Cause of Action by RIANO

Definition of a Cause of Action

A cause of action is the fact or combination of facts that gives a person the
right to judicial relief. It arises when a legal right is violated by an act or
omission of another party.

Elements of a Cause of Action

For a valid cause of action to exist, these three elements must be present:

1. A legal right in favor of the plaintiff – The plaintiff must have a legally
recognized right under the law.
2. A correlative legal duty of the defendant – The defendant must have
a duty to respect that right.
3. A violation of that right by the defendant – The defendant's act or
omission must breach the plaintiff’s right, causing damage or injury.

Example:
Imagine you lent your friend ₱10,000. If they don’t pay you back by the
agreed date, you have a legal right to get your money back. Your friend has
a duty to pay. If they refuse, they violated your right, and you can file a
case.

When Does a Cause of Action Arise?

Even if the first two elements exist, a cause of action only arises when the
third element (the violation of the plaintiff’s right) occurs. Without a breach
of the right, no action can be maintained in court.

Case Applications

• Turner v. Lorenzo Shipping Corporation – Reinforces that the violation

of the right is the triggering element of a cause of action.
• Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v. Ley Construction – Emphasizes
that an action in court can only proceed when all three elements are
present.

Why Do You Need to State the Cause of Action in a Complaint?

Having a cause of action is not enough. You need to clearly state it in your
complaint—otherwise, the court can dismiss your case.

A complaint is the document you file in court to start a lawsuit. It must

contain:
✅ All three elements of a cause of action.
✅ Specific details about what happened.

If the complaint is missing important details, the defendant can file a motion
to dismiss the case for "failure to state a cause of action" (Rule 16, Section
1(g) of the Rules of Court).
Golden Rule:
"If you have a cause of action, then state it!"

Example:
If you're suing someone for unpaid debt, your complaint should say:

• That the debt exists and is due.

• That you asked the debtor to pay (made a demand).
• That the debtor refused to pay.

If you forget to include the demand for payment in your complaint, the court
may dismiss the case—even if you actually asked for payment in real life!

Examples in Different Cases

1. Action for a Sum of Money (Example: Unpaid Loan)

To properly state a cause of action, you must include:

✔ That the defendant borrowed money.
✔ That the loan is now due and demandable.
✔ That you asked them to pay (sent a demand letter).
✔ That they refused to pay.

🚨 Mistake to Avoid: If you don’t mention that you made a demand, your
complaint is incomplete—even if you really did send one!
Situation:
Maria lends Juan ₱50,000 and agrees that Juan will pay her back in six
months. The deadline passes, but Juan does not pay. Maria repeatedly asks
him for payment, but he ignores her messages. Frustrated, she sends
a demand letter giving him 10 days to settle his debt. Still, Juan refuses to
pay.

Legal Action:
Maria files a civil case for collection of a sum of money.

Key Points for the Complaint:

✔ The loan agreement existed.
✔ The loan became due and demandable.
✔ Maria made a demand, but Juan refused to pay.

2. Forcible Entry (Example: Someone Took Your Land by Force)

If someone took possession of your land without permission, your complaint

must say:
✔ You were in physical possession of the land first.
✔ The defendant forcibly took possession (by force, intimidation, strategy,
or stealth).
✔ You filed the case within one year of being removed from the property. or
from the
time he learned of his deprivation of physical possession of the land or building

🚨 Mistake to Avoid: If your complaint doesn't mention that the defendant

used force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, the court may
dismiss your case.

Situation:
Pedro owns a vacant lot. One day, he visits the lot and sees a new fence and a
small hut built on it. He asks around and finds out that Luis secretly fenced
the property and moved in while Pedro was away. Pedro tells Luis to leave,
but Luis refuses and even threatens Pedro.

Legal Action:
Pedro files a case for forcible entry because Luis entered the property
illegally.

Key Points for the Complaint:

✔ Pedro had prior physical possession of the land.
✔ Luis entered by stealth or force (without permission).
✔ Pedro filed the case within one year of discovering Luis’ illegal entry.

Cause of
How They Appear in the
Action Forcible Entry Elements
Complaint
Elements
1. Legal right
Prior possession of the "Plaintiff was in actual possession
of the
property of the property at [address]."
plaintiff

2. Duty of
Duty not to interfere "Defendant has no right to enter
the
with possession and take possession unlawfully."
defendant

Defendant took
"On January 10, 2024,
possession through
3. Violation of Defendant entered and fenced
force, intimidation,
right the property without Plaintiff’s
threat, strategy, or
consent."
stealth

3. Unlawful Detainer (Example: Someone Stays in Your Property After You

Told Them to Leave)

If a person originally had permission to stay in your property (like a tenant or

relative) but refuses to leave after their right has ended, your complaint must
say:
✔ The defendant’s entry was legal (they had permission).
✔ Their right to stay ended, and you told them to leave.
✔ They refused to vacate after being asked.
✔ You filed the case within one year of your demand to vacate.

🚨 Mistake to Avoid: If you don’t clearly state that you notified the
defendant that their right to stay ended, your complaint may be dismissed.

Situation:
Anna rents out her apartment to Bryan under a one-year lease. When the
lease ends, Anna informs Bryan that he must vacate the apartment.
However, Bryan refuses to leave and continues to stay without paying rent.
Anna sends him a formal demand letter to leave, but he still does not move
out.

Legal Action:
Anna files an unlawful detainer case because Bryan originally had
permission to stay but now refuses to leave.

Key Points for the Complaint:

✔ Bryan’s entry was originally legal (he was a tenant).
✔ Anna notified him that his right to stay ended.
✔ Bryan refused to vacate after being asked.
✔ Anna filed the case within one year from her last demand to vacate.
Forcible Entry vs. Unlawful Detainer

Many people confuse these two cases. The key difference is how the
defendant took possession of the property:

• Forcible Entry: The defendant illegally entered the property (without

permission).
• Unlawful Detainer: The defendant entered legally but refused to
leave after their right expired.

What is the Summary Procedure?

• It is a special court process designed for quick resolution of minor

disputes.
• It applies to Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer cases.
• It prevents delay tactics that defendants might use in regular court
cases.
• The court focuses only on who has the right to possess the property,
not on who actually owns it.

Does the Court Decide Ownership?

No. Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer cases are about who has the right
to possess the property at the moment.
However, sometimes ownership is questioned during the case. When this
happens:
✅ The court may issue a temporary ruling on ownership only to resolve
possession.
❌ This ruling does not permanently determine who the true owner is.
❌ The real ownership dispute must be filed in a separate case (e.g., an
action for reconveyance or quieting of title).

📌 Example Case: Echanes v. Spouses Hailar (G.R. No. 203880, August 10,
2016)
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that even if ownership is raised in a
Forcible Entry or Unlawful Detainer case, any decision on ownership is only
temporary—just enough to settle who should have possession for now.

Example Situations
1. Forcible Entry Example:

Juan is the registered owner of a vacant lot. One day, he discovers that
Carlos illegally fenced the lot and built a small house on it. Juan files
a Forcible Entry case.

🔹 Carlos defends himself by claiming that he bought the land from a third
party and is the real owner.
🔹 The court rules in Juan’s favor, saying that he had prior possession, so
Carlos must vacate.
🔹 However, this ruling does not decide who the real owner is. Carlos can still
file a separate ownership case in a different court.

2. Unlawful Detainer Example:

Anna owns an apartment and leases it to Bryan. After Bryan’s lease expires,
Anna tells him to vacate, but he refuses to leave. Anna files an Unlawful
Detainer case.

🔹 Bryan claims ownership, saying he was promised the apartment after

renting it for 10 years.
🔹 The court orders Bryan to leave, because this case is only about
possession, not ownership.
🔹 If Bryan wants to prove ownership, he must file a separate case to assert
his claim.

Key Takeaways

✅ Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer cases follow a fast-track Summary

Procedure.
✅ They only settle possession disputes, not ownership issues.
✅ Any ruling on ownership is temporary—if ownership is disputed, a separate
case must be filed.
✅ The main goal is to determine who has the right to possess the property,
not to decide who owns it permanently.

✅ A cause of action happens when someone’s right is violated.

✅ It’s not enough to have a cause of action—you must clearly state it in the
complaint.
✅ Missing details in your complaint can cause the court to dismiss your case.
✅ Different types of cases require different allegations—know what to
include!

Key Legal Concepts in Unlawful Detainer and Collection of Rent

1. The Demand Letter Determines the Type of Case

• If a landlord wants to evict a tenant for non-payment of

rent or violating the lease agreement, the demand letter must
say “Pay and Vacate”, not “Pay or Vacate.”
• If the demand only asks for rent payment (without eviction), the case is
a collection case, not an eviction case.

2. Where to File the Case?

• Collection case (only asking for money) → Regional Trial Court (RTC) if
the amount is high (e.g., P900,000).
• Unlawful detainer case (asking for both payment and eviction)
→ Municipal Trial Court (MTC).
3. Importance of the Allegations in the Complaint

The allegations in the body of the complaint are the most critical part of a
legal pleading. The designation or caption is not controlling—what matters is
what the complaint actually states and the relief sought.

