UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN

MINDANAO (USM)
First Year Law, Section B
2022-2023

CIVIL PROCEDURE I
Rules 3 and 4
 Rule 3
Parties to Civil Actions
Sec. 1. Who may be parties; plaintiff and defendant.
- Only natural or juridical persons, or entities
authorized by law may be parties in a civil action.
The term “plaintiff” may refer to the claiming
party, the counter-claimant, the cross-claimant, or
the third (fourth, etc.)-party plaintiff. The term
“defendant” may refer to the original defending
party, the defendant in a counterclaim, the cross-
defendant, or other third (fourth, etc.)-party
defendant.
-natural
-juridical
-entities authorized by law (Estate).
-Berman Memorial v. Chong, 458 SCRA 112[ 2005]
Berman Memorial Park, Inc. (BMPI), was the party to the
disputed contract. Plaintiff filed the case against Iloilo
Memorial Park (IMP), the business name. Ground for dismissal?
(lack of legal capacity to sue or be sued, waived if not raised in
the answer or motion to dismiss) (formal defect)
Suits against the Estate:

Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos, Petitioner,

versus, Republic of the Philippines, G.R.
No. 213027, Jan. 18, 2017
Bar Question, 2020 & 2021:
7. Can dolphins be plaintiffs in a suit to enjoin a
land reclamation that will affect a biodiverse coral
reef? Explain briefly.
Resident Marine Mamals v. Secretary, 756 SCRA 513
(2015)
Do animals, like Toothed Whales, Dolphines,
Porpoises and other Cetacan Species, represented and
joined in by stewards who are human beings, have
standing to sue in environmental cases to restrain the
exploration, development and exploitation of
petroleum resources that threaten their existence?
How is locus standi (standing) distinguished from real
party in interest?
1. Standing applies to cases challenging the
constitutionality of a law; whereas real party in
interest applies to civil law litigation
2. The Supreme Court can liberalize the issue of
standing, but real party in interest is always given a
strict construction. [Salonga v. Morato, G.R. No.
118910, Nov. 16, 1995]
[Standing- “he has sustained or is in immediate
danger some direct injury as a result of its
enforcement.”
Immunity from Suit: (Will not be
discussed, except:)
1. If an entity is immune from suit,
what will be its ground to have it
dismissed? (lack of cause of action or
lack of jurisdiction?)
2. Can an entity or a person enjoying
immunity file a suit?
Sec. 2. Parties in interest. - A real party in
interest is the party who stands to be
benefited or injured by the judgment in the
suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the
suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or
these Rules, every action must be
prosecuted or defended in the name of the
real party in interest. (2a)
Republic v. Agunosy, 4451 SCRA 735 (2005)
A piece of land was subject to an application for registration by the
hairs of Perez which later on was adjudicated to them by court.
Even if the decision has become final, Agunoy was able to
obtain a patent in his name from the Bureau of Lands. Said
land is therefore private property. Can the Republic file a case
to declare Agunoy’s title null and void on the ground that it
misled the Bureau of Lands?
Held: No. the Republic is not the real party in interest. The real
party in interest are the heirs of Perez. Even of the Republic
wins, the real beneficiary will not be the Republic since the land
is no loner part of the public domain. It would not result in
reversion of the land to the mass of public domain. Thus, the
Republic, not being the real party in interest, is without
personality to institute reversion proceedings.
Caro v. Sucaldito, 458 SCRA 595 (2005)
May an applicant for free patent that was awarded to
another file an action file an action for annulment of
free patent before the RTC?
Held: No. Since the applicant is a mere applicant for
free patent and not the owner of the property, he
cannot be considered a ral party in interest with
personality to file the action. The proper party to
bring the action is the government, to which the
property would revert.
 
