Rule 3: PARTIES TO

CIVIL ACTIONS

Juvi M. Cruz
Two Main Categories
• Plaintiff – claiming party or more
appropriately, original claiming party and
one who files the complaint or party
claiming in a counterclaim, etc.
• Defendant – party against whom there is a
claim
Who may be parties:
1. Natural persons
2. Juridical person
a. State and its political subdivisions
b. Other corporations, institutions and entities for
public interest or purpose, created by law; and
c. Corporation, partnerships and associations for
private interest or purpose to which the law grants a
juridical personality, separate and distinct from that
of each shareholder, partner or member
3. Entities authorized by law:
a. Corporation by estoppel
b. Contract of partnership
having a capital of
P3T or more
c. Estate of a deceased
person
d. A legitimate labor
organization may sue and be
sued in its registered name
e. Roman Catholic Church
properties, the archbishop or
diocese to which they belong
f. Dissolved corporation
may prosecute and defend
suits by or against it provided
that the suits;
* Occur within 3 years
after its dissolution; and
• Suits are in connection
with the settlement and
closure of its affairs
 ACTION IF THE PARTY IMPLEADED IS NOT
AUTHORIZED TO BE A PARTY
A motion to dismiss may be filed based on either of
the following grounds:
1. Plaintiff not authorized – the ground “the
plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue”
2. Defendant not authorized – the ground that
the “pleading asserting a claim states no cause of
action” because a complaint cannot possibly state a
cause of action against one who cannot be a party to a
civil action.
 LACK OF LEGAL CAPACITY TO SUE vs LACK OF
PERSONALITY TO SUE
Lack of Legal Capacity to Sue Lack of Legal Personality to
Sue
It refers to plaintiff’s general The plaintiff is not the real
disability to sue such as on party in interest (Columbia
account of minority, insanity, Pictures, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No.
incompetence, lack of juridical 110318, August 28, 1996).
personality or any other
general disqualifications of a
party (Columbia Pictures, Inc. v.
CA, G.R. No. 110318, August
28, 1996).
RULE ON SPOUSES AS PARTIES (Sec 4)

• Suit by or XPN:
• cases provided by
against law
spouses – ( eg. exclusive
property of a sps)
GR: sue and be Liability of the
spouse to creditors
sued jointly. for family expenses
shall however, be
 PARTIES; REPRESENTATIVES AS PARTIES;
NECESSARY PARTIES; INDIGENT PARTIES;
ALTERNATIVE DEFENDANTS
Kinds of parties in a civil action
1. Real parties in interest;
2. Indispensable parties;
3. Representatives as parties;
4. Necessary parties;
5. Indigent parties;
6. Pro-forma parties.
 Real party in interest
• He is the party who stands to be: (BIE)
1. Benefited;
2. Injured by the judgment in the suit; or
3. The party entitled to the avails of the suit (Sec. 2, Rule
3).
NOTE: To be a real party-in-interest, the interest must be
‘real,’ which is a present substantial interest as distinguished from
a mere expectancy or a future, contingent subordinate or
consequential interest
Indispensable party (Sec 7)
Tests to determine
whether a party is an
indispensable party
• Those without whom 1.Can relief be afforded
no final to the plaintiff without
determination can be the presence of the
had of an action (Sec. other party?
7, Rule 3). 2. Can the case be
decided on its merits
without prejudicing the
rights of the other
 Effect of failure to join an indispensable
party
• However, an outright dismissal is not
• The presence of indispensable the immediate remedy authorized
parties is a condition for the because, under the Rules,
exercise of juridical power and misjoinder/non-joinder of parties is
NOT a ground for dismissal. It is
when an indispensable party is
when the order of the court to
not before the court, the action implead an indispensable party goes
should be dismissed (Riano, unheeded may the case be
2014, citing Lucman v. Malawi, dismissed.
G.R. No. 159794, December 19, • In such case, the court may
2006). dismiss the complaint due to the
fault of the plaintiff as when he
does not comply with any order
of the court (Sec. 3, Rule 17) ¸
such as an order to join
Necessary party (Sec 8)