The True Cause of Action Is Determined by Allegations, Not the Complaint's

Title

• The designation (or title) of the complaint is not decisive in determining

the cause of action.
• The court looks at the allegations in the complaint to define and
describe the legal issue (De la Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 510 SCRA 103,
117).

✅ Example:

• A complaint titled "Unlawful Detainer" could actually be a case

of Forcible Entry if the allegations show that possession was taken by
force, intimidation, stealth, threat, or strategy.
• The court will treat it as a Forcible Entry case, even if the title is
incorrect.

Courts May Reclassify a Petition Based on Its Allegations

• Even if a petition is labeled as one type of legal remedy, the court may
treat it as another if the allegations warrant it.
 • Example: A Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari may be treated as
a Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari if it alleges grave abuse of
discretion (Flores v. Office of the Ombudsman, 389 SCRA 127, 132).

✅ Example:

• A petitioner files under Rule 45, but the complaint alleges that a lower
court committed grave abuse of discretion.
• The Supreme Court may treat it as a Rule 65 petition because the real
issue is jurisdiction, not just an error of law.

Jurisdiction Is Based on the Nature of the Action, Not Its Title

• The true nature of a case depends on the allegations and reliefs

prayed for, not the title of the complaint.
• If the real objective is to obtain title to a property, then the case
should be filed in a court with jurisdiction over real estate cases, even
if the complaint is labeled as an annulment of deed of sale (Barangay
Piapi v. Talip, 469 SCRA 409, 413).

✅ Example:

• A plaintiff files a complaint to annul a deed of sale of a house.

• But the real purpose (based on the allegations) is to claim ownership of
the house.
• The case must be filed in a court that handles real estate disputes,
regardless of the complaint’s title.
Jurisdiction Cannot Be Affected by the Defendant’s Defense

• If the allegations in the complaint establish a cause of action

for unlawful detainer, the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) retains
jurisdiction.
• A defendant cannot defeat the complaint by merely claiming
ownership—otherwise, jurisdiction would be controlled by
the defendant's defense rather than the plaintiff’s cause of
action (De la Rosa v. Roldan, 501 SCRA 31, 51).

✅ Example:

• A landlord sues a tenant for unlawful detainer (eviction for non-

payment of rent).
• The tenant claims ownership of the property to argue that the case
belongs in a Regional Trial Court (RTC)instead.
• The MTC still has jurisdiction because the case was properly filed
as unlawful detainer, and the tenant's ownership claim is just a
defense.

✔ The substance of the complaint matters more than its title—the court
will look at allegations and reliefs prayed for.
✔ A court can reclassify a case if the allegations support a different type of
legal remedy.
✔ Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations, not the defendant’s
claims.
✔ Defenses raised by the defendant cannot change the nature of the
action—only the plaintiff’s allegations matter for jurisdictional purposes.

4. Specific Performance vs. Unlawful Detainer

• If a tenant violates the lease (e.g., subleasing without permission), the

demand must say “Comply and Vacate”, not “Comply or Vacate.”
• If the demand only asks for compliance, it is a specific performance
case, not an unlawful detainer case.

The Test on Whether a Complaint States a Cause of Action

To determine whether a complaint properly states a cause of action, courts

apply a simple test:

👉 "Assuming all the facts in the complaint are true, can the court issue a
valid judgment based on the relief requested?"

This means that the court will only consider the material allegations in the
complaint and will not look at external facts, evidence, or the defenses of
the defendant at this stage.

Key Rules in Applying This Test

1. The Court Considers Only the Complaint’s Allegations

 • The court does not evaluate outside evidence or conduct preliminary
hearings to determine if the cause of action exists.
• The sufficiency of the cause of action must be clear from the complaint
itself (Diaz v. Diaz, 331 SCRA 302, 316).
• If the complaint contains all necessary elements, the case proceeds.
Otherwise, it can be dismissed for "failure to state a cause of action."

✅ Example of a Valid Complaint

• A landlord sues a tenant for unlawful detainer, alleging:

o The tenant was given legal possession of the property.
o The lease expired, but the tenant refuses to vacate.
o A demand letter was sent, asking the tenant to "pay and vacate."
o The tenant did not comply, so the landlord seeks eviction.

✅ This complaint states a valid cause of action for unlawful detainer

because all legal elements are met.

❌ Example of an Invalid Complaint

• A landlord sues a tenant but only asks the court to order payment of
rent without demanding eviction.

❌ This does not state a cause of action for unlawful detainer. Instead, it is
a simple collection case, which requires a different legal process.
2. Exceptions: When Courts Can Consider External Documents

Although the general rule is that courts should only evaluate the allegations
within the complaint to determine if it states a cause of action, there
are exceptions where courts may look at additional documents.

A. The Court Can Consider Annexes or Documents Attached to the

Complaint

• If the plaintiff attaches documents to the complaint, these are

considered part of the pleading itself (Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries
Association v. Nicolas, 567 SCRA 540, 552).
• This allows the court to verify whether the allegations are legally
sufficient.

✅ Example:

• A complaint alleges a breach of contract and attaches a copy of the

contract.
• The court can review the contract to see if the plaintiff has a valid
claim.

❌ What the Court Cannot Do:

• The court cannot look for additional evidence beyond what is attached.
B. The Court Can Consider Related Pleadings or Admissions in the Case Record

• If the plaintiff has filed other pleadings in the same case (e.g., motions,
affidavits, or clarifications), the court may review them to understand
the complaint better (Zepeda v. China Banking Corporation).
• This helps prevent dismissing cases due to technical defects in
wording when the claim is actually valid.

✅ Example:

• A plaintiff sues for ownership of land and mentions a previous

case where the defendant admitted that he was merely renting the
property.
• The court may consider this admission in the case records to determine
whether the complaint sufficiently states a cause of action.

❌ What the Court Cannot Do:

• The court cannot base its decision on the defendant’s version of

events—only on what the plaintiff’s complaint and records show.

C. The Court Can Consider Documents That Are Procedurally Responsive to the
Complaint

• Courts may look at documents attached by the defendant, but only if

they directly clarify the allegations of the complaint (Alberto v. Court
of Appeals, 334 SCRA 756).
✅ Example:

• If a plaintiff sues for unpaid rent and the lease agreement is attached,
the court can review the lease to confirm if the claim is valid.

❌ What the Court Cannot Do:

• The court cannot consider the defendant’s new evidence (e.g., receipts
of rent payments) at this stage—this belongs to the trial phase.

Key Takeaways

✔ General Rule: The complaint must stand on its own without external
evidence.
✔ Exception: Courts may consider attached documents, previous pleadings,
and case records if they help clarify the sufficiency of the cause of action.
✔ What Courts Cannot Do: Courts cannot evaluate defenses or external
evidence at this stage—only what is properly presented by the plaintiff.

✔ A complaint must state all essential elements of a cause of action.

✔ If all facts in the complaint, when assumed true, justify relief from the
court, it is valid.
✔ Courts generally do not consider external evidence, but they can review
attached documents to confirm sufficiency.
Difference Between “Failure to State a Cause of Action” and “Lack of Cause
of Action”

🔹 Failure to State a Cause of Action (Problem in the complaint)

• The complaint does not contain enough details to show a legal violation.
• The case can be dismissed early under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court.

🔹 Lack of Cause of Action (Problem in the evidence)

• The complaint is valid, but the evidence does not prove the claim.
• The case can be dismissed later through a demurrer to evidence.

📌 Failure to State a Cause of Action → Motion to dismiss before trial,

based on complaint alone.
📌 Lack of a Cause of Action → Motion to dismiss after trial, based on lack
of evidence.

Updated Explanation (After A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC Amendment)

The distinction between failure to state a cause of action and lack of a cause
of action still applies, but the procedure for raising failure to state a cause of
action has changed under the new rules.

1. Failure to State a Cause of Action (Now Raised as an Affirmative

Defense)
o Before the amendment: It was raised in a motion to dismiss
before filing an Answer.
 o After the amendment: A motion to dismiss is no longer
allowed. Instead, the defendant must raise this issue as an
affirmative defense in the Answer.
o The court will then conduct a preliminary hearing on the
affirmative defense and decide whether to dismiss the case.
2. Lack of a Cause of Action (Still Raised After Trial via Demurrer to
Evidence)
o Even under the new rules, this must be raised after the plaintiff
has presented their evidence.
o The defendant can then file a demurrer to evidence to argue that
the plaintiff failed to prove their claim, leading to dismissal on
the merits.

Key Changes After the Amendment:

📌 Failure to State a Cause of Action → No longer raised in a motion to

dismiss; must be raised in the Answer as an affirmative defense.
📌 Lack of a Cause of Action → Still raised after the plaintiff presents
evidence, via demurrer to evidence.
Ownership Claims Do Not Stop Unlawful Detainer Cases

• A tenant cannot stop eviction just by claiming ownership of the

property.
• As long as the case is about unlawful detainer, the Municipal Trial Court
still has jurisdiction

Effect of a Finding That the Complaint States a Cause of Action

The determination of whether a complaint states a cause of action has

significant consequences for the case.

If the Complaint Does Not State a Cause of Action → Dismissal

• If the court finds that the complaint fails to state a cause of action,
it must be dismissed.
• This means the allegations in the complaint do not establish a legal
right to relief, even if assumed to be true.