Sec. 3.  Representatives as parties. -
Where the action is allowed to be
prosecuted or defended by a representative
or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity,
the beneficiary shall be included in the title
of the case and shall be deemed to be the
real party in interest.
A Cont…A representative may be a trustee
of an express trust, a guardian, an executor
or administrator, or a party authorized by
law or these Rules. An agent acting in his
own name and for the benefit of an
undisclosed principal may sue or be sued
without joining the principal except when
the contract involves things belonging to
the principal. (3a)
Wrong:
X, as Attorney-in-Fact for A, plaintiff versus Y, defendant

Correct:_____________
A, represented by his
Attorney-in-Fact X,
Plaintiff,
-versus-
YYYYYYYYYYYYY,
Defendant.
____________________
1998 Bar, No. 4 (a):
A complaint entitled “A, as Attorney-in-Fact
for X, Plaintiff, was filed to recover a car in
the possession of B. A’s Power of Attorney
expressly authorized him (A) to sue for the
recovery of the car.
B files a Motion to Dismiss the complaint
for lack of capacity to sue.
Decide the motion.
Rule: Agents are not real parties in
interest and cannot sue or be sued in
their own names. Exception:
When can an agent sue or be sued?
1. He transacts in his own name
2. He does not disclose his principal
3. Contract involves things not
belonging to the principal
Pascual v. Pascual, 475 SCRA 268, [2005]
Where plaintiff resides abroad but his attorney-in-
fact who filed the case resides in the barangay where
defendant also resides, must the dispute be referred
to the Lupon for conciliation?
Held: No. The real party in interest, the plaintiff, is
not an actual resident of the municipality or city
where defendant resides. The Lupon has no
jurisdiction over the dispute. The attorney in fact is
not the real party in interest. Hence, prior referral to
the Lupon is not a pre-condition for the filing of the
suit.
What is the status of a complaint filed by a representative without a written authority from the
real party in interest?
Palmiano-Salvador v. Angeles, 679 SCRA 561 (2012)
Angeles, through one Rosario Diaz, filed a complaint for ejectment with the
Metropolitan Trial Court [MeTC] of Manila. However, Diaz attached no document in the
complaint to prove his allegation that he was the attorney-in fact of plaintiff. It was only in
the Position Paper where Diaz attached an SPA executed more than a month after the
complaint was filed, appearing to have been notarized by one Robert F. McGuire of Santa
Clara County. There was no certification from the Philippine Consulate General in San
Francisco, California, U.S.A, that said person is indeed a notary public in Santa Clara
County, California. What is the effect if the alleged attorney-in-fact cannot prove that he
had been authorized by his principal to initiate the action?
Held: If a complaint is filed for and in behalf of the plaintiff by one who is not authorized
to do so, the complaint is not deemed filed. An unauthorized complaint does not produce
any legal effect. In order for the court to have authority to dispose of the case on the
merits, it must acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. Courts acquire
jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the filing of the complaint, and to be bound by a
decision, a party should first be subjected to the court's jurisdiction. Hence, the court
should dismiss the complaint on the ground that it has no jurisdiction over the complaint
and the plaintiff.
Manila International Airport v. Rivera Village, 471 SCRA
358, September 30, 2005
May a homeowners’ association, represented by its
President, upon authority of a Board Resolution, file
a suit as representative of its members for the
acquisition of a piece of land from the government?
Held: Yes. It is permitted by Rule 3, Sec. 3. The
President is suing in a representative capacity.
However, the complaint must be amended to reflect
the individual members of the beneficiaries who are
real parties in interest in the title and the averments
in the body. (Disclose the principals) (individual
interest in lots)
Suit by or against heirs:

Usual and Correct:

Heirs of Juan de la Cruz, namely X, Y and
Z, represented by Z,
Plaintiffs,
-versus-

A, B, C, and D,
Defendants
Problematic:
A, B, C, and D.
Plaintiffs,

-versus-
Juan de la Cruz, Pedro Dela Cruz and the
Heirs of Alfredo de la Cruz,
Defendants.
Problematic:
A, B, C, and D,
Plaintiffs,

