
which cannot be divided into an action for possession and one for damages; and if suit is brought for possession only
a subsequent action cannot be maintained to recover the damages resulting from the unlawful detention. 30

Partition of real property as well as improvements constitutes a single cause of action

A claim for partition of real property as well as improvements constitutes a single cause of action, and a complaint for
partition alone bars a subsequent complaint for the improvements.31

Rules regarding cause(s) of action of contract with several obligations

As a general rule a contract to do several things at several times is divisible in its nature, so as to authorize
successive actions; and a judgment recovered for a single breach of a continuing contract or covenant is no bar to a
suit for a subsequent breach thereof. But where the covenant or contract is entire, and the breach total, there can be
only one action, and plaintiff must therein recover all his damages." 32

Rules regarding causes of action in an action for payment of rent in separate installments:
When a lease provides for the payment of the rent in separate installments, each installment constitutes an
independent cause of action, but when, at the time of the complaint is filed, there are several installments due, all of
them constitute a single cause of action and should be included in a single complaint, and if some of them are not
included, they are barred33.

Separate deed of sale gave rise to different causes of action.

The two (2) complaints for reconveyance involve parcels of land in two different places-- Quezon City and Malolos,
Bulacan. Records show that the subject lots were conveyed by Banco Filipino to Tala Realty in separate deeds of
sale. Thus, the breach of these contracts gave rise to different causes of action. In Ayala Land, Inc. vs. Valisno, we
held that a party who filed several actions for quieting of separate certificates of title cannot be held guilty of forum
shopping since the actions involved different subject matters and constituted different causes of action.34

Stare decisis is a bar to any attempt to relitigate the same issue

27
Wenphil Corporation v. Abing, G.R. No. 207983, April 7, 2014.
28
G.R. No. 173783 June 17, 2015 - RIVIERA GOLF CLUB, INC., vs. CCA HOLDINGS, B.V.
29Araos v. Court of Appeals, 302 Phil. 813, 819 (1994); C & S Fishfarm Corporation v. Court of Appeals, et al., 442
Phil. 279, 292 (2002); Dumo v. Espinas, 515 Phil. 685, 692 (2006).
30Santos vs. Moir (36 Phil., 350, 359)
31Lavarro vs. Labitoria
32Blossom & Co. vs. Manila Gas Corporation (55 Phil., 226, 240)
33Rubio de Larena vs. Villanueva (53 Phil., 923, 927)
34 Nancy L. Ty Vs.Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank, G.R. No. 144705 November 15, 2005

5
 Time and again, the Court has held that it is a very desirable and necessary judicial practice that when a
court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply
it to all future cases in which the facts are substantially the same. Stare decisis et non quieta movere. Stand by the
decisions and disturb not what is settled. Stare decisis simply means that for the sake of certainty, a conclusion
reached in one case should be applied to those that follow if the facts are substantially the same, even though the
parties may be different. It proceeds from the first principle of justice that, absent any powerful countervailing
considerations, like cases ought to be decided alike.35 Thus, where the same questions relating to the same event
have been put forward by parties similarly situated as in a previous case litigated and decided by a competent court,
the rule of stare decisis is a bar to any attempt to relitigate the same issue.36

In G.R. No. 144700, the issue of the propriety of the CA’s decision in G.R. No. 53836 was raised by Tala
Realty. The Court however found no reason to deviate from the CA’s decision. It is axiomatic that when a minute
resolution denies or dismisses a petition for lack of merit, the challenged decision or order, together with its findings
of fact and legal conclusions, is deemed sustained.37

Splitting causes of action may result to forum shopping.

Forum shopping can be committed in three ways: (1) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of
action and with the same prayer, the previous case not having been resolved yet (where the ground for dismissal is
litis pendentia); (2) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the previous case
having been finally resolved (where the ground for dismissal is res judicata); and (3) filing multiple cases based on
the same cause of action, but with different prayers (splitting of causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is
also either litis pendentia or res judicata).38

Forum shopping occurs although the actions seem to be different, when it can be seen that there is a
splitting of a cause of action. 39 A cause of action is understood to be the delict or wrongful act or omission committed
by the defendant in violation of the primary rights of the plaintiff. It is true that a single act or omission can violate
various rights at the same time, as when the act constitutes juridically a violation of several separate and distinct legal
obligations. However, where there is only one delict or wrong, there is but a single cause of action regardless of the
number of rights that may have been violated belonging to one person.40

The rule against splitting a cause of action is intended to:

Petitioners’ contention that the outcome of Civil Case No. CV-01-0207 will not determine that of Civil Case
No. CV-05-0402 does not justify the filing of separate cases. Even if it were assumed that the two cases contain two
separate remedies that are both available to petitioners, these two remedies that arose from one wrongful act cannot
be pursued in two different cases. The rule against splitting a cause of action is intended to prevent repeated litigation
between the same parties in regard to the same subject of controversy, to protect the defendant from unnecessary
vexation; and to avoid the costs and expenses incident to numerous suits. It comes from the old maxim nemo debet
bis vexari, pro una et eadem causa (no man shall be twice vexed for one and the same cause). 41

2. RES JUDICATA AND LITIS PENDITIA

Definition of res judicata.

Res judicata is defined as a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; or a thing or matter
settled by judgment. Under this rule, a final judgment or decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is
conclusive as to the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits, and on all points and matters determined in
the former suit.42

Requisites of res judicata:

Res judicata requires the concurrence of the following requisites:
(1) the former judgment must be final;
(2) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties;
(3) it must be a judgment on the merits; and
(4) there must be, between the first and second actions (a) identity of parties, (b) identity of subject matter,
and (c) identity of causes of action. 43

35 Villena vs. Chavez, G.R. No. 148126, November 10, 2003, 415 SCRA 33, 42-43; Ayala Corporation vs. Rosa-
Diana Realty Corporation, December 1, 2000, 346 SCRA 663, 671; Tung Chin Hui vs. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 137571,
September 21, 2000, 340 SCRA 765, 772-773.
36 Negros Navigation Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110398, November 7, 1997, 281 SCRA 534, 542-543,

citing J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Mariano, No. L-33140, October 23, 1978, 85 SCRA 644.
37 Zebra Security Agency and Allied Services vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 115951, March 26, 1997, 270 SCRA 476, 484; Tan

vs. Nitafan, G.R. No. 76965, March 11, 1994, 231 SCRA 129, 136.
38Collantes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 169604, 6 March 2007, 517 SCRA 561, 569; Ao-As v. Court of Appeals,

G.R. No. 128464, 20 June 2006, 491 SCRA 339, 354.

39Cuenca v. Atas, G.R. No. 146214, 5 October 2007, 535 SCRA 48
40Joseph v. Bautista, G.R. No. 41423, 23 February 1989, 170 SCRA 540, 544.
41Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. v. Icarangal, 68 Phil 287, 293 (1939).
42Chu v. Cunanan, G.R. No. 156185, September 12, 2011, 657 SCRA 379, 390.
43Allied Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108089, January 10, 1994, 229 SCRA 253.

6
Test of identity of causes of action:

It is a settled rule that the application of the doctrine of res judicata to identical causes of action does not
depend on the similarity or differences in the forms of the two actions. A party cannot, by varying the form of the
action or by adopting a different method of presenting his case, escape the operation of the doctrine of res
judicata. The test of identity of causes of action rests on whether the same evidence would support and establish the
former and the present causes of action. 44

In determining whether causes of action are identical so as to warrant application of the rule of res judicata,
the test most commonly stated is to ascertain whether the same evidence which is necessary to sustain the second
action would have been sufficient to authorize a recovery in the first, even if the forms or nature of the two actions be
different. If the same facts or evidence would sustain both, the two actions are considered the same within the rule
that the judgment in the former is a bar to the subsequent action; otherwise it is not. It has been said that this method
is the best and most accurate test as to whether a former judgment is a bar in subsequent proceedings between the
same parties, and it has even been designated as infallible.45

Two distinct aspects of res judicata:

The doctrine is set forth in Section 47 of Rule 39 of Rules of Court. This provision comprehends 2 distinct
aspects:
(1.) bar by former judgment
( 2.) conclusiveness of judgment.

The first aspect is the effect of a judgment as a bar to the prosecution of a second action upon the same
claim, demand or cause of action. In traditional terminology, this aspect is known as merger or bar; in modern
terminology, it is called claim preclusion. The second aspect precludes the relitigation of a particular fact of issue in
another action between the same parties on a different claim or cause of action. This traditionally known as collateral
estoppel; in modern terminology, it is called issue preclusion. 46

There is “bar by former judgment” when, between the first case where the judgment was rendered, and the
second case where such judgment is invoked, there is identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action. When
the three identities are present, the judgment on the merits rendered in the first constitutes an absolute bar to the
subsequent action. But where between the first case wherein judgment is rendered and the second case wherein
such judgment is invoked, there is identity of parties, but there is no identity of cause of action, the judgment is
conclusive in the second case, only as to those matters actually and directly controverted and determined, and not as
to matters merely involved therein. This is what is termed conclusiveness of judgment. 47

Elements of res judicata (barred by prior judgement)

A case is barred by prior judgment or res judicata when the following elements concur:

(a) the judgment sought to bar the new action must be final;
(b) the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
parties;
(c) the disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits; and
(d) there must be as between the first and second action, identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of
action.48

The application of the doctrine of res judicata does not require absolute identity of parties but merely
substantial identity of parties. There is substantial identity of parties when there is community of interest or privity of
interest between a party in the first and party in the second case even if the first case did not implead the latter. 49

Elemental is the rule that in order that a judgment may operate as a bar to a subsequent suit on the same cause of
action it must have been based on the merits of the case. And a judgment is on the merits when it determines the
rights and liabilities of the parties based on the disclosed facts, irrespective of formal, technical, or dilatory objections.
It is not necessary, however, that there should have been a trial. If the judgment is general, and not based on any
technical defect or objection, and the parties had a full legal opportunity to be heard on their respective claims and
contentions, it is on the merits although there was no actual hearing or arguments on the facts of the case.50 Such is
one of the situations contemplated in Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, where a complaint is dismissed for
failure of the plaintiff to comply with a lawful order of the court which dismissal, as correctly argued by private
respondent, has the effect of an adjudication upon the merits.

Application of res judicata to quasi-judicial proceedings

44Spouses Torres v. Medina, G.R. No. 166730, March 10, 2010, 615 SCRA 100, 104.
45
Vda. de Cruzo, et al. vs. Cariaga, Jr., et al., 174 SCRA 330 (1989).
46Degayo vs Magbanua-Dinglasan, GR NO. 173148, April 6, 2015.
47Nabus vs. Court of Appeals, 193 SCRA 732, G.R. No. 91670 February 7, 1991
48Heirs of Miguel v. Heirs of Miguel, G.R. No. 158916, March 19, 2014, 719 SCRA 413, 427.
49Heirs of Dacanay vs Siapno, Jr.
5050 C.J.S. 51-53.

7
 It has been held that the rule on res judicata, which forbids the reopening of a matter once judicially
determined by competent authority, applies as well to the judicial and quasi-judicial acts of public, executive or
administrative officers and boards acting within their jurisdiction as to judgments of courts having general judicial
powers. The Director of Lands is a quasi-judicial officer. As such officer, his decisions and orders rendered pursuant
to his quasi-judicial authority, have, upon their finality, the force and binding effect of a final judgment within their
purview of the doctrine of res judicata.51

Res judicata is not applicable in criminal proceedings

Res judicata is a doctrine of civil law and, thus, has no bearing on criminal proceedings. Hence, the
argument that the dismissal of a case during preliminary investigation bars a further reinvestigation because of the
doctrine of res judicata is untenable. Even if the argument were to be expanded to contemplate “res judicata in prison
grey” or the criminal law concept of double jeopardy, the reinvestigation cannot be barred by reason of double
jeopardy. The dismissal of a case during preliminary investigation does not constitute double jeopardy, preliminary
investigation not being part of trial. 52

Res judicata as a ground for a motion to dismiss.

Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment or decree on the merits rendered by the court of
competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits and on all points and
matters determined in the previous suit. The principle upon which the doctrine rests is that the parties ought not to be
permitted to litigate the same issue more than once. When a right or fact that has been judicially tried and determined
by a court of competent jurisdiction, so long as it remains unreserved, it should be conclusive upon the parties and
those in privity with them. 53

Same relief is sought in the subsequent action will not render the judgment in the prior action operative as res
judicata automatically.

Causes of action which are distinct and independent, although arising out of the same contract, transaction, or state
of facts, may be sued on separately, recovery on one being no bar to subsequent actions on others. 54 Also, the mere
fact that the same relief is sought in the subsequent action will not render the judgment in the prior action operative
as res judicata,55 such as where the two actions are brought on different statutes,56 as in the case at bar.

Under the circumstances, therefore, the doctrine of res judicata will not apply. To repeat, for emphasis, the cause of
action asserted by petitioner in the former suit was anchored upon his right to repurchase the subject lot. The cause
of action sought to be enforced in the present action is predicated upon the failure of private respondent to pay the
last three installments of the purchase price. It is a cause of action which is wholly independent of, and entirely
separate and discrete from, the alleged cause of action asserted by petitioner in the former suit. Since petitioner
seeks relief in the instant case upon a cause of action different from the one asserted by him in the former suit, the
judgment in the former suit is conclusive only as to such points or questions as were actually in issue or adjudicated
therein. And this brings us to the rule on conclusiveness of judgment.57

Dismissal of case on the ground of res judicata constitutes an absolute bar to the subsequent action not only as to
every matter which was offered and received but also as to any other admissible matter which might have been
offered for that purpose.

Whether it be for annulment or claim of ownership respondents’ action instituted before the trial court falls within the
ambit of res judicata and should be dismissed.—In the complaint filed by private respondents, it appears that
respondents’ cause of action is predicated upon the annulment of the deeds of sale and/or redemption or ownership
of the disputed parcels of land. Whether it be for annulment or claim of ownership, the Court finds that respondents’
action instituted before the trial court falls within the ambit of res judicata and should be dismissed. Respondents’
claim of nullity of the deeds of sale executed by Elcocadio, Francisca and Librada in favor of petitioner spouses
before the RTC, Branch 37 of Lingayen was already raised and passed upon by the land registration court (RTC,
Branch 38). In other words, it was the same defense advanced by private respondents in their effort to defeat
petitioner spouses’ claim of ownership in the land registration case which, unfortunately, was belied by the records
therein. The judgment on the merits in the land registration case as affirmed by this Court in G.R. No. 70842, entitled
Roman Soriano v. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., constitutes an absolute bar to the subsequent action not only
as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand, but also as to any other
admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose and to all matters that could have been adjudged in
that case. 58

51Heirs of Wenceslao Tabia vs Court of Appeals, 516 SCRA 431.

52Trinidad vs Office of the Ombudsman, 539 SCRA 415.
53
Teng vs Ting, GR. NO. 184237, September 21, 2016.
5450 C.J.S., 120.
55Ibid., 100.
56Ibid., 91.
57Ibid, 46
58Abalos vs. Court of Appeals, 223 SCRA 551, G.R. No. 99843 June 22, 1993

8
LITIS PENDITIA

Definition of litis penditia

Litis pendecia is a Latin term, which literally means “a pending suit” and is variously referred to in some
decisions as lis pendens and auter action pendant. As a ground for dismissal of civil action, it refers to the situation
where two actions are pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, so that one of them becomes
unnecessary and vexatious. It is based on policy against multiplicity of suits. 59

Elements of litis penditia.

Litis pendentia, as a ground for the dismissal of a civil action, refers to that situation where in another action
is pending; between the same parties for the same cause of action, such that the second action becomes
unnecessary and vexatious. For the bar of litis pendentia to be invoked, the following requisites must concur:

(a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions;
(b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and
(c) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the pending
case, regardless of which party is successful would amount to res judicata in the other.

Litis penditia and res judicata distinguished

Litis pendentia "refers to that situation wherein another action is pending between the same parties for the
same cause of action, such that the second action becomes unnecessary and vexatious." 60 For litis pendentia to
exist, three (3) requisites must concur:

The requisites of litis pendentia are: (a) the identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same
interests in both actions; (b) the identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same
facts; and (c) the identity of the two cases such that judgment in one, regardless of which party is successful, would
amount to res judicata in the other.61

On the other hand, res judicata or prior judgment bars a subsequent case when the following requisites are
satisfied: (1) the former judgment is final; (2) it is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and
the parties; (3) it is a judgment or an order on the merits; (4) there is - between the first and the second actions -
identity of parties, of subject matter, and of causes of action.62

Underlying principle of litis pendentia.

The underlying principle of litis pendentia is the theory that a· party is not allowed to vex another more than
once regarding the same subject matter and for the same cause of action. This theory is founded on the public policy
that the same subject matter should not be the subject of controversy in courts more than once, in order that possible
conflicting judgments may be avoided for the sake of the stability of the rights and status of persons, and also to
avoid the costs and expenses incident to numerous suits. Consequently, a party will not be permitted to split up a
single cause of action and make it a basis for several suits as the whole cause must be determined in one action. To
be sure, splitting a cause of action is a mode of forum shopping by filing multiple cases based on the same cause of
action, but with different prayers, where the ground of dismissal is litis pendentia (or res judicata, as the case may
be). 63

E. RULES ON JOINDER OF PARTIES

RULE 3
Section 6.Permissive joinder of parties. — All persons in whom or against whom 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. 64

Joinder of parties is permissive, plaintiff may file another action based on the remaining cause of action.

59Grace Park International Corporation vs EastWest Banking Corporation, GR. No. 210606, July 27, 2016.
60687 Phil. 392 (2012) [Per J. Reyes, Second Division]
61
687 Phil. 392 (2012) [Per J. Reyes, Second Division], citing Villarica Pawnshop, Inc. v. Gernale, 601 Phil. 66, 78
(2009) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Third Division].
62Luzon Development Bank V. Conquilla, 507 Phil. 509, 523 (2005) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division], Citing Allied

Banking Corporation V. Court Of Appeal" 299 Phil. 252, 259 (1994).

63Marilag V. Martinez, 764 Phil. 576, 586 (2015).
64 Rules Of Court, Rule 3 Sec. 6.

9
The rule is clearly permissive. It does not constitute an obligatory rule, as there is no positive provision of law or any
rule of jurisprudence which compels a party to join all his causes of action and bring them at one and the same
time.65

Under the present rules, the provision is still that the plaintiff may, and not that he must, unite several causes of
action although they may be included in one of the classes specified. This, therefore, leaves it to the plaintiffs option
whether the causes of action shall be joined in the same action, and no unfavorable inference may be drawn from his
failure or refusal to do so. He may always file another action based on the remaining cause or causes of action within
the prescriptive period therefor.66
Requisites of joinder of parties
The joinder is made subject to the rules on joinder of parties under Section 6, Rule 3. Specifically, before
causes of action and parties can be joined in a complaint involving multiple parties, (1) the right to relief must arise
out of the same transaction or series of transactions and (2) there must be a question of law or fact common to all the
parties. 67

It is admitted that the plaintiffs' demands are separate, distinct and independent of one another.
Nevertheless, it is also admitted that the plaintiffs' joint suit is proper, expressly authorized by section 6 of Rule 3,
entitled "Permissive Joinder of Parties," which provides that "All persons in whom or against whom 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 the law or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all such
defendants may arise in the action."

Aggregation of the claims to make up the jurisdictional amount is permitted only if the claims are of a joint nature.

The point wherein the parties are not in agreement is whether the claim of each plaintiff or the aggregate
claims of all is the measure of jurisdiction. This question has been the subject of decisions by American courts. In
Hackner vs. Guaranty Trust Co. of New York (4 Fed. Rules Serv., 378; U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit,
Jan. 13, 1941; 117 F. [2d], 95), it was held that, "when two or more plaintiffs, each having a separate and distinct
demand, join in a single suit, the demand of each must be of the requisite jurisdictional amount. Aggregation of the
claims to make up the jurisdictional amount is permitted only if the claims are of a joint nature, as when it is sought to
enforce a single right in which plaintiffs have a common interest." As American Jurisprudence, Vol. 14, p. 413, puts it,
"Where several claimants have separate and distinct demands against a defendant or defendants, which may
properly be joined in a single suit, the claims cannot be added together to make up the required jurisdictional amount;
each separate claim furnishes the jurisdictional test."

The purpose on joinder of parties is to save them unnecessary work, trouble, expense and not to enlarge the court’s
jurisdiction.

There would be more similarity if the present case were compared with one in which several actions
commenced by different plaintiffs, handled by the same attorneys, raising the same questions, and founded on the
same facts or evidence, were tried together and only one judgment were handed down. If the plaintiffs and the court
had adopted such procedure, we do not think that the court's jurisdiction would be open to attack on the ground that
the judgment, by treason of the joint trial, adjudicated a greater amount than the law allowed. Yet the only difference
between the hypothetical case we have given and the case at the bar is that in the latter, only one complaint was filed
instead of as many as there are plaintiffs. The sole effect, and we should say that the sole purpose, of the new rule
on joinder of parties is to save them unnecessary work, trouble and expense, consistent with the liberal spirit of the
new Rules, and not to enlarge the court's jurisdiction as applied to the amount in controversy. 68

Transaction means not only a stipulation or agreement, but any event resulting in wrong.

The principle contained in this provision amplifies the old procedure. Formerly, it was only community of
interest in the same subject which constituted a ground for joinder of parties; now, it is also the existence of a
question of fact or of law, provided the relief sought for or against the several parties arises from the same transaction
or series of transactions whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative. In this connection, the term "transaction"
means not only a stipulation or agreement, but any event resulting in wrong, without regard to whether the wrong has
been done by violence, neglect or breach of contract. And the term "series of transactions" is equivalent to
"transactions" connected with the same subject of the action.

For instance, A, B, C, and D are owners, respectively, of four houses destoyed by fire caused by sparks
coming from a defective chimney of a passing locomotive owned by the Manila Railroad Company. Under the old
procedure, the four owners cannot join in a single complaint for damages against the Manila Railroad Company, for
the reason that they do not have a community of interest in the same subject of the litigation, each of them being
interested in covering the value of his house alone. Under the new procedure, they may join in a single complaint, for
a right to relief is alleged to exist in their favor severally arising out of the same cause, namely, the single negligent

65Baldovi vs. Sarte, 36 Phil. 550 (1917).

66Nabus vs. Court of Appeals, 193 SCRA 732, G.R. No. 91670 February 7, 1991 supra note 46
67 G.R. No. 17339 February 21, 2017 CENTRAL BANK BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS Vs BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS

AND MORTGAGE BANK ; Pantranco North Express Inc. V. Standard Insurance Co. Inc .. 493 Phil. 616 (2005).
68 G.R. No. L-3211 May 30, 1950 A. SORIANO Y CIA.,Vs.GONZALO M. JOSE, ELPIDIO MENDOZA, ET AL.

10
act of the defendant by which the four houses were destroyed by fire, and which is also a common question of fact to
all of the four plaintiffs.69

Determination of whether a party must be impleaded

Section 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court mandates that all indispensable parties should be joined
in a suit, viz:

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.70
Case law defines an indispensable party as "one whose interest will be affected by the court's action in the litigation,
and without whom no final determination of the case can be had. The party's interest in the subject matter of the suit
and in the relief sought are so inextricably intertwined with the other parties' that his legal presence as a party to the
proceeding is an absolute necessity. In his absence, there cannot be a resolution of the dispute of the parties before
the court which is effective, complete, or equitable."71
Effect of nonjoinder of an indispensable party
The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void, for want of authority
to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present."72

The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action

Non-joinder means the "failure to bring a person who is a necessary party or in this case an indispensable party into a
lawsuit.” 73(An indispensable party, on the other hand, is a party-in-interest without whom no final determination can
be had of the action, and who shall be joined either as plaintiff or defendant. 74

Having settled that, the pronouncement in Pamplona Plantation Company, Inc. v. Tinghil is instructive as regards the
proper course of action on the part of the courts in cases of non-joinder of indispensable parties, viz:

The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. At any stage of a judicial
proceeding and/or at such times as are just, parties may be added on the motion of a party or on the initiative of the
tribunal concerned. If the plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court, that court
may dismiss the complaint for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the order. The remedy is to implead the non-party
claimed to be indispensable75.

What the trial court should have done is to direct petitioner Norman Mesina to implead all the heirs of Domingo Fian,
Sr. as defendants within a reasonable time from notice with a warning that his failure to do so shall mean dismissal of
the complaint.76

Remedy when an indispensable party is not impleaded

Rule 3, Section 11 of the Rules of Court provides that neither misjoinder nor nonjoinder of parties is a ground for the
dismissal of an action, thus:

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.77

In Domingo v. Scheer (G.R. No. 154745, January 29, 2004, 421 SCRA 468) the Court held that the proper remedy
when a party is left out is to implead the indispensable party at any stage of the action. The court, either motu
proprio or upon the motion of a party, may order the inclusion of the indispensable party or give the plaintiff
opportunity to amend his complaint in order to include indispensable parties. If the plaintiff to whom the order to
include the indispensable party is directed refuses to comply with the order of the court, the complaint may be

69 G.R. No. L-3884 November 29, 1951 INTERNATIONAL COLLEGES, INC., vs.NIEVES ARGONZA, ET AL.
70Rules of Court, Rule 3 Sec 7; G.R. No. 224204, August 30, 2017 - PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK vs. SPOUSES
RAMON AND ANNABELLE SABADO.
71Land Bank of the Philippines v. Cacayuran, 759 Phil. 145, 152 (2015), citing Gabatin v. Land Bank of the

Philippines, 486 Phil. 366, 379-380 (2004).

72Domingo v. Scheer, 466 Phil. 235, 265 (2004).
73Black’s Law Dictionary 1154 (9th ed., 2009).
74Pascual v. Robles, G.R. No. 182645, December 15, 2010, 638 SCRA 712, 719; citing Lotte Phil. Co., Inc. v. Dela

Cruz, G.R. No. 166302, July 28, 2005, 464 SCRA 591.).
75(G.R. No. 159121, February 3, 2005, 450 SCRA 421, 433.).
76
(Heirs of Austino Mesina and Genoveva S. Mesina, rep. by Norman Mesina vs. Heirs of Domingo Fian, Sr., rep. by
Theresa Fian Yray, et al G.R. No. 201816 April 8, 2013.).
77Rules of Court, Rule 3 Sec.11; G.R. No. 161237 January 14, 2009 - PERFECTO MACABABBAD, Jr., - deceased,

substituted by his heirs Sophia Macababbad, Glenn M. Macababbad, Perfecto Vener M. Macababbad III and Mary
Grace Macababbad, and SPS. CHUA SENG LIN AND SAY UN AY vs. FERNANDO G. MASIRAG, FAUSTINA G.
MASIRAG, CORAZON G. MASIRAG, LEONOR G. MASIRAG, and LEONCIO M. GOYAGOY.

11
 78Only
dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court's own motion. upon unjustified failure or refusal to
obey the order to include or to amend is the action dismissed. 79

F. FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION AND LACK OF CAUSE OF ACTION

Definition of cause of action.

Section 2, Rule 2 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure defines a cause of action as the act or omission by which a
party violates a right of another. Its elements are as follows:

1 A right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created;

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 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 an action for recovery of
damages or other appropriate relief.80

If the allegations of the complaint do not state the concurrence of the above elements, the complaint becomes
vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action which is the proper remedy under
Section 1 (g) of Rule 16 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides:

Section 1. Grounds. — Within the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting
a claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following grounds:

(g) That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action;

Determination of existence of cause of action

In determining the existence of a cause of action, only the statements in the complaint may properly be
considered. It is error for the court to take cognizance of external facts or hold preliminary hearings to determine their
existence. If the allegation in a complaint furnish sufficient basis by which the complaint may be maintained, the same
should not be dismissed regardless of the defenses that may be assessed by the defendants (supra). 81
Thus, in determining the existence of a cause of action, only the allegations in the complaint may properly
be considered. For the court to do otherwise would be a procedural error and a denial of the plaintiff’s right to due
process.82

Test to determine the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint

The case of Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited v. Catalan83laid down the test to determine the
sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint, to wit:

The elementary test for failure to state a cause of action is whether the complaint alleges facts which if true
would justify the relief demanded. Stated otherwise, may the court render a valid judgment upon the facts alleged
therein? 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 defense
that may be presented by the defendants.84 Stated otherwise, the resolution on this matter should stem from an
analysis on whether or not the complaint is able to convey a cause of action; and not that the complainant has no
cause of action. Lest it be misunderstood, failure to state a cause of action is properly a ground for a motion to
dismiss under Section 1(g), Rule 16 of the Rules of Court.85

Failure to state a cause of action may be waived if not invoked.

Pursuant to jurisprudence, this is also the ground invoked when the respondents alleged that the petitioners
are not the real parties in interest because: 1) the petitioners should not have filed the case in their own names, being
merely attorneys-in-fact of their mother; and 2) the petitioners should first be declared as heirs. A review of the 1940,
1964 and the present 1997 Rules of Court shows that the fundamentals of the ground for dismissal based on "failure
to state a cause of action" have drastically changed over time. A historical background of this particular ground is in
order to preclude any confusion or misapplication of jurisprudence decided prior to the effectivity of the present Rules
of Court.86

78Section 11, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court

79Cortez v. Avila, 101 Phil. 205 (1957).
80Agoy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 162927, March 6, 2007, 517 SCRA 535, 541.cralawred
81Insular Investment and Trust Corporation vs Capital One Equities Corporation.
82 Evangelista vs Santiago, 497 Phil. 269
83
G.R. Nos. 159590-91, October 18, 2004, 440 SCRA 498.
84Id. at 510-511.
85 Unicapital, Inc. vs. Consing, Jr., 705 SCRA 511, G.R. Nos. 175277 & 175285 September 11, 2013
86 G.R. No. 168979 December 2, 2013 REBECCA PACAÑA-CONTRERAS And ROSALIE PACAÑA Vs. ROVILA

WATER SUPPLY, INC., EARL U KOKSENG, LILIA TORRES, DALLA P. ROMANILLOS And MARISSA GABUYA.

12
 This provision was essentially reproduced in Section 2, Rule 9 of the 1964 Rules of Court, and we quote:

Section 2. Defenses and objections not pleaded deemed waived. — Defenses and objections not pleaded
either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived; except the failure to state a cause of action which
may be alleged in a later pleading, if one is permitted, or by motion for judgment on the pleadings, or at the trial on
the merits; but in the last instance, the motion shall be disposed of as provided in section 5 of Rule 10 in the light of
any evidence which may have been received. Whenever it appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject-
matter, it shall dismiss the action.

Under the present Rules of Court, this provision was reflected in Section 1, Rule 9, and we quote:

Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded. — Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion
to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. However, when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on
record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action pending between the
same parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the court
shall dismiss the claim.

Notably, in the present rules, there was a deletion of the ground of "failure to state a cause of action" from
the list of those which may be waived if not invoked either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer. Another novelty
introduced by the present Rules, which was totally absent in its two precedents, is the addition of the period of time
within which a motion to dismiss should be filed as provided under Section 1, Rule 16 and we quote:

Section 1. Grounds. — Within the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting
a claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following grounds:

All these considerations point to the legal reality that the new Rules effectively restricted the dismissal of
complaints in general, especially when what is being invoked is the ground of "failure to state a cause of action."
Thus, jurisprudence governed by the 1940 and 1964 Rules of Court to the effect that the ground for dismissal based
on failure to state a cause of action may be raised anytime during the proceedings, is already inapplicable to cases
already governed by the present Rules of Court which took effect on July 1, 1997. As the rule now stands, the failure
to invoke this ground in a motion to dismiss or in the answer would result in its waiver. According to Oscar M.
Herrera, the reason for the deletion is that failure to state a cause of action may be cured under Section 5, Rule 10
and we quote:

Section 5. Amendment to conform to or authorize presentation of evidence. — When issues not raised by
the pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of the parties they shall be treated in all respects as if they
had been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform
to the evidence and to raise these issues may be made upon motion of any party at any time, even after judgment;
but failure to amend does not effect the result of the trial of these issues. If evidence is objected to at the trial on the
ground that it is not within the issues made by the pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be amended and
shall do so with liberality if the presentation of the merits of the action and the ends of substantial justice will be
subserved thereby. The court may grant a continuance to enable the amendment to be made.

Failure to state cause of action and lack of cause of action, distinguished.

The distinction between the grounds of "failure to state a cause of action" and "lack of cause of action" was
aptly discussed in Dabuco vs. Court of Appeals, to wit:

As a preliminary matter, we wish to stress the distinction between the two grounds for dismissal of an action:
failure to state a cause of action, on the one hand, and lack of cause of action, on the other hand. The former refers
to the insufficiency of allegation in the pleading, the latter to the insufficiency of factual basis for the action. Failure to
state a cause may be raised in a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 16, while lack of cause may be raised any time.
Dismissal for failure to state a cause can be made at the earliest stages of an action. Dismissal for lack of cause is
usually made after questions of fact have been resolved on the basis of stipulations, admissions or evidence
presented.87

Failure to state a cause of action is not the same as lack of cause of action; the terms are not
interchangeable. It may be observed that lack of cause of action is not among the grounds that may be raised in a
motion to dismiss under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. The dismissal of a Complaint for lack of cause of action is
based on Section 1 of Rule 33, which provides:

Section 1. Demurrer to evidence. - After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence, the
defendant may move for dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to
relief. If his motion is denied he shall have the right to present evidence. If the motion is granted but on appeal the
order of dismissal is reversed he shall be deemed to have waived the right to present evidence. (Emphasis supplied)

If the Complaint fails to state a cause of action, a motion to dismiss must be made before a responsive
pleading is filed; and the issue can be resolved only on the basis of the allegations in the initiatory pleading.88On the

87 379 Phil. 939, 944-945 (2000).

88Pamaran v. Bank Of Commerce, G.R. No. 205753, 4 July 2016.

13
other hand, if the Complaint lacks a cause of action, the motion to dismiss must be filed after the plaintiff has rested
its case.89

In the first situation, the veracity of the allegations is immaterial; however, in the second situation, the judge
must determine the veracity of the allegations based on the evidence presented.90

Also confused, respondents, on their part, asserted that "it is within the discretion of the Court a quo to conduct a
preliminary hearing on the affirmative defense of lack of cause of action or failure to state a cause of action," the very
basis of their argument being hinged on the application of Section 6. They also insisted on the applicability of the
exceptions to the general rule that only averments in the complaint must be considered, which pertains to the ground
of "failure to state a cause of action."91

The trial court held a preliminary hearing resolving the ground of "lack of cause of action" pursuant to
Section 6 of Rule 16, which allows the court to hold a preliminary hearing on grounds for dismissal provided in the
same rule that have been raised as an affirmative defense in the answer. 92 The ground of "lack of cause of action," as
already explained, however, is not one of the grounds for a motion to dismiss under Rule 16, and hence, not proper
for resolution during a preliminary hearing held pursuant to Section 6. On this point alone, the trial court clearly erred
in receiving evidence on the ground of "lack of cause of action" during the preliminary hearing. The factual matters
raised by respondents in their affirmative defense arguing the non-existence of a cause of action, should have been
duly resolved during a trial on the merits of the case.

In any case, even if the Court were to treat respondents’ argument as a "failure to state a cause of action,"
their defense would still fail. Court limited to averments in the complaint.93

Failure to state a cause of action and lack of cause of action are really different from each other.On the one
hand, failure to state a cause of actionrefers to the insufficiency of the pleading, and is a ground for dismissal under
Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. On the other hand, lack of cause action refers to a situation where the evidence does
not prove the cause of action alleged in the pleading. Justice Regalado, a recognized commentator on remedial law,
has explained the distinction:94
What is contemplated, therefore, is a failure to state a cause of action which is provided in Sec.
1(g) of Rule 16. This is a matter of insufficiency of the pleading. Sec. 5 of Rule 10, which was also included
as the last mode for raising the issue to the court, refers to the situation where the evidence does not prove
a cause of action. This is, therefore, a matter of insufficiency of evidence. Failure to state a cause of action
is different from failure to prove a cause of action. The remedy in the first is to move for dismissal of the
pleading, while the remedy in the second is to demur to the evidence, hence reference to Sec. 5 of Rule 10
has been eliminated in this section. The procedure would consequently be to require the pleading to state a
cause of action, by timely objection to its deficiency; or, at the trial, to file a demurrer to evidence, if such
motion is warranted.

We have consistently held that there is a difference between failure to state a cause of action, and lack of
cause of action. These legal concepts are distinct and separate from each other. 95

Dismissal due to lack of cause of action may be raised any time

Lack of cause of action refers to the insufficiency of the factual basis for the action.96 Dismissal due to lack
of cause of action may be raised any time after the questions of fact have been resolved on the basis of stipulations,
admissions or evidence presented by the plaintiff.97 It is a proper ground for a demurrer to evidence under Rule 33 of
the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides:
Section 1. Demurrer to evidence. — After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence, the
defendant may move for dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to
relief. If his motion is denied he shall have the right to present evidence. If the motion is granted but on appeal the
order of dismissal is reversed he shall be deemed to have waived the right to present evidence.

Motion to dismiss on the ground of the failure to state a cause of action, a ruling thereon should be based only on the
facts alleged in the complaint.

89 Id
90 Id., citing The Manila Banking Corporation v.University of Baguio. Inc., 545 Phil. 268, 275 (2007).
91 G.R. No. 201248 March 11, 2015 Leticia Naguit Aquino, Melvin Naguit, Rommel Naguit, Elma Naguit Tayag, Yssel

L. Naguit, Rosalina Naguit Aumentado, Rizel Naguit Cunanan, Caridad Naguit Parajas, Millie Naguit Florendo,
Marnel Naguit, Eduardo Naguit, Jose Naguit, Zoilo Naguit, And Amelia Naguit Dizon, Represented By Yssel L. Naguit
Vs. Cesar B. Qiazon, Amanda Quiazon, Jose B. Quiazon And Reynaldo B. Quiazon, Represented By Jaime B.
Quiazon.
92 Section 6. Pleading Grounds As Affirmative Defenses. – If No Motion To Dismiss Has Been Filed, Any Of The

Grounds For Dismissal Provided For In This Rule May Be Pleaded As An Affirmative Defense In The Answer And, In
The Discretion Of The Court, A Preliminary Hearing May Be Had Thereon As If A Motion To Dismiss Had Been Filed.
93 Id At 63.
94
Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Volume I, Ninth Revised Ed. (2005), P. 182; G.R. No. 156375 May 30 :
2011 Dolores Adora Macaslang, Petitioner, Vs. Renato And Melba Zamora, Respondents.
95G.R. No. 189577, April 20, 2016PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANKvs. SPS. VICTORIANO & JOVITA FARICIA

RIVERA.
96Zuniga-Santos v. Santos-Gran, G.R. No. 197380, October 8, 2014, 738 SCRA 33, 39.
97Macaslang v. Zamora, G.R. No. 156375, May 30, 2011, 649 SCRA 92, 106-107.cralawre

14
 By filing a Motion to Dismiss, a defendant hypothetically admits the truth of the material allegations of the
ultimate facts contained in the plaintiffs complaint.98When a motion to dismiss is grounded on the failure to state a
cause of action, a ruling thereon should, as a rule, be based only on the facts alleged in the complaint.99

Affirmative defense that the complaint stated no cause of action requires a hypothetical admission of facts

Evangelista v. Santiago elucidates: The affirmative defense that the Complaint stated no cause of action,
similar to a motion to dismiss based on the same ground, requires a hypothetical admission of the facts alleged in the
Complaint. In the case of Garcon v. Redemptorist Fathers, this Court laid down the rules as far as this ground for
dismissal of an action or affirmative defense is concerned:

It is already well-settled that in a motion to dismiss a complaint based on lack of cause of action, the question
submitted to the court for determination is the sufficiency of the allegations of fact made in the complaint to constitute
a cause of action, and not on whether these allegations of fact are true, for said motion must hypothetically admit the
truth of the facts alleged in the complaint; that the test of the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint is
whether or not, admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with
the prayer of said complaint.Stated otherwise, the insufficiency of the cause of action must appear in the face of the
complaint in order to sustain a dismissal on this ground, for in the determination of whether or not a complaint states
a cause of action, only the facts alleged therein and no other matter may be considered, and the court may not
inquire into the truth of the allegations, and find them to be false before a hearing is had on the merits of the case;
and it is improper to inject in the allegations of the complaint facts not alleged or proved, and use these as basis for
said motion.100

Plaintiff is not the real party-in-interest, the ground for the motion to dismiss is lack of cause of action
Where the plaintiff is not the real party-in-interest, the ground for the motion to dismiss is lack of cause of
action. The reason for this is that the courts ought not to pass upon questions not derived from any actual
controversy. Truly, a person having no material interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as the
plaintiff in an action. Nor does a court acquire jurisdiction over a case where the real party- in- interest is not present
or imp leaded.101

Under our procedural rules, "a case is dismissible for lack of personality to sue upon proof that the plaintiff is
not the real party-in interest, hence, grounded on failure to state a cause of action." 102Indeed, considering that all civil
actions must be based on a cause of action, defined as the act or omission by which a party violates the right of
another, the former as the defendant must be allowed to insist upon being opposed by the real party-in-interest so
that he is protected from further suits regarding the same claim. Under this rationale, the requirement benefits the
defendant because "the defendant can insist upon a plaintiff who will afford him a setup providing good res judicata
protection if the struggle is carried through on the merits to the end.103

G. MISJOINDER OF CAUSE OF ACTION

1. RULE
A misjoined cause of action, if not severed upon motion of a party or by the court sua sponte, may be adjudicated by
the court together with the other causes of action.
Misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for dismissal. Indeed, the courts have the power, acting upon
the motion of a party to the case or sua sponte, to order the severance of the misjoined cause of action to be
proceeded with separately.33 However, if there is no objection to the improper joinder or the court did not motu proprio
direct a severance, then there exists no bar in the simultaneous adjudication of all the erroneously joined causes of
action.104

is joinder of causes of action and parties do not involve a question of jurisdiction

Misjoinder of causes of action and parties do not involve a question of jurisdiction of the court to hear and
proceed with the case.105 They are not even accepted grounds for dismissal thereof. Instead, under the Rules of
Court, the misjoinder of causes of action and parties involve an implied admission of the court’s jurisdiction. It
acknowledges the power of the court, acting upon the motion of a party to the case or on its own initiative, to order
the severance of the misjoined cause of action, to be proceeded with separately (in case of misjoinder of causes of
action); and/or the dropping of a party and the severance of any claim against said misjoined party, also to be
proceeded with separately (in case of misjoinder of parties).

