2nd meeting- REM REV

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

A. M. No. 08-8-7-SC               February 1, 2016

THE REVISED RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR SMALL CLAIMS CASES

RESOLUTION

Section 1. Title. - These Rules shall be known as "The Revised Rules of Procedure for Small Claims
Cases."

Section 2. Scope. - These Rules shall govern the procedure in actions before the Metropolitan Trial
Courts (MeTCs), Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCCs), Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs) and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs) for payment of money where the value of the claim does not
exceed Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) exclusive of interest and costs.

Section 3. Objectives. -

(a) To protect and advance the constitutional right of persons to a speedy disposition of their
cases;

(b) To provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the disposition of small claims cases;
and,

(c) To introduce innovations and best practices for the benefit of the underprivileged.

Section 4. Definition of Terms. - For purposes of this Rule:

(a) Plaintiff refers to the party who initiated a small claims action. The term includes a defendant
who has filed a counterclaim against plaintiff;

(b) Defendant is the party against whom the plaintiff has filed a small claims action. The term
includes a plaintiff against whom a defendant has filed a claim, or a person who replies to the
claim;

(c) Person is an individual, corporation, partnership, limited liability partnership, association, or

other juridical entity endowed with personality by law;

(d) Individual is a natural person;

(e) Motion means a party's request, written or oral, to the court for an order or other action. It
shall include an informal written request to the court, such as a letter;

(f) Good cause means circumstances sufficient to justify the requested order or other action, as
determined by the judge; and,

1
 (g) Affidavit means a written statement or declaration of facts that are sworn or affirmed to be
true.

Section 5. Applicability. - The Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal
Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall apply this Rule in all actions that are purely civil in
nature where the claim or relief prayed for by the plaintiff is solely for payment or reimbursement of sum
of money.

The claim or demand may be:

(a) For money owed under any of the following:

1. Contract of Lease;

2. Contract of Loan;

3. Contract of Services;

4. Contract of Sale; or

5. Contract of Mortgage;

(b) For liquidated damages arising from contracts;

(c) The enforcement of a barangay amicable settlement or an arbitration award involving a money
claim covered by this Rule pursuant to Sec. 417 of Republic Act 7160, otherwise known as The
Local Government Code of 1991.

Section 6. Commencement of Small Claims Action. - A small claims action is commenced by filing with
the court an accomplished and verified Statement of Claim (Form 1-SCC) in duplicate, accompanied by a
Certification Against Forum Shopping, Splitting a Single Cause of Action, and Multiplicity of Suits
(Form 1-A SCC), and two (2) duly certified photocopies of the actionable document/s subject of the
claim, as well as the affidavits of witnesses and other evidence to support the claim. No evidence shall be
allowed during the hearing which was not attached to or submitted together with the Statement of Claim,
unless good cause is shown for the admission of additional evidence.

The plaintiff must state in the Statement of Claims if he/she/it is engaged in the business of lending,
banking and similar activities, and the number of small claims cases filed within the calendar year
regardless of judicial station.

No formal pleading, other than the Statement of Claim/s described in this Rule, is necessary to initiate a
small claims action.

Section 7. 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, the Statement of Claim/s shall be filed
where that branch is located.

2
Section 8. Joinder of Claims. - Plaintiff may join in a single statement of claim one or more separate
small claims against a defendant provided that the total amount claimed, exclusive of interest and costs,
does not exceed Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00).

Section 9. Affidavits. - The affidavits submitted under this Rule shall state only facts of direct personal
knowledge of the affiants or based on authentic records, which are admissible in evidence.

A violation of this requirement shall subject the party, and the counsel who assisted the party in the
preparation of the affidavits, if any, to appropriate disciplinary action. The inadmissible affidavit(s) or
portion(s) thereof shall be expunged from the record.

The non-submission of the required affidavits will cause the immediate dismissal of the claim or
counterclaim.

Section 10. Payment of Filing Fees. - The plaintiff shall pay the docket and other legal fees prescribed
under Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court, unless allowed to litigate as an indigent. Exemption from
the payment of filing fees shall be granted only by the Supreme Court.

However, if more than five (5) small claims are filed by one party within the calendar year, regardless of
the judicial station, an additional filing fee of P500.00 shall be paid for every claim filed after the fifth
(5th) claim, and an additional P100.00 or a total of P600.00 for every claim filed after the tenth (10th)
claim, and another P100.00 or a total of P700 for every claim filed after the fifteenth (15th) claim,
progressively and cumulatively.

If the plaintiff is engaged in the business of banking, lending and similar activities, the amount of filing
and other legal fees shall be the same as those applicable to cases filed under the regular rules.

A claim filed with a motion to sue as indigent (Form 6-SCC) shall be referred to the Executive Judge for
immediate action in case of multi-sala courts. If the motion is granted by the Executive Judge, the case
shall be raffled off or assigned to the court designated to hear small claims cases. If the motion is denied,
the plaintiff shall be given five (5) days within which to pay the docket fees, otherwise, the case shall be
dismissed without prejudice. In no case shall a party, even if declared an indigent, be exempt from the
payment of the P1,000.00 fee for service of summons and processes.

Section 11. Dismissal of the Claim. - After the court determines that the case falls under these Rules, it
may, from an examination of the allegations of the Statement of Claim/s and such evidence attached
thereto, by itself, dismiss the case outright on any of the grounds for the dismissal of the case. The order
of dismissal shall state if it is with or without prejudice.

If, during the hearing, the court is able to determine that there exists a ground for dismissal of the
Statement of Claim/s, the court may, by itself, dismiss the case even if such ground is not pleaded in the
defendant's Response.

If plaintiff misrepresents that he/she/it is not engaged in the business of banking, lending or similar
activities when in fact he/she/it is so engaged, the Statement of Claim/s shall be dismissed with prejudice
and plaintiff shall be meted the appropriate sanctions, such as direct contempt.

However, if the case does not fall under this Rule, but falls under summary or regular procedure, the case
shall not be dismissed. Instead, the case shall be re-docketed under the appropriate procedure, and
returned to the court where it was assigned, subject to payment of any deficiency in the applicable regular

3
rate of filing fees. If a case is filed under the regular or summary procedure, but actually falls under this
Rule, the case shall be referred to the Executive Judge for appropriate assignment.

Section 12. Summons and Notice of Hearing. - If no ground for dismissal is found, the court shall
forthwith issue Summons (Form 2-SCC) on the day of receipt of the Statement of Claim/s, directing the
defendant to submit a verified Response.

The court shall also issue a Notice of Hearing (Form 4-SCC) to both parties, directing them to appear
before it on a specific date and time for hearing, with a warning that no unjustified postponement shall be
allowed, as provided in Section 21 of this Rule.

The Summons to be served on the defendant shall be accompanied by a copy of the Statement of Claim/s
and documents submitted by plaintiff, and a blank Response Form (Form 3-SCC) to be accomplished by
the defendant.

A Notice of Hearing shall accompany the Summons and shall contain: (a) the date of the hearing, which
shall not be more than thirty (30) days from the filing of the Statement of Claim/s; and (b) the express
prohibition against the filing of a motion to dismiss or any other motion under Section 16 of this Rule.

If Summons is returned without being served on any or all of the defendants, the court shall order the
plaintiff to cause the service of summons and shall inform the court within thirty (30) days from notice if
said summons was served or not; otherwise, the Statement of Claim/s shall be dismissed without
prejudice as to those who were not served with summons.

