Major Divisions of the Rules of Court d) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous

and dilatory, and

1. Civil Procedure
2. Criminal Procedure e) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.
3. Special Procedures
4. Evidence Elements or circumstances (c), (d) and (e) exist in the present case.

I. General Princples The suspension of the Rules is warranted in this case. The motion in question
does not affect the substantive rights of petitioner as it merely seeks to extend
a. Definition of Remedial Law the period to file Memorandum.

Case: Estipona vs Lobrigo The required extension was due to respondent's counsel's illness, lack of staff
to do the work due to storm and flood, compounded by the grounding of the
- Remedial Law is that branch of law which prescribes the method of computers. There is no claim likewise that said motion was interposed to
enforcing the rights for obtaining redress for their invasion delay the appeal.

As it appears, respondent sought extension prior to the expiration of the time

b. Substantive Law vs Remedial Law to do so and the memorandum was subsequently filed within the requested
extended period. Under the circumstances, substantial justice requires that we
Substantive Law - Part of law which creates, defines and regulates rights go into the merits of the case to resolve the issue of who is entitled to the
concerning life, liberty or property or the powers of agencies or possession of the land in question.
instrumentalities for the administration of public affairs.
Further, it has been held that a "motion for extension of time is not a litigated
Remedial Law - Prescribes the method of enforcing those rights and motion where notice to the adverse party is necessary to afford the latter an
obligation created by substantive law for obtaining redress for their invasion. opportunity to resist the application, but an ex parte motion made to the court
in behalf of one or the other of the parties to the action, in the absence and
usually without the knowledge of the other party or parties."
c. Prospective and Retroactive Effect of Rules of Court
As a general rule, notice of motion is required where a party has a right to
Remedial Law is an exception to Article 4 of the Civil Code; if the laws are resist the relief sought by the motion and principles of natural justice demand
remedial in nature, they are retroactive as there no vested rights in rules of that his rights be not affected without an opportunity to be heard. It has been
procedure. Therefore, new rules of court on procedure can apply to pending said that "ex parte motions are frequently permissible in procedural matters,
actions. and also in situations and under circumstances of emergency; and an
exception to a rule requiring notice is sometimes made where notice or the
resulting delay might tend to defeat the objective of the motion."
d. Rule Making Power of the Supreme Court

Section 5(5), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution f. The Courts

SECTION 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: - The court, as a public office, an office under the Judiciary is tasked with
resolving controversies and enforcement of procedures. It exists due to legal
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of fiction
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the
admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the i. Court and Judge distinguished
underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive
procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts - The Court has jurisdiction over cases, a judge has no jurisdiction
of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive
rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall - The Court is an office where an officer, the judge, presides
remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
- A judge physically exists while a court exists by legal fiction
Case: Estipona vs Lobrigo

Bearing in mind the very important and pivotal issues raised in this petition, ii. Classification of Courts
technical matters should not deter Us from having to make the final and
definitive pronouncement that everyone else depends for enlightenment and Case: Naga Telephone vs Court of Appeals
guidance. When public interest requires, the Court may brush aside
procedural rules in order to resolve a constitutional issue. 1. Court of Law
2. Court of Equity
The Court is invested with the power to suspend the application of the rules of
procedure as a necessary complement of its power to promulgate the same. We have to take into account the possible consequences of merely releasing
the parties therefrom: petitioners will remove the telephone wires/cables in
Let it be emphasized that the rules of procedure should be viewed as mere the posts of private respondent, resulting in disruption of their essential
tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid service to the public; while private respondent, in consonance with the
application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather contract will return all the telephone units to petitioners, causing prejudice to
than promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed. Even the Rules of its business.
Court reflect this principle. The power to suspend or even disregard rules can
be so pervasive and compelling as to alter even that which this Court itself The peculiar circumstances of the present case, as distinguished further from
has already declared to be final. the Occeña case, necessitates exercise of our equity jurisdiction.

e. Powers of the Supreme Court to Suspend the Rules of Court iii. Inherent Powers of the Court

Case: Sarmiento vs Zaratan Section 5, Rule 135, Rules of Court

There are, indeed, reasons which would warrant the suspension of the Rules: Section 5. Inherent powers of court. — Every court shall have power:

a) the existence of special or compelling circumstances, (a) To preserve and enforce order in its immediate presence;

b) the merits of the case, (b) To enforce order in proceedings before it, or before a person or persons
empowered to conduct a judicial investigation under its authority;
c) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the
party favored by the suspension of rules, (c) To compel obedience to its judgments, orders and processes, and to the
lawful orders of a judge out of court, in a case pending therein;
(d) To control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers, MTC – within the municipality or city where it is located as may be defined
and of all other persons in any manner connected with a case before it, in by the SC
every manner appertaining thereto;
RTC – within the region or province where it is located SC & CA – within the
(e) To compel the attendance of persons to testify in a case pending therein; Philippine territory (nationwide)

(f) To administer or cause to be administered oaths in a case pending therein, CLASSIFICATION OF THE COURT ACCORDING TO JURISDICTION
and in all other cases where it may be necessary in the exercise of its powers;
In the Philippines, our courts are “both courts of law and of equity”
(g) To amend and control its process and orders so as to make them
conformable to law and justice; 1) COURT OF GENERAL JURISDICTION >

(h) To authorize a copy of a lost or destroyed pleading or other paper to be Those competent to decide their own jurisdiction and to take cognizance of all
filed and used instead of the original, and to restore, and supply deficiencies kindsof cases except those expressly withheld from the plenary powers of the
in its records and proceedings. court

2) COURT OF SPECIAL OR LIMITED JURISDICTION

RULE 16. MOTION TO DISMIS
Those which have no power to decide their own jurisdiction and only try
Grounds for Filing cases permitted by the statute

1. Prescription 3) COURT OF ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

2. Ack of Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter
3. Letis Pendentia - another action is pending between the same parties Those which under the law, actions or proceedings may originally be
4. Res Judicata - a matter that has been adjudicated by a competent court and commenced
may not be pursued further by the same parties.
4) COURT OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION

II. Jurisdiction Those which have the power to review on appeal the decisions or orders of a
lower court
a. Jurisdiction in General
5) SUPERIOR COURTS
i. Classification of Jurisdiction
Those which have the power of review and supervision over another or lower
1) GENERAL JURISDICTION court

The power to adjudicate all controversies, except those expressly withheld 6) INFERIOR COURTS
from the plenary powers of the court
Those which, in relation to another court, are lower in rank and subject to
2) SPECIAL JURISDICTION review and supervision by the latter

Which restricts the court’s jurisdiction only to particular cases and subject to As used in the 1987 Constitution, the term “inferior courts” refer to all courts
such limitations as may be provided by the governing law lower than the Supreme Court

3) ORIGINAL JURISDICTION 7) COURTS OF RECORD

The power of the court to take judicial cognizance of a case instituted for Those whose proceedings are enrolled and which are bound to keep a written
judicial action for the first time under conditions provided by law; record of all trials and proceedings handled by them

4) APPELLATE JURISDICTION RA 6031 mandates to all MTC to be a court of record. Thus, Courts not of
record, no longer exist
The authority of the court higher in rank to re-examine the final order,
judgment or a lower court which tried the case now elevated for judicial 8) CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS
review
Those which owe their creation and existence to the constitution and therefore
5) EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION cannot be legislated out of existence or deprived by law of the jurisdiction and
powers unqualifiedly vested in them by the Constitution.
Power to adjudicate a case or proceeding to the exclusion of other courts at
that stage Ex. SC & Sandiganbayan

6) CONCURRENT JURISDICTION 9) STATUTORY COURTS

Sometimes referred to as the coordinate jurisdiction which is the power Those created, organized and with jurisdiction exclusively determined by law.
conferred upon different courts whether of the same or different ranks, to take
cognizance at the state of the same case in the same or different judicial
territories b. Principles Related to Jurisdiction

7) DELEGATED JURISDICTION i. Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts

The grant of authority to inferior courts to hear and determine cadastral and This is an ordained sequence of recourse to courts vested with concurrent
registration cases under certain conditions jurisdiction, beginning from the lowest, on to the next highest, and ultimately
to the highest. This hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and is
8) SPECIAL JURISDICTION likewise determinative of the proper forum for petitions for extraordinary
writs. This is an established policy necessary to avoid inordinate demands
The power of the inferior courts to hear and decide petitions for writ of upon the Court‘s time and attention which are better devoted to those matters
habeas corpus or applications for bail in the absence of all RTC judges in the within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to preclude the further clogging of the
province or city. Court‘s docket.

“Interlocutory jurisdiction” Case: GIOS-SAMAR vs DOTC

9) TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION The Supreme Court is a court of last resort, and must so remain if it is to
satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by the fundamental charter
Refers to the geographical area within which its powers can be exercised: and immemorial tradition. It cannot and should not be burdened with the task
of dealing with causes in the first instance. Its original jurisdiction to issue the iii. Doctrine of Judicial Stability or Non-Interference
so-called extraordinary writs should be exercised only where absolutely
necessary or where serious and important reasons exist therefor. Case: Barros vs Judge Omelio

Hence, that jurisdiction should generally be exercised relative to actions or The doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference in the regular orders or
proceedings before the Court of Appeals, or before constitutional or other judgments of a co-equal court is an elementary principle in the administration
tribunals, bodies or agencies whose acts for some reason or another, are not of justice: no court can interfere by injunction with the judgments or orders of
controllable by the Court of Appeals. another court of concurrent jurisdiction having the power to grant the relief
sought by the injunction. The rationale for the rule is founded on the concept
Where the issuance of an extraordinary writ is also within the competence of of jurisdiction:
the Court of Appeals or a Regional Trial Court, it is in either of these courts
that the specific action for the writ's procurement must be presented. A court that acquires jurisdiction over the case and renders judgment therein
has jurisdiction over Its judgment, to the exclusion of all other coordinate
This is and should continue to be the policy in this regard, a policy that courts courts, for its execution and over all its incidents, and to control, in
and lawyers must strictly observe. furtherance of justice, the conduct of ministerial officers acting in connection
with this judgment.
Exceptions to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts
Thus, we have repeatedly held that a case where an execution order has been
(1) when there are genuine issues of constitutionality that must be addressed issued is considered as still pending, so that all the proceedings on the
at the most immediate time; execution are still proceedings in the suit. A court which issued a writ of
execution has the inherent power, for the advancement of justice, to correct
(2) when the issues involved are of transcendental importance; errors of its ministerial officers and to control its own processes. To hold
otherwise would be to divide the jurisdiction of the appropriate forum in the
(3) cases of first impression; resolution of incidents arising in execution proceedings-Splitting of
jurisdiction is obnoxious to the orderly administration of justice.
(4) the constitutional issues raised are better decided by the Court;
Applying the foregoing ruling, it is quite clear that, in this case, the issuance
(5) exigency in certain situations; of the subject writ of preliminary injunction was improper and, thus,
correctible by certiorari. Herein respondent judge does not have jurisdiction to
(6) the filed petition reviews the act of a constitutional organ; hinder the enforcement of an order of a co-equal court. He must be aware that
said co-equal court had the exclusive jurisdiction or authority to correct its
(7) when petitioners rightly claim that they had no other plain, speedy, and own issuances if ever there was, indeed, a mistake. There is no question,
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law that could free them from the therefore, that subject writ of preliminary injunction is null and void.
injurious effects of respondents' acts in violation of their right to freedom of
expression; and
iv. Doctrine of Adherence of Jurisdiction or Continuity of Jurisdiction
(8) the petition includes questions that are "dictated by public welfare and the
advancement of public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice, 1. The principle that once a court has acquired jurisdiction, that jurisdiction
or the orders complained of were found to be patent nullities, or the appeal continues until the court has done all that it can do in the exercise of that
was considered as clearly an inappropriate remedy." jurisdiction.

A careful examination of the jurisprudential bases of the foregoing exceptions 2. The doctrine holding that even the finality of the judgment does not totally
would reveal a common denominator - the issues for resolution of the Court deprive the court of jurisdiction over the case.
are purely legal.

The only circumstance when we may take cognizance of a case in the first c. Aspects of Jurisdiction
instance, despite the presence of factual issues, is in the exercise of our
constitutionally-expressed task to review the sufficiency of the factual basis i. Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter
of the President's proclamation of martial law under Section 18, Article VII of
the 1987 Constitution. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine the
general class to which the proceedings in question belong. Jurisdiction over
the subject matter is conferred by law and not by the consent or acquiescence
ii. Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction of any or all of the parties or by erroneous belief of the court that it exists.