98Vitangcol v. New Vista Properties, Inc., G.R. No. 176014, September 17, 2009, 600 SCRA 82, 93.
99Id.
100 G.R. No. 201248 March 11, 2015 Leticia Naguit Aquino, Melvin Naguit, Rommel Naguit, Elma Naguit Tayag, Yssel
L. Naguit, Rosalina Naguit Aumentado, Rizel Naguit Cunanan, Caridad Naguit Parajas, Millie Naguit Florendo,
Marnel Naguit, Eduardo Naguit, Jose Naguit, Zoilo Naguit, And Amelia Naguit Dizon, Represented By Yssel L. Naguit
Vs. Cesar B. Qiazon, Amanda Quiazon, Jose B. Quiazon And Reynaldo B. Quiazon, Represented By Jaime B.
Quiazon supra note at 81.
101Stronghold Insurance Company, Inc. v. Tomas Cuenca, et al.,
102Gerve Magallanes v. Palmer Asia, Inc.,
103Id, 102

104Ada Vs. Ylon G.R. No. 182435 August 13, 2012.

105 Katipunan V. Zandueta, 60 Phil 220 (1934).

15
 Considering every application for land registration filed in strict accordance with the Property Registration
Decree as a single cause of action, then the defect in the application for registration filed by the respondents with the
MTC constitutes a misjoinder of causes of action and parties. Instead of a single or joint application for registration,
Jeremiah and David, more appropriately, should have filed separately applications for registration of Lots No. 8422
and 8423, respectively. Misjoinder of causes of action do not involve a question of jurisdiction of the court to hear and
proceed with the case. They are not even accepted as grounds for dismissal thereof. Instead, under the Rules of
Court, the misjoinder of causes of action and parties involve an implied admission of the court’s jurisdiction. It
acknowledges the power of the court, acting upon the motion of a party to the case or on its own initiative, to order
the severance of the misjoined cause of action, to be proceeded with separately (in case of misjoinder of causes of
action); and/or the dropping of a party and the severance of any claim against said misjoined party, also to be
proceeded with separately (in case of misjoinder of parties). 106

Misjoinder of action applies only if the court trying the case jurisdiction over all of the causes of action therein.

It should be emphasized that the foregoing rule only applies if the court trying the case has jurisdiction over
all of the causes of action therein notwithstanding the misjoinder of the same. If the court trying the case has no
jurisdiction over a misjoined cause of action, then such misjoined cause of action has to be severed from the other
causes of action, and if not so severed, any adjudication rendered by the court with respect to the same would be a
nullity.107

The present case involves the rule which the joinder of several causes of action, the pertinent provision of
which is embodied in Rule 2, section 5, which provides that "Subject to rules regarding venue and joinder of parties, a
party may in one complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim and third-party claim state, in the alternative or otherwise, as
many different causes of action as he may have against an opposing party."108
Violation of rules regarding venue and/or joinder of parties may result to misjoinder of causes of action.

While this rule appears simple, however, difficulties may arise in its application, for it does not state
specifically the cases where several causes of action may be joined, each case apparently depending upon the
nature of the transactions involved. But one thing is clear: That the joining of causes of action must be subject to the
rules regarding venue and joinder of parties. If these rules are violated, then a misjoinder of causes of action may
arise.109

Former Chief Justice Moran gives several illustrations of how this rule may be applied which are interesting.
On this point he makes the following comment:

This rule, which is expressly extended to counterclaims, cross-claims, and third-party claims, is subject to
the limitation regarding venue, whereby several causes of action with no common venue cannot be joined. For
instance, if A, a resident of Manila, has against E, a resident of Baguio, two causes of action, one for money, and
another for title to real property located in Zamboanga, he cannot join them in a single complaint, for the venue of the
first action, which is either Manila or Baguio, is different from the venue of the second, which is Zamboanga.

The rule is likewise subject to the limitation regarding joinder of parties. For instance plaintiff A has a cause
of action against B, another cause of action against C, and another cause of action against D, the three causes of
action cannot be joined, because there would be a misjoinder of parties defendant, each of them being interested in
the cause of action alleged against him not in the other causes of action pleaded against the others. A claim on a
promissory note against three defendants may not be joined with a claim on another promissory note against two of
the defendants, for again there is a misjoinder of parties, the third defendant in the first cause of action not having an
interest in the second cause of action. 110

In the light of the instances cited by former Chief Justice Moran, it maybe stated that there is a misjoinder of
causes of action in the present case not only as regards venue but also as regards the defendants. With regard to the
first, it should be noted that the first cause of action stated in the complaint refers to the annulment of a deed of sale
real properties situated in the province of Negros Occidental, and of a deed of donation inter vivos of another set of
real properties situated in the province of Cebu. They refer to two different transactions which properties situated in
two different provinces. The venue has therefore been improperly laid as regards the properties in Negros Occidental.
With regard to the second, it also appears that the deed sale which is sought to be annulled was made in favor of
Sulpicia Guanzon whereas the deed of donation was made in favor of Joven Salvador Guanzon, and there is nothing
from which it maybe inferred that the two defendants have a common interest that maybe joined in one cause of
action on the contrary their interest is distinct and separate. They cannot therefore be joined in one cause of action. 111

In the instant case, the plaintiffs’ action for the Enforcement of Contract and Damages with Prayer for The
Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order And/Or Preliminary Injunction against Zescon Land, Inc., and/or its
President Zenie Sales Contreras, may not, under Rule 2, Section 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, join
defendant Hermano as party defendant to annul and/or rescind the Real Estate Mortgages of subject properties.
There is a misjoinder of parties defendants under a different transaction or cause of action; that under the said Rule
2, Section 6, upon motion of defendant Hermano in the instant case, the complaint against defendant Hermano can
be severed and tried separately;

106
G.R. No. 156117 May 26, 2005, Republic Of The Philippines Vs. Jeremias And David Herbieto
107Id.
108G.R. NO. L-10458 APRIL 22, 1957 MIJARES VS. PICCIO
109Id.
110 Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. 1, 1952 Ed., p. 24).
111 G.R. NO. L-10458 APRIL 22, 1957 MIJARES VS. PICCIO.

16
 As far as we can glean from the Orders of the trial court, respondent Hermano was dropped from the
complaint on the ground of misjoinder of causes of action. Petitioners, on the other hand, insist that there was no
misjoinder in this case. To better understand the present controversy, it is vital to revisit the rules on joinder of causes
of action as exhaustively discussed in Republic v. Hernandez, thus: By a joinder of actions, or more properly, a
joinder of causes of action, is meant the uniting of two or more demands or rights of action in one action; the
statement of more than one cause of action in a declaration. It is the union of two or more civil causes of action, each
of which could be made the basis of a separate suit, in the same complaint, declaration or petition. A plaintiff may
under certain circumstances join several distinct demands, controversies or rights of action in one declaration,
complaint or petition112

Section 6, Rule 2 on misjoinder of causes of action provides:

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.
There is misjoinder of causes of action when the conditions for joinder under Section 5, Rule 2 are not met. Section 5
provides:
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:
(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.
As far as can be gathered from the assailed Orders, it is the first condition - on joinder of parties - that
the trial court deemed to be lacking. It is well to remember that the joinder of causes of action may
involve the same parties or different parties. If the joinder involves different parties, as in this case, there
must be a question of fact or of law common to both parties joined, arising out of the same transaction
or series of transaction.

The rule is that a party’s failure to observe the following conditions under Section 5, Rule 2 of the Rules results in a
misjoinder of causes of action:113
A careful perusal of his complaint discloses that Consing, Jr. did not seek to hold Unicapital and PBI, et al. liable for
any specific violation of the Corporation Code or the Revised Securities Act. Rather, he merely sought damages for
Unicapital and PBI, et al.’s alleged acts of making him sign numerous documents and their use of the same against
him. In this respect, Consing, Jr. actually advances an injunction and damages case 114 which properly falls under the
jurisdiction of the RTC-Pasig City.115 Therefore, there was no violation of Section 5, Rule 2 of the Rules, particularly,
paragraph (c) thereof. Besides, even on the assumption that there was a misjoinder of causes of action, still, such
defect should not result in the dismissal of Consing, Jr.’s complaint. Section 6, Rule 2 of the Rules explicitly states
that a "misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for dismissal of an action" and that "a misjoined cause of action
may, on motion of a party or on the initiative of the court, be severed and proceeded with separately."

The remedy in non-joinder and misjoinder of parties is amendment to include the real parties in interest.
Even if there is non-joinder and misjoinder of parties or that the suit is not brought in the name of the real
party in interest, the remedy is not outright dismissal of the complaint, but its amendment to include the real parties in
interest.116
Even in those cases where it might reasonably be argued that the failure of the Government to implead the
sequestered corporations as defendants is indeed a procedural aberration xxx, slight reflection would nevertheless
lead to the conclusion that the defect is not fatal, but one correctible under applicable adjective rules – e.g., Section
10, Rule 5 of the Rules of Court [specifying the remedy of amendment during trial to authorize or to conform to the
evidence]; Section 1, Rule 20 [governing amendments before trial], in relation to the rule respecting omission of so-
called necessary or indispensable parties, set out in Section 11, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. It is relevant in this
context to advert to the old familiar doctrines that the omission to implead such parties "is a mere technical defect
which can be cured at any stage of the proceedings even after judgment"; and that, particularly in the case of
indispensable parties, since their presence and participation is essential to the very life of the action, for without them
no judgment may be rendered, amendments of the complaint in order to implead them should be freely allowed, even
on appeal, in fact even after rendition of judgment by this Court, where it appears that the complaint otherwise
indicates their identity and character as such indispensable parties." Although there are decided cases wherein the
non-joinder of indispensable parties in fact led to the dismissal of the suit or the annulment of judgment, such cases

112G.R. No. 147417 July 8, 2005 Sps. Victor Vs. Hermano.

113Perez v. Hermano, G.R. No. 147417, July 8, 2005, 463 SCRA 90
114Rollo (G.R. Nos. 175277 & 175285), p. 156. In his complaint, Consing, Jr. essentially seeks that Unicapital, et al.:

(a) "should be restrained from harassing plaintiff by threats of criminal prosecution, or any other coercive demand, or
any other threats by reason of the transactions over the property in question"; (b) "should be forever barred from
speaking about him in a derogatory fashion in so far as the surrounding circumstances of the transfers of property in
question"; (c) pay him "x x x actual damages and consequential damages in the sum of ₱2,000,000.00 continuing at
the same rate per month for the whole period from May 1, 1999 until the controversy is resolved"; (d) pay him "x x x
moral damages in the amount of at least ₱1,000,000.00 per month from May 1, 1999 until the controversy is
resolved"; (e) pay him "x x x exemplary damages punitive in nature in the amount of atleast ₱1,000,000.00 per month
from May 1, 1999 until the controversy is resolved; and (f) pay him" x x x attorney’s fees, costs of suit and any other
reliefs that may be equitable in the premises."
115Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129.
116G.R. No. 168979 December 2, 2013 Pacana-Contreras Vs. Rovila Water Supply, Inc.

17
do not jibe with the matter at hand. The better view is that non-joinder is not a ground to dismiss the suit or annul the
judgment. The rule on joinder of indispensable parties is founded on equity. And the spirit of the law is reflected in
Section 11, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. It prohibits the dismissal of a suit on the ground of non-
joinder or misjoinder of parties and allows the amendment of the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, through
motion or on order of the court on its own initiative. Likewise, jurisprudence on the Federal Rules of Procedure, from
which our Section 7, Rule 3 on indispensable parties was copied, allows the joinder of indispensable parties even
after judgment has been entered if such is needed to afford the moving party full relief. Mere delay in filing the joinder
motion does not necessarily result in the waiver of the right as long as the delay is excusable.117

Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any patty or of its own initiative at any stage of
the action

Rule 3, Section 11 of the Rules of Court provides that neither misjoinder nor nonjoinder of parties is a
ground for the dismissal of an action, thus:
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.118

We interpreted this rule in the case of Lim Tanhu v. Ramolete 66 SCRA 425 (l975):

... the latter rule does not comprehend whimsical and irrational dropping or adding of parties in a complaint. that 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. And this is the reason why the rule ordains that
the dropping be 'on such terms as are just-just to all the other parties. 119

The actions of partition and rescission cannot be joined in a single action.

Nevertheless, while parties to an action may assert in one pleading, in the alternative or otherwise, as many
causes of action as they may have against an opposing party, such joinder of causes of action is subject to the
condition, inter alia, that the joinder shall not include special civil actions governed by special rules.120
Here, there was a misjoinder of causes of action. The action for partition filed by the petitioners could not be
joined with the action for the rescission of the said donation inter vivos in favor of Florante. Lest it be overlooked, an
action for partition is a special civil action governed by Rule 69 of the Rules of Court while an action for rescission is
an ordinary civil action governed by the ordinary rules of civil procedure. The variance in the procedure in the special
civil action of partition and in the ordinary civil action of rescission precludes their joinder in one complaint or their
being tried in a single proceeding to avoid confusion in determining what rules shall govern the conduct of the
proceedings as well as in the determination of the presence of requisite elements of each particular cause of
action.121

Misjoinder of causes of action involving Rule 45 and Rules 65 of Rules of Court.

The court notes that there is a misjoinder of causes of action in the instant petition. Petitioner sought a review of the
decision of the Court of Appeals in the declaratory relief case he filed and a declaration of nullity of the writ of
execution issued in the ejectment case filed by private respondents against him. By doing so, petitioner, a lawyer who
represented himself in the case at bench, revealed a lack of understanding of the legal remedies provided by Rule 45
and Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The writ of certiorari is granted when any tribunal acts without or in excess of its
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Errors in judgment are not proper in a petition for certiorari. These are
raised in a petition for review. 122

Step 2. Determine if the cause is a personal or real action for purposes of

1. Venue and Jurisdiction over Subject Matter

The general rule is that the venue of real actions is the court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the
real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated; while the venue of personal actions is the court which has
jurisdiction where the plaintiff or the defendant resides, at the election of the plaintiff. As an exception, jurisprudence
in Legaspi v. Rep. of the Phils. instructs that the parties, thru a written instrument, may either introduce another venue
where actions arising from such instrument may be filed, or restrict the filing of said actions in a certain exclusive
venue, viz.:
The parties, however, are not precluded from agreeing in writing on an exclusive venue, as
qualified by Section 4 of the same rule. Written stipulations as to venue may be restrictive in
the sense that the suit may be filed only in the place agreed upon, or merely permissive in
that the parties may file their suit not only in the place agreed upon but also in the places
fixed by law. As in any other agreement, what is essential is the ascertainment of the intention of
the parties respecting the matter.

117Id.
118
G.R. No. 161237 January 14, 2009 Macababbad, Jr. Vs. Masirag.
119 G.R. No. 84895 May 4, 1989, Republic of The Philippines Vs. The Honorable Sandiganbayan, First Division,
Teodoro Q. Peña, Gorgonio Macariola, Orlando Paciencia, Jesus Tupalar Severino Dela Cruz, And Fe Cortezo
120 THE RULES OF COURT, Rule 2, Section 5.
121 See Francisco, Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. 1, 9th Rev. Ed., p. 77.
122 Del Mundo vs. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 432, G.R. No. 108522 January 29, 1996

18
 As regards restrictive stipulations on venue, jurisprudence instructs that it must be shown
that such stipulation is exclusive. In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, such as
"exclusively,""waiving for this purpose any other venue,""shall only" preceding the designation of
venue, "to the exclusion of the other courts," or words of similar import, the stipulation should be
deemed as merely an agreement on an additional forum, not as limiting venue to the
specified place.123
By weight of jurisprudence, the nature of an action is determined by the allegations in the complaint. In turn, the
nature of the action determines its proper venue.
The Court delineated the basic distinction between a real and a personal action and their respective venues in Bank
of the Philippine Islands v. Hontanosas, Jr.,124stating that:
The determinants of whether an action is of a real or a personal nature have been fixed by
the Rules of Court and relevant jurisprudence. According to Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court,
a real action is one that affects title to or possession of real property, or an interest therein. Such
action is to be commenced and tried in the proper court having jurisdiction over the area wherein
the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated, which explains why the action is also
referred to as a local action. In contrast, the Rules of Court declares all other actions as personal
actions. Such actions may include those brought for the recovery of personal property, or for the
enforcement of some contract or recovery of damages for its breach, or for the recovery of
damages for the commission of an injury to the person or property. The venue of a personal action
is the place where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or
any of the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a non-resident defendant where he may
be found, at the election of the plaintiff, for which reason the action is considered a transitory one.

VENUE IS PROCEDURAL, NOT JURISDICTIONAL.

We underscore that in civil proceedings, venue is procedural, not jurisdictional, and may be waived by the defendant
if not seasonably raised either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer. 125Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court thus
expressly stipulates that defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are
deemed waived. As it relates to the place of trial, indeed, venue is meant to provide convenience to the parties, rather
than to restrict their access to the courts.126 In other words, unless the defendant seasonably objects, any action may
be tried by a court despite its being the improper venue.

Otherwise stated, what determines the venue of a case is the primary objective for the filing of the case. 127 On one
hand, if the plaintiff seeks the recovery of personal property, the enforcement of a contract or the recovery of
damages, his complaint is a personal action that may be filed in the place of residence of either party. On the other
hand, if the plaintiff seeks the recovery of real property, or if the action affects title to real property or for the recovery
of possession, or for partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of mortgage on, real property, then the complaint is
a real action that must be brought before the court where the real property is located. Thus, in Chua v. Total Office
Products and Services, Inc.,128this Court ruled that where the action is not intended for the recovery of real property
but solely for the annulment of a contract, it is a personal action that may be filed in the court where the plaintiff or the
respondent resides. It held:

Well-settled is the rule that an action to annul a contract of loan and its accessory real estate
mortgage is a personal action. In a personal action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of personal
property, the enforcement of a contract or the recovery of damages. In contrast, in a real action, the
plaintiff seeks the recovery of real property, or, as indicated in Section 2 (a), Rule 4 of the then
Rules of Court, a real action is an action affecting title to real property or for the recovery of
possession, or for partition, or condemnation of, or foreclosure of mortgage on, real property.

ACTION IN PERSONAM AND ACTION IN REM, DISTINGUISHED.

Consequently, the distinction between an action in personam and an action in rem for purposes of determining venue
is irrelevant. Instead, it is imperative to find out if the action filed is a personal action or a real action. After all,
personal actions may be instituted in the Regional Trial Court (then Court of First Instance) where the defendant or
any of the defendants resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff or any of the plaintiffs resides, at the election of
the plaintiff.129 On the other hand, real actions should be brought before the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction
over the territory in which the subject property or part thereof lies.130

Jurisdiction is “the power and authority of a court to hear, try and decide a case”131 brought before it for
resolution. Courts exercise the powers conferred on them with binding effect if they acquire jurisdiction over: “(a) the
cause of action or the subject matter of the case; (b) the thing or the res; (c) the parties; and (d) the remedy.”132
Jurisdiction over the thing or the res is a court’s authority over the object subject of litigation. The court obtains
jurisdiction or actual custody over the object through the seizure of the object under legal process or the institution of

123581 Phil. 381 (2008)

124737 Phil. 38 (2014)
125 Marcos-Aruneta v. Court of Appeals, G.R.No. 154096, August 22, 2008, 563 SCRA 41, 6162
126Rudolf Lietz Holdings, Inc. v. Reg1st1y of Deeds of Parañaque City, G.R. No. 133240, November 15, 2000, 344

SCRA 680, 685

127Latorre v. Latorre, 631 Phil. 88 (2010); citing Gochan v. Gochan, 423 Phil. 491, 501 (2001) and Olympic Mines and

Development Corp. v. Platinum Group Metals Corporation, G.R. Nos. 178188, 180674, 181141 & 183527, May 8,
2009; Golden Arches Development Corp. v. St. Francis Square Holdings, Inc., 655 Phil. 221 (2011).
128508 Phil. 490 (2005)
129Fortune Motors (Phils.), Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 76431, 16 October 1989, 178 SCRA 565
130Carandang v. Court of Appeals, No. L-44932, 15 April 1988, 160 SCRA 266
131Zamora v. Court of Appeals, 262 Phil. 298, 304 (1990) [Per J. Cruz, First Division].
132De Pedro v. Romasan Development Corp., 748 Phil. 706, 723 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

19
legal proceedings which recognize the power and authority of the court. 133 Jurisdiction over the parties is the court’s
power to render judgment that are binding on the parties. The courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs when they
file their initiatory pleading, while the defendants come under the court’s jurisdiction upon the valid service of
summons or their voluntary appearance in court.134 Jurisdiction over the cause of action or subject matter of the case
is the court’s authority to hear and determine cases within a general class where the proceedings in question belong.
This power is conferred by law and cannot be acquired through stipulation, agreement between the parties, 135 or
implied waiver due to the silence of a party.136
Jurisdiction is conferred by the Constitution, with Congress given the plenary power, for cases not enumerated
in Article VIII, Section 5 of the Constitution, to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of various courts.—
Jurisdiction is conferred by the Constitution, with Congress given the plenary power, for cases not enumerated in
Article VIII, Section 5 of the Constitution, to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of various courts. Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129, or the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 as amended by Republic Act No. 7691, provided for
the jurisdictional division between the first and second level courts by considering the complexity of the cases and the
experience needed of the judges assigned to hear the cases. In criminal cases, first level courts are granted
exclusive original jurisdiction to hear complaints on violations of city or municipal ordinances and offenses punishable
with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years. In contrast, second level courts, with more experienced judges sitting
at the helm, are granted exclusive original jurisdiction to preside over all other criminal cases not within the exclusive
jurisdiction of any other court, tribunal, or body. The same holds true for civil actions and probate proceedings, where
first level courts have the power to hear cases where the value of personal property, estate, or amount of the demand
does not exceed P100,000.00 or P200,000.00 if in Metro Manila. First level courts also possess the authority to hear
civil actions involving title to, possession of, or any interest in real property where the value does not exceed
P20,000.00 or P50,000.00 if the real property is situated in Metro Manila. Second level courts then assume
jurisdiction when the values involved exceed the threshold amounts reserved for first level courts or when the subject
of litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
Section 19(1) of Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP Blg.) 129, as amended, provides Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) with
exclusive, original jurisdiction over “all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary
estimation.”—Section 19(1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended, provides Regional Trial Courts with exclusive,
original jurisdiction over “all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation.”
Lapitan v. Scandia, 24 SCRA 479 (1968), instructed that to determine whether the subject matter of an action is
incapable of pecuniary estimation, the nature of the principal action or remedy sought must first be established. This
finds support in this Court’s repeated pronouncement that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by
examining the material allegations of the complaint and the relief sought. 137

JURISDICTION, CAPABLE OF PECUNIARY ESTIMATION.

This finds support in numerous decisions where this Court proclaimed that the test to determine whether an action is
capable or incapable of pecuniary estimation is to ascertain the nature of the principal action or relief sought. Thus, if
the principal relief sought is the recovery of a sum of money or real property, then the action is capable of pecuniary
estimation. However, if the principal relief sought is not for the recovery of money or real property and the money
claim is only a consequence of the principal relief, then the action is incapable of pecuniary estimation. 138
It is imperative that the competing claims as basis of subject matter jurisdiction be textually based, finding its
basis in the body of the complaint and the relief sought without reference to extraneous facts not alleged or evidence
still to be presented.—It is clear that subject matter jurisdiction cannot be dependent on the supposed ultimate motive
or true objective of the complaint because this will require the judge to speculate on the defenses of the plaintiff
beyond the material allegations contained in the complaint. Likewise, in attempting to pinpoint the true objective of the
complaint at the initial stages of trial, the judge might end up dictating the result outside of the evidence still to be
presented during the trial, opening up the judge to charges of partiality and even impropriety. Furthermore, the judge
is not aware of the evidence to be presented by either party when the complaint is filed; thus, there is no reliable
basis that can be used to infer the true objective of the complaint. It is imperative then that the competing claims as
basis of subject matter jurisdiction be textually based, finding its basis in the body of the complaint and the relief
sought without reference to extraneous facts not alleged or evidence still to be presented. Nonetheless, if subject
matter jurisdiction is assailed during the course of the trial and evidence is presented to prove the defense’s
allegation of lack of jurisdiction, this will lead to an anomaly where the defense’s evidence, instead of the complaint,
will effectively determine the remedy and cause of action. 139
To determine whether a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case, it is important to determine the
nature of the cause of action and of the relief sought. 140While civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real

133Macahilig v. Heirs of Magalit, 398 Phil. 802, 817 (2000) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
134See Villagracia v. Fifth Shari'a District Court, 734 Phil. 239 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
135Heirs of Concha, Sr. v. Spouses Lumocso, 564 Phil. 580, 592-593 (2007) [Per C. J. Puno, First Division].
136Peralta-Labrador v. Bugarin, 505 Phil. 409, 415 (2005) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division]
137Figueroa v. People, 580 Phil. 58, 78 (2008) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division] citing Villagracia v. Fifth Shari'a District

Court, 734 Phil. 239 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division]; Heirs of Julian Dela Cruz and Leonora Talaro v. Heirs of
Alberto Cruz, 512 Phil. 389 (2005) [Per J. Callejo, Second Division]; Spouses Atuel v. Spouses Valdez, 451 Phil. 631
(2003) [Per J. Carpio, First Division].
138See Lapitan v. Scandia, Inc., et al., 133 Phil. 526, 528 (1968) [Per J. Reyes, J.B.L, En Banc]; Singson v. Isabela

Sawmill, 177 Phil. 575, 588 (1979) [Per J. Fernandez, First Division]; Spouses Huguete v. Spouses Embudo, 453
Phil. 170, 176-177 (2003) Far East Bank and Trust Company v. Shemberg Marketing Corporation, 540 Phil. 7, 21
(2006) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, Second Division].
139G.R. No. 202836, June 19, 2018 - FIRST SARMIENTO PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC. v. PHILIPPINE BANK OF

COMMUNICATIONS
140Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions, et al. v. Padilla, et al., 106 Phil. 591 (1959), citing perkins v.

Roxas, 72 Phil. 514 (1941).

20
property, or any interest therein, are also incapable of pecuniary estimation as it is not for recovery of money, the
court’s jurisdiction will be determined by the assessed value of the property involved. 141

The aspect of jurisdiction which may be barred from being assailed as a result of estoppel by laches is
jurisdiction over the subject matter. Thus, in Tijam, the case relied upon by petitioner, the issue involved was the
authority of the then Court of First Instance to hear a case for the collection of a sum of money in the amount of
₱1,908.00 which amount was, at that time, within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the municipal courts.

In subsequent cases citing the ruling of the Court in Tijam, what was likewise at issue was the jurisdiction of the
trial court over the subject matter of the case. Accordingly, in Spouses Gonzaga v. Court of Appeals, 32 the issue for
consideration was the authority of the regional trial court to hear and decide an action for reformation of contract and
damages involving a subdivision lot, it being argued therein that jurisdiction is vested in the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board pursuant to PD 957 (The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers Protective Decree). In Lee v.
Presiding Judge, MTC, Legaspi City,33 petitioners argued that the respondent municipal trial court had no jurisdiction
over the complaint for ejectment because the issue of ownership was raised in the pleadings. Finally, in People v.
Casuga,34 accused-appellant claimed that the crime of grave slander, of which she was charged, falls within the
concurrent jurisdiction of municipal courts or city courts and the then courts of first instance, and that the judgment of
the court of first instance, to which she had appealed the municipal court's conviction, should be deemed null and
void for want of jurisdiction as her appeal should have been filed with the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.

In all of these cases, the Supreme Court barred the attack on the jurisdiction of the respective courts concerned over
the subject matter of the case based on estoppel by laches, declaring that parties cannot be allowed to belatedly
adopt an inconsistent posture by attacking the jurisdiction of a court to which they submitted their cause voluntarily. 142

2. Explain Real and Personal Action

Personal actions are transitory.
The determinants of whether an action is of a real or a personal nature have been fixed by the Rules of Court and
relevant jurisprudence. According to Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, a real action is one that affects title to or
possession of real property, or an interest therein. Such action is to be commenced and tried in the proper court
having jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated, which explains
why the action is also referred to as a local action. In contrast, the Rules of Court declares all other actions as
personal actions. Such actions may include those brought for the recovery of personal property, or for the
enforcement of some contract or recovery of damages for its breach, or for the recovery of damages for the
commission of an injury to the person or property.The venue of a personal action is the place where the plaintiff or
any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or in the case
of a non-resident defendant where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff, for which reason the action is
considered a transitory one.143

Well-settled is the rule that an action to annul a contract of loan and its accessory real estate mortgage is a personal
action. In a personal action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of personal property, the enforcement of a contractor the
recovery of damages. In contrast, in a real action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of real property, or, as indicated in
Section 2 (a), Rule 4 of the then Rules of Court, a real action is an action affecting title to real property or for the
recovery of possession, or for partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of mortgage on, real property.

In personam determines venue; In in rem, the binding effect of a decision the court may render over a party, whether
impleaded or not.Action affecting parties alone is an action in personam where judgment is binding upon parties
properly impleaded. Action for damages and to fix period of lease is not necessarily a personal action for a personal
action may not necessarily be action in personam and a real action not necessarily an action in rem. In a real action,
the plaintiff seeks the recovery of real property, or, as indicated in section 2(a) of Rule 4, a real action is an action
affecting title to real property or for the recovery of possession, or for partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of a
mortgage on, real property. An action in personam is an action against a person on the basis of his personal liability,
while an action in rem is an action against the thing itself, instead of against the person. Hence, a real action may at
the same time be an action in personam and not necessarily an action in rem.144

CANCELLATION OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE

Far East Bank and Trust Company v. Shemberg Marketing Corporation stated that an action for cancellation of
mortgage has a subject that is incapable of pecuniary estimation:
Here, the primary reliefs prayed for by respondents in Civil Case No. MAN-4045 is the cancellation
of the real estate and chattel mortgages for want of consideration. In Bumayog v. Tumas, this Court
ruled that where the issue involves the validity of a mortgage, the action is one incapable of
pecuniary estimation. In the more recent case of Russell v. Vestil, this Court, citing Bumayog, held
that an action questioning the validity of a mortgage is one incapable of pecuniary estimation. 145

141G.R. No. 214803ALONA G. ROLDANvs

SPOUSES CLARENCE I. BARRIOS and ANNA LEE T. BARRIOS, ROMMEL MATORRES, and HON. JEMENA
ABELLAR ARBIS, in her capacity as Presiding Judge, Branch 6, Regional Trial Court, Aldan
142Lee v. Presiding Judge, MTC, Legaspi City supra, note 33 at 415.
143Bank Of The Philippine Islands, Vs. Hon. Judge Agapito L. Hontanosas, Jr., Regional Trial Court, Branch 16, Cebu

City, Silverio Borbon, Spouses Xerxes And Erlinda Facultad, And Xm Facultad & Development Corporation
144 JORGE C. PADERANGA, petitionervs. Hon. DIMALANES B. BUISSAN, G.R. No. 49475, September 28, 1993
145 540 Phil. 7 (2006) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, Second Division].

21
A foreclosure of mortgage is a real action, it is the assessed value of the property which determines the court’s
jurisdiction.In a real estate mortgage (REM) when the principal obligation is not paid when due, the mortgagee has
the right to foreclose the mortgage and to have the property seized and sold with the view of applying the proceeds to
the payment of the obligation.—The RTC exercises exclusive original jurisdiction in civil actions where the subject of
the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation. It also has jurisdiction in civil cases involving title to, or possession
of, real property or any interest in it where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds P20,000.00, and if it
is below P20,000.00, it is the first level court which has jurisdiction. An action “involving title to real property” means
that the plaintiffs cause of action is based on a claim that he owns such property or that he has the legal right to have
exclusive control, possession, enjoyment, or disposition of the same.

It is worthy to mention that the essence of a contract of mortgage indebtedness is that a property has been identified
or set apart from the mass of the property of the debtor-mortgagor as security for the payment of money or the
fulfillment of an obligation to answer the amount of indebtedness, in case of default in payment. Foreclosure is but a
necessary consequence of nonpayment of the mortgage indebtedness. In a real estate mortgage when the principal
obligation is not paid when due, the mortgagee has the right to foreclose the mortgage and to have the property
seized and sold with the view of applying the proceeds to the payment of the obligation. Therefore, the foreclosure
suit is a real action so far as it is against property, and seeks the judicial recognition of a property debt, and an order
for the sale of the res. 146

According to Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, a real action is one that affects title to or possession of
real property, or an interest therein. Such action is to be commenced and tried in the proper court having jurisdiction
over the area wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated, which explains why the action is
also referred to as a local action. In contrast, the Rules of Court declares all other actions as personal actions. Such
actions may include those brought for the recovery of personal property, or for the enforcement of some contract or
recovery of damages for its breach, or for the recovery of damages for the commission of an injury to the person or
property. The venue of a personal action is the place where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or
where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a nonresident defendant where he
may be found, at the election of the plaintiff, for which reason the action is considered a transitory one. 147

The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that where the action is not intended for the recovery of real property but solely for the
annulment of a contract, it is a personal action that may be filed in the court where the plaintiff or the respondent
resides. What determines the venue of a case is the primary objective for the filing of the case. On one hand, if the
plaintiff seeks the recovery of personal property, the enforcement of a contract or the recovery of damages, his
complaint is a personal action that may be filed in the place of residence of either party. On the other hand, if the
plaintiff seeks the recovery of real property, or if the action affects title to real property or for the recovery of
possession, or for partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of mortgage on, real property, then the complaint is a
real action that must be brought before the court where the real property is located. 148

An action for partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of mortgage on, real property is a real action. The real
action is to be commenced and tried in the proper court having jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property
involved, or a portion thereof, is situated, which explains why the action is also referred to as a local action. In
contrast, the Rules of Court declares all other actions as personal actions. Such actions may include those brought
for the recovery of personal property, or for the enforcement of some contract or recovery of damages for its breach,
or for the recovery of damages for the commission of an injury to the person or property. The venue of a personal
action is the place where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the
principal defendants resides, or in the case of a nonresident defendant where he may be found, at the election of the
plaintiff, for which reason the action is considered a transitory one.

An action to recover the deficiency after the extrajudicial foreclosure of the real property mortgage is a personal
action, for it does not affect title to or possession of real property, or any interest therein. 149

3. AllApplicable Case Doctrines

Breach of Lease Contract; Recovery of Possession;Lessee will be entitled to remain and to recover portion taken
where the original contract was for the whole commercial space and not just the subdivided portion

When the complaint does not explicitly pray for recovery of possession such is the necessary consequence where the
ultimate purpose involves title to or recovery of possession, hence must be commenced and tried in the province
where the property or any part thereof lies. 150

Settlement of Estate of Deceased Persons; The general rule is that when a person dies intestate, or, if testate, failed
to name an executor in his will or the executor so named is incompetent, or refuses the trust, or fails to furnish the
bond required by the Rules of Court, then the decedent’s estate shall be judicially administered and the competent
court shall appoint a qualified administrator in the order established in Section 6 of Rule 78 of the Rules of Court.

Unless and until the issue of co-ownership is definitively resolved, it would be premature to effect a partition of an
estate.—Indeed, an action for partition does not preclude the settlement of the issue of ownership. In fact, the

146 ALONA G. ROLDAN, petitioner, vs. SPOUSES CLARENCE I. BARRIOS and ANNA LEE T. BARRIOS, ROMMEL
MATORRES, and HON. JEMENA ABELLAR ARBIS, in her capacity as Presiding Judge, Branch 6, Regional Trial
Court, Aklan, respondents. G.R. No. 214803. April 23, 2018.*
147 RUDY L. RACPAN, petitioner, vs. SHARON BARROGA-HAIGH, respondent. G.R. No. 234499. June 6, 2018.*
148 In Chua v. Total Office Products and Services (Topros), Inc., 471 SCRA 500 (2005),
149 BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., petitioner, vs. SPOUSES BENEDICTO & TERESITA YUJUICO,

respondents. G.R. No. 175796. July 22, 2015.*

150 G.R. No. 49475. September 28, 1993.*; JORGE C. PADERANGA, petitioner, vs. Hon. DIMALANES B. BUISSAN

22
determination as to the existence of the same is necessary in the resolution of an action for partition, as held in
Municipality of Biñan v. Garcia, 180 SCRA 576 (1989.

Immutability of Final Judgments; A judgment which has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable,
hence, may no longer be modified in any respect except to correct clerical errors or mistakes, all the issues between
the parties being deemed resolved and laid to rest. 151

A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. The essential elements of a
cause of action are: (a) the existence of a legal right in favor of the plaintiff; (b) a correlative legal duty of the
defendant to respect such right; and (c) an act or omission by such defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff
with a resulting injury or damage to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for the recovery of relief
from the defendant. Although the first two elements may exist, a cause of action arises only upon the occurrence of
the last element, giving the plaintiff the right to maintain an action in court for recovery of damages or other
appropriate relief.

A complaint whose cause of action has not yet accrued cannot be cured by an amended or supplemental pleading
alleging the existence or accrual of a cause of action during the pendency of the action. 152

Failure to state a cause of action and lack of cause of action are really different from each other.—Failure to
state a cause of action refers to the insufficiency of the pleading, and is a ground for dismissal under Rule 16 of
the Rules of Court. On the other hand, lack of cause action refers to a situation where the evidence does not prove
the cause of action alleged in the pleading.153
Appeals; Petition for Review on Certiorari; Rule 45 of the Rules of Court allows for a direct recourse to the
Supreme Court (SC) by appeal from a judgment, final order, or resolution of the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Rule 45
of the Rules of Court allows for a direct recourse to this Court by appeal from a judgment, final order, or resolution of
the Regional Trial Court. Rule 45, Section 1 provides: Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. A party
desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals,
the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme
Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly
set forth. Rule 41, Section 2(c) likewise provides: Section 2. Modes of appeal.—. . . . (c) Appeal by certiorari.—In all
cases where only questions of law are raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the Supreme Court by petition for
review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45. Thus, there is no question that a petitioner may file a verified petition
for review directly with this Court if only questions of law are at issue; however, if both questions of law and of facts
are present, the correct remedy is to file a petition for review with the Court of Appeals.

Regional Trial Courts; Section 19(1) of Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP Blg.) 129, as amended, provides Regional
Trial Courts (RTCs) with exclusive, original jurisdiction over “all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is
incapable of pecuniary estimation.”—Section 19(1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended, provides Regional
Trial Courts with exclusive, original jurisdiction over “all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable
of pecuniary estimation.” Lapitan v. Scandia, 24 SCRA 479 (1968), instructed that to determine whether the subject
matter of an action is incapable of pecuniary estimation, the nature of the principal action or remedy sought must first
be established. This finds support in this Court’s repeated pronouncement that jurisdiction over the subject matter is
determined by examining the material allegations of the complaint and the relief sought.