If the Complaint States a Cause of Action → The Case Proceeds to Trial

• A finding that the complaint sufficiently states a cause of

action does not mean that the complaint is necessarily meritorious.
• It only means that the case will not be dismissed at the outset and will
proceed to the presentation of evidence(Manaloto v. Veloso III, 632
SCRA 347, 362-363).
 • The plaintiff still has the burden to prove the allegations with evidence.

What makes administrative cases different?

In ordinary civil cases, the main issue is whether the complainant has a cause
of action against the defendant. However, in administrative cases, the main
issue is whether the respondent (accused employee or official) violated the
rules of their office.

📌 Important difference:

• In civil cases, the focus is on the rights of the complainant.

• In administrative cases, the focus is on whether the respondent
committed misconduct or broke the rules of their position.

📌 How the elements apply:

1. Right – The public has the right to an ethical and responsible

government service.
2. Violation – The government employee failed to follow the rules (e.g.,
misconduct, abuse of power).
3. Damage – The harm does not need to be personal to the complainant,
but rather a violation of public trust.
Legal Basis:

🔹 In Mutia v. Pacariem (494 SCRA 448, 453), the Supreme Court ruled
that in administrative cases, it is not about whether the complainant has a
cause of action, but whether the respondent violated the norms and
standards of their office.

Example:

• A government employee is accused of accepting bribes.

• The question is not whether the complainant has a right to sue, but
whether the employee’s actions violated laws and ethical rules.
• If proven, the employee can be suspended or dismissed, regardless of
whether the complainant suffered personal damage.

✅ Key takeaway:
In administrative cases, the focus is on the respondent’s behavior, not the
complainant’s legal rights.

Cause of Action Based on Violation of Law

A cause of action exists when a person or entity fails to follow a law or

regulation. This means that someone can sue when another person’s actions
are illegal under a specific law.

📌 How the elements apply:

 1. Right – The contract gives both parties rights (e.g., a ticket guarantees
transport).
2. Violation – One party failed to fulfill their obligation.
3. Damage – The failure caused harm (e.g., financial loss, inconvenience).

Examples of Causes of Action Based on Violation of Law

📌 Example 1: Illegal Strike

🔹 Legal Rule:
Under labor laws, a strike must follow legal procedures, such as proper
notification and mediation.

🔹 Cause of Action:

• If a labor union fails to follow the legal process for a strike, the
employer has a cause of action against the union.
• The employer can file a case to declare the strike illegal and seek
damages.

📌 Example 2: Illegal Dismissal

🔹 Legal Rule:
Under the Labor Code, an employee cannot be dismissed without a just or
valid cause.

🔹 Cause of Action:
 • If an employer fires an employee without a legal reason, the employee
has a cause of action for illegal dismissal.
• The employee can file a case to be reinstated or receive
compensation (Club Filipino, Inc. v. Bautista, G.R. No. 168406, January
14, 2015).

✅ Key takeaway:
If a person violates a specific law, the affected party has a cause of action to
file a case.

Cause of Action Based on Contracts

A contract is a legally binding agreement between two or more parties. If one

party fails to fulfill their obligation, the other party has a cause of action
for breach of contract.

📌 Do You Need to Prove Negligence?

• NO. If a contract is broken, the plaintiff does not need to prove that
the defendant was negligent.
• The only requirements are:
1. There is a valid contract.
2. One party did not fulfill their obligation.

📌 How the elements apply:

 1. Right – The contract gives both parties rights (e.g., a ticket guarantees
transport).
2. Violation – One party failed to fulfill their obligation.
3. Damage – The failure caused harm (e.g., financial loss, inconvenience).

📌 Example 1: Breach of Contract of Carriage

A contract of carriage exists when a carrier (such as a bus, airline, or shipping

company) agrees to transport passengers or goods safely.

🔹 Legal Rule:
If a carrier fails to transport a passenger or cargo safely, they breached the
contract, and the affected party has a cause of action.

🔹 Cause of Action:

• A bus company sells a ticket to a passenger.

• The bus breaks down due to poor maintenance, leaving the passenger
stranded.
• The passenger can sue the bus company for breach of contract, without
needing to prove negligence (Calalas v. Court of Appeals, 332 SCRA 356,
361).
📌 Example 2: Trucking Company Fails to Deliver Goods

🔹 Legal Rule:
A trucking company must deliver goods on time and in good condition.

🔹 Cause of Action:

• A customer hires a trucking company to deliver perishable goods to a

supermarket.
• The company delivers the goods late and spoiled.
• The customer has a cause of action for breach of contract, even if they
cannot prove negligence (FGU Insurance Corporation v. G.P. Sarmiento
Trucking Corporation, 386 SCRA 312, 320).

✅ Key takeaway:
In contract cases, negligence does not need to be proven. The only
requirement is that the contract was not followed.

Special Rule for Common Carriers (Buses, Airlines, Shipping Companies,

etc.)

📌 What is a Common Carrier?

A common carrier is a company that transports goods or passengers for the
public (e.g., bus companies, airlines, shipping lines).

📌 How the elements apply:

1. Right – Passengers have the right to safe travel.

 2. Violation – The common carrier failed to safely transport them.
3. Damage – Injury, loss, or inconvenience occurred.

📌 What Happens If a Common Carrier Breaks a Contract?

• Negligence is automatically presumed.

• The passenger or client does not need to prove that the carrier was
negligent.
• The burden is on the carrier to prove that they were not negligent.

🔹 Legal Rule:
Under Articles 1735 and 1756 of the Civil Code, a common carrier is
presumed to be at fault if passengers or goods are not safely transported.

🔹 Cause of Action:

• A person buys a plane ticket for a scheduled flight.

• The airline cancels the flight without a valid reason.
• The passenger has a cause of action for breach of contract.
• The airline must prove that they were not at fault, rather than the
passenger proving negligence.

✅ Key takeaway:
Common carriers have a higher duty of care, and negligence is automatically
assumed if they fail to fulfill their contract.
FINAL SUMMARY

Cause of Action
Type of Case What Needs to Be Proven?
Based On
Administrative Violation of That the employee violated rules, not
Case workplace rules that the complainant was harmed
Breaking a law or That the law was not followed (e.g.,
Violation of Law
regulation illegal dismissal, illegal strike)
Breach of Not following 1. That a contract exists 2. That one
Contract contract terms party failed to follow it
Not fulfilling a The carrier must prove it was NOT
Common Carrier
transport negligent (passenger doesn’t need to
Case
agreement prove negligence)

Importance of the Allegations in the Complaint

The substance of the complaint matters more than its title or label. The
court determines the real nature of the action based on the allegations in the
body of the complaint, not just its caption.
1. The Complaint’s Allegations Determine the Cause of Action

📌 Rule: The title or designation of the complaint is not controlling—what

matters is what is actually alleged in the complaint (De la Cruz v. Court of
Appeals, 510 SCRA 103).

✅ Example:

• A complaint titled as "Unlawful Detainer" may actually be a Forcible

Entry case if the complaint describes that the plaintiff was forcibly
removed from the property using force, intimidation, stealth, threat,
or strategy.
• Even if the wrong title is used, the court looks at the allegations to
determine the correct action.

2. Even the Type of Petition Can Change Based on Allegations

📌 Rule: A petition labeled as a Rule 45 (Appeal by Certiorari) may be treated

as a Rule 65 (Certiorari for Grave Abuse of Discretion) if the allegations
claim that the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion (Flores v.
Office of the Ombudsman, 389 SCRA 127).

✅ Example:
 • A petition labeled as a "Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45"
should only raise pure questions of law.
• But if the petition describes that the lower court acted with grave
abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court may treat it as a Rule 65
petition instead.

3. Jurisdiction Is Based on Allegations and Reliefs Sought, Not Just the

Complaint’s Title

📌 Rule: The nature of the case is determined by the allegations in the

complaint and the relief sought, not just its title (Barangay Piapi v. Talip,
469 SCRA 409).

✅ Example:

• A complaint titled as "Action to Annul a Deed of Sale" may actually be

a case to recover ownership of real property if the allegations show
that the plaintiff is seeking ownership.
• In this case, the jurisdiction belongs to the court that has authority
over real property cases, based on the assessed value of the land.
Effect of a Finding That the Complaint States a Cause of Action

1⃣ If the Complaint Does NOT State a Cause of Action → Case is

Dismissed

• When the court finds that the complaint does not state a cause of
action, the case will be dismissed because the allegations fail to show a
legal basis for the claim.

2⃣ If the Complaint States a Cause of Action → Case Proceeds to Trial

• However, just because a complaint states a cause of action does not

mean the plaintiff automatically wins.
• The case will proceed to trial, and the plaintiff must prove their
allegations with evidence (Manaloto v. Veloso III, 632 SCRA 347).

✅ Example:

• A complaint properly alleges that the defendant failed to pay a

debt under a contract.
• This states a valid cause of action, so the case will not be dismissed.
• But at trial, the plaintiff must prove (1) the existence of the contract
and (2) the defendant’s failure to pay.
 • If the plaintiff fails to provide evidence, the case may still be
dismissed on the merits after trial.