• Those who are not indispensable but ought to

be joined as parties:
1. If complete relief is to be accorded to
those already parties; or
2. For a complete determination or
settlement of the claim subject of the action
Indispensable party vs. Necessary party
Indispensable party (IP) Necessary party (NP)

Indispensable parties must be Necessary parties must be

joined added whenever possible.
Mandatory Permissive
Interest in subject matter is Interest in subject matter is
inseparable separable
Joined for case to proceed Joined to afford complete
and for case not to be relief to already parties and
dismissed. avoid multiple suit.
If not joined ALL court actions If not joined, court may
are null and void decide and decision is without
prejudice to the rights of
Joint Obligation - CR may sue either or both for their share.
- Each DR is necessary party to each other’s case
filed by CR against either.
Solidary Obligation - CR may sue against either or both for the
whole.
- Each DR is not indispensable party to each
other’s case filed by CR against either.
- Solidarity does not make solidary obligor IP in
a suit filed by CR.
A owes B price of car. - If B files, C and A are IPs.
C substituted A. - Ratio: B would have right to foreclose or
No novation. reposses car without establishing that default
B did not consent. of A unless the obligation of A to B was
C failed to pay car. assigned to C with the consent of B thereby
Foreclosure/ replevin novating the obligation
Property pendente lite Transferee not IP because he is bound by any
judgement.
Person in office IP in a case challenging his right to office
Reconveyance of property Person against whom reconveyance is asserted if
NOTE:
• The non-joinder of an indispensable or a necessary
party is not by itself ipso facto a ground for the
dismissal of the action.
• The court should order the joinder of such party and
non-compliance with the said order would be a
ground for the dismissal of the action (Feria &
Noche, 2013).
• The dismissal, which may be made by the court
Effect of non-joinder of a necessary
party (Sec 9)

1. The court may order the inclusion of the omitted

necessary party if jurisdiction over his person may be
obtained;
2. The failure to comply with the order for his inclusion,
without justifiable cause, shall be deemed a waiver of
the claim against such party;
3. The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not
prevent the court from proceeding in the action, and
the judgment rendered therein shall be without
 Effect of non-joinder of a necessary
party (Examples)
• “A” and “B” are the signatories to a promissory
note which reads: “We promise to pay to the
order of‘C’ PI million on February 27, 2009.” On
the due date of the obligation, the creditors
failed to pay despite demand.
(a) May “C” sue “A” alone?
• Answer. “C” may sue “A” alone.
• The cause of action against “A” is separate and distinct from
the cause of action against “B.”
• The tenor of the note discloses merely a joint obligation. In a
joint obligation the credit or debt shall be divided into as
many equal shares as there are creditors and debtors, the
credits or debts being considered distinct from each other
(Art. 1208, Civil Code of the Philippines).
• Being debtors in a joint obligation, the debtors then are
liable separately for P500,000 each.
(b) Is “A” in a suit by “C” against him a
necessary or an indispensable party?
(b) Is “A” in a suit by “C” against him a necessary or an
indispensable party?

• Answer: “A” is an indispensable party.

Without him being impleaded as
defendant, “C” cannot collect the
P500,000 share of “A.”
• Without “A” there cannot be a final
determination of the case against him.
(c) In the suit by “C” against “A” is “B” a necessary
or an indispensable party?
(c) In the suit by “C” against “A” is “B” a necessary or an
indispensable party?

• Answer: “B” is not an indispensable party.

• “C” can collect from “A” P500,000 without
impleading “B.”
• He is only a necessary party because without
“B” being made a party to the action, “C”
cannot have a complete relief, i.e., he cannot
collect his entire credit of PI million.
• If he desires a complete recovery, “B” must be
Suing a defendant in the alternative
(Sec 13)