The RTC, in exercising appellate jurisdiction, was not limited to the errors assigned in the petitioner’s appeal
memorandum, but could decide on the basis of the entire record of the proceedings had in the trial court and such
memoranda and/or briefs as may be submitted by the parties or required by the RTC. The difference between the
procedures for deciding on review is traceable to Section 22 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.154

Foreclosure of Mortgage; Extrajudicial Sale; Redemption Period; Section 6 of Act No. 3135, as amended,
provides that a property sold through an extrajudicial sale may be redeemed “at any time within the term of one (1)
year from and after the date of the sale.

The registration of the certificate of sale issued by the sheriff after an extrajudicial sale is a mandatory
requirement; thus, if the certificate of sale is not registered with the Registry of Deeds, the property sold at auction is
not conveyed to the new owner and the period of redemption does not begin to run.

Temporary Restraining Orders; A temporary restraining order (TRO) may be issued by a trial court in only two (2)
instances; first, when great or irreparable injury would result to the applicant even before the application for writ of
preliminary injunction can be heard; and second, if the matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer
grave injustice and irreparable injury.

Capable of Pecuniary Estimation; If the principal relief sought is the recovery of a sum of money or real property,
then the action is capable of pecuniary estimation. However, if the principal relief sought is not for the recovery of
money or real property and the money claim is only a consequence of the principal relief, then the action is incapable
of pecuniary estimation.155

Pleadings and Practice; Complaints; Conclusions of Law; Conclusions of fact and law stated in the complaint are
not deemed admitted by the failure to make a specific denial.

151
G.R. No. 187524. August 5, 2015.*; SPOUSES MARIA BUTIONG and FRANCISCO VILLAFRIA,
152 Turner vs. Lorenzo Shipping Corporation, 636 SCRA 13, G.R. No. 157479 November 24, 2010
153 Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Volume I, Ninth Revised Ed. (2005), p. 182.
154G.R. No. 156375, Dolores Adora Macaslang VS. Renato And Melba Zamora
155 G.R. No. 202836. June 19, 2018.*; FIRST SARMIENTO PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC.,
petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS

23
Conclusions of Law; In Abad v. Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, 206 SCRA 567 (1992), the Supreme Court
(SC) ruled that the characterization of a contract as void or voidable is a conclusion of law.—A conclusion of law is a
legal inference on a question of law made as a result of a factual showing where no further evidence is required.

Prescription; Prescription commences from the time the cause of action accrues; in other words, from the time the
obligation becomes due and demandable, or upon demand by the creditor/mortgagor, as the case may be. 156

Estoppel; A party may be barred from raising questions of jurisdiction when estoppel by laches has set in.—As we
have explained quite frequently, a party may be barred from raising questions of jurisdiction when estoppel by laches
has set in.

Estoppel by laches is failure or neglect for unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do what, by exercising
due diligence, ought to have been done earlier, warranting the presumption that the party entitled to assert it has
either abandoned it or has acquiesced to the correctness or fairness of its resolution. This doctrine is based on
grounds of public policy which, for the peace of the society, requires the discouragement of stale claims, and, unlike
the statute of limitations, is not a mere question of time but is principally an issue of inequity or unfairness in
permitting a right or claim to be enforced or espoused.

Property; Mortgages. In Cavite Development Bank v. Spouses Lim, 324 SCRA 346 (2000), the Court explained the
doctrine of mortgagee in good faith, thus: There is, however, a situation where, despite the fact that the mortgagor is
not the owner of the mortgaged property, his title being fraudulent, the mortgage contract and any foreclosure sale
arising there from are given effect by reason of public policy. This is the doctrine of “the mortgagee in good faith”
based on the rule that all persons dealing with property covered by the Torrens Certificates of Title, as buyers or
mortgagees, are not required to go beyond what appears on the face of the title. The public interest in upholding the
indefeasibility of a certificate of title, as evidence of lawful ownership of the land or of any encumbrance thereon,
protects a buyer or mortgagee who, in good faith, relied upon what appears on the face of the certificate of title. In
cases where the mortgagee does not directly deal with the registered owner of real property, the law requires that a
higher degree of prudence be exercised by the mortgagee. ; A person who deliberately ignores a significant fact that
could create suspicion in an otherwise reasonable person is not an innocent purchaser for value. 157

Res Judicata; Requisites in Order for Res Judicata to Bar the Institution of a Subsequent Action.—In order for
res judicata to bar the institution of a subsequent action, the following requisites must concur: (1) the judgment sought
to bar the new action must be final; (2) the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the
subject matter and the parties; (3) the disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must
be as between the first and second action, identity of parties, subject matter, causes of action as are present in the
civil cases below. The foundation principle upon which the doctrine of res judicata rests is that parties ought not to be
permitted to litigate the same issue more than once; that when a right or fact has been judicially tried and determined
by a court of competent jurisdiction, so long as it remains unreversed, it should be conclusive upon the parties and
those in privity with them in law or estate.

ACTION FOR PARTITION; ADVERSE CLAIMANT NOT PROPER PARTY DEFENDANT.—Where in an action for
partition it is alleged in the complaint that one of the defendants is made a party because he is in possession of the
property sought to be partitioned, claiming a supposed interest adverse to that of the plaintiffs, there is a misjoinder of
parties defendant, and the complaint is subject to demurrer on that ground.

WHEN AN ACTION FOR EJECTMENT.—If in an action f or partition a third person is joined who claims an interest
adverse to that of the plaintiffs, then the action becomes one for ejectment or unlawful entry, and cannot be
maintained upon demurrer, for otherwise it would serve as a means by which the plaintiff could investigate the right or
interest said third person claims to possess in the property sought to be partitioned.

WHEN JOINDER OF THIRD PERSON PROPER.—In an action for partition the joinder of a third person is proper,
when it is alleged in the complaint that he is in possession as a coöwner, or that the interest claimed by him consists
in his having been subrogated to the right of one of the coöwners by assignment, sale, or other mode of transferring
ownership, as in that case his claim is limited to that part of the property that may be allotted to him in the partition. 158
In the absence of the required declaration of the fair market value as stated in the current tax declaration or zonal
valuation of the property, it cannot be determined whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) or first level court has
original and exclusive jurisdiction over the petitioners’ action, since the jurisdiction of these courts is determined on
the basis of the value of the property. 159
Motion to Dismiss; Well-settled is the rule that the special civil action for certiorari is not the proper remedy to assail
the denial by the trial court of a motion to dismiss; The proper remedy in such a case is to appeal after a decision has
been rendered.If the objection to the jurisdiction is not raised either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer, the
objection to the jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff or the defendant is deemed waived.

Parties; Indispensable Parties; An indispensable party is one who has such an interest in the controversy or
subject matter of a case that a final adjudication cannot be made in his or her absence, without injuring or affecting
that interest.

156
Mercene vs. Government Service Insurance System, 850 SCRA 209, G.R. No. 192971 January 10, 2018
157 G.R. No. 167848. April 27, 2007.* BANK OF COMMERCE, petitioner, vs. SPS. PRUDENCIO SAN PABLO, JR
158 GR No. 14242. September 20, 1920]; JULIAN REYES ET AL., plaintiffs and appellants, vs. FRANCISCA

CORDERO, MARIA CORDERO, and AMANDO GATMAITAN

159 G.R. No. 204970. February 1, 2016.* SPOUSES CLAUDIO and CARMENCITA TRAYVILLA, petitioners, vs.
BERNARDO SEJAS and JUVY PAGLINAWAN, represented by JESSIE PAGLINAWAN, respondents

24
Section 11 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court states that “[n]either 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.
Where the defendant is neither a natural nor a juridical person or an entity authorized by law, the complaint may be
dismissed on the ground that the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action or for failure to state a cause
of action pursuant to Section 1(g) of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, because a complaint cannot possibly state a
cause of action against one who cannot be a party to a civil action.

Substitution of Parties; Substitution is proper only where the party to be substituted died during the pendency of the
case, as expressly provided for by Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.―Substitution is proper only where the
party to be substituted died during the pendency of the case, as expressly provided for by Section 16, Rule 3 of the
Rules of Court, which states: 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. x x x
The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased, without requiring the appointment of an
executor or administrator x x x. The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to appear
and be substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice.160

Foreclosure of Mortgage; Extrajudicial Foreclosure of Mortgage; Special Power to Sell; In the extrajudicial
foreclosure of property subject of a real estate mortgage (REM), Act No. 3135 (An Act to Regulate the Sale of
Property Under Special Powers Inserted in or Annexed to Real Estate Mortgages) is quite explicit and definite about
the special power to sell the property being required to be either inserted in or attached to the deed of mortgage.

The requirement for the special power or authority to sell finds support in the civil law. To begin with, because the
sale of the property by virtue of the extrajudicial foreclosure would be made through the sheriff by the respondent
spouses as the mortgagees acting as the agents of the petitioners as the mortgagors-owners, there must be a written
authority from the latter in favor of the former as their agents; otherwise, the sale would be void. And secondly,
considering that, pursuant to Article 1878(5), of the Civil Code, a special power of attorney was necessary for
entering “into any contract by which the ownership of an immovable is transmitted or acquired either gratuitously or
for a valuable consideration,” the written authority must be a special power of attorney to sell.

Redemption; There is no right of redemption to speak of if the foreclosure was void.—Having found and declared the
extrajudicial foreclosure of the REM and the foreclosure sale of the mortgaged property of the petitioner void for want
of the special power to sell, we deem it unnecessary to consider and determine the final issue on whether or not the
petitioners had lost their right to redeem. In other words, there is no right of redemption to speak of if the foreclosure
was void. 161

4. State Rule 4 and Sections

Rule 4 of the Rules of Court governs the rules on venue of civil actions, to wit:

Venue of Actions

Section 1. Venue of real actions. — Actions affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein, shall
be commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved,
or a portion thereof, is situated.

Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced and tried in the municipal trial court of the municipality or city
wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. (1[a], 2[a]a)

Section 2. Venue of personal actions. — All other actions may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of
the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a
non-resident defendant where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff. (2[b]a)

Section 3. Venue of actions against nonresidents. — If any of the defendants does not reside and is not found in the
Philippines, and the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff, or any property of said defendant located in the
Philippines, the action may be commenced and tried in the court of the place where the plaintiff resides, or where the
property or any portion thereof is situated or found. (2[c]a)

Section 4. When Rule not applicable. — This Rule shall not apply.

(a) In those cases where a specific rule or law provides otherwise; or

160
G.R. No. 173946. June 19, 2013.*; BOSTON EQUITY RESOURCES, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS
and LOLITA G. TOLEDO,
161 G.R. No. 159271. July 13, 2015.*; SPOUSES BENITO BAYSA and VICTORIA BAYSA, petitioners, vs.
SPOUSES FIDEL PLANTILLA and SUSAN PLANTILLA, REGISTER OF DEEDS OF QUEZON CITY, and THE
SHERIFF OF QUEZON CITY, respondents.

25
(b) Where the parties have validly agreed in writing before the filing of the action on the exclusive venue thereof. (3a,
5a)

Step 3 Determine if the case is one in personam or in rem for purposes of

1. Summons
Summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought against him or her.Its purpose is two-fold:
to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant and to notify the defendant that an action has been
commenced so that he may be given an opportunity to be heard on the claim against him. Compliance with the rules
regarding the service of summons is as much an issue of due process as of jurisdiction. The essence of due process
is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of his
defense. It is elementary that before a person can be deprived of his property, he should first be informed of the claim
against him and the theory on which such claim is premised.162

The clerk of court issues the summons who shall sign the same under seal upon a verified filing of a compliant and
the payment of the required legal fees. The summon is a writ that is directed to the plaintiff and may be served by the
sheriff, his deputy, or other proper court officer or for justifiable reasons by any suitable person authorized by the
court issuing the summons.163
The general rule is that "no man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a
case are not bound by a judgment rendered by the court."164

As a general rule, personal service is the preferred mode of service of summons. Substituted service is the exception
to this general rule. For the sheriff to avail of substituted service, there must be a detailed enumeration of the sheriffs
actions showing that a defendant cannot be served despite diligent and reasonable efforts. These details are
contained in the sheriffs return. Thus, the sheriffs return is entitled to a presumption of regularity. Courts may allow
substituted service based on what the sheriffs return contains. Failure to serve summons means that the court did not
acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.165

The lack of any demonstration of effort on the part of the sheriff to serve the summons personally upon petitioner is a
deviation from this court’s previous rulings that personal service isthe preferred mode of service, and that the sheriff
must narrate in his or her return the efforts made to effect personal service. Thus, the sheriff’s return in this case was
defective. No substituted service or service by publication will be allowed based on such defective return.Proper
service of summons is imperative. A decision rendered without proper service of summons suffers a defect in
jurisdiction. Respondent’s institution of a proceeding for annulment of petitioner’s certificate of title is sufficient to vest
the court with jurisdiction over the res, but it is not sufficient for the court to proceed with the case with authority and
competence. Personal service of summons is the preferred mode of service of summons.Thus, as a rule, summons
must be served personally upon the defendant or respondent wherever he or she may be found. If the defendant or
respondent refuses to receive the summons, it shall be tendered to him or her. If the defendant or respondent is a
domestic juridical person, personal service of summons shall be effected upon its president, managing partner,
general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel wherever he or she may be found. Other
modes of serving summons may be done when justified. Service of summons through other modes will not be
effective without showing serious attempts to serve summons through personal service. Thus, the rules allow
summons to be served by substituted service only for justifiable causes and if the defendant or respondent cannot be
served within reasonable time.Substituted service is effected "(a) by leaving copies of the summons at the
defendant’s residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein,or (b) by leaving the
copies at defendant’s office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof." Service of
summons by publication in a newspaper of general circulation is allowed when the defendant or respondent is
designated as an unknown owner or if his or her whereabouts are "unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent
inquiry."It may only be effected after unsuccessful attempts to serve the summons personally, and after diligent
inquiry as to the defendant’s or respondent’s whereabouts.

Service of summons by extra territorial service is allowed after leave of court when the defendant or respondentdoes
not reside or is not found in the country or is temporarily out of the country. If a defendant or respondent voluntarily
appears in trial or participates in the proceedings, it is generally construed as sufficient service of summons.166

2. Explain in Rem, In Personam, Quasi-In Rem

An action in personam is an action against a person on the basis of his personal liability. An action in rem is an
action against the thing itself instead of against the person. An action quasi in rem is one wherein one individual is
named as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interest therein to the obligation or lien
burdening the property167

Actions in personam and actions in rem or quasi in rem differ in that actions in personam are directed against specific
persons and seek personal judgments. On the other hand, actions in rem or quasi in rem are directed against the
thing or property or status of a person and seek judgments with respect thereto as against the whole world. 168

In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case 169.
On the other hand, in a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a

162Nation Petroleum Gas, Incorporated vs. Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation GR. No. 183370 August 17, 2015
163Rule 14, Rules of Court
164Sunrise Garden Corp vs CA GR. No.158836 September 30 ,2015
165People's General insurance Corp. vs. Edgardo Guansing and Eduardo Lizaso.G.R. No. 204759 November 14,

2018.
166Auroran e Pedro vs. Romasan Development Corp. G.R. No. 194751 November 26, 2014
167Asiavest Limited v. Court of Appeals, 296 SCRA 539, 552
168Romualdez-Licaros v. Licaros, 401 SCRA 762, 770

26
prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res. Jurisdiction
over the res is acquired either (a) by the seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought into actual
custody of the law; or (b) as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the court is
recognized and made effective. The service of summons or notice to the defendant is not for the purpose of vesting
the court with jurisdiction but merely for satisfying the due process requirements.170

3. Give examples each

The following are examples of:
1. ACTIONS IN REM171;
a. petition for adoption;
b. correction of entries in the birth certificate;
c. annulment of marriage;
d. nullity of marriage;
e. petition to establish illegitimate filiation;
f. registration of land under the Torrens system; and
g. Forfeiture proceedings.

2. ACTIONS IN PERSONAM172; and

a. action for collection of sum of money and damages;
b. action for unlawful detainer or forcible entry;
c. action for specific performance;
d. action to enforce a foreign judgment in a complaint for a breach of contract; and
e. Breach of Contract.

3. ACTIONS QUASI-IN REM173

a. action to quiet title;
b. action for annulment of certificate of title174
c. actions for foreclosure; and
d. Attachment proceedings.

4. Effect if in case of invalid summons

Fundamental is the rule that jurisdiction over a defendant in a civil case is acquired either through service of
summons or through voluntary appearance in court and submission to its authority. In the absence or when the
service of summons upon the person of the defendant is defective, the court acquires no jurisdiction over his person,
and a judgment rendered against him is null and void.

In actions in personam such as ejectment, the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
through personal or substituted service of summons. However, because substituted service is in derogation of the
usual method of service and personal service of summons is preferred over substituted service, parties do not have
unbridled right to resort to substituted service of summons. Before substituted service of summons is resorted to, the
parties must: (a) indicate the impossibility of personal service of summons within a reasonable time; (b) specify the
efforts exerted to locate the defendant; and (c) state that the summons was served upon a person of sufficient age
and discretion who is residing in the address, or who is in charge of the office or regular place of business of the
defendant. 175

In actions in personam, the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant through personal or
substituted service of summons. However, because substituted service is in derogation of the usual method of
service and personal service of summons is preferred over substituted service, parties do not have unbridled right to
resort to substituted service of summons. Before substituted service of summons is resorted to, the parties must: (a)
indicate the impossibility of personal service of summons within a reasonable time; (b) specify the efforts exerted to
locate the defendant; and (c) state that the summons was served upon a person of sufficient age and discretion who
is residing in the address, or who is in charge of the office or regular place of business of the defendant.

Courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the filing of the complaint. On the other hand, jurisdiction
over the defendants in a civil case is acquired either through the service of summons upon them or through their
voluntary appearance in court and their submission to its authority,22 as provided in Section 20,23 Rule 14 of the
Rules of Court.

On this score, Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Spouses Dy instructs that

169Asiavest Limited v. Court of Appeals, 296 SCRA 539, 552

170Alba v. Court of Appeals, 465 SCRA 495, 505-506
171Bobie Rose D. V. Frias, As Represented By Marie Regine F. Fujita, V. Rolando F. Alcayde, G.R. No. 194262,

February 28, 2018

172Bobie Rose D. V. Frias, As Represented By Marie Regine F. Fujita, V. Rolando F. Alcayde, G.R. No. 194262,

February 28, 2018

173Bobie Rose D. V. Frias, As Represented By Marie Regine F. Fujita, V. Rolando F. Alcayde, G.R. No. 194262,

February 28, 2018

174Aurora N. De Pedro Vs. Romasan Development Corporation G.R. No. 194751 November 26, 2014
175 G.R. No. 183795 November 12, 2014 PRUDENTIAL BANK (now Bank of the Philippine Islands) as the duly

appointed ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF JULIANA DIEZ VDA. DE GABRIEL vs. AMADOR A. MAGDAMIT,
JR.

27
As a general proposition, one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the
court. It is by reason of this rule that we have had occasion to declare that the filing of motions to admit answer, for
additional time to file answer, for reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for
reconsideration, is considered voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction. This, however, is tempered only by the
concept of conditional appearance, such that a party who makes a special appearance to challenge, among others,
the court's jurisdiction over his person cannot be considered to have submitted to its authority. Prescinding from the
foregoing, it is thus clear that:

(1) Special appearance operates as an exception to the general rule on voluntary appearance;

(2) Accordingly, objections to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant must be explicitly made,
i.e., set forth in an unequivocal manner; and

(3) Failure to do so constitutes voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court, especially in instances where a
pleading or motion seeking affirmative relief is filed and submitted to the court for resolution.

We have, time and again, held that the filing of a motion for additional time to file answer is considered voluntary
submission to the jurisdiction of the court. If the defendant knowingly does an act inconsistent with the right to object
to the lack of personal jurisdiction as to him, like voluntarily appearing in the action, he is deemed to have submitted
himself to the jurisdiction of the court. Seeking an affirmative relief is inconsistent with the position that no voluntary
appearance had been made, and to ask for such relief, without the proper objection, necessitates submission to the
Court's jurisdiction.

Section 3, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court states when a party may be properly declared in default and the remedy
available in such case:

SEC. 3. Default; declaration of- If the defending party fails to answer within the time allowed therefor, the court shall,
upon motion of the claiming party with notice to the defending party, and proof of such failure, declare the defending
party in default. Thereupon, the court shall proceed to render judgment granting the claimant such relief as his
pleading may warrant, unless the court in its discretion requires the claimant to submit evidence. Such reception of
evidence may be delegated to the clerk of court.

(a) Effect of order of default. - A party in default shall be entitled to notice of subsequent proceedings but not to take
part in the trial.

(b) Relief from order of default.- A party declared in default may at any time after notice thereof and before judgment
file a motion under oath to set aside the order of default upon proper showing that his failure to answer was due to
fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence and that he has a meritorious defense. In such case, the order of
default may be set aside on such terms and conditions as the judge may impose in the interest of justice. 176

As a general rule, personal service is the preferred mode of service of summons. Substituted service is the
exception to this general rule. For the sheriff to avail of substituted service, there must be a detailed enumeration of
the sheriffs actions showing that a defendant cannot be served despite diligent and reasonable efforts. These details
are contained in the sheriffs return. Thus, the sheriffs return is entitled to a presumption of regularity. Courts may
allow substituted service based on what the sheriffs return contains.

Failure to serve summons means that the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Absent
proper service of summons, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the defendant unless there is voluntary
appearance. The filing of an answer and other subsequent pleadings is tantamount to voluntary appearance.

The rule requiring jurisdiction over the parties is based on due process. Due process consists of notice and hearing.
Notice means that persons with interests in the subject of litigation are to be informed of the facts and the law on
which the complaint or petition is based for them to adequately defend their interests. This is done by giving the
parties notification of the proceedings. On the other hand, hearing means that the parties must be given an
opportunity to be heard or a chance to defend their interests. Courts are guardians of constitutional rights, and
therefore, cannot deny due process rights while at the same time be considered to be acting within their jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction over the parties is the power of the courts to make decisions that are binding on them. Jurisdiction over
complainants or petitioners is acquired as soon as they file their complaints or petitions, while jurisdiction over
defendants or respondents is acquired through valid service of summons or their voluntary submission to the courts'
jurisdiction.

Violation of due process is a jurisdictional defect. Hence, proper service of summons is imperative. A decision
rendered without proper service of summons suffers a jurisdictional infirmity. In the service of summons, personal
service is the preferred mode. As a rule, summons must be served personally on a defendant. 177

176 G.R. No. 225035 February 8, 2017 CARSON REALTY & MANAGEMENT CORPORATION vs. RED ROBIN
SECURITY
177 G.R. No. 204759, November 14, 2018PEOPLE'S GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION vs. EDGARDO

GUANSING AND EDUARDO LIZASO

28
5. State Rule 14 and its sections

RULE 14
Summons
Section 1. Clerk to issue summons. — Upon the filing of the complaint and the payment of the requisite legal fees,
the clerk of court shall forthwith issue the corresponding summons to the defendants. (1a)

Section 2. Contents. — The summons shall be directed to the defendant, signed by the clerk of court under seal and
contain (a) the name of the court and the names of the parties to the action; (b) a direction that the defendant answer
within the time fixed by these Rules; (c) a notice that unless the defendant so answers plaintiff will take judgment by
default and may be granted the relief applied for.
A copy of the complaint and order for appointment of guardian ad litem if any, shall be attached to the original and
each copy of the summons. (3a)

Section 3. By whom served. — The summons may be served by the sheriff, his deputy, or other proper court officer,
or for justifiable reasons by any suitable person authorized by the court issuing the summons. (5a)

Section 4. Return. — When the service has been completed, the server shall, within five (5) days therefrom, serve a
copy of the return, personally or by registered mail, to the plaintiff's counsel, and shall return the summons to the
clerk, who issued it, accompanied by proof of service. (6a)

Section 5. Issuance of alias summons. — If a summons is returned without being served on any or all of the
defendants, the server shall also serve a copy of the return on the plaintiff's counsel, stating the reasons for the
failure of service, within five (5) days therefrom. In such a case, or if the summons has been lost, the clerk, on
demand of the plaintiff, may issue an alias summons. (4a)

Section 6. Service in person on defendant. — Whenever practicable, the summons shall be served by handling a
copy thereof to the defendant in person, or, if he refuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him. (7a)

Section 7. Substituted service. — If, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time
as provided in the preceding section, service may be effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the
defendant's residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or (b) by leaving the
copies at defendant's office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof. (8a)

Section 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)

Section 9. Service upon prisoners. — When the defendant is a prisoner confined in a jail or institution, service shall
be effected upon him by the officer having the management of such jail or institution who is deemed deputized as a
special sheriff for said purpose. (12a)

Section 10. Service upon minors and incompetents. — When the defendant is a minor, insane or otherwise an
incompetent, service shall be made upon him personally and on his legal guardian if he has one, or if none his
guardian ad litem whose appointment shall be applied for by the plaintiff. In the case of a minor, service may also be
made on his father or mother. (l0a, 11a)

Section 11. Service upon domestic private juridical entity. — When the defendant is a corporation, partnership or
association organized under the laws of the Philippines with a juridical personality, service may be made on the
president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel. (13a)

Section 12. Service upon foreign private juridical entities. — When the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity
which has transacted business in the Philippines, service may be made on its resident agent designated in
accordance with law for that purpose, or, if there be no such agent, on the government official designated by law to
that effect, or on any of its officers or agents within the Philippines. (14a)

Section 13. Service upon public corporations. — When the defendant is the Republic of the Philippines, service may
be effected on the Solicitor General; in case of a province, city or municipality, or like public corporations, service may
be effected on its executive head, or on such other officer or officers as the law or the court may direct. (15)

Section 14. Service upon defendant whose identity or whereabouts are unknown. — In any action where the
defendant is designated as an unknown owner, or the like, or whenever his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be
ascertained by diligent inquiry, service may, by leave of court, be effected upon him by publication in a newspaper of
general circulation and in such places and for such time as the court may order. (16a)

Section 15. Extraterritorial service. — When the defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, and
the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff or relates to, or the subject of which is, property within the
Philippines, in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent, or in which the relief
demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from any interest therein, or the property of the
defendant has been attached within the Philippines, service may, by leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines
by personal service as under section 6; or by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for
such time as the court may order, in which case a copy of the summons and order of the court shall be sent by
registered mail to the last known address of the defendant, or in any other manner the court may deem sufficient. Any

29
order granting such leave shall specify a reasonable time, which shall not be less than sixty (60) days after notice,
within which the defendant must answer. (17a)

Section 16. Residents temporarily out of the Philippines. — When any action is commenced against a defendant who
ordinarily resides within the Philippines, but who is temporarily out of it, service may, by leave of court, be also
effected out of the Philippines, as under the preceding section. (18a)

Section 17. Leave of court. — Any application to the court under this Rule for leave to effect service in any manner
for which leave of court is necessary shall be made by motion in writing, supported by affidavit of the plaintiff or some
person on his behalf, setting forth the grounds for the application. (19)

Section 18. Proof of service. — The proof of service of a summons shall be made in writing by the server and shall
set forth the manner, place, and date of service; shall specify any papers which have been served with the process
and the name of the person who received the same; and shall be sworn to when made by a person other than a
sheriff or his deputy. (20)

Section 19. Proof of service by publication. — If the service has been made by publication, service may be proved by
the affidavit of the printer, his foreman or principal clerk, or of the editor, business or advertising manager, to which
affidavit a copy of the publication shall be attached and by an affidavit showing the deposit of a copy of the summons
and order for publication in the post office, postage prepaid, directed to the defendant by registered mail to his last
known address. (21)

Section 20. Voluntary appearance. — The defendant's voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to
service of summons. The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance.

6. State Rule 47(Annulment of Judgement)

Rule 47 -Annulment of Judgments or final orders and resolutions
- Coverage.
This Rule shall govern the annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil
actions of Regional Trial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other
appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. 178
- Grounds for annulment.
The annulment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of, or could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial
or petition for relief.179
- Period for filing action.
If based on extrinsic fraud, the action must be filed within four (4) years from its discovery; and if based on lack of
jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches or estoppel.180
- Filing and contents of petition.
The action shall be commenced by filing a verified petition alleging therein with particularity the facts and the law
relied upon for annulment, as well as those supporting the petitioner’s good and substantial cause of action or
defense, as the case may be.
The petition shall be filed in seven (7) clearly legible copies, together with sufficient copies corresponding to the
number of respondents. A certified true copy of the judgment or final order or resolution shall be attached to the
original copy of the petition intended for the court and indicated as such by the petitioner.

The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition affidavits of witnesses or documents supporting the cause of
action or defense and a sworn certification that he has not theretofore commenced any other action involving the
same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency;
if there is such other action or proceeding, he must state the status of the same, and if he should thereafter learn that
a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or
different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and
other tribunal or agency thereof within five (5) days therefrom.181

- Action by the court.

Should the court find no substantial merit in the petition, the same may be dismissed outright with specific reasons for
such dismissal.
Should prima facie merit be found in the petition, the same shall be given due course and summons shall be served
on the respondent.182

- Procedure.
The procedure in ordinary civil cases shall be observed. Should a trial be necessary, the reception of the evidence
may be referred to a member of the court or a judge of a Regional Trial Court.183

- Effect of judgment.
A judgment of annulment shall set aside the questioned judgment or final order or resolution and render the same null
and void, without prejudice to the original action being refiled in the proper court. However, where the judgment or

178Rule 47, Section 1, 1997 Rules of Court.

179 Ibid, Section 2.
180 Ibid, Section 3.
181 Ibid, Section 4.
182 Ibid, Section 5.
183 Ibid, Section 6.

30
final order or resolution is set aside on the ground of extrinsic fraud, the court may on motion order the trial court to
try the case as if a timely motion for new trial had been granted therein.184

- Suspension of prescriptive period.

The prescriptive period for the refiling of the aforesaid original action shall be deemed suspended from the filing of
such original action until the finality of the judgment of annulment. However, the prescriptive period shall not be
suspended where the extrinsic fraud is attributable to the plaintiff in the original action.185

- Relief available.
The judgment of annulment may include the award of damages, attorney’s fees and other relief.
If the questioned judgment or final order or resolution had already been executed, the court may issue such orders of
restitution or other relief as justice and equity may warrant under the circumstances. 186

- Annulment of judgments or final orders of Municipal Trial Courts.

An action to annul a judgment or final order of a Municipal Trial Court shall be filed in the Regional Trial Court having
jurisdiction over the former. It shall be treated as an ordinary civil action and sections 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of this Rule
shall be applicable thereto.187
- The remedy is available only when the petitioner can no longer resort to the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal,
petition for relief or other appropriate remedies through no fault of the petitioner; (2) The grounds for the action of
annulment of judgment are limited to either extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction; (3) The action must be filed within
four years from the discovery of the extrinsic fraud; and if based on lack of jurisdiction, must be brought before it is
barred by laches or estoppel; and (4) The petition must be verified, and should allege with particularity the facts and
the law relied upon for annulment, as well as those supporting the petitioner's good and substantial cause of action or
defense, as the case may be.188

- Rule 47, Section 1 limits the applicability of the remedy of annulment of judgment to final judgments, orders or
resolutions.189 A final judgment or order is one that finally disposes of a case, leaving nothing more for the com1 to do
in respect thereto. This may be an adjudication on the merits which, on the basis of the evidence presented at the
trial, declares categorically what the rights and obligations of the parties are and which party is in the right, or a
judgment or order that dismisses an action on the ground of res judicata or prescription.190 In contrast, an
interlocutory order does not dispose of a case completely but leaves something to be done upon its merits. 191

-In Guiang v. Co,192 we declared that an auction sale and a writ of execution are not final orders. Thus, they cannot
be nullified through an action for annulment of judgment, to wit:
It bears stressing that Rule 47 of the Rules of Civil Procedure applies only to a petition to annul a judgment or final
order and resolution in civil actions, on the ground of extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction or due process. A final order
or resolution is one which is issued by a court which disposes of the subject matter in its entirety or terminates a
particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing else to be done but to enforce by execution what has been
determined by the court. The rule does not apply to an action to annul the levy and sale at public auction of
petitioner's properties or the certificate of sale executed by the deputy sheriff over said properties. Neither
does it apply to an action to nullify a writ of execution because a writ of execution is not a final order or
resolution, but is issued to carry out the mandate of the court in the enforcement of a final order or of a
judgment. It is a judicial process to enforce a final order or judgment against the losing party.193 (Citations
omitted, emphasis supplied.)

- Corollarily, an order implementing a writ of execution issued over certain real properties is also not a final order as it
merely enforces a judicial process over an identified object. It does not involve an adjudication on the merits or
determination of the rights of the parties.194

- Closely related to a writ of execution is a writ of possession. In LZK Holdings and Development Corp. v. Planters
Development Bank,195 we explained that a writ of possession is a writ of execution employed to enforce a judgment to
recover the possession of land. It commands the sheriff to enter the land and give its possession to the person
entitled under the judgment.196 Thus, similar to a writ of execution, a writ of possession is not a final order which may
be annulled under Rule 47. It is merely a judicial process to enforce a final order against the losing party. For this
reason the Decision of the Antipolo Court ordering the issuance of writ of possession is also not amenable to an
action for annulment of judgment.197

184 Ibid, Section 7.

185 Ibid, Section 8.
186 Ibid, Section 9.
187 Ibid, Section 10.
188 G.R. No. 159926, January 20, 2014, 714 SCRA 226.
189 Rule 47, Section 1, 1997 Rules of Court.
190 Ybiernas v. Tanco-Gabaldon, G.R. No. 178925, June l, 2011, 650 SCRA 154, 166, citing Intramuros Tennis Club,

Inc. v. Philippine Tourism Authority, G.R. No. 135630, September 26,, 341 SCRA 90.
191Fenequito v. Vergara, Jr., G.R. No. 172829, July 18, 2012, 677 SCRA 113, 119.
192 G.R. No. 146996, July 30, 2004, 435 SCRA 556.
193Id. at 562. See also Land Bank of the Philippines v. Planta, G.R. No. 152324, April 29, 2005, 457 SCRA 664.
194G.R. No. 189881, BACLARAN MARKETING CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. FERNANDO C. NIEVA and

MAMERTO SIBULO, JR., Respondents, April 19, 2017.

195 G.R. No. 167998, April 27, 2007, 522 SCRA 731.
196Id. at 738, citing Ong v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121494, June 8, 2000, 333 SCRA 189, 195.
197 G.R. No. 189881, BACLARAN MARKETING CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. FERNANDO C. NIEVA and

MAMERTO SIBULO, JR., Respondents, April 19, 2017.

31
- Rule 47, Section 2 provides extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction as the exclusive grounds for the remedy of
annulment of judgment.198 Case law, however, recognizes a third ground--denial of due process of law. Arcelona v.
Court of Appeals199 teaches that a decision which is patently void may be set aside on grounds of want of jurisdiction
or "non-compliance with due process of law. "200

- A petition for annulment of judgment initiated under Rule 47 of the- ·Rules . of Court is a remedy granted only under
exceptional circumstances provided the petitioner has failed to avail himself of the ordinary or other appropriate
remedies provided by law without fault on his part. It has often been stressed that such action is never resorted to as
a substitute for the petitioner's own neglect in not promptly availing himself of the ordinary or other appropriate
remedies.201

- Owing to the exceptional character of the remedy of annulment of judgment, the limitations and guidelines set forth
by Rule 47 should be strictly complied with.1âwphi1 Time and again, the Court has emphatically reminded litigants on
this stricture; and on the dire consequences of ignoring the limitations and guidelines. The Court has explained why in
Dare Adventure Farm Corporation v. Court of Appeals: 202
A petition for annulment of judgment is a remedy in equity so exceptional in nature that it may be availed of only when
other remedies are wanting, and only if the judgment, final order or final resolution sought to be annulled was
rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction or through extrinsic fraud. Yet, the remedy, being exceptional in character, is
not allowed to be so easily and readily abused by parties aggrieved by the final judgments, orders or resolutions. The
Court has thus instituted safeguards by limiting the grounds for the annulment to lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic
fraud, and by prescribing in Section 1 of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court that the petitioner should show that the
ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through
no fault of the petitioner. A petition for annulment that ignores or disregards any of the safeguards cannot prosper.203

- The Court has expounded on the nature of the remedy of annulment of judgment or final order in Dare Adventure
Farm Corporation v. Court of Appeals,204 viz:
A petition for annulment of judgment is a remedy in equity so exceptional in nature that it may be availed of only when
other remedies are wanting, and only if the judgment, final order or final resolution sought to be annulled was
rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction or through extrinsic fraud. Yet, the remedy, being exceptional in character, is
not allowed to be so easily and readily abused by parties aggrieved by the final judgments, orders or resolutions. The
Court has thus instituted safeguards by limiting the grounds for the annulment to lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic
fraud, and by prescribing in Section 1 of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court that the petitioner should show that the
ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through
no fault of the petitioner. A petition for annulment that ignores or disregards any of the safeguards cannot prosper.205

- The jurisdiction over the action for the annulment of judgment had been lodged in the CFI as a court of general
jurisdiction on the basis that the subject matter of the action was not capable of pecuniary estimation. Section 56,
paragraph 1, of Act No. 136 (An Act providing for the Organization of Courts in the Philippine Islands), effective on
June 11, 1901, vested original jurisdiction in the CFI over "all civil actions in which the subject of litigations is not
capable of pecuniary estimation." The CFI retained its jurisdiction under Section 44(a) of Republic Act No. 296 (The
Judiciary Act of 1948), effective on June 17, 1948, which contained a similar provision vesting original jurisdiction in
the CFI over "all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is not capable of pecuniary estimation." 206

- Not every kind of fraud justifies the action of annulment of judgment. Only extrinsic fraud does. Fraud is extrinsic,
according to Cosmic Lumber Corporation v. Court of Appeals,207 "where the unsuccessful party has been prevented
from exhibiting fully his case, by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent, as by keeping him away from
court, a false promise of a compromise; or where the defendant never had knowledge of the suit, being kept in
ignorance by the acts of the plaintiff; or where an attorney fraudulently or without authority connives at his defeat;
these and similar cases which show that there has never been a real contest in the trial or hearing of the case are
reasons for which a new suit may be sustained to set aside and annul the former judgment and open the case for a
new and fair hearing."
The overriding consideration when extrinsic fraud is alleged is that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant
prevented the petitioner from having his day in court.208 Nonetheless, extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it
was availed of, or could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for relief.209

198 Sec. 2. Grounds for Annulment. -The annulment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of
jurisdiction. Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of, or could have been availed of, in a motion
for new trial or petition for relief.
199Supra note 36.
200 See also Benatiro v. Heirs of Evaristo Cuyos, G.R. No. 161220, July 30, 2008, 560 SCRA 478, 494- 495,

citing Intestate Estate of the Late Nimfa Sian v. Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. 168882, January 31, 2007, 513
SCRA 662.
201Republic v. De Castro, G.R. No. 189724, February 7, 2011, 641 SCRA 584, 590.
202 G.R. No. 161122, September 24, 2012, 61ll SCRA 580, 586-587.
203 G.R. No. 197356, EMILIO A. AQUINO, Petitioner vs. CARMELITA TANGKENGKO, MORRIS TANGKENGKO and

RANILLO TANGKENGKO, Respondents, August 24, 2016

204 G.R. No. 161122, September 24, 2012, 681 SCRA 580, 586-587.
205G.R. No. 159926, PINAUSUKAN SEAFOOD HOUSE, Petitioner vs. FAR EAST BANK & TRUST

COMPANY, Respondents., January 20, 2014.

206 Ibid.
207 G.R. No. 114311, November 29, 1996, 265 SCRA 168, 180.
208 Tolentino v. Leviste, G.R. No. 156118, November 19, 2004, 443 SCRA 274, 282.
209 Arcenas v. Queen City Development Bank, G.R. No. 166819, June 16, 2010, 621 SCRA 11, 18.

