jurisdiction service of over the res

over the res summons [Lucas v.

[Lucas v. [Lucas v. Lucas, G.R.
Lucas, G.R. Lucas, G.R. No. 190710
No. 190710 No. 190710 (2011)]
(2011)] (2011)]
How Jurisdiction Jurisdiction is Jurisdiction
jurisdiction over the res is acquired over the res is
is acquired acquired through acquired
either (a) by service of either (a) by
the seizure of summons as the seizure of
the property provided in the property
under legal the Rule 14 under legal
process, or voluntary process,
whereby it is appearance whereby it is
brought into brought into
actual actual
custody of custody of the
the law, or law, or (b) as a
(b) as a result result of the
of the institution of
institution of legal
legal proceedings,
proceedings, in which the
in which the power of the

Page 201 of 1530

 power of the court is
court is recognized
recognized and made
and made effective
effective [Lucas v.
[Lucas v. Lucas, G.R.
Lucas, G.R. No. 190710
No. 190710 (2011)]
(2011)]
Binding The decision Any Judgments
effect of is binding as judgment therein are
decisions against the therein is binding only
whole world binding only upon the
[Paderanga upon the parties who
v. Buissan, parties joined in the
G.R. No. properly action
49475 (1993)] impleaded [Macasaet v.
[Paderanga Co, G.R. No.
v. Buissan, 156759 (2013)]
GR. No.
49475
(1993)]
Examples Petition for Action for a Attachment,
adoption, sum of foreclosure of
annulment money; mortgage,

Page 202 of 1530

of marriage, action for action for
or correction damages [1 partition and
of entries in Riano 221, action for
the birth 2014 Bantam accounting [1
certificate Ed.] Riano 227,
[Lucas v. 2014 Bantam
Lucas, G.R. Ed.]
No. 190710
(2011)]

Page 203 of 1530

3. Cause of Action

Page 204 of 1530

a. Meaning of Cause of Action

Page 205 of 1530

A cause of action is an act or omission by which a party violates a right of another
[Sec. 2, Rule 2]

Without a cause of action, one cannot seek judicial relief for a violation of one’s
rights because every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action
[Sec. 1, Rule 2]

Bases of cause of action

A cause of action stems from the sources of obligations under Art. 1156 of the CC
a. Law,
b. Contract,
c. Quasi-contract,
d. Acts and omissions punishable by law, or
e. Quasi-delict
[Sagrada Orden etc v. NACOCO, G.R. No. L3756 (1952)]

Elements of a cause of action

a. Plaintiff’s legal right;
b. Defendant’s correlative obligation to respect plaintiff’s right; and
c. Defendant’s act/omission in violation of plaintiff’s right
[Ma-ao Sugar Central v. Barrios, G.R. No. L1539 (1947)]
Page 206 of 1530
When cause of action must exist
A cause of action must exist at the time of the filing of the complaint - else, the
case shall be dismissible for being a groundless suit. [Swagman Hotels and Travel
v. CA, G.R. No. 161135 (2005), reiterating Surigao Mine Exploration v. Harris, G.R.
No. L-45543 (1939)]

Page 207 of 1530

b. Distinguish: Right of Action and Cause of Action

Page 208 of 1530

 Right of Action Cause of Action
The remedial right or The delict or
right to relief granted wrongful act or
by law to a party to omission committed
institute an action by the defendant in
against a person violation of the
who has committed primary rights of the
a delict or wrong plaintiff. [Racoma v.
against him. Fortich, G.R. No.
L29380 (1971)]
Right to sue as a The delict or wrong.
consequence of the
delict.
A right of action is The cause of action
determined by of the plaintiff is
substantive law. determined by the
averments in the
pleading regarding
the acts committed
by the defendant.
[1 Regalado 21,2010 Ed.]
Page 209 of 1530
There can be no right of action without a cause of action being first established.
[Espanol v. The Chairman and Members of the Board of Administrators, Philippine
Veterans Administration, G.R. No. L-44616 (1985)]

Page 210 of 1530

c. Distinguish: Failure of the Complaint to State a Cause of Action and Lack of
Cause of Action

Page 211 of 1530

The cause of action must unmistakably be alleged in the complaint, such that all
the elements required by substantive law must clearly appear from a mere
reading of the complaint. [1 Riano 240, 2014 Bantam Ed.]