• Where the plaintiff is uncertain against who of

several persons he is entitled to relief, he may
join any or all of them in the alternative,
although a right to relief against one may be
inconsistent with a right to relief against the
other (Sec. 13, Rule 3)
 Suing a defendant in the alternative
(Examples)
1. Assume that Mr. X, a
pedestrian was injured in
the collision of two
vehicles.
• He suffered injuries but
does not know with
certainty which vehicle
caused the mishap.
• What should Mr. X do if
he wants to sue?
 Suing a defendant in the alternative
(Examples)
1. Assume that Mr. X, a • Answer:
pedestrian was injured in
the collision of two He should sue the
vehicles. vehicle
• He suffered injuries but drivers/owners in
does not know with the alternative.
certainty which vehicle
caused the mishap.
• What should Mr. X do if
he wants to sue?
2. P sent some goods to D
pursuant to a contract.
The goods were delivered
to E, the known agent of
D. D did not pay P.
D contends that he has
not received the goods. P
claims otherwise and
insists that D had received
the goods.
• Should P sue D or
2. P sent some goods to D
pursuant to a contract. • Answer:
The goods were delivered
to E, the known agent of
P should sue both
D. D did not pay P. but in the
D contends that he has alternative.
not received the goods. P
claims otherwise and
insists that D had received
the goods.
• Should P sue D or
 Action prosecuted in the name of the
real party in interest
• Every action must be prosecuted and defended
in the name of the real party-in-interest (Sec. 2,
Rule 3).
• Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted or
defended by a representative party or someone
acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary
shall be included in the title of the case and shall
be deemed to be a real party-in-interest (Sec.3,
Rule 3).
• NOTE: An agent acting in his own name and for the
 Rule when the defendant’s name or
identity is unknown (Sec 14)

• He may be sued as the unknown owner,

heir, devisee, or by such other designation
as the case may require.
• However, when his identity or true name is
discovered, the pleading must be
amended accordingly (Sec. 14, Rule 3).
Indigent party (Sec 21)
They are those:
1. Whose gross income and that of their immediate
family do not exceed an amount double the monthly
minimum wage of an employee; and
2. Who do not own real property with a fair market
value as stated in the current tax declaration of more
than Php 300,000.00 shall be exempt from the
payment of legal fees (Sec. 19, Rule 141 as amended
by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC).
Rule on indigent litigants

• If the applicant for exemption meets the salary and property

requirements under Sec. 19, Rule 141, then the grant of the application
is mandatory
• However, if the trial court finds that one or both requirements have
not been met, then it would set a hearing to enable the applicant to
prove that the applicant has “no money or property sufficient and
available for food, shelter and basic necessities for himself and his
family”, as provided in Sec. 21, Rule 3. In that hearing, the adverse
party may adduce countervailing evidence to disprove the evidence
presented by the applicant; after which the trial court will rule on the
application depending on the evidence adduced.
• In addition, Sec. 21, Rule 3 also provides that the adverse party may
Exemption from fees

Authority as an indigent party includes an

exemption from the payment of:
1. Docket fees and other lawful fees;
2. Transcript of stenographic notes (Sec. 21, Rule
3).
• NOTE: The amount of the docket and other lawful
fees which the indigent was exempted from paying
shall be a lien on any judgment rendered in the
 Pro forma party Quasi party

• One who is joined as a • Those in whose behalf a

plaintiff or defendant, not class or representative
because such party has
any real interest in the suit is brought.
subject matter or because
any relief is demanded,
but merely because the
technical rules of
pleadings require the
presence of such party on
Unwilling co-plaintiff (Sec 10)

• A party who is supposed to be a plaintiff

but whose consent to be joined cannot be
obtained, as when he refuses to be a party
to the action. Under the Rules, he may be
made a defendant, and the reasons
therefor shall be stated in the complaint
(Sec. 10, Rule 3).
 COMPULSORY AND PERMISSIVE
JOINDER OF PARTIES
• Compulsory joinder of parties
The joinder of parties becomes compulsory when the one
involved is an indispensable party. Clearly, the rule directs a
compulsory joinder of indispensable parties (Riano, 2014) (2009
Bar).
• NOTE: The presence of all indispensable parties is a condition sine qua
non for the exercise of judicial power. It is precisely when an
indispensable party is not before the court that the action should be
dismissed. Thus, the plaintiff is mandated to implead all the
indispensable parties, considering that the absence of one such party
renders all subsequent action of the court null and void for want of
authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those
present. One who is a party to a case is not bound by any decision of
the court; otherwise, he will be deprived of his right to due process
Requisites of permissive joinder of
parties