-versus-

Heirs of Pedro Santos, represented by

John Santos,
Defendants.
 Sec. 4. Spouses as parties. - Husband and
wife shall sue or be sued jointly, except as
provided by law. (4a)
-Suit pertains to her exclusive property
(Art. 111)
-Complete separation of property regime
(Art. 144)
-Judicially decreed legal separation. (Art.
63)
Carandang v. Heirs of De Guzman, 508 SCRA 469
(2006)
Money loaned came from the joint checking account
of spouses, but only husband sued. Must it be
dismissed?
Pro-forma parties. Apply Section 11.
“a nominal or pro forma party is one who is joined as
a plaintiff or defendant, not because such party has
any real interest in the subject matter or because any
relief is demanded, but merely because the technical
rules of pleadings require the presence of such party
on the record”
Sec. 5. Minor or incompetent persons. - A minor or a person
alleged to be incompetent, may sue or be sued, with the
assistance of his father, mother, guardian, or if he has
none, a guardian ad litem. (5a)
-Who is the real party in interest?
-If he injures you, can you sue him?
Actual: Iona Lerilou, Petitioner, Yohanna Frenesi S.
Longa (Minor) and Victoria Ponciana S. Longa
(Minor), represented by their mother Mary Jane B.
Sta. Cruz, Respondents, G.R. No. 203923, Oct 18,
2018
Sec. 6. Permissive joinder of parties. - All
persons in whom or against any right to
relief in respect to or arising out of the same
transaction or series of transactions is
alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally,
or in the alternative, may, except as
otherwise provided in these Rules, join as
plaintiffs or be joined as defendants in one
complaint,
where any question of law or fact common to
all such plaintiffs or to all such defendants
may arise in the action; but the court may
make such orders as may be just to prevent
any plaintiff or defendant from being
embarrassed or put to expense in
connection with any proceedings in which
he may have no interest. (6)
Requisites:

1. There is a right to relief in favor of or

against the parties joined in respect to
or arising out of the same transaction or
series of transactions, and
2. There is a question of law or fact
common to the parties joined in the
action.
1989 Bar Question, No. 1:
Marissa brought an action against Dely and Inday in one complaint
before the RTC of Manila. As her first cause of action, Marissa alleges
that Dely from her on various occasions truck tires worth P12,000 but
refused to apy the said amount despite severla demands. As her
second cause of action, Marissa alleges that Inday likewise purchase
from her on several occasions truck tires worth P10,000.00 but refused
to pay the said amount despite repeated demands. The total amount
of Marissa’s demands against ther two is P22,000. Both Delay and
Inday now separately moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground
that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case. How would you resolve
these motions Explain
1996 Bar Question, No. 4 (1) Distinguish joinder of causes of action from
joinder of parties. [substantial unity v. arise out of the same
transaction or series of transactions/same question of fact or law]
Bar Question, No. 5:

P sued A and B in one complaint in the RTC

– Manila, the cause of action against A being
an overdue promissory note for P300,000 and
that against B on an alleged balance of
P300,000 on the purchase price of goods sold
on credit. Does the RTC-Manila have
jurisdiction over the case? Explain.
Up to this point only tonight…
Sec. 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable
parties. - Parties in interest without whom
no final determination can be had of an
action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or
defendants. (7)
Sec. 8. Necessary party. - A necessary party is
one who is not indispensable but who ought
to be joined as a party if complete relief is
to be accorded as to those already parties, or
for a complete determination or settlement
of the claim subject of the action. (8a)
3 Kinds Of Parties:

1. Indispensable party
2. Necessary party
3. Permissive party
Compulsory Paties:
1. Case for partition filed by co-owner against other
co-owners? [Ruguian v. Rugian, 9 Phil. 527]
2. Action by tenant to establish his status as such
against co-owners? [Barcelona v. CA, 280 SCRA 20 (1997)
3. Action to claim legitimacy with claim to share in
property of deceased parent, as to all children? [Briz
v. Briz, 43 Phil. 763]