Section 13. Response. - The defendant shall file with the court and serve on the plaintiff a duly
accomplished and verified Response within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from receipt of
summons. The Response shall be accompanied by certified photocopies of documents, as well as
affidavits of witnesses and other evidence in support thereof. No evidence shall be allowed during the
hearing which was not attached to or submitted together with the Response, unless good cause is shown
for the admission of additional evidence.

Section 14. Effect of Failure to File Response. - Should the defendant fail to file his/her/its Response
within the required period, and likewise fail to appear on the date set for hearing, the court shall render
judgment on the same day, as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the Statement of Claim/s.

Should the defendant fail to file his/her/its Response within the required period but appears on the date set
for hearing, the court shall ascertain what defense he/she/it has to offer which shall constitute his/her/its
Response, and proceed to hear or adjudicate the case on the same day as if a Response has been filed.

Section 15. Counterclaims Within the Coverage of this Rule. - If at the time the action is commenced, the
defendant possesses a claim against the plaintiff that (a) is within the coverage of this Rule, exclusive of
interest and costs; (b) arises out of the same transaction or event that is the subject matter of the plaintiff's
claim; (c) does not require for its adjudication the joinder of third parties; and (d) is not the subject of
another pending action, the claim shall be filed as a counterclaim in the Response; otherwise, the
defendant shall be barred from suing on the counterclaim.

The defendant may also elect to file a counterclaim against the plaintiff that does not arise out of the same
transaction or occurrence, provided that the amount and nature thereof are within the coverage of this
Rule and the prescribed docket and other legal fees are paid.

4
Section 16. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions. - The following pleadings, motions, or petitions shall not
be allowed in the cases covered by this Rule:

(a) Motion to dismiss the Statement of Claim/s;

(b) Motion for a bill of particulars;

(c) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgment, or for reopening of trial;

(d) Petition for relief from judgment;

(e) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits, or any other paper;

(f) Memoranda;

(g) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by the
court;

(h) Motion to declare the defendant in default;

(i) Dilatory motions for postponement;

(j) Reply and rejoinder;

(k) Third-party complaints; and

(l) Interventions.

Section 17. Availability of Forms; Assistance by Court Personnel. - The Clerk of Court or other court
personnel shall provide such assistance as may be requested by a plaintiff or a defendant regarding the
availability of forms and other information about the coverage, requirements as well as procedure for
small claims cases.

Section 18. Appearance. - The parties shall personally appear on the designated date of hearing.

Appearance through a representative must be for a valid cause. The representative of an individual-party
must not be a lawyer and must be related to or next-of-kin of the individual-party. Juridical entities shall
not be represented by a lawyer in any capacity.

The representative must be authorized under a Special Power of Attorney (Form 7-SCC) to enter into an
amicable settlement of the dispute and to enter into stipulations or admissions of facts and of
documentary exhibits.

Section 19. Appearance of Attorneys Not Allowed. - No attorney shall appear in behalf of or represent a
party at the hearing, unless the attorney is the plaintiff or defendant.

If the court determines that a party cannot properly present his/her claim or defense and needs assistance,
the court may, in its discretion, allow another individual who is not an attorney to assist that party upon
the latter's consent.

5
Section 20. Non-appearance of Parties. - Failure of the plaintiff to appear shall be cause for the dismissal
of the Statement of Claim/s without prejudice. The defendant who appears in the absence of the plaintiff
shall be entitled to judgment on a permissive counterclaim.

Failure of the defendant to appear shall have the same effect as failure to file a Response under Section 14
of this Rule.1âwphi1 This shall not apply where one of two or more defendants who are sued under a
common cause of action and have pleaded a common defense appears at the hearing.

Failure of both parties to appear shall cause the dismissal with prejudice of both the Statement of Claim/s
and the counterclaim.

Section 21. Postponement When Allowed. - A request for postponement of a hearing may be granted only
upon proof of the physical inability of the party to appear before the court on the scheduled date and time.
A party may avail of only one (1) postponement.

Section 22. Duty of the Court. - At the beginning of the court session, the judge shall read aloud a short
statement explaining the nature, purpose and the rule of procedure of small claims cases.

Section 23. Hearing. - At the hearing, the judge shall first exert efforts to bring the parties to an amicable
settlement of their dispute. If efforts at settlement fail, the hearing shall immediately proceed in an
informal and expeditious manner and be terminated within the same day. 

Any settlement (Form 8-SCC) or resolution of the dispute shall be reduced into writing, signed by the
parties and submitted to the court for approval (Form 9-SCC and Form 10-SCC).

Section 24. Decision. - After the hearing, the court shall render its decision based on the facts established
by the evidence (Form 11-SCC), within twenty-four (24) hours from termination of the hearing. The
decision shall immediately be entered by the Clerk of Court in the court docket for civil cases and a copy
thereof forthwith served on the parties.

The decision shall be final, executory and unappealable.

Section 25. Execution. - When the decision is rendered, execution shall issue upon motion (Form 12-
SCC) of the winning party.

Section 26. Certification of Documents. - All documents attached to the Statement of Claim/s or

Response that are required to be certified, except public or official documents, shall be certified by the
signature of the plaintiff or defendant concerned.

Section 27. Applicability of the Rules of Civil Procedure. - The Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply
suppletorily insofar as they are not inconsistent with this Rule.

Section 28. Non-applicability. - The rules on mediation/judicial dispute resolution shall not apply,
inasmuch as the parties may enter into compromise at any stage of the proceedings.

Section 29. Effectivity. - These Revised Rules shall take effect on February 1, 2016 following their
publication in two newspapers of general circulation. They shall govern all cases filed after their
effectivity, and also all pending proceedings, except to the extent that in the opinion of the court, their

6
application would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which case the procedure under which the
cases were filed shall govern.

ACTIONS

a. Ordinary Civil actions, Special Civil Actions, Criminal Actions, Special Proceedings

Ordinary Civil Actions- One by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right
or the prevention or redress of a wrong.

Special Civil Actions- Also governed by the ordinary rules of civil action subject to the specific rules
prescribed for a special civil actions.

Criminal Actions- One by which the State prosecutes a person for an act or omission punishable by the
law.

Special Proceedings- A remedy by which a party seeks to establish a right, status or a particular fact.

b. Personal actions, Real actions, Mixed Action

Personal actions- An action not involving title to or possession of real property, or any interest therein.

Real Actions- An action involving title to or possession of real property, or any interest therein.

Mixed Actions- An action involving a joinder of both real and personal actions.

CASES/DOCTRINES:

 Sps. Trayvilla v Sejas

Doctrine: In the absence of the required declaration of the fair market value as stated in the
current tax declaration or zonal valuation of the property, it cannot be determined whether the
RTC or first level court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the petitioners' action, since
the jurisdiction of these courts is determined on the basis of the value of the property.

 Heirs of Retera v Sps. Lopez

Doctrine: The settled rule precluding certiorari as a remedy against the final order when appeal
is available notwithstanding, the Court rules that the CA should have given due course to and
granted the petition for certiorari for two exceptional reasons, namely:

(a) the broader interest of justice demanded that certiorari be given due course to avoid the
undeserved grossly unjust result that would befall the petitioners otherwise; and

7
(b) the order of the RTC granting the motion to dismiss on ground of lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter evidently constituted grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of
jurisdiction.

C. Actions in rem, in personam and quasi in rem

Action in personam- An action directed against particular persons and seeks a relief which
would be binding only upon such particular persons.