Failure to state a cause of action is no longer a ground for a motion to dismiss

under the Amended Rules. It is, however, one of the enumerated Affirmative
Defenses that must be set out in the Answer or else it is deemed waived. [Sec 12,
Rule 8]

The complaint must contain a concise statement of the ultimate or essential facts
constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action. The focus is on sufficiency, not veracity,
of the material allegations. [Anchor Savings Bank v. Furigay, G.R. No. 191178
(2013)]

Failure to State Lack of Cause of

Cause of Action Action
Refers to the Refers to a situation
insufficiency of the where the evidence
allegations in the failed to prove the
pleading. cause of action.

Page 212 of 1530

 The proper remedy The proper remedy
when there is a when the complaint
failure to state a is not based on a
cause of action is to cause of action is to
allege the same as file a Demurrer of
an Evidence. [Rule 33]
affirmative
defense in the
Answer. [Sec. 12(4),
Rule 8]
[Macaslang v. Zamora, G.R. No. 156375 (2011)]

Page 213 of 1530

d. Test of Sufficiency of Cause of Action

Page 214 of 1530

The test of sufficiency of a cause of action rests on whether, hypothetically
admitting the facts alleged in the complaint to be true, the court can render a
valid judgment upon the same, in accordance with the prayer in the complaint.
[Heirs of Maramag v. Maramag, G.R. No. 181132 (2009)]

However, there is no hypothetical admission of the veracity of the allegations if

a. The falsity of the allegations is subject to judicial notice;
b. The allegations are legally impossible; c. The allegations refer to facts which are
inadmissible in evidence;
d. By the record or document in the pleading, the allegations appear unfounded;
or
e. There is evidence which has been presented to the court by stipulation of the
parties or in the course of hearings related to the case
[Heirs of Maramag v. Maramag, G.R. No. 181132 (2009)]

How to determine existence of cause of action

General rule:
Determination shall be based only on facts alleged in the complaint and from no
other, and the court cannot consider other matters aliunde [Manaloto v. Veloso
III, G.R. No. 171635 (2010)]
Page 215 of 1530
Exception:
Instances when the SC considered matters aside from the facts alleged in the
complaint, such as:
a. Documents attached to the complaint [Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries
Association v. Nicolas, G.R. No. 168394 (2008)] - this case refers to
actionable documents which by express provision of the ROC are deemed
part of the pleading.
b. Appended annexes, other pleadings, and admissions on record [Zepeda v.
China Banking Corp, G.R. No. 172175 (2006)] the jurisprudence establishing
this supposed exception ultimately points to dismissals based on a lack of a
cause of action, opposed to a failure of the complaint to state a cause of
action.

Page 216 of 1530

 e. Splitting a Single Cause of Action and its Effects

a. W t s e w s a s b c o a
(S E T);
b. W t d i o c m b u t s t c
i t o; a
c. W t c o a i t s c e a t t o f o
tfc

Page 217 of 1530

The act of instituting two or more suits on the basis of the same cause of action
[Sec. 4, Rule 2], or splitting a single cause of action, is prohibited by the Rules. Such
is referred to as “splitting a single cause of action”. A party may not institute more
than one suit for a single cause of action. [Sec. 3, Rule 2]

Such violates the policy against multiplicity of suits, whose primary objective is to
avoid unduly burdening the dockets of the court [Dynamic Builders & Construction
Co Inc v. Presbitero, Jr. G.R. No. 174202 (2015)]

Tests to determine a “single” cause of action

The tests to ascertain whether two suits relate to a single or common cause of
action are:
a. Whether the same evidence would support and sustain both causes of action
(Same Evidence Test); same evid
b. Whether the defenses in one case may be used to substantiate the complaint
in the other; and defenses substatiate the comlplaint and the other
c. Whether the cause of action in the second case existed at the time of filing of
the first complaint. cause of action in second case existed at the time of filing of the first complaint
[Umale v. Canoga Park Development Corp., G.R. No. 167246 (2011)]

Plaintiff's remedy if other reliefs not included in the complaint: Amendment

Page 218 of 1530
In the event that a plaintiff has omitted to include in the complaint one or several
other reliefs to which he may be entitled, the proper remedy of the plaintiff is not
to institute another or several other actions - instead he should move to amend
the complaint to include the omitted relief or reliefs [Bayang v. CA, G.R. No. L-
53564 (1987)]

Dismissal as effect of splitting of 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 [Sec. 4, Rule 2]