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction holds that if a case is such that its Case: Tijam vs Sibonghanoy
determination requires the expertise, specialized training and knowledge of an
administrative body, relief must first be obtained in an administrative The facts of this case show that from the time the Surety became a quasi-party
proceeding before resort to the courts is had even if the matter may well be on July 31, 1948, it could have raised the question of the lack of jurisdiction
within their proper jurisdiction. of the Court of First Instance of Cebu to take cognizance of the present action
by reason of the sum of money involved which, according to the law then in
1. Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies force, was within the original exclusive jurisdiction of inferior courts. It failed
to do so. Instead, at several stages of the proceedings in the court a quo as
Case: Lihaylihaty vs Treasurer of the Philippines well as in the Court of Appeals, it invoked the jurisdiction of said courts to
obtain affirmative relief and submitted its case for a final adjudication on the
Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, recourse through merits. It was only after an adverse decision was rendered by the Court of
court action cannot prosper until after all such administrative remedies have Appeals that it finally woke up to raise the question of jurisdiction. Were we
first been exhausted. If remedy is available within the administrative to sanction such conduct on its part, We would in effect be declaring as
machinery, this should be resorted to before resort can be made to courts. It is useless all the proceedings had in the present case since it was commenced on
settled that non-observance of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative July 19, 1948 and compel the judgment creditors to go up their Calvary once
remedies results in lack of cause of action, which is one of the grounds in the more. The inequity and unfairness of this is not only patent but revolting.
Rules of Court justifying the dismissal of the complaint.
As already stated, the action was commenced in the Court of First Instance of
The need for petitioner to have previously exhausted administrative remedies Cebu on July 19, 1948, that is, almost fifteen years before the Surety filed its
is congruous with the Bureau of Internal Revenue's and the Finance motion to dismiss on January 12, 1963 raising the question of lack of
Secretary's preeminent competence to consider the merits of his claims. jurisdiction for the first time.
Indeed, between this Court on the one hand, and the Bureau of Internal
Revenue and the Department of Finance on the other, the latter are in a better It has been held that a party can not invoke the jurisdiction of a court to sure
position to ascertain whether or not the information supplied by an informer affirmative relief against his opponent and, after obtaining or failing to obtain
has actually been pivotal to the discovery of tax offenses, and the conviction such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction.
and punishment of offenders. Having direct access to their own records, they
are in the best position to know if the information supplied to them is novel,
not having been previously within their knowledge or not otherwise having
been the subject of previous proceedings.
Case: Apacible vs People Asserting lack of jurisdiction on appeal before the CA does not constitute
laches. Furthermore, the filing of an answer and the failure to attend the pre-
In summary, the ruling in the case of Tijam vs Sibonghanoy applies to a party trial do not constitute the active participation in judicial proceedings
claiming lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter when: contemplated in Tijam.

1. There was a statutory right in favor of the claimant; Thus, the general rule should apply. The petitioners timely questioned the
RTC's jurisdiction.
2. The statutory right was not invoked;

3. An unreasonable length of time lapsed before the claimant raised the issue ii. Jurisdiction over the Parties
of jurisdiction;
Case: Palmiano-Salvador vs Angeles
4. The claimant actively participated in the case and sought affirmative relief What then, is the effect of a complaint filed by one who has not proven his
from the court without jurisdiction; authority to represent a plaintiff in filing an action?

5. The claimant knew or had constructive knowledge of which forum In Tamondong v. Court of Appeals,6 the Court categorically stated that "if a
possesses subject matter jurisdiction; and 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
6. Irreparable damage will be caused to the other party who relied on the complaint does not produce any legal effect. Hence, the court should dismiss
forum and the claimant’s implicit waiver. the complaint on the ground that it has no jurisdiction over the complaint and
the plaintiff."
Tijam applies in this case. Petitioners sought affirmative relief from the
Regionl Trial Court and actively participated in all stages of the proceedings. This ruling was reiterated in Cosco Philippines Shipping, Inc. v. Kemper
Therefore, there was no valid reason for petitioners to raise the issue of Insurance Company, where the Court went on to say that "in order for the
jurisdiction only now before this Court. 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
Case: Figueroa vs People 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. Clearly,
Jurisdiction over the subject-matter in a judicial proceeding is conferred by since no valid complaint was ever filed with the MeTC, the same did not
the sovereign authority which organizes the court; it is given only by law and acquire jurisdiction over the person of respondent plaintiff before the lower
in the manner prescribed by law and an objection based on the lack of such court."
jurisdiction can not be waived by the parties.
Pursuant to the foregoing rulings, therefore, the MeTC never acquired
It has been held that a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure jurisdiction over this case and all proceedings before it were null and void.
affirmative relief against his opponent and, after obtaining or failing to obtain The courts could not have delved into the very merits of the case, because
such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction. By way of explaining legally, there was no complaint to speak of. The court's jurisdiction cannot be
the rule, it was further said that the question whether the court had jurisdiction deemed to have been invoked at all.
either of the subject matter of the action or of the parties was not important in
such cases because the party is barred from such conduct not because the iii. Jurisdiction over the Issues
judgment or order of the court is valid and conclusive as an adjudication, but
for the reason that such a practice cannot be tolerated-obviously for reasons of Jurisdiction over the issues in Civil Law is conferred by the pleadings or
public policy. express consent of the parties. An issue tried but not duly pleaded may be
decided upon if no timely objection is made by the parties. In certain cases, as
The Court has constantly upheld the doctrine that while jurisdiction may be in probate proceedings, jurisdiction over the issues is conferred by law.
assailed at any stage, a litigant's participation in all stages of the case before
the trial court, including the invocation of its authority in asking for
affirmative relief, bars such party from challenging the court's jurisdiction. A iv. Jurisdiction over the Res
party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief
against his opponent and after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, Action in Personam
repudiate or question that same jurisdiction
- Is a proceeding to enforce personal rights or obligation
The ruling in Sibonghanoy on the matter of jurisdiction is, however, the
exception rather than the rule. Estoppel by laches may be invoked to bar the - An action against a person on the basis of his personal liability
issue of lack of jurisdiction only in cases in which the factual milieu is
analogous to that in the cited case. In such controversies, laches should be - Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the Court to
clearly present; that is, lack of jurisdiction must have been raised so belatedly validly try and decide the case
as to warrant the presumption that the party entitled to assert it had abandoned
or declined to assert it. That Sibonghanoy applies only to exceptional - Jurisdiction over the person of a resident defendant who does not voluntarily
circumstances is clarified in Calimlim v. Ramirez, which we quote: appear in court can be acquired by personal service of summons as provided
under Section 7, Rule 14, Rules of Court
Applying the said doctrine to the instant case, the petitioner is in no way
estopped by laches in assailing the jurisdiction of the RTC, considering that - If he cannot be personally served within a reasonable time, substituted
he raised the lack thereof in his appeal before the appellate court. At that time, service may be made
no considerable period had yet elapsed for laches to attach.
- Any judgement of the court having no jurisdiction over the person is null
True, delay alone, though unreasonable, will not sustain the defense of and void
"estoppel by laches" unless it further appears that the party, knowing his
rights, has not sought to enforce them until the condition of the party pleading Examples: Unlawfyl Detainer; Forcible Entry
laches has in good faith become so changed that he cannot be restored to his
former state, if the rights be then enforced, due to loss of evidence, change of Action in Rem
title, intervention of equities, and other causes.
- Is an action against the thing itself instead of against the person
In applying the principle of estoppel by laches in the exceptional case of
Sibonghanoy, the Court therein considered the patent and revolting inequity - The decision on the petition binds not only the parties thereto, but also the
and unfairness of having the judgment creditors go up their Calvary once whole world
more after more or less 15 years. The same, however, does not obtain in the
instant case. - Such action has publication as a notice to th whole world that the proceeding
has for its object to bar indefinitely all who might be minded
Case: Spouses Erorita vs Spouses Dumlao
- It is the publication of such notice that brings in the whole world as a party
The factual setting of this present case is not similar to Tijam so as to trigger in the case and vests the Court with jurisdiction to hear and decide the case
the; application of the estoppel by laches doctrine. As in Figueroa, the present
petitioners assailed the RTC's jurisdiction in their appeal before the CA.
- Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to conver Case: Alba vs Court of Appeals
jurisdiction on the Court, provided that the Court acquires juirsdiction over
the Res either by: Whether or not the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of
petitioner and her minor child depends on the nature of private respondent's
1. Seizure of the property under legal process when it is brought into actual action, that is, in personam, in rem or quasi in rem. An action in personam is
custody lodged against a person based on personal liability; an action in rem is
2. As a result of the institution of legal proceedings where the power of the directed against the thing itself instead of the person; while an action quasi in
Court is recognized and made effective rem names a person as defendant, but its object is to subject that person's
interest in a property to a corresponding lien or obligation.
Example: Annulment of Marriage; Correction of Entry on Birth Certificate
Hence, petitions directed against the "thing" itself or the res, which concerns
Action in Quasi Rem the status of a person, like a petition for adoption, annulment of marriage, or
correction of entries in the birth certificate, as in the instant case, are actions
- An action wherein an individual is named as defendant and the purpose of in rem.
the procedng is to subject his interest therein to the obligation or lien
burdening the property In the case at bar, the filing with the trial court of the petition for cancellation
vested the latter jurisdiction over the res. Substantial corrections or
- Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer cancellations of entries in civil registry records affecting the status or
jurisdiction on the Court provided that the Court acquires jurisdiction over the legitimacy of a person may be effected through the institution of a petition
Res under Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court, with the proper Regional Trial
Court. Being a proceeding in rem, acquisition of jurisdiction over the person
Example: To Quiet Title; Actions for Foreclosure of petitioner is therefore not required in the present case. It is enough that the
trial court is vested with jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Case: Biaco vs Philippine Countryside Rural Bank
The service of the order at No. 418 Arquiza St., Ermita, Manila and the
An action in personam is an action against a person on the basis of his publication thereof in a newspaper of general circulation in Manila,
personal liability. An action in rem is an action against the thing itself instead sufficiently complied with the requirement of due process, the essence of
of against the person. An action quasi in rem is one wherein an individual is which is an opportunity to be heard.
named as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his
interest therein to the obligation or lien burdening the property. Said address appeared in the birth certificate of petitioner minor as the
residence of Armi. Considering that the Certificate of Birth bears her
Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either signature, the entries appearing therein are presumed to have been entered
with her approval. Moreover, the publication of the order is a notice to all
(1) by the seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought indispensable parties, including Armi and petitioner minor, which binds the
into actual custody of the law; or whole world to the judgment that may be rendered in the petition. An in rem
proceeding is validated essentially through publication.
(2) as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of
the court is recognized and made effective. The absence of personal service of the order to Armi was therefore cured by
the trial court's compliance with Section 4, Rule 108, which requires notice by
Nonetheless, summons must be served upon the defendant not for the purpose publication, thus:
of vesting the court with jurisdiction but merely for satisfying the due process
requirements. SEC. 4. Notice and publication. - Upon the filing of the petition, the court
shall, by an order, fix the time and place for the hearing of the same, and
A resident defendant who does not voluntarily appear in court, such as cause reasonable notice thereof to be given to the persons named in the
petitioner in this case, must be personally served with summons as provided petition. The court shall also cause the order to be published once a week for
under Sec. 6, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. If she cannot be personally three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the
served with summons within a reasonable time, substituted service may be province.
effected (1) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's residence
with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or (2) The purpose precisely of Section 4, Rule 108 is to bind the whole world to the
by leaving the copies at defendant's office or regular place of business with subsequent judgment on the petition. The sweep of the decision would cover
some competent person in charge thereof in accordance with Sec. 7, Rule 14 even parties who should have been impleaded under Section 3, Rule 108, but
of the Rules of Court. were inadvertently left out. The Court of Appeals correctly noted:

In this case, the judicial foreclosure proceeding instituted by respondent The publication being ordered was in compliance with, and borne out by the
PCRB undoubtedly vested the trial court with jurisdiction over the res. A Order of January 7, 1985. The actual publication of the September 22, 1983
judicial foreclosure proceeding is an action quasi in rem. As such, jurisdiction Order, conferred jurisdiction upon the respondent court to try and decide the
over the person of petitioner is not required, it being sufficient that the trial case. While "nobody appeared to oppose the instant petition" during the
court is vested with jurisdiction over the subject matter. December 6, 1984 hearing, that did not divest the court from its jurisdiction
over the case and of its authority to continue trying the case. For, the rule is
Without ruling on petitioner's allegation that her husband and the sheriff well-settled, that jurisdiction, once acquired continues until termination of the
connived to prevent summons from being served upon her personally, we can case.
see that petitioner was denied due process and was not able to participate in
the judicial foreclosure proceedings as a consequence. The violation of Verily, a petition for correction is an action in rem, an action against a thing
petitioner's constitutional right to due process arising from want of valid and not against a person. The decision on the petition binds not only the
service of summons on her warrants the annulment of the judgment of the parties thereto but the whole world. An in rem proceeding is validated
trial court. essentially through publication. Publication is notice to the whole world that
the proceeding has for its object to bar indefinitely all who might be minded
There is more, the trial court granted respondent PCRB's ex-parte motion for to make an objection of any sort against the right sought to be established. It
deficiency judgment and ordered the issuance of a writ of execution against is the publication of such notice that brings in the whole world as a party in
the spouses Biaco to satisfy the remaining balance of the award. In short, the the case and vests the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it.
trial court went beyond its jurisdiction over the res and rendered a personal
judgment against the spouses Biaco. This cannot be countenanced. Case: Domagas vs Jensen