Action in rem- An action or proceedings not directed to a particular person but in the thing or
res itself and which asks the court to make a declaration or to dispose of or deal with the res.

The thing may be personal or real property, or it may be a status, right or a particular fact.

It is an action against the thing itself, instead of against the person.

Action quasi in rem- An action direct against a particular person but seeks to reach and
dispose of or deal with their property located in the Philippines.

One wherein an individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to
subject his interest therein to the obligation or lien burdening the property.

 Differences between action in personam, in rem and quasi in rem.

AS TO WHOM DIRECTED

Action in personam- Directed against particular persons on the basis of their personal
liability.

Action in rem- Directed against the thing or res itself.

Action quasi in rem- An action directed against an individual named as a defendant to

subject his interest therein for the obligation or lien burdening the property.

AS TO EFFECTS OF JUDGMENT

Action in personam- Binding only upon parties and their successors in interest but not
upon strangers.

Action in rem- Binding upon the whole world.

Action quasi in rem- Binding only upon the parties who joined the action.

AS TO THE PURPOSE OF THE ACTION

Action in personam- An action to impose a responsibility or liability upon a person directly.

Action in rem- A proceeding to determine the state or condition of a thing.

8
 Action quasi in rem- A thing which deals with the status, ownership, or liability of a
particular property but which intended to operate on these questions only as between
particular parties to the proceedings and not to ascertain or cut-off the rights or interests of
all possible claimants.

AS TO ACQUISITION OF JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE DEFENDANT

Action in personam- Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the
court to validly try and decide the case.

Action in rem and Action quasi in rem- Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is
not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court provided that the court acquires
jurisdiction over the res.

EXAMPLES

Action in personam- Action for declaration of nullity of and recovery of ownership of real
property; reconveyance; action for ejectment; action for specific performance; action for
injunction

Action in rem- Land registration case; probate of a will.

Action quasi in rem- Action for partition; action for accounting; attachment; foreclosure of
mortgage.

RULE 2- CAUSE OF ACTION

a. Meaning of cause of action 

 A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates the right of
another.

Elements of a cause of action:

1. The legal right of the plaintiff;
2. The correlative obligation of the defendant; and
3. The act or omission of the defendant in violation of the said legal right.

CASES/DOCTRINES:

• Heirs of Tomas Dolleton v. FilEstate Management, Inc., G.R. No. 170750, 7 April
2009 

The elementary test for failure to state a cause of action is whether the complaint alleges facts
which if true would justify the relief demanded. The inquiry is into the sufficiency, not the
veracity, of the material allegations.

Right of Action
 The right to commence and maintain an action. 

Elements of a right of action:

9
 1. Existence of a cause of action;
2. Performance of all conditions precedent to the bringing of the
action; and
3. The right to bring and maintain the action must be in the person
instituting it.

Note: Performance or fulfillment of all conditions precedent upon which a right of action
depends must be sufficiently alleged, considering that the burden of proof to show that a party
has a right of action is upon the person initiating the suit.

Cause of action vs. right of action (summarized, for notes)

Cause of Action Right of Action

A formal statement of the operational A remedial right belonging to some persons.

facts that give rise to such remedial
right.

A matter of statute and is governed A matter of right and depends on substantive law.
by the law of procedure.

Springs from the cause of action but does not accrue

until all the facts which constitute the cause of action
have occurred

Cause of action vs. right of action (in detail, for recit purposes)
Cause of Action Right of Action

Definition

A formal statement of the operative facts A remedial right or relief granted by law to
that give rise to such remedial right. some persons - the plaintiff whose rights have
been violated by the defendant.

As to nature

The reason for the action or the delict or The right to commence and maintain an action
wrong committed by the defendant in or the remedy or means afforded or the
violation of the right of the plaintiff. consequent relief.

As to governing law

A matter of statement and is governed by A matter of right and depends on the

law on procedure. substantive law.

As to effect of running of the statue of limitations

A cause of action is not affected by the A right of action may be taken away by the
running of the statute of limitations, by running of the statute of limitations by estoppel
estoppel, or other circumstances. or other circumstances.

10
CASES/DOCTRINES:

 Multi-Realty Development Corp., G.R. No. 146726, 16 June 2006 

A party to an instrument is under no obligation to seek a reformation of an instrument while he is

unaware that any opposition will be made to carry out the actual Agreement. The statute of
limitations does not begin to run against an equitable cause of action for the reformation of an
instrument because of mistake until the mistake has been discovered or ought to have been
discovered.

The term ―right of action‖ is the right to commence and maintain an action. In the law of
pleadings, right of action is distinguished from a cause of action in that the former is a remedial
right belonging to some persons while the latter is a formal statement of the operational facts
that give rise to such remedial right. The former is a matter of right and depends on the
substantive law while the latter is a matter of statute and is governed by the law of procedure.
The right of action springs from the cause of action, but does not accrue until all the facts which
constitute the cause of action have occurred.

A cause of action must always consist of two elements: (1) the plaintiff‘s primary right and the
defendant‘s corresponding primary duty, whatever may be the subject to which they relate—
person, character, property or contract; and (2) the delict or wrongful act or omission of the
defendant, by which the primary right and duty have been violated

• Consular Area Residents Association v. Casanova G.R. No. 202618, 12 April 2016 

Jurisprudence teaches that in order for a writ of injunction to issue, the petitioner should be able
to establish: (a) a right in esse or a clear and unmistakable right to be protected; (b) a violation
of that right; and (c) that there is an urgent and permanent act and urgent necessity for the writ
to prevent serious damage. In the absence of a clear legal right, the writ must not issue.

b. Test of sufficiency of cause of action

 Whether or not admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid judgment
verdict in accordance with the prayer of the complaint.
 A complaint where the cause of action has not yet accrued cannot be cured or remedied
by an amendment or supplemental pleading alleging the existence or accrual of a cause
of action while the case is pending. Such action is prematurely brought and is, therefore,
a groundless suit.

CASES/DOCTRINES:

• Misamis Occidental II Cooperative, Inc. v. David, G.R. No. 129928, 25 August 2005 

11
To determine the existence of a cause of action, only the statements in the complaint may be
properly considered. It is error for the court to take cognizance of external facts or hold
preliminary hearings to determine their existence. If the allegations in a complaint furnish
sufficient basis by which the complaint can be maintained, the same should not be dismissed
regardless of the defenses that may be averred by the defendants. The test of sufficiency of
facts alleged in the complaint as constituting a cause of action is whether or not admitting the
facts alleged, the court could render a valid verdict in accordance with the prayer of said
complaint.

C. Splitting of a single cause of action and its effects 

 A party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action.
 Splitting a cause of action is the act of dividing a single cause of action, claim, or
demand into two or more parts and bringing suit for one of such parts only intending to
reserve the rest for another separate action.

Prohibition against splitting a single cause of action

The practice of splitting a single cause of action is discouraged because: 
1. It breeds multiplicity of suits;
2. It leads to vexatious litigation;
3. It clogs the court dockets;
4. It operated as an instrument of harassment; and
5. It generates unnecessary expenses to the parties.

Remedy of the defendant where a single cause of action has been split
Move to dismiss on the grounds of:
1. Litis pendentia - if the first action is pending when the second action is filed.
2. Res judicata - if a final judgment had been rendered in the first action when the
second action is filed.

