3S - Civil Procedure

Quiz 1 Discussion by:

Abliter, Jeanette
Apostol, Princess Thalia
Cerezo, Maria Jocelyn
Doydora, John Paolo
Ponce, Jenne Merie Clare
Santillan, Hilary
Viernes, June

Submitted to:
Dean Rico Paolo Quicho
1. What are requisites to institute the filing of a class suit? What is the ruling of the
Supreme Court in the Mathay vs. Consolidated Bank?

Answer: The requisites in filing of a class suit are;

- that the subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general interest to many
persons;
- the parties affected are numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all to court;

In the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Mathay vs. Consolidated Bank, the court ruled
that the terms in the allegation of duty which is not accompanied by a statement of facts that
shows the existence of duty, constitute a conclusion of law, unless there is a relation in which the
law raises the duty. It was also stated in the case that the action at bar was not a class suit. As to
the first requisite of class suits, the interest of the appellants, plaintiffs, and intervenors, and the
CMI stockholders had in the subject matter was several, not common or general in the sense
required by the statute of class suits. As to the second requisite, the complaint in the instate case
failed to state the number of said CMI subscribing stockholders that the trial court could not infer
if the parties are indeed numerous. Finally, as to the third requisite, each one had a determinable
interest and a right to their own respective portion of the stocks. Thus, the instant action was not
a class suit as it did not meet the necessary requisites.

2. In Tamano v. Ortiz, the Supreme Court ruled that, "a court's jurisdiction cannot be
made to depend upon defenses set up in the answer, in a motion to dismiss, or in a motion
for reconsideration, but only upon the allegations of the complaint." The Supreme Court
ruled that the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction, not the Shari'a Courts, because the
complaint stated that the parties were married in accordance with the Civil Code, not
Muslim law.

Assuming that during trial, the pieces of evidence adduced by the parties show that,
contrary to the allegations in the complaint, the parties were in fact married in accordance
with Muslim law, should the Regional Trial Court dismiss the case on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction? Will the allegations in the complaint still control? Please state your reasons.

Answer: The Regional Trial Court still has jurisdiction. The Supreme Court explained that
whether or not they were likewise married in a Muslim wedding, sharia courts are still not vested
with original jurisdiction over marriages married under civil and muslim law. Therefore, being
that the marriage of Tamado and Zorayda was still valid at the time the marriage of Tamano and
Estrellita was celebrated, then the marriage of the latter is considered a bigamous marriage.
3. The Supreme Court ruled that, in general, litigants must follow the hierarchy of courts.
Please give examples of situations when litigants were allowed to by-pass the hierarchy of
courts.

Answer: Aside from the special civil actions over which the Supreme Court has original
jurisdiction, the Court has allowed litigants to seek direct relief from it upon allegation of
“serious and important reasons.” In the case of Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections,
the Court ruled that the following were exceptions to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts:

1) when there are genuine issues of constitutionality that must be addressed at the most
immediate time;
2) when the issues involved are of transcendental importance;
3) cases of first impression;
4) the constitutional issues raised are better decided by the Court;
5) exigency in certain situations;
6) the filed petition reviews the act of a constitutional organ;
7) when petitioners rightly claim that they had no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law that could free them from the injurious effects of respondents' acts in
violation of their right to freedom of expression; and
8) the petition includes questions that are "dictated by public welfare and the advancement of
public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice, or the orders complained of were
found to be patent nullities, or the appeal was considered as clearly an inappropriate remedy.

4. The Supreme Court ruled that, in general, litigants must follow the hierarchy of courts.
Please give examples of situations when litigants were allowed to by-pass the hierarchy of
courts.

Answer: Aside from the special civil actions over which the Supreme Court has original
jurisdiction, the Court has allowed litigants to seek direct relief from it upon allegation of
“serious and important reasons.” In the case of Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections,
the Court ruled that the following were exceptions to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts:

1) when there are genuine issues of constitutionality that must be addressed at the most
immediate time;
2) when the issues involved are of transcendental importance;
3) cases of first impression;
4) the constitutional issues raised are better decided by the Court;
5) exigency in certain situations;
6) the filed petition reviews the act of a constitutional organ;
7) when petitioners rightly claim that they had no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law that could free them from the injurious effects of respondents' acts in
violation of their right to freedom of expression; and
8) the petition includes questions that are "dictated by public welfare and the advancement of
public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice, or the orders complained of were
found to be patent nullities, or the appeal was considered as clearly an inappropriate remedy.

5. X files a Reply but fails to specifically deny the allegations in paragraph 12 of the Answer
- a new material matter. Y does not file a Reply. Who is better situated? Please state your
reasons.

The group has provided two suggested answers:

Suggested Answer 1: According to Section 10, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court, the function of a
reply is to deny, or allege facts in denial or avoidance of new matters alleged in, or relating to, an
actionable document. Hence, it is not necessary to file a reply if the only purpose of the plaintiff
is to deny the new matters alleged in the answer because even if he does not make any reply, all
new matters are deemed controverted. In this case, since a reply is generally optional, neither X
nor Y is better situated.

Suggested Answer 2: Y is better situated because a reply is only necessary when the answer is
based on an actionable document. X fails to specifically deny the allegation by which defeats the
purpose of filing a Reply, therefore, Y is better situated.

Y is better situated. It is provided under the Rules of Court that the reply is only necessary when
the answer is based on a actionable documents. In this case, X fails to specifically deny the
allegations by which defeats the purpose of filing a Reply, therefore, Y is better situated.