32
- Extrinsic fraud, as a ground for the annulment of a judgment, must emanate from an act of the adverse party, and
the fraud must be of such nature as to have deprived the petitioner of its day in court. The fraud is not extrinsic if the
act was committed by the petitioner's own counsel.210

7. MACASAET v CO GR NO 156759 June 5 2013

Jurisdiction over the person, or jurisdiction in personam –the power of the court to render a personal judgment or to
subject the parties in a particular action to the judgment and other rulings rendered in the action – is an element of
due process that is essential in all actions, civil as well as criminal, except in actions in rem or quasi in rem.
Jurisdiction over the defendantin an action in rem or quasi in rem is not required, and the court acquires jurisdiction
over an actionas long as it acquires jurisdiction over the resthat is thesubject matter of the action. The purpose of
summons in such action is not the acquisition of jurisdiction over the defendant but mainly to satisfy the constitutional
requirement of due process211

As a rule, Philippine courts cannot try any case against a defendant who does not reside and is not found in the
Philippines because of the impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over his person unless he voluntarily appears in court;
but when the case is an action in rem or quasi in rem enumerated in Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court,
Philippine courts have jurisdiction to hear and decide the case because they have jurisdiction over the res, and
jurisdiction over the person of the non-resident defendant is not essential. In the latter instance, extraterritorial service
of summons can be made upon the defendant, and such extraterritorial service of summons is not for the purpose of
vesting the court with jurisdiction, but for the purpose of complying with the requirements of fair play or due process,
so that the defendant will be informed of the pendency of the action against him and the possibility that property in the
Philippines belonging to him or in which he has an interest may be subjected to a judgment in favor of the plaintiff,
and he can thereby take steps to protect his interest if he is so minded. On the other hand, when the defendant in an
action in personam does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, our courts cannot try the case against him
because of the impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over his person unless he voluntarily appears in court. 212

As the initiating party, the plaintiff in a civil action voluntarily submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court by the act
of filing the initiatory pleading. As to the defendant, the court acquires jurisdiction over his person either by the proper
service of the summons, or by a voluntary appearance in the action213

Upon the filing of the complaint and the payment of the requisite legal fees, the clerk of court forthwith issues the
corresponding summons to the defendant214

The summons is directed to the defendant and signed by the clerk of court under seal. It contains the name of the
court and the names of the parties to the action; a direction that the defendant answers within the time fixed by the
Rules of Court; and a notice that unless the defendant so answers, the plaintiff will take judgment by default and may
be granted the relief applied for.215
As to the former, when jurisdiction in personam is not acquired in a civil action through the proper service of the
summons or upon a valid waiver of such proper service, the ensuing trial and judgment are void. 216

If the defendant knowingly does an act inconsistent with the right to object to the lack of personal jurisdiction as to
him, like voluntarily appearing in the action, he is deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the
court.217As to the latter, the essence of due process lies in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit any
evidence the defendant may have in support of his defense. With the proper service of the summons being intended
to afford to him the opportunity to be heard on the claim against him, he may also waive the process.218In other
words, compliance with the rules regarding the service of the summons is as much an issue of due process as it is of
jurisdiction.219

Under the Rules of Court, the service of the summons should firstly be effected on the defendant himself whenever
practicable. Such personal service consists either in handing a copy of the summons to the defendant in person, or, if

210 G.R. No. 159926, PINAUSUKAN SEAFOOD HOUSE, Petitioner vs. FAR EAST BANK & TRUST
COMPANY, Respondents., January 20, 2014.
211Gomez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127692, March 10, 2004,425 SCRA 98, 104.
212Perkin Elmer Singapore Pte Ltd. v. Dakila Trading Corporation, G.R. No. 172242, August 14, 2007, 530 SCRA

170, 187-188; Romualdez-Licaros v. Licaros, G.R. No. 150656, April 29, 2003, 401 SCRA 762, 769-770; Valmonte v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108538, January 22, 1996, 252 SCRA 92.
213Pursuant to Section 20, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, the defendant’s voluntary appearance in the action is

equivalent to the service of summons; see also Davao Light and Power Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
93262, November 29, 1991, 204 SCRA 343, 347; Munar v. Court of Appeals, 238 SCRA 372, 379; Minucher v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 97765, September 24, 1992, 214 SCRA 242, 250.
214Section 1, Rule 14, Rules of Court.
215Section2, Rule 14, Rules of Court.
216Vda. de Macoy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95871, February 13, 1992, 206 SCRA 244, 251;Venturanza v. Court

of Appeals, No.L-7776, December 11, 1987, 156 SCRA 305, 311-312; Filmerco Commercial Co., Inc. v. Intermediate
Appellate Court, No. L-70661, April 9, 1987, 149 SCRA 193, 198-199; Consolidated Plywood Industries, Inc. v.
Breva, No. L-82811, October 18, 1988, 166 SCRA 589, 593-594; Philippine National Construction Corp. v. Ferrer-
Calleja, No.L-80485, November 11, 1988, 167 SCRA 294, 301.
217La Naval Drug Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103200, August 31, 1994, 236 SCRA 78, 86.
218Keister v. Navarro, No. L-29067, May 31, 1977, 77 SCRA 209, 214-215; Vda. de Macoy v. Court of Appeals, supra

note 20.
219Samartino v. Raon,G.R. No. 131482, July 3, 2002, 383 SCRA 664, 670.

33
the defendant refuses to receive and sign for it, in tendering it to him. 220 The rule on personal service is to be rigidly
enforced in order to ensure the realization of the two fundamental objectives earlier mentioned. If, for justifiable
reasons, the defendant cannot be served in person within a reasonable time, the service of the summons may then
be effected either (a) by leaving a copy of the summons at his residence with some person of suitable age and
discretion then residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copy at his office or regular place of business with some
competent person in charge thereof.221 The latter mode of service is known as substituted service because the
service of the summons on the defendant is made through his substitute.

It is no longer debatable that the statutory requirements of substituted service must be followed strictly, faithfully and
fully, and any substituted service other than that authorized by statute is considered ineffective. 222 This is because
substituted service, being in derogation of the usual method of service, is extraordinary in character and may be used
only as prescribed and in the circumstances authorized by statute.223

Only when the defendant cannot be served personally within a reasonable time may substituted service be resorted
to. Hence, the impossibility of prompt personal service should be shown by stating the efforts made to find the
defendant himself and the fact that such efforts failed, which statement should be found in the proof of service or
sheriff’s return.224
Nonetheless, the requisite showing of the impossibility of prompt personal service as basis for resorting to substituted
service may be waived by the defendant either expressly or impliedly.225
While we are strict in insisting on personal service on the defendant, we do not cling to such strictness should the
circumstances already justify substituted service instead. It is the spirit of the procedural rules, not their letter, that
governs.226

STEP 4. DETERMINE THE COURT THAT HAS JURISDICTION

I. DEFINE JURISDICTION OVER:

A. Jurisdiction over Subject Matter

1.) In law, nothing is as elementary as the concept of jurisdiction, for the same is the foundation upon which
the courts exercise their power of adjudication, and without which, no rights or obligation could emanate
from any decision or resolution.227
2.) No jurisdiction: Court’s next action
When a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the only power it has is to dismiss the
action, as any act it performs without jurisdiction is null and void, and without any binding legal effects. 228

3.) How is Jurisdiction over SM determined

The basic rule is that the jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter is determined from the
allegations in the complaint229, the law in force at the time the complaint is filed, and the character of the
relief sought, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims averred.230
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is not affected by the pleas or the theories set up by the defendant in the
answer or motion to dismiss231; otherwise, jurisdiction becomes dependent almost entirely upon the whims
of the defendant.232
Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a cause. 233 Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the
power to hear and determine the general class to which the proceedings in question belong. 234 Jurisdiction
over the subject matter is conferred by law and not by the consent or acquiescence of any or all of the
parties or by erroneous belief of the court that it exists.235 Basic is the rule that jurisdiction over the subject
matter is determined by the cause or causes of action as alleged in the complaint.236 But where the actual

220Section 6, Rule 14, Rules of Court.

221Section 7, Rule 14, Rules of Court.
222Keisterv. Navarro, supranote 22, at 215.
223Ang Ping v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126947, July 15, 1999, 310 SCRA 343, 350.
224Keisterv. Navarro,supra, note 22; see also Wong v. Factor-Koyama, G.R. No. 183802, September 17, 2009, 600

SCRA 256, 268; Jose v. Boyon, G.R. No. 147369, October 23, 2003, 414 SCRA 216, 222; Casimina v. Legaspi, G.R.
No. 147530. June 29, 2005, 462 SCRA 171, 177-178; Oaminal v. Castillo, G.R. No. 152776, October 8, 2003, 413
SCRA 189, 196-197; Laus v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101256, March 8, 1993, 219 SCRA 688, 699.
225E.g., in Orosa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118696, September 3, 1996, 261 SCRA 376, 379, where the

substituted service was sustained notwithstanding thatthe requirement for the showing of impossibility of personal
service of summons was not complied with by the sheriff before resorting to substituted service, because the
defendants subsequently filed a motion for additional time to file answer, which was deemed a waiver of objection to
the personal jurisdiction of the trial court.
226 Robinson v. Miralles, G.R. No. 163584, December 12, 2006, 510 SCRA 678, 684.

227 November 29, 2017 G.R. No. 221815 GLYNNA FORONDA-CRYSTAL, vs. ANIANA LAWAS SON
228 April 24, 2017 G.R. No. 189950* BERNADETTE S. BILAG vs. ESTELA AY-AY
229 Arzaga v. Copias, G.R. No. 152404, March 28, 2003, 400 SCRA 148, 154
230 Padlan v. Dinglasan, G.R. No. 180321, March 20, 2013, 694 SCRA 91, 98-99
231 Sta. Clara Homes Owners' Association v. Gaston, G.R. No. 141961, January 23, 2002, 374 SCRA 396, 409
232 Commart (Phils.), Inc. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, G.R. No. 85318, June 3, 1991, 198 SCRA 73, 81
233 US vs. Limsiongco, 41 Phil. 94, 101 (1920); Herrera vs. Baretto and Joaquin, 25 Phil. 245, 251 (1913)
234 Reyes vs. Diaz, 73 Phil. 484, 487 (1941)
235 People vs. Jose de Martinez, 76 Phil. 599, 601 (1946)
236 Dionisio vs. Sioson Puerto, G.R. No. 39452, October 31, 1974, 60 SCRA 471, 477.

34
 issues are evident from the records of the case, then jurisdiction over the subject matter need not depend
upon the literal averments in the complaint, but on the law as applied to established facts.237

4.) Jurisdiction over SM does not depend on WON plaintiff entitled to recover
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the complaint, irrespective of whether
or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein-a matter that can be
resolved only after and as a result of the trial. Nor may the jurisdiction of the court be made to depend upon
the defenses set up in the answer or upon the motion to dismiss, for, were we to be governed by such rule,
the question of jurisdiction could depend almost entirely upon the defendant.238

5.) Rule on Jurisdiction over DARAB or other agencies

The rule is well settled that the jurisdiction of the court (or agency in this case) cannot be made to
depend on the defenses made by the defendant in his answer or motion to dismiss. If such were the rule,
the question of jurisdiction would depend almost entirely on the defendant. 239 Jurisdiction over the subject
matter cannot be acquired through, or waived by, any act or omission of the parties.240 The active
participation of the parties in the proceedings before the DARAB does not vest jurisdiction on the DARAB,
as jurisdiction is conferred only by law. The courts or the parties cannot disregard the rule of non-waiver of
jurisdiction. Likewise, estoppel does not apply to confer jurisdiction to a tribunal that has none over a cause
of action.241 The failure of the parties to challenge the jurisdiction of the DARAB does not prevent this Court
from addressing the issue, as the DARABs lack of jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the complaint.
Issues of jurisdiction are not subject to the whims of the parties.242

6.) Exception to the issue on lack of Jurisdiction

It is axiomatic that the nature of an action and the jurisdiction of a tribunal are determined by the
material allegations of the complaint and the law at the time the action was commenced. 243 A court's
jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal for the same is conferred by law,
and lack of it affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance of and to render judgment on the
action.244 It applies even if the issue on jurisdiction was raised for the first time on appeal or even after final
judgment. The exception to the basic rule mentioned operates on the principle of estoppel by laches
whereby a party may be barred by laches from invoking the lack of jurisdiction at a late hour for the purpose
of annulling everything done in the case with the active participation of said party invoking the plea.

In the oft-cited case of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy,245 the party-surety invoked the jurisdictions of both
the trial and appellate courts in order to obtain affirmative relief, and even submitted the case for final
adjudication on the merits. It was only after the CA had rendered an adverse decision that the party-surety
raised the question of jurisdiction for the first time in a motion to dismiss almost fifteen (15) years later.
Hence, the Court adjudicated a party estopped from assailing the court's jurisdiction, to wit:
[a] party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent and, after
obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction. . . ., it was further said
that the question whether the court had jurisdiction either of the subject matter of the action or of the parties
was not important in such cases because the party is barred from such conduct not because the judgment
or order of the court is valid and conclusive as an adjudication, but for the reason that such practice cannot
be tolerated - obviously for reasons of public policy.246
However, it was explicated in Calimlim v. Ramirez247 that Tijam is an exceptional case because of the
presence of laches. Thus, The lack of jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage of the proceedings,
even on appeal. This doctrine has been qualified by recent pronouncements which stemmed principally from
the ruling in the cited case of Sibonghanoy. It is to be regretted, however, that the holding in said case had
been applied to situations which were obviously not contemplated therein. The exceptional circumstance
involved in Sibonghanoy which justified the departure from the accepted concept of non-waivability of
objection to jurisdiction has been ignored and, instead a blanket doctrine had been repeatedly upheld that
rendered the supposed ruling in Sibonghanoy not as the exception, but rather the general rule, virtually
overthrowing altogether the time-honored principle that the issue of jurisdiction is not lost by waiver or by
estoppel.

In Sibonghanoy, the defense of lack of jurisdiction of the court that rendered the questioned ruling was held
to be barred by estoppel by laches. It was ruled that the lack of judsdictiou having been raised for the first
time in a motion to dismiss filed almost fifteen (15) years after the questioned ruling had been rendered,
such a plea may no longer be raised for being barred by laches. As defined in said case, laches is failure or
neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence,
could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable

237 Leoquinco vs. Canada Dry Bottling Co. of the Phil., Inc., Employees Association, G.R. No. 28621, February 22,
1971, 37 SCRA 535, 548.
238 27 SCRA 1085
239 Multinational Village Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 98023, 17 October 1991, 203

SCRA 104 citing Magay v. Estiandan, 69 SCRA 456.

240 Lagman v. CA and Hon. Romero, etc., et al., supra, see note 19
241 Paguio v. NLRC, 323 Phil. 203 (1996)
242 Paguio v. NLRC, 323 Phil. 203 (1996).
243 Malana v. Tappa, 616 Phil. 177, 190 (2009), citing Laresma v. Abellana, 484 Phil. 766, 778-779 (2004).
244 Zacarias v. Anacay, G.R. No. 202354, September 24, 2014, 736 SCRA 508, 522.
245 131 Phil. 556, 565 (1968).
246 Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, supra, at 564. (Emphasis ours)
247 Calimlim v. Ramirez, 204 Phil. 25, 35 (1982)

35
 time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert has abandoned it or declined to assert it. 248 In
the case of La Naval Drug Corporation v. Court of Appeals,249 We illustrated the rule as to when jurisdiction
by estoppel applies and when it does not, as follows:

Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit is yet another matter. Whenever it appears that the
court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the action shall be dismissed (Section 2, Rule 9, Rules of
Court). This defense may be interposed at any time, during appeal (Roxas vs. Rafferty, 37 Phil. 957) or even
after final judgment (Cruzcosa vs. Judge Concepcion, et al., 101 Phil. 146). Such is understandable, as this
kind of jurisdiction is conferred by law and not within the courts, let alone the parties, to themselves
determine or conveniently set aside. In People vs. Casiano (111 Phil. 73, 93-94), this Court, on the issue or
estoppel, held: The operation of the principle of estoppel on the question of jurisdiction seemingly depends
upon whether the lower court actually had jurisdiction or not. If it had no jurisdiction, but the case was tried
and decided upon the theory that it had jurisdiction, the parties are not barred, on appeal, from assailing
such jurisdiction, for the same 'must exist as a matter of law, and may not be conferred by consent of the
parties or by estoppel' (5 C.J.S., 861-863). However, if the lower court had jurisdiction, and the case was
heard and decided upon a given theory, such, for instance, as that the court had no jurisdiction, the party
who induced it to adopt such theory will not be permitted, on appeal, to assume an inconsistent position -
that the lower court had jurisdiction. Here, the principle of estoppel applies. The rule that jurisdiction is
conferred by law, and does not depend upon the will of the parties, has no bearing thereon. 250

B. Jurisdiction over Defendant

1. The rule requiring jurisdiction over the parties is based on due process. Due process consists of notice and
hearing. Notice means that persons with interests in the subject of litigation are to be informed of the facts
and the law on which the complaint or petition is based for them to adequately defend their interests. This is
done by giving the parties notification of the proceedings. On the other hand, hearing means that the parties
must be given an opportunity to be heard or a chance to defend their interests. Courts are guardians of
constitutional rights, and therefore, cannot deny due process rights while at the same time be considered to
be acting within their jurisdiction.251

Jurisdiction over the parties is the power of the courts to make decisions that are binding on them.
Jurisdiction over complainants or petitioners is acquired as soon as they file their complaints or petitions,
while jurisdiction over defendants or respondents is acquired through valid service of summons or their
voluntary submission to the courts' jurisdiction.252

2. Valid Service of Summons

It is settled that jurisdiction over a defendant in a civil case is acquired either through service of summons or
through voluntary appearance in court and submission to its authority. In the absence of service or when the
service of summons upon the person of the defendant is defective, the court acquires no jurisdiction over his
person, and a judgment rendered against him is null and void.253
In actions in personam, such as collection for a sum of money and damages, the court acquires jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant through personal or substituted service of summons.254

Personal service is effected by handling a copy of the summons to the defendant in person, or, if he refuses
to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him.255 If the defendant is a domestic private juridical entity, service may
be made on its president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house
counsel.256 It has been held that this enumeration is exclusive.257 Service on a domestic private juridical entity
must, therefore, be made only on the person expressly listed in Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.258 If the
service of summons is made upon persons other than those officers enumerated in Section 11, the same is
invalid.259

It is settled that resort to substituted service is allowed only if, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be
personally served with summons within a reasonable time. In such cases, substituted service may be effected (a) by
leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then
residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copies at defendant's office or regular place of business with a competent
person in charge.260 Because substituted service is in derogation of the usual method of service, and personal
service of summons is preferred over substituted service, parties do not have unbridled right to resort to substituted
service of summons.261

248 Calimlim v. Ramirez, 204 Phil. 25, 35 (1982)

249 G.R. No. 103200, August 31, 1994, 236 SCRA 78.
250 La Naval Drug Corporation v. Court of Appeals, supra, at 90. (Emphases supplied
251 De Pedro v. Romasan Development Corporation, 748 Phil. 706 (20 14) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division],

citing Manotoc v. CA, 530 Phil. 454 (2006) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Third Division].
252 De Pedro v. Romasan Development Corporation, 748 Phil. 706 (20 14) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division],

citing Manotoc v. CA, 530 Phil. 454 (2006) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Third Division].
253 Spouses Belen v. Judge Chavez, 573 Phil. 58, 67 (2008).
254 Tam-Wong v. Factor-Koyama, 616 Phil. 239, 250 (2009).
255 RULES OF COURT, Rule 14, Section 6.
256 RULES OF COURT, Rule 14, Section 11.
257 Cathay Metal Corporation v. Laguna West Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc., 738 Phil. 37, 57 (2014).
258 Green Star Express, Inc. v. Nissin-Universal Robina Corporation, 763 Phil. 27, 29 (2015).
259 Paramount Insurance Corp. v. A.C. Ordonez Corporation and Franklin Suspine, 583 Phil. 321, 327 (2008).
260 RULES OF COURT, Rule 14, Section 7; Sps. Jose v. Sps. Boyan, 460 Phil. 354, 363 (2003).
261 Carson Realty & Management Corporation v. Red Robin Security Agency, G.R. No. 225035, (2017)

36
 3. By Voluntary Appearance
Despite lack of valid service of summons, the court can still acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant by
virtue of the latter’s voluntary appearance. Section 20, Rule14 of the Rules of Court clearly states:
Sec. 20. Voluntary appearance. – The defendant’s voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service
of summons. The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person
shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance.262

4. Actions in Personam
Fundamental is the rule that jurisdiction over a defendant in a civil case is acquired either through service of
summons or through voluntary appearance in court and submission to its authority. In the absence or when the
service of summons upon the person of the defendant is defective, the court acquires no jurisdiction over his person,
and a judgment rendered against him is null and void.263

In actions in personam such as ejectment, the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
through personal or substituted service of summons. However, because substituted service is in derogation of the
usual method of service and personal service of summons is preferred over substituted service, parties do not have
unbridled right to resort to substituted service of summons.264 Before substituted service of summons is resorted to,
the parties must: (a) indicate the impossibility of personal service of summons within a reasonable time; (b) specify
the efforts exerted to locate the defendant; and (c) state that the summons was served upon a person of sufficient
age and discretion who is residing in the address, or who is in charge of the office or regular place of business of the
defendant.265

Special appearance to question a court's jurisdiction is not voluntary appearance.

In Prudential Bank v. Magdam.it, Jr.266, We had the occasion to elucidate the concept of voluntary or conditional
appearance, such that a party who makes a special appearance to challenge, among others, the court's jurisdiction
over his person cannot be considered to have submitted to its authority, thus:

Preliminarily, jurisdiction over the defendant in a civil case is acquired either by the coercive power of legal
processes exerted over his person, or his voluntary appearance in court. As a general proposition, one who
seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. It is by reason of this
rule that we have had occasion to declare that the filing of motions to admit answer, for additional time to file
answer: for reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for reconsideration, is
considered voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction. This, however, is tempered by the concept of
conditional appearance, such that a party who makes a special appearance to challenge, among others, the
court's jurisdiction over his person cannot be considered to have submitted to its authority.

Prescinding from the foregoing, it is thus clear that:

(1) Special appearance operates as an exception to the general rule on voluntary appearance;

(2) Accordingly, objections to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant must be explicitly
made, i.e., set forth in an unequivocal manner; and

(3) Failure to do so constitutes voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court, especially' in instances
where a pleading or motion seeking affirmative relief is filed and submitted to the court for resolution. 267

5. Filing of Motions seeking affirmative relief is a voluntary submission

In Oaminal v. Castillo,268 this Court further explained:

The filing of Motions seeking affirmative relief - to admit answer, for additional time to file answer, for reconsideration
of a default judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for reconsideration - are considered voluntary submission
to the jurisdiction of the court. Having invoked the trial court's jurisdiction to secure affirmative relief, respondents
cannot - after failing to obtain the relief prayed for - repudiate the very same authority they have invoked.269

C. Define jurisdiction over the plaintiff.

Jurisdiction is the power to exercise authority over persons and things within a territory. In a legal sense, it
gives a court the power to hear and decide a case or lawsuit. Jurisdiction can also relate to a geographical
area in which political authority is recognized.

Jurisdiction over the plaintiff.

The general rule in this jurisdiction is that a court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff by the
filing of his complaint270.

262 PRUDENTIAL BANK v AMADOR A. MAGDAMIT, JR., G.R. No. 183795 , November 12, 2014
263 Spouses Belen v. Judge Chavez, et al., 573 Phil. 58, 67 (2008).
264 Tam-Wong v. Factor-Koyama, 616 Phil. 239, 250 (2009).
265 Sps. Jose v. Sps. Boyon, 460 Phil. 354, 363 (2003).
266 746 Phil. 649 (2014).
267 746 Phil. 649 (2014).
268 459 Phil. 542 (2003) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
269 459 Phil. 542 (2003) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
270 Manila Railroad Co. vs. Attorney General, 20 Phil 523

37
 In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, a civil action for damages entirely separate and distinct
from the criminal action may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the
criminal prosecution and shall require only preponderance of evidence.271

Injured party legal definition describes the person who has received injury in cases where one person has
inflicted harm or wrongdoing on another person. Damage includes what is done to the person's body, property, rights,
reputation, and is considered a legal and protected interest of the person. Two types of injuries are civil and
accidental. A civil injury occurs when a breach of contract, negligence, or breach of duty results in damage to a
person or property.

Whether the damage is caused by neglect or intentional acts, the law of torts offers remedies. An accidental
injury is addressed under the Workers' Compensation Act if the injury took place while employed and was
unintentional. The ability to recover damages from the person who caused the injury is possible under the law.272

Courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the filing of the complaint, and to be bound by a decision,
a party should first be subjected to the court's jurisdiction.273

Sec. 5. Certification against forum shopping. - The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint
or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously
filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in
any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending
therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if
he should, thereafter, learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that
fact within five (5) calendar days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has
been filed.274
Forum shopping is a practice adopted by litigants to get their cases heard in a particular court that is likely to
provide a favorable judgment. Foreign litigants are attracted to the U.S. because of its wide acceptance of personal
jurisdiction and favorable litigation environment.275

Jurisprudence has recognized that forum shopping can be committed in several ways:
(1) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case not having
been resolved yet (where the ground for dismissal is litis pendentia); (2) filing multiple cases based on the same
cause of action and the same prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved (where the ground for dismissal
is res judicata); and (3) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action but with different prayers (splitting of
causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res judicata)276

D. Define jurisdiction over the res.

Jurisdiction over the res refers to the court’s jurisdiction over the thing or property which is the subject of the
action.
Jurisdiction over the res:
How jurisdiction is acquired
o In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try
and decide the case. In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is
not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court, provided that the latter has jurisdiction over the res.
Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either (a) by the seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it
is brought into actual custody of the law; or (b) as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the
power of the court is recognized and made effective.277

Purpose of summons in proceedings in rem/quasi in rem

o The service of summons or notice to the defendant is not for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction
but merely for satisfying the due process
requirements.278
o Service of summons in the manner provided in §17 is not for the purpose of vesting it with jurisdiction but for
complying with the requirements of fair play or due process, so that he will be informed of the pendency of
the action against him and the possibility that property in the Philippines belonging to him or in which he has
an interest may be subjected to a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and he can thereby take steps to protect
his interest if he is so minded.279
o According to Section 6, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court, summons on the defendant in actions in
personam must be served by handing a copy thereof to the defendant in person, or, if he refuses to receive
it, by tendering it to him. Meanwhile, in actions in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court provided that the court acquires jurisdiction

271 Lavern R. Dilweg vs Roberto O. Phillips, Inocentes Dineros and Isaac S. Eceta, G.R. No. L-19596 October 30,
1964
272 ld
273 Cosco Philippines Shipping, Inc. v. Kemper Insurance Company, 686 Phil. 327, 340 (2012)
274Heirs of Josefina Gabriel vs. Secundina Cebrero, Celso Laviña, and Manuel C. Chua, G.R. No. 222737, November

12, 2018
275 Id
276 Collantes v. Court of Appeals, 546 Phil. 391, 400 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, En Banc], citing Ao-As v. Court of

Appeals, 524 Phil. 645, 660 (2006) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, First Division].
277 Alba v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 164041 (July 29, 2005)
278 Id.
279 Valmonte v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108538 (January 22, 1996)

38
 over the res, although summons must be served upon the defendant in order to satisfy the due process
requirements.280

Effect of defect in service of summons

o As the Court has underscored herein, in quasi in rem proceedings, the court need not acquire jurisdiction
over the persons of the defendants, for as long as it has acquired jurisdiction over the res. The defect in the
service of summons merely infringed Dela Peña’s right to due process that precluded the RTC from
rendering a valid judgment with respect to her personal liability. And since Dela Peña’s right to due process
is personal and pertains to her alone, it could not be invoked by her other co-defendants in Civil Case No.
515-M-99 so as to escape the judgment of liability against them.281

Potential jurisdiction over the res

o Jurisdiction over the res… acquired… as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power
of the court is recognized and made effective. In the latter condition, the property, though at all times within
the potential power of the court, may not be in the actual custody of said court. The trial court acquired
jurisdiction over the disputed lot by virtue of the institution of the Petition for a Writ of Execution filed by the
respondents’ predecessors in interest. Without taking actual physical control of the property, it had an
impliedly recognized potential jurisdiction or potential custody over the res. 282
o An illustration of what we term potential jurisdiction over the res, is found in the proceeding to register the
title of land under our system for the registration of land. Here the court, without taking actual physical
control over the property assumes, at the instance of some person claiming to be owner, to exercise a
jurisdiction in rem over the property and to adjudicate the title in favor of the petitioner against all the
world.283

Requisites if defendant is non-resident & cannot be found in PH

o Meanwhile, in actions in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a
prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res,
although summons must be served upon the defendant in order to satisfy the due process requirements.
Thus, where the defendant is a non-resident who is not found in the Philippines, and (1) the action affects
the personal status of the plaintiff; (2) the action relates to, or the subject matter of which is property in the
Philippines in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest; (3) the action seeks the exclusion of the
defendant from any interest in the property located in the Philippines; or (4) the property of the defendant
has been attached in the Philippines, summons may be served extraterritorially by (a) personal service out
of the country, with leave of court; (b) publication, also with leave of court; or (c) any other manner the court
may deem sufficient.284
o Clear from the foregoing, extrajudicial service of summons apply only where the action is in rem, an action
against the thing itself instead of against the person, or in an action quasi in rem, where an individual is
named as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interest therein to the obligation or
loan burdening the property. This is so inasmuch as, in in rem and quasi in rem actions, jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court provided that the court
acquires jurisdiction over the res.285

Related doctrine:

Extraterritorial Service of Summons

When the defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, and the action affects the personal status of
the plaintiff or relates to, or the subject of which is, property within the Philippines, in which the defendant has or
claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent, or in which the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding
the defendant from any interest therein, or the property of the defendant has been attached within the Philippines,
service may, by leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines by personal service as under section 6; or by
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the court may order, in which
case a copy of the summons and order of the court shall be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the
defendant, or in any other manner the court may deem sufficient. Any order granting such leave shall specify a
reasonable time, which shall not be less than sixty (60) days after notice, within which the defendant must answer. 286

Extraterritorial summons may be served on a former PH resident if they abscond from the country
o In Brown v. Brown, the defendant was previously a resident of the Philippines. Several days after a criminal
action for concubinage was filed against him, he abandoned the Philippines. Later, a proceeding quasi in
rem was instituted against him. Summons in the latter case was served on the defendant's attorney-in-fact at
the latter's address. The Court held that under the facts of the case, it could not be said that the defendant
was "still a resident of the Philippines because he ha[d] escaped to his country and [was] therefore an
absentee in the Philippines." As such, he should have been "summoned in the same manner as one who
does not reside and is not found in the Philippines."287

II. STATE ALL COURT’S JURISDICTION IN BULLET POINTS

Supreme Court

280 Domagas v. Jensen, G.R. No. 158407 (January 17, 2005)

281 San Pedro vs. Ong & Caballes, G.R. No. 177598 (October 17, 2008)
282 Macahilig v. Heirs of Magalit, G.R. No. 141423 (November 15, 2000)
283 Banco Español-Filipino v. Palanca, G.R. No. L-11390 (March 26, 1918)
284 Gomez vs. CA , G.R. No. 127692 (March 10, 2004)
285 Banco de Brasil vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 121576-78 (June 16, 2000)
286 Rule 14, Section 15 of the Rules of Court
287 Asiavest Limited vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. G.R. No. 128803 (September 25, 1998)

39
Original Jurisdiction
1. Exclusive
Issuance of Certiorari, prohibition, mandamaus against the following:
A. Court of Appeals
B. COMELEC
C. Comission on Audit
D. Sandiganbayan
E. Court of tax Appeals
F. Ombudsman
2. Concurrent
a. With the Court of Appeals
 Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mansaadamus agaainst the CSC and NLRC
b. With the Court of Appeals and Regional Trial Court
 Petitions for Habeas Corpus and Quo Warranto
 Actions bought to prevent and restrain, violations of laws concerning monopolies
and cobinations in restraint in trade
c. With the CA, RTC, Sandiganbayan
 Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus relating to an act or omission of a
MTC or corporation, board, officer, or person
 Petitions for issuance of writ of amparo
 Petitions for issuance of writ of habeas data
d. With the RTC
 Actions affecting ambassadors & other public ministers & consuls
Appellate
1. Ordinary appeal by notice of appeal
 From the CA, in all criminal cases involving offenses for which the penalty
imposed is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment; or a lesser penalty is
imposed for offenses committed on the same occasion or which arose out of the
same occurrence that gave rise to the more severe offense for which the penalty
of death is imposed
2. By petition for review on certiorari
a. Appeals from the CA
b. Appeals from the Sandiganbayan
c. Appeals from judgments or final orders of the RTC exercising original jurisdiction in the following:
 All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or
executive agreement, law, PD, proclamation order, instruction, ordinance, or
regulation is in question
 All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any
penalty imposed in relation thereto
 All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue
 All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved
d. Appeals from decisions or final resolutions of the CTA
3. By special civil action or certiorari filed within 30 days from notice of the judgment, final order, or resolution
sought to be reviewed against the COMELEC & COA

Court of Appeals
1. Exclusive
a. Actions for annulment of judgments of the RTC
b. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, & mandamus involving an act or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency,
unless otherwise provided by law
2. Concurrent
a. With the SC
b. With the SC & RTC
c. With the SC, RTC, & Sandiganbayan
Appellate
1) Ordinary appeal by notice of appeal or with record of appeal
a. Appeals from the RTC, except those appealable to the SC under Sec 2(3)
b. Appeals from the RTC on constitutional, jurisdictional, tax questions involving questions of fact or
mixed questions of fact & law or which should be appealed first to the CA
c. Appeals from the decisions & final orders of the Family Courts
d. Appeals from the RTC, the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or a lesser
penalty is imposed but for offenses committed on the same occasion or which arose out of the
same occurrence that gave rise to the more serious offense for which the penalty of reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment is imposed
2) Special civil action of certiorari against decisions and final resolutions of the NLRC
3) Automatic review on cases where the RTC imposed the death penalty
4) Petition for review
a. Appeals from the CSC
b. Appeals from the RTC in cases appealed from the MeTC & MCTC, not a matter of right
c. Appeals from awards, judgments, final orders, or resolutions of, or authorized by quasi-judicial agencies in
the exercise of their quasi-judicial functions:
 SEC
 OP
 LRA
 SSC

40
  IPO
 NTC
 DAR
 GSIS
 ECC
 Agricultural Inventions Board
 Insurance Commission
 Philippine Atomic Energy Commission
 Board of Investments
 Construction Industry Arbitration Commission
 Voluntary Arbitrators
 Special Agrarian Courts
 Civil Aeronautics Board
 Nat’l Electrification Admin
 Energy Regulation Board
d. Appeals from the National Commission on IP
e. Appeals from the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases

Sandiganbayan
1. Exclusive
a. Violation of RA 3019, RA 1379 & Chapter II, Sec 2, Tile VII of the Rev Penal Code, & other offenses
committed by public officials & employees in relation to their office, & private individuals charged as co-
principals, accomplices, & accessories including those employed in GOCCs where one or more of the
accused are officials occupying the following positions in government whether in a permanent, acting, or
interim capacity at the time of the commission of the offense. In cases where none of the accused is
occupying the below positions, the original jurisdiction shall be vested in the proper RTC or MeTC, etc.
as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdiction:
 Officials of the Executive Branch classified as salary grade 27 or higher
 Members of Congress
 Members of the Judiciary
 Members of Constitutional Commissions
 All other national and local officials classified as salary grade 27 & higher
b. Civil & criminal cases filed pursuant to & in connection with EO Nos. 1, 2, 14, & 14-A
c. Violations of RA 9160 when committed by public officers & private persons who are in conspiracy with
such public officers
2. Concurrent with the SC: Petitions for issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, habeas corpus,
injunction, other ancillary writs in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, including quo warranto arising in cases
falling under EO Nos. 1, 2, 14, & 14-A
3. Concurrent with the SC, CA, RTC:
a. Petitions for writ of amparo & habeas data when action concerns public data filed of government
offices
b. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus relating to an act or omission of an MTC, corporation,
board, officer, or person

Appellate
 Decisions & final orders of the RTC in the exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction under PD 1606
shall be appealable to the Sandiganbayan in the manner provided by the Rules of Court

Regional Trial Courts

Civil
1. Exclusive
a. Subject to the action not capable of pecuniary estimation
b. Actions involving title or possession of real property or interest therein where the assessed value
exceeds P20,000, except for forcible entry & unlawful detainer
c. Actions in admiralty & maritime jurisdiction where demand or claim exceeds P300,000
d. Matters of probate, testate, intestate, where gross value of estate exceeds P300,000
e. Cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of nay court, tribunal, person, or body exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial function
f. Other cases where the demand, exclusive of interest, damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses
3. Concurrent
a. With the SC
 Actions affecting ambassadors & other public ministers & consuls
b. With the SC and CA
 Petitions for habeas corpus & quo warranto
c. With the SC, CA, Sandiganbayan
 Petitions for writ of amparo & writ of habeas data; certiorari, prohibition, & mandamus, if
they relate to an act or omission of a MTC, corporation, board officer, or person
d. With the MeTC, MTC, MCTC
 Application for Protection Order under RA 9262, Sec 10, unless there is a Family Court in
the residence of the petitioner
e. With the Insurance Commission
 Claims not exceeding P100,000
Criminal
1) Exclusive:

41
  Criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, or body
 These include criminal cases where the penalty provided by law exceeds 6 yrs
imprisonment irrespective of the fine
 These also include criminal cases not falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan, where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to
salary grade 27 & higher
 In cases where the only penalty provided by law is a fine, the RTCs have jurisdiction if the
amount of the fine exceeds P4k
 Jurisdiction over the whole complex crime is lodged with the trial court having jurisdiction
to impose the maximum & most serious penalty imposable for an offense forming part of
the complex crime
Appellate
 All cases decided by lower courts in their respective territorial jurisdictions

Family Courts
Exclusive:
 Criminal cases where one or more of the accused is below 18 yrs old but not less than 9 yrs old, when one or
more of the victims is a minor at the time of the commission of the offense; provided, that if the minor is found
guilty, the court shall promulgate sentence & ascertain any civil liability which the accused may have incurred
 Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, & habeas corpus in relation to the latter
 Petitions for adoption of children & revocation thereof
 Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage, & those relating to marital status &
property relations of H & W or those living together under different status & agreements & petitions for dissolution
of CPG
 Petitions for involuntary commitment of a child, for removal of custody against child-placement or child-caring
agency or individual, & for commitment of disabled child
 Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment
 Summary judicial proceedings brought under the provisions of The Family Code

Exclusive:
 Criminal cases where one or more of the accused is below 18 yrs old but not less than 9 yrs old, when one or
more of the victims is a minor at the time of the commission of the offense; provided, that if the minor is found
guilty, the court shall promulgate sentence & ascertain any civil liability which the accused may have incurred
 Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, & habeas corpus in relation to the latter
 Petitions for adoption of children & revocation thereof
 Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage, & those relating to marital status &
property relations of H & W or those living together under different status & agreements & petitions for dissolution
of CPG
 Petitions for involuntary commitment of a child, for removal of custody against child-placement or child-caring
agency or individual, & for commitment of disabled child
 Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment
 Summary judicial proceedings brought under the provisions of The Family Code
 Petitions for declaration of status of children as abandoned, dependent, or neglected children, petitions for
voluntary or involuntary commitment of children, the suspension, termination, or restoration of parental authority &
other cases cognizable under PD 603, EO 56, other related laws
 Petitions for constitution of family home
 Cases against minors cognizable under RA 9165
 Violations of RA 7160, RA 9775, RA 9262 & applications for protection order under the same act
 Cases of domestic violence against women & children
 Criminal cases involving juveniles if no preliminary investigation is required under Sec 112 of the Revised Rules on
Criminal Procedure

MeTC/ MTC/ MCTC/ MTCC

Civil
1) Exclusive:
a) Actions involving personal property valued at not more than P300,000
b) Actions demanding sums of money not exceeding P300,00
c) Actions involving title or possession of real property where the assessed value does not exceed P20,000
d) Provisional remedies in principal actions within their jurisdiction, an in proper cases (attachment, injunction,
appointment or receiver & delivery of personal property)
e) Forcible entry & unlawful detainer, with jurisdiction to resolve issue of ownership to determine issue of
possession
f) Probate proceedings, testate & intestate, where gross value of estate does not exceed P300,000
g) Inclusion & exclusion of voters
2) Delegated
 Cadastral & land registration cases assigned by the SC where there is no controversy or opposition & in
contested lots valued at more than p100,000
3) Special
 Petition for habeas corpus in the absence of all RTC judges
Criminal
1) Exclusive
a) All violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdictions
b) All offenses punishable with imprisonment of not more than 6 years irrespective of the fine & regardless of
other imposable accessory or other penalties & the civil liability arising therefrom

42
  Provided that in offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence they shall have
exclusive original jurisdiction
c) All offenses committed not falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan where none
of the accused is occupying a position which corresponds to salary grade 27 or higher
d) In cases where the only penalty provided by law is a fine not exceeding P4000, such courts have jurisdiction
2) Special
Applications for bail in the absence of all RTC judges

III. STATE APPLICABLE CASE DOCTRINES ON JURISDICTION

What is jurisdiction?
Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to hear, try, and decide a case. 288 In order for
the court or an adjudicative body to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire, among
others, jurisdiction over the subject matter. 289 It is axiomatic that jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to
hear and determine the general class to which the proceedings in question belong; it is conferred by law and not by
the consent or acquiescence of any or all of the parties or by erroneous belief of the court that it exists. 290

Only the assessed value of the realty involved should be computed in determining which court has
jurisdiction.
Original jurisdiction over cases the subject matter of which involves "title to, possession of, real property or
any interest therein" under Section 19(2) of B.P. 129 is divided between the first and second level courts, with the
assessed value of the real property involved as the benchmark. This amendment was introduced to "unclog the
overloaded dockets of the RTCs which would result in the speedier administration of justice. 291

There are two ways in determining the assessed value of the real property involved in a complaint
Based on the foregoing, the rule on determining the assessed value of a real property, insofar as the
identification of the jurisdiction of the first and second level courts is concerned, would be two-tiered:
First, the general rule is that jurisdiction is determined by the assessed value of the real property as alleged in the
complaint; and
Second, the rule would be liberally applied if the assessed value of the property, while not alleged in the complaint,
could still be identified through a facial examination of the documents already attached to the complaint. 292

Failure to allege the assessed value of real property in the complaint would result to a dismissal of the case.
To determine the assessed value, which would in turn determine the court with appropriate jurisdiction, an
examination of the allegations in the complaint is necessary. It is a hornbook doctrine that the court should only look
into the facts alleged in the complaint to determine whether a suit is within its jurisdiction. 293 According to the case
of Spouses Cruz v. Spouses Cruz, et al., 294 only these facts can be the basis of the court's competence to take
cognizance of a case, and that one cannot advert to anything not set forth in the complaint, such as evidence
adduced at the trial, to determine the nature of the action thereby initiated. 295

It is not a surprise, therefore, that a failure to allege the assessed value of a real property in the complaint
would result to a dismissal of the case. This is because absent any allegation in the complaint of the assessed value
of the property, it cannot be determined whether the RTC or the MTC has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the
petitioner's action. Indeed, the courts cannot take judicial notice of the assessed or market value of the land. 296

When the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, it’s issued order cannot be given
effect
In the case of Maslag v. Monzon,297 the Court had occasion to rule that an order issued by a court declaring
that it has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case when under the law it has none
cannot likewise be given effect. It amounts to usurpation of jurisdiction which cannot be countenanced.