Key Takeaways:

📌 If the complaint does not state a cause of action → The case is

dismissed immediately.
📌 If the complaint states a cause of action → The case proceeds to trial,
but the plaintiff must still prove their claims.
📌 Winning at the pleading stage only means the case moves forward, not
that the plaintiff has already won.

Cause of Action Based on the Vicarious Liability of an Employer

1⃣ General Rule: Negligence Must Be Alleged and Proved

• Under Article 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, a quasi-

delict (a wrongful act or omission causing damage to another) requires
proof of negligence.
• The injured party must show that the defendant failed to act with due
care, leading to harm.
2⃣ Exception: Presumption of Negligence in Vicarious Liability

• Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, certain individuals—

including employers—are presumed liable for the acts of people under
their control.
• This is based on the doctrine of vicarious liability, which holds that a
person can be responsible for the negligence of others under certain
conditions.

📌 Who can be held vicariously liable?

• Parents (for minor children)

• Guardians (for their wards)
• Employers (for employees acting within their assigned duties)
• Schools (for students and teachers)
• The State (in certain cases)

3⃣ Employer’s Presumed Negligence in Employee’s Actions

• When an employee negligently causes harm while performing assigned

tasks, the law presumes that the employer was negligent in:
✅ Selecting the employee (hiring someone unfit for the job)
✅ Supervising the employee (failing to monitor and guide)
• The employer is automatically presumed liable unless proven
otherwise (Manliclic v. Calaunan, 512 SCRA 642).
4⃣ How Can an Employer Escape Liability?

• The employer can rebut the presumption by proving that they exercised
the diligence of a good father of a family in:
✅ Carefully selecting qualified employees
✅ Properly supervising and ensuring the employee’s proper conduct
• If the employer can prove they acted with due diligence, they will not be
held liable (Travel de Yours Advisers, Inc. v. Cruz, Sr., G.R. No.
199282, March 14, 2016).

🔹 Example Situations

🔹 Situation 1: Employer is Liable

• A bus company hires an unlicensed driver without verifying his

credentials.
• The driver causes an accident due to reckless driving.
• The employer is presumed negligent and liable for damages since they
failed to properly select a competent driver.

🔹 Situation 2: Employer is NOT Liable

• A factory hires a trained and certified machine operator.

• The operator disregards safety procedures and injures a coworker.
• The employer presents records of training and supervision.
 • The court finds that the employer exercised due diligence, so they
are not held liable.

📌 Key Takeaways

✅ Employers are presumed liable for employees’ negligence while performing

duties.
✅ To avoid liability, employers must prove they exercised due diligence in
hiring and supervision.
✅ The burden of proof shifts to the employer once negligence by an
employee is established.

1. Splitting a single cause of action is not allowed.

2. A single cause of action may lead to multiple remedies, but they must
be claimed in one lawsuit.
3. This rule applies to complaints, counterclaims, and cross-claims.
4. An exception exists if new and separate wrongful acts occur after the
first case is filed.
splitting a single cause of action—or filing multiple lawsuits for different
parts of the same legal claim—is not allowedbecause it violates the policy
against multiplicity of suits.

The policy against multiplicity of suits exists to:

1. Prevent unnecessary court congestion – If parties file multiple cases

for the same dispute, courts will be overwhelmed with unnecessary
litigation.
2. Avoid harassment and vexatious litigation – A party could use multiple
lawsuits to harass the opposing party, forcing them to spend more time
and money on legal defense.
3. Ensure judicial efficiency – Resolving all related claims in one case is
more efficient than handling multiple separate cases.

The Supreme Court in Dynamic Builders de Construction Co. (Phil.), Inc. v.

Presbitero, Jr., G.R. No. 174202, April 7, 2015, emphasized that
the primary goal of this rule is to prevent undue burden on court dockets,
ensuring that cases are handled in an orderly and systematic manner.

Example:

• A landlord wants to sue a tenant for non-payment of rent and eviction.

• Instead of filing two separate cases (one for unpaid rent and another
for eviction), the landlord must file one case that includes both claims.
 • If the landlord files two separate cases, it violates the rule against
splitting a cause of action.

- A counterclaim is a legal claim filed by the defendant in response

to the plaintiff’s complaint.
• If a defendant already raises an issue in a counterclaim, they cannot
file a separate lawsuit based on the same issue.
• This prevents multiplicity of suits and ensures that all related claims
are resolved in one case.

In Mariscal v. Court of Appeals (311 SCRA 51, 56), the Supreme Court held
that if a party raises a cause of action in a counterclaim, they cannot later
file a separate complaint invoking the same cause of action against the same
person. Doing so would violate the prohibition against splitting a cause of
action.
Why This Rule Exists

The purpose of the rule against splitting a cause of action is to:

✔ Avoid multiple cases over the same dispute.
✔ Prevent harassment of the opposing party by forcing them to defend
multiple lawsuits.
✔ Ensure judicial efficiency by having all issues resolved in a single case.

Explanation of the Rule on Recovering Taxes and Surcharges in a Single Action

The Supreme Court, in City of Bacolod v. San Miguel Brewery, Inc. (29 SCRA
819, 821), ruled that an action for the recovery of taxes must also include
a claim for surcharges resulting from the delinquency in the payment of
those taxes. This means that if a party—such as the government—files a
lawsuit to collect unpaid taxes, it must include all related claims, including
penalties and surcharges, in a single case.

Explanation of Forcible Entry and Damages as a Single Cause of Action

1. The Defendant’s Act of Dispossession as a Single Wrong

• When a defendant forcefully takes possession of the plaintiff’s land

through force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, this is
called forcible entry.
 • This single act of taking possession violates the plaintiff’s rights and
gives rise to legal claims.

2. Two Reliefs Arising from One Cause of Action

The plaintiff, upon filing a case for forcible entry, may demand:
✔ Recovery of possession – The court may order that possession be
returned to the rightful owner.
✔ Damages due to dispossession – The plaintiff may seek compensation for
losses suffered due to being deprived of the use of the property (e.g., lost
rental income, inability to use the land, damage to property).

• Since both of these reliefs arise from the same wrongful act (the
dispossession), they must be included in a single case.
• The plaintiff cannot file two separate lawsuits—one for regaining
possession and another for damages. This would violate the rule against
splitting a single cause of action.

3. Limitation: Damages Must Be Directly Related to Dispossession

• The damages being claimed must be a direct result of the

defendant’s forcible occupation of the property.
• For example, if a landowner is forced out of their property and loses
income because they can’t rent it out, these damages must be included
in the forcible entry case.
4. Exception: Damages from Separate Acts After Taking Possession

• If the defendant commits additional wrongful acts after gaining

possession of the property, those damages can be the subject of a
separate lawsuit.
• Example: If the defendant, after occupying the property, destroys a
building on the land, steals crops, or commits vandalism, these
actions are separate offenses that can be litigated in a different case.
• In other words, if damages result from independent wrongful
acts that go beyond just taking possession, they form a new cause of
action.

Example Scenario

Scenario 1 (One Cause of Action – Should Be in One Case)

• A squatter forcefully takes possession of private land and prevents the

rightful owner from entering.
• The owner sues for forcible entry and claims damages for lost
income because they could not rent out the land.
✅ Both claims must be in the same case.

Scenario 2 (Separate Cause of Action – Can Be in Another Case)

 • After occupying the land, the squatter burns down the plaintiff’s
house, steals materials, and destroys farm crops.
• The plaintiff files a separate case for destruction of property and
theft.
✅ This is allowed because these damages come from separate
wrongful acts, not just dispossession.

Key Takeaways

✔ Forcible entry and damages due to loss of possession must be filed in

one case.
✔ Filing them separately is not allowed (violates the rule against splitting a
cause of action).
✔ Damages from independent wrongful acts after taking possession can be
the subject of a separate lawsuit

✔ Forcible entry cases only deal with possession; separate wrongful acts
require separate cases.
✔ No litis pendentia if the damages claim arises from acts independent of
the dispossession.
✔ Unlawful occupants can still be liable for damages, theft, and
destruction of property.
✔ Proper classification of legal claims is crucial to ensure they are heard
separately.

Legal Principles Established

1. Forcible Entry vs. Separate Wrongs

o A case for forcible entry deals only with the right to
possession of the property.
o A case for damages relates to other wrongful acts that occurred
after the dispossession.
o The two can be filed independently if they arise from different
causes of action.
2. No Prohibition Against Filing Multiple Cases When Causes of Action are
Different
o Litis pendentia applies only when two cases involve the same
issue and same parties.
o Since the damages case was based on new acts unrelated to
possession, it was not barred.

1. Single Cause of Action Despite Multiple Rights Violated:

 o A single wrongful act may violate multiple rights of the same
person. However, the law considers only one cause of action, not
multiple.
o In the given example, if a negligent driver causes both bodily
injuries to a car owner and damage to the car, the plaintiff (car
owner) cannot file separate cases for each violation. Instead, he
must combine his claims for personal injury and property damage
in a single complaint.
o This follows the rule against splitting a single cause of action,
which prevents multiple lawsuits arising from the same negligent
act.
2. Distinction When Different People Are Involved:
o If another person (e.g., a passenger) in the same accident is also
injured, that passenger has a separate and distinct cause of
action.
o This is because the injuries sustained by the passenger are
a violation of their own rights, which are independent of the car
owner’s rights.
o Therefore, the passenger can file their own case, separate from
the case filed by the car owner.