Three tests to ascertain whether two or more suits relate to a single or common
cause of action: 
1. Whether the same evidence would support and sustain both the 1st and 2nd
causes of action (also known as the “same evidence test”);
2. Whether the defenses in one case may be used to substantiate the complaint in
the other; or
3. Whether the cause of action in the second case existed at the time of the filing of
the first complaint.

Rules in determining the singleness of a cause of action

 General Rule: a contract embraces only one cause of action because it may be
violated only once even if it contains several stipulations.
 Exception: a contract to do several things at several times is divisible in its
nature. This kind of obligation authorizes successive actions and a judgment
recovered for a single breach does not bar a suit for a subsequent breach.
 Example: promissory note payable in several installments so long as there is no
acceleration clause.
 Exception to the exception: in an action upon a lease for the recovery of rent,
the installments due at the time the auction was brought must be included in the
complaint, and failure to do so constitutes a bar to a subsequent action for such
overdue rent. The principle is well established that a party will not be permitted to

12
 split a cause of action and make it the basis of several suits, but that rule applies
only to cases where the cause is in existence at the time the action is brought.

Doctrine of anticipatory breach

 An unqualified and positive refusal to perform a contract, though the performance
thereof is not yet due, may, if the renunciation goes into the whole contract, be
treated as a complete breach which will entitle the injured party to bring his action
at once.

Note: The rule against splitting a cause of action applies only where the action is
between the same parties.

CASES/DOCTRINES:

• Marilag v. Martinez G.R. No. 201892, 22 July 2015 

A party will not be permitted to split up a single cause of action and make it a basis for several
suits as the whole cause must be determined in one action. To be sure, splitting a cause of
action is a mode of forum shopping by filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action,
but with different prayers, where the ground of dismissal is litis pendentia (or res judicata, as the
case may be).

• Yap v. First E-Bank Corporation, G.R. No. 169889, 29 September 2009 

A creditor who obtains a personal judgment against the debtor on a loan waives his right to
foreclose on the mortgage securing loan. Otherwise, the creditor becomes guilty of splitting a
single cause of action.
No man shall be twiced vexed for one and the same cause.

P.S Doctrine is inapplicable in the case since the complaints for violation of BP 22 were filed
prior to the adoption of Supreme Court Circular 57-97

• Umale v. Canoga Park Development Corp., G.R. No. 167246, 20 July 2011 

Tests to ascertain whether two suits relate to a single or common cause of action:

(1) whether the same evidence would support and sustain both the first and second causes of
action or

the "same evidence" test

(2) Whether the defenses in one case may be used to substantiate the complaint in the other.

(3) Whether the cause of action in the second case existed at the time of the filing of the first
complaint.

• Chu et al v. Cunanan G.R. No. 156185, 12 September 2011 

13
Petitioners were not at liberty to split their demand to enforce or rescind the deed of sale with
assumption of mortgage and to present only a portion of the grounds upon which a special relief
was sought under the deed of sale with assumption of mortgage, and then to leave the rest to
be presented in another suit; otherwise, there would be no end to litigation.

Rule 2, Sec.4, ROC If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action,
the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for the
dismissal of the others.

• Riviera Golf Club Inc v. CCA Holdings B.V. G.R. No. 173783, 17 June 2015 

A cause of action may give rise to several reliefs, but only one action can be filed. A single
action or entire claim or demand cannot be split up or divided into two or more different actions.
Section 4, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court expressly states:

Section 4. Splitting a single cause of action; effect of. – If two or more suits are instituted on the
basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is
available as a ground for the dismissal of the others.

e. Joinder and misjoinder of causes of action 

Joinder of causes of action - is the assertion of as many causes of action as a party may have
against another in one pleading alone. It is the uniting of two or more demands or right of action
in a complaint. The question of the joinder of causes of action involves in particular cases a
preliminary inquiry as to whether two or more causes of action are alleged.

Alternative joinder - exists when causes of action are set forth in one pleading alternatively or
hypothetically. The plaintiff seeks relief from either one of the causes of action, not both.
(Example: In a contract of carriage, the passenger of a vehicle which collided with another
vehicle may, in one complaint, join in the alternative her causes of action against the driver, one
based on contract and another based on quasi-delict).

Cumulative joinder - Exists when the plaintiff seeks relief from all his causes of action.
(Example: A creditor may, in one complaint, join his causes of action based on 5 promissory
notes against the same debtor).
 
Splitting of Cause of Action Joinder of Cause of Action

As to number of causes of action

There is a single cause of action. Contemplates several causes of action.

As to allowance by the Rules

Prohibited  Encouraged 

As to effect

It breeds multiplicity of suits, leads It avoids multiplicity of suits where the same parties and

14
 to vexatious litigation, operates as subject matter are to be dealt with by effecting in one
an instrument of harassment and action a complete determination of all matters in
generates unnecessary expenses controversy and litigation between the parties involving
to the parties. one subject matter, and to expedite the disposition of
litigation at minimum cost.

Misjoinder of causes of action - Where several causes of action are joined together in a suit
which cannot be joined, there being no common question of law and fact.

When there is a misjoinder of causes of action, the erroneously joined cause of action can be
severed and proceeded with separately upon motion by a party or upon the court’s own
initiative. Misjoinder is not a ground for the dismissal of an action.

Unlike non-joinder of parties which is specifically provided for and regulated by the Rules, there
is not provision or sanction against non-joinder of separate cause of action since a plaintiff
needs only a single cause of action to maintain an action.

Joinder of causes of action which accrued in favor of a party is only permissive procedure;
hence the party may institute as many actions as he has causes of action, without prejudice to
the provisions of Sec. 1, Rule 31 on joint trial or consolidation of actions.

However, if there is no objection to the improper joinder or ther court did not motu proprio direct
a severance, then there exists no bar in the simultaneous adjudication of all the erroneously
joined causes of action.

An action for reimbursement for recovery of damages may not be properly joined with the action
for ejectment. The former is an ordinary civil action requiring full-blown trial, while an action for
unlawful detainer is a special civil action which requires a summary proceeding.

CASES/DOCTRINES:

• Perez v. Hernano, G.R. No. 147417, 8 July 2005 

Joinder of causes of action may involve the same parties or different parties. If the joinder
involves different parties, there must be a question of fact or of law common to both parties
joined, arising out of the same transaction or series of transaction.

• Danilo v. Pedro, G.R. No. 155736, 31 March 2005 

The mere fact that the plaintiff prays for multiple reliefs does not indicate that he has stated
more than one cause of action. If the complaint shows one primary right and one wrong, only
one cause of action is alleged even though other matters are incidentally involved. Where two or
more primary rights and wrongs appear, there is a joinder of causes of action.

Totality Rule (BP 129, Sec. 33) 

 Where there are several claims or causes of actions between the same or different
parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality

15
 of the claims in all causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose
out of the same or different transaction. 

Determination of jurisdictional amount in relation to the totality rule:

 Under B.P. 129 and R.A. No. 7691, the jurisdictional amount excludes the following:
1. Interest;
2. Damages of whatever kind;
3. Attorney’s fees;
4. Litigation expenses; and 
5. Costs. 
 Although excluded in determining the jurisdiction of the court, the above items however,
shall be included in the determination of filing fees.
 The exclusion of the term “damages of whatever kind” in determining the jurisdictional
amount applies to cases where the damages are merely incidental to or a consequence
of the main cause of action.
 However, in cases where the claim for damages is the main cause of action, the amount
of such claim shall be considered in determining the jurisdiction of the court.