A void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all. It cannot be the source of any right nor the
creator of any obligation. No legal rights can emanate from a resolution that is null and void. 298 A void judgment is
not entitled to the respect accorded to a valid judgment, but may be entirely disregarded or declared inoperative by
any tribunal in which effect is sought to be given to it. It has no legal or binding effect or efficacy for any purpose or at
any place. It cannot affect, impair or create rights. It is not entitled to enforcement and is, ordinarily, no protection to
those who seek to enforce. In other words, a void judgment is regarded as a nullity, and the situation is the same as it
would be if there was no judgment. 299

A void judgment may also arise from the tribunal's act constituting grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction. The term "grave abuse of discretion" has a specific meaning. An act of a court or

288Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Corporation v. Bureau of Customs, G.R. No. 209830, June 17, 2015, 759 SCRA
306, 310, citing Spouses Genato v. Viola, 625 Phil. 514, 527 (2010)
289Id.
290Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. v. Republic, 679 Phil. 508 (2012), citing Allied Domecq Philippines,
Inc. v. Villon, 482 Phil. 894, 900 (2004)
291Heirs of Concha, Sr. v. Spouses Lumocso, supra at 596-597
292GLYNNA FORONDA-CRYSTAL vs. ANIANA LAWAS SON, GR No 221815
293Tumpag v. Tumpag, G.R. No. 199133, September 29, 2014, 737 SCRA 62, 69
294616 Phil. 519 (2009)
295616 Phil. 519 (2009)
296Hilario v. Salvador, supra note 22, at 336
297711 Phil. 274, 285-286 (2013)
298Diona v. Balangue, 701 Phil. 19, 25-26 (2013)
299Cañero v. University of the Philippines, id. at 267

43
tribunal can only be considered as with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a "capricious or whimsical
exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction." x x x [T]he use of a petition for certiorari is restricted only
to "truly extraordinary cases wherein the act of the lower court or quasi-judicial body is wholly void". 300

Determination of jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter

The basic rule is that the jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter is determined from the allegations in
the complaint, 301 the law in force at the time the complaint is filed, and the character of the relief sought, irrespective
of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims averred. 302 Jurisdiction over the subject matter is not
affected by the pleas or the theories set up by the defendant in the answer or motion to dismiss; 303 otherwise,
jurisdiction becomes dependent almost entirely upon the whims of the defendant. 304

The nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the
allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover
upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought
are the ones to be consulted. Once vested by the allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested
irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. 305
Jurisdiction being a matter of substantive law, the established rule is that the statute in force at the time of the
commencement of the action determines the jurisdiction of the court. 306
Where the ultimate objective of the plaintiffs is to obtain title to real property, it should be filed in the proper
court having jurisdiction over the assessed value of the property subject thereof. 307

A court's acquisition of jurisdiction over a particular case's subject matter is different from incidents
pertaining to the exercise of its jurisdiction
Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law, whereas a court's exercise of jurisdiction,
unless provided by the law itself is governed by the Rules of Court or by the orders issued from time to time by the
Court. In Lozada v. Bracewell, it was recently held that the matter of whether the RTC resolves an issue in the
exercise of its general jurisdiction or of its limited jurisdiction as a special court is only a matter of procedure and has
nothing to do with the question of jurisdiction.308

A court's jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal
A court's jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal for the same is
conferred by law, and lack of it affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance of and to render judgment on
the action. 309 It applies even if the issue on jurisdiction was raised for the first time on appeal or even after final
judgment.
Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit is yet another matter. Whenever it appears that the
court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the action shall be dismissed (Section 2, Rule 9, Rules of Court).
This defense may be interposed at any time, during appeal (Roxas vs. Rafferty, 37 Phil. 957) or even after final
judgment (Cruzcosa vs. Judge Concepcion, et al., 101 Phil. 146). Such is understandable, as this kind of jurisdiction
is conferred by law and not within the courts, let alone the parties, to themselves determine or conveniently set aside.
310

The exception to the basic rule mentioned operates on the principle of estoppel by laches whereby a party
may be barred by laches from invoking the lack of jurisdiction at a late hour for the purpose of annulling everything
done in the case with the active participation of said party invoking the plea. 311
“[a] party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent and, after
obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction. . . ., it was further said that the
question whether the court had jurisdiction either of the subject matter of the action or of the parties was not important
in such cases because the party is barred from such conduct not because the judgment or order of the court is valid
and conclusive as an adjudication, but for the reason that such practice cannot be tolerated - obviously for reasons of
public policy.”312 In Sibonghanoy, the defense of lack of jurisdiction of the court that rendered the questioned ruling
was held to be barred by estoppel by laches. It was ruled that the lack of judsdictiou having been raised for the first
time in a motion to dismiss filed almost fifteen (15) years after the questioned ruling had been rendered, such a plea
may no longer be raised for being barred by laches. As defined in said case, laches is failure or neglect, for an
unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have
been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption
that the party entitled to assert has abandoned it or declined to assert it. 313

300 G.R. No. 189207, June 15, 2011, 652 SCRA 341
301 Arzaga v. Copias, G.R. No. 152404, March 28, 2003, 400 SCRA 148, 154
302 Padlan v. Dinglasan, G.R. No. 180321, March 20, 2013, 694 SCRA 91, 98-99
303 Sta. Clara Homes Owners' Association v. Gaston, G.R. No. 141961, January 23, 2002, 374 SCRA 396, 409
304 Commart (Phils.), Inc. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, G.R. No. 85318, June 3, 1991, 198 SCRA 73, 81
305 Padlan v. Dinglasan, GR. No. 180321, March 20, 2013, 694 SCRA 91, 98-99
306Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Hong, G.R. No. 161771, February 15, 2012, 666 SCRA 71, 77, citing Llamas v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 149588, September 29, 2009, 601 SCRA 228, 233
307 Huguete v. Embudo, 453 Phil. 170, 177 (2003)
308G.R. No. 202664, November 10, 2015
309 Zacarias v. Anacay, G.R. No. 202354, September 24, 2014, 736 SCRA 508, 522
310La Naval Drug Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103200, August 31, 1994, 236 SCRA 78
311 NESTOR CABRERAv. ARNEL CLARIN AND WIFE; MILAGROS BARRIOS AND HUSBAND; AURORA
SERAFIN AND HUSBAND; AND BONIFACIO MORENO AND WIFE, G.R. No. 215640
312Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 131 Phil. 556, 565 (1968)
313Calimlim v. Ramirez, 204 Phil. 25, 35 (1982)

44
 It bears emphasis that the ruling in Tijamestablishes an exception which is to be applied only under
extraordinary circumstances or to those cases similar to its factual situation. 314 The general rule is that the lack of a
court's jurisdiction is a non-waivable defense that a party can raise at any stage of the proceedings in a case, even on
appeal; the doctrine of estoppel, being the exception to such non-waivable defense, must be applied with great care
and the equity must be strong in its favor. 315

Reversion suits
The RTC may properly take cognizance of reversion suits which do not call for an annulment of judgment of
the RTC acting as a Land Registration Court. Actions for cancellation of title and reversion, like the present case,
belong to the class of cases that "involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein" and
where the assessed value of the property exceeds P20,000.00, fall under the jurisdiction of the RTC. Consequently,
no grave abuse of discretion excess of jurisdiction can be attributed to the RTC in denying RCAM's motion to
dismiss.316

Venue and Jurisdiction are entirely distinct matters

Jurisdiction may not be conferred by consent or waiver upon a court which otherwise would have no
jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action; but the venue of an action as fixed by statute may be changed by the
consent of the parties and an objection that the plaintiff brought his suit in the wrong county may be waived by the
failure of the defendant to make a timely objection. In either case, the court may render a valid judgment. 317 Rules as
to jurisdiction can never be left to the consent or agreement of the parties, whether or not a prohibition exists against
their alteration. 318 Venue is procedural, not jurisdictional, and hence may be waived. 319

The rule requiring jurisdiction over the parties is based on due process
Due process consists of notice and hearing. Notice means that persons with interests in the subject of
litigation are to be informed of the facts and the law on which the complaint or petition is based for them to adequately
defend their interests. This is done by giving the parties notification of the proceedings. On the other hand, hearing
means that the parties must be given an opportunity to be heard or a chance to defend their interests. 320 Courts are
guardians of constitutional rights, and therefore, cannot deny due process rights while at the same time be
considered to be acting within their jurisdiction. 321
Jurisdiction over the parties is the power of the courts to make decisions that are binding on them.
Jurisdiction over complainants or petitioners is acquired as soon as they file their complaints or petitions, while
jurisdiction over defendants or respondents is acquired through valid service of summons or their voluntary
submission to the courts' jurisdiction. 322
Violation of due process is a jurisdictional defect. Hence, proper service of summons is imperative. A
decision rendered without proper service of summons suffers a jurisdictional infirmity. In the service of summons,
personal service is the preferred mode. As a rule, summons must be served personally on a defendant. 323

Jurisdiction over a defendant in a civil case is acquired either through service of summons or voluntary
appearance in court
It is settled that jurisdiction over a defendant in a civil case is acquired either through service of summons or
through voluntary appearance in court and submission to its authority. In the absence of service or when the service
of summons upon the person of the defendant is defective, the court acquires no jurisdiction over his person, and a
judgment rendered against him is null and void. 324
There is voluntary appearance when a party, without directly assailing the court's lack of jurisdiction, seeks
affirmative relief from the court. When a party appears before the court without qualification, he or she is deemed to
have waived his or her objection regarding lack of jurisdiction due to improper service of summons. 325
In actions in personam, such as collection for a sum of money and damages, the court acquires jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant through personal or substituted service of summons. 326
Personal service is effected by handling a copy of the summons to the defendant in person, or, if he refuses
to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him. 327 If the defendant is a domestic private juridical entity, service may
be made on its president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel.
328 It has been held that this enumeration is exclusive. 329 Service on a domestic private juridical entity must,

314Regalado v. Go, 543 Phil. 578, 598 (2007)

315C & S Fishfarm Corp. v. CA, 442 Phil. 279, 290-291 (2002)
316 G.R. No. 192975 and 192994, November 12, 2012, 685 SCRA 216
317DOUGLAS F. ANAMA, vs. CITIBANK, N.A. (formerly First National City Bank), G.R. No. 192048
31868 Phil. 421 (1939)
319Heirs of Pedro Lopez v. De Castro, G.R. No. 112905, February 3, 2000, 324 SCRA 591, 609, citing Santos III
Northwest Orient Airlines, G.R. No. 101538, June 23, 1992, 210 SCRA 256, 265-266
320 PEOPLE'S GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION v. EDGARDO GUANSING AND EDUARDO LIZASO
321De Pedro v. Romasan Development Corporation, 748 Phil. 706 (20 14) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division], citing
Manotoc v. CA, 530 Phil. 454 (2006) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Third Division]
322De Pedro v. Romasan Development Corporation, 748 Phil. 706 (20 14) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division],
citing Manotoc v. CA, 530 Phil. 454 (2006) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Third Division]
323PEOPLE'S GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION v. EDGARDO GUANSING AND EDUARDO LIZASO
324Spouses Belen v. Judge Chavez, 573 Phil. 58, 67 (2008)
325G.R. No. 201378, October 18, 2017 [Per J. Jardeleza, First Division]
326Tam-Wong v. Factor-Koyama, 616 Phil. 239, 250 (2009)
327 RULES OF COURT, Rule 14, Section 6
328 RULES OF COURT, Rule 14, Section 11
329 Cathay Metal Corporation v. Laguna West Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc., 738 Phil. 37, 57 (2014)

45
therefore, be made only on the person expressly listed in Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. 330 If the service
of summons is made upon persons other than those officers enumerated in Section 11, the same is invalid. 331
It is settled that resort to substituted service is allowed only if, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be
personally served with summons within a reasonable time. In such cases, substituted service may be effected (a) by
leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then
residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copies at defendant's office or regular place of business with a competent
person in charge. 332 Because substituted service is in derogation of the usual method of service, and personal
service of summons is preferred over substituted service, parties do not have unbridled right to resort to substituted
service of summons. 333
Before substituted service of summons is resorted to, the parties must: (a) indicate the impossibility of
personal service of summons within a reasonable time; (b) specify the efforts exerted to locate the defendant; and (c)
state that the summons was served upon a person of sufficient age and discretion who is residing in the address, or
who is in charge of the office or regular place of business of the defendant. 334
Note: A few amendments were made with regard to the service of summons:

1997 Civil Procedure Proposed amendments

Section 5. Modes of service. — Service of pleadings
motions, notices, orders, judgments and other papers shall
be made either personally or by mail. (3a)
Section 6. Personal service. — Service of the papers may be
made by delivering personally a copy to the party or his
counsel, or by leaving it in his office with his clerk or with a
person having charge thereof. If no person is found in his
office, or his office is not known, or he has no office, then by
leaving the copy, between the hours of eight in the morning
and six in the evening, at the party's or counsel's residence,
if known, with a person of sufficient age and discretion then
residing therein. (4a)
Section 7.Service by mail. — Service by registered mail shall
be made by depositing the copy in the post office in a sealed
envelope, plainly addressed to the party or his counsel at his
office, if known, otherwise at his residence, if known, with
postage fully prepaid, and with instructions to the postmaster
to return the mail to the sender after ten (10) days if
undelivered. If no registry service is available in the locality of
either the senders or the addressee, service may be done by
ordinary mail. (5a; Bar Matter No. 803, 17 February 1998)
Section 8. Substituted service. — If service of pleadings,
motions, notices, resolutions, orders and other papers
cannot be made under the two preceding sections, the office
and place of residence of the party or his counsel being
unknown, service may be made by delivering the copy to the
clerk of court, with proof of failure of both personal service
and service by mail. The service is complete at the time of
such delivery. (6a)
Section 5. Modes of Service. — Pleadings, motions, notices,
orders, judgments, and other court submissions shall be
served personally or by registered mail, accredited courier,
electronic mail, facsimile transmission, other electronic
means as may be authorized by the Court, or as provided for
in international conventions to which the Philippines is a
party. (5a)
Section 6. Personal Service — Court submissions may be
served by personal delivery of a copy to the party or to the
party’s counsel, or to their authorized representative named
in the appropriate pleading or motion, or by leaving it in his or
her office with his or her clerk, or with a person having
charge thereof. If no person is found in his or her office, or
his or her office is not known, or he or she has no office, then
by leaving the copy, between the hours of eight in the
morning and six
in the evening, at the party's or counsel's residence, if
known, with a person of sufficient age and discretion residing
therein. (6a)
Section 7. Service by mail. — Service by registered mail
shall be made by depositing the copy in the post office, in a
sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the party or to the
party’s counsel at his or her office, if known, otherwise at his
or her residence, if known, with postage fully pre-paid, and
with instructions to the postmaster to return the mail to the
sender after ten (l0) calendar days if undelivered. If no
registry service is available in the locality of either the
sender or the addressee, service may be done by ordinary
mail. (7a)

Section 8. Substituted service. – If service of pleadings,

motions, notices, resolutions, orders and other papers
cannot be made under the two preceding sections, the office
and place of residence of the party or his or her counsel
being
unknown, service may be made by delivering the copy to the
clerk of court, with proof of failure of both personal service
and service by mail. The service is complete at the time of
such delivery. (8a)

New sections:
Section 9. Service by electronic means and facsimile. —
Service by electronic means and facsimile shall be made if
the party concerned consents to such modes of service.

Service by electronic means shall be made by sending an e-

mail to the party’s or counsel’s electronic mail address, or
through other electronic means of transmission as the parties
may agree on, or upon direction of the court.

330 Green Star Express, Inc. v. Nissin-Universal Robina Corporation, 763 Phil. 27, 29 (2015)
331 Paramount Insurance Corp. v. A.C. Ordonez Corporation and Franklin Suspine, 583 Phil. 321, 327 (2008)
332 RULES OF COURT, Rule 14, Section 7; Sps. Jose v. Sps. Boyan, 460 Phil. 354, 363 (2003)
333 Carson Realty & Management Corporation v. Red Robin Security Agency, G.R. No. 225035, 08 February 2017
334 Sps. Jose v. Sps. Boyon, 460 Phil. 354, 363 (2003)

46
 Service by facsimile shall be made by sending a facsimile
copy to the party’s or counsel’s given facsimile number. (n)

Section 10. Presumptive service.— There shall be

presumptive notice to a party of a court setting if such notice
appears on the records to have been mailed at least twenty
(20) calendar days prior to the scheduled date of hearing and
if the addressee
is from within the same judicial region of the court where the
case is pending, or at least thirty (30) calendar days if the
addressee is from outside the judicial region. (n)
Section 11. Change of electronic mail address or facsimile
number. — A party who changes his or her electronic mail
address or facsimile number
while the action is pending must promptly file, within five (5)
calendar days from such change, a notice of change of e-
mail address or facsimile number with the court and serve
the notice on all other parties.
Service through the electronic mail address or facsimile
number of a party shall be presumed valid unless such party
notifies the court of any change, as aforementioned. (n)
Section 12. Electronic mail and facsimile subject
and title of pleadings and other documents.— The subject of
the electronic mail and facsimile must follow the prescribed
format: case number, case title and the pleading, order or
document title. The title of each electronically-filed or served
pleading or other document, and each submission served by
facsimile shall contain sufficient information to enable the
court to ascertain from the title: (a) the party or parties filing
or serving the paper, (b) nature of the paper, (c) the party or
parties against whom relief, if any, is sought, and (d) the
nature of the relief sought. (n)

A defect in the summons may be cured

Defects of summons are cured by voluntary appearance and by the filing of an answer to the complaint. A
defendant [cannot] be permitted to speculate upon the judgment of the court by objecting to the court's jurisdiction
over its person if the judgment is adverse to it, and acceding to jurisdiction over its person if and when the judgment
sustains its defense. 335

One who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court
As a general rule, one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the
court. 336 Thus, it has been held that the filing of motions to admit answer, for additional time to file answer, for
reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for reconsideration is considered
voluntary submission to the trial court's jurisdiction. 337 This, however, is tempered by the concept of conditional
appearance, such that a party who makes a special appearance to challenge, among others, the court's jurisdiction
over his person cannot be considered to have submitted to its authority. 338

A party who makes a special appearance to challenge, among others, the court’s jurisdiction over his person
cannot be considered to have submitted to its authority
Preliminarily, jurisdiction over the defendant in a civil case is acquired either by the coercive power of legal
processes exerted over his person, or his voluntary appearance in court. As a general proposition, one who seeks an
affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. It is by reason of this rule that we have
had occasion to declare that the filing of motions to admit answer, for additional time to file answer, for
reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for reconsideration, is considered
voluntary submission to the court’s jurisdiction. This, however, is tempered by the concept of conditional appearance,
such that a party who makes a special appearance to challenge, among others, the court’s jurisdiction over his
person cannot be considered to have submitted to its authority. 339

Note: please see attached amendments:

1997 Civil Procedure Proposed Amendments
Section 20.Voluntary appearance. — The defendant's Section 23. Voluntary appearance. — The defendant's
voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to
service of summons. The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of service of summons. The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of

335Navale et al. v. Court of Appeals et al

336 Galicia, et al. v. Manliquez, et al., 549 Phil. 595, 606 (2007)
337 Planters Development Bankv. Chandumal, 694 Phil. 411, 422 (2012)
338 Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited v. Catalan, 483 Phil. 525, 543 (2004); Casimina v.
Legaspi, et al., 500 Phil. 560, 570 (2005)
339 PRUDENTIAL BANK (now Bank of the Philippine Islands) as the duly appointed ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
ESTATE OF JULIANA DIEZ VDA. DE GABRIEL vs. AMADOR A. MAGDAMIT, JR

47
other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person
of the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary of the defendant shall be deemed a voluntary appearance.
appearance. (23a) (20a)

Jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff is acquired when action is commenced by filing of the complaint
and payment of the correct docket fees.
The general rule in this jurisdiction is that a court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff by the
filing of his complaint. (Manila Railroad Co. vs. Attorney General, 20 Phil. 523). 340

Payment of the correct docket fees

Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fees on the supplemental complaint does not divest the RTC of the
jurisdiction it already had over the case.341However, as to the damages that plaintiffs claim under their supplemental
complaint, the trial court should have treated their supplemental pleading as not filed. A supplemental complaint is
like any complaint and the rule is that the filing fees due on a complaint need to be paid upon its filing. The Rules do
not require the court to make special assessments in cases of supplemental complaints. Plaintiffs have no excuse for
their continuous failure to pay the fees they owed the court.342
Some decisions of the supreme court of Spain:
“He who by his own acts submits himself to the jurisdiction of a court shall not thereafter be permitted to
question such jurisdiction. (Judgment of December 30, 1893, 29 Civ. Jur., 64.)”
“According to article 305 (of the Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil) the plaintiff shall be presumed to have tacitly
submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court by the mere act of filing his complaint therein, and in the case of the
defendant where the latter after appearing in the action takes any step therein other than to object to such jurisdiction.
(Judgment of September 21, 1878, 40 Civ. Jur., 232.)”
“Plaintiff and defendant are presumed to have submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the court, the
former by the mere act of filing his complaint therein and the latter by his answering the same and taking any step
other than demurring to such jurisdiction as provided in articles 56 to 58 of the Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil. (Judgment
of July 27, 1883, 52 Civ. Jur., 511.)”
“In order that a tacit submission based upon the mere act filing the complaint may be valid the court must be
one of ordinary jurisdiction as provided in article 4 of the Ley de Ebjuiciamiento Civil. (Judgment of August 27, 1864,
10 Civ. Jur., 14.)343”

How jurisdiction of the parties acquired

It is elementary that courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiff or petitioner once the complaint or petition is
filed. On the other hand, there are two ways through which jurisdiction over the defendant or respondent is acquired
through coercive process - either through the service of summons upon them or through their voluntary appearance
in court.344
Courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the filing of the complaint. On the other hand, jurisdiction
over the defendants in a civil case is acquired either through the service of summons upon them or through their
voluntary appearance in court and their submission to its authority, 345as provided in Section 20346, Rule 14 of the
Rules of Court.

Continuous Participation in all stages of proceeding bars petitioner from challenging court’s jurisdiction
Court held in Pantranco North Express, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 347participation in all stages of the case
before the trial court, that included invoking its authority in asking for affirmative relief, effectively barred petitioner by
estoppel from challenging the court's jurisdiction. Notably, from the time it filed its answer to the second amended
complaint on April 16, 1985,348 petitioner did not question the lower court's jurisdiction. It was only on December 29,
1989 349 when it filed its motion for reconsideration of the lower court's decision that petitioner raised the question of
the lower court's lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner thus foreclosed its right to raise the issue of jurisdiction by its own
inaction.

Jurisdiction over the Res, or property in litigation, how acquired

Jurisdiction over the Res is acquired by the seizure of the thing under legal process whereby it is brought
into actual custody of law, or it may result from the institution of a legal proceeding wherein the power of the court
over the thing is recognized and made effective.350

340
Lavern R. Dilweg v. Roberto O. Phillips, Inocentes Dineros and Isaac S. Eceta, G.R. No. L -19596, October 30,
1964

341 PNOC Shipping and Transport Corp. vs. CA 358 Phil. 38, 62 [1998]
342 Do-All Metals Industries vs. Security Bank Corp, G.R. No. 176339 January 10, 2011
343 The Manila Railroad Company v. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, representing The Insular Government, et al., G.R.

No. L-6287 December 1, 1911

344 Bobie Rose D. V. Frias, as represented by Marie Regine F. Fujita v. Rolando F. Alcayde, G.R. No. 194262,

February 28, 2018

345 Chu v. Mach Asia Trading Corporation, G.R. No. 184333, April 1, 2013, citing Kukan International Corporation v.

Reyes, G.R. No. 182729, September 29, 2010, 631 SCRA 596.
346 Sec. 20. Voluntary appearance. - The defendant's voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to

service of summons. The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the
person shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance.
347G.R. No. 105180, July 5, 1993, 224 SCRA 477, 491.
348Record of Civil Case No. C-9457, p. 217.
349Ibid., p. 408.
350 Banco Espanol Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil. 291

48
In Alba v. Court of Appeals, 35130 the Court further elucidated that:
“In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and
decide the case. In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a
prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court, provided that the latter has jurisdiction over the res. Jurisdiction over
the res is acquired either (a) by the seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought into actual
custody of the law; or (b) as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the court is
recognized and made effective. The service of summons or notice to the defendant is not for the purpose of vesting
the court with jurisdiction but merely for satisfying the due process requirements. “

1997 Civil Procedure Proposed Amendments

Action Quasi in rem, defined.

In an action quasi in rem, an individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to
subject his interests therein to the obligation or loan burdening the property. Actions quasi in rem deal with the status,
ownership or liability of a particular property but which are intended to operate on these questions only as between
the particular parties to the proceedings and not to ascertain or cut off the rights or interests of all possible claimants.
The judgments therein are binding only upon the parties who joined in the action. 352

Jurisdiction over the res in actions in rem or quasi in res

According to Section 6, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court, summons on the defendant in actions in
personam must be served by handing a copy thereof to the defendant in person, or, if he refuses to receive it, by
tendering it to him353. Meanwhile, in actions in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not
a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res, although
summons must be served upon the defendant in order to satisfy the due process requirements. 354

Extraterritorial Service of Summons

When the defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, and the action affects the personal
status of the plaintiff or relates to, or the subject of which is, property within the Philippines, in which the defendant
has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent, or in which the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in
excluding the defendant from any interest therein, or the property of the defendant has been attached within the
Philippines, service may, by leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines by personal service as under section 6;
or by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the court may order, in
which case a copy of the summons and order of the court shall be sent by registered mail to the last known address
of the defendant, or in any other manner the court may deem sufficient. Any order granting such leave shall specify a
reasonable time, which shall not be less than sixty (60) days after notice, within which the defendant must answer. 355

Extraterritorial summons may be served on a former PH resident in the event they abscond from the country
In Brown v. Brown, the defendant was previously a resident of the Philippines. Several days after a criminal
action for concubinage was filed against him, he abandoned the Philippines. Later, a proceeding quasi in rem was
instituted against him. Summons in the latter case was served on the defendant's attorney-in-fact at the latter's
address. The Court held that under the facts of the case, it could not be said that the defendant was "still a resident of
the Philippines because he ha[d] escaped to his country and [was] therefore an absentee in the Philippines." As such,
he should have been "summoned in the same manner as one who does not reside and is not found in the
Philippines.356

A few amendments were made with regard to allowed pleadings and the complaint

Section 2. Pleadings allowed. — The claims of a Section 2. Pleadings allowed. - The claims of a party are
party are asserted in a complaint, counterclaim, asserted in a complaint,
cross-claim, third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim, third (fourth, etc.)-party
or complaint-in-intervention. complaint, or complaint-in-
intervention.
The defenses of a party are alleged in the answer
to the pleading asserting a claim against him. The defenses of a party are alleged in the answer to the
pleading asserting a claim
An answer may be responded to by a reply. against him or her.

An answer may be responded to by a reply only if the

Section 3. Complaint. — The complaint is the pleading
alleging the plaintiff's cause or causes of action. The
names and residences of the plaintiff and defendant must
be stated in the complaint. (3a)
defending party attaches an actionable document to the
answer.(2a)
Section 3. Complaint. - The complaint is the pleading
alleging the plaintiff’s or claiming party’s cause or causes
of action. The names and residences of the plaintiff and

351 G.R. No. 164041, 29 July 2005, 465 SCRA 495, 505-506.
352 Domagas v. Jensen, G.R. No. 158407, 17 January 2005, 448 SCRA 663, 674.
353 Id.
354 Id.
355 Rule 14, Section 15 of the Rules of Court
356 Asiavest Limited vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. G.R. No. 128803 (September 25, 1998)

49
 defendant must be stated in the complaint. (3a)

STEP 5. DETERMINE THE PARTIES

1. State the rules on parties under RULE 3

2. State all case doctrines

RULE 3 – PARTIES
SECTION 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 the third (fourth, etc.)-party defendant.
Only natural persons and juridical persons or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action.
Natural persons refer to human beings.357
Under Article 44, Civil Code of the Philippines, juridical persons are: (1) the State and its political
subdivisions; (2) other corporations, institutions and entities for public interest or purposes, created by law;
and (3) corporations, partnerships and associations for private interest or purpose to which the law grants a
juridical personality, separate and distinct from that of each shareholder, partner or member.
Entities authorized by law include: (a) the estate of a deceased person358; (b) a legitimate labor
organization359; and (c) a political party registered with the Commission on Elections360.
A sole proprietorship is neither natural nor juridical person. The law merely recognizes the existence of a
sole proprietorship as a form of business organization conducted for profit by a single individual. It does not
vest juridical or legal personality upon the sole proprietorship nor empower it to file or defend an action in
court.361

SECTION 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.
Interest within the meaning of the Rules of Court means material interest or an interest in issue to be
affected by the decree or judgment of the case, as distinguished from mere curiosity about the question
involved.362 A real party in interest is the party who, by the substantive law, has the right sought to be
enforced.363
A suit filed by a person who is not a party in interest must be dismissed.364 In one case, it was held that;
“The dismissal by the trial court of the complaint due to petitioners' lack of personality to file suit is
erroneous. Petitioners, as members of the City Council of Cagayan De Oro, may file a case to
question a contract entered into by the city mayor allegedly without the City Council's authority.
The real party-in-interest which may file a case, questioning the validity of a contract entered into
by the city mayor, who is alleged to have no authority to do so, is the city itself. It is the local
government unit (LGU) which stands to be injured or benefited by any judgment that may be made
in this case. As explained in City Council of Cebu v. Cuizon:365
It seems clearly self-evident from the foregoing recitation of the undisputed antecedents
and factual background that the lower court gravely erred in issuing its dismissal order on
the ground of plaintiffs’ alleged lack of interest or legal standing as city councilors or as
taxpayers to maintain the case at bar. The lower court founded its erroneous conclusion
on the equally erroneous premise of citing and applying Article 1397 of the Civil Code that
“the action for the annulment of contracts may be instituted (only) by all who are thereby
obliged principally or subsidiarily.”
The lower court’s fundamental error was in treating plaintiffs’ complaint as a personal suit
on their own behalf and applying the test in such cases that plaintiffs should show
personal interest as parties who would be benefited or injured by the judgment sought.
Plaintiffs’ suit is patently not a personal suit. Plaintiffs clearly and by the express terms of
their complaint filed the suit as a representative suit on behalf and for the benefit of the
city of Cebu.366
City councilors may file a suit for the declaration of nullity of a contract on the basis that the city
mayor had no authority to do so because the city mayor’s authority to bind the city to obligations
must emanate from the City Council.
Under Title III, Chapter III, Article I, Section 455(b)(1)(vi) of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise
known as the Local Government Code, the city mayor may sign all bonds, contracts, and
obligations on behalf of a city only upon authority of the sangguniang panlungsod or pursuant to
law or ordinance.” 367

357 Limjoco vs. Intestate Estate of Fragrante, 80 Phil. 783.

358 Id.
359 Sec. 242(e), PD 442 as amended
360 Sec. 60, BP 881
361 Yao Ka Sin Trading v. CA, G.R. No. 53820, June 15, 1992
362 Goco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 157449, April 6, 2010, 617 SCRA 397, 405.
363 Uy v. Court of Appeals, 372 Phil. 743 (1999).
364 Tankiko v. Cezar, G.R. No. 131277, Feb. 2, 1999
365 150-C Phil. 116 (1972) [Per J. Tehankee, En Banc].
366 Id. at 128.
367 Lao vs. Cagayan de Oro, G.R. No. 187869, September 13, 2017

50
SECTION 3. Representatives as parties. – Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a
representative or someone acting in the 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.
Every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest - the party who stands
to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit.368 In suits where an agent represents a party, the
principal is the real party-in-interest; an agent cannot file a suit in his own name on behalf of the principal.
Rule 3, Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides the exception when an agent may sue or be sued without
joining the principal.
Thus an agent may sue or be sued solely in its own name and without joining the principal when the
following elements concur:
(1) the agent acted in his own name during the transaction;
(2) the agent acted for the benefit of an undisclosed principal; and
(3) the transaction did not involve the property of the principal.