Key Legal Principle:

• A single wrongful act may affect multiple rights, but it still results in
only one cause of action for the same person.
• Different people affected by the same act may have separate causes
of action.

Tenant's Right to Two Reliefs:

• If a tenant is illegally ejected from the land, they are entitled to two
reliefs:
a) Reinstatement (Restoration of Possession) – The tenant seeks to be
placed back in possession of the land.
b) Damages – The tenant seeks compensation for the harm suffered
due to the illegal ejection, such as lost income or emotional distress.

Single Cause of Action:

• Even though the tenant is claiming two different reliefs, both arise
from one wrongful act—the illegal ejection.
• This means that the tenant must include both claims (reinstatement and
damages) in one complaint.

Rule Against Splitting a Single Cause of Action:

• The law prohibits filing separate cases for the same cause of action.
• If the tenant first files a case for reinstatement and later files another
case for damages, the second case may be dismissed for violating the
rule against splitting a single cause of action.
1. Distinct Causes of Action:
o A case for reconveyance of title is not the same as a case
for forcible entry or unlawful detainer.
o These involve different legal rights and issues, so one case does
not prevent the filing of the other.
2. Jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC):
o Even if there is a pending case for reconveyance of title,
the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) still has jurisdiction to hear
an ejectment case (forcible entry or unlawful detainer).
o This is because ejectment cases focus on who has the actual or
material possession of the property, not who owns it.
3. Key Difference Between the Two Cases:
o Reconveyance of Title:
§ The issue is ownership (who has the legal right to the
property).
§ This case is usually filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
o Ejectment (Forcible Entry or Unlawful Detainer):
§ The issue is possession (who is physically occupying the
property).
§ This case is under the jurisdiction of the MTC.
4. Legal Principle:
o Possession and ownership are different legal concepts.
 o Even if someone claims ownership, they cannot forcibly take
possession of a property—they must file the correct legal action.
o A party cannot use a pending reconveyance case as an excuse to
delay or avoid an ejectment case.

Practical Example:

• Scenario 1 (Ejectment Case): A person forcefully enters another’s

property and refuses to leave. The rightful occupant can file a forcible
entry case in the MTC to regain possession.
• Scenario 2 (Reconveyance Case): If a person believes their land title
was fraudulently transferred, they can file a reconveyance case in
the RTC to recover legal ownership.

Rulings in Marilag v. Martinez (G.R. No. 201892, July 22, 2015)

1. Single Cause of Action Rule

o The creditor-mortgagee has only one cause of action against the
debtor-mortgagor: the right to recover the unpaid debt.
o A loan contract and a mortgage contract, although distinct, do
not give rise to separate causes of action.
2. Alternative Remedies Doctrine
o The creditor may choose only one remedy to recover the debt:
§ A personal action (collection of sum of money), OR
§ A real action (foreclosure of mortgage).
o These remedies are not cumulative or successive but alternative.
 3. Election of Remedies Rule
o Once the creditor chooses and files a case for either collection or
foreclosure, he is barred from availing of the other remedy.
o If a collection case is filed first, foreclosure is no longer
allowed.
o If a foreclosure case is filed first, a separate collection case
cannot be filed, except to recover a deficiency balance.
4. Prevention of Splitting a Single Cause of Action
o Filing both a collection case and a foreclosure case for the same
loan constitutes splitting a cause of action, which is prohibited.

However, if after the foreclosure the proceeds from the sale of the
mortgaged property are insufficient to cover the entire outstanding
obligation, the creditor may still file a deficiency suit(personal action for
collection of the same debt) to recover the remaining balance.

Umale v. Canoga Park Development Corporation (G.R. No. 167246, July 20,
2011) – Simple Reviewer

I. What Happened in the Case?

1. Two Ejectment Cases Were Filed:

o The first case was because the tenant (lessee) violated the lease
contract (built structures and subleased the land without
permission).
 o The second case was because the lease contract expired.
2. The Lessor (Landowner) Won the Second Case:
o The first case was still pending when the second case was filed.
o The tenant argued that the second case was "splitting a single
cause of action", meaning the landlord was trying to file multiple
cases for the same issue.
o The Supreme Court disagreed and ruled that the second case was
valid.

II. Supreme Court Ruling (Why Was the Second Case Allowed?)

1. The Two Cases Had Different Legal Reasons (Causes of Action).

o The first case was about lease violations (tenant broke the rules).
o The second case was about lease expiration (contract officially
ended).
2. The Cause of Action for the Second Case Didn’t Exist Yet When the
First Case Was Filed.
o The landlord could not file a case for lease expiration earlier
because the lease was still in effect at that time.
o The right to evict based on expiration only happened after the
lease ended.
3. There Was No Splitting of a Cause of Action.
o A cause of action means the legal reason for filing a case.
 o You cannot split one cause of action into multiple lawsuits.
o But here, the two cases had different causes of action, so filing
the second case was not illegal.

III. Important Legal Lesson from the Case

• You can’t file two cases for the same cause of action.
• But you CAN file a second case if a new cause of action happens later.
• In ejectment cases, lease violations and lease expiration are two
separate legal reasons.

The Court ruled that there was no splitting of a cause of action because
the collection case and the eviction case were based on different legal
grounds:

1. Same Parties and Property, But Different Issues:

o Both cases involved the same landlord and tenant and the same
leased property.
o However, the eviction case focused on the tenant’s illegal
possession after refusing to vacate.
o The collection case was about unpaid rent from the period when
possession was still legal (before the demand to leave).
2. No Connection Between Rent Collection and Eviction:
 o The collection case was for the deficiency in rental
payments before the eviction issue arose.
o The eviction case was about the tenant’s refusal to vacate after
the lease ended.
3. Key Legal Distinction:
o In unlawful detainer cases, the landlord can only claim
damages from the moment the possession becomes illegal (after
the demand to leave).
o The past unpaid rent (before the demand to vacate) is
a separate financial obligation, so it must be recovered through
an ordinary collection case.

Why Was This Not Splitting a Cause of Action?

• Splitting a cause of action happens when two cases are filed for
the same legal right and same evidence.
• Here, the collection case and eviction case had different causes of
action and required different evidence.
• Because the unpaid rent was from a time before the eviction issue,
the two cases were separate and valid.

he collection case would have been directly related to the eviction case if the
unpaid rent was for the period after the tenant’s possession became illegal.

This would happen if:

 1. The landlord demanded that the tenant leave, but the tenant refused.
2. The landlord then sued for both eviction and unpaid rent covering the
period after the tenant was supposed to vacate.
3. The landlord then filed a separate collection case for the same unpaid
rent that was already part of the eviction case.

In this scenario, both cases would involve the same issue—the tenant's failure
to pay rent while staying illegally. Filing two cases for the same unpaid rent
would be splitting a cause of action, making the second case invalid.

Unlawful detainer cases only cover damages after the tenant's possession
becomes illegal (after the demand to vacate).
A collection case for unpaid rent before the possession became illegal is a
separate legal issue.
Since they deal with different legal rights and violations, the second case
was valid and did not constitute splitting a single cause of action.

Legal Takeaway

✅ One case, one controversy. You must raise all relevant arguments in your
first case. If you forget something, you cannot file another case later to fix
it.

✅ Res judicata ensures finality. The court does not allow repeated lawsuits
over the same issue with just different legal arguments.
✅ Admissions in court matter. Since the petitioner already accepted that
the marriage was properly celebrated in the first case, he cannot change his
position later.

Anticipatory Breach of Contract

Anticipatory breach occurs when one party to a contract clearly and absolutely
refuses to perform their obligation before the due date. This refusal, if
directed at the entire contract, allows the injured party to immediately sue
for damages, even if the performance is not yet due.

General Rule on Divisible Contracts

• A contract that involves performance at several times is

considered divisible.
• Each breach of such a contract creates a separate cause of action.
• A judgment for one breach does not bar a later suit for another breach.

Exception: Total Breach Due to Anticipatory Repudiation

• If the obligor (debtor) expresses a clear, absolute, and unqualified

refusal to perform the entire contract beforethe due date, the breach
is considered total.
• The injured party can sue immediately for all damages rather than
waiting for each installment to be due.
 • This avoids multiple lawsuits and ensures complete relief for the
creditor.

Case Law: Blossoms & Co. v. Manila Gas Corporation (55 Phil. 226, 240-241)
Facts:

• A company had a contract with Manila Gas Corporation, which required

performance over multiple time periods.
• Before the contract's completion, Manila Gas clearly and
absolutely refused to fulfill the rest of its obligations.
• The injured party (Blossoms & Co.) sued immediately for the entire
damage, even though some obligations were not yet due.