The defendant facing a complaint which is infirm due to the plaintiff splitting
causes of action may either allege the infirmity as an Affirmative Defense in his
Answer [Sec. 5(b), Rule 6], or file a Motion to Dismiss on the following grounds:
a. There is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause
[Sec. 12 (a)(2), Rule 15], or
b. The cause of action is barred by a prior judgment. [Sec. 12 (a)(3), Rule 15]

Page 219 of 1530

f. Joinder and Misjoinder of Causes of Action

Page 220 of 1530

Joinder of causes of action
It is the assertion of as many causes of action as a party may have against another
in one pleading alone. [Sec. 5, Rule 2] It is the process of uniting two or more
demands or rights of action in one action. [1 Riano 187, 2016 Bantam Ed.]

Rationale
To avoid a multiplicity of suits and to expedite disposition of litigation at minimum
cost. [Ada v. Baylon, G.R. No. 182435 (2012)]

Rule merely permissive

The rule however is purely permissive 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. [Nabus v. CA, G.R. No. 91670 (1991)]

Requisites
a. The plaintiff asserts numerous causes of action in one pleading
b. The causes of action are against the opposing party
c. The party joining the causes of action complies with the rules on joinder of
parties under Sec 6, Rule 3, and
d. The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed by special
rules.
Page 221 of 1530
Where causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to different
venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the RTC provided one of the
causes of action are within that court’s jurisdiction and venue lies therein.
[Sec. 5, Rule 21

Totality Rule applies in Joinder of Actions

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

Misjoinder of causes of action

There is misjoinder of causes of action when conditions for joinder under Section
5, Rule 2 are not met. [Perez v. Hermano, G.R. No. 147417 (2005)]

An erroneously joined cause of action may, on motion of a party or on the initiative

of the court, be severed and proceeded with separately. Misjoinder is not a
ground for dismissal of an action [Sec. 6, Rule 2]

Subject to waiver
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
Page 222 of 1530
the erroneously joined causes of action, as long as the court trying the case has
jurisdiction over all of the causes of action therein notwithstanding the misjoinder
[Ada v. Baylon, G.R. No. 182435 (2012)]

If the court has no jurisdiction to try the misjoined action, then it must be severed.
Otherwise, adjudication rendered by the court with respect to it would be a nullity.
[Ada v. Baylon, G.R. No. 182435 (2012)]

Page 223 of 1530

4. Parties to Civil Actions

Page 224 of 1530

Plaintiff
May refer to the claiming party, counterclaimant, cross-claimant, or third-party
plaintiff. [Sec. 1, Rule 3]

Defendant
May refer to the original defending party, the defendant in a counterclaim, the
crossdefendant, or the third (fourth, etc.)-party defendant. [Sec. 1, Rule 3]

Also includes an unwilling co-plaintiff - any party who should be joined as plaintiff
but whose consent cannot be obtained. He may be made a defendant and the
reason therefore shall be stated in the complaint. [Sec. 10, Rule 3]

Who may be parties

1. Natural persons [Sec. 1, Rule 3]
2. Juridical persons [Sec. 1, Rule 3]
a. The State and its political subdivisions
b. Other corporations, institutions and entities for public interest or public
purpose, created by law, and
c. Corporations, partnerships, and associations for private interest or purpose
to which the law grants a judicial personality, separate and distinct
from that of each shareholder, partner, or member
Page 225 of 1530
 [Art. 44, Civil Code]
3. Entities authorized by law [Sec. 1, Rule 3]
a. A corporation by estoppel is precluded from denying its existence, and
the members are liable as general partners [Sec. 21, Corporation
Code]
b. A partnership with capital of at least P3,000 which fails to comply with the
registration requirements is liable as a partnership to third persons
[Arts. 1768, 1772, Civil Code]
c. The estate of a deceased person is a juridical entity that has a personality
of its own [Nazareno v. C.A., G.R. No. 138842 (2000), citing Limjoco
v. Intestate Estate of Fragrante, G.R. No. L-770 (1948)]
d. A legitimate labor union may sue and be sued in its registered name [Art.
251(e), Labor Code]
e. The Roman Catholic Church may be a party; as to its properties, the
Archbishop of diocese to which they belong may be a party [Barlin
v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 2832 (1906); Versoza v. Fernandez, G.R. No.
32276 (1930)]
f. A dissolved corporation may prosecute and defend suits by or against it
provided that the suits (i) occur within three (3) years after its
dissolution, and (ii) the suits are in connection with the settlement