Similarly, in this case, while the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the res, Whether a proceeding is in rem, or in personam, or quasi in rem for that
its jurisdiction is limited to a rendition of judgment on the res. It cannot matter, is determined by its nature and purpose, and by these only.
extend its jurisdiction beyond the res and issue a judgment enforcing
petitioner's personal liability. In doing so without first having acquired From the aforementioned provisions of the Rules of Court and by its very
jurisdiction over the person of petitioner, as it did, the trial court violated her nature and purpose, an action for unlawful detainer or forcible entry is a real
constitutional right to due process, warranting the annulment of the judgment action and in personam because the plaintiff seeks to enforce a personal
rendered in the case. obligation or liability on the defendant under Article 539 of the New Civil
Code, for the latter to vacate the property subject of the action, restore
physical possession thereof to the plaintiff, and pay actual damages by way of
reasonable compensation for his use or occupation of the property.
In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is annulment of certificate of title without giving the person, in whose name the
necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case. Jurisdiction over the certificate was issued all the opportunities to be heard.
person of a resident defendant who does not voluntarily appear in court can be
acquired by personal service of summons as provided under Section 7, Rule Hence, regardless of the nature of the action, proper service of summons is
14 of the Rules of Court. imperative. A decision rendered without proper service of summons suffers a
If he cannot be personally served with summons within a reasonable time, defect in jurisdiction. Respondent’s institution of a proceeding for annulment
substituted service may be made in accordance with Section 8 of said Rule. of petitioner’s certificate of title is sufficient to vest the court with jurisdiction
over the res, but it is not sufficient for the court to proceed with the case with
If he is temporarily out of the country, any of the following modes of service authority and competence.
may be resorted to:
Petitioner insisted in her motion for new trial that the trial court did not
(1) substituted service set forth in Section 8; acquire jurisdiction over her person. She did not allege that fraud, accident,
mistake, or excusable negligence impaired her rights. Neither did she allege
(2) personal service outside the country, with leave of court; that she found newly discovered evidence that could have altered the trial
court decision. When her motion for new trial was denied, she filed a petition
(3) service by publication, also with leave of court; or for certiorari, insisting that her motion for new trial should have been granted
on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over her person. The Court of Appeals
(4) any other manner the court may deem sufficient. denied the petition for her failure to allege any ground for new trial. We
cannot attribute error on the part of the Court of Appeals for this denial
In the present case, the records show that the respondent, before and after his because, indeed, lack of jurisdiction is not a ground for granting a new trial.
marriage to Jarl Jensen on August 23, 1987, remained a resident of Barangay
Buenlag, Calasiao, Pangasinan. This can be gleaned from the Deed of What cannot be denied is the fact that petitioner was already notified of
Absolute Sale dated August 26, 1992 in which she declared that she was a respondent’s action for annulment of petitioner’s title when she filed a motion
resident of said barangay. Moreover, in the Real Estate Mortgage Contract for new trial and, later, a petition for certiorari. At that time, petitioner was
dated February 9, 1999, ten days before the complaint in Civil Case No. 879 deemed, for purposes of due process, to have been properly notified of the
was filed, the petitioner categorically stated that she was a Filipino and a action involving her title to the property. Lack of jurisdiction could have
resident of Barangay Buenlag, Calasiao, Pangasinan. Considering that the already been raised in an action for annulment of judgment.
respondent was in Oslo, Norway, having left the Philippines on February 17,
1999, the summons and complaint in Civil Case No. 879 may only be validly Thus, when petitioner erroneously filed her motion for new trial and petition
served on her through substituted service under Section 7, Rule 14 of the for certiorari instead of an action for annulment of judgment, she was deemed
Rules of Court. to have voluntarily participated in the proceedings against her title. The
actions and remedies she chose to avail bound her. Petitioner’s failure to file
As gleaned from the said return, there is no showing that as of April 5, 1999, an action for annulment of judgment at this time was fatal to her cause. We
the house where the Sheriff found Oscar Layno was the latter’s residence or cannot conclude now that she was denied due process.
that of the respondent herein. Neither is there any showing that the Sheriff
tried to ascertain where the residence of the respondent was on the said date.
It turned out that the occupant of the house was a lessor, Eduardo Gonzales, d. Jurisdiction of Various Philippine Courts
and that Oscar Layno was in the premises only to collect the rentals from him.
The service of the summons on a person at a place where he was a visitor is i. Supreme Court
not considered to have been left at the residence or place or abode, where he
has another place at which he ordinarily stays and to which he intends to 1. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction
return. 2. Concurrent Original Jurisdiction

In sum, then, the respondent was not validly served with summons and the Case: Lacson Hermanas vs Heirs of Ignacio
complaint in Civil Case No. 879 on April 5, 1999, by substituted service.
Hence, the MTC failed to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the In the present case, petitioner adduced no special and important reason why
respondent; as such, the decision of the MTC in Civil Case No. 879 is null direct recourse to this Court should be allowed. Thus, we reaffirm the judicial
and void. policy that this Court will not entertain a direct invocation of its jurisdiction
unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts, and
Case: De Pedro vs Romasan Development exceptional and compelling circumstances justify the resort to the
extraordinary remedy of writ of certiorari.
Regardless of the type of action — whether it is in personam, in rem or quasi
in rem — the preferred mode of service of summons is personal service. To
avail themselves of substituted service, courts must rely on a detailed 1. Appellate Jurisdiction
enumeration of the sheriff’s actions and a showing that the defendant cannot
be served despite diligent and reasonable efforts. The sheriff’s return, which
contains these details, is entitled to a presumption of regularity, and on this ii. Court of Appeals
basis, the court may allow substituted service. Should the sheriff’s return be
wanting of these details, substituted service will be irregular if no other Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, Section 9
evidence of the efforts to serve summons was presented.
Section 9. Jurisdiction. – The Court of Appeals shall Exercise:
Failure to serve summons will mean that the court failed to acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. However, the filing of a motion 1. Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari,
for new trial or reconsideration is tantamount to voluntary appearance. habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or
not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;
The sheriff’s return must show the details of the efforts exerted to personally
serve summons upon defendants or respondents,before substituted service or 2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgements of
service by publication is availed Regional Trial Courts; and

Courts may exercise their powers validly and with binding effect if they 3. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgements, resolutions,
acquire jurisdiction over: (a) the cause of action or the subject matter of the orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies,
case; (b) the thing or the res; (c) the parties; and (d) the remedy. instrumentalities, boards or commission, including the Securities and
Exchange Commission, the Social Security Commission, the Employees
Jurisdiction over the subject matter refers to the power or authority of courts Compensation Commission and the Civil Service Commission, Except those
to hear and decide cases of a general class. It is conferred by the Constitution falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance
or by law. with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential
Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph
An action for annulment of certificate of title is quasi in rem. It is not an (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph 4 of the fourth paragraph od
action “against a person on the basis of his personal liability,” but an action Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.
that subjects a person’s interest over a property to a burden. The action for
annulment of a certificate of title threatens petitioner’s interest in the The court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings,
property. Petitioner is entitled to due process with respect to that interest. receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual
The court does not have competence or authority to proceed with an action for issues raised in cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction,
including the power to grant and conduct new trials or Appeals must be c. Actions Incapable of Pecuniary Estimation
continuous and must be completed within three (3) months, unless extended
by the Chief Justice. (as amended by R.A. No. 7902.) Case: Russel vs Vestil

1. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction The complaint filed before the Regional Trial Court is doubtless one
2. Concurrent Original Jurisdiction incapable of pecuniary estimation and therefore within the jurisdiction of said
3. Appellate Jurisdiction court.
4. Special Jurisdiction
a. Anti-Terrorism Law (R.A. 11479) In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not
b. Anti-Money Laundering Act (R.A 9160) capable of pecuniary estimation this Court has adopted the criterion of first
ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. If it is
primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable
iii. Regional Trial Courts of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or
in the courts of first instance would depend on the amount of the claim.
Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, Section 19
However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a
Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise sum of money, where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a
exclusive original jurisdiction: consequence of, the principal relief sought, this Court has considered such
actions as cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in
(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by courts of first instance.
pecuniary estimation;
However, the subject matter of the complaint in this case is annulment of a
(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real document denominated as "DECLARATION OF HEIRS AND DEED OF
property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS ORAL PARTITION."
involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or for civil actions in
Metro Manila, where such the value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (50,000.00) The main purpose of petitioners in filing the complaint is to declare null and
except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or void the document in which private respondents declared themselves as the
buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon Metropolitan only heirs of the late spouses Casimero Tautho and Cesaria Tautho and
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts; divided his property among themselves to the exclusion of petitioners who
also claim to be legal heirs and entitled to the property.
(3) In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where he demand or
claim exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or , in Metro While the complaint also prays for the partition of the property, this is just
Manila, where such demand or claim exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos incidental to the main action, which is the declaration of nullity of the
(200,000.00); document above-described. It is axiomatic that jurisdiction over the subject
matter of a case is conferred by law and is determined by the allegations in
(4) In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value the complaint and the character of the relief sought, irrespective of whether
of the estate exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims asserted therein.
probate matters in Metro Manila, where such gross value exceeds Two
hundred thousand pesos (200,000.00); Case: Spouses Pajares vs Remarkable Laundry