Ruling:

• The Supreme Court held that when an obligor manifests an unqualified

and positive refusal to perform the contract, the injured party need
not wait for the due dates.
• Instead, they may treat it as a total breach and claim damages at
once.
• The reason: The repudiation destroys the contract's essence, making
further performance impossible.
Illustrative Example
Scenario 1: Divisible Obligation (No Anticipatory Breach)

• Mr. DD borrows P5 million, agreeing to pay it in five equal annual

installments (P1M per year).
• The contract states payments are due at the end of each year without
need for demand.
• Year 1: Mr. DD fails to pay the first installment.
o The creditor can only sue for P1 million.
• Year 2: Mr. DD fails again.
o The creditor can file a new case for another P1 million.
o The second suit is not barred by res judicata since it's a separate
breach.

Scenario 2: Anticipatory Breach (Total Breach)

• Before the first installment is even due, Mr. DD tells the creditor:
"I will never pay anything, no matter what."
• This is an absolute and unqualified refusal to perform the entire
contract.
• Legal Effect: The creditor does not need to wait for each due date.
• Remedy: The creditor can file a single lawsuit immediately to recover
the entire P5 million.
Key Takeaways

1. Divisible Contracts → Breach of each part creates a separate cause of

action.
2. Anticipatory Breach → If one party clearly refuses to perform the
entire contract before the due date, it becomes a total breach.
3. Effect of Total Breach → The injured party can sue immediately for
full damages in one case.
4. Res Judicata Does Not Apply → If there is no anticipatory breach, a
suit for one installment does not bar future suits for other breaches.

Easy-to-Remember Format

Concept Definition Legal Basis Example

Filing two nullity
Filing multiple lawsuits
Splitting a Sec. 4, Rule cases—one for
for the same issue but
Cause of 2, Rules of psychological incapacity
under different legal
Action Court and another for lack of
theories
a marriage license
There is another Sec. Filing an unlawful
case already 12(a)(2), detainer case while
Litis
pendinginvolving the Rule 15, another case about the
Pendentia
same parties and cause Rules of same lease agreement is
of action Court still pending
 Concept Definition Legal Basis Example
Sec. Refiling a collection case
A final judgment bars 12(a)(3), for unpaid rent after a
Res
another case on Rule 15, final judgment has
Judicata
the same issue Rules of already been issued on
Court the lease

VI. Key Takeaways

1. One case per cause of action – A party must include all legal
grounds in the first case.
2. If a case is already pending, the second case may be dismissed for litis
pendentia.
3. If a case has been decided with finality, refiling another case on the
same cause of action is barred by res judicata.
4. The court has discretion on which case to dismiss, not necessarily the
second one.
5. Some cases may not be considered splitting, such as when the second
case is for a different claim, like rent collection before an eviction.
Joinder of Causes of Action: A Structured and Detailed Explanation
Definition and Legal Basis

Joinder of causes of action is the consolidation of multiple claims that a party

may have against another in a single pleading (Sec. 5, Rule 2, Rules of Court).
It allows a plaintiff to unite two or more demands or rights of action in one
case instead of filing separate lawsuits (1 C.J.S., Actions §61; Unicapital, Inc.
v. Consing, Jr., G.R. No. 192073, September 11, 2013).

Illustration

• Scenario: D (Debtor) owes C (Creditor) two separate debts:

1. First Debt: ₱350,000.00 due on January 5, 2018.
2. Second Debt: ₱350,000.00 due on February 13, 2018.
• Each debt is based on a different promissory note and incurred for
different reasons.
• Legal Implication: Each debt is a separate cause of action since they
arise from distinct transactions.
• Joinder Application: Instead of filing two different cases, C can file a
single lawsuit to collect both debts.

Advantages of Joinder of Causes of Action

1. Efficiency: Saves time and court resources by avoiding multiple cases.

2. Avoids Multiplicity of Suits: Prevents the defendant from being sued
repeatedly for related matters.
 3. Cost-Effective: Reduces litigation expenses for both parties.

Case Law Reference:

• Unicapital, Inc. v. Consing, Jr., G.R. No. 192073 (2013) – The

Supreme Court ruled that multiple claims arising from different
promissory notes can be joined in a single case to avoid splitting a single
cause of action, provided that they comply with procedural rules.

Joinder of Causes of Action – Permissive Nature and Jurisdictional Implications

1. When Causes of Action Accrue in Favor of the Same Plaintiff Against the
Same Defendant

• If a single plaintiff (C) has multiple claims against a single

defendant (D), it is not necessary to determine whether these claims
arose from the same transaction or series of transactions.
• The rule requiring a common question of law or fact applies only when
there are multiple plaintiffs or multiple defendants.
• This means that in cases where there is only one plaintiff and one
defendant, joinder of causes of action is not dependent on whether the
claims are connected or related.

2. Is C Obliged to Join the Causes of Action Against D?

• Answer: No, joinder of causes of action is not compulsory.

 • C may choose to file separate lawsuits for each claim instead of
combining them in one case.
• The wording of the rule (Sec. 5, Rule 2, Rules of Court)
uses "may" instead of "shall", which indicates that joinder is optional,
not mandatory.
• Bar 1999 Question: The rule on joinder does not force a plaintiff to
combine all claims in a single action.

3. Effect of Joinder on Court Jurisdiction

• If C chooses to join the two causes of action (₱350,000.00 +

₱350,000.00 = ₱700,000.00 total claim), the case must be filed in
the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
• This is because jurisdiction over money claims is based on the total or
aggregate amount claimed, not the individual amounts.
• Legal Basis:
o Totality TEST – If the claims are for money, the total amount
sought is used to determine jurisdiction (Sec. 5(d), Rule 2, Rules
of Court).
o B.P. 129, as amended – This law specifies jurisdictional
thresholds for courts.

4. Summary of the Rule

• Joinder of causes of action is permissive, not mandatory.

• A plaintiff may file separate lawsuits for each cause of action.
 • If the claims are joined, the total amount of the claims determines
the proper court jurisdiction under the totality test.

May the Action for Ejectment Be Joined with the Claims for Money?
Answer: No, an action for ejectment cannot be joined with the claims for
money.

1. Difference Between an Ordinary Civil Action and a Special Civil Action

• Ordinary civil actions involve disputes between private parties regarding

their rights and obligations.
• Special civil actions, on the other hand, have unique procedural rules
and special jurisdictional requirements.
• Ejectment (unlawful detainer or forcible entry) is a special civil action,
governed by Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.
• Collection of a sum of money is an ordinary civil action, covered
by Rule 2 of the Rules of Court.

2. Legal Basis for Prohibiting the Joinder of Ejectment with a Money Claim

• Sec. 5(b), Rule 2, Rules of Court explicitly states:

o "The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions
governed by special rules."
• This means that an ejectment case cannot be combined with
an ordinary money claim in one complaint.
3. Practical Reason for the Rule

• Different Rules Apply:

o Ejectment cases follow a summary procedure (fast-tracked
process with limited pleadings and evidence).
o Money claims follow the ordinary rules of procedure (which may
take longer).
• Different Jurisdiction:
o Ejectment cases are under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial
Court (MTC), regardless of the amount involved.
o Money claims depend on the total amount involved (if exceeding
jurisdictional limits, the case must be filed in the RTC).
• Avoiding Procedural Confusion:
o Mixing different types of actions may create procedural conflicts
regarding rules of evidence, pleadings, and jurisdiction.

4. Alternative Legal Remedy

• C must file two separate cases:

o First case: Ejectment case before the Municipal Trial Court
(MTC).
o Second case: Collection case before the MTC or RTC, depending
on the total amount of the claim.
5. Conclusion

• Joinder of ejectment with money claims is prohibited because

ejectment is a special civil action governed by different procedural rules.
• C must file separate cases to avoid jurisdictional and procedural
conflicts.
• This ensures that each case is handled properly under the correct legal
framework.

Joinder of Causes of Action: When Actions Cannot Be Joined

4. Can an Action for Injunction and Quieting of Title Be Joined in a Single
Complaint?

Answer: No.

• Legal Basis: In Salvador v. Patricia, Inc., G.R. No. 195834, November

9, 2016, the Supreme Court ruled that an action for injunction cannot
be joined with an action for quieting of title.
• Reason:
o Injunction is an ordinary civil action aimed at preventing or
compelling an act.
o Quieting of title is a special civil action under Rule 63 of the
Rules of Court, used to remove doubts on ownership or interest
in real property.
 o Since special civil actions follow different procedural rules,
joinder would create procedural confusion.

5. Can the Following Causes of Action Be Joined?

Facts:

• C has the following claims against D:

o (a) ₱1 million based on a promissory note (contractual
obligation).
o (b) ₱1 million based on torts (damage to property or injury).
o (c) Foreclosure of a real estate mortgage.

Answer: Yes, but with an exception.

• Causes (a) and (b) can be joined since they are both ordinary civil
actions.
• Cause (c) (foreclosure of mortgage) cannot be joined because it is
a special civil action under Rule 68 of the Rules of Court.
• Reason:
o Foreclosure follows a separate set of procedural rules and
involves specific legal remedies different from those in ordinary
civil actions.
o The joinder of special and ordinary civil actions is not
allowed under Sec. 5(b), Rule 2 of the Rules of Court.
6. Can an Action for Collection of a Sum of Money Be Joined with an Action for
Forcible Entry or Unlawful Detainer?