CASES/DOCTRINES:

• Flores v. Mallare-Phillipps, G.R. No. L-66620, 24 September 1986 

The application of the Totality Rule under Sec 33(l) of BP 129 and Section 11 of the Interim
Rules is subject to the requirements for the permissive joinder of parties under Sec 6 of Rule 33
of ROC.

RULE 3- PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS

a. Natural and Juridical Persons, Entities Authorized by law

 Natural person - refers to human persons or physical persons that acquire legal
personality "naturally", by birth (or before that, in some jurisdictions). (need to
rephrase this part)

 Juridical person - have personalities separate and distinct from those of the
natural persons that compose them. The juridical persons who may be parties to
a civil action are those enumerated in Art. 44 of the Civil Code, namely:
1. The state and its political subdivisions;
2. Other corporations, institutions, and entities for public interest or purpose,
created by law; and
3. Corporations, 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.

 Entities authorized by law - one need not be a natural or juridical person to be

a party to a civil action. Section 1 of Rule 3 adds a third possible party to a civil
action aside from natural persons and juridical persons. It recognizes “entities

16
 authorized by law”. As long as an entity is authorized by law to be a party, such
entity may sue or be sued or both. 
1. Corporation by estoppel
2. A contract of partnership having a capital of P3,000 or more but which
fails to comply with the registration requirements is nevertheless liable as
a partnership to third persons.
3. The estate of a deceased person
4. Legitimate labor organizations
5. The roman catholic church may be a party and as to its properties, the
archbishop of the diocese to which they belong may be a party
6. A dissolved corporation may prosecute and defend suits by or against it
provided that the suits (i) occur within 3 years after its dissolution; and (ii)
the suits are in connection with the settlement and closure of its affairs. 

CASE/DOCTRINE:

• Verzosa v. Fernandez, 49. Phil. 627 (1926) 

A Roman Catholic Bishop having the right of supervision and inspection over religious
brotherhoods established in his bishopric may maintain a civil action to compel the persons
comprising the directorate of such a fund in their custody, it being alleged that they are using it
in contravention of the spirit and purposes of the trust.

b. Real parties in interest 

 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.
 A real party-in-interest is one with a “present substantial interest” which means
such interest of a party in the subject matter of the action as will entitle him,
under the substantive law, to recover if the evidence is sufficient, or that he has
the legal title to demand.
 The word “interest” means material interest or an interest in issue and to be
affected by the judgment, as distinguished from mere interest in the question
involved or a mere incidental interest.
 Note: If a suit is not brought in the name of or against the real party in interest, a
motion to dismiss may be filed on the ground that the complaint states no cause
of action.

Locus standi - a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question.

Classification of parties in interest

1. Indispensable parties - those without whom no final determination can be had
of an action;
2. Necessary - those who are not indispensable but ought to be joined as parties 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;
3. Representative parties - may be a trustee of an express trust, a guardian, an
executor or administrator, or a party authorized by law or by the Rules;
4. Pro forma parties - those who are required to be joined as co-parties in suits by
or against another party as may be provided by the applicable substantive law or

17
 procedural Rule (e.g. joinder of spouses or in certiorari actions where the court or
agency whose adjudication is challenged is impleaded as the public respondent);
and

Quasi parties - those in whose behalf a class or representative suit is brought.

CASE/DOCTRINE:

 Evangelista v. Santiago, G.R. No. 157447, 29 April 2005 

 A case is dismissible for lack of personality to sue upon proof that the plaintiff is not the
real party-in- interest, hence grounded on the failure to state a cause of action. It can be
used as a ground for a motion to dismiss based on the fact that the complaint, on the
face thereof, evidently states no cause of action.

c. representatives as parties 
 A representative may be a trustee of an express trust, a guardian, an executor,
or administrator, or a party authorized by law or by the Rules.
 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.
 An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal.
The principal, however, should be joined when the contract involves things
belonging to the principal.
 Note: If a complaint is filed for and on 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. Hence, the court should dismiss the
complaint on the ground that no jurisdiction over the complaint and the plaintiff.

CASES/DOCTRINES:

• V-Gent, Inc. v. Morning Star Travel & Tours, Inc., G.R. No. 186305, 22 July 2015 

Rule 3, Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides the exception when an agent may sue or be
sued without joining the principal.
Section 3. Representatives as parties. - ―xxxx 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.‖

Thus an agent may sue or be sued solely in its own name and without joining the principal when
the following elements occur: 1) the agent acted in his own name during the transaction; 2) the
agent acted for the benefit of an undisclosed principal; and 3) the transaction did not involve the
property of the principal. When these elements are present, the agency becomes bound as if
the transaction were its own, consistent with Article 1883 of the Civil Code.

• Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, 30 July 1993 

18
[Petitioners] can, for themselves, for others of their generation and for the succeeding
generations, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations
can only be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a
balanced and healthful ecology is concerned.

• Resident Marine Mammals of Tanon Strait v. Reyes G.R. No. 180771, 21 April 2015 

Sec. 5 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental cases allows a citizen suit and permits any
Filipino citizen to file an action before our courts for violations of our environmental laws. This
rule collapses the traditional rule on personal and direct interest, on the principle that humans
are the stewards of nature.

d. indispensable parties 
 A party without whom no final determination can be had of an action.
 A party who has such an interest in the controversy or subject matter that a final
adjudication cannot be made, in his absence, without injuring or affecting that
interest.
  
CASE/DOCTRINE:
• In the Matter of the Heirship of the Late Hermogenes Rodriguez, G.R. No. 182645, 15
December 2010 (Resolution) 

An indispensable party is a party-in-interest without whom no final determination can be had of

an action, and who shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. The joinder of
indispensable parties is mandatory. The presence of indispensable parties is necessary to vest
the court with jurisdiction, which is "the authority to hear and determine a cause, the right to act
in a case." Thus, without the presence of indispensable parties to a suit or proceeding,
judgment of a court cannot attain real finality.

• Cerezo v. Tuazon, G.R. No. 141538, 23 March 2004 

An indispensable party is one whose interest is affected by the court‘s action in the litigation,
and without whom no final resolution of the case is possible. Where the obligation is solidary,
either of the parties is indispensable, and the other is not even necessary as complete relief is
available from either. The action can be brought directly against the person responsible (for
another) without including the author of the act.

• Foster-Gallego v. Spouses Galang, G.R. No. 130228, July 27, 2004 

An indispensable party is a party who has such an interest in the controversy or subject matter
that a final adjudication cannot be made, in his absence, without injuring or affecting that
interest. A person is not an indispensable party if his interest in the controversy or subject
matter is separable from the interest of the other parties, so that he will not necessarily be
injuriously affected by a decree that does complete justice between the other parties. He is also
not indispensable if his presence would merely permit complete relief between him and those
already parties to the action or will simply avoid multiple litigations.