(5) In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations; Breach of contract may give rise to an action for specific performance or
rescission of contract. It may also be the cause of action in a complaint for
(6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, damages filed pursuant to Art. 1170 of the Civil Code. In the specific
person or body exercising jurisdiction or any court, tribunal, person or body performance and rescission of contract cases, the subject matter is incapable
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; of pecuniary estimation, hence jurisdiction belongs to the Regional Trial
Court (RTC). In the case for damages, however, the court that has jurisdiction
(7) In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive depends upon the total amount of the damages claimed.
original jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the
Courts of Agrarian Relations as now provided by law; and The Court grants the Petition. The RTC was correct in categorizing Civil Case
No. CEB-39025 as an action for damages seeking to recover an amount below
(9) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of its jurisdictional limit.
whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of
the property in controversy exceeds One hundred thousand pesos An analysis of the factual and material allegations in the Complaint shows
(100,000.00) or, in such other abovementioned items exceeds Two hundred that there is nothing therein which would support a conclusion that
thousand pesos (200,000.00). (as amended by R.A. No. 7691*) respondent's Complaint is one for specific performance or rescission of
contract. It should be recalled that the principal obligation of petitioners under
1. Designation of Trial Courts as Special Courts the Remarkable Laundry Dealership Contract is to act as respondent's dealer
outlet. Respondent, however, neither asked the RTC to compel petitioners to
2. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction perform such obligation as contemplated in said contract nor sought the
rescission thereof.
a. Real Actions vs Personal Actions
The Complaint's body, heading, and relief are bereft of such allegation. In
A personal action is one brought to enforce an obligation against the obligor, fact, neither phrase appeared on or was used in the Complaint when, for
personally and independently of the property which he may own, claim, or purposes of clarity, respondent's counsels, who are presumed to be learned in
possess. A real action is one brought to enforce rights in, to, or upon law, could and should have used any of those phrases to indicate the proper
immovable property. designation of the Complaint. To the contrary, respondent's counsels
designated the Complaint as one for "Breach of Contract & Damages," which
is a misnomer and inaccurate.
b. Authority of the Supreme Court to Adjust Jurisdictional Amounts
A complaint primarily seeking to enforce the accessory obligation contained
Section 3, R.A. 11576 in the penal clause is actually an action for damages capable of pecuniary
estimation.
Section 3. Delegated Authority of the Supreme Court to Adjust the
Jurisdictional Amounts for First and Second Level Courts. – The Supreme Neither can we sustain respondent's contention that its Complaint is incapable
Court, unless otherwise provided by law, without prejudice, however, on the of pecuniary estimation since it primarily seeks to enforce the penal clause
part of the Congress to adjust the amounts when the circumstances so warrant, contained in Article IV of the Remarkable Dealer Outlet Contract.
may be adjust the jurisdictional amount for first and second level courts to:
Concomitantly, what respondent primarily seeks in its Complaint is to recover
(1) reflect the extraordinary supervening inflation or deflation of currency; aforesaid liquidated damages (which it termed as "incidental and
consequential damages") premised on the alleged breach of contract
(2) reflect change in the land valuation; committed by the petitioners when they unilaterally ceased business
operations. Breach of contract may also be the cause of action in a complaint
(3) maintain the proportion of caseload between first and second level courts. for damages filed pursuant to Article 1170 of the Civil Code.
Paragraph 8, Section 19[38] of BP 129, as amended by Republic Act No. Here, the total assessed value of the two lots subject of the suit is P9,910.00.
7691, provides that where the amount of the demand exceeds P100,000.00, Clearly, this amount does not exceed the jurisdictional threshold value of
exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation P20,000.00 fixed by law. The other damages that the Sebes claim are merely
expenses, and costs, exclusive jurisdiction is lodged with the RTC. Otherwise, incidental to their main action and, therefore, are excluded in the computation
jurisdiction belongs to the Municipal Trial Court. of the jurisdictional amount.
Case: San Pedro vs Asdala
The above jurisdictional amount had been increased to P200,000.00 on March
20, 1999 and further raised to P300,000.00 on February 22, 2004 pursuant to In a number of cases, we have held that actions for reconveyance of or for
Section 5 of RA 7691. cancellation of title to or to quiet title over real property are actions that fall
under the classification of cases that involve "title to, or possession of, real
Since the total amount of the damages claimed by the respondent in its property, or any interest therein."
Complaint filed with the RTC on September 3, 2012 amounted only to
P280,000.00, said court was correct in refusing to take cognizance of the case. Thus, under the old law, there was no substantial effect on jurisdiction
whether a case is one, the subject matter of which was incapable of pecuniary
Case: First Sarmiento vs Philippine Bank estimation, under Section 19(1) of B.P. 129, or one involving title to property
under Section 19(2).
To determine the nature of an action, whether or not its subject matter is
capable or incapable of pecuniary estimation, the nature of the principal Thus, under the present law, original jurisdiction over cases the subject matter
action or relief sought must be ascertained. If the principal relief is for the of which involves "title to, possession of, real property or any interest therein"
recovery of a sum of money or real property, then the action is capable of under Section 19(2) of B.P. 129 is divided between the first and second level
pecuniary estimation. courts, with the assessed value of the real property involved as the
benchmark. This amendment was introduced to "unclog the overloaded
However, if the principal relief sought is not for the recovery of sum of dockets of the RTCs which would result in the speedier administration of
money or real property, even if a claim over a sum of money or real property justice."
results as a consequence of the principal relief, the action is incapable of
pecuniary estimation. Clearly, the RTC and the CA ruled correctly that the MeTC had jurisdiction
over private respondents' complaint for Accion Reivindicatoria.
Section 19(1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended, provides Regional
Trial Courts with exclusive, original jurisdiction over "all civil actions in Case: Spouses Huguete vs Spouses Embudo
which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation."
While actions under Section. 33(3) of B.P. 129 are also incapable of
However, Lapitan stressed that where the money claim is only a consequence pecuniary estimation, the law specifically mandates that they are cognizable
of the remedy sought, the action is said to be one incapable of pecuniary by the MTC, METC, or MCTC where the assessed value of the real property
estimation. involved does not exceed P20,000.00 in Metro Manila, or P50,000.00, if
located elsewhere.
A careful reading of petitioner's Complaint convinces this Court that
petitioner never prayed for the reconveyance of the properties foreclosed In the case at bar, the principal purpose of petitioners in filing the complaint
during the auction sale, or that it ever asserted its ownership or possession was to secure title to the 50-square meter portion of the property which they
over them. Rather, it assailed the validity of the loan contract with real estate purchased from respondents.
mortgage that it entered into with respondent because it supposedly never
received the proceeds of the P100,000,000.00 loan agreement. Petitioners' cause of action is based on their right as purchaser of the 50-
square meter portion of the land from respondents. They pray that they be
declared owners of the property sold. Thus, their complaint involved title to
d. Real Actions real property or any interest therein. The alleged value of the land which they
purchased was P15,000.00, which was within the jurisdiction of Municipal
Case: Heirs of Sebe vs Heirs of Sevilla Trial Court.

Whether a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of a particular action The annulment of the deed of sale between Ma. Lourdes Villaber-Padillo and
is determined by the plaintiff's allegations in the complaint and the principal respondents, as well as of TCT No. 99694, were prayed for in the complaint
relief he seeks in the light of the law that apportions the jurisdiction of courts. because they were necessary before the lot may be partitioned and the 50-
square meter portion subject thereof may be conveyed to petitioners.
Based on the above allegations and prayers of the Sebes's complaint, the law
that applies to the action is Batas Pambansa 129, as amended. If this case Petitioners' argument that the present action is one incapable of pecuniary
were decided under the original text of Batas Pambansa 129 or even under its estimation considering that it is for annulment of deed of sale and partition is
predecessor, Republic Act 296, determination of the nature of the case as a not well-taken. As stated above, the nature of an action is not determined by
real action would have ended the controversy. Both real actions and actions what is stated in the caption of the complaint but by the allegations of the
incapable of pecuniary estimation fell within the exclusive original complaint and the reliefs prayed for. Where, as in this case, the ultimate
jurisdiction of the RTC. objective of the plaintiffs is to obtain title to real property, it should be filed in
the proper court having jurisdiction over the assessed value of the property
But, with the amendment of Batas Pambansa 129 by Republic Act 7601, the subject thereof.
distinction between these two kinds of actions has become pivotal. The
amendment expanded the exclusive original jurisdiction of the first level
courts to include real actions involving property with an assessed value of less e. Other Personal Actions
than P20,000.00.
i. Cases in Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction
The power of the RTC under Section 19 of Batas Pambansa 129, as amended, ii. Settlement of Estate Proceedings
to hear actions involving title to, or possession of, real property or any interest iii. Jurisdiction of Family Courts
in it now covers only real properties with assessed value in excess of
P20,000.00. But the RTC retained the exclusive power to hear actions the (Section 5, R.A. 8396)
subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation.
Section 5. Jurisdiction offamily Courts. - The Family Courts shall have
The present action is, therefore, not about the declaration of the nullity of the exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases:
documents or the reconveyance to the Sebes of the certificates of title
covering the two lots. These would merely follow after the trial court shall a) Criminal cases where one or more of the accused is below eighteen (18)
have first resolved the issue of which between the contending parties is the years of age but not less than nine (9) years of age but not less than nine (9)
lawful owner of such lots, the one also entitled to their possession. Based on years of age or where one or more of the victims is a minor at the time of the
the pleadings, the ultimate issue is whether or not defendant Sevilla defrauded commission of the offense: Provided, That if the minor is found guilty, the
the Sebes of their property by making them sign documents of conveyance court shall promulgate sentence and ascertain any civil liability which the
rather than just a deed of real mortgage to secure their debt to him. accused may have incurred.

The action is, therefore, about ascertaining which of these parties is the lawful The sentence, however, shall be suspended without need of application
owner of the subject lots, jurisdiction over which is determined by the pursuant to Ptesidential Decree No. 603, otherwise known as the "Child and
assessed value of such lots. Youth Welfare Code";
 the totality of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the
b) Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus in relation to causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions;
the latter; (2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful
detainer: Provided, That when, in such cases, the defendant raises the question
c) Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation thereof; of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be
resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall
d) Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage be resolved only to determine the issue of possession.
and those relating to marital status and property relations of husband and wife
or those living together under different status and agreements, and petitions (4) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or
for dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains; possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value
of the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos
e) Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment; (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value
does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest,
f) Summary judicial proceedings brought under the provisions of Executive damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs:
Order No. 209, otherwise known as the "Family Code of the Philippines"; Provided, That value of such property shall be determined by the assessed
value of the adjacent lots. (as amended by R.A. No. 7691)
g) Petitions for declaration of status of children as abandoned, dependent o
neglected children, petitions for voluntary or involuntary commitment of a. Cases covered by Summary Procedure
children; the suspension, termination, or restoration of parental authority and b. Cases covered by Small Claims Cases
other cases cognizable under Presidential Decree No. 603, Executive Order
No. 56, (Series of 1986), and other related laws;
2. Concurrent Jurisdiction
h) Petitions for the constitution of the family home;
a. Protection Orders
i) Cases against minors cognizable under the Dangerous Drugs Act, as
amended; Section 9, A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC

j) Violations of Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as the "Special SEC. 9. Where to file the petition. - The verified petition for protection order
Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination may be filed with the Family Court of the place where the offended party
Act," as amended by Republic Act No. 7658; and resides. If there is no existing Family Court, it may be filed with the regional
trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court in cities, municipal
k) Cases of domestic violence against: trial court or municipal circuit trial court with territorial jurisdiction over the
place of residence of the offended party.
1) Women - which are acts of gender based violence that results, or are likely
to result in physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women; and
other forms of physical abuse such as battering or threats and coercion which b. Indirect Contempt
violate a woman's personhood, integrity and freedom movement; and
Rule 71, Section 5
2) Children - which include the commission of all forms of abuse, neglect,
cruelty, exploitation, violence, and discrimination and all other conditions Section 5. Where charge to be filed. — Where the charge for indirect
prejudicial to their development. contempt has been committed against a Regional Trial Court or a court of
equivalent or higher rank, or against an officer appointed by it, the charge
If an act constitutes a criminal offense, the accused or batterer shall be subject may be filed with such court. Where such contempt has been committed
to criminal proceedings and the corresponding penalties. against a lower court, the charge may be filed with the Regional Trial Court
of the place in which the lower court is sitting; but the proceedings may also
If any question involving any of the above matters should arise as an incident be instituted in such lower court subject to appeal to the Regional Trial Court
in any case pending in the regular courts, said incident shall be determined in of such place in the same manner as provided in section 11 of this Rule. (4a;
that court. Bar Matter No. 803, 21 July 1998)

iv. General Jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court 3. Delegated Jurisdiction in Land Registration Cases

v. Claims in Personal Actions & Totality of Damages Principle

4. Special Jurisdiction in Special Cases
3. Concurrent Original Jurisdiction
4. Appellate Jurisdiction Section 35, Batas Pambansa Bilang 129
5. Special Jurisdiction
a. Land Registration Cases (Section 2 and 17, P.D. 1529) Section 35. Special jurisdiction in certain cases. – In the absence of all the
b. VAWC Cases (Section 7, R.A. 9262) Regional Trial Judges in a province or city, any Metropolitan Trial Judge,
c. Special Jurisdiction in Agrarian Cases (Section 57, R.A. 6657) Municipal Trial Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Judge may hear and decide
petitions for a writ of habeas corpus or applications for bail in criminal cases
in the province or city where the absent Regional Trial Judges sit.
iv. Municipal Trial Court

1. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction e. Conditions Precedent

Section 33, Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 i. Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts Case: Lihaylihaty vs Treasurer of the Philippines
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in civil cases. – Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise: Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, recourse through
court action cannot prosper until after all such administrative remedies have
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings, first been exhausted. If remedy is available within the administrative
testate and intestate, including the grant of provisional remedies in proper machinery, this should be resorted to before resort can be made to courts. It is
cases, where the value of the personal property, estate, or amount of the settled that non-observance of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
demand does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in remedies results in lack of cause of action, which is one of the grounds in the
Metro Manila where such personal property, estate, or amount of the demand Rules of Court justifying the dismissal of the complaint.
does not exceed Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) exclusive of
interest damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and
costs, the amount of which must be specifically alleged: Provided, That where
there are several claims or causes of action between the same or different
parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be
 Section 412(a) of the LGC requires the parties to undergo a conciliation
process before the Lupon Chairman or the Pangkat as a pre-condition to the
ii. Prior Resort to Alternative Modes of Resolution filing of a complaint in court, thus:
SECTION 412. Conciliation - (a) Pre-condition to Filing of Complaint in
1. Alternative Dispute Resolution System Court. No complaint, petition, action, or proceeding involving any matter
within the authority of the lupon shall be filed or instituted directly in court or
Section 3(a), R.A. 9285 any other government office for adjudication, unless there has been a
confrontation between the parties before the lupon chairman or the pangkat,
SEC. 3. Definition of Terms. - For purposes of this Act, the term: and that no conciliation or settlement has been reached as certified by the
lupon or pangkat secretary and attested to by the /upon or pangkat chairman
(a) "Alternative Dispute Resolution System" means any process or procedure or unless the settlement has been repudiated by the parties thereto.
used to resolve a dispute or controversy, other than by adjudication of a
presiding judge of a court or an officer of a government agency, as defined in The LGC further provides that "the lupon of each barangay shall have
this Act, in which a neutral third party participates to assist in the resolution authority to bring together the parties actually residing in the same city or
of issues, which includes arbitration, mediation, conciliation, early neutral municipality for amicable settlement of all disputes," subject to certain
evaluation, mini-trial, or any combination thereof; exceptions enumerated in the law.