When these elements are present, the agent becomes bound as if the transaction were its own. 369

SECTION 4.Spouses as parties. – Husband and wife shall sue or be sued jointly, except as provided by law.
The failure to join the husband as party defendant in suits against the wife is not a juridical defect; the
remedy is for the husband to be joined as party defendant.370

SECTION 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.
An incompetent is any one who, though not insane, is, by reason of old age, disease, weakness of mind, or
any other cause or causes, unable or incapable, unassisted properly to take care of himself or manage his
property, and by reason thereof, would be liable to be deceived or imposed upon by artful or designing
persons.371
A person need not be judicially declared as incompetent in order that the court may appoint a guardian ad
litem. It is enough that such a person is alleged to be incompetent.372

SECTION 6.Permissive joinder of parties. – All persons in whom or against whom any right of 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.
Commenting on this section of the Rules Chief Justice Moran says:
“The principle contained in this provision amplifies the old procedure. Formerly, it was only
community of interest in the same subject which constituted a ground for joinder of parties; now, it
is also the existence of a question of fact or of law, provided the relief sought for or against the
several parties arises from the same transaction or series of transactions whether jointly, severally,
or in the alternative. In this connection, the term "transaction" means not only a stipulation or
agreement, but any event resulting in wrong, without regard to whether the wrong has been done
by violence, neglect or breach of contract. And the term "series of transactions" is equivalent to
"transactions" connected with the same subject of the action.
For instance, A, B, C, and D are owners, respectively, of four houses destoyed (sic) by fire caused
by sparks coming from a defective chimney of a passing locomotive owned by the Manila Railroad
Company. Under the old procedure, the four owners cannot join in a single complaint for damages
against the Manila Railroad Company, for the reason that they do not have a community of interest
in the same subject of the litigation, each of them being interested in covering the value of his
house alone. Under the new procedure, they may join in a single complaint, for a right to relief is
alleged to exist in their favor severally arising out of the same cause, namely, the single negligent
act of the defendant by which the four houses were destroyed by fire, and which is also a common
question of fact to all of the four plaintiffs.
xxxxx
As previously indicated, it is not enough that there be a question of fact common to several parties
in order that they may be joined; it is essential that a right of relief should exist in favor of, or
against, all of them in respect to, or arising out of, the same transaction or series of transactions. If
the right to relief does not arise out of the same transactions or series of transactions, although
there may be a common question of fact, joinder is not proper. For instance, if the plaintiff has a
single title to and has been for many years in possession of, two parcels of land, one of which had
been taken by force by one of the defendants nine years ago, and the other, by the other defendant
five years ago under different circumstances, the two defendants cannot be joined, for there is no
right or relief against them arising out of the same transaction or occurence (sic), the acts of
dispossessions having been done seperately (sic), at different times and in a different manner,

368 Rule 3, Section 2 of the Rules of Court.

369 G.R. No. 186305, July 22, 2015 V-Gent, Inc. V. Morning Star Travel And Tours, Inc.
370 Uy, Jr. vs CA, G.R. No. 83897, November 9, 1990
371 Moreno, Phil. Law Dictionary, p. 462; De Borja v. Ongsingco, 59 O.G. 3780; 2 C.A.R. [2s] 851
372 Feria, Annotations on the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, 1997 ed., p.9

51
 although there is a question of fact common to them, which is the plaintiff's ownership and
possession of the property.”373

Jurisdictional Test on Joinder of Parties

The point wherein the parties are not in agreement is whether the claim of each plaintiff or the aggregate claims of all
is the measure of jurisdiction. This question has been the subject of decisions by American courts. In Hackner vs.
Guaranty Trust Co. of New York, 4 Fed. Rules Serv. 378; U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Jan. 13,
1941; 117 F. (2nd) 95, it was held that "when two or more plaintiffs, each having separate (sic) and distinct demand,
join in a single suit, the demand, of each must be of the requisite jurisdictional amount. Aggregation of the claims are
of a joint nature, as when it is sought to enforce a single right in which plaintiffs have a common interest." As
American Jurisprudence, Vol. 14, p 413, puts it, "Where several claimants have separate (sic) and distinct demands
against a defendant or defendants, which may properly joined in a single suit, the claims cannot be added together to
make up the required jurisdictional amount; each seperate (sic) claim furnishes the jurisdictional test."
The petitioner believes that the joining of plaintiffs having seperate (sic) claims should be controlled by the
principle bearing on the court jurisdiction in suit where one plaintiffs alleges in one complaint several
independent causes of action, in which case it is the aggregate amount which determines the jurisdiction.
But there is a fundamental difference between such cases and one like that before us. In the first, the total
demand accrues to one person, while in the latter only part of the combined demand, which does not exceed
the jurisdictional amount, pertains to a single plaintiff. In other words, the court takes into account what one
party would recover and not what is adjudged to all the parties or some of them.
It is effect argued that plaintiffs could, through collision, shift the court jurisdiction if individual demands
rather than their aggregate were used as the criterion. It is the other way around; it is the adoption of the
opposite theory, as we see it, which would open the door to manipulation. Several plaintiffs wishing to avoid
trial in the justice of the peace court could combine their demands in one complaint so as to put the action
beyond the jurisdiction of the inferior court.374

SECTION 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.
By definition, an indispensable party is a party-in-interest without whom no final determination can be had of
an action, and who shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. 375 It is a party whose interest will be
affected by the court's action in the litigation.376
“At the outset, it must be noted that Spring Homes is not an indispensable party. Rule 3 of the
Revised Rules of Court defines indispensable parties as parties-in-interest without whom there can
be no final determination of an action and who, for this reason, must be joined either as plaintiffs or
as defendants.377
Time and again, the Court has held that a party is indispensable, not only if he has an interest in
the subject matter of the controversy, but also if his interest is such that a final decree cannot be
made without affecting this interest or without placing the controversy in a situation where the final
determination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience. He is a person whose
absence disallows the court from making an effective, complete, or equitable determination of the
controversy between or among the contending parties.378
Conversely, a party is not an indispensable to the suit if his interest in the controversy or subject
matter is distinct and divisible from the interest of the other parties and will not necessarily be
prejudiced by a judgment, which does complete justice to the parties in court. 379 If his presence
would merely permit complete relief between him and those already parties to the action or will
simply avoid multiple litigation, he is not indispensable.
Similarly, by virtue of the second Deed of Absolute Sale between Spring Homes and the Spouses
Lumbres, the Spouses Lumbres became the absolute and registered owner of the subject property
herein. As such, they possess that certain interest in the property without which, the courts cannot
proceed for settled is the doctrine that registered owners of parcels of land whose title is sought to
be nullified should be impleaded as an indispensable party. 380
Spring Homes, however, which has already sold its interests in the subject land, is no longer
regarded as an indispensable party, but is, at best, considered to be a necessary party whose
presence is necessary to adjudicate the whole controversy, but whose interests are so far
separable that a final decree can be made in its absence without affecting it. 381 This is because
when Spring Homes sold the property in question to the Spouses Lumbres, it practically transferred
all its interests therein to the said Spouses. In fact, a new title was already issued in the names of
the Spouses Lumbres. As such, Spring Homes no longer stands to be directly benefited or injured
by the judgment in the instant suit regardless of whether the new title registered in the names of the
Spouses Lumbres is cancelled in favor of the Spouses Tablada or not. Thus, contrary to the ruling
of the RTC, the failure to summon Spring Homes does not deprive it of jurisdiction over the instant
case for Spring Homes is not an indispensable party.” 382

373 I Moran, Rules of Court, 3rd rev. ed., 36-40.

374 G.R. No. L-3884, November 29, 1951, International Colleges, Inc., petitioner-appellee, Vs. Nieves Argonza, Et Al.,
respondents-appellants.
375Rules of Court, Rule 3, Section 7.
376Divinagracia v. Parilla, et al., 755 Phil. 783, 789 (2015).
377 621 Phil. 212, 221 (2009)
378 Id.
379 504 Phil. 634, 640-641 (2005).
380 719 Phil. 241, 253 (2013).
381 Seno, et. al. v. Mangubat, et. al., supra note 24.
382 G.R. No. 200009, January 23, 2017, Spring Homes Subdivision Co., Inc., Spouses Pedro L. Lumbres and

Rebecca T. Roaring, Petitioners, v. Spouses Pedro Tablada, Jr. and Zenaida Tablada, Respondent

52
 The joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory. The presence of indispensable parties is necessary to
vest the court with jurisdiction, which is the authority to hear and determine a cause, the right to act in a
case. Thus, without the presence of indispensable parties to a suit or proceeding, judgment of a court
cannot attain real finality.383
“Verily, Rosario is an indispensable party in the petition before the CA as she is the widow of the
original party-plaintiff Eduardo. The determination of the propriety of the action of the trial court in
merely noting and not granting his motion would necessarily affect her interest in the subject matter
of litigation as the party-plaintiff.”384
The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actuations of the court null and void for want
of authority to act not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present.385
“That the RTC Decision was null and void for failure to implead an indispensable party, Josephine,
on the premise that the subject property is conjugal in nature, is likewise specious. Michael posits
that Josephine, being Albert's wife, was entitled to half of the portion of the subject property, which
was registered as "Albert Onstott, American citizen, married to Josephine Arrastia." The Court is
not convinced.
Article 160 of the New Civil Code provides that all property of the marriage is presumed to belong
to the conjugal partnership, unless it is proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the
wife. However, the p (sic) who invokes this presumption must first prove that the property in
controversy was acquired during the marriage. Proof of acquisition during the coverture is a
condition sine qua non for the operation of the presumption in favor of the conjugal partnership.
The party who asserts this presumption must first prove the said time element. Needless to say, the
presumption refers only to the property acquired during the marriage and does not operate when
there is no showing as to when the property alleged to be conjugal was acquired. Moreover, this
presumption in favor of conjugality is rebuttable, but only with strong, clear and convincing
evidence; there must be a strict proof of exclusive ownership of one of the spouses. 386
As Michael invokes the presumption of conjugality, he must first establish that the subject property
was acquired during the marriage of Albert and Josephine, failing in which, the presumption cannot
stand. Indeed, records are bereft of any evidence from which the actual date of acquisition of the
subject property can be ascertained. Considering that the presumption of conjugality does not
operate if there is no showing when the property alleged to be conjugal was acquired, 387 the
subject property is therefore considered to be Albert's exclusive property. Consequently, Michael's
insistence that Josephine who, the Court notes, has never personally appeared in these
proceedings to directly challenge the disposition of the subject property sans her participation is a
co-owner thereof and necessarily, an indispensable party to the instant case, must therefore fail.”
388

In Domingo v. Scheer,389 this Court held that the proper remedy when a party is left out is to implead the
indispensable party at any stage of the action. The court, either motu proprio or upon the motion of a party,
may order the inclusion of the indispensable party or give the plaintiff opportunity to amend his complaint in
order to include indispensable parties. If the plaintiff to whom the order to include the indispensable party is
directed refuses to comply with the order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the
defendant or upon the court's own motion.390 Only upon unjustified failure or refusal to obey the order to
include or to amend is the action dismissed.391

SECTION 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.
Necessary parties are those whose presence is necessary to adjudicate the whole controversy but whose
interests are so far separable that a final decree can be made in their absence without affecting them. 392
Where the obligation of the parties is solidary, either one of the parties is indispensable and the other is not
even necessary because complete relief may be obtained from either of the solidary debtors. 393

SECTION 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 unnecessary
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.

SECTION 10. Unwillingco-plaintiff. – If the consent of any party who should be joined as plaintiff cannot be obtained,
he may be made a defendant and the reason therefor shall be stated in the complaint.

383653 Phil. at 404.

384 G.R. No. 225309, March 06, 2018, Rosario Enriquez vda. De Santiago, petitioner v. Antonio T. Vilar, respondent
385 Rollo, p. 393.
386 Dela Peña v. Avila, Co., 681 Phil. 553, 563-564 (2012).
387 Spouses Gov. Yamane, 522 Phil. 653, 663 (2006).
388 G.R. No. 221047, September 14, 2016, Michael A. Onstott, Petitioner, v. Upper Tagpos Neighborhood

Association, Inc., Respondent

389 G.R. No. 154745, January 29, 2004, 421 SCRA 468.
390 RULES OF COURT, Rule 17, Sec. 3.
391 Cortez v. Avila, 101 Phil. 205 (1957).
392 Quiombing v. CA, G.R. No. 93010, August 30, 1990
393 Ibid. ; Operators, Inc. v. American Biscuit Co., G.R. No. 34767, October 23, 1987

53
SECTION 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.
Misjoinder of causes of action and parties do not involve a question of jurisdiction of the court to hear and
proceed with the case. They are not even accepted grounds for dismissal thereof. Instead, under the Rules
of Court, the misjoinder of causes of action and parties involve an implied admission of the court’s
jurisdiction. It acknowledges the power of the court, acting upon the motion of a party to the case or on its
own initiative, to order the severance of the misjoined cause of action, to be proceeded with separately (in
case of misjoinder of causes of action); and/or the dropping of a party and the severance of any claim
against said misjoined party, also to be proceeded with separately (in case of misjoinder of parties). 394
Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties not a ground for dismissal of an action
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.395
Clearly, misjoinder of parties is not fatal to the complaint. The rule prohibits dismissal of a suit on the ground
of non-joinder or misjoinder of parties.396 Moreover, the dropping of misjoined parties from the complaint
may be done motu proprio by the court, at any stage, without need for a motion to such effect from the
adverse party.
"It is thus clear that in a case of misjoinder of parties - which in this case is the co-filing of the
petition for suspension of payments by both the Yutingcos and the EYCO group - the remedy has
never been to dismiss the petition in its entirety but to dismiss it only as against the party upon
whom the tribunal or body cannot acquire jurisdiction. The result, therefore, is that the petition with
respect to EYCO shall subsist and may be validly acted upon by the SEC. The Yutingcos, on the
other hand, shall be dropped from the petition and be required to pursue their remedies in the
regular courts of competent jurisdiction."397
Section 11, Rule 3 indicates that the misjoinder of parties, while erroneous, may be corrected with ease
through amendment, without further hindrance to the prosecution of the suit.
For our Rules of Court do not regard the misjoinder of parties as an error of fatal consequence, and the
logical extension of this principle is to consider those procedural acts or omissions of misjoined parties as of
similar import.398

SECTION 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.
In the novel case of Oposa vs. Factoran, Jr., in which petitioners who are minors, sought to prevent the
‘misappropriation or impairment of Philippine rainforests and arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the
country’s vital life-support systems and continued rape of Mother Earth, the Supreme Court ruled that they
can, for themselves, for other of their generation and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit. 399
The requisites of a class suit are:
(1) When the subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general interest to many persons;
(2) The parties affected are so numerous that it is impracticable to join all as parties;
(3) The parties bringing the suit are sufficiently numerous and representative of the class and have the
legal capacity to file the suit.

SECTION 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.
“Thus, where the owner of the goods is not sure whether the same was lost in transit or while it was on
deposit in the warehouse of the arrastre operator, he may sue the shipper or the operator in the alternative,
although the right against the former is on admiralty while that against the operator is contract.”400

SECTION 14. Unknown identity or name of defendants. – 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 accordingly.
“In the Amended Complaint, PCIC alleged that defendant "Unknown Owner of the vessel M/V ‘Explorer’" is a
foreign corporation whose identity or name or office address are unknown to PCIC but is doing business in
the Philippines through its local agent, co-defendant Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc., a domestic
corporation.401 PCIC then added that both defendants may be served with summons and other court
processes in the address of Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc.,402 which was correctly done12 pursuant to
Section 12, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, which provides:

394498 Phil. at 237-239.

395 See also Cabutihan v. Landcenter Construction & Development Corp., 432 Phil. 927, 941 (2002).
396 See Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152154, 15 July 2003, 406 SCRA 190, 273.
397 Union Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 352 Phil. 808, 828 (1998).
398 G.R. NO. 151900, August 30, 2005, Christine Chua, Petitioners, vs. Jorge Torres and Antonio Beltran,

Respondents.
399 43 SCAD 622, 633, 224 SCRA 792, 802-803 [1993]
400 I Regalado, 1988 ed., citing Ins. Co. of North America v. United States Lines Co., L-21839
401 Records, p. 75.
402 Id. p75.

54
 Sec. 12. Service upon foreign private juridical entity. – When the defendant is a foreign private
juridical entity which has transacted business in the Philippines, service may be made on its
resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or, if there be no such agent, on
the government official designated by law to that effect, or on any of its officers or agents within the
Philippines.”403

SECTION 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 such entity must all be
revealed.

SECTION 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.

Substitution; Death of a party during pendency of a case

Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court allows the substitution of a party-litigant who dies during the pendency of a
case by his heirs, provided that the claim subject of said case is not extinguished by his death. 404
Actions that survive the death of a party
The question as to whether an action survives or not depends on the nature of the action and the damage
sued for. In the causes of action which survive the wrong complained affects primarily and principally property and
property rights, the injuries to the person being merely incidental, while in the causes of action which do not survive
the injury complained of is to the person, the property and rights of property affected being incidental. 405

Death of a party during pendency of a case; Consolidation of cases;Effects

In sum, the CA erred in dismissing Civil Case No. 2031-08 based solely on Bautista's death. As such, it
should be reinstated and consolidated with LRC Case No. 1117-09, considering that the two cases involve the same
property and, as correctly opined by the court a quo, any adjudication in either case would necessarily affect the
other. 406
In this relation, case law states that consolidation of cases, when proper, results in the simplification of
proceedings, which saves time, the resources of the parties and the courts, and a possible major abbreviation of trial.
It is a desirable end to be achieved, within the context of the present state of affairs where court dockets are full and
individual and state finances are limited. It contributes to the swift dispensation of justice, and is in accord with the
aim of affording the parties a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of their cases before the courts. Likewise, it
avoids the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the courts in two or more cases which would
otherwise require a single judgment. 407

Effect of failure to substitute legal representative

When a party dies in an action that survives, and no order of substitution was issued or effected by the
court, the trial held by said court was null and void since the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the legal
representative or heirs of the decedent, hence, the judgment was not binding on them. 408
In a case, however, it was held that if the trial court is not informed of the death of the defendant, it may not
be faulted for proceeding to render judgment without ordering the substitution of the deceased defendant. Its
judgment is valid and binding upon the defendant’s legal representatives or successor-in-interest, insofar as his
interest in the property subject of the action is concerned.409 The requirement of a formal substitution of parties does
not apply and is not necessary where the heirs themselves voluntarily appeared, participated in the case, and
presented evidence in defense of the deceased defendant.410
Duty of the court upon defendant’s death
When the trial court is appraised of the death of a party, it should order, not the amendment of the
complaint, but the appearance of the legal representative of the deceased. An order to amend the complaint, before

403 G.R. No. 175409 September 7, 2011 Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation (PCIC), petitioner v. Explorer
Maritime Co., Ltd., Owner of the Vessel M/V “Explorer”, Wallem Phils. Shipping inc. and Foremost International Port
Services, Inc., respondent
404 GR No. 214934, Apr 12, 2016 ] PACIFIC REHOUSE CORPORATION v. JOVEN L. NGO
405 163 Phil. 516, 521 (1976). Id. at 521. See also Carabeo v. Spouses Dingco, 662 Phil. 565, 570 (2011); Cruz v.

Cruz, 644 Phil. 67, 72 (2010); Sumaljag v. Spouses Literato, 578 Phil. 48, 56 (2008); Spouses Suria v. Heirs of
Tomolin, 552 Phil. 354, 358 (2007); and Gonzales v. PAGCOR, 473 Phil. 582, 591 (2004).
406 Spouses Yu v. Basilio G. Magno Construction and Development Enterprises, Inc., 535 Phil. 604, 617-619 (2006).
407 Id. at 619.
408 I Regalado, p.64 citing Ferreira v. Vda. De Gonzales, 55 O.G. 1538; Vda. de Haberes v. CA, 104 SCRA 534

[1981]; Vda dela Cruz v. CA, 88 SCRA 695 [1979]; Obut v. CA 70 SCRA 546 [1976]
409 Heirs. of Maximo Regoso v. CA, 211 SCRA 351-352 [1992]
410 Vda. de Salazar v. CA G.R. No. 121510 November 23, 1995, 65 SCAD 705

55
proper substitution of the deceased party has been effected, is void. In such a case, the order of the court dismissing
the complaint, for plaintiff’s non-compliance with the order to amend it, is likewise void.411

Actions that survive the death of a party

The following actions are not extinguished by death and survive against legal representatives of the deceased party:
1. Actions to recover real and personal property against the estate;
2. Actions to enforce liens on such property;
3. Actions to recover for an injury to person or property by reason of tort or delict committed by the
deceased.412
4. Actions on contractual money claims which shall be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment. 413
Examples of actions that survive the death of a party include Petition for Annulment of Sale, Reconveyance and
Damages.414

SECTION 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.
“In a case in which a judgment was rendered after the public officers against whom a mandamus petition
was filed had ceased to hold office, it was held that the failure to make the substitution pursuant to this rule
is a procedural defect and the mandamus petition should have been dismissed for non-compliance with
such substitution procedure.”415

SECTION 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.

SECTION 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 interest is transferred to be substituted in the
action or joined with the original party.

Transferee as party
A transferee pendente lite does not have to be included or impleaded by name in order to be bound by the
judgment because the action or suit may be continued for or against the original party or the transferor and still be
binding on the transferee. More specifically, a transferee pendente lite is a proper party in the case, but not an
indispensable party.416

SECTION 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 the 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.
Under this provision, the death of the defendant at any stage of the action but before entry of judgment does
not affect the pending action of money arising from contract. This includes a situation where the defendant dies after
final judgment but before entry of such judgment. The defendant shall be substituted by his executor or administrator
or legal heirs and the action shall continue until a final judgment thereon is entered. Once the final judgment is
entered, it shall be enforces as a money claim against the estate of the deceased defendant without need of proving
it.
Consequently, a writ of attachment already issued and levied against property of the deceased will not be
dissolved by the death of the defendant. However, once judgment is rendered and entered, it shall be enforced as
money claim against the estate of the deceased. The plaintiff merely enjoys preference in the attached property over
the creditors.417

SECTION 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

411 Casenas v. Rosales, 19 SCRA 462, 466 [1967]; Barrameda v. Barbara, 90 Phil. 718
412 I Regalado, 1988 ed., p.64 citing Board of Liquidators vs. Heirs of Kalaw, L-18805.
413 Section 20, Rule 3, Rules of Court
414 MEMORACION Z. CRUZ, represented by EDGARDO Z. CRUZ, Petitioner, vs. OSWALDO Z. CRUZ, Respondent;

G.R. No. 173292; September 1, 2010

415 G.R. No. 119193, March 29, 1996, Heirs of Mayor Nemencio Galvez v. CA, 69 SCAD 1024
416 Guballa v. CA G.R. 78223; Mozar v. CA G.R. 79403; Mayuga v. CA G.R. 46853
417 Gubat, The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure Annotated 2000 ed., p.69

56
payment is not made within the time fixed by the court, execution shall issue or the payment thereof, without
prejudice to such other sanctions as the court may impose.

Application of the Rule

“Thus, a remand of the case is warranted for the trial court to determine whether plaintiff-appellee can be
considered as an indigent litigant using the standards set in Rule 3, Section 21. Plaintiff-appellee must produce
affidavits and supporting documents showing that he satisfies the twin requirements on gross monthly income and
ownership of real property under Rule 141. Otherwise, the trial court should call a hearing as required by Rule 3,
Section 21 to enable plaintiff-appellee to adduce evidence to show that he does not have property and money
sufficient and available for food, shelter, and basic necessities for him and his family. In that hearing, the defendants-
appellants would have the right to also present evidence to refute the allegations and evidence in support of the
application of plaintiff-appellee to litigate as an indigent litigant.
To recapitulate the rules on indigent litigants, if the applicant for exemption meets the salary and property
requirements under Section 19 of Rule 141, then the grant of his application is mandatory. On the other hand, when
the application does not satisfy one or both requirements, then the application should not be denied outright; instead,
the court should apply the indigency test under Section 21 of Rule 3 and use its sound discretion in determining the
merits of the prayer for exemption.”418

Indigent Suit applies to Class Suit

The rule that the free access to the courts should not be denied to any person by reason of poverty, applies
to class suit filed by ten laborers in their own behalf and in behalf of 9,000 other laborers because although each
laborer would share only P1.60 out of the total filing fee of P14,500, still such amount would diminish the subsistence
income of seasonal workers. Moreover, there are other litigation expenses to be shouldered. 419

SECTION 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.
Duty of the Solicitor General
It is mandatory upon the Office of the Solicitor General to “represent the Government of the Philippines, its
agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter
requiring the services of a lawyer.”420 Even when confronted with a situation where one government office takes an
adverse position against another government agency, the Solicitor General should not refrain from performing his
duty as a lawyer of the government. It is incumbent upon him to present to the court what he considers would legally
uphold the best interest of the government although it may run counter to a client’s position. In such an instance, the
government office adversely affected by the position taken by the Solicitor General, if it still believes in the merit of its
case may appear in its own behalf through its legal personnel or representative. 421
Only the Solicitor General, as the lawyer of the government, can bring or defend actions on behalf of the
Republic of the Philippines and, therefore, actions filed in the name of the Republic if not initiated by the Solicitor
General, will be summarily dismissed.422
In one case, the petitioner maintains that the lawyer deputized and designated as "special attorney-OSG" is
a mere representative of the OSG, and the latter retains supervision and control over the deputized counsel. The
OSG continues to be the principal counsel and, as such, the Solicitor General is the party entitled to be furnished
copies of the orders, notices, and decisions. The deputized attorney has no legal authority to decide whether or not
an appeal should be made. As a consequence, copies of orders and decisions served on the deputized counsel,
acting as agent or representative of the Solicitor General, are not binding until they are actually received by the
latter.423

STEP 6. State Rule 8 and its sections.

RULE 8
MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS IN PLEADINGS
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure Proposed Amendment
Section 1. In general. — Every pleading shall
Section 1. In general. — Every pleading shall
contain in a methodical and logical form, a plain,
contain in a methodical and logical form, a plain,
concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts,
concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts on
including the evidence on which the party pleading
which the party pleading relies for his claim or
relies for his or her claim or defense, as the case
defense, as the case may be, omitting the statement
may be.
of mere evidentiary facts. (1)
If a cause of action or defense relied on is based on
If a defense relied on is based on law, the pertinent
law, the pertinent provisions thereof and their
provisions thereof and their applicability to him shall
applicability to him or her shall be clearly and
be clearly and concisely stated. (n)
concisely stated. (1a)
Section 2. Alternative causes of action or defenses. Section 2.Alternative causes of action or defenses.
— A party may set forth two or more statements of a — A party may set forth two or more statements of a

418 G.R. No. 194412, November 16, 2016 Samsoden Pangcatan v. Alexandro "Dodong" Maghuyop and Belindo
Bankiao
419 Acar v. Rosal, 19 SCRA 630
420 G.R. No. 97351 February 4, 1992 Gonzales v. Chavez, 205 SCRA 816, 846
421 G.R. No. 97351 February 4, 1992 Gonzales v. Chaves, 205 SCRA 842
422 Republic v. Register of Deeds of Quezon, 61 SCAD 498, 504-505, 244 SCRA 537, 544 [1995] citing Republic v.

CA, 200 SCRA 226 [1991] in turn citing Republic v Partisala, 118 SCRA 370 [1982]
423 G.R. No. 165333 February 9, 2010 Republic v. TAFPA, Inc.

57
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)
Section 3. Conditions precedent. — In any pleading
a general averment of the performance or
occurrence of all conditions precedent shall be
sufficient. (3)
Section 4. Capacity. — Facts showing the capacity
of a party to sue or be sued or the authority of a
party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity
or the legal existence of an organized association of
person that is made a party, must be averred. A
party desiring to raise an issue as to the legal
existence of any party or the capacity of any party to
sue or be sued in a representative capacity, shall do
so by specific denial, which shall include such
supporting particulars as are peculiarly within the
pleader's knowledge. (4)
Sction 5. Fraud, mistake, condition of the mind. —
In all averments of fraud or mistake the
circumstances constituting fraud or mistake must be
stated with particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge,
or other condition of the mind of a person may be
averred generally.(5a)
Section 6. Judgment. — In pleading a judgment or
decision of a domestic or foreign court, judicial or
quasi-judicial tribunal, or of a board or officer, it is
sufficient to aver the judgment or decision without
setting forth matter showing jurisdiction to render it.
(6)
Section 7. Action or defense based on document.
— Whenever an action or defense is based upon a
written instrument or document, the substance of
such instrument or document shall be set forth in the
pleading, and the original or a copy thereof shall be
attached to the pleading as an exhibit, which shall
be deemed to be a part of the pleading, or said copy
may with like effect be set forth in the pleading. (7)
Section 8. How to contest such documents. —
When an action or defense is founded upon a
written instrument, copied in or attached to the
corresponding pleading as provided in the preceding
section, the genuineness and due execution of the
instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the
adverse party, under oath specifically denies them,
and sets forth what he claims to be the facts, but the
requirement of an oath does not apply when the
adverse party does not appear to be a party to the
instrument or when compliance with an order for an
inspection of the original instrument is refused. (8a)
Section 9. Official document or act.— In pleading an
official document or official act, it is sufficient to aver
that the document was issued or the act done in
compliance with law. (9)
Section 10. Specific denial. — A defendant must
specify each material allegation of fact the truth of
which he does not admit and, whenever practicable,
shall set forth the substance of the matters upon
which he relies to support his denial. Where a
defendant desires to deny only a part of an
averment, he shall specify so much of it as is true
and material and shall deny only the remainder.
Where a defendant is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
of a material averment made to the complaint, he
shall so state, and this shall have the effect of a
denial. (10a)
Section 11. Allegations not specifically denied
deemed admitted. — Material averment in the
complaint, other than those as to the amount of
58
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)
Section 3.Conditions precedent. — In any pleading,
a general averment of the performance or
occurrence of all conditions precedent shall be
sufficient. (3)
Section 4. Capacity. — Facts showing the capacity
of a party to sue or be sued or the authority of a
party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity
or the legal existence of an organized association of
persons that is made a party, must be averred. A
party desiring to raise an issue as to the legal
existence of any party or the capacity of any party to
sue or be sued in a representative capacity, shall do
so by specific denial, which shall include such
supporting particulars as are peculiarly within the
pleader’s knowledge. (4)
Section 5.Fraud, mistake, condition of the mind. —
In all averments of fraud or mistake, the
circumstances constituting fraud or mistake must be
stated particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge, or
other condition of the mind of a person may be
averred generally. (5)
Section 6.Judgment. — In pleading a judgment or
decision of a domestic or foreign court, judicial or
quasi-judicial tribunal, or of a board or officer, it is
sufficient to aver the judgment or decision without
setting forth matter showing jurisdiction to render it.
An authenticated copy of the judgment or decision
shall be attached to the pleading. (6a)
Section 7.Action or defense based on document. –
Whenever an action or defense is based upon a
written instrument or document, the substance of
such instrument or document shall be set forth in the
pleading, and the original or a copy thereof shall be
attached to the pleading as an exhibit, which shall be
deemed to be a part of the pleading. (7a)
Section 8.How to contest such documents. - When
an action or defense is founded upon a written
instrument, or attached to the corresponding
pleading as provided in the preceding section, the
genuineness and due execution of the instrument
shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party,
under oath specifically denies them, and sets forth
what he or she claims to be the facts; but the
requirement of an oath does not apply when the
adverse party does not appear to be a party to the
instrument or when compliance with an order for an
inspection of the original instrument is refused. (8a)
Section 9.Official document or act. - In pleading an
official document or official act, it is sufficient to aver
that the document was issued or the act was done in
compliance with law. (9)
Section 10. Specific denial. — A defendant must
specify each material allegation of fact the truth of
which he or she does not admit and, whenever
practicable, shall set forth the substance of the
matters upon which he or she relies to support his or
her denial. Where a defendant desires to deny only
a part of an averment, he or she shall specify so
much of it as is true and material and shall deny only
the remainder. Where a defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of a material averment made to the
complaint, he or she shall so state, and this shall
have the effect of a denial. (10a)
Section 11.Allegations not specifically denied
deemed admitted. — Material averments in a
pleading asserting a claim or claims, other than
unliquidated damages, shall be deemed admitted
when not specifically denied. Allegations of usury in
a complaint to recover usurious interest are deemed
admitted if not denied under oath. (1a, R9)
Section 12. Striking out of pleading or matter
contained therein. — Upon motion made by a party
before responding to a pleading or, if no responsive
pleading is permitted by these Rules, upon motion
made by a party within twenty (20) days after the
service of the pleading upon him, or upon the court's
own initiative at any time, the court may order any
pleading to be stricken out or that any sham or false,
redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous
matter be stricken out therefrom. (5, R9)
(Section 13 of the Proposed Amendment)
59
those as to the amount of unliquidated damages,
shall be deemed admitted when not specifically
denied. (11a)
Section 12.Affirmative defenses. — (a) A defendant
shall raise his or her affirmative defenses in his or
her answer, which shall be limited to the reasons set
forth under Section 5(b), Rule 6, and the following
grounds:
1. That the court has no jurisdiction over the person
of the defending party;
2. That venue is improperly laid;
3. That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;
4. That the pleading asserting the claim states no
cause of action; and
5. That a condition precedent for filing the claim has
not been complied with.
(b) Failure to raise the affirmative defenses at the
earliest opportunity shall constitute a waiver thereof.
(c) The court shall motu proprio resolve the above
affirmative defenses within thirty (30) calendar days
from the filing of the answer.
(d) As to the other affirmative defenses under the
first paragraph of Section 5(b), Rule 6, the court may
conduct a summary hearing within fifteen (15)
calendar days from the filing of the answer. Such
affirmative defenses shall be resolved by the court
within thirty (30) calendar days from the termination
of the summary hearing.
(e) Affirmative defenses, if denied, shall not be the
subject of a motion for reconsideration or petition for
certiorari, prohibition or mandamus, but may be
among the matters to be raised on appeal after a
judgment on the merits. (n)
Section 13.Striking out of pleading or matter
contained therein. — Upon motion made by a party
before responding to a pleading or, if no responsive
pleading is permitted by these Rules, upon motion
made by a party within twenty (20) calendar days
after the service of the pleading upon him or her, or
upon the court's own initiative at any time, the court
may order any pleading to be stricken out or that any
sham or false, redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous matter be stricken out therefrom. (12a)
Discuss actionable document “Actionable Document GR No”

Sps Santos vs Alcazar GR No 183034 March 12, 2014

"There is no need for proof of execution and authenticity with respect to documents the genuineness and
due execution of which are admitted by the adverse party." 424 With the consequent admission engendered by
petitioners’ failure to properly deny the Acknowledgment in their Answer, coupled with its proper authentication,
identification and offer by the respondent, not to mention petitioners’ admissions in paragraphs 4 to 6 of their Answer
that they are indeed indebted to respondent, the Court believes that judgment may be had solely on the document,
and there is no need to present receipts and other documents to prove the claimed indebtedness. The
Acknowledgment, just an ordinary acknowledgment receipt, is "valid and binding between the parties who executed it,
as a document evidencing the loan agreement they had entered into." 425 The absence of rebutting evidence
occasioned by petitioners’ waiver of their right to present evidence renders the Acknowledgment as the best evidence
of the transactions between the parties and the consequential indebtedness incurred. 426 Indeed, the effect of the
admission is such that "a prima facie case is made for the plaintiff which dispenses with the necessity of evidence on
his part and entitles him to a judgment on the pleadings unless a special defense of new matter, such as payment, is
interposed by the defendant."427

Fernando Medical Enterprises, Inc. vs Wesleyan University Phil. Inc. GR No. 207970 January 20, 2016

In the case of a written instrument or document upon which an action or defense is based, which is also
known as the actionable document, the pleader of such document is required either to set forth the substance of such
instrument or document in the pleading, and to attach the original or a copy thereof to the pleading as an exhibit,
which shall then be deemed to be a part of the pleading, or to set forth a copy in the pleading.428 The adverse party is
deemed to admit the genuineness and due execution of the actionable document unless he specifically denies them
under oath, and sets forth what he claims to be the facts, but the requirement of an oath does not apply when the
adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument or when compliance with an order for an inspection of
the original instrument is refused.429

How to contest actionable document.

Casent Realty Development Corp. vs Philbanking Corp GR No. 150731 September 4, 2007
Petitioner points out that the defense of Dacion and Confirmation Statement, which were submitted in the
Answer, should have been specifically denied under oath by respondent in accordance with Rule 8, Section 8 of the
Rules of Court:

Section 8. How to contest such documents.––When an action or defense is founded upon a written
instrument, copied in or attached to the corresponding pleading as provided in the preceding section, the
genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath,
specifically denies them, and sets forth, what he claims to be the facts; but the requirement of an oath does not apply
when the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument or when compliance with an order for an
inspection of the original instrument is refused.

Rule 8, Section 8 specifically applies to actions or defences founded upon a written instrument and provides
the manner of denying it. It is more controlling than Rule6, Section 10 which merely provides the effect of failure to file
a Reply. Thus, where the defense in the Answer is based on an actionable document, a Reply specifically denying it
under oath must be made; otherwise, the genuineness and due execution of the document will be deemed
admitted.430

Since respondent failed to deny the genuineness and due execution of the Dacion and Confirmation
Statement under oath, then these are deemed admitted and must be considered by the court in resolving the
demurrer to evidence. We held in Philippine American General Insurance Co., Inc. v. Sweet Lines, Inc. that "[w]hen
the due execution and genuineness of an instrument are deemed admitted because of the adverse party’s failure to
make a specific verified denial thereof, the instrument need not be presented formally in evidence for it may be
considered an admitted fact."431

Effect of valid action to contest Actionable Document (State Rule 34 Judgment on Pleadings)

Asian Construction and Development Corp. vs Sannaedle Co., LTD., GR No. 181676 June 11, 2014:

Judgment on the pleadings is governed by Section 1, Rule 34 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which reads:

Sec. 1. Judgment on the pleadings. – Where an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the
material allegations of the adverse party’s pleading, the court may, on motion of that party, direct judgment on such

424 Chua v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88383, February 19, 1992, 206 SCRA 339, 346.
425 Spouses Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 432 Phil. 1052, 1061 (2002).
426 See Sagun v. Sunace International Management Services, Inc., G.R. No. 179242, February 23, 2011, 644 SCRA

171.
427 Citibank, N.A. v. Sabeniano, supra at 418.
428 Section 7, id.
429 Section 8, id.
430 See Toribio v. Bidin, No. L-57821, January 17, 1985, 134 SCRA 162, 170.
431 G.R. No. 87434, August 5, 1992, 212 SCRA 194, 204.

60
pleading. However, in actions for declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage or for legal separation, the material
facts alleged in the complaint shall always be proved.432

Judgment on the pleadings is proper when an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the
material allegations of the adverse party’s pleading. An answer fails to tender an issue if it does not comply with the
requirements of a specific denial as set out in Sections 8433 and 10,434 Rule 8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
resulting in the admission of the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings. 435

This rule is supported by the Court’s ruling in Mongao v. Pryce Properties Corporation 436 wherein it was held
that "judgment on the pleadings is governed by Section 1,Rule 34 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, essentially a
restatement of Section 1, Rule 19 of the 1964 Rules of Court then applicable to the proceedings before the trial court.
Section 1, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court provides that where an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits
the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleading, the court may, on motion of that party, direct judgment on
such pleading. The answer would fail to tender an issue, of course, if it does not comply with the requirements for a
specific denial set out in Section 10 (or Section 8) of Rule 8; and it would admit the material allegations of the adverse
party’s pleadings not only where it expressly confesses the truthfulness thereof but also if it omits to deal with them at
all."437

Further, in First Leverage and Services Group, Inc. v. Solid Builders, Inc., 438 this Court held that where a
motion for judgment on the pleadings is filed, the essential question is whether there are issues generated by the
pleadings. In a proper case for judgment on the pleadings, there is no ostensible issue at all because of the failure of
the defending party’s answer to raise an issue. The answer would fail to tender an issue, of course, if it does not deny
the material allegations in the complaint or admits said material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings by
confessing the truthfulness thereof and/or omitting to deal with them at all.439

RULE 34
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure Proposed Amendment
Section 1. Judgment on the pleadings. — Where an Section 1. Judgment on the pleadings. – Where an
answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits
the material allegations of the adverse party's the material allegations of the adverse party’s
pleading, the court may; on motion of that party, pleading, the court may, on motion of that party,
direct judgment on such pleading. However, in direct judgment on such pleading. However, in
actions for declaration of nullity or annulment of actions for declaration of nullity or annulment of
marriage or for legal separation, the material facts marriage or for legal separation, the material facts
alleged in the complaint shall always be proved. (1a, alleged in the complaint shall always be proved. (1)
R19)
Section 2.Action on motion for judgment on the
pleadings. — The court may motu proprio or on
motion render judgment on the pleadings if it is
apparent that the answer fails to tender an issue, or
otherwise admits the material allegations of the
adverse party’s pleadings. Otherwise, the motion
shall be subject to the provisions of Rule 15 of these
Rules. Any action of the court on a motion for
judgment on the pleadings shall not be subject of an
appeal or petition for certiorari, prohibition or
mandamus. (n)

5. Compulsory Counterclaim Prosecutor Thereof

A. A counterclaim is any claim which a defending party may have against an opposing party. It is in the nature
of a cross-complaint; a distinct and independent cause of action which, though alleged in the answer, is not
part of the answer.

432 Emphasis supplied.

433 Section 8. How to contest such documents. – When an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument,
copied in or attached to the corresponding pleading as provided in the preceding section, the genuineness and due
execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath, specifically denies them,
and sets forth what he claims to be the facts, but the requirement of an oath does not apply when the adverse party
does not appear to be a party to the instrument or when compliance with an order for an inspection of the original
instrument is refused.
434 Section 10. Specific denial. – A defendant must specify each material allegation of fact the truth of which he does

not admit and, whenever practicable, shall set forth the substance of the matters upon which he relies to support his
denial. Where a defendant desires to deny only a part of an averment, he shall specify so much of it as is true and
material and shall deny only the remainder. Where a defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief as to the truth of a material averment made to the complaint, he shall so state, and this shall have the effect
of a denial.
435 Government Service Insurance System v. Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc., G.R. Nos. 165585 and

176982, November 20, 2013.

436 504 Phil. 472 (2005).
437 Id. at 480. (Citations omitted)
438 G.R. No. 155680, July 2, 2012, 675 SCRA 407.
439 Id. at 418.

61
Counterclaims may be either compulsory or permissive. Section 7, Rule 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
provides:

1997 Rules of Civil Procedure 2019 Proposed Amendment of Rules of Civil

Procedure

Section 7. Compulsory counterclaim.— A

SEC. 7. Compulsory counterclaim.– A compulsory
counterclaim is one which, being cognizable by the
regular courts of justice, arises out of or is
connected with the transaction or occurrence
constituting the subject matter of the opposing
party’s claim and does not require for its
adjudication the presence of third parties of whom
the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. Such a
counterclaim must be within the jurisdiction of the
court both as to the amount and nature thereof,
except that in an original action before the Regional
Trial Court, the counterclaim may be considered
compulsory regardless of the amount.
compulsory counterclaim is one which, being
cognizable by the regular courts of justice, arises
out of or is connected with the transaction or
occurrence constituting the subject matter of the
opposing party's claim and does not require for its
adjudication the presence of third parties of whom
the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. Such a
counterclaim must be within the jurisdiction of
the court both as to the amount and the nature
thereof, except that in an original action before
the Regional Trial Court, the counter claim may
be considered compulsory regardless of the
amount. A compulsory counterclaim not raised in
the same action is barred, unless otherwise
allowed by these Rules.

Padilla vs Asiatique GR No 207376 August 6 2014

In this case, petitioner’s counterclaim for damages raised in her answer before the Pasig City RTC is
compulsory, alleging suffering and injury caused to her as a consequence of the unwarranted filing of the baseless
complaint filed by respondents. Said court, however, dismissed her counterclaim upon the same ground of lack of
jurisdiction as its resolution supposedly would entail passing upon the validity of orders and processes still pending
before the Pasay City RTC. In Metals Engineering Resources Corp. v. Court of Appeals,440 we reversed the trial
court’s order allowing private respondent to proceed with the presentation of his evidence in support of his
counterclaim after the complaint was dismissed for not paying the correct docket fee and hence the trial court did not
acquire jurisdiction over the case. We held that if the court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the main action of
the case and dismisses the same, then the compulsory counterclaim, being ancillary to the principal controversy,
must likewise be dismissed since no jurisdiction remained for any grant of relief under the counterclaim.

Under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, it is now explicitly provided that the dismissal of the complaint due to
failure of the plaintiff to prosecute his case is "without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his
counterclaim in the same or in a separate action." The effect of this amendment on previous rulings on whether the
dismissal of a complaint carries with it the dismissal of the counterclaims as well, was discussed in the case of Pinga
v. The Heirs of German Santiago441

B. When to File
Section 8, Rule 11 of the Rules of Court on the filing of compulsory counterclaims provides that:
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure 2019 Proposed Amendment of Rules of Civil Procedure

"[a] compulsory counterclaim or a cross-claim "[a] compulsory counterclaim or a cross-claim

that a defending party has at the time he files his that a defending party has at the time he or she files his
answer shall be contained therein.” or her answer shall be contained therein.”