19
 e. necessary parties; 
 Necessary party - A party who is not indispensable but ought to be joined as a
party if complete relief is to be accorded as to those already parties, or for
complete determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action.
 Effect of justified non-inclusion of a necessary party - The non-inclusion of a
necessary party does not prevent the court from proceeding with the action, and
the judgment therein shall be without prejudice to the rights of such necessary
party. 
 Illustrative cases:
1. The co-owners of a promissory not are all necessary parties in an action
for its collection;
2. If B and C are solidarily liable, neither is indispensable, and the other is
not even necessary because complete relief may be obtained from either,
but if B and C are jointly liable, either is indispensable, and the other is
necessary to accord complete relief.
 Non-joinder of necessary parties to be pleaded
Duty of pleader whenever a necessary party is not joined: 
1. Set forth the name of the necessary party, if known; and
2. State why such party is omitted.
 Should the court find the reason for the omission unmeritorious, it may order the
inclusion of the omitted necessary party if jurisdiction of his person may be
obtained by ordering plaintiff to file an amended complaint impleading the
necessary party therein as co-defendant.
 Note: The failure to comply with the order of the court to include a necessary
party, without justifiable cause, shall be deemed a waiver of the claim against
such party.
 The rule in the 2nd paragraph is an exception to the provision on penalties
imposed on a disobedient party under Rule 17, Sec. 3, which would have
entailed the dismissal of the complaint itself.

Indispensable Parties Necessary Parties

As to definition

Those without whom no final Those who are not indispensable but ought to be
determination can be had of an action. joined as parties 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.

As to effect on judgment if not impleaded

If not impleaded, the court cannot Even if not included in the suit, the case may be
proceed without him and any judgment finally determined in court, but the judgment will not
would have no effectiveness. resolve the whole controversy.

As to effect on the power of the court to terminate the controversy

Those with such an interest that a final Those whose presence is necessary to adjudicate
decree would necessarily affect their the whole controversy but whose interests are so far

20
right so the court cannot proceed separable that a final decree can be made in their
without their presence. absence without affecting them.

As to effect of failure to obey court order to implead the party

Failure to comply with the order of the Failure to comply with the order of the court to
court to implead an indispensable include a necessary party, without justifiable cause,
party warrants the dismissal of the shall be deemed waiver of the claim against such
complaint. party.

CASE/DOCTRINE:

• Caravan Travel and Tours International, Inc. v. Abejar, G.R. No. 170631, February 10,
2016 

f. indigent parties
 An indigent is one who has no money or property sufficient and available for
food, shelter and basic necessities for himself and his family.
 A party may be authorized to litigate as an indigent if the court 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. 
 The applicant need not be a pauper, the fact that he is able-bodied and may earn
the necessary money is no answer to his statement that he has no sufficient
means to prosecute the action or to secure the costs.
 The application and hearing to litigate as an indigent litigant is made ex parte.
 If one is authorized to litigate as an indigent, such authority shall include an
exemption from the payment of:
1. Docket fees;
2. Other lawful fees; and 
3. Transcripts of stenographic notes, which the court may order to be
furnished to him. 
 However, the amount of docket and other lawful fees, wish the indigent was
exempted from paying, shall be a lien on the judgment rendered in the case
favorable to the indigent. A lien on the judgment shall not arise if the court
provides otherwise.
 While the rule allows an ex parte application and hearing to litigate as an
indigent, at any time before judgment is rendered by the trial court, any adverse
party may contest the grant of the authority to a party to litigate as an indigent. If
the court should determine that the party, declared as an indigent is in fact a
person with sufficient income and property, the proper docket and lawful fees
shall be assessed and collected by the clerk of court.
 In case the grant of authority to litigate as an indigent is contested by any party,
the determination of the court whether or not the grant of the earlier authority is
proper is to be made after hearing, not ex parte.
 Only a natural party may be regarded as an indigent litigant. 
 Note:  A certificate of indigency must be attached to the pleadings issued either
by the Barangay in which the party is a resident or the DSWD. 

21
 • Spouses Algura v. City of Naga G.R. No. 150135, 30 October
2006 

g. alternative defendants 
 Where the plaintiff cannot definitely identify who among two or more persons
should be impleaded as a defendant, he may join all of them as defendants in the
alternative - Section 13 of Rule 3. 
 There may also be alternative causes of action and alternative defenses -
Section 2 of Rule 8.
 Example: X is a pedestrian and was injured in the collision of two vehicles. He
suffered injuries but does not know with certainty which vehicle caused the
mishap. What should X do if he wants to sue? He should sue the vehicle
drivers/owners in the alternative.
 Example: P sent goods to D pursuant to a contract. The goods were delivered to
E, the agent of D. D did not pay P. D contends that he has not received the
goods. P insists that D received the goods. What should P do? P should sue both
D and E in the alternative.
 Illustration: Plaintiff may sue the shipping company and the arrastre operator
alternatively for the recovery of damages to goods shipped through a maritime
vessel.

h. Complusory and permissive joinder of parties 

 Indispensable parties are those with such an interest in the controversy that a
final decree would necessarily affect their rights so that courts cannot proceed
without their presence. Joining indispensable parties into an action is mandatory,
being a requirement of due process. Without their presence, the judgment of the
court cannot attain real finality. 
 The general rule with reference to the making of parties in a civil action requires
the joinder of all necessary parties where possible, and the joinder of all
indispensable parties under any and all conditions, their presence being a 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. The absence of
an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions 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.
 If the plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the
court, that court may dismiss the complaint for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with
the order.
 Illustrative cases:
1. In a special civil action for partition, all persons interested in the property
should be joined as defendants. Each co-owner is an indispensable party
for without him no valid judgment for partition may be ordered.
2. Co-owners are not indispensable to maintain an action for ejectment
under Art. 487 of the Civil Code.
3. All heirs of the deceased defendant in an action to recover real property
are indispensable parties.
4. In an action for the recovery of property against a person who purchased
it from another who in turn acquired it from someone by the same means

22
 or by donation or otherwise, the predecessors of the defendants are
indispensable parties as the transfers, if not voided, may bind the plaintiff.
 Rules on co-owners as indispensable parties in actions to recover property
- In actions where the property sought to be recovered by the plaintiff is co-
owned by several persons, each co-owner is an indispensable party and must be
made defendants in the action. When a suit is brought by any of the co-owners
against third persons to recover properties, the other co-owners need not be
joined in the action as even though they are all real parties in interest, they are
neither indispensable nore necessary parties to the action. Complete relief can
be accorded in the suit even without their participation since the suit is presumed
to have been filed for the benefit of all co-owners. Only one of the co-owners,
namely the co-owner who filed the suit for the recovery of the co-owned property,
is an indispensable party thereto. 

i. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties 

Non-joinder of necessary parties to be pleaded (Section 9)

 Duty of pleader whenever a necessary party is not joined
1. Set forth the name of the necessary party, if known; and
2. State why such party 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 by ordering the plaintiff to file an amended complaint impleading the
necessary party therein as co-defendant.

 Note: The failure to comply with the order of the court to include a necessary
party, without justifiable cause, shall be deemed a waiver of the claim against
such party.

 The rule as provided in the second paragraph of this section is an exception to

the provision on penalties imposed on a disobedient party under Rule 17, Sec. 3
which would have entailed the dismissal of the complaint itself.

Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties (Section 11)

 A party is misjoined when he is made a party to the action although he should
not be impleaded
 A party is not joined when he is supposed to be joined but is not impleaded in
the action.
 Any claim against a misjoined party may be severed and proceeded with
separately.
 General rule: Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is a ground for
dismissal of the action.
 Exception: Failure to comply with the order of the court for the inclusion of an
indispensable party.

23
  In instances of non-joinder of indispensable parties, the property remedy is to
implead them and not to dismiss the case. The non-joinder of indispensable
parties is not a ground for dismissal of an action.
 Note: Objections to defects in parties should be made at the earliest opportunity,
the moment such defect becomes apparent, by a motion to strike the names of
the parties impleaded. Objections to misjoinder cannot be raised for the first time
on appeal.