One such exception is in cases where the dispute involves parties who
2. Arbitration actually reside in barangays of different cities or municipalities, unless said
barangay units adjoin each other and the parties thereto agree to submit their
Section 3(d), R.A. 9285 differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon.

SEC. 3. Definition of Terms. - For purposes of this Act, the term: In the present case, the Complaint filed before the MTCC specifically alleged
that not all the real parties in interest in the case actually reside in Roxas
(d) "Arbitration" means a voluntary dispute resolution process in which one City:35 Jimmy resided in Poblacion, Siniloan, Laguna, while Jenalyn resided
or more arbitrators, appointed in accordance with the agreement of the parties, in Brgy. de La Paz, Pasig City.36 As such, the lupon has no jurisdiction over
or rules promulgated pursuant to this Act, resolve a dispute by rendering an their dispute, and prior referral of the case for barangay conciliation is not a
award; precondition to its filing in court.

This is true regardless of the fact that Jimmy and Jenalyn had already
3. Mediation authorized their sister and co-petitioner, Josephine, to act as their attorney-in-
fact in the ejectment proceedings before the MTCC. As previously explained,
Section 3(q), R.A. 9285 the residence of the attorney-in-fact of a real party in interest is irrelevant in
so far as the "actual residence" requirement under the LGC for prior barangay
SEC. 3. Definition of Terms. - For purposes of this Act, the term: conciliation is concerned.

(q) "Mediation" means a voluntary process in which a mediator, selected by Besides, as the RTC correctly pointed out, the lack of barangay conciliation
the disputing parties, facilitates communication and negotiation, and assist the proceedings cannot be brought on appeal because it was not included in the
parties in reaching a voluntary agreement regarding a dispute. Pre-Trial Order, which only enumerates the following issues to be resolved
during the trial

iii. Earnest Efforts Among Family Members

2. Venue
Article 151, Family Code
Section 409, No. 1 of Supreme Court Circular 14-93
Art. 151. No suit between members of the same family shall prosper unless it
should appear from the verified complaint or petition that earnest efforts
toward a compromise have been made, but that the same have failed. If it is 3. Pre-Condition to Filing a Complaint
shown that no such efforts were in fact made, the same case must be
dismissed. Section 412(a), No. II to IV of Supreme Court Circular 14-93

This rules shall not apply to cases which may not be the subject of Case: Lansangan vs Caisip
compromise under the Civil Code.
In this case, the motu proprio dismissal of the complaint was anchored on
petitioner's failure to refer the matter for barangay conciliation proceedings
1. Questions NOT Subject to Compromise which in certain instances, is a condition precedent before filing a case in
court. As Section 412 (a) of RA 7160 provides, the conduct of barangay
Article 2035, Family Code conciliation proceedings is a pre-condition to the filing of a complaint
involving any matter within the authority of the lupon, to wit:
Art. 2035. No compromise upon the following questions shall be valid:
Under Section 409 (a) of RA 7160, "disputes between persons actually
(1) The civil status of persons; residing in the same barangay (as in the parties in this case) shall be brought
for amicable settlement before the lupon of said barangay."
(2) The validity of a marriage or a legal separation;
Ordinarily, non-compliance with the condition precedent of prior barangay
(3) Any ground for legal separation; conciliation could affect the sufficiency of the plaintiff's cause of action and
make his complaint vulnerable to dismissal on the ground of lack of cause of
(4) Future support; action or prematurity; but the same would not prevent a court of competent
jurisdiction from exercising its power of adjudication over the case before it,
(5) The jurisdiction of courts; where the defendants, as in this case, failed to object to such exercise of
jurisdiction in their answer and even during the entire proceedings a quo.
(6) Future legitime.
Here, the ground of non-compliance with a condition precedent, i.e.,
undergoing prior barangay conciliation proceedings, was not invoked at the
iv. Katarungang Pambarangay Law (Local Government Code) earliest opportunity, as in fact, respondent was declared in default for failure
to file a responsive pleading despite due notice. Therefore, it was grave error
1. Subject Matter for Amicable Settlement; Exception thereto for the courts a quo to order the dismissal of petitioner's complaint on said
ground. Hence, in order to rectify the situation, the Court finds it proper that
Section 408, No. 1 of Supreme Court Circular 14-93 the case be reinstated and remanded to the MCTC, which is the court of
origin, for its resolution on the merits.
Case: Abagatnan vs Spouses Clarito

4. Dispute Resolution Mechanism

 sought in order that the clerk of court may be put in a position to compute the
a. Mediation (Section 411) correct amount of docket fees.
b. Arbitration (Section 413)
5. Finality and Execution of Settlements or Awards (Sections 416-417) If the amount of docket fees paid is insufficient in relation to the amounts
being sought, the clerk of court or his duly authorized deputy has the
Case: Chavez vs Court of Appeals responsibility of making a deficiency assessment, and the plaintiff will be
required to pay the deficiency. The non-specification of the amounts of
Thus, we have held that a compromise agreement which is not contrary to damages does not immediately divest the trial court of its jurisdiction over the
law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs is a valid contract case, provided there is no bad faith or intent to defraud the Government on the
which is the law between the parties themselves. It has upon them the effect part of the plaintiff.
and authority of res judicata even if not judicially approved, and cannot be
lightly set aside or disturbed except for vices of consent and forgery. Even where the clerk of court fails to make a deficiency assessment, and the
deficiency is not paid as a result, the trial court nonetheless continues to have
If one of the parties fails or refuses to abide by the compromise, the other jurisdiction over the complaint, unless the party liable is guilty of a fraud in
party may either enforce the compromise or regard it as rescinded and insist that regard, considering that the deficiency will be collected as a fee in lien
upon his original demand. within the contemplation of Section 2,31 Rule 141 (as revised by A.M. No.
00-2-01-SC). The reason is that to penalize the party for the omission of the
Thus, although the "Kasunduan" executed by petitioner and respondent before clerk of court is not fair if the party has acted in good faith.
the Office of the Barangay Captain had the force and effect of a final
judgment of a court, petitioner's non-compliance paved the way for the Herein, the docket fees paid by Agcaoili were insufficient considering that the
application of Art. 2041 under which respondent may either enforce the complaint did not specify the amounts of moral damages, exemplary damages
compromise, following the procedure laid out in the Revised Katarungang and attorney's fees. Nonetheless, it is not disputed that Agcaoili paid the
Pambarangay Law, or regard it as rescinded and insist upon his original assessed docket fees. Such payment negated bad faith or intent to defraud the
demand. Government. Nonetheless, Agcaoili must remit any docket fee deficiency to
the RTC's clerk of court.
In the case at bar, respondent alleged that petitioner made unauthorized
repairs in the leased premises and ousted his personnel therefrom despite their
valid and subsisting lease agreement. Petitioner alleged, by way of defense, III. General Provisions (Rule 1)
that he undertook the repairs because respondent abandoned the leased
premises and left it in a state of disrepair. a. Kinds of Actions
i. Ordinary Civil Actions
However, petitioner presented no evidence to prove his allegation, as he did ii. Special Civil Actions
not attend the pretrial conference and was consequently declared in default. iii. Criminal Actions
What remains undisputed therefore is that petitioner had a valid and iv. Special Proceedings
subsisting lease contract with respondent which he refused to honor by giving v. Personal Actions and Real Actions
back possession of the leased premises to respondent. We therefore sustain vi. Local and Transitory Actions
the conclusion of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals that an award
of moral damages is justified under the circumstances. We likewise sustain Case: Gochan vs Gochan
the award for exemplary damages considering petitioner's propensity not to
honor his contractual obligations, first under the lease contract and second, We are not unmindful of our pronouncement in the case of Sun Insurance, 16
under the amicable settlement executed before the Office of the Barangay to the effect that in case the filing of the initiatory pleading is not
Captain. Since respondent was compelled to litigate and incur expenses to accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of
protect his interest on account of petitioner's refusal to comply with his the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable
contractual obligations, the award of attorney's fees has to be sustained. prescriptive period. However, the liberal interpretation of the rules relating to
the payment of docket fees as applied in the case of Sun Insurance cannot
apply to the instant case as respondents have never demonstrated any
f. Docket Fees and Filing Fees willingness to abide by the rules and to pay the correct docket fees. Instead,
respondents have stubbornly insisted that the case they filed was one for
i. Sun Insurance Guidelines specific performance and damages and that they actually paid the correct
docket fees therefor at the time of the filing of the complaint. Thus, it was
1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory stated in the case of Sun Insurance:
pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court
with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action. Where the The principle in Manchester could very well be applied in the present case.
filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the docket The pattern and the intent to defraud the government of the docket fee due it
fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no is obvious not only in the filing of the original complaint but also in the filing
case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. of the second amended complaint.

2. The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third party claims and However, in Manchester, petitioner did not pay any additional docket fee until
similar pleadings, which shall not be considered filed until and unless the the case was decided by this Court on May 7, 1987. Thus, in Manchester, due
filing fee prescribed therefor is paid. The court may also allow payment of to the fraud committed on the government, this Court held that the court a quo
said fee within a reasonable time but also in no case beyond its applicable did not acquire jurisdiction over the case and that the amended complaint
prescriptive or reglementary period. could not have been admitted inasmuch as the original complaint was null and
void.
3. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the filing of the
appropriate pleading and payment of the prescribed filing fee but, In the present case, a more liberal interpretation of the rules is called for
subsequently, the judgment awards a claim not specified in the pleading, or if considering that, unlike Manchester, private respondent demonstrated his
specified the same has been left for determination by the court, the additional willingness to abide by the rules by paying the additional docket fees as
filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the judgment. It shall be the required. The promulgation of the decision in Manchester must have had that
responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy to enforce sobering influence on private respondent who thus paid the additional docket
said lien and assess and collect the additional fee. fee as ordered by the respondent court. It triggered his change of stance by
manifesting his willingness to pay such additional docket fee as may be
ordered.
ii. Prevailing Rule as to Non-Payment of Docket Fees

Case: Fedman Development vs Agcaoili c. In What Cases Not Applicable

The filing of the complaint or other initiatory pleading and the payment of the
prescribed docket fee are the acts that vest a trial court with jurisdiction over d. Commencement of a Civil Action
the claim. In an action where the reliefs sought are purely for sums of money
and damages, the docket fees are assessed on the basis of the aggregate
amount being claimed. Ideally, therefore, the complaint or similar pleading e. Construction of the Rules of Court
must specify the sums of money to be recovered and the damages being
i. When Liberal Construction Allowed
 1. A right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law
it arises or is created;
IV. Cause of Action (Rule 2) 2. An obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to
violate such right; and
Case: Spouses Zepeda vs China Banking Corporation
3. Act or omission on the part of such defendant in violation of the right of the
A cause of action is a formal statement of the operative facts that give rise to plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the
a remedial right plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages
or other appropriate relief.
Whether a complaint states a cuase of action is determined by the avened
facts committed by the defendant It is, thus, only upon the occurrence of the last element that a cause of action
arises, giving the plaintiff the right to maintain an action in court for recovery
Failure to make a sufficient allegation of a cuase of action in the complaint of damages or other appropriate relief.
warrants its dismissal
We find the allegations in the complaint sufficient to establish a cause of
Elements of a Cause of Action action for nullifying the foreclosure of the mortgaged property. The fact that
petitioners admitted that they failed to redeem the property and that the title
1. A right in favor of a the plaintiff was consolidated in respondent bank's name did not preclude them from
2. An obligation of the defendant to respect or not to violate such right seeking to nullify the extrajudicial foreclosure. Precisely, petitioners seek to
3. The act or omission of the defendant that violates the right of the plaintiff nullify the proceedings based on circumstances obtaining prior to and during
the foreclosure which render it void.

a. Meaning of a Cause of Action Case: Misamis Occidental II Coop vs David

i. Elements of a Cause of Action The sufficiency of the cause of action must appear on the face of the
complaint in order to sustain a dismissal on this ground. No extraneous matter
Case: BPI Express Card Co vs Court of Appeals may be considered nor facts not alleged, which would require evidence and
therefore must be raised as defenses and await the trial. In other words, to
In other words, in order that a plaintiff may maintain an action for the injuries determine the sufficiency of the cause of action, only the facts alleged in the
of which he complains, he must establish that such injuries resulted from a complaint, and no other should be considered.
breach of duty which the defendant owed to the plaintiff - a concurrence of
injury to the plaintiff and legal responsibility by the person causing it. The To determine the existence of a cause of action, only the statements in the
underlying basis for the award of tort damages is the premise that an complaint may be properly considered. It is error for the court to take
individual was injured in contemplation of law. Thus, there must first be a cognizance of external facts or hold preliminary hearings to determine their
breach of some duty and the imposition of liability for that breach before existence. If the allegations in a complaint furnish sufficient basis by which
damages may be awarded; and the breach of such duty should be the the complaint can be maintained, the same should not be dismissed regardless
proximate cause of the injury. of the defenses that may be averred by the defendants.