4. Action against heirs to compel execution of a

deed of sale over property sold by
 parent? [See Madamba v. Tumaneng, - 3/15/51]

5. Action to nullify a Torrens Title mortgaged

to a bank [as to mortgagee]? [Metrobank v. Alejo, Sept. 10,
2001]

6. Recovery of ownership of land against A

who claims that he is just leasing it from B?
[Sanidad v. Cabotaje, 5 Phil. 204]
Necessary Parties:

1. An action filed by X against A on a

promissory note jointly signed by A and
B, as to B? [Quisbing v. CA, 189 SCRA 325 (1990)]
2. Action against driver arising from
accident, as to insurer? [Imson v. CA, 239 SCRA 58]
Permissive Parties:
1. Action to eject a squatter, as against
other squatters?
2. An action against a surety for an unpaid
loan, as against principal?
[See Chunaco v. Tria, 63 Phil. 500 and PBC v. Lim]

3. An action against A who is solidarily

liable with B, as to the latter? [see Quiombing]
4. Action against property owner, as to
transferee of the property pending
action? [Rule 3, Sec. 19]
Distinction:
1. An indispensable party is one without whom
no final determination of a controversy can
be had, whereas a necessary party is one
whose interest is distinct and divisible from
the other parties;
2. An indispensable party should be joined
under any and all conditions, whereas a
necessary party should be joined whenever
possible.
Question:
If I sue the principal, must I implead
the agent?

Lagua v. Cusi, 160 SCRA 260

IV INDISPENSABLE PARTY 2015 bAR
Strauss filed a complaint against Wagner for cancellation of title. Wagner moved to
dismiss the complaint because Grieg, to whom he mortgaged the property as duly
annotated in the TCT, was not impleaded as defendant.
(A)
Should the complaint b
e dismissed?
Suggested Answer
No, the complaint should not be dismissed.
According to the Rules of Court, non
-
joinder of an indispensable party is not among the
grounds for a motion to dismiss (Rule 16, Rules of Court). Thus, although Grieg, the registered
mortgagee, is an indispensable party, his non
-
joinder does not warrant the dismissal of the
complaint.
(B)
If the case should proceed to trial without Grieg being impleaded asa party to the
case, what is his remedy to protect his interest?
Suggested Answer
G
rieg may file a motion for leave to intervene.
According to the Rules of Court, a person who has a legal interest in the matter in
litigation may, with leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action (Sec. 1, Rule 19, Rules of
Court).
In the case
at bar, Grieg as a mortgagee has a legal interest in the title subject
-
matter of
the litigation. Thus, he may validly intervene in the case.
Sec. 9. Non-joinder of necessary parties to be
pleaded. - Whenever in any pleading in which a
claim is asserted a necessary party is not joined,
the pleader shall set forth his name, if known, and
shall state why he is omitted. Should the court
find the reason for the omission unmeritorious, it
may order the inclusion of the omitted necessary
party if jurisdiction over his person may be
obtained.
 Cont… The failure to comply with the order for
his inclusion, without justifiable cause, shall be
deemed a waiver of the claim against such party.
 