Page 226 of 1530

 and closure of its affairs [Sec. 139, Revised Corporation Code] [1
Riano 214, 2016 Bantam Ed.]
g. Two or more persons not organized as an entity with juridical personality
but enter into a transaction [Sec. 15, Rule 3]

Legal capacity to sue

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. [Sec. 4,
Rule 8]

Legal capacity to sue means that a party is not suffering from any disability such
as minority, insanity, covertures, lack of juridical personality, incompetence, civil
interdiction or does not have the character or representation which he claims or
with respect to foreign corporation, that it is doing business in the Philippines with
a license. (I added this)

Page 227 of 1530

a. Real Parties in Interest; Indispensable Parties; Representatives as Parties;
Necessary Parties; Indigent Parties; Alternative Defendants

Page 228 of 1530

i. Real Parties in Interest

Page 229 of 1530

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 [Sec. 2, Rule 3]

Nature of interest
The interest must be real, which is a present and substantial interest, as
distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate, or
consequential interest. [Rayo v. Metrobank, G.R. No. 165142 (2007)]

It should be material and direct, as distinguished from a mere incidental interest

[Mayor Rhustom Dagadag v. Tongnawa, G.R. No. 161166-67 (2005)]

Why necessary to determine the real party in interest

General rule: Every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the
real party in interest.

Exception: Unless otherwise provided by law or the Rules. [Sec. 2, Rule 3]

If the suit is not brought in the name of or against the real party-in-interest, the
defendant must set out in his answer as an Affirmative Defense the ground that
the complaint “states no cause of action.” [Sec 12, Rule 8]

Page 230 of 1530

Spouses as parties
General rule: Husband and wife shall sue and be sued jointly.
Exception:
As provided by law.
[Sec. 4, Rule 3]

Remedies for the Plaintiff

1. Amendment of pleadings [Alonso v. Villamor, G.R. No. L-2352 (1910)]; or
2. Complaint may be deemed amended to include the real party-in-interest
[Balquidra v. CFI Capiz, G.R. No. L-40490 (1977)]

When real party-in-interest bound despite not being formally impleaded

As an exception, the real litigant may be held bound as a party even if not formally
impleaded, provided he had his day in court. [Albert v. University Publishing Co.,
G.R. No. L9300 (1958)]

Page 231 of 1530

ii. Indispensable Parties

Page 232 of 1530

A real party-in-interest without whom no final determination can be had of an
action [Sec. 7, Rule 3]

An indispensable party is one whose interest in the subject matter of the suit and
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. [Benedicto-Munoz
v. Cacho-Olivares, G.R. No. 179121 (2015)]

A party is not indispensable 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 not complete justice to the parties in
court. [Benedicto-Munoz v. Cacho-Olivares, G.R. No. 179121 (2015)]

Page 233 of 1530

iii. Representatives as Parties

Page 234 of 1530

A representative may be a trustee of an express trust, a guardian, an executor or
administrator, or a party authorized by law or the ROC. [Sec. 3, Rule 3]

Beneficiary to be included in the title of the case

Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a representative or
someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the
title of the case and shall be deemed to be the real party in interest. [Sec. 3, Rule
3]

Minor or incompetent person as party

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.
[Sec. 5, Rule 3]

Page 235 of 1530

iv. Necessary Parties

Page 236 of 1530

A necessary party is not one who is indispensable but, rather, one who ought to
be joined as a party if is to be accorded as to those already parties, or for a
complete determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action. [Sec. 8,
Rule 3]

Indispensable Necessary Parties

Parties
Must be joined under May be joined
any and all whenever possible
conditions [Borlasa v. [Borlasa v. Polistico,
Polistico, G.R. No. G.R. No. 22909
22909 (1925)] (1925)]
Presence is Presence is not
mandatory, he must mandatory because
be joined because his interest separable
the court cannot from that of the
proceed without him indispensable party.
[1 Riano 281, 2014 [1 Riano 281, 2014
Bantam Ed.] Bantam Ed.]
No final Final decree can be
determination can had in a case even
Page 237 of 1530
be had of a case without a necessary
without his presence. party. [Chua v.
Torres, G.R. No.
151900 (2005); Seno
v. Mangubat, G.R.
No. L-44339 (1987)]