We therefore disagree with the ruling of the respondent court that the The test of sufficiency of facts alleged in the complaint as constituting a cause
dishonor of the credit card of the private respondent by Café Adriatico is of action is whether or not admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a
attributable to petitioner for its willful or gross neglect to inform the private valid verdict in accordance with the prayer of said complaint.
respondent of the suspension of his credit card, the unfortunate consequence
of which brought social humiliation and embarrassment to the private Contrary to MOELCI II's assertion, Annex "A" is not an "undisguised
respondent. quotation letter." While Annex "A" is captioned as such, the presence of the
signatures of both the General Manager and the Chairman of the Committee
It was petitioner's failure to settle his obligation which caused the suspension of Management immediately below the word "CONFORME" appearing on
of his credit card and subsequent dishonor at Café Adriatico. He can not now the document's last page lends credulity to David's contention that there was,
pass the blame to the petitioner for not notifying him of the suspension of his or might have been, a meeting of minds on the terms embodied therein. Thus,
card. As quoted earlier, the application contained the stipulation that the the appendage of Annex "A" does not entirely serve to snuff out David's
petitioner could automatically suspend a card whose billing has not been paid claims.
for more than thirty days. Nowhere is it stated in the terms and conditions of
the application that there is a need of notice before suspension may be
effected as private respondent claims. iii. Failure to State a Cause of Action vs. Lack of a Cause of Action

Case: Spouses Pajares vs Remarkable Laundry

iv. Right of Action vs. Cause of Action
In sum, after juxtaposing Article IV of the Remarkable Dealer Outlet Contract
vis-à-vis the prayer sought in respondent's Complaint, this Court is convinced Case: Spouses Borbe vs Calalo
that said Complaint is one for damages. True, breach of contract may give rise
to a complaint for specific performance or rescission of contract. In which The sole issue for our resolution is whether petitioners' action has prescribed.
case, the subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation and, therefore,
jurisdiction is lodged with the RTC. However, breach of contract may also be Petitioners contend that their cause of action accrued only in 1995, when they
the cause of action in a complaint for damages. Thus, it is not correct to tendered the remaining balance of P500.00 to respondent which the latter
immediately conclude, as the CA erroneously did, that since the cause of refused to accept. Thus, the Court of Appeals erred when it dismissed their
action is breach of contract, the case would only either be specific complaint by reason of prescription.
performance or rescission of contract because it may happen, as in this case,
that the complaint is one for damages. Respondent, for her part, maintains that the petition should be denied for lack
of merit.
Case: Spouses Zepeda vs China Banking
Article 1144 of the Civil Code provides:
A cause of action is a formal statement of the operative facts that give rise to
a remedial right. The question of whether the complaint states a cause of Article 1144. The following actions must be brought within ten years from the
action is determined by its averments regarding the acts committed by the time the right of action accrues:
defendant. Thus it "must contain a concise statement of the ultimate or
essential facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action." Failure to make a (1) Upon a written contract;
sufficient allegation of a cause of action in the complaint "warrants its
dismissal." (2) Upon an obligation created by law;

As defined in Section 2, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court, a cause of action is the (3) Upon a judgment.
act or omission by which a party violates the right of another.
In Multi-Realty Development Corporation v. The Makati Tuscany
Its essential elements are as follows: Condominium Corporation, we held that the term "right of action" is the right
to commence and maintain an action. The right of action springs from the then the second complaint for unlawful detainer may be dismissed on the
cause of action, but does not accrue until all the facts which constitute the ground of litis pendentia.
cause of action have occurred.
Under the terms of the "Kasunduan," petitioners would pay the balance of We rule that Civil Case Nos. 8084 and 9210 involve different causes of
P3,000.00 once the land sold will be titled in the name of respondent. TCT action.
No. T-51153 covering the subject lot was issued in respondent's name on
September 22, 1982. From this day, petitioners could have asked respondent Generally, a suit may only be instituted for a single cause of action. If two or
to accept the remaining balance of P500.00 and execute a new deed of sale in more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of
their favor. one or a judgment on the merits in any one is ground for the dismissal of the
others.
Unfortunately, it was only in 1995 when petitioners attempted to pay the
remaining balance of P500.00. And it was only on August 15, 1995, or 13 Several tests exist to ascertain whether two suits relate to a single or common
years after the lot was registered in respondent's name, that petitioners filed cause of action, such as whether the same evidence would support and sustain
the complaint for specific performance. Clearly by then, petitioners' cause of both the first and second causes of action (also known as the "same evidence"
action had prescribed. test), or whether the defenses in one case may be used to substantiate the
complaint in the other. Also fundamental is the test of determining whether
Petitioners contend that they filed the action only in 1995 because respondent the cause of action in the second case existed at the time of the filing of the
did not inform them of the issuance of TCT No. T-51153 in her name. We are first complaint.
not convinced. The issuance of TCT No. T-51153 on September 22, 1982 was
a constructive notice to the whole world that respondent has become the The facts clearly show that the filing of the first ejectment case was grounded
owner of the lot described therein. Petitioners are thus barred from claiming on the petitioner’s violation of stipulations in the lease contract, while the
that they were not notified thereof. filing of the second case was based on the expiration of the lease contract.

It was only at the expiration of the lease contract that the cause of action in
b. Prohibition Against Splitting a Single Cause of Action the second ejectment complaint accrued and made available to the respondent
as a ground for ejecting the petitioner. Thus, the cause of action in the second
Case: Marilag vs Martinez case was not yet in existence at the time of filing of the first ejectment case.

Consequently, a party will not be permitted to split up a single cause of action In response to the petitioner’s contention that the similarity of Civil Case Nos.
and make it a basis for several suits as the whole cause must be determined in 8084 and 9210 rests on the reiteration in the second case of the cause of
one action. To be sure, splitting a cause of action is a mode of forum shopping action in the first case, we rule that the restatement does not result in
by filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action, but with different substantial identity between the two cases. Even if the respondent alleged
prayers, where the round of dismissal is litis pendentia for res judicata, as the violations of the lease contract as a ground for ejectment in the second
case may be). complaint, the main basis for ejecting the petitioner in the second case was the
expiration of the lease contract. If not for this subsequent development, the
In this relation, it must be noted that the question of whether a cause of action respondent could no longer file a second complaint for unlawful detainer
is single and entire or separate is not always easy to determine and the same because an ejectment complaint may only be filed within one year after the
must often be resolved, not by the general rules, but by reference to the facts accrual of the cause of action,27 which, in the second case, was the expiration
and circumstances of the particular case. The true rule, therefore, is whether of the lease contract.
the entire amount arises from one and the same act or contract which must,
thus, be sued for in one action, or the several parts arise from distinct and Case: Riviera Golf Club vs CCA Holdings
different acts or contracts, for which a party may maintain separate suits.
The Court is also convinced that there is identity of causes of action between
In loan contracts secured by a real estate mortgage, the rule is that the the first and the second complaints.
creditor-mortgagee has a single cause of action against the debtor mortgagor,
i.e., to recover the debt, through the filing of a personal action for collection A cause of action may give rise to several reliefs, but only one action can be
of sum of money or the institution of a real action to foreclose on the filed. A single cause of action or entire claim or demand cannot be split up or
mortgage security. The two remedies are alternative, not cumulative or divided into two or more different actions. The rule on prohibiting the
successive, and each remedy is complete by itself. Thus, if the creditor- splitting of a single cause of action is clear. Section 4, Rule 2 of the Rules of
mortgagee opts to foreclose the real estate mortgage, he waives the action for Court expressly states:
the collection of the unpaid debt, except only for the recovery of whatever
deficiency may remain in the outstanding obligation of the debtor-mortgagor Section 4. Splitting a single cause of action; effect of. - If two or more suits
after deducting the bid price in the public auction sale of the mortgaged are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a
properties. Accordingly, a deficiency judgment shall only issue after it is judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal
established that the mortgaged property was sold at public auction for an of the others.
amount less than the outstanding obligation.
In both Civil Case No. 01-611 and Civil Case No. 03-399, CCA Holdings
In the present case, records show that petitioner, as creditor mortgagee, imputed the same wrongful act - the alleged violations of the terms and
instituted an action for judicial foreclosure pursuant to the provisions of Rule conditions of the Management and Royalty Agreements.
68 of the Rules of Court in order to recover on Rafael's debt. In light of the
foregoing discussion, the availment of such remedy thus bars recourse to the In Civil Case No. 01-611, CCA Holdings' cause of action rests on Riviera
subsequent filing of a personal action for collection of the same debt, in this Golfs failure to pay the licensing fees, reimbursement claims, and monthly
case, under the principle of litis pendentia, considering that the foreclosure management and incentive fees.
case only remains pending as it was not shown to have attained finality.
In Civil Case No. 03-399 on the other hand, CCA Holdings' cause of action
Case: Umale vs Canoga Park hinges on the damages it allegedly incurred as a result of Riviera Golfs
premature termination of the Management and Royalty Agreements (i.e., the
As a ground for the dismissal of a civil action, litis pendentia refers to a expected business profits it was supposed to derive for the unexpired two-year
situation where two actions are pending between the same parties for the term of the Management Agreement).
same cause of action, so that one of them becomes unnecessary and
vexatious. Although differing in form, these two cases are ultimately anchored on
Riviera Golfs breach of the Management and Royalty Agreements. Thus, we
Litis pendentia exists when the following requisites are present: identity of the conclude that they have identical causes of action.
parties in the two actions; substantial identity in the causes of action and in
the reliefs sought by the parties; and the identity between the two actions It is a settled rule that the application of the doctrine of res judicata to
should be such that any judgment that may be rendered in one case, regardless identical causes of action does not depend on the similarity or differences in
of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other. the forms of the two actions. A party cannot, by varying the form of the action
or by adopting a different method of presenting his case, escape the operation
In the present case, the parties’ bone of contention is whether Civil Case Nos. of the doctrine of res judicata. The test of identity of causes of action rests on
8084 and 9210 involve the same cause of action. The petitioner argues that whether the same evidence would support and establish the former and the
the causes of action are similar, while the respondent argues otherwise. If an present causes of action.
identity, or substantial identity, of the causes of action in both cases exist,
We held in Esperas v. The Court of Appeals that the ultimate test in 4. Where the claim in all the causes of action are principally for recovery of
determining the presence of identity of cause of action is to consider whether money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction
the same evidence would support the cause of action in both the first and the
second cases. Under the same evidence test, when the same evidence support Requisites for Permissive Joinder of Action
and establish both the present and the former causes of action, there is likely
an identity of causes of action. Section 6, Rule III of the Revised Rules of Court

The difference in form and nature of the two actions is immaterial and is not a 1. The right to relief arises out of the same transaction or series of transactions
reason to exempt petitioner from the effects of res judicata. The philosophy 2. There is a question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs or defendants
behind this rule prohibits the parties from litigating the same issue more than
once. When a right or fact has been judicially tried and determined by a court 3. Such joinder is not otherwise proscribed by the provisions of the Rules on
of competent jurisdiction or an opportunity for such trial has been given, the Jurisdictions and Venue
judgment of the court, as long as it remains unreversed, should be conclusive
upon the parties and those in privity with them. Verily, there should be an end Case: Pantranco North Express vs Standard Insurance
to litigation by the same parties and their privies over a subject, once it is
fully and fairly adjudicated. Section 6, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court, provides:

Case: CGR Corporation vs Treyes "Sec. 6. Permissive joinder of parties. - All persons in whom or against whom
any right to relief in respect to or arising out of the same transaction or series
Petitioners' filing of an independent action for damages other than those of transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the
sustained as a result of their dispossession or those caused by the loss of their alternative, may, except as otherwise provided in these Rules, join as
use and occupation of their properties could not thus be considered as plaintiffs or be joined as defendants in one complaint, where any question of
splitting of a cause of action. 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
Restated in its bare essentials, the forcible entry case has one cause of action, any plaintiff or defendant from being embarrassed or put to expense in
namely, the alleged unlawful entry by petitioner into the leased premises out connection with any proceedings in which he may have no interest."
of which three (3) reliefs (denominated by private respondent as its causes of
action) arose: Permissive joinder of parties requires that:

(a) the restoration by the lessor (petitioner herein) of the possession of the (a)the right to relief arises out of the same transaction or series of
leased premises to the lessee, transactions;

(b)the claim for actual damages due to the losses suffered by private (b)there is a question of law or fact common to all the plaintiffs or defendants;
respondent such as the deterioration of perishable foodstuffs stored inside the
premises and the deprivation of the use of the premises causing loss of (c) such joinder is not otherwise proscribed by the provisions of the Rules on
expected profits; and, jurisdiction and venue.