The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not
prevent the court from proceeding in the action,
and the judgment rendered therein shall be without
prejudice to the rights of such necessary party.
(8a, 9a)
Sec. 10. Unwilling co-plaintiff. - If the
consent of any party who should be joined
as plaintiff can not be obtained, he may be
made a defendant and the reason therefor
shall be stated in the complaint. (10)
Sec. 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. -
Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is a
ground for dismissal of an action. Parties may be
dropped or added by order of the court on motion
of any party or on its own initiative at any stage of
the action and on such terms as are just. A claim
against a misjoined party may be severed and
proceeded with separately. (11a)
12. Class suit. - When the subject matter of the
controversy is one of common or general interest
to many persons so numerous that it is
impracticable to join all as parties, a number of
them which the court finds to be sufficiently
numerous and representative as to fully protect the
interests of all concerned may sue or defend for
the benefit of all. Any party in interest shall have
the right to intervene to protect his individual
interest. (12a)
Requisites:
       1. The subject matter of the controversy is one of
common or general interest to many persons; and
2. They are so numerous that it is
impracticable to join all as parties.
[3. The object of the suit is to obtain relief for or
against numerous persons as a group, not as
separate distinct individuals.]
[4. There is only one cause of action]
Allowed:
1. Borlaza v. Polistico, 47 Phil. 345
[1925] (winding up and accounting)
2. Association v. Talisay-Silay, 88 SCRA
294 (1979) (interpretation of RA 809
3. Oposa v. Factoran, 224 SCRA 792
[1993] (cancellation and cessation of
TLA issuance) “future generations”
Disallowed:
1. Sulo ng Bayan v. Araneta, 72 SCRA 377
(1976) [but see MIA v. Rivera Village]
2. Berses v. Villanueva, 25 Phil. 473 (1913)
3. Newsweek v. IAC, 142 SCRA 171 (1974)
4. Re: Request… Dona Paz, 159 SCRA 623
(1988)
American Class Suit:
Community of interest in:
1. the question involved
2. the relief sought

No need of community of interest in the

subject matter of the litigation.
Liana’s Supermarket v. NLRC, 257 SCRA
186 (1996):
National Labor Union filed a case in
behalf of some 200 members under Art.
242 of the Labor Code.
-it is a representative suit under Sec.
3, not a class suit.
Representative v. Class Suit:
1. In class suit there is only one cause of
action belonging to many persons, but in a
representative suit there are many causes of
action pertaining separately to several
people;
2. In a class suit, only the names of those
representing the class appear in the title, but
in a representative suit all the names of the
beneficiaries must be included in the title.
3. In a class suit, those representing the
“class” must be real-real parties in
interest, but in a representative suit,
they representative chosen need not be
a real party in interest.
Class suit and Permissive joinder:
In a class suit there is only one single right
of action pertaining to numerous parties, but
in permissive joinder of parties there are
many, distinct separate rights arising from
the same transaction or series of transaction
and there are common questions of law or
fact
Derivative Suit –
A suit brought in behalf of numerous
stockholders of a corporation to
perpetually enjoin or nullify what is
claimed to be a breach of trust or an
ultra vires act of the company’s board
of directors.
 Sec. 13. Alternative defendants. - Where
the plaintiff is uncertain against who of
several persons he is entitled to relief, he
may join any or all of them as defendants in
the alternative, although a right to relief
against one may be inconsistent with a right
of relief against the other. (13a)
Sec. 14. Unknown identity or name of
defendant. - Whenever the identity or name
of a defendant is unknown, he may be sued
as the unknown owner, heir, devisee, or by
such other designation as the case may
require; when his identity or true name is
discovered, the pleading must be amended
accordingly. (14)
Sec. 15. Entity without juridical personality as
defendant. 
When two or more persons not organized as an
entity with juridical personality enter into a
transaction, they may be sued under the name by
which they are generally known or commonly
known. 
In the answer of such defendants, the names
and addresses of the persons composing said
entity must all be revealed. (15a)
 Sec. 16. Death of a party; duty of counsel. -
Whenever a party to a pending action dies, and the
claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty
of his counsel to inform the court within thirty (30)
days after such death of the fact thereof, and to give
the name and address of his legal representative or
representatives. Failure of counsel to comply with
this duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action.
 