Page 238 of 1530

v. Indigent Parties

Page 239 of 1530

 Indigent Parties [ Indigent Litigants
Rule 21] [Sec 19, Rule 141]
One who has no One whose gross
money or property “ income and that of
sufficient and their immediate
available for food, family do not
shelter, and basic exceed an amount
necessities [Sec. 21, double the monthly
Rule 3] minimum wage of
an employee, and
who does not own
real property with a
fair market value of
more than
PHP300,000
To be entitled to the
exemption herein
provided, the litigant
shall execute an
affidavit that he and
his immediate family
Page 240 of 1530
 do not earn a gross
income above
mentioned, nor they
own any real
property with the
assessed value
aforementioned,
supported by an
affidavit of a
disinterested person
attesting to the truth
of the litigant’s
affidavit
1. Exemption from 1. Exempt from the
payment of docket payment of legal fees.
and other lawful fees, 2. The legal fees shall be
and of transcripts of a lien on any
stenographic notes judgment rendered in
which the court may the case favorably to
order to be furnished the indigent litigant,
him
Page 241 of 1530
2. Amount of the docket unless the court
and other lawful fees otherwise provides
shall be a lien on any
judgment rendered in
the case favorable to
the indigent, unless the
court otherwise
provides
Consequence if Any falsity in the
party not actually affidavit of a litigant
indigent: or a disinterested
The proper docket party shall be
and other lawful fees sufficient cause to
shall be assessed dismiss the
and collected by the complaint or action
clerk of court. If or to strike out the
payment is not pleading of that
made within the time party, prejudice
fixed by the court, without to whatever
execution shall issue criminal liability may
or the payment have been incurred
Page 242 of 1530
 thereof, without
prejudice to such
other sanctions as
the court may
impose
Summary of rules for indigent litigants
If the applicant for exemption meets the salary and property requirements under
Sec. 19 of Rule 141, then the grant of the 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 Sec. 21, Rule 3 and use its sound
discretion in determining the merits of the prayer for exemption. [Sps. Algura v. City
of Naga, G.R. No. 150135 (2006)]

Page 243 of 1530

vi. Alternative Defendants

Page 244 of 1530

Where the plaintiff is uncertain against whom of several persons he is entitled to
relief, he may join any or all of them in the alternative, although a right to relief
against one may be inconsistent with a right to relief against the other [Sec. 13,
Rule 3]

Page 245 of 1530

b. Compulsory and Permissive Joinder of Parties

Page 246 of 1530

General Rule:
The joinder of parties is permissive

Exception:
It is compulsory when the one involved is an indispensable party.
[Crisologo v. JEWN Agro-Industrial Corporation, G.R. No. 196894 (2014)]

Page 247 of 1530

i. Compulsory Joinder

Page 248 of 1530

Parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action
(i.e. indispensable parties) shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. [Sec.
7, Rule 3]

Effect of non-joinder of indispensable parties

The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the trial
court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties
but even as to those present. [Moldes v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 161955 (2012)]

Failure to implead an indispensable party is not a ground for dismissal of an action,

as the remedy in such a case is to implead the party claimed to be indispensable,
considering that the parties may be added by order of the court, on motion of the
party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action. [Galido v. Magrare, G.R.
No. 206584 (2016)]

Effect of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties; when ordered by the court

It is when the order of the court to implead an indispensable party goes unheeded
that the case may be dismissed. The court has authority to dismiss a complaint
due to the fault of the plaintiff when he does not comply with any order of the
court [Plasabas v. CA, G.R. No. 166519 (2009)]

Page 249 of 1530

Effect of non-joinder of necessary parties
Non-joinder of a necessary party does not prevent the court from proceeding in
the action. The judgment rendered therein shall not prejudice the rights of such
necessary party [Sec. 9, par. 3, Rule 3]

Remedy in case of non-joinder of necessary parties

When a pleading asserting a claim omits to join a necessary party, the pleader
must:
1. Set forth the name of the necessary party, if known, and
2. State the reason why he is omitted
[Sec. 9, par. 1, Rule 3]

Should the court find the reason for the nonjoinder of a necessary party
unmeritorious, it may order the inclusion of such necessary party, if jurisdiction over
his person may be obtained. Failure to comply with such order without justifiable
cause shall be deemed a waiver of the claim against such party [Sec. 9, pars. 1-
2, Rule 3]

Page 250 of 1530