• Divinagracia v. Parilla G.R. No. 196750, 11 March 2015 

j. 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 person in interest shall have the right to intervene to protect his individual
interest.
 Requisites of a class suit:
1. The subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general
interest to many persons;
2. The persons are so numerous that it is impractical to join them all as
parties;
3. The parties bringing the class suit are sufficient in number and
representative of the class as to fully protect the interests of all
concerned; and
4. The representatives sue or defend for the benefit of all.
 Please see mem aid for more notes on class suit.

k. Suits against entities without juridical personality 

 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
comprising the entity must all be revealed.
 An entity without juridical personality may be sued under a common name by
which it is commonly known when it represents to the plaintiff under a common
name, and the latter relies on such representation.
 With respect to judgments rendered in this situation, Section 6, Rule 36 provides
that when judgment is rendered against two or more persons associated in an
entity without juridical personality, the judgments shall set out their individual or
proper names, if known.

Instances when substitution of parties is proper:

a. Section 16. Death of party, duty of counsel; and
b. Section 17. Death or separation of a party who is a public officer.

l. Effect of death of party litigant 

 Section 16. Death of party; duty of counsel

24
 1. Inform the court within 30 days after such death of the fact thereof; and
2. Give the name and address of his legal representative(s).
 If there is notice of death, the court should wait for appointment of legal
representative, otherwise, subsequent proceedings are void.
 If there is no notice of death, the case may continue. The proceedings are valid
and judgment is binding on the successors-in-interest. The failure, however, of
counsel to comply with this duty shall be ground for disciplinary action.
 Test to determine whether an action survives the death of a party:
o The question as to whether an action survives or not depends on the
nature of the action and the damage sued for.
o In a cause of action that survives, the wrong complained of primarily
affects property and property rights, the injuries to the person is merely
incidental.
o In a cause of action that does not survive, the injury complained of is to
the person, what is incidental are the property and property rights.
o This rule is applicable regardless of whether it is the plaintiff or the
defendant who dies, or whether the case is in the trial or in the appellate
courts.
o If the action does not survive (like purely personal actions of support,
annulment of marriage and legal separation), the proper action of the
court is to simply dismiss the case. Substitution will not be required.
 Examples of actions which survive the death of the party:
1. Actions to recover real and personal property from the state;
2. Actions to enforce a lien thereof; and
3. Actions to recover damages for an injury to a person or a property.
 When formal substitution is not necessary: Formal substitution is not
necessary when the heirs themselves voluntarily appeared in the action,
participated therein, and presented evidence in defense of deceased defendant.
 Rules in cases where the action survives the death of a party:
1. Contractual money claim
1. Plaintiff dies:
 The case will continue and the heirs or legal
representatives will proceed.
b. Defendant dies: 
 Before entry of final judgment - the case shall not be
dismissed but shall be allowed to continue until entry of
judgment (a judgment favorable to the plaintiff shall be filed
as a money claim against the estate.
 After entry of final judgment but before execution - all
claims against the decedent, whether due, not due, or
contingent, must be filed within the time limited in the
notice as a claim against the estate. The plaintiff cannot
move for execution under Rule 39.
 After levy or execution but before auction sale - the
property actually levied may be sold for the satisfaction of
the judgment obligation.

25
 2. Non-contractual money claim - Apply substitution. These claims are
those mentioned in Section 7, rule 86 and Section 1, Rule 87 of the Rules
of Court.

• Spouses De la Cruz v. Joaquin, G.R. No. 162788, July 28,

2005 • Gaffney v. Butler G.R. No. 219408, 8 November 2017 
• San Juan v. Cruz G.R. No.167321, 31 July 2006 

m. Death or separation of a party who is a public officer 

 The action may be continued and maintained by or against the successor in the
public office if the following requisites are present:
1. Public officer is a party to an action in his official capacity;
2. During the pendency of the action, he either dies, resigns, or otherwise
ceases to hold office;
3. It is satisfactorily shown to the court by any party, within 30 days after the
successor takes office, that there is a substantial need for continuing or
maintaining the action;
4. That the successor adopts or continues or threatens to adopt or continue
the action of his predecessor; and
5. The party or officer affected has been given reasonable notice of the
application therefor and accorded an opportunity to be heard.

n. Incompetency or incapacity 
 In case of supervening incapacity or incompetence of a party, the action shall
continue to be prosecuted by or against him personally and not through his
representatives, in line with the amendments in Sections 3 and 5 of this Rule,
since he continues to be the real party in interest, although assisted by the
corresponding guardian.

o. Transfer of Interest 
 The transfer of interest referred to here is a transfer that occurs during the
pendency of the action.
 Where the transfer was effected before the commencement of the suit, the
transferee must necessarily be the defendant or the plaintiff, but he may file a
third-party complaint against and implead the transferor in the action whenever
the same is necessary and proper for a complete determination of all the rights of
the parties.
 General Rule: The Rules do not consider the transferee as an indispensable
party. Hence, the action may proceed without the need to implead him.
 Exception: When the substitution by or joinder of the transferee is ordered by
court upon motion.
 A transferee pendente lite:
1. Stands in exactly the same position as its predecessor-in-interest, the
original defendant; and
2. Is bound by the proceedings had in the case before the property was
transferred to it.
 The case will be dismissed if the interest of plaintiff is transferred to defendant
unless there are several plaintiffs, in which case, the remaining plaintiffs can
proceed with their own cause of action.

26
 p. Notice to Solicitor General 
 In any action involving the validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, executive order,
presidential decree, Rules or regulations, the court, in its discretion, may require
the appearance of the Solicitor General who may be heard in person or a
representative duly designated by him.
 The rule is that only the Solicitor General can bring or defend actions on behalf of
the Republic of the Philippines, or its agencies and instrumentalities, if not
initiated by the Solicitor General, will be summarily dismissed. The authority of
the Solicitor General is embodied in Sec. 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III and Book IV
of the Administrative Code of 1987.

RULE 4- VENUE

Venue - is the place, or the geographical area in which a court with jurisdiction may hear and
determine a case or the places where a case is to be tried.

a. Venue vs. Jurisdiction 

Venue Jurisdiction

As to definition

The place where the case is to be heard or tried. The authority to hear and determine a
case.

As to governing law

Matter of procedural law. Matter of substantive law.

As to relations established

Establishes a relation between plaintiff and Established a relation between the court
defendant, or petitioner and respondent. and the subject matter.

As to basis

May be conferred by the act or agreement of the Fixed by law and cannot be conferred by
parties. the parties.

 Note: A court may not motu proprio dismiss a complaint on the ground of improper
venue as it is not one of the grounds wherein the court may dismiss an action motu
proprio.
 Exception: Actions covered by the Rules on summary procedure and small claims
cases. In these types of actions, the court may motu proprio dismiss a case.
 The SC has the power to order change of venue - the SC may do so to prevent a
miscarriage of justice.