 The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be
substituted for the deceased, without requiring the
appointment of an executor or administrator and
the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the
minor heirs.
The court shall forthwith order said legal
representative or representatives to appear and be
substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from
notice.
 If no legal representative is named by the
counsel for the deceased party, or if the one so
named shall fail to appear within the specified
period, the court may order the opposing party,
within a specified time, to procure the appointment
of an executor or administrator for the estate of the
deceased and the latter shall immediately appear for
and on behalf of the deceased. The court charges in
procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the
opposing party, may be recovered as costs.
  Sec, 20. Action on contractual money
claims. - When the action is for recovery of money
arising from contract, express or implied, and the
defendant dies before entry of final judgment in the
court in which the action was pending at the time of
such death, it shall not be dismissed but shall instead
be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment.
A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff therein
shall be enforced in the manner especially provided in
these Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate
of a deceased person. (21a)
1. Why inform the court and why are you
penalized for failure?
2. Who are the “legal representatives”?
a. Heirs of the deceased
b. If nobody is named, or he fails to
appear, executor or administrator
appointed upon motion of adverse
party.
Poe, Jr. vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, 454 SCRA
142 (2005)

Sec. 16, Rule 3, cannot apply

because public office is not property
and not transmissible upon death.
Effect of Death:
A. Action that do not survive- Dismissed
[purely personal: legal separation, annulment,
support]
[Action to claim legitimacy? Art. 173, if he dies a
minor? If he commenced it before his death]
B. Action that survive [all others] [Recover
real/personal proper, damages for injury to person
or property- Rule 87, Sec. 1]
1. Contractual money claims

a. If plaintiff dies, substitution [Sec. 16]

b. If defendant dies:
 i. Before entry of final judgment
-substitution [continue and if
plaintiff wins, claim against estate]

ii. After entry of final judgment

-claim against estate
[execution is pursued against estate ]
2. All other cases – substitution
Effect if no proper substitution is made:
1. If court is informed, but no
substitution is made, judgment is void
[Villegas v. CA, 271 SCRA 148 (1997)
2. If court is not informed, judgment
is valid [Heirs of Regoso v. CA, 211
SCRA 348 (1992)
See also Carandang v. Heirs of De
Guzman, 508 SCRA 469 (2006)
Plaintiff won but he died. No
proper substitution. Court was not
informed. Judgment was favorable
to the deceased.
Waiver of jurisdiction over
person.
Sec. 17. Death or separation of a party who is a public officer. -
When a public officer is a party in an action in his official
capacity and during its pendency dies, resigns, or otherwise
ceases to hold office, the action may be continued and maintained
by or against his successor if, within thirty (30) days after the
successor holds office or such time as may be granted by the
court, it is satisfactorily shown to the court by any party that there
is a substantial need for continuing or maintaining it and that the
successor adopts or continues or threatens to adopt or continue
the action of his predecessor. Before a substitution is made, the
party or officer to be affected, unless expressly assenting thereto,
shall be given reasonable notice of the application therefor and
accorded an opportunity to be heard. (18a)
Sec. 18. Incompetency or incapacity. - If a
party becomes incompetent or
incapacitated, the court, upon motion with
notice, may allow the action to be continued
by or against the incompetent or
incapacitated person assisted by his legal
guardian or guardian ad litem. (19a)
  Sec. 19. Transfer of interest. - In case of any
transfer of interest, the action may be
continued by or against the original party,
unless the court upon motion directs the
person to whom the interest is transferred to
be substituted in the action or joined with
the original party. (20)
 Sec. 21. Indigent party. - A party may
be authorized to litigate his action, claim or
defense as an indigent if the court, upon an
ex parte application and hearing, is satisfied
that the party is one who has no money or
property sufficient and available for food,
shelter and basic necessities for himself and
his family.
Cont… Such authority shall include an exemption
from payment of docket fee and other lawful fees,
and of transcripts of stenographic notes which the
court may order to be furnished him. The amount
of the docket and other lawful fees which the
indigent was exempted from paying shall be a lien
on any judgment rendered in the case favorable to
the indigent, unless the court otherwise provides.
Cont… Any adverse party may contest the grant of such
authority at any time before judgment is rendered by the
trial court. If the court should determine after hearing that
the party declared as indigent is in fact a person with
sufficient income or property, the proper docket and other
lawful fees shall be assessed and collected by the clerk of
court. If payment is not made within the time fixed by the
court, execution shall issue or the payment thereof, without
prejudice to such other sanctions as the court may impose.
(22a)
 Algura v. City of Naga, 506 SCRA 81 (2006)
The gross monthly of plaintiffs, who had 6 minor children, is
P10,477.00. They own no real property.
Under Sec. 18 of Rule 141, of the Rules of Court, however,
the ceiling for the gross income of litigants:
P4,000.00 monthly – in Metro Manila
P3,000.00 monthly - outside MM
Now: Gross income do not exceed the amount double the
monthly minimum wage

Real Property: maximum market value of PhP 300,000.00.