Answer: No.

• Legal Basis: Lajave Agricultural Management and Development

Enterprises, Inc. v. Spouses Javellana, G.R. No. 223785, November 7,
2018.
• Reason:
o Collection of a sum of money is an ordinary civil
action requiring a full-blown trial.
o Forcible entry and unlawful detainer are special civil
actions under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, which require
a summary procedure.
o Summary procedures have strict deadlines and limited
pleadings to ensure speedy resolution, which is incompatible with
the lengthy trial process in collection cases.
Key Takeaways (Easy-to-Remember Format)

Joinder
Scenario Why?
Allowed?
Quieting of title is a special civil
Injunction + Quieting of
❌ No action under Rule 63, while injunction
Title
is an ordinary civil action.
Money claim (contract) + Both are ordinary civil actions, so
✅ Yes
Money claim (tort) they can be joined.
Foreclosure + Money Foreclosure is a special civil
❌ No
claims action under Rule 68.
Collection of money + Forcible entry/unlawful detainer
Forcible entry/unlawful ❌ No follows summary procedure, while
detainer collection cases require full trial.

Joinder of Causes of Action When There Are Multiple Parties

1. General Rule: No Joinder of Parties Needed When There Is Only One Plaintiff
and One Defendant

• Explanation:
 o When a case involves only one plaintiff and one defendant,
the joinder of parties rule does not apply.
o Reason: There are no additional parties to join. The only relevant
rule is the joinder of causes of action, which allows multiple claims
in a single case as long as they involve the same plaintiff and
defendant(Sec. 5, Rule 2, Rules of Court).

2. When Does Joinder of Causes of Action Become Subject to Joinder of

Parties?

• Joinder of parties applies when there are:

o Multiple plaintiffs (two or more plaintiffs suing together).
o Multiple defendants (two or more defendants being sued
together).
o Both multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants.
• Legal Basis: Sec. 6, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court
• Key Requirements:
o (a) The right to relief must arise out of the same transaction or
series of transactions
o (b) There must be a question of law or fact common to all
parties
3. Case Example: Central Bank Board of Liquidators v. Banco Filipino Savings
and Mortgage Bank (G.R. No. 173399, February 21, 2017)

• Facts:
o Banco Filipino filed a complaint against multiple government
officials, including the Central Bank Board of Liquidators (CB-
BOL), due to its closure.
o The case involved multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants,
requiring joinder of parties.
• Ruling:
o The Supreme Court upheld that joinder was proper because:
§ The rights to relief arose from the same series of
transactions—the closure and liquidation of Banco Filipino.
§ There were common legal and factual issues among all
parties involved.

Key Takeaways (Easy-to-Remember Format)

Joinder of
Scenario Parties Why?
Applies?
No other parties to join.
One plaintiff, one defendant ❌ No Only joinder of causes of
action applies.
 Joinder of
Scenario Parties Why?
Applies?
Joinder of causes of action
Multiple plaintiffs or multiple
✅ Yes must follow joinder of
defendants
parties rules under Rule 3.
Right to relief arises from the
Required for proper joinder
same transaction + common ✅ Yes
of parties.
legal/factual issues
Claims must be related
Unrelated claims between multiple
❌ No (same transaction +
plaintiffs/defendants
common issues).

Joinder of Causes of Action When There Are Multiple Defendants

1. General Rule: Joinder of Defendants Requires a Common Transaction and a
Common Question of Law or Fact

• Legal Basis: Sec. 6, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court

• General Rule: When suing two or more defendants, the following
conditions must be met:
 o (a) The causes of action must arise from the same transaction
or series of transactions.
o (b) There must be a common question of law or fact.

2. Case 1: No Joinder When Claims Are Separate and Unrelated

• Example:
o C is the creditor of D for ₱350,000.00 (due debt).
o C is also the creditor of E for ₱375,000.00 (due debt).
o These debts were contracted separately and are independent
transactions.
• Can C file one complaint against both D and E?
o No. The debts of D and E are from different transactions and do
not have a common question of law or fact.
o Result: C must file separate complaints—one against D and
another against E.

3. Case 2: Joinder Allowed When Claims Arise from the Same Transaction

• Example:
o P is a passenger on a bus owned by O and driven by D.
o Due to the negligence of D, the bus crashes, injuring P.
o P files a case based on quasi-delict.
 • Can P sue both O (owner) and D (driver) in one case?
o Yes. The claims against O and D arose from the same accident,
fulfilling the two conditions:
§ (a) Same transaction: The bus accident caused by D’s
negligence.
§ (b) Common question of law or fact: The issue of negligence
and liability.
• Legal Basis: Art. 2180, Civil Code of the Philippines
o O, as an employer, may also be sued under quasi-delict for the
negligence of D (Air France v. Carrascoso, 18 SCRA 155).
• Application to Multiple Plaintiffs:
o If two or more passengers were injured in the same accident,
they may join as plaintiffs and sue O and D in the same complaint.

4. Case 3: Joinder in a Joint Obligation Under a Promissory Note

• Example:
o A and B sign a promissory note for ₱1,000,000.00 payable to
C.
o They agree to be jointly liable (not solidary).
o By default (Art. 1208, Civil Code of the Philippines), joint debtors
are liable only for their share unless expressly stated as solidary.
• How Does This Affect Joinder of Actions?
 o If the obligation is joint:
§ A is liable only for ₱500,000.00, and B is liable only
for ₱500,000.00.
§ C may sue A alone or B alone because their debts
are separate and distinct.
o Can C sue both A and B in one case?
§ Yes. The debts arose from the same promissory note,
fulfilling the joinder rules:
§ (a) Same transaction: The execution of the
promissory note.
§ (b) Common question of law or fact: The
interpretation of their obligation under the note.

Key Takeaways (Easy-to-Remember Format)

Can Defendants
Scenario Be Joined in One Why?
Case?
C has separate debts from D
The debts arose from
(₱350,000) and E
❌ No different transactions and
(₱375,000), incurred
have no common issue.
separately.
 Can Defendants
Scenario Be Joined in One Why?
Case?
The liability arose from the
P sues O (bus owner) and D
same accident, with
(driver) for injuries from a ✅ Yes
common legal/factual
single accident.
issues.
Two injured passengers sue Same accident, same
the same driver and bus ✅ Yes defendants, common issue
company. of liability.
Same promissory note,
A and B jointly owe C ₱1M
✅ Yes common legal issue
(₱500K each).
regarding joint liability.

Joinder of Causes of Action Against Multiple Defendants

Question:

May C join A and B under one complaint and thereby join the causes of action
against them?
Answer:

✅ Yes, C may join A and B under one complaint.

Reasoning:

1. Same Transaction:
o The debts of A and B arose from the same promissory note.
o Even if they are jointly liable (not solidary), the obligation still
originates from one document.
2. Common Question of Law or Fact:
o Whether A and B are liable for their respective shares is a common
issue that affects both.
3. Legal Basis:
o Sec. 6, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court (Joinder of Parties)
o Art. 1208, Civil Code of the Philippines (Joint Obligation Rule)

Key Takeaway:

• If multiple defendants owe money under the same contract,

they can be sued in one case because they share a common legal or
factual issue.
Joinder of Claims in Small Claims Cases
Legal Basis:

• Section 8, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC (as amended)

Rule on Joinder of Small Claims:

✅ A plaintiff may join multiple small claims against the same defendant in
one case if:

1. The total amount claimed (excluding interest and costs) does not
exceed the jurisdictional limit of the concerned court.

Example:

• Plaintiff C has two small claims against Defendant D:

o ₱40,000 (for unpaid loan)
o ₱50,000 (for unpaid rent)
• Total = ₱90,000 (which is within the small claims court’s jurisdiction)
✅ C may file a single small claims case against D, consolidating both
claims.

Key Takeaways:

• Joinder is allowed only if the total claim does not exceed the small
claims jurisdictional threshold.
• One defendant, multiple claims ✅
 • Multiple defendants, separate claims ❌ (Joinder of parties is not
allowed in small claims).

4. Conditions for Joinder of Claims

A plaintiff may join claims in a small claims case only if:

1⃣ All claims are for a sum of money (not involving real property, ejectment,
or specific performance).
2⃣ All claims involve the same defendant.
3⃣ The total amount does not exceed the jurisdictional limit.

👉 Example of Improper Joinder:

• C wants to join an ejectment case against D along with a monetary

claim.
❌ Not allowed.
🚫 Ejectment cases follow different procedural rules and cannot be
joined with small claims

Jurisdictional Limits in Small Claims Cases

✅ Jurisdictional threshold: The maximum amount of money that can be

claimed in a small claims case.

• As of the latest Supreme Court amendments (subject to updates), the

small claims jurisdictional limit is:
 o ₱400,000 (for Metropolitan Trial Courts in Metro Manila).
o ₱300,000 (for other courts outside Metro Manila).
🔹 If the total amount claimed exceeds these limits, the
plaintiff cannot file a small claims case.