1. Right to relief arises out of the same

transaction or series of transactions (connected
with the same subject matter of the suit); and
2. There is a question of law or fact common to
all the plaintiffs or defendants (2002 Bar).
• NOTE: There is a question of law in a given case
when the doubt or difference arises as to what the
law is on a certain state of facts; there is a question
of fact when doubt arises as to the truth or the
Rationale of permissive joinder of
parties

• The purpose and aim of the principle is to have

controversies and the matters directly related thereto
settled once and for all once they are brought to the
courts for determination.
• Litigation is costly both to litigants and to the State,
and the objective of procedure is to limit its number
or extent.
• In consonance with the above principle, we have the
rules against multiplicity of suits, the rule of estoppel
MISJOINDER AND NON-JOINDER OF
PARTIES (Sec 11)

Misjoinder Non
• Neither is a ground for
dismissal of an action Joinder
• Becomes ground for Person Party is not
dismissal if court orders to made a joined
drop/ joint but parties do party to the when he is
not follow (Sec3, Rule 17,
Roc) action supposed
• Rule presupposes that although he to be joined
original inclusion or non- should not but is not
inclusion had been made in be impleaded.
Q: S filed a complaint
against W for cancellation
of title. W moved to
dismiss the complaint
because G, to whom he
mortgaged the property
as duly annotated in the
TCT, was not impleaded as
defendant.
Q: S filed a complaint A: a.) NO, the complaint
against W for cancellation should not be dismissed.
of title. W moved to • The Supreme Court has
dismiss the complaint held that non-joinder of
an indispensable party is
because G, to whom he not a ground of a motion
mortgaged the property to dismiss. Here although
as duly annotated in the Grieg, the registered
mortgagee, is an
TCT, was not impleaded as indispensable party, his
defendant. non-joinder does not
warrant the dismissal of
 b.) If the case
should proceed to
trial without G being
impleaded as a party
to the case, what is
his remedy to
protect his interest?
 b.) If the case A: b.) The remedy of G is
to file a motion for leave
should proceed to
to intervene.
trial without G being • Under Rule 19, a person
impleaded as a party who has a legal interest in
the matter in litigation
to the case, what is may intervene in the
action.
his remedy to • Here G is a mortgagee and
protect his interest? such fact was annotated in
the title. Hence, he has a
legal interest in the title
 CLASS SUIT (Sec 12)
• An action where one or more may sue for the benefit of all if
the requisites for said action are complied with.
• Requisites:
a) subject matter: common or general interest to many
persons
-not commonality in the questions of facts or law
involved in the issue. But commonality in the subject matter (
physical things, personal/ real)
b) persons- too numerous that it is impracticable to join
all as parties
c) parties actually before the court are sufficiently
• No class suit:
* residents of a town where injured by gas leak of a plant.
* relatives of victims of a plane crash
* interests are conflicting
* corporation to recover property of its members, owned in their
personal capacity.
* recovery of portions of a property, as each could allege and prove
their respective rights. No identical title. - recover real property
individually held.

*damages for personal reputation ( libelous article against

individual sugar planters)
SUITS AGAINST ENTITIES WITHOUT
JURIDICAL PERSONALITY (Sec 15)
• When two or more persons not organized as
an entity with juridical personality enter into a
transaction, they may be sued under the name
by which they are generally or commonly
known. In the answer of such defendant, the
names and addresses of the persons
composing said entity must all be revealed
(Sec. 15, Rule 3).
• NOTE: Persons associated in an entity without juridical
 EFFECT OF DEATH OF PARTY-LITIGANT
(Sec 16)
• Effect of the death of a party upon a pending action
1. Purely personal action – the death of either of the parties
extinguishes the claim and the action is dismissed.
2. Action that is not purely personal – claim is not extinguished
and the party should be substituted by his heirs, executor or
administrator. In case of minor heirs, the court may appoint a
guardian ad litem for them.
3. Action for recovery of money arising from contract and the
defendant dies before entry of final judgment – it shall not be
dismissed but shall instead be allowed to continue until entry
of judgment. A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff
NOTE:
• The substitute defendant need not be summoned.
The order of substitution shall be served upon the
parties substituted for the court to acquire
jurisdiction over the substitute party (Riano, 2014).
• If there is notice of death, the court should await
the appointment of legal representative;
otherwise, subsequent proceedings are void
 Claims that survive vs. claims that do
not survive
Claims that survive Claims that do NOT survive
1. Recovery of contractual money /claims (oral 1. Purely Personal (e.g. Legal Separation);
or written)
2. Performance that cannot be purely
2. Recovery/protection of property rights; delegated;

3. Recovery of real or personal property or 3. Claim that cannot be instituted by

interest; executor or administrator.