Are they disqualified? Is Sec. 21, Rule 3, abrogated by
Rule 141?
Sec. 22. Notice to the Solicitor General. - In
any action involving the validity of any
treaty, law, ordinance, executive order,
rules or regulations, the court, in its
discretion, may require the appearance of
the Solicitor General who may be heard in
person or through a representative duly
designated by him. (23a)
 Rule 4
Venue of Actions
Principles on Venue:
1. Subject to agreement by the parties
2. Subject to waiver, by:
a. failure to file a motion to dismiss
b. failure to raise it in the answer
3. Court cannot dismiss a case on its own
initiative for improper venue, except
4. While in personal actions plaintiff has
discretion to lay venue, it is not unlimited
 Sec 1. Venue of real actions. - Actions affecting
title to or possession of real property, or interest
therein, shall be commenced and tried in the proper
court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the
real property involved, or a portion thereof, is
situated. 
Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be
commenced and tried in the municipal trial court of
the municipality or city wherein the real property
involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. (1[a], 2[a]a)
Real – those involving title to or possession of
real property. Examples:
1. Partition
2. Expropriation
3. Foreclosure of mortgage
4. Recovery of possession
4. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer
United v. Roosemoore, 518 SCRA 134
(2007) –
Foreclosure of several properties
located in various parts of the country.
Sec. 2. Venue of personal actions. - All other
actions may be commenced and tried where
the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs
resides, or where the defendant or any of
the principal defendants resides, or in the
case of a non-resident defendant, where he
may be found, at the election of the
plaintiff. (2[b]a)
Personal v. Real Action:
In a personal action, the plaintiff seeks the
recovery of personal property, the enforcement of a
contract or the recovery of damages.  In contrast, in
a real action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of real
property, or, as indicated in Section 2 (a), Rule 4 of
the then Rules of Court, a real action is an action
affecting title to real property or for the recovery of
possession, or for partition or condemnation of, or
foreclosure of mortgage on, real property.
 Orbeta v. Orbeta, 508 SCRA 265 (2006
Upon her return from the Untied States, plaintiff
discovered that her estranged husband
mortgaged a conjugal lot located at Rizal
without her consent. She then filed a
Complaint for Annulment of Deed of
Mortgage with Damages in the RTC of Las
Piñas City where the mortgagee resided. At
that time, the mortgage has not been
foreclosed.
 Chua v. Total Office Products, 471
SCRA 500 (2005)
An action to annul a contract of loan
and its accessory real estate mortgage.
[Title remained with mortgagor.)
La Tondena Distillers, Inc. vs.
Ponherada, 264 SCRA 540 (1996)
The defendant entered into a contract
to sell a piece of land situated in Bago
City to plaintiff. Later on, defendant
refused to honor his commitment.
Plaintiff filed an action for specific
performance with damages against the
defendant and after filing it he even
annotated a notice of lis pendens on the
title
Sps. Decena v. Sps. Pequero, 454 SCRA 672
(2005)
Due to a breach of the Memorandum of
Agreement involving sale of a piece of real
property, suit was filed for rescission of the
agreement and recovery of possession of real
property, and damages and attorney’s fees
Personal actions: all others [recovery of personal
property, the enforcement of a contract , recovery
of damages]
A. Resident defendants – plaintiff’s choice
1. Where plaintiff/s or any of them resides
2. Where defendant/s or any of them resides
B. Non-resident defendants –plaintiff’s choice
1. Where plaintiff/s or any of them resides
2. Where defendant may be found
Meaning of Resides: “residence”
1. As to individuals - Saludo v. American
Express, 487 SCRA 462 (2006)
“personal, actual or physical
habitation”
2. As to Corporations - Hyatt Elevators v.
Goldstar, 473 SCRA 705 [2005]
[stated in Articles of incorporation]
Sec. 3. Venue of actions against nonresidents. - If
any of the defendants does not reside and is not
found in the Philippines, and the action affects the
personal status of the plaintiff, or any property of
said defendant located in the Philippines, the
action may be commenced and tried in the court of
the place where the plaintiff resides, or where the
property or any portion thereof is situated or
found, (2[c]a)
Sec. 3: Requisites:
1. Does not reside in the Philippines
2. Is not found in the Philippines
Applies only to: [in rem/quasi-en rem
1. Actions affecting personal status of plaintiff, or
2. Property of defendant located on the Philippines
Rule on Venue:
1. Where plaintiff resides
2. Where property/portion is found
 