(c) the claim for attorney’s fees and costs of suit. In this case, there is a single transaction common to all, that is, Pantranco's
bus hitting the rear side of the jeepney. There is also a common question of
On the other hand, the complaint for damages prays for a monetary award fact, that is, whether petitioners are negligent. There being a single transaction
consisting of (a) moral damages of P500,000.00 and exemplary damages of common to both respondents, consequently, they have the same cause of
another P500,000.00; (b) actual damages of P20,000.00 and compensatory action against petitioners.
damages of P1,000,000.00 representing unrealized profits; and, (c)
P200,000.00 for attorney’s fees and costs, all based on the alleged forcible To determine identity of cause of action, it must be ascertained whether the
takeover of the leased premises by petitioner. Since actual and compensatory same evidence which is necessary to sustain the second cause of action would
damages were already prayed for in the forcible entry case before the MeTC, have been sufficient to authorize a recovery in the first. Here, had respondents
it is obvious that this cannot be relitigated in the damage suit before the RTC filed separate suits against petitioners, the same evidence would have been
by reason of res adjudicata. presented to sustain the same cause of action. Thus, the filing by both
respondents of the complaint with the court below is in order.
It bears noting, however, that as reflected in the earlier-quoted allegations in
the complaint for damages of herein petitioners, their claim for damages have Such joinder of parties avoids multiplicity of suit and ensures the convenient,
no direct relation to their loss of possession of the premises. It had to do with speedy and orderly administration of justice.
respondent’s alleged harvesting and carting away several tons of milkfish and
other marine products in their fishponds, ransacking and destroying of a Corollarily, Section 5(d), Rule 2 of the same Rules provides:
chapel built by petitioner CGR Corporation, and stealing religious icons and
even decapitating the heads of some of them, after the act of dispossession "Sec. 5. Joinder of causes of action. - A party may in one pleading assert, in
had occurred. the alternative or otherwise, as many causes of action as he may have against
an opposing party, subject to the following conditions:
Surely, one of the elements of litis pendentia - that the identity between the
pending actions, with respect to the parties, rights asserted and reliefs prayed (d) Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for recovery of
for, is such that any judgment rendered on one action will, regardless of money the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction."
which is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration -
is not present, hence, it may not be invoked to dismiss petitioners’ complaint The above provision presupposes that the different causes of action which are
for damages. joined accrue in favor of the same plaintiff/s and against the same defendant/s
and that no misjoinder of parties is involved. The issue of whether
respondents' claims shall be lumped together is determined by paragraph (d)
c. Joinder and Misjoinder of Causes of Action of the above provision.

Requisites for a Valid Joinder of Causes of Action This paragraph embodies the "totality rule" as exemplified by Section 33 (1)
of B.P. Blg. 129 which states, among others, that "where there are several
Section 5, Rule II of the Revised Rules of Court claims or causes of action between the same or different parties, embodied in
the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the
1. The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the rules on claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action
joinder of parties arose out of the same or different transactions."

2. The joinder shall not include special civil actions governed by special rules As previously stated, respondents' cause of action against petitioners arose out
of the same transaction. Thus, the amount of the demand shall be the totality
3. Where the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to of the claims.
different venues or jurisdiction, the joinder may be allowed in the RTC
provided that one of the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction and the Respondent Standard's claim is P8,000.00, while that of respondent Martina
venue lies therein Gicale is P13,415.00, or a total of P21,415.00. Section 19 of B.P. Blg. 129
provides that the RTC has "exclusive original jurisdiction over all other cases,
in which the demand, exclusive of interest and cost or the value of the
property in controversy, amounts to more than twenty thousand pesos A cause of action may be single although the plaintiff seeks a variety of
(P20,000.00)." Clearly, it is the RTC that has jurisdiction over the instant remedies. The mere fact that the plaintiff prays for multiple reliefs does not
case. It bears emphasis that when the complaint was filed, R.A. 7691 indicate that he has stated more than one cause of action. The prayer may be
expanding the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan, Municipal and Municipal an aid in interpreting the petition and in determining whether or not more than
Circuit Trial Courts had not yet taken effect. It became effective on April 15, one cause of action is pleaded. If the allegations of the complaint show one
1994. primary right and one wrong, only one cause of action is alleged even though
other matters are incidentally involved, and although different acts, methods,
Case: Spouses Perez vs Hermano elements of injury, items of claims or theories of recovery are set forth.
Where two or more primary rights and wrongs appear, there is a joinder of
While the rule allows a plaintiff to join as many separate claims as he may causes of action.
have, there should nevertheless be some unity in the problem presented and a After due consideration of the foregoing, we find and so rule that Section
common question of law and fact involved, subject always to the restriction 5(c), Rule 2 of the Rules of Court does not apply. This is so because the
thereon regarding jurisdiction, venue and joinder of parties. Unlimited joinder petitioners, as plaintiffs in the court a quo, had only one cause of action
is not authorized. against the respondents, namely, the breach of the MOA upon the latter's
refusal to pay the first two installments in payment of the property as agreed
Our rule on permissive joinder of causes of action, with the proviso subjecting upon, and turn over to the petitioners the possession of the real property, as
it to the correlative rules on jurisdiction, venue and joinder of parties and well as the house constructed thereon occupied by the respondents. The claim
requiring a conceptual unity in the problems presented, effectively disallows for damages for reasonable compensation for the respondents' use and
unlimited joinder. occupation of the property, in the interim, as well as moral and exemplary
damages suffered by the petitioners on account of the aforestated breach of
Section 6, Rule 2 on misjoinder of causes of action provides: contract of the respondents are merely incidental to the main cause of action,
and are not independent or separate causes of action.
Sec. 6. Misjoinder of causes of action. - Misjoinder of causes of action is not
a ground for dismissal of an action. A misjoined cause of action may, on
motion of a party or on the initiative of the court, be severed and proceeded V. Parties to Civil Actions (Rule 3)
with separately.
a. Who May be Parties
There is misjoinder of causes of action when the conditions for joinder under
Section 5, Rule 2 are not met. Section 5 provides: Case: Association of Flood Victims vs COMELEC

Sec. 5. Joinder of causes of action. - A party may in one pleading assert, in Petitioners do not have legal capacity to sue. Sections 1 and 2, Rule 3 of the
the alternative or otherwise, as many causes of action as he may have against 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure read:
an opposing party, subject to the following conditions:
SECTION 1. Who may be parties; plaintiff and defendant. – Only natural or
(a) The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the rules on juridical persons, or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action.
joinder of parties; 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”
(b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed by may refer to the original defending party, the defendant in a counterclaim, the
special rules; cross-defendant, or the third (fourth, etc.) -party defendant.

(c) Where the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to SECTION 2. Parties in interest. – A real party in interest is the party who
different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the Regional stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party
Trial Court provided one of the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these
said court and the venue lies therein; and Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real
party in interest.
(d) Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for recovery of
money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction. Under Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 3, only natural or juridical persons,or entities
authorized by law may be parties in a civil action, which must be prosecuted
As far as can be gathered from the assailed Orders, it is the first condition - on or defended in the name of the real party in interest. Article 44 of the Civil
joinder of parties - that the trial court deemed to be lacking. It is well to Code lists the juridical persons with capacity to sue, thus:
remember that the joinder of causes of action may involve the same parties or
different parties. If the joinder involves different parties, as in this case, there Art. 44. The following are juridical persons:
must be a question of fact or of law common to both parties joined, arising
out of the same transaction or series of transaction. (1) The State and its political subdivisions;

In herein case, petitioners have adequately alleged in their complaint that after (2) Other corporations, institutions and entities for public interest or purpose,
they had already agreed to enter into a contract to sell with Zescon Land, Inc., created by law; their personality begins as soon as they have been constituted
through Sales-Contreras, the latter also gave them other documents to sign, to according to law;
wit: A Deed of Absolute Sale over the same properties but for a lower
consideration, two mortgage deeds over the same properties in favor of (3) Corporations, partnerships and associations for private interest or purpose
respondent Hermano with accompanying notes and acknowledgment receipts to which the law grants a juridical personality, separate and distinct from that
for Ten Million pesos (P10,000,000) each. of each shareholder, partner or member.

From the above averments in the complaint, it becomes reasonably apparent Section 4, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court mandates that “facts showing the
that there are questions of fact and law common to both Zescon Land, Inc., capacity of a party to sue or be sued or the authority of a party to sue or be
and respondent Hermano arising from a series of transaction over the same sued in a representative capacity or the legal existence of an organized
properties. association of persons that is made a party, must be averred.”

Thus, respondent Hermano will definitely be affected if it is subsequently In their petition, it is stated that petitioner Association of Flood Victims “is a
declared that what was entered into by petitioners and Zescon Land, Inc., was non-profit and non-partisan organization in the process of formal
a Contract of Sale (as evidenced by the Deed of Absolute Sale signed by incorporation, the primary purpose of which is for the benefit of the common
them) because this would mean that the contracts of mortgage were void as or general interest of many flood victims who are so numerous that it is
petitioners were no longer the absolute owners of the properties mortgaged. impracticable to join all as parties,” and that petitioner Hernandez “is a Tax
Payer and the Lead Convenor of the Association of Flood Victims.” Clearly,
Prescinding from the foregoing, and bearing in mind that the joinder of causes petitioner Association of Flood Victims, which is still in the process of
of action should be liberally construed as to effect in one action a complete incorporation, cannot be considered a juridical person or an entity authorized
determination of all matters in controversy involving one subject matter, we by law, which can be a party to a civil action.
hold that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in severing from
the complaint petitioners' cause of action against respondent Hermano. Petitioner Association of Flood Victims is an unincorporated association not
endowed with a distinct personality of its own. An unincorporated
Case: Spouses Decena vs Spouses Piquero association, in the absence of an enabling law, has no juridical personality and
thus, cannot sue in the name of the association. Such unincorporated
association is not a legal entity distinct from its members.
If an association, like petitioner Association of Flood Victims, has no juridical The controversy centers on Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, specifically an
personality, then all members of the association must be made parties in the elementary rule in remedial law, which is quoted as follows:
civil action.
"Sec. 2. Parties in interest. - A real party in interest is the party who stands to
In this case, other than his bare allegation that he is the lead convenor of the be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the
Association of Flood Victims, petitioner Hernandez showed no proof that he avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every
was authorized by said association. Aside from petitioner Hernandez, no other action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in
member was made signatory to the petition. Only petitioner Hernandez signed interest."
the Verification and Sworn Certification Against Forum Shopping, stating
that he caused the preparation of the petition. There was no accompanying As applied to the present case, this provision has two requirements:
document showing that the other members of the Association of Flood
Victims authorized petitioner Hernandez to represent them and the association 1)to institute an action, the plaintiff must be the real party in interest; and
in the petition.
2)the action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.
The members cannot represent their association in any suit without valid and
legal authority. Neither can their signatures confer on the association any Interest within the meaning of the Rules means material interest or an interest
legal capacity to sue. Nor will the fact that SSHA belongs to the Federation of in issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the case, as distinguished
Valenzuela Homeowners Association, Inc., suffice to endow SSHA with the from mere curiosity about the question involved. One having no material
personality and capacity to sue. interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as the plaintiff in
an action. When the plaintiff is not the real party in interest, the case is
Since petitioner Association of Flood Victims has no legal capacity to sue, dismissible on the ground of lack of cause of action.
petitioner Hernandez, who is filing this petition as a representative of the
Association of Flood Victims, is likewise devoid of legal personality to bring The parties to a contract are the real parties in interest in an action upon it, as
an action in court. Neither can petitioner Hernandez sue as a taxpayer because consistently held by the Court. Only the contracting parties are bound by the
he failed to show that there was illegal expenditure of money raised by stipulations in the contract; they are the ones who would benefit from and
taxation10 or that public funds are wasted through the enforcement of an could violate it.Thus, one who is not a party to a contract, and for whose
invalid or unconstitutional law. benefit it was not expressly made, cannot maintain an action on it. One cannot
do so, even if the contract performed by the contracting parties would
In this case, petitioners failed to allege personal or substantial interest . in the incidentally inure to one's benefit.
questioned governmental act which is the issuance of COMELEC Minute
Resolution No. 12-0859, which confirmed the re-computation of the As an exception, parties who have not taken part in a contract may show that
allocation of seats of the Party-List System of Representation in the House of they have a real interest affected by its performance or annulment. In other
Representatives in the 10 May 2010 Automated National and Local Elections. words, those who are not principally or subsidiarily obligated in a contract, in
Petitioner Association of Flood Victims is not even a party-list candidate in which they had no intervention, may show their detriment that could result
the 10 May 2010 elections, and thus, could not have been directly affected by from it. Contracts pour autrui are covered by this exception. In this latter
COMELEC Minute Resolution No. 12-0859. instance, the law requires that the "contracting parties must have clearly and
deliberately conferred a favor upon a third person." A "mere incidental benefit
is not enough."
b. Real Party in Interest
Respondent is not a real party in interest. He was not a party to the contracts
Case: BPI Family Bank vs Buenaventura and has not demonstrated any material interest in their fulfillment. Evidently,
the allegations in the Complaint do not show that the properties would be
It is elementary that it is only in the name of a real party-in-interest that a civil conveyed to him, even if Percita were to be proven to have committed a
suit may be prosecuted. Under Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Civil breach of the subject agreements.
Procedure, 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. c. Representatives as Parties