4. Enforcement of lien;

5. Recovery of damages for an injury to person

or property and suits by reason of the alleged
tortuous acts of the
Purpose of non-survival of claims

• The reason for the dismissal of the case is

that upon the death of the defendant a
testate or intestate proceeding shall be
instituted in the proper court wherein all
his creditors must appear and file their
claims which shall be paid proportionately
out of the property left by the deceased (1
Moran, 1979).
 Death of client If claim survives
death
court shall order
legal rep of the
• extinguishes the atty-client
deceased to
relationship.
appear and be
• dead client has no personality, substituted for the
cannot be represented by lawyer deceased within 30
days from notice.
• does not automatically be lawyers
If does not survive extinguish the
of heirs UNLESS hired.
action. Dismiss
• Duty of counsel: inform court case
within 30 days after such death. If no heirs court to appoint
• Mandatory. Failure to comply: ground executor/admin
for disciplinary action. administrator.
• Effect on case: court shall If heirs are minors court to appoint
determine if such claim is or incapacitated guardian ad litem
Substitution of dead litigant:

• Question: may
opposing party
procure
appointment of
an executor/
administrator for
estate of
Substitution of dead litigant:

• Question: may • Answer: Yes. In 2

opposing party situations,
1) counsel for the
procure deceased does not
appointment of name a leg rep
an executor/ 2) there is a rep named
administrator for but he fails to appear
within the specified
estate of period
Substitution of dead litigant:
• Present rule: heirs do not need to first secure appointment
because from the moment of death, they step into the shoes
of the deceased. Said heirs may elect among them
• Service of summons is not required to effect a substitution.
Instead, court orders their appearance. - What effects
substitution: order of substitution and its service
• Non-compliance: no jurisdiction over the person of the leg rep of
heirs of the deceased. Trial infirm.
• But in ejection proceeding- failure to inform court, does not
deprive court of jurisdiction.
• Decision in such is binding parties/ heirs/ defendant

• Formal substitution is not necessary when heirs themselves

voluntary appeared in the action, participated therein and
 DISTINCTION BETWEEN REAL PARTY IN
INTEREST AND LOCUS STANDI
• Doctrine of locus standi
• This doctrine requires a litigant to have a material interest in the outcome of the case.
• Since the rule is a mere procedural technicality, the Court has waived or relaxed the
rule, allowing persons who may not have been personally injured by the operation of a
law or a governmental act.
• The Court has laid out the bare minimum norm to extend the standing to sue to the
“nontraditional suiters” as such:

1. Taxpayers – there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds, or that

the tax measure is unconstitutional;

2. Voters – there must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the law in
question;

3. Concerned citizens – there must be a showing that the issues raised are of
transcendental importance, which must be settled early; and

4. Legislators – there must be a claim that the official action complained of infringes
 Real Party in Interest vs. Locus Standi
Real Party in Interest Locus Standi
A party that: Right of appearance in a court of justice on
1. Stands to be benefited or injured by a given question
the judgment in the suit; or
2. The party entitled to the avails of the
suit (Sec. 2, Rule 3).
The interest must be ‘real’, which is a The one who sues must show that he has
present substantial interest, as sustained injury or will sustain a direct
distinguished from a mere expectancy or a injury as a result of a government action,
future, contingent subordinate, or or has a material interest in the issue
consequential interest. (Rayo v. Metrobank,affected by the challenged official act
G.R. No. 165142, December 10, 2007) (Funa v. Agra, G.R. No. 191644, February
19, 2013).
Unless otherwise authorized by law or by Significant in cases involving questions of
the Rules, every action must be prosecuted constitutionality, because it is one of the