27
  Basic venue analysis - In order to know the venue of particular action, the basic and
initial step is to determine if the action is personal or real.

i. Nocum v. Lucio Tan G.R. No. 145022, 23 September 2005 

b. Venue in civil cases vs. Criminal cases 

 In civil proceedings, venue is procedural, not jurisdictional, and may be waived by the
defendant if not seasonably raised either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer. 
 Venue becomes jurisdictional only in criminal cases.

i. Nocum v. Lucio Tan G.R. No. 145022, 23 September 2005 

c. Venue of real actions 

 Section 1. 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 MTC of the
municipality or city wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.
 Real actions - An action is real when it affects title to or possession of real property or
an interest therein. All other actions are personal actions. 
 A real action is local, i.e. its venue depends upon the location of the property.
 Where the subject matter of the action involves various parcels of land situated in
different provinces, the venue is determined by the singularity or plurality of the
transactions involving the said parcels of land. Thus:
1. Where the parcels of land are the objects of one and the same transaction -
the venue is in the court of any of the provinces wherein a parcel of land is
situated; or
2. If subjects of separate and distinct transactions - there is no common venue
and separate actions should be laid in the court of the province wherein each
parcel of land is situated.

d. Venue of personal actions 

 Section 2. 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
reside, or in the case of a non-resident defendant where he may be found at the election
of the plaintiff.
 Personal action - One which is not founded upon the privity or real rights or real
property.
 A personal action is transitory. The venue is either:
1. Where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides; or
2. Where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides.
 If the defendant is a non-resident, the venue is either:
1. Where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs reside; or
2. Where the non-resident defendant may be found.

28
 Note: all at the election of the plaintiff.
 The residence of the person is his personal, actual, or physical habitation or actual
residence or place of abode, whether permanent or temporary, as long as he resides
with continuity and consistency therein.
 Where there is more than one plaintiff or defendant, the residences of the principal
parties should be the basis for determining the proper venue. Otherwise, the purpose of
the Rule would be defeated where a nominal or formal party is impleaded in the action
since the latter would not have the degree of interest in the subject of the action which
would warrant and entail the desirably active participation expected of litigants in a case.

e. Venue of actions against non-residents 

 Rules under Section 3:
1. Non- resident found in the Philippines
1. For personal actions - where the plaintiff reside; and
2. For real action - where the property is located.

2. Non-resident not found in the Philippines - An action may be filed only when
the case involves:
a. Personal status of plaintiff - where the plaintiff resides; and
b. Any property of said defendant located in the Philippines - where the
property or any portion thereof is situated or found.
Note: The residence of the corporation is the place where its head or main office is
situated.

f. When the rules on venue does not apply 

 The Rules on venue are not applicable in any of the following cases:
1. Where a specific Rule or law provides otherwise. (e.g. Civil actions for damages
in case of libel, as special Rules of venue are provided for in Art. 360 of the
Revised Penal Code.
2. Where the parties have validly agreed in writing before the filing of the action on
the exclusive venue thereof.
 Requisites of stipulations on venue:
1. In writing; 
2. Exclusive as to the venue; and
3. Made before the filing of the action.
 The mere stipulation on the venue of an action is not enough to preclude parties from
bringing a case in other venues. It must be shown that such stipulation is exclusive. In
the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, such as “exclusively” and “waiving for his
purpose any other venue,” “shall only” preceding the designation of the venue, “to the
exclusion of the other courts,” or words of similar import, the situation should be deemed
as merely an agreement on an additional forum, not as limiting venue to the specified
place.
 Complementary-contracts-construed together doctrine - An accessory contract must
be read in its entirety and together with the principal agreement. This principle is used in
construing contractual stipulations cannot be segregated and then made to control. This
no-segregation principle is based on Article 1374 of the Civil Code which provides “the
various stipulations of a contract shall be interpreted together, attributing to the doubtful
29
 ones that sense which may result from all of them taken jointly,” Incapable of standing by
itself, the surety agreement can be enforced only in conjunction with the promissory
note. The latter documents the debts that is sought to be collected in the action against
the sureties.

i. Ley Construction & Development Corp v. Sedan G.R. No. 222711, 23 August 2017 
ii. Unimasters Conglomeration Inc v. CA G.R. No. 119657, 7 February 1997 

g. Effects of stipulation on venue 

 Effect of venue stipulation when the validity of the written instrument is
controverted - A complaint directly assailing the validity of the written instrument should
not be bound by the exclusive venue stipulation contained therein and should be filed in
accordance with the general Rules on venue. It would be inherently inconsistent for a
complaint of this nature to recognize the exclusive venue stipulation when it, in fact,
precisely assails the validity of the instrument in which such stipulation is contained.

h. Rule 8, Section 12
 Affirmative defenses. — (a) A defendant shall raise his or her affirmative defenses in
his or her answer, which shall be limited to the reasons set forth under Section 5(b),
Rule 6, and the following grounds: 
1. That the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defending party;
2. That venue is improperly laid; 
3. That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;
4. That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action; and
5. That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with. 
(b) Failure to raise the affirmative defenses at the earliest opportunity shall constitute a
waiver thereof.
(c) The court shall motu proprio resolve the above affirmative defenses within thirty (30)
calendar days from the filing of the answer.   
(d) As to the other affirmative defenses under the first paragraph of Section 5(b), Rule 6,
the court may conduct a summary hearing within fifteen (15) calendar days from the
filing of the answer.  Such affirmative defenses shall be resolved by the court within thirty
(30) calendar days from the termination of the summary hearing. 
(e) Affirmative  defenses,  if  denied,  shall  not  be  the  subject  of  a  motion  for
reconsideration or petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus, but may be among the
matters to be raised on appeal after a judgment on the merits.

 This new provision should be read together with Rule 6, Section 5(b).
 Thus, the affirmative defenses include the following:
1. Fraud; 
2. Statute of limitations; 
3. Release; 
4. Payment; 
5. Illegality; 

30
 6. Statute of frauds; 
7. Estoppel; 
8. Former recovery; 
9. Discharge in bankruptcy; 
10. Any other matter by way of confession and avoidance; 
11. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; 
12. Litis pendentia; 
13. Res judicata; 
14. Lack of jurisdiction over the person of defendant; 
15. Improper venue; 
16. Plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue; 
17. Failure to state cause of action; and 
18. Failure to comply with condition precedent. 
 Even without this amendment, the old rules recognize that the grounds for a motion to
dismiss may be used as affirmative defenses. 
 The new amendment also provides that the failure to raise the affirmative defenses at
the earliest opportunity shall be a waiver thereof, without prejudice to the non- waivable
grounds. 
 The amendment also requires the courts to resolve the foregoing affirmative defenses
within 30 days from filing thereof, upon its own initiative. This is a new inclusion not
found under the old rules. In fact, based on the old rules, courts would desist from ruling
on the affirmative defenses and instead proceed to trial. Now, courts are required to rule
on the affirmative defenses within the prescribed period. 
 There may be a summary hearing on the affirmative defenses within 15 calendar days
from the filing of answer, if based on the grounds in Section 5 (b), Rule 6. If there is a
summary hearing, the affirmative defenses shall be resolved within 30 calendar days
from the termination of said hearing. 
 The amendment also categorically provides that if the affirmative defenses are denied, a
motion for reconsideration to assail the order of denial shall not be the subject of a
motion for reconsideration or petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus, but may be
among the matters to be raised on appeal after a judgment on the merits. This means
that from the denial of the affirmative defenses, the case will just proceed to trial. 
 Note that this provision incorporates some of the provisions of Section 6, Rule 16, which
provides that the grounds for a motion to dismiss may be pleaded as affirmative
defense. 
 Note also that this provision already contains the grounds for dismissal under the now
deleted old Section 1, Rule 16. Hence, the grounds to dismiss should be alleged as
affirmative defenses, except those falling under Section 1, Rule 9, which are the only
grounds that may be raised by motion to dismiss. All other grounds are prohibited
motions to dismiss, under Section 12, Rule 15.

31
32
33
34
35