It is elementary that a defending party’s compulsory counterclaim should be interposed at the time he files
his Answer, and that failure to do so shall effectively bar such claim. As it appears from the records, what
respondents initially claimed herein were moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s fees. 442 Then,
realizing, based on its computation, that it should have sought the recovery of the excess bid price, respondents set
up another counterclaim, this time in their Appellant’s Brief filed before the CA. Unfortunately, respondents’ belated
assertion proved fatal to their cause as it did not cure their failure to timely raise such claim in their Answer.
Consequently, respondents’ claim for the excess, if any, is already barred. With this, we now resolve the substantive
issues of this case.443

6. Verification & Non-forum shopping

Rule 7, Section 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides the requirement of verification, while Section
5 of the same rule provides the requirement of certification against forum shopping. These sections state:
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure 2019 Proposed Amendment of Rules of Civil
Procedure

440 GR No. 95631, October 28, 1991, 203 SCRA 273

441 GR No. 95631, October 28, 1991, 203 SCRA 273
442 526 Phil. 868, 887-888 (2006)
443 Metropolitan Bank Trust Company vs CPR Promotions GR No 200567 June 22, 2015

62

SEC. 4. Verification. — Except when
otherwise specifically required by law or rule,
pleadings need not be under oath, verified or
accompanied by affidavit.
A pleading is verified by an affidavit that
the affiant has read the pleading and that the
allegations therein are true and correct of his
knowledge and belief.
A pleading required to be verified which
contains a verification based on "information and
belief," or upon "knowledge, information and belief,"
or lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as an
unsigned pleading.
SEC. 5. Certification against forum
shopping.— The plaintiff or principal party shall
certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory
pleading asserting a claim for relief or in a sworn
certification annexed thereto and simultaneously
filed therewith: (a) that he has not thereto fore
commenced any action or filed any claim involving
the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-
judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge,
no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b)
if there is such other pending action or claim, a
complete statement of the present status thereof;
and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same
or similar action or claim has been filed or is
pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days
therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid
complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
Failure to comply with the foregoing
requirements shall not be curable by mere
amendment of the complaint or other initiatory
pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the
case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided,
upon motion and after hearing. The submission of a
false certification or non-compliance with any of the
undertakings therein shall constitute indirect
contempt of court, without prejudice to the
corresponding administrative and criminal actions.
If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly
constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the
same shall be ground for summary dismissal with
prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as
well as a cause for administrative sanctions.
63
Section 4. Verification. — Except when otherwise
specifically required by law or
rule, pleadings need not be
under oath or verified.
A pleading is verified by an affidavit of an affiant
duly authorized to sign said verification. The
authorization of the affiant to act on behalf of a
party, whether in the form of a secretary’s
certificate or a special power of attorney, should be
attached to the pleading, and shall allege the
following attestations:
(a) The allegations in the pleading are true
and correct based on his or her personal
knowledge, or based on authentic
documents;
(b) The pleading is not filed to harass, cause
unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase
the cost of litigation; and
(c) The factual allegations therein have
evidentiary support or, if specifically so
identified, will likewise have evidentiary support
after a reasonable opportunity for discovery.
The signature of the affiant shall further serve as a
certification of the truthfulness of the allegations in
the pleading.
A pleading required to be verified that contains a
verification based on “information and belief,” or
upon “knowledge, information and belief,” or
lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as an
unsigned pleading. (4a)
Section 5. Certification against forum shopping . —
The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under
oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading
asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn
certification annexed thereto and simultaneously
filed therewith: (a) that he or she has not
theretofore commenced any action or filed any
claim involving the same issues in any court,
tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of
his or her knowledge, no such other action or claim
is pending therein;
(b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a
complete statement of the present status thereof;
and (c) if he or she should thereafter learn that the
same or similar action or claim has been filed or is
pending, he or she shall report that fact within five
(5) calendar days therefrom to the court wherein
his or her aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading
has been filed.
The authorization of the affiant to act on behalf of a
party, whether in the form of a secretary’s
certificate or a special power of attorney, should be
attached to the pleading.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements
shall not be curable by mere amendment of the
complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be
cause for the dismissal of the case without
prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion
and after hearing. The submission of a false
certification or non-compliance with any of the
undertakings therein shall constitute indirect
contempt of court, without prejudice to the
corresponding administrative and criminal actions.
If the acts of the party or his or her counsel clearly
constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the
same shall be ground for summary dismissal with
prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as
 well as a cause for administrative sanctions.

Although the general rule is that failure to attach a verification and certification against forum shopping is a ground for
dismissal, there are cases where this court allowed substantial compliance.444

Altres v. Empleo summarized the rules on verification and certification against forum shopping in this
manner:

For the guidance of the bench and bar, the Court restates in capsule form the jurisprudential
pronouncements . . . respecting non-compliance with the requirement on, or submission of defective, verification and
certification against forum shopping:

1) A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of

defective verification, and noncompliance with the requirement on or submission of defective certification
against forum shopping.

2) As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does not necessarily render the
pleading fatally defective. The court may order its submission or correction or act on the pleading if the
attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that
the ends of justice may be served thereby.

3) Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge to swear
to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification, and when matters alleged in
the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct.

4) As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike in

verification, is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is a
need to relax the Rule on the ground of "substantial compliance" or presence of "special circumstances or
compelling reasons."

5) The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a
case; otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to the case. Under reasonable or
justifiable circumstances, however, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and
invoke a common cause of action or defense, the signature of only one of them in the certification against
forum shopping substantially complies with the Rule.

6) Finally, the certification against forum shopping must be executed by the party-pleader, not by
his counsel. If, however, for reasonable or justifiable reasons, the party-pleader is unable to sign, he must
execute a Special Power of Attorney designating his counsel of record to sign on his behalf.
Being a corporation, Fuji exercises its power to sue and be sued through its board of directors or duly
authorized officers and agents. Thus, the physical act of signing the verification and certification against forum
shopping can only be done by natural persons duly authorized either by the corporate by-laws or a board resolution.

“Judgement on Pleadings”
Judgment on the pleadings is proper "where an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the
material allegations of the adverse party’s pleading."445
We have elaborated on the basic distinction between summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings,
thus:
The existence or appearance of ostensible issues in the pleadings, on the one hand, and their sham or
fictitious character, on the other, are what distinguish a proper case for summary judgment from one for a judgment
on the pleadings. In a proper case for judgment on the pleadings, there is no ostensible issue at all because of the
failure of the defending party’s answer to raise an issue. On the other hand, in the case of a summary judgment,
issues apparently exist-i.e. facts are asserted in the complaint regarding which there is as yet no admission,
disavowal or qualification; or specific denials or affirmative defenses are in truth set out in the answer-but the issues
thus arising from the pleadings are sham, fictitious or not genuine, as shown by affidavits, depositions, or
admissions.446
An answer would "fail to tender an issue" if it "does not deny the material allegations in the complaint or
admits said material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings by confessing the truthfulness thereof and/or
omitting to deal with them at all. Now, if an answer does in fact specifically deny the material averments of the
complaint and/or asserts affirmative defenses (allegations of new matter which, while admitting the material
allegations of the complaint expressly or impliedly, would nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by the plaintiff), a
judgment on the pleadings would naturally be improper."447

State Rules 6 and 7

Rule 6

444 Fuji Television Network vs Espiritu GR No 204944-45 December 3, 2014

445 RULES OF COURT, Rule 34, Section 1.
446 Tan v. De la Vega, 519 Phil. 515, 527 (2006).
447 Id. at 522

64
 KINDS OF PLEADINGS
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
Section 1. Pleadings defined. — Pleadings are the
written statements of the respective claims and
defenses of the parties submitted to the court for
appropriate judgment. (1a)
Section 2. Pleadings allowed. — The claims of a party
are asserted in a complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim,
third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint, or complaint-in-
intervention.
The defenses of a party are alleged in the answer to the
pleading asserting a claim against him.
An answer may be responded to by a reply. (n)
Section 3. Complaint. — The complaint is the pleading
alleging the plaintiff's cause or causes of action. The
names and residences of the plaintiff and defendant
must be stated in the complaint. (3a)
Section 4. Answer. — An answer is a pleading in which
a defending party sets forth his defenses. (4a)
Section 5. Defenses. — Defenses may either be
negative or affirmative.
(a) A negative defense is the specific denial of
the material fact or facts alleged in the
pleading of the claimant essential to his cause
or causes of action.
(b) An affirmative defense is an allegation of a
new matter which, while hypothetically
admitting the material allegations in the
pleading of the claimant, would nevertheless
prevent or bar recovery by him. The affirmative
defenses include fraud, statute of limitations,
release, payment, illegality, statute of frauds,
estoppel, former recovery, discharge in
bankruptcy, and any other matter by way of
confession and avoidance. (5a)
Section 6. Counterclaim. — A counterclaim is any
claim which a defending party may have against an
opposing party. (6a)
Section 7. Compulsory counterclaim. — A compulsory
counterclaim is one which, being cognizable by the
regular courts of justice, arises out of or is connected
with the transaction or occurrence constituting the
subject matter of the opposing party's claim and does
not require for its adjudication the presence of third
parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.
Such a counterclaim must be within the jurisdiction of
the court both as to the amount and the nature thereof,
except that in an original action before the Regional
Trial Court, the counter-claim may be considered
compulsory regardless of the amount. (n)
Section 8. Cross-claim. — A cross-claim is any claim
by one party against a co-party arising out of the
2019 Proposed Amendment of Rules of Civil Procedure
Section 1. Pleadings defined. - Pleadings are the
written statements of the respective claims and
defenses of the parties submitted to the court for
appropriate judgment. (1)
Section 2. Pleadings allowed. - The claims of a party
are asserted in a complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim,
third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint, or complaint-
inintervention. The defenses of a party are alleged in
the answer to the pleading asserting a claim against
him or her. An answer may be responded to by a reply
only if the defending party attaches an actionable
document to the answer. (2a)
Section 3. Complaint. - The complaint is the pleading
alleging the plaintiff’s or claiming party’s cause or
causes of action. The names and residences of the
plaintiff and defendant must be stated in the complaint.
(3a)
Section 4. Answer. - An answer is a pleading in which a
defending party sets forth his or her defenses. (4a)
Section 5. Defenses. — Defenses may either be
negative or affirmative.
(a) A negative defense is the specific denial of the
material fact or facts alleged in the pleading of the
claimant essential to his or her cause or causes of
action.
(b) An affirmative defense is an allegation of a new
matter which, while hypothetically admitting the material
allegations in the pleading of the claimant, would
nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by him or her.
The affirmative defenses include fraud, statute of
limitations, release, payment, illegality, statute of
frauds, Page 2 of 52 estoppel, former recovery,
discharge in bankruptcy, and any other matter by way
of confession and avoidance. Affirmative defenses may
also include grounds for the dismissal of a complaint,
specifically, that the court has no jurisdiction over the
subject matter, that there is another action pending
between the same parties for the same cause, or that
the action is barred by a prior judgment. (5a)
Section 6. Counterclaim. — A counterclaim is any claim
which a defending party may have against an opposing
party. (6)
Section 7. Compulsory counterclaim. — A compulsory
counterclaim is one which, being cognizable by the
regular courts of justice, arises out of or is connected
with the transaction or occurrence constituting the
subject matter of the opposing party's claim and does
not require for its adjudication the presence of third
parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.
Such a counterclaim must be within the jurisdiction of
the court both as to the amount and the nature thereof,
except that in an original action before the Regional
Trial Court, the counterclaim may be considered
compulsory regardless of the amount. A compulsory
counterclaim not raised in the same action is barred,
unless otherwise allowed by these Rules. (7a)
Section 8. Cross-claim. - A cross-claim is any claim by
one party against a co-party arising out of the
65
transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter
either of the original action or of a counterclaim therein.
Such cross-claim may include a claim that the party
against whom it is asserted is or may be liable to the
cross-claimant for all or part of a claim asserted in the
action against the cross-claimant. (7)
Section 9. Counter-counterclaims and counter-
crossclaims. — A counter-claim may be asserted
against an original counter-claimant.
A cross-claim may also be filed against an original
cross-claimant. (n)
Section 10. Reply. — A reply is a pleading, the office or
function of which is to deny, or allege facts in denial or
avoidance of new matters alleged by way of defense in
the answer and thereby join or make issue as to such
new matters. If a party does not file such reply, all the
new matters alleged in the answer are deemed
controverted.
If the plaintiff wishes to interpose any claims arising out
of the new matters so alleged, such claims shall be set
forth in an amended or supplemental complaint. (11)
Section 11. Third, (fourth, etc.)—party complaint. — A
third (fourth, etc.) — party complaint is a claim that a
defending party may, with leave of court, file against a
person not a party to the action, called the third (fourth,
etc.) — party defendant for contribution, indemnity,
subrogation or any other relief, in respect of his
opponent's claim. (12a)
Section 12. Bringing new parties. — When the
presence of parties other than those to the original
action is required for the granting of complete relief in
the determination of a counterclaim or cross-claim, the
court shall order them to be brought in as defendants, if
jurisdiction over them can be obtained. (14)
Section 13. Answer to third (fourth, etc.)—party
complaint. — A third (fourth, etc.) — party defendant
may allege in his answer his defenses, counterclaims or
cross-claims, including such defenses that the third
(fourth, etc.) — party plaintiff may have against the
original plaintiff's claim. In proper cases, he may also
assert a counterclaim against the original plaintiff in
respect of the latter's claim against the third-party
plaintiff. (n)
RULE 7
Parts and Contents of a Pleading
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure 2019 Proposed Amendment of Rules of Civil Procedure
Section 1. Caption. — The caption sets forth the name Section 1. Caption. — The caption sets forth the name
transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter
either of the original action or of a counterclaim therein.
Such cross-claim may cover all or part of the original
claim. (8a)
Section 9. Counter-counterclaims and counter-cross-
claims. — A counterclaim may be asserted against an
original counter-claimant. A cross-claim may also be
filed against an original cross-claimant. (9)
Section 10. Reply. — All new matters alleged in the
answer are deemed controverted. If the plaintiff wishes
to interpose any claims arising out of the new matters
so alleged, such claims shall be set forth in an
amended or supplemental complaint. However, the
plaintiff may file a reply only if the defending party
attaches an actionable document to his or her answer.
A reply is a pleading, the office or function of which is to
deny, or allege facts in denial or avoidance of new
matters alleged in, or relating to, said actionable
document.
In the event of an actionable document attached to the
reply, the defendant may file a rejoinder if the same is
based solely on an actionable document. (10a)
Section 11. Third, (fourth, etc.)-party complaint. — A
third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint is a claim that a
defending party may, with leave of court, file against a
person not a party to the action, called the third (fourth,
etc.)-party defendant for contribution, indemnity,
subrogation or any other relief, in respect of his or her
opponent's claim. Page 3 of 52
The third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint shall be denied
admission, and the court shall require the defendant to
institute a separate action, where: (a) the third (fourth,
etc.)- party defendant cannot be located within thirty
(30) calendar days from the grant of such leave; (b)
matters extraneous to the issue in the principal case
are raised; or (c) the effect would be to introduce a new
and separate controversy into the action. (11a)
Section 12. Bringing new parties. — When the
presence of parties other than those to the original
action is required for the granting of complete relief in
the determination of a counterclaim or cross-claim, the
court shall order them to be brought in as defendants, if
jurisdiction over them can be obtained. (12)
Section 13. Answer to third (fourth, etc.)-party
complaint. — A third (fourth, etc.)- party defendant may
allege in his or her answer his or her defenses,
counterclaims or cross-claims, including such defenses
that the third (fourth, etc.)-party plaintiff may have
against the original plaintiff's claim. In proper cases, he
or she may also assert a counterclaim against the
original plaintiff in respect of the latter's claim against
the third-party plaintiff. (13a)
66
of the court, the title of the action, and the docket
number if assigned.
The title of the action indicates the names of the
parties. They shall all be named in the original
complaint or petition; but in subsequent pleadings, it
shall be sufficient if the name of the first party on each
side be stated with an appropriate indication when there
are other parties.
Their respective participation in the case shall be
indicated. (1a, 2a)
Section 2. The body. — The body of the pleading sets
fourth its designation, the allegations of the party's
claims or defenses, the relief prayed for, and the date of
the pleading. (n)
(a) Paragraphs. — The allegations in the body
of a pleading shall be divided into paragraphs
so numbered to be readily identified, each of
which shall contain a statement of a single set
of circumstances so far as that can be done
with convenience. A paragraph may be
referred to by its number in all succeeding
pleadings. (3a)
(b) Headings. — When two or more causes of
action are joined the statement of the first shall
be prefaced by the words "first cause of
action,'' of the second by "second cause of
action", and so on for the others.
When one or more paragraphs in the answer
are addressed to one of several causes of
action in the complaint, they shall be prefaced
by the words "answer to the first cause of
action" or "answer to the second cause of
action" and so on; and when one or more
paragraphs of the answer are addressed to
several causes of action, they shall be
prefaced by words to that effect. (4)
(c) Relief. — The pleading shall specify the
relief sought, but it may add a general prayer
for such further or other relief as may be
deemed just or equitable. (3a, R6)
(d) Date. — Every pleading shall be dated. (n)
Section 3. Signature and address. — Every pleading
must be signed by the party or counsel representing
him, stating in either case his address which should not
be a post office box.
The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by him
that he has read the pleading; that to the best of his
knowledge, information, and belief there is good ground
to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay.
An unsigned pleading produces no legal effect.
However, the court may, in its discretion, allow such
deficiency to be remedied if it shall appear that the
same was due to mere inadvertence and not intended
for delay. Counsel who deliberately files an unsigned
pleading, or signs a pleading in violation of this Rule, or
alleges scandalous or indecent matter therein, or fails
promptly report to the court a change of his address,
shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action. (5a)
of the court, the title of the action, and the docket
number if assigned.
The title of the action indicates the names of the
parties. They shall all be named in the original
complaint or petition; but in subsequent pleadings, it
shall be sufficient if the name of the first party on each
side be stated with an appropriate indication when there
are other parties.
Their respective participation in the case shall be
indicated. (1)
Section 2. The body. — The body of the pleading sets
forth its designation, the allegations of the party's claims
or defenses, the relief prayed for, and the date of the
pleading.
(a) Paragraphs. — The allegations in the body of a
pleading shall be divided into paragraphs so numbered
to be readily identified, each of which shall contain a
statement of a single set of circumstances so far as that
can be done with convenience. A paragraph may be
referred to by its number in all succeeding pleadings.
(b) Headings. — When two or more causes of action
are joined, the statement of the first shall be prefaced
by the words "first cause of action,'' of the second by
"second cause of action", and so on for the others.
When one or more paragraphs in the answer are
addressed to one of several causes of action in the
complaint, they shall be prefaced by the words Page 4
of 52 "answer to the first cause of action" or "answer to
the second cause of action" and so on; and when one
or more paragraphs of the answer are addressed to
several causes of action, they shall be prefaced by
words to that effect.
(c) Relief. — The pleading shall specify the relief
sought, but it may add a general prayer for such further
or other relief as may be deemed just or equitable.
(d) Date. — Every pleading shall be dated. (4)
Section 3. Signature and address. — (a) Every pleading
and other written submissions to the court must be
signed by the party or counsel representing him or her.
(b) The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by
him or her that he or she has read the pleading and
document; that to the best of his or her knowledge,
information, and belief, formed after an inquiry
reasonable under the circumstances:
(1)It is not being presented for any improper purpose,
such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or
needlessly increase the cost of litigation; (2)The claims,
defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by
existing law or jurisprudence, or by a non-frivolous
argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing
jurisprudence;
(3)The factual contentions have evidentiary support or,
if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary
support after availment of the modes of discovery under
these rules; and
(4) The denials of factual contentions are warranted on
the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are
reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
67

Section 4. Verification. — Except when otherwise
specifically required by law or rule, pleadings need not
be under oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit .(5a)
A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has
read the pleading and that the allegations therein are
true and correct of his knowledge and belief.
A pleading required to be verified which contains a
verification based on "information and belief", or upon
"knowledge, information and belief", or lacks a proper
verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading.
(6a)
Section 5. Certification against forum shopping. — The
plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the
complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim
for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and
simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not
theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim
involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or
quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge,
no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if
there is such other pending action or claim, a complete
statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he
should thereafter learn that the same or similar action
or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report
that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court
wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading
has been filed.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall
not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or
other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the
dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless
otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. The
submission of a false certification or non-compliance
with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute
indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the
corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the
(c) If the court determines, on motion or motu proprio
and after notice and hearing, that this rule has been
violated, it may impose an appropriate sanction or refer
such violation to the proper office for disciplinary action,
on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule,
or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional
circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly and
severally liable for a violation committed by its partner,
associate, or employee. The sanction may include, but
shall not be limited to, non-monetary directive or
sanction; an order to pay a penalty in court; or, if
imposed on motion and warranted for effective
deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of
part or all of the reasonable attorney’s fees and other
expenses directly resulting from the violation, including
attorney’s fees for the filing of the motion for sanction.
The lawyer or law firm cannot pass on the monetary
penalty to the client. (3a)
Section 4. Verification. — Except when otherwise
specifically required by law or rule, pleadings need not
be under oath or verified. Page 5 of 52
A pleading is verified by an affidavit of an affiant duly
authorized to sign said verification. The authorization of
the affiant to act on behalf of a party, whether in the
form of a secretary’s certificate or a special power of
attorney, should be attached to the pleading, and shall
allege the following attestations:
(a) The allegations in the pleading are true and correct
based on his or her personal knowledge, or based on
authentic documents;
(b)The pleading is not filed to harass, cause
unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of
litigation; and
(c) The factual allegations therein have evidentiary
support or, if specifically so identified, will likewise have
evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for
discovery.
The signature of the affiant shall further serve as a
certification of the truthfulness of the allegations in the
pleading.
A pleading required to be verified that contains a
verification based on “information and belief,” or upon
“knowledge, information and belief,” or lacks a proper
verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading.
(4a)
Section 5. Certification against forum shopping. — The
plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the
complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim
for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and
simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he or she has
not theretofore commenced any action or filed any
claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or
quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his or her
knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending
therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or
claim, a complete statement of the present status
thereof; and (c) if he or she should thereafter learn that
the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is
pending, he or she shall report that fact within five (5)
calendar days therefrom to the court wherein his or her
aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
The authorization of the affiant to act on behalf of a
party, whether in the form of a secretary’s certificate or
a special power of attorney, should be attached to the
pleading.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall
not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or
other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the
dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless
otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. The
68
acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful
and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be
ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall
constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for
administrative sanctions. (n)
submission of a false certification or non-compliance
with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute
indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the
corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the
acts of the party or his or her counsel clearly constitute
willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be
ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall
constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for
administrative sanctions. (5a)
Section 6. Contents. — Every pleading stating a party’s
claims or defenses shall, in addition to those mandated
by Section 2, Rule 7, state the following:

(a) Names of witnesses who will be presented to prove

a party’s claim or defense;

(b)Summary of the witnesses’ intended testimonies,

provided that the judicial affidavits of said witnesses
shall be attached to the pleading and form an integral
part thereof. Only witnesses whose judicial affidavits
are attached to the pleading shall be presented by the
parties during trial. Except if a party presents
meritorious reasons as basis for the admission of
additional witnesses, no other witness or affidavit shall
be heard or admitted by the court; and

(c) Documentary and object evidence in support of the

allegations contained in the pleading. (n)

Filing of Responsive Pleadings

RULE 10

Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

1997 Rules of Civil Procedure 2019 Proposed Amendment of Rules of Civil Procedure
Section 1. Amendments in general. — Pleadings may Section 1. Amendments in general. — Pleadings may
be amended by adding or striking out an allegation or be amended by adding or striking out an allegation or
the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the
name of a party or a mistaken or inadequate allegation name of a party or a mistaken or inadequate allegation
or description in any other respect, so that the actual or description in any other respect, so that the actual
merits of the controversy may speedily be determined, merits of the controversy may speedily be determined,
without regard to technicalities, and in the most without regard to technicalities, in the most expeditious
expeditious and inexpensive manner. (1) and inexpensive manner. (1a)

Section 2. Amendments as a matter of right. — A party
may amend his pleading once as a matter of right at
any time before a responsive pleading is served or, in
the case of a reply, at any time within ten (10) days
after it is served. (2a)
Section 2. Amendments as a matter of right. — A party
may amend his pleading once as a matter of right at
any time before a responsive pleading is served or, in
the case of a reply, at any time within ten (10) calendar
days after it is served. (2a)

Section 3. Amendments by leave of court. — Except as
provided in the next preceding section, substantial
amendments may be made only upon leave of court.
But such leave may be refused if it appears to the court
that the motion was made with intent to delay. Orders of
the court upon the matters provided in this section shall
be made upon motion filed in court, and after notice to
the adverse party, and an opportunity to be heard. (3a)
Section 4. Formal amendments. — A defect in the
designation of the parties and other clearly clerical or
typographical errors may be summarily corrected by the
court at any stage of the action, at its initiative or on
motion, provided no prejudice is caused thereby to the
adverse party. (4a)
Section 3. Amendments by leave of court. — Except as
provided in the next preceding Section, substantial
amendments may be made only upon leave of court.
But such leave shall be refused if it appears to the court
that the motion was made with intent to delay or confer
jurisdiction on the court, or the pleading stated no
cause of action from the beginning which could be
amended. Orders of the court upon the Page 10 of 52
matters provided in this Section shall be made upon
motion filed in court, and after notice to the adverse
party, and an opportunity to be heard. (3a)
Section 4. Formal amendments. — A defect in the
designation of the parties and other clearly clerical or
typographical errors may be summarily corrected by the
court at any stage of the action, at its initiative or on
motion, provided no prejudice is caused thereby to the
adverse party. (4)

Section 5. Amendment to conform to or authorize Section 5. No amendment necessary to conform to or

presentation of evidence. — When issues not raised by
the pleadings are tried with the express or implied
consent of the parties they shall be treated in all
respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings.
Such amendment of the pleadings as may be
necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence
authorize presentation of evidence. — When issues not
raised by the pleadings are tried with the express or
implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in
all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings.
No amendment of such pleadings deemed amended is
necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence.

69
and to raise these issues may be made upon motion of
any party at any time, even after judgment; but failure to
amend does not effect the result of the trial of these
issues. If evidence is objected to at the trial on the
ground that it is not within the issues made by the
pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be
amended and shall do so with liberality if the
presentation of the merits of the action and the ends of
substantial justice will be subserved thereby. The court
may grant a continuance to enable the amendment to
be made. (5a)
Section 6. Supplemental pleadings. — Upon motion of
a party the court may, upon reasonable notice and
upon such terms as are just, permit him to serve a
supplemental pleading setting forth transactions,
occurrences or events which have happened since the
date of the pleading sought to be supplemented. The
adverse party may plead thereto within ten (10) days
from notice of the order admitting the supplemental
pleading. (6a)
Section 7. Filing of amended pleadings. — When any
pleading is amended, a new copy of the entire pleading,
incorporating the amendments, which shall be indicated
by appropriate marks, shall be filed. (7a)
Section 8. Effect of amended pleadings. — An
amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it
amends. However, admissions in superseded pleadings
may be received in evidence against the pleader, and
claims or defenses alleged therein not incorporated in
the amended pleading shall be deemed waived. (n)
When to File Responsive Pleadings
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
Section 1. Answer to the complaint. — The defendant
shall file his answer to the complaint within fifteen (15) shall file his or her answer to the complaint within thirty
days after service of summons, unless a different
period is fixed by the court. (la)
Section 2. Answer of a defendant foreign private
juridical entity. — Where the defendant is a foreign
private juridical entity and service of summons is made
on the government official designated by law to receive
the same, the answer shall be filed within thirty (30)
days after receipt of summons by such entity. (2a)
Section 3. Answer to amended complaint. — When the
plaintiff files an amended complaint as a matter of right,
the defendant shall answer the same within fifteen (15)
days after being served with a copy thereof.
Where its filing is not a matter of right, the defendant
shall answer the amended complaint within ten (l0)
days from notice of the order admitting the same. An
answer earlier filed may serve as the answer to the
amended complaint if no new answer is filed.
This Rule shall apply to the answer to an amended
counterclaim, amended cross-claim, amended third
(fourth, etc.)—party complaint, and amended complaint-
in-intervention. (3a)
Section 4. Answer to counterclaim or cross-claim. — A
counterclaim or cross-claim must be answered within
ten (10) days from service. (4)
Section 5. Answer to third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint.
— The time to answer a third (fourth, etc.)—party
(5a)
Section 6. Supplemental pleadings. — Upon motion of
a party, the court may, upon reasonable notice and
upon such terms as are just, permit him or her to serve
a supplemental pleading setting forth transactions,
occurrences or events which have happened since the
date of the pleading sought to be supplemented. The
adverse party may plead thereto within ten (10)
calendar days from notice of the order admitting the
supplemental pleading. (6a)
Section 7. Filing of amended pleadings. — When any
pleading is amended, a new copy of the entire pleading,
incorporating the amendments, which shall be indicated
by appropriate marks, shall be filed. (7)
Section 8. Effect of amended pleadings. — An
amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it
amends. However, admissions in superseded pleadings
may be offered in evidence against the pleader, and
claims or defenses alleged therein not incorporated in
the amended pleading shall be deemed waived. (8a)
RULE 11
2019 Proposed Amendment of Rules of Civil Procedure
Section 1. Answer to the complaint. — The defendant
(30) calendar days after service of summons, unless a
different period is fixed by the court. (1a)
Section 2. Answer of a defendant foreign private
juridical entity. — Where the defendant is a foreign
private juridical entity and service of summons is made
on the government official designated by law to receive
the same, the answer shall be filed within sixty (60)
calendar days after receipt of summons by such entity.
(2a)
Section 3. Answer to amended complaint. — When the
plaintiff files an amended complaint as a matter of right,
the defendant shall answer the same within thirty (30)
calendar days after being served with a copy thereof.
Where its filing is not a matter of right, the defendant
shall answer the amended complaint within fifteen (15)
calendar days from notice of the order admitting the
Page 11 of 52 same. An answer earlier filed may serve
as the answer to the amended complaint if no new
answer is filed.
This Rule shall apply to the answer to an amended
counterclaim, amended crossclaim, amended third
(fourth, etc.)-party complaint, and amended complaint-
inintervention. (3a)
Section 4. Answer to counterclaim or cross-claim. — A
counterclaim or cross-claim must be answered within
twenty (20) calendar days from service. (4a)
Section 5. Answer to third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint.
— The time to answer a third (fourth, etc.)-party
70
complaint shall be governed by the same rule as the
answer to the complaint. (5a)
Section 6. Reply. — A reply may be filed within ten (10)
days from service of the pleading responded to. (6)
Section 7. Answer to supplemental complain. — A
supplemental complaint may be answered within ten
(10) days from notice of the order admitting the same,
unless a different period is fixed by the court. The
answer to the complaint shall serve as the answer to
the supplemental complaint if no new or supplemental
answer is filed. (n)
Section 8. Existing counterclaim or cross-claim. — A
compulsory counterclaim or a cross-claim that a
defending party has at the time he files his answer shall
be contained therein. (8a, R6)
Section 9. Counterclaim or cross-claim arising after
answer. — A counterclaim or a cross-claim which either
matured or was acquired by a party after serving his
pleading may, with the permission of the court, be
presented as a counterclaim or a cross-claim by
supplemental pleading before judgment. (9, R6)
Section 10. Omitted counterclaim or cross-claim. —
When a pleader fails to set up a counterclaim or a
cross-claim through oversight, inadvertence, or
excusable neglect, or when justice requires, he may, by
leave of court, set up the counterclaim or cross-claim by
amendment before judgment. (3, R9)
Section 11. Extension of time to plead. — Upon motion
and on such terms as may be just, the court may
extend the time to plead provided in these Rules.
The court may also, upon like terms, allow an answer or
other pleading to be filed after the time fixed by these
Rules. (7)
RULE 13
Filing and Service of Pleadings, Judgments and Other Papers
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
Section 1. Coverage. — This Rule shall govern the
filing of all pleadings and other papers, as well as the
service thereof, except those for which a different mode submissions, as well as their service, except those for
of service is prescribed. (n)
Section 2. Filing and service, defined. — Filing is the
act of presenting the pleading or other paper to the
clerk of court.
Service is the act of providing a party with a copy of the
pleading or paper concerned. If any party has appeared
by counsel, service upon him shall be made upon his
counsel or one of them, unless service upon the party
himself is ordered by the court. Where one counsel
appears for several parties, he shall only be entitled to
one copy of any paper served upon him by the opposite
side. (2a)
complaint shall be governed by the same rule as the
answer to the complaint. (5)
Section 6. Reply. — A reply, if allowed under Section
10, Rule 6 hereof, may be filed within fifteen (15)
calendar days from service of the pleading responded
to. (6a)
Section 7. Answer to supplemental complaint. — A
supplemental complaint may be answered within twenty
(20) calendar days from notice of the order admitting
the same, unless a different period is fixed by the court.
The answer to the complaint shall serve as the answer
to the supplemental complaint if no new or
supplemental answer is filed. (7a)
Section 8. Existing counterclaim or cross-claim. — A
compulsory counterclaim or a cross-claim that a
defending party has at the time he or she files his or her
answer shall be contained therein. (8a)
Section 9. Counterclaim or cross-claim arising after
answer. — A counterclaim or a cross-claim which either
matured or was acquired by a party after serving his or
her pleading may, with the permission of the court, be
presented as a counterclaim or a cross-claim by
supplemental pleading before judgment. (9a)
Section 10. Omitted counterclaim or cross-claim. —
When a pleader fails to set up a counterclaim or a
cross-claim through oversight, inadvertence, or
excusable neglect, or when justice requires, he or she
may, by leave of court, set up the counterclaim or
cross-claim by amendment before judgment. (10a)
Section 11. Extension of time to file an answer. — A
defendant may, for meritorious reasons, be granted an
additional period of not more than thirty (30) calendar
days to file an answer. A defendant is only allowed to
file one (1) motion for extension of time to file an
answer.
A motion for extension to file any pleading, other than
an answer, is prohibited and considered a mere scrap
of paper. The court, however, may allow any other
pleading to be filed after the time fixed by these Rules.
(11a)
2019 Proposed Amendment of Rules of Civil Procedure
Section 1. Coverage. — This Rule shall govern the
filing of all pleadings, motions, and other court
which a different mode of service is prescribed. (1a)
Section 2. Filing and Service, defined. — Filing is the
act of submitting the pleading or other paper to the
court.
Service is the act of providing a party with a copy of the
pleading or any other court submission. If a party has
appeared by counsel, service upon such party shall be
Page 13 of 52 made upon his or her counsel, unless
service upon the party and the party’s counsel is
ordered by the court.
Where one counsel appears for several parties, such
counsel shall only be entitled to one copy of any paper
served by the opposite side. Where several counsels
appear for one party, such party shall be entitled to only
71

Section 3. Manner of filing. — The filing of pleadings,
appearances, motions, notices, orders, judgments and
all other papers shall be made by presenting the
original copies thereof, plainly indicated as such,
personally to the clerk of court or by sending them by
registered mail. In the first case, the clerk of court shall
endorse on the pleading the date and hour of filing. In
the second case, the date of the mailing of motions,
pleadings, or any other papers or payments or deposits,
as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or
the registry receipt, shall be considered as the date of
their filing, payment, or deposit in court. The envelope
shall be attached to the record of the case. (1a)
Section 4. Papers required to be filed and served. —
Every judgment, resolution, order, pleading subsequent
to the complaint, written motion, notice, appearance,
demand, offer of judgment or similar papers shall be
filed with the court, and served upon the parties
affected. (2a)
Section 5. Modes of service. — Service of pleadings
motions, notices, orders, judgments and other papers
shall be made either personally or by mail. (3a)
Section 6. Personal service. — Service of the papers
may be made by delivering personally a copy to the
party or his counsel, or by leaving it in his office with his
clerk or with a person having charge thereof. If no
person is found in his office, or his office is not known,
or he has no office, then by leaving the copy, between
the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening,
at the party's or counsel's residence, if known, with a
person of sufficient age and discretion then residing
therein. (4a)
Section 7. Service by mail. — Service by registered
mail shall be made by depositing the copy in the post
office in a sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the
party or his counsel at his office, if known, otherwise at
his residence, if known, with postage fully prepaid, and
with instructions to the postmaster to return the mail to
the sender after ten (10) days if undelivered. If no
registry service is available in the locality of either the
senders or the addressee, service may be done by
ordinary mail. (5a; Bar Matter No. 803, 17 February
1998)
Section 8. Substituted service. — If service of
pleadings, motions, notices, resolutions, orders and
other papers cannot be made under the two preceding
sections, the office and place of residence of the party
or his counsel being unknown, service may be made by
delivering the copy to the clerk of court, with proof of
failure of both personal service and service by mail. The
service is complete at the time of such delivery. (6a)
Section 9. Service of judgments, final orders, or
resolutions. — Judgments, final orders or resolutions
shall be served either personally or by registered mail.
one copy of any pleading or paper to be served upon
the lead counsel if one is designated, or upon any one
of them if there is no designation of a lead counsel. (2a)
Section. 3. Manner of filing. — The filing of pleadings
and other court submissions shall be made by:
(a) Submitting personally the original thereof, plainly
indicated as such, to the court;
(b)Sending them by registered mail;
(c) Sending them by accredited courier; or
(d)Transmitting them by electronic mail or other
electronic means as may be authorized by the Court in
places where the court is electronically equipped.
In the first case, the clerk of court shall endorse on the
pleading the date and hour of filing. In the second and
third cases, the date of the mailing of motions,
pleadings, and other court submissions, and payments
or deposits, as shown by the post office stamp on the
envelope or the registry receipt, shall be considered as
the date of their filing, payment, or deposit in court. The
envelope shall be attached to the record of the case. In
the fourth case, the date of electronic transmission shall
be considered as the date of filing. (3a)
Section 4. Papers required to be filed and served. –
Every judgment, resolution, order, pleading subsequent
to the complaint, written motion, notice, appearance,
demand, offer of judgment or similar papers shall be
filed with the court, and served upon the parties
affected. (4)
Section 5. Modes of Service. — Pleadings, motions,
notices, orders, judgments, and other court
submissions shall be served personally or by registered
mail, accredited courier, electronic mail, facsimile
transmission, other electronic means as may be
authorized by the Court, or as provided for in
international conventions to which the Philippines is a
party. (5a)
Section 6. Personal Service. — Court submissions may
be served by personal delivery of a copy to the party or
to the party’s counsel, or to their authorized
representative named in the appropriate pleading or
motion, or by leaving it in his or her office with his or her
clerk, or with a person having charge thereof. If no
person is found in his or her office, or his or her office is
not known, or he or she has no office, then by leaving
the copy, between the hours of eight in the morning and
six in the evening, at the party's or counsel's residence,
if known, with a person of sufficient age and discretion
residing therein. (6a)
Section 7. Service by mail. — Service by registered
mail shall be made by depositing the copy in the post
office, in a sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the
party or to the party’s counsel at his or her office, if
known, otherwise at his or her residence, if known, with
postage fully pre-paid, and with instructions to the
postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten (l0)
calendar days if undelivered. If no registry service is
available in the locality of either the sender or the
addressee, service may be done by ordinary mail. (7a)
Section 8. Substituted service. – If service of pleadings,
motions, notices, resolutions, orders and other papers
cannot be made under the two preceding sections, the
office and place of residence of the party or his or her
counsel being unknown, service may be made by
delivering the copy to the clerk of court, with proof of
failure of both personal service and service by mail. The
service is complete at the time of such delivery. (8a)
Section 9. Service by electronic means and facsimile.
— Service by electronic means and facsimile shall be
made if the party concerned consents to such modes of
72
When a party summoned by publication has failed to
appear in the action, judgments, final orders or
resolutions against him shall be served upon him also
by publication at the expense of the prevailing party.
(7a)
Section 10. Completeness of service. — Personal
service is complete upon actual delivery. Service by
ordinary mail is complete upon the expiration of ten (10)
days after mailing, unless the court otherwise provides.
Service by registered mail is complete upon actual
receipt by the addressee, or after five (5) days from the
date he received the first notice of the postmaster,
whichever date is earlier. (8a)
Section 11. Priorities in modes of service and filing. —
Whenever practicable, the service and filing of
pleadings and other papers shall be done personally.
Except with respect to papers emanating from the
court, a resort to other modes must be accompanied by
a written explanation why the service or filing was not
done personally. A violation of this Rule may be cause
to consider the paper as not filed. (n)
Section 12. Proof of filing. — The filing of a pleading or
paper shall be proved by its existence in the record of
the case. If it is not in the record, but is claimed to have
been filed personally, the filing shall be proved by the
written or stamped acknowledgment of its filing by the
clerk of court on a copy of the same; if filed by
registered mail, by the registry receipt and by the
affidavit of the person who did the mailing, containing a
full statement of the date and place of depositing the
mail in the post office in a sealed envelope addressed
to the court, with postage fully prepaid, and with
instructions to the postmaster to return the mail to the
sender after ten (10) days if not delivered. (n)
Section 13. Proof of Service. — Proof of personal
service shall consist of a written admission of the party
served, or the official return of the server, or the
affidavit of the party serving, containing a full statement
of the date, place and manner of service. If the service
is by ordinary mail, proof thereof shall consist of an
affidavit of the person mailing of facts showing
compliance with section 7 of this Rule. If service is
made by registered mail, proof shall be made by such
affidavit and the registry receipt issued by the mailing
office. The registry return card shall be filed
immediately upon its receipt by the sender, or in lieu
thereof the unclaimed letter together with the certified or
sworn copy of the notice given by the postmaster to the
addressee. (10a)
Section 14. Notice of lis pendens. — In an action
affecting the title or the right of possession of real
property, the plaintiff and the defendant, when
affirmative relief is claimed in his answer, may record in
the office of the registry of deeds of the province in
which the property is situated notice of the pendency of
the action. Said notice shall contain the names of the
parties and the object of the action or defense, and a
description of the property in that province affected
thereby. Only from the time of filing such notice for
service.
Service by electronic means shall be made by sending
an e-mail to the party’s or counsel’s electronic mail
address, or through other electronic means of
transmission as the parties may agree on, or upon
direction of the court.
Service by facsimile shall be made by sending a
facsimile copy to the party’s or counsel’s given facsimile
number. (n)
Section 10. Presumptive service. — There shall be
presumptive notice to a party of a court setting if such
notice appears on the records to have been mailed at
least twenty (20) calendar days prior to the scheduled
date of hearing and if the addressee is from within the
same judicial region of the court where the case is
pending, or at least thirty (30) calendar days if the
addressee is from outside the judicial region. (n)
Section 11. Change of electronic mail address or
facsimile number. — A party who changes his or her
electronic mail address or facsimile number while the
action is pending must promptly file, within five (5)
calendar days from such change, a notice of change of
e-mail address or facsimile number with the court and
serve the notice on all other parties.
Service through the electronic mail address or facsimile
number of a party shall be presumed valid unless such
party notifies the court of any change, as
aforementioned. (n)
Section 12. Electronic mail and facsimile subject and
title of pleadings and other documents. — The subject
of the electronic mail and facsimile must follow the
prescribed format: case number, case title and the
pleading, order or document title. The title of each
electronically-filed or served pleading or other
document, and each submission served by facsimile
shall contain sufficient information to enable the court to
ascertain from the title: (a) the party or parties filing or
serving the paper, (b) nature of the paper, (c) the party
or parties against whom relief, if any, is sought, and (d)
the nature of the relief sought. (n)
Section 13. Service of Judgments, Final Orders or
Resolutions. — Judgments, final orders, or resolutions
shall be served either personally or by registered mail.
Upon ex parte motion of any party in the case, a copy
of the judgment, final order, or resolution may be
delivered by accredited courier at the expense of such
party. When a party summoned by publication has
failed to appear in the action, judgments, final orders or
resolutions against him or her shall be served upon him
or her also by means of publication at the expense of
the prevailing party. (9a)
Section 14. Conventional service or filing of orders,
pleadings and other documents. – Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the following orders, pleadings, and other
documents must be served or filed personally or by
registered mail when allowed, and shall not be served
or filed electronically, unless express permission is
granted by the Court:
(a) Initiatory pleadings and initial responsive pleadings,
such as an answer;
73
record shall a purchaser, or encumbrancer of the (b)Subpoenae, protection orders, and writs;
property affected thereby, be deemed to have
constructive notice of the pendency of the action, and (c) Appendices and exhibits to motions, or other
only of its pendency against the parties designated by documents that are not readily amenable to electronic
their real names. scanning may, at the option of the party filing such, be
filed and served conventionally; and
The notice of lis pendens hereinabove mentioned may
be cancelled only upon order of the court, after proper (d)Sealed and confidential documents or records. (n)
showing that the notice is for the purpose of molesting
the adverse party, or that it is not necessary to protect
the rights of the rights of the party who caused it to be
recorded. (24a, R-14)

Section 15. Completeness of service. — Personal

service is complete upon actual delivery. Service by
ordinary mail is complete upon the expiration of ten (10)
calendar days after mailing, unless the court otherwise
provides. Service by registered mail is complete upon
actual receipt by the addressee, or after five (5)
calendar days from the date he or she received the first
notice of the postmaster, whichever date is earlier.
Service by accredited courier is complete upon actual
receipt by the addressee, or after at least two (2)
attempts to deliver by the courier service, or upon the
expiration of five (5) calendar days after the first attempt
to deliver, whichever is earlier.