Sec. 4. When Rule not applicable. - This
Rule shall not apply -
a)    In those cases where a specific rule or
law provides otherwise; or
b) Where the parties have validly agreed in
writing before the filing of the action on the
exclusive venue thereof. (3a, 5a)
Questions:
1. When is agreement on venue exclusive?
“the parties agree to sue and be sued in
Manila”
“Venue for all suits whether for breach thereof
or damages or any cause between the lessor
and the lessee and persons claiming under
each being the courts of appropriate
jurisdiction in Pasay City.”
 2. Can you change venue of real
property actions through agreement?
Villanueva v. Mosqueda, 115 SCRA 904
3. Can you agree on venue during
after filing?
4. What is the status of Sweetlines v.
Teves, 83 SCRA 361?
CONTRACT OF ADHESSION-
Venue in Small Claims:
AM No. 08-8-7-SC, effective April 11, 2022,
Rule 4, Sec. 5. Venue.– The regular rules on venue
shall apply.
However, if the plaintiff is engaged in the business of
lending, banking and similar activities, and has a
branch within the municipality or city where the
defendant resides, or is holding business, the
Statement of Claim/s shall be filed in the court of the
city or municipality where the defendant resides or is
holding business. If there are two (2) or more
defendants, it shall be filed in the court of the city or
municipality where any of them resides or is holding
business, at the option of the plaintiff.
Illustrations: (1) Plaintiff is a lending
Cooperative with main office in Kidapawan
City and a Branch Office in Magpet.
Defendant resides or holds business in
Magpet. Where should the case be filed?
(2) Plaintiff is a lending Cooperative with main
office in Kidapawan and a Branch Office in
Magpet. Defendant resides or holds business
in Makilala. (a) Can the case be filed in
Kidapawan? (b) Can it be filed in Magpet? ©
Can it be filed in Makilala?
Jurisdiction is distinguished from venue, as follows:
(a) Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine
a case; venue is the place where the case is to be
heard or tried; (b) Jurisdiction is a matter of
substantive law; venue, of procedural law; (c)
Jurisdiction establishes a relation between the court
and the subject matter; venue, a relation between
plaintiff and defendant, or petitioner and respondent;
and, (d) Jurisdiction is fixed by law and cannot be
conferred by the parties; venue may be conferred by
the act or agreement of the parties.
PBC v. Lim, 455 SCRA 175 (2005)
Will agreement bind the surety?

Venue vs. Jurisdiction:

Nocum v. Tan, 470 SCRA 639 [2005]
2000, No. 18:
A brings an action in the Metropolitan Trial
Court of Manila against B for the annulment
of an extrajudicial foreclosure of real property
with an assessed value of P50,000.00 located
in Laguna. The complaint alleged prematurity
of the sale for the reason that the mortgage
was not yet due. B timely moved to dismiss
the case on the ground that the action should
have bee brought in the RTC of Laguna,
Decide with reasons.