"Interest" within the meaning of the rule means material interest, an interest in Case: V-Gent vs Morning Star
issue and to be affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in
the question involved, or a mere incidental interest. One having no right or V-Gent admits that it purchased the plane tickets on behalf of the passengers
interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as a party as the latter's agent. The tickets were issued in the name of the passengers and
plaintiff in an action. To qualify a person to be a real party-in-interest in paid for with the passengers' money. No dispute or conclusion in the lower
whose name an action must be prosecuted, he must appear to be the present courts' minds on this point; hence, both the MeTC and the CA commonly
real owner of the right sought to be enforced. Since a contract may be violated found that V-Gent acted as an agent of the passengers when it purchased the
only by the parties thereto as against each other, in an action upon that passengers' plane tickets.
contract, the real parties-in-interest, either as plaintiff or as defendant, must be
parties to the said contract. However, while the MeTC held that V-Gent could sue as an agent acting in
his own name on behalf of an undisclosed principal, the CA held that it could
In the present case, Buenaventura, et al. are the real parties-in-interest. They not because the requirements for such a suit by the agent had not been
are the parties who contracted with BPI-FB with regard to the Current satisfied.
Account. While the funds were used for purposes of the International Baptist
Church and the International Baptist Academy, it must be noted that the We agree with the Court of Appeals.
Current Account is in the name of Buenaventura, et al. They are the
signatories of the check which was dishonored by BPI-FB upon presentment Every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-
and the ones who will be held accountable for the nonpayment or dishonor of interest - the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in
any check they issued. Thus, they are the real parties-in-interest to enforce the the suit.[8] In suits where an agent represents a party, the principal is the real
terms of the contract of deposit with BPI-FB. party-in-interest; an agent cannot file a suit in his own name on behalf of the
principal.
Case: Spouses Oco vs Limbaring
Rule 3, Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides the exception when an agent
Basic in procedural law is the rule that every action must be prosecuted or may sue or be sued without joining the principal.
defended in the name of the real party in interest. In the present case, the
respondent, who was not a party to the contracts being sued upon, was not Section 3. Representatives as parties. - Where the action is allowed to be
able to prove material interest in the litigation. For his failure to do so, the prosecuted and defended by a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary
trial court cannot be faulted for dismissing the action to rescind the contracts. capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and shall be
His status as trustor remained a bare allegation, as he had failed to rebut the deemed to be the real party-in-interest. A representative may be a trustee of an
legal presumption: that there is absence of a trust when the purchase price in a express trust, a guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party authorized
deed of sale is paid by a parent in favor of a child. Here, the prima facie by law or these Rules. An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of
presumption is "that there is a gift in favor of the child." Any allegation to the an undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without joining the principal
contrary must be proven by clear and satisfactory evidence, a burden that was except when the contract involves things belonging to the principal.
not discharged by the plaintiff.
Thus an agent may sue or be sued solely in its own name and without joining Case: Resident Mammals vs Reyes
the principal when the following elements concur:
Rule 3
(1)the agent acted in his own name during the transaction; Parties to Civil Actions

(2)the agent acted for the benefit of an undisclosed principal; and Section 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.
(3) the transaction did not involve the property of the principal. 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”
When these elements are present, the agent becomes bound as if the may refer to the original defending party, the defendant in a counterclaim, the
transaction were its own. This rule is consistent with Article 1883 of the Civil cross-defendant, or the third (fourth, etc.)-party defendant.
Code which says:
Sec. 2. Parties in interest. – A real party in interest is the party who stands to
Art. 1883. If an agent acts in his own name, the principal has no right of be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the
action against the persons with whom the agent has contracted; neither have avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every
such persons against the principal. action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in
interest.
In such case, the agent is the one directly bound in favor of the person with
whom he has contracted, as if the transaction were his own, except when the Sec. 3. Representatives as parties. – Where the action is allowed to be
contract involves things belonging to the principal. 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
In the present case, only the first element is present; the purchase order and deemed to be the real party in interest. A representative may be a trustee of an
the receipt were in the name of V-Gent. However, the remaining elements are express trust, a guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party authorized
absent because: 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
(1)V-Gent disclosed the names of the passengers to Morning Star — in fact except when the contract involves things belonging to the principal.
the tickets were in their names; and
It had been suggested by animal rights advocates and environmentalists that
(2) the transaction was paid using the passengers' money. Therefore, Rule 3, not only natural and juridical persons should be given legal standing because
Section 3 of the Rules of Court cannot apply. of the difficulty for persons, who cannot show that they by themselves are real
parties-in-interests, to bring actions in representation of these animals or
To define the actual factual situation, V-Gent, the agent, is suing to recover inanimate objects. For this reason, many environmental cases have been
the money of its principals — the passengers — who are the real parties-in- dismissed for failure of the petitioner to show that he/she would be directly
interest because they stand to be injured or benefited in case Morning Star injured or affected by the outcome of the case. However, in our jurisdiction,
refuses or agrees to grant the refund because the money belongs to them. locus standi in environmental cases has been given a more liberalized
From this perspective, V-Gent evidently does not have a legal standing to file approach. While developments in Philippine legal theory and jurisprudence
the complaint. have not progressed as far as Justice Douglas’s paradigm of legal standing for
inanimate objects, the current trend moves towards simplification of
Case: Oposa vs Factoran procedures and facilitating court access in environmental cases.

In a broader sense, this petition bears upon the right of Filipinos to a balanced In light of the foregoing, the need to give the Resident Marine Mammals legal
and healthful ecology which the petitioners dramatically associate with the standing has been eliminated by our Rules, which allow any Filipino citizen,
twin concepts of "inter-generational responsibility" and "inter-generational as a steward of nature, to bring a suit to enforce our environmental laws. It is
justice." Specifically, it touches on the issue of whether the said petitioners worth noting here that the Stewards are joined as real parties in the Petition
have a cause of action to "prevent the misappropriation or impairment" of and not just in representation of the named cetacean species. The Stewards,
Philippine rainforests and "arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country's Ramos and Eisma-Osorio, having shown in their petition that there may be
vital life-support systems and continued rape of Mother Earth." possible violations of laws concerning the habitat of the Resident Marine
Mammals, are therefore declared to possess the legal standing to file this
This case, however, has a special and novel element. Petitioners minors assert petition.
that they represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn. We find
no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their
generation and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit. d. Permissive Joinder of Parties

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 e. Indispensable Parties
a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned.
Case: Metropolitan Bank vs Alejo
Such a right, as hereinafter expounded, considers the "rhythm and harmony of
nature." Nature means the created world in its entirety. Such rhythm and "An indispensable party is a party who has such an interest in the controversy
harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, or subject matter that a final adjudication cannot be made, in his absence,
utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the country's forest, without injuring or affecting that interest; a party who has not only an interest
mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural in the subject matter of the controversy, but also has an interest of such nature
resources to the end that their exploration, development and utilization be that a final decree cannot be made without affecting his interest or leaving the
equitably accessible to the present as well as future generations. controversy in such a condition that its final determination may be wholly
inconsistent with equity and good conscience. It has also been considered that
Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve an indispensable party is a person in whose absence there cannot be a
that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful determination between the parties already before the court which is effective,
ecology. Put a little differently, the minors' assertion of their right to a sound complete, or equitable. Further, an indispensable party is one who must be
environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation included in an action before it may properly go forward.
to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come.
"A person is not an indispensable party, however, if his interest in the
As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written in the controversy or subject matter is separable from the interest of the other
Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind. If parties, so that it will not necessarily be directly or injuriously affected by a
they are now explicitly mentioned in the fundamental charter, it is because of decree which does complete justice between them."
the well-founded fear of its framers that unless the rights to a balanced and
healthful ecology and to health are mandated as state policies by the The joinder of indispensable parties to an action is mandated by Section 7,
Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their continuing importance and Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedures, which we quote:
imposing upon the state a solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect
and advance the second, the day would not be too far when all else would be "SEC 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. - Parties in interest
lost not only for the present generation, but also for those to come -- without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined
generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of either as plaintiffs or defendants."
sustaining life.
"Indispensable parties must always be joined either as plaintiffs or "Sec. 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. Parties in interest
defendants, for the court cannot proceed without them. Indispensable parties without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined
are those with such an interest in the controversy that a final decree would either as plaintiffs or defendants."
necessarily affect their rights, so that the courts cannot proceed without their
presence." "Sec. 8. Joinder of proper parties. When persons who are not indispensable
but who ought to be parties if complete relief is to be accorded as between
"The evident aim and intent of the Rules regarding the joinder of those already parties, have not been made parties and are subject to the
indispensable and necessary parties is a complete determination of all jurisdiction of the court as to both service of process and venue, the court
possible issues, not only between the parties themselves but also as regards to shall order them summoned to appear in the action. But the court may, in its
other persons who may be affected by the judgment. A valid judgment cannot discretion, proceed in the action without making such persons parties, and the
even be rendered where there is want of indispensable parties." judgment rendered therein shall be without prejudice to the rights of such
persons."
It is argued that petitioner cannot possibly be an indispensable party, since the Under Section 7, indispensable parties must always be joined either as
mortgage may not even be valid because of the possible absence of plaintiffs or defendants, for the court cannot proceed without them. Necessary
compliance with the requirement that the mortgagor be the absolute owner of parties must be joined, under Section 8, in order to adjudicate the whole
the thing mortgaged. It should be emphasized, however, that at the time the controversy and avoid multiplicity of suits.
mortgage was constituted, there was an existing TCT (No. V-41319), which
named the mortgagors, the Acampado spouses, as the registered owners of the Indispensable parties are those with such an interest in the controversy that a
property. In Seno v. Mangubat this Court held as follows: final decree would necessarily affect their rights, so that the courts cannot
proceed without their presence. Necessary parties are those whose presence is
"The well-known rule in this jurisdiction is that a person dealing with a necessary to adjudicate the whole controversy, but whose interests are so far
registered land has a right to rely upon the face of the Torrens Certificate of separable that a final decree can be made in their absence without affecting
Title and to dispense with the need of inquiring further, except when the party them.
concerned has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel
a reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry. We, however, find this case inapplicable to the case at bar.

Clearly, it was the trial court's duty to order petitioner's inclusion as a party to In the present case, there are no rights of defendants Andres Evangelista and
Civil Case No. 4930-V-96. This was not done. Neither the court nor private Bienvenido Mangubat to be safeguarded if the sale should be held to be in
respondents bothered to implead petitioner as a party to the case. In the fact an absolute sale nor if the sale is held to be an equitable mortgage.
absence of petitioner, an indispensable party, the trial court had no authority
to act on the case. Its judgment therein was null and void due to lack of Defendant Marcos Mangubat became the absolute owner of the subject
jurisdiction over an indispensable party. property by virtue of the sale to him of the shares of the aforementioned
defendants in the property. Said defendants no longer have any interest in the
Case: Plasabas vs Court of Appeals subject property. However, being parties to the instrument sought to be
reformed, their presence is necessary in order to settle all the possible issues
Article 487 of the Civil Code provides that any one of the co-owners may of the controversy. Whether the disputed sale be declared an absolute sale or
bring an action for ejectment. The article covers all kinds of actions for the an equitable mortgage, the rights of all the defendants will have been amply
recovery of possession, including an accion publiciana and a reivindicatory protected. Defendants-spouses Luzame in any event may enforce their rights
action. A co-owner may file suit without necessarily joining all the other co- against defendant Marcos Mangubat.
owners as co-plaintiffs because the suit is deemed to be instituted for the
benefit of all. Any judgment of the court in favor of the plaintiff will benefit In fact the plaintiffs were not after defendants Andres Evangelista and
the other co-owners, but if the judgment is adverse, the same cannot prejudice Bienvenido Mangubat as shown by their non