Electronic service is complete at the time of the

electronic transmission of the document, or when
available, at the time that the electronic notification of
service of the document is sent. Electronic service is
not effective or complete if the party serving the
document learns that it did not reach the addressee or
person to be served.

Service by facsimile transmission is complete upon

receipt by the other party, as indicated in the facsimile
transmission printout. (10a)
Section 16. Proof of filing. — The filing of a pleading or
any other court submission shall be proved by its
existence in the record of the case.

(a) If the pleading or any other court submission is not

in the record, but is claimed to have been filed
personally, the filing shall be proven by the written Page
16 of 52 or stamped acknowledgment of its filing by the
clerk of court on a copy of the pleading or court
submission;

(b)If the pleading or any other court submission was

filed by registered mail, the filing shall be proven by the
registry receipt and by the affidavit of the person who
mailed it, containing a full statement of the date and
place of deposit of the mail in the post office in a sealed
envelope addressed to the court, with postage fully
prepaid, and with instructions to the postmaster to
return the mail to the sender after ten (10) calendar
days if not delivered.

(c) If the pleading or any other court submission was

filed through an accredited courier service, the filing
shall be proven by an affidavit of service of the person
who brought the pleading or other document to the
service provider, together with the courier’s official
receipt and document tracking number.

(d) If the pleading or any other court submission was

filed by electronic mail, the same shall be proven by an
affidavit of electronic filing of the filing party
accompanied by a paper copy of the pleading or other
document transmitted or a written or stamped
acknowledgment of its filing by the clerk of court. If the
paper copy sent by electronic mail was filed by
registered mail, paragraph (b) of this Section applies.

74
 (e) If the pleading or any other court submission was
filed through other authorized electronic means, the
same shall be proven by an affidavit of electronic filing
of the filing party accompanied by a copy of the
electronic acknowledgment of its filing by the court.
(12a)
Section 17. Proof of service. –— Proof of personal
service shall consist of a written admission of the party
served, or the official return of the server, or the
affidavit of the party serving, containing a statement of
the date, place, and manner of service. If the service is
made by:

(a) Ordinary mail. – Proof shall consist of an affidavit of

the person mailing stating the facts showing compliance
with Section 7 of this Rule.

(b)Registered mail. – Proof shall be made by the

affidavit mentioned above and the registry receipt
issued by the mailing office. The registry return card
shall be filed immediately upon its receipt by the
sender, or in lieu thereof, the unclaimed letter together
with the certified or sworn copy of the notice given by
the postmaster to the addressee.

(c) Accredited courier service. – Proof shall be made by

an affidavit of service executed by the person who
brought the pleading or paper to the service provider,
together with the courier’s official receipt or document
tracking number.

(d)Electronic mail, facsimile, or other authorized

electronic means of transmission. – Proof shall be
made by an affidavit of service executed by the person
who sent Page 17 of 52 the e-mail, facsimile, or other
electronic transmission, together with a printed proof of
transmittal. (13a)
Section 18. Court-issued orders and other documents.
— The court may electronically serve orders and other
documents to all the parties in the case which shall
have the same effect and validity as provided herein. A
paper copy of the order or other document
electronically served shall be retained and attached to
the record of the case. (n)
Section 19. Notice of lis pendens. –— In an action
affecting the title or the right of possession of real
property, the plaintiff and the defendant, when
affirmative relief is claimed in his or her answer, may
record in the office of the registry of deeds of the
province in which the property is situated a notice of the
pendency of the action. Said notice shall contain the
names of the parties and the object of the action or
defense, and a description of the property in that
province affected thereby. Only from the time of filing
such notice for record shall a purchaser, or
encumbrancer of the property affected thereby, be
deemed to have constructive notice of the pendency of
the action, and only of its pendency against the parties
designated by their real names.

The notice of lis pendens hereinabove mentioned may

be cancelled only upon order of the court, after proper
showing that the notice is for the purpose of molesting
the adverse party, or that it is not necessary to protect
the rights of the party who caused it to be recorded.
(14a)

Effect of Failure to plead

A. State rule 9 and its sections

RULE 9

Effect of Failure to Plead

75
 Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded. — Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to
dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. However, when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on
record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action pending between the
same parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the
court shall dismiss the claim. (2a)

Section 2. Compulsory counterclaim, or cross-claim, not set up barred. — A compulsory counterclaim, or a

cross-claim, not set up shall be barred. (4a)

Section 3. Default; declaration of. — If the defending party fails to answer within the time allowed therefor, the
court shall, upon motion of the claiming party with notice to the defending party, and proof of such failure, declare
the defending party in default. Thereupon, the court shall proceed to render judgment granting the claimant such
relief as his pleading may warrant, unless the court in its discretion requires the claimant to submit evidence.
Such reception of evidence may be delegated to the clerk of court. (1a, R18)

(a) Effect of order of default. — A party in default shall be entitled to notice of subsequent proceedings but not to
take part in the trial. (2a, R18)

(b) Relief from order of default. — A party declared in default may at any time after notice thereof and before
judgment file a motion under oath to set aside the order of default upon proper showing that his failure to answer
was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence and that he has a meritorious defense. In such
case, the order of default may be set aside on such terms and conditions as the judge may impose in the interest
of justice. (3a, R18)

(c) Effect of partial default. — When a pleading asserting a claim states a common cause of action against
several defending parties, some of whom answer and the others fail to do so, the court shall try the case against
all upon the answers thus filed and render judgment upon the evidence presented. (4a, R18).

(d) Extent of relief to be awarded. — A judgment rendered against a party in default shall not exceed the amount
or be different in kind from that prayed for nor award unliquidated damages. (5a, R18).

(e) Where no defaults allowed. — If the defending party in an action for annulment or declaration of nullity of
marriage or for legal separation fails to answer, the court shall order the prosecuting attorney to investigate
whether or not a collusion between the parties exists, and if there is no collusion, to intervene for the State in
order to see to it that the evidence submitted is not fabricated. (6a, R18)448

B. State case doctrines

Spouses Manuel vs Ong GR No. 205249 October 15, 2014

Jurisdiction over the persons
of the Spouses Manuel
acquired

As a preliminary matter, we rule on whether jurisdiction over the persons of the Spouses Manuel, as defendants in
Civil Case No. 09-CV-2582, was validly acquired. This preliminary matter is determinative of whether the fifteen-day
period within which they must file their answer started to run, thereby facilitating the context in which they could have
validly been declared to be in default.

We hold that jurisdiction over the persons of both defendants in Civil Case No. 09-CV-2582 the Spouses Benedict
and Sandra Manuel was validly acquired. This is so because personal service of summons, via tender to petitioner
Sandra Manuel, was made by Sheriff Joselito Sales on March 16, 2010.

Rule 14, Section 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

SEC. 6. Service in person on defendant. Whenever practicable, the summons shall be served by handing a copy
thereof to the defendant in person, or, if he refuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him.

Tendering summons is itself a means of personal service as it is contained in Rule 14, Section 6. Personal service,
as provided by Rule 14, Section 6, is distinguished from its alternative : substituted service as provided by Rule 14,
Section 7:

SEC. 7. Substituted service. If, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time as
provided in the preceding section, service may be effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's
residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copies at
defendant's office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof. (Emphasis supplied)
In this case, the sheriffs return on summons indicated that Sheriff Joselito Sales endeavored to personally hand the
summons and a copy of the complaint to the Spouses Manuel on two (2) separate occasions. He relented from doing
so on the first occasion in deference to the medical condition of petitioner Sandra Manuel's mother. On the second
occasion, he was constrained to tender the summons and copy of the complaint as petitioner Sandra Manuel refused

448RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Rule 9

76
to accept them.

The Spouses Manuel did not deny the occurrence of the events narrated in the sheriffs return but claimed that no
valid service of summons was made. They claimed that they did not reside in Lower Bacong, Loacan, Itogon,
Benguet, where the service of summons, was made. From this, they surmised that the "Sandra Manuel" who was
specifically identified in the sheriffs return was someone other than petitioner Sandra Manuel.

The Spouses Manuel cannot capitalize on the supposed variance of address. Personal service of summons has
nothing to do with the location where summons is served. A defendant's address is inconsequential. Rule 14, Section
6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is clear in what it requires: personally handing the summons to the
defendant (albeit tender is sufficient should the defendant refuse to receive and sign). What is determinative of the
validity of personal service is, therefore, the person of the defendant, not the locus of service.

In any case, the Court of Appeals is correct in pointing out that the Spouses Manuel's self-serving assertion must
crumble in the face of the clear declarations in he sheriffs return. Pursuant to Rule 131, Section 3(m) of the Revised
Rules on Evidence,449 the acts of Sheriff Joselito Sales and the events relating to the attempt to personally hand the
summons and a copy of the complaint to the Spouses Manuel, as detailed in the sheriffs return, enjoy the
presumption of regularity.450 Moreover, Sheriff Joselito Sales must be presumed to have taken ordinary care and
diligence in carrying out his duty to make service upon the proper person(s) and not upon an impostor.451

A sheriffs return, if complete on its face, must be accorded the presumption of regularity and, hence, taken to be an
accurate and exhaustive recital of the circumstances relating to the steps undertaken by a sheriff. In this case, the
Spouses Manuel have harped on their (self-serving) claim of maintaining residence elsewhere but failed to even
allege that there was anything irregular about the sheriffs return or that it was otherwise incomplete.

Having alleged irregularities in the service of summons, it was incumbent upon the Spouses Manuel to adduce proof
of their claims. All they mustered was their self-serving allegation of an alternative address. If at all, this claim of
maintaining residence elsewhere should not even be lent an iota of credibility considering that, as respondent Ramon
Ong pointed out, the barangay clearances, which the Spouses Manuel themselves attached to one of their pleadings
(as proof of their identities), actually indicated that they were residents of Bacong Loacan, Itogon, Benguet.452 Their
lie is, thus, revealed by their own pleading.

As the Spouses Manuel not only failed in discharging the burden of proving their allegation but even succeeded in
contradicting themselves, Sheriff Joselito Sales' recollection of events must be taken to be true. Thus, valid personal
service of summons, via tender to petitioner Sandra Manuel, was made. From this, it follows that jurisdiction over the
persons of petitioners Benedict and Sandra Manuel was acquired by the Regional Trial Court, La Trinidad, Benguet,
in Civil Case No. 09-CV-2582.

The Spouses Manuel are not entitled to relief from the order of default

As valid service of summons was made on them, it was incumbent upon the Spouses Manuel, pursuant to Rule 11,
Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,453 to file their answer within fifteen (15) days from March 16, 2011.
Having failed to do so, they were rightly declared to be in default.

Rule 9, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides for when a party to an action may be declared in
default. Further, Rule 9, Section 3(b) governs the grant of relief from orders of default:

SEC. 3. Default; declaration of. If the defending party fails to answer within the time allowed therefor, the court shall,
upon motion of the claiming party with notice to the defending party, and proof of such failure, declare the defending
party in default. Thereupon, the court shall proceed to render judgment granting the claimant such relief as his
pleading may warrant, unless the court in its discretion requires the claimant to submit evidence. Such reception of
evidence may be delegated to the clerk of court.

(a) Effect of order of default. A party in default shall be entitled to notice of subsequent proceedings but not to take
part in the trial.

(b) Relief from, order of default. A party declared in default may at any time after notice thereof and before judgment
file a motion under oath to set aside the order of default upon proper showing that his failure to answer was due to
fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence and that he has a meritorious defense. In such case, the order of
default may be set aside on such terms and conditions as the judge may impose in the interest of justice. (Emphasis
supplied)

449REVISED RULES ON EVIDENCE, Rule 131, sec. 3(m):

SEC. 3. Disputable presumptions. The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be
contradicted and overcome by other evidence:(m) That official duty has been regularly performed;
450Rollo, pp. 54-55.
451REVISED RULES ON EVIDENCE, Rule 131, sec. 3(d):SEC. 3. Disputable presumptions. The following

presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence:
(d) That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
452Rollo, p. 82.
453RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Rule 11, sec. 1:

SEC. 1. Answer to the complaint. The defendant shall file his answer to the complaint within fifteen (15) days after
service of summons, unless a different period is fixed by the court.

77
Pursuant to Rule 9, Section 3, a court may proceed to render judgment as the pleading may warrant should a
defendant fail to timely file his or her answer. However, a court may decline from immediately rendering judgment and
instead require the plaintiff to present evidence. Per Rule 9, Section 3(a), a party declared to be in default shall
nevertheless be "entitled to notice of subsequent proceedings," although he or she may no longer take part in the
trial.

As explained in Spouses Delos Santos v. Carpio,454 "there are three requirements which must be complied with by
the claiming party before the court may declare the defending party in default:

(1) the claiming party must file a motion asking the court to declare the defending party in default;
(2) the defending party must be notified of the motion to declare him in default;
the claiming party must prove that the defending party has failed to answer within the period provided by the
(3)
Rule."

All these requisites were complied with by respondent Ramon Ong.

It is not disputed that Ong filed a motion to declare the Spouses Manuel in default. It is also not disputed that the
latter filed their answer after the fifteen-day period, counted from March 16, 2010, had lapsed. The Spouses Manuel
only filed their answer along with their motion to lift order of default on September 13, 2010.

It is similarly settled that the Spouses Manuel were notified that a motion to declare them in default had been filed.
They acknowledged in the present petition for certiorari that on June 23, 2010, Ong filed a compliance to the
Regional Trial Court's April 30, 2010 order that required the submission of the registry return card evidencing the
mailing to the Spouses Manuel of a copy of the motion to have them declared in default.

Not only were the requisites for declaring a party in default satisfied, the Spouses Manuel's motion to lift order of
default was also shown to be procedurally infirm.

Consistent with Rule 9, Section 3(b) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, "the remedy against an order of default is a
motion to set it aside on the ground of fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence." 455 However, it is not only
the motion to lift order of default which a defendant must file. As this court emphasized in Agravante v. Patriarca,456 to
the motion to lift order, of default must "be appended an affidavit showing the invoked ground, and another,
denominated affidavit of merit, setting forth facts constituting the party's meritorious defense or defenses."

The heed for an affidavit of merit is consistent with Rule 8, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,457 which
requires that "[i]n all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake must be stated
with particularity."

In Montinola, Jr. v. Republic Planters Bank,458 this court noted that the three (3) requisites that must be satisfied by a
motion in order "to warrant the setting aside of an order of default for failure to file answer, are:

(1) it must be made by motion under oath by one that has knowledge of the facts;
it must be shown that the failure to file answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence;
(2)
and
(3) there must be a proper showing of the existence of a meritorious defense."(Citations omitted)

Consistent with Agravante, it is through an affidavit of merit that a defendant seeking relief from an order of default
shows that "the failure to file answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence." [35]

In this case, the Court of Appeals noted that the Spouses Manuel's motion to lift order of default was not made under
oath. We add that this motion was not accompanied by an affidavit of merit specifying the facts which would show
that their non-filing of an answer within fifteen (15) days from March 16, 2010 was due to fraud, accident, mistake, or
excusable negligence.

Failing both in making their motion under oath and in attaching an affidavit of merits, the Spouses Manuel's motion to
lift order of default must be deemed pro-forma. It is not even worthy of consideration.

Certainly, there is jurisprudence to the effect that an affidavit of merit is not necessary "where a motion to lift an order
of default is grounded on the very root of the proceedings [such as] where the court has not acquired jurisdiction over
the defendants."459 Similarly, there is jurisprudence stating that "when a motion to lift an order of default contains the
reasons for the failure to answer as well as the facts constituting the prospective defense of the defendant and it is

454533 Phil. 42 (2006) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, First Division]

455Agravante v. Patriarca, 262 Phil. 127, 133 (1990) [Per J. Narvasa, First Division].
456262 Phil. 127 (1990) [Per J. Narvasa, First Division],

457RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Rule 8, sec. 5:

SEC. 5. Fraud, mistake, condition of the mind. In all averments of fraud or mistake the circumstances constituting
fraud or mistake must be stated with particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge or other condition of the mind of a person
may be averred generally.
458244 Phil. 49 (1988) [Per J. Paras, Second Division].
459Ponio v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 218 Phil. 548, 550 (1984) [Per J. Abad Santos, Second Division],

78
sworn to by said defendant, neither a formal verification nor a separate affidavit of merit is necessary." 460

However, in this case, the Spouses Manuel failed not only in attaching an affidavit of merit but also in making their
motion under oath. They are, therefore, left without any alternative on which to rest. Their motion is utterly ineffectual.

Apart from their failure to make their motion to lift order of default under oath and to attach to it an affidavit of merit,
the Court of Appeals also noted that the Spouses Manuel set their motion to lift order of default for hearing on the
same date that they filed it (i.e., September 13, 2010). Thus, they also violated Rule 15, Section 4 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure,461 which requires that service of a motion upon an adverse party must be made in such a manner
that ensures receipt by the latter "at least three (3) days before the date of hearing. . . ."

We do not lose sight of the admonitions that have been made in jurisprudence that, as a rule, courts should be liberal
in setting aside orders of default and that default judgments are frowned upon. 462 Indeed, apart from a motion to lift
order of default, other remedies are available to a defaulted defendant even after judgment has been rendered. Thus,
if judgment had already been rendered but has not yet become final and executory, an appeal asserting that the
judgment was contrary to the law or to the evidence,463 or a motion for new trial under Rule 37, may be filed.464 In the
case of the latter, the same affidavits as are required in a motion to lift order of default must be attached. 465 If
judgment has become final and executory, a defaulted defendant may file a petition for relief from judgment under
Rule 38.466 Still, should the defaulted defendant fail to file a petition for relief, a petition for annulment of judgment on
the ground of lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud remains available.467

However, jurisprudence, too, has qualified the intent that animates this liberality. As this court stated in Acance v.
Court of Appeals:468

460Tanhu v. Judge Ramolete, 160 Phil. 1101,1115 (1975) [Per J. Barredo, Second Division].
461RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Rule 15, sec. 4:
SEC. 4. Hearing of motion. Except for motions which the court may act upon without prejudicing the rights of the
adverse party, every written motion shall be set for hearing by the applicant.
Every written motion required to be heard and the notice of the hearing thereof shall be served in such a manner as
to ensure its receipt by the other party at least three (3) days before the date of hearing, unless the court for good
cause sets the hearing on shorter notice.

462Acance v. Court of Appeals, 493 Phil. 676, 689 (2005) [Per J. Callejo, Sr, Second Division]; Montinola, Jr. v.
Republic Planters Bank, 244 Phil. 49, 58 (1988) [Per J. Paras, Second Division].
463Tanhu v. Judge Ramolete, 160 Phil. 1101, 1126 (1975) [Per J. Barredo, Second Division]:

[A] defaulted defendant is not actually thrown out of court. While in a sense it may be said that by defaulting he
leaves himself at the mercy of the court, the rules see to it that any judgment against him must be in accordance with
law. The evidence to support the plaintiffs cause is, of course, presented in his absence, but the court is not
supposed to admit that which is basically incompetent. Although the defendant would not be in a position to object,
elementary justice requires that only legal evidence should be considered against him. If the evidence presented
should not be sufficient to justify a judgment for the plaintiff, the complaint must be dismissed. And if an unfavorable
judgment should be justifiable, it cannot exceed in amount or be different in kind from what is prayed for in the
complaint.
464RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Rule 37, sec. 1:

SEC. 1. Grounds of and period for filing motion for new trial or reconsideration. Within the period for taking an appeal,
the aggrieved party may move the trial court to set aside the judgment or final order and grant a new trial for one or
more of the following causes materially affecting the substantial rights of said party:
(a) Fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against and
by reason of which such aggrieved party has probably been impaired in his rights; or
(b) Newly discovered evidence, which he could not with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the
trial, and which if presented would probably alter the result.
Within the same period, the aggrieved party may also move for reconsideration upon the grounds that the damages
awarded are excessive, that the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision or final order, or that the decision or
final order is contrary to law.
465Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank v. Ortiz, 234 Phil. 376, 385-386 (1987) [Per J. Narvasa, First Division].
466RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Rule 38, sec. I:

SEC. 1. Petition for relief from judgment, order, or other proceedings. When a judgment or final order is entered, or
any other proceeding is thereafter taken against a party in any court through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable
negligence, he may file a petition in such court and in the same case praying that the judgment, order or proceeding
be set aside.
467Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 47, sees. 1 and 2:

SEC. 1. Coverage. This Rule shall govern the annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders and
resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for
relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.
SEC. 2. Grounds for annulment. The annulment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of
jurisdiction.
Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of, or could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial
or petition for relief.

468493 Phil. 676 (2005) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division].

79
The issuance of the orders of default should be the exception rather than the rule, to be allowed only in clear cases of
obstinate refusal by the defendant to comply with the orders of the trial court.469 (Emphasis supplied)

Moreover, this liberality must be tempered with a recognition that, in the first place, it is. a defendant who is at fault in
failing to timely file an answer.

Rule 9, Section 3(b) gives an exclusive list of only four (4) grounds that allow for relief from orders of default.
Moreover, these grounds extrinsic fraud, accident, mistake, and excusable negligence relate to factors that are
extraneous to a defendant, that is, grounds that show that a defendant was prevented, by reasons beyond his or her
influence, from timely filing an answer.

The recognition that it is the defendant who is at fault and must suffer the consequences of his or her own failure is
analogous to the dismissal of an action due to the fault of a plaintiff, as provided by Rule 17, Section 3 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 17, Section 3 reads:

SEC. 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. If for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the
presentation of his evidence in chief on the complaint, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time,
or to comply with these Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the
defendant or upon the court's own motion, without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his
counterclaim in the same or in a separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the
merits, unless otherwise declared by the court.

Rule 17, Section 3 is qualified by the phrase "for no justifiable cause." Thus, in cases covered by Rule 17, Section 3,
should the failure to comply with court processes be the result of the plaintiffs own fault, it is but logical that a plaintiff
must suffer the consequences of his own heedlessness. Rule 9, Section 3 on default applies the same logic to a
culpable defendant.

C. Remedies in case of default

Consistent with Rule 9, Section 3(b) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, "the remedy against an order of default is a
motion to set it aside on the ground of fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence."470 However, it is not only
the motion to lift order of default which a defendant must file. As this court emphasized in Agravante v. Patriarca, 471 to
the motion to lift order of default must "be appended an affidavit showing the invoked ground, and another,
denominated affidavit of merit, setting forth facts constituting the party's meritorious defense or defenses."

The need for an affidavit of merit is consistent with Rule 8, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, 472 which
requires that "[i]n all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake must be stated
with particularity."

In Montinola, Jr. v. Republic Planters Bank,473 this court noted that the three (3) requisites that must be satisfied by a
motion in order "to warrant the setting aside of an order of default for failure to file answer, are:

(1) it must be made by motion under oath by one that has knowledge of the facts;

(2) it must be shown that the failure to file answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
negligence; and

(3) there must be a proper showing of the existence of a meritorious defense."(Citations omitted)

Consistent with Agravante, it is through an affidavit of merit that a defendant seeking relief from an order of default
shows that "the failure to file answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence."
We do not lose sight of the admonitions that have been made in jurisprudence that, as a rule, courts should be liberal
in setting aside orders of default and that default judgments are frowned upon.474 Indeed, apart from a motion to lift
order of default,other remedies are available to a defaulted defendant evenafter judgment has been rendered. Thus,
if judgment had already been rendered but has not yet become final and executory, an appeal asserting that the
judgment was contrary to the law or to the evidence,475 or a motion for new trial under Rule 37, may be filed.476 In the

469Id.at 689-, citing Samartino v. Raon, 433 Phil. 173, 187 (2002) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
470Agravante v. Patriarca, 262 Phil. 127, 133 (1990) [Per J. Narvasa, First Division].
471262 Phil. 127 (1990) [Per J. Narvasa, First Division].
472 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Rule 8, sec. 5:

SEC. 5. Fraud, mistake, condition of the mind. — In all averments of fraud or mistake the circumstances
constituting fraud or mistake must be stated with particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge or other condition of
the mind of a person may be averred generally.
473244 Phil. 49 (1988) [Per J. Paras, Second Division].
474 Acance v. Court of Appeals, 493 Phil. 676, 689 (2005) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division];

Montinola, Jr. v. Republic Planters Bank, 244 Phil. 49, 58 (1988) [Per J. Paras, Second Division].
475 Tanhu v. Judge Ramolete, 160 Phil. 1101, 1126 (1975) [Per J. Barredo, Second Division]:

[A] defaulted defendant is not actually thrown out of court. While in a sense it may be said that by defaulting
he leaves himself at the mercy of the court, the rules see to it that any judgment against him must be in
accordance with law. The evidence to support the plaintiff's cause is, of course, presented in his absence,
but the court is not supposed to admit that which is basically incompetent. Although the defendant would not

80
case of the latter, the same affidavits as are required in a motion to lift order of default must be attached.477 If
judgment has become final and executory, a defaulted defendant may file a petition for relief from judgment under
Rule 38.478 Still, should the defaulted defendant fail to file a petition for relief, a petition for annulment of judgment on
the ground of lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud remains available.479
Dismissal of an Action.

RULE 17 DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS

Old Rule New Rule

Section 1.Dismissal upon notice by plaintiff. — A
complaint may be dismissed by the plaintiff by filing a
notice of dismissal at any time before service of the
answer or of a motion for summary judgment. Upon
such notice being filed, the court shall issue an order
confirming the dismissal. Unless otherwise stated in the
notice, the dismissal is without prejudice, except that a
notice operates as an adjudication upon the merits
when filed by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in a
competent court an action based on or including the
same claim. (1a)
Section 1. Dismissal upon notice by plaintiff. — A
complaint may be dismissed by the plaintiff by filing a
notice of dismissal at any time before service of the
answer or of a motion for summary judgment. Upon
such notice being filed, the court shall issue an order
confirming the dismissal. Unless otherwise stated in the
notice, the dismissal is without prejudice, except that a
notice operates as an adjudication upon the merits
when filed by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in a
competent court an action based on or including the
same claim. (1)

Section 2.Dismissal upon motion of plaintiff. — Except
as provided in the preceding section, a complaint shall
not be dismissed at the plaintiff's instance save upon
approval of the court and upon such terms and
conditions as the court deems proper. If a counterclaim
has been pleaded by a defendant prior to the service
upon him of the plaintiffs motion for dismissal, the
dismissal shall be limited to the complaint. The
dismissal shall be without prejudice to the right of the
defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in a separate
action unless within fifteen (15) days from notice of the
motion he manifests his preference to have his
counterclaim resolved in the same action. Unless
otherwise specified in the order, a dismissal under this
paragraph shall be without prejudice. A class suit shall
not be dismissed or compromised without the approval
of the court. (2a)
Section 2. Dismissal upon motion of plaintiff. — Except
as provided in the preceding section, a complaint shall
not be dismissed at the plaintiff's instance save upon
approval of the court and upon such terms and
conditions as the court deems proper. If a counterclaim
has been pleaded by a defendant prior to the service
upon him or her of the plaintiff's motion for dismissal,
the dismissal shall be limited to the complaint. right of
the defendant to prosecute his or her counterclaim in a
separate action unless within fifteen (15) calendar days
from notice of the motion he or she manifests his or her
preference to have his or her counterclaim resolved in
the same action. Unless otherwise specified in the
order, a dismissal under this paragraph shall be without
prejudice. A class suit shall not be dismissed or
compromised without the approval of the court. (2a)

be in a position to object, elementary justice requires that only legal evidence should be considered against
him. If the evidence presented should not be sufficient to justify a judgment for the plaintiff, the complaint
must be dismissed. And if an unfavorable judgment should be justifiable, it cannot exceed in amount or be
different in kind from what is prayed for in the complaint.
476 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Rule 37, sec. 1:

SEC. 1. Grounds of and period for filing motion for new trial or reconsideration.— Within the period for taking
an appeal, the aggrieved party may move the trial court to set aside the judgment or final order and grant a
new trial for one or more of the following causes materially affecting the substantial rights of said party:
(a) Fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence which ordinary prudence could not have guarded
against and by reason of which such aggrieved party has probably been impaired in his rights; or
(b) Newly discovered evidence, which he could not with reasonable diligence, have discovered and
produced at the trial, and which if presented would probably alter the result.
Within the same period, the aggrieved party may also move for reconsideration upon the grounds that the
damages awarded are excessive, that the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision or final order, or that
the decision or final order is contrary to law.
477Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank v. Ortiz, 234 Phil. 376, 385–386 (1987) [Per J. Narvasa, First Division].
478 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Rule 38, sec. 1:

SEC. 1. Petition for relief from judgment, order, or other proceedings. — When a judgment or final order is
entered, or any other proceeding is thereafter taken against a party in any court through fraud, accident,
mistake, or excusable negligence, he may file a petition in such court and in the same case praying that the
judgment, order or proceeding be set aside.
479 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Rule 47, secs. 1 and 2:

SEC. 1. Coverage. — This Rule shall govern the annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final
orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial,
appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the
petitioner.
SEC. 2. Grounds for annulment.— The annulment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and
lack of jurisdiction.
Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of, or could have been availed of, in a motion for
new trial or petition for relief.

81
Section 3.Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. — If, for no
justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date
of the presentation of his evidence in chief on the
complaint, or to prosecute his action for an
unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these
Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may be
dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the
court's own motion, without prejudice to the right of the
defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or
in a separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect
of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise
declared by the court. (3a)
Section 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. — If, for no
justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date
of the presentation of his or her evidence in chief on the
complaint, or to prosecute his or her action for an
unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these
Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may be
dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the
court's own motion, without prejudice to the right of the
defendant to prosecute his or her counterclaim in the
same or in a separate action. This dismissal shall have
the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless
otherwise declared by the court. (3a)

Section 4.Dismissal of counterclaim, cross-claim, or Section 4. Dismissal of counterclaim, cross-claim, or

third-party complaint. — The provisions of this Rule
shall apply to the dismissal of any counterclaim, cross-
claim, or third-party complaint. A voluntary dismissal by
the claimant by notice as in section 1 of this Rule, shall
be made before a responsive pleading or a motion for
summary judgment is served or, if there is none, before
the introduction of evidence at the trial or hearing. (4a)
third-party complaint. — The provisions of this Rule
shall apply to the dismissal of any counterclaim, cross-
claim, or third-party complaint. A voluntary dismissal by
the claimant by notice as in Section 1 of this Rule, shall
be made before a responsive pleading or a motion for
summary judgment is served or, if there is none, before
the introduction of evidence at the trial or hearing. (4)

De Guzman v Ochoa GR No. 169292 April 13, 2014

An order denying a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order which neither terminates the case nor finally disposes
of it, as it leaves something to be done by the court before the case is finally decided on the merits. As such, the
general rule is that the denial of a motion to dismiss cannot be questioned in a special civil action for certiorari which
is a remedy designed to correct errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment.480

Therefore, an order denying a motion to dismiss may only be reviewed in the ordinary course of law by an appeal
from the judgment after trial. The ordinary procedure to be followed in such cases is to file an answer, go to trial, and
if the decision is adverse, reiterate the issue on appeal from the final judgment. 481
Only in exceptional cases where the denial of the motion to dismiss is tainted with grave abuse of discretion that the
Court allows the extraordinary remedy of certiorari. By "grave abuse of discretion," we mean such capricious and
whimsical exercise of judgment that is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be grave as
where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and must
be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal-to perform the duty enjoined
by or to .act all in contemplation of law.482

Section 8, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court defines an omnibus motion as a motion attacking a pleading, judgment or
proceeding. A motion to dismiss is an omnibus motion because it attacks a pleading, that is, the complaint. For this
reason, a motion to dismiss, like any other omnibus motion, must raise and include all objections available at the time
of the filing of the motion because under Section 8, "all objections not so included shall be deemed waived." As
inferred from the provision, only the following defenses under Section 1, Rule 9, are excepted from its application: [a]
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; [b] there is another action pending between the same parties for the same
cause (litis pendentia); [c] the action is barred by prior judgment (res judicata); and [d] the action is barred by the
statute of limitations or prescription.

2. Demurrer to Evidence under Rule 33

OLD RULE
SECTION 1. Demurrer to evidence. — After the plaintiff
has completed the presentation of his evidence, the
defendant may move for dismissal on the ground that
upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no
right to relief. If his motion is denied, he shall have the
right to present evidence. If the motion is granted but on
appeal the order of dismissal is reversed he shall be
deemed to have waived the right to present evidence.
NEW RULE
Section 1.Demurrer to evidence. — After the plaintiff
has completed the presentation of his or her evidence,
the defendant may move for dismissal on the ground
that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown
no right to relief. If his or her motion is denied, he or she
shall have the right to present evidence. If the motion is
granted but on appeal the order of dismissal is
reversed, he or she shall be deemed to have waived
the right to present evidence. (1a)
Section 2. Action on demurrer to evidence.— A
demurrer to evidence shall be subject to the
provisions of Rule 15.

The order denying the demurrer to evidence shall not

be subject of an appeal or petition for certiorari,
prohibition or mandamus before judgment. (n)

3. Waiver of Grounds for Dismissal

480[Rimbunan Hijau Group of Companies v. Oriental Wood Processing Corporation, 507 Phil. 631, 645 (2005).]
481Negros Merchants Enterprises, Inc. v. China Banking Corporation. G.R. No. 150918, August 17, 2007, 530 SCRA
478, 485.
482Rimbunan Hijau Group of Companies v. Oriental Wood Processing Corporation, 507 Phil. 631, 645 (2005).

82
De Guzman v Ochoa, GR No. 169292, April 13, 2014

Section 8, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court defines an omnibus motion as a motion attacking a pleading, judgment or
proceeding. A motion to dismiss is an omnibus motion because it attacks a pleading, that is, the complaint. For this
reason, a motion to dismiss, like any other omnibus motion, must raise and include all objections available at the time
of the filing of the motion because under Section 8, "all objections not so included shall be deemed waived." As
inferred from the provision, only the following defenses under Section 1, Rule 9, are excepted from its application: [a]
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; [b] there is another action pending between the same parties for the same
cause (litis pendentia); [c] the action is barred by prior judgment (res judicata); and [d] the action is barred by the
statute of limitations or prescription.

In the case at bench, the petitioners raised the ground of defective verification and certification of forum shopping
only when they filed their second motion to dismiss, despite the fact that this ground was existent and available to
them at the time of the filing of their first motion to dismiss. Absent any justifiable reason to explain this fatal omission,
the ground of defective verification and certification of forum shopping was deemed waived and could no longer be
questioned by the petitioners in their second motion to dismiss.

Boston Equity Resources v CA, GR No. 173946, June 19, 2013

Since the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of a party to a case is not one of those defenses which are
not deemed waived under Section 1 of Rule 9, such defense must be invoked when an answer or a motion to dismiss
is filed in order to prevent a waiver of the defense.483If the objection is not raised either in a motion to dismiss or in the
answer, the objection to the jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff or the defendant is deemed waived by virtue of
the first sentence of the above-quoted Section 1 of Rule 9 of the Rules of Court.484

4. Remedy in cases of denial of a motion to dismiss

Guntalilib v Dela Cruz, GR No.200042, July 1, 2016
An order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and neither terminates nor finally disposes of a case; it is
interlocutory as it leaves something to be done by the court before the case is finally decided on the merits.

The denial of a motion to dismiss generally cannot be questioned in a special civil action for certiorari, as this remedy
is designed to correct only errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. Neither can a denial of a motion to
dismiss be the subject of an appeal which is available only after a judgment or order on the merits has been
rendered. Only when the denial of the motion to dismiss is tainted with grave abuse of discretion can the grant of the
extraordinary remedy of certiorari be justified.485

483Riano, Civil Procedure (The Bar Lecture Series), Volume I, 2011 Edition, p. 90
484Id. at 89.
485Biñan Rural Bank v. Carlos, G.R. No. 193919, June 15, 2015.

83