6. In an action for rescission of a contract of sale filed with the MTC, Miriam submitted the
tax declarations showing that the land’s value was Php 60,000.00. The MTC issued an
order rescinding the sale. Upon appeal, the aggrieved party raised lack of jurisdiction over
the subject matter as the case should have been filed with the RTC. Consequently, the
entire proceedings, as well as the ruling, were null and void. Miriam’s sole witness was
already of advanced age and could no longer testify in court. Should the RTC vacate the
judgment rendered by the MTC for lack of jurisdiction?

The group has provided two suggested answers:

Suggested Answer 1: Yes. Under Section 10, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, the RTC has
jurisdiction to vacate judgment of MTC for the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The court may set
aside the questioned judgment and render the same null and void without prejudice to the
original action being refiled in the proper court.

Suggested Answer 2: Yes, the RTC must vacate the judgment rendered by the MTC as the case
falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC. The question merely mentions the action filed, that is, the
rescission of the sale of land but without mentioning that the aggrieved parties were asserting
title to or possession over the land. Therefore, it is incapable of pecuniary estimation and thus
falls within the RTC’s exclusive original jurisdiction.

7. What is a splitting of cause of action? What are the remedies against splitting a single
cause of action?

Answer: According to Rule 2, Sec. 4 provides that the splitting of cause of action is the act
where the cause of action on a suit is divided to different parts. Making the divided parts the
subject to a several complaints.

The remedies against splitting a single cause of action is to file a judgment upon merits (litis
pendencia) or forum shopping.

8. What is the rule on joinder or misjoinder of causes of actions?

Answer: According to Rule 2, Sec. 5 a joinder of causes of actions is the assertion of as many
causes of action as a party may have against another in one pleading alone. The purpose is to
unite two or more demands. While a misjoinder of causes of actions is when the conditions of a
Joinder does not met.

9. Who may be parties to a civil action? Who is a real party in interest?

Answer: According to Rule 3. Sec 1 and 2 respectively, 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 counterclaimant, the cross-claimant or the third (fourth, etc.)-party plaintiff.
While, “Defendant” also refers to a defendant in a counterclaim, the cross-defendant, or the third
(fourth, etc.) - party defendant.

Under Section 1 of Rule 3, the parties must be:

 1. Must be a: natural person; juridical person; or entity authorized by law;
2. Must have legal capacity to sue; and
3. Must be the real party-in-interest (legal personality).

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, 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. The determination of who the real party in interest is,
requires going back to the elements of a cause of action. The owner of the right violated stands to
be the real party in interest as plaintiff and the person responsible for the violation is the real
party in interest as defendant.

10. What are the effects to a civil action of misjoinder and non-joinder of parties?

Answer: As provided in Rule 3, Sec. 11 of the Rules of Court, neither misjoinder nor nonjoinder
of parties is a ground for dismissal of an action. Any claim against a misjoined party may be
severed and proceeded with separately. The said provision prohibits the dismissal of a suit on the
ground of non-joinder or misjoinder of parties and allows the amendment of complaint at any
stage of the proceedings, through motion or order of the court on its own initiative.

11. What is the duty of counsel whenever a party to a pending action dies?

Answer: As provided in paragraph 1 of Rule 3, Sec. 16, the duty of the counsel is to inform the
court within 30 days after the death while there is a pending action and to give the name and
address of his legal representative. Otherwise, the counsel may be subject to disciplinary action.

12. May a party waive the improper venue of a civil action?

Answer: Yes, the party may waive the improper venue of a civil action. It was ruled in the case
of BPI v. Sps. Yujuico, that, in civil proceedings, the venue is procedural and not jurisdictional.
Thus, it may be waived by the defendant if not seasonably raised either in a motion to dismiss or
in the answer. Unless the defendant seasonably objects, any action may be tried by a court
despite it being an improper venue.

13. How may a party question the improper venue of a civil action?
Answer: Under Section 12, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court, the defendant must raise it in an
answer as affirmative defense; otherwise, it is deemed waived and it may no longer be raised in a
motion to dismiss.

14. Ricky, resident of Laguna, orally sold a parcel of land located in Pangasinan to Paula, a
resident of Quezon City. After having paid the purchase price in full, Paula asked Ricky to
execute a Notarized Deed of Sale. When Ricky refused, Paula filed an action for specific
performance to compel Ricky to execute and deliver a Notarized Deed of Sale. (a) What is
the proper venue of the action? (b) May Paula file the action with the MTC? Cite reasons.

Answer:
(a) The proper venue of personal action is either in Quezon City in which Paula resides or
Laguna, in which Ricky resides. Under Section 2, Rule 12 of the Rules of Court, 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; or

(b) No, Paula cannot file the case with the MTC. According to the law, the RTC has exclusive
and original jurisdiction on all actions involving title or possession of real property. When Paula
paid in full, the obligation was fulfilled and the sale of the parcel of land was deemed perfected
by her purchase price in full.

15. In a contract entered into between X and Y in Manila, it was stipulated that any conflict
which may arise from said agreement “shall be filed in RTC of Cebu.”

Subsequently, X filed a case in Manila against Y for breach of contract. Y moved to dismiss
on the ground of improper venue. Should the motion be granted?

The group has provided two suggested answers:

Suggested Answer 1 : Yes, the motion should be granted. Paragraph b of Rule 4, Section 4 of
the Rules of Court provide that the rule on venue of actions shall not apply when the parties have
validly agreed in writing before the filing of the action on the exclusive venue thereof. Since X
and Y had stipulated in their contract that any conflict shall be filed with the RTC of Cebu, then
the said venue shall be the proper venue for action.

Suggested Answer 2: No. Under Section 4, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, xx (b) Where the
parties have validly agreed in writing before the filing of the action on the exclusive venue
thereof, rules on venue of actions will not apply. However in this case, there is no exclusivity that
any conflict shall be filed only in the RTC of Cebu, excluding all courts. Therefore, the case may
be filed in Manila and shall not be a ground for dismissal.