👉 Example of when Joinder is NOT Allowed:

• C has two separate claims against D:

o ₱300,000 (unpaid debt).
o ₱200,000 (damages from breach of contract).
• Total: ₱500,000 ❌ Exceeds the jurisdictional threshold
🚫 C cannot file a small claims case and must instead file a regular
civil case.

Conditions for Joinder of Claims

A plaintiff may join claims in a small claims case only if:

1⃣ All claims are for a sum of money (not involving real property, ejectment,
or specific performance).
2⃣ All claims involve the same defendant.
3⃣ The total amount does not exceed the jurisdictional limit.

👉 Example of Improper Joinder:

 • C wants to join an ejectment case against D along with a monetary
claim.
❌ Not allowed.
🚫 Ejectment cases follow different procedural rules and cannot be
joined with small claims.

Effect of Joinder of Claims

✅ Advantages of Joinder:

• Saves time, effort, and expenses by combining claims into one case.
• Prevents multiplicity of suits.
• Ensures efficient resolution of related claims.

🚫 Consequences of Improper Joinder:

• If the total claim exceeds the jurisdictional limit, the court may dismiss
the case.
• If one of the claims does not qualify for small claims, the court may
require a separate filing.

6. Key Takeaways

🔹 Joinder of claims is allowed in small claims cases, but:

 • Only against the same defendant.
• Total amount must be within the court’s jurisdiction.
• Must be for money claims only (not ejectment, foreclosure, etc.).
• If the claims exceed the jurisdictional amount, the plaintiff must file
separately.

Remedy in Case of Misjoinder of Causes of Action

Legal Basis

• Section 6, Rule 2, Rules of Court explicitly states that misjoinder of

causes of action is not a ground for dismissal of an action.
• Instead of dismissing the entire case, the misjoined cause of action may
be severed and proceeded with separately, either:
o Upon motion of a party (a party requests the court to sever the
misjoined cause of action); or
o On the court’s own initiative (motu proprio) (the court itself
decides to separate the misjoined cause of action).

1. Understanding Misjoinder of Causes of Action

👉 Misjoinder occurs when causes of action are improperly joined in a single

complaint because they do not meet the requirements for joinder under the
Rules of Court.
🔹 Joinder of causes of action is improper when:

• The causes of action do not arise from the same transaction or series
of transactions.
• There is no common question of law or fact among the claims.
• One cause of action is a special civil action, while the others
are ordinary civil actions, making them procedurally incompatible.

✅ Effect of Misjoinder:

• The entire complaint is not dismissed.

• The misjoined cause of action is merely separated and filed as a new
case.

2. Illustration of Misjoinder and Its Remedy

Example 1: Forcible Entry and Money Claims

• C files a complaint against D, containing the following causes of action:

1⃣ Forcible entry (a special civil action under Rule 70 of the Rules of
Court).
2⃣ Collection of unpaid debts based on several promissory notes (an
ordinary civil action).

❌ Misjoinder:
 • Forcible entry follows summary procedure, while money claims require
a full-blown trial.
• Different procedural rules apply, so they cannot be joined in one
complaint.

✅ Proper Remedy:

• The court does not dismiss the complaint.

• Instead, the court severs the forcible entry claim and orders it to be
filed as a separate action.
• The money claim proceeds in the original case.

Example 2: Combining a Breach of Contract with an Unlawful Detainer Case

• A landlord (C) sues his tenant (D) in a single complaint for:

1⃣ Unlawful detainer (a special civil action under Rule 70).
2⃣ Damages for breach of contract (an ordinary civil action).

❌ Misjoinder:

• Unlawful detainer follows summary procedure, while breach of

contract requires a full-blown trial.
• Different procedural rules make joinder improper.

✅ Proper Remedy:
 • The court does not dismiss the case.
• The court separates the unlawful detainer claim and requires it to be
filed as a new case.
• The breach of contract case remains in the original complaint.

3. Procedure for Severance of a Misjoined Cause of Action

1⃣ Motion by a Party

• A defendant or plaintiff files a motion asking the court to sever the

misjoined cause of action.
• The motion must specify why the causes of action should not be
joined based on procedural rules.

2⃣ Court’s Own Initiative (Motu Proprio)

• Even without a motion, the court can act on its own if it determines
that the causes of action are misjoined.
• The court issues an order severing the misjoined claim and requiring it
to be filed separately.

3⃣ Severed Case is Filed Separately

• The severed cause of action does not get dismissed but is re-docketed
as a new case.
• It is now prosecuted independently from the original case.
4. Key Takeaways

🔹 Misjoinder of causes of action is NOT a ground for dismissal.

🔹 Instead, the misjoined cause of action is severed and filed separately.
🔹 The severance can be done upon motion of a party or by the court’s own
initiative.
🔹 Different types of actions (e.g., special civil actions vs. ordinary civil
actions) cannot be joined.
🔹 If the misjoinder is procedural, the proper remedy is severance, NOT
dismissal.

1. General Rule: Misjoinder is Not a Ground for Dismissal

Under Section 6, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court, misjoinder of causes of action

is not a ground for dismissal of the entire complaint. Instead, the misjoined
cause of action should be severed and proceeded with separately.

However, this rule presumes that the plaintiff will comply with the court’s
order to sever the misjoined cause of action. If the plaintiff refuses or fails to
comply with such an order, the complaint may be dismissed under another
rule of procedure.
2. Exception: Dismissal for Failure to Comply with a Court Order

If the court orders the plaintiff to sever the misjoined cause of action and
the plaintiff refuses or fails to do so, the complaint may be dismissed
under Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court.

👉 Section 3, Rule 17 states that:

"If the plaintiff fails to comply with any order of the court, the complaint may
be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court’s own motion."

Thus, the refusal to sever a misjoined cause of action violates a lawful court
order, which justifies the dismissal of the complaint.

✅ Legal Basis:

• Salvador v. Patricia, Inc., G.R. No. 195834, November 9,

2016 confirmed that when a plaintiff fails to obey a court’s order to
sever improperly joined causes of action, the entire case may be
dismissed.
3. Illustration: Effect of Refusing to Sever a Misjoined Cause of Action
Example 1: Unlawful Detainer and Collection of Money

• C files a single complaint against D for:

1⃣ Unlawful detainer (a special civil action).
2⃣ Collection of debt (an ordinary civil action).
• The court orders the severance of the unlawful detainer case since it
cannot be joined with an ordinary money claim.
• Scenario 1: Plaintiff Complies
o The unlawful detainer case is filed separately.
o The collection case proceeds in the original complaint.
o ✅ No issue arises.
• Scenario 2: Plaintiff Refuses to Comply
o The plaintiff does not refile the unlawful detainer case separately.
o The defendant moves to dismiss the case for non-compliance
with the court’s order.
o The court grants the motion and dismisses the entire complaint.
o ❌ Plaintiff loses both claims due to non-compliance.

Example 2: Breach of Contract and Foreclosure of Mortgage

• C sues D for:
1⃣ Breach of contract (ordinary civil action).
2⃣ Foreclosure of mortgage (a special civil action).
 • The court orders severance because foreclosure is a special civil action
that must follow different rules.
• If C refuses to comply, the entire complaint may be
dismissed under Rule 17, Section 3.

4. Key Takeaways

🔹 Misjoinder of causes of action is NOT a ground for automatic dismissal.

🔹 However, refusal to follow a court order to sever a misjoined cause of
action CAN result in dismissal.
🔹 Dismissal is based on Rule 17, Section 3 (Failure to comply with a court
order).
🔹 Salvador v. Patricia, Inc. (2016) affirms this principle.

What Does “Sever” Mean in Misjoinder of Causes of Action?

👉 To sever a misjoined cause of action means to separate the improperly

joined claim from the original complaint so that it can be filed and tried
separately.

💡 Key Concept: The court does not dismiss the entire case due to
misjoinder. Instead, it removes the improperly joined cause of action and allows
the rest of the case to proceed.
Example: Severance in Action
Scenario 1: Proper Severance

• Plaintiff C files a complaint against Defendant D for:

1⃣ Collection of money (P1M) based on a promissory note (ordinary
civil action).
2⃣ Foreclosure of mortgage on a property (special civil action).
• The court finds that foreclosure of mortgage cannot be joined with an
ordinary collection case.
• The court orders severance:
o ✅ The collection case proceeds in the original complaint.
o ✅ The foreclosure case must be filed separately.

✔ Result: C complies, files a new case for foreclosure, and both claims are
resolved separately.

Scenario 2: Refusal to Sever

• C refuses to file the foreclosure case separately despite the court’s

order.
• The court dismisses the entire complaint based on Rule 17, Section
3 (failure to comply with a court order).
• ❌ C loses both claims due to non-compliance.
Legal Basis for Severance

✔ Section 6, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court:

“A misjoined cause of action may, on motion of a party or on the initiative of

the court, be severed and proceeded with separately.”

✔ Salvador v. Patricia, Inc. (2016):

If a plaintiff fails to comply with a court order to sever, the complaint may be
dismissed under Rule 17, Section 3.

Key Takeaways

✅ Severance means separating a misjoined cause of action and filing it as a

separate case.
✅ Misjoinder does not automatically dismiss a case, but refusal to sever
can lead to dismissal.
✅ Following the court’s order allows both claims to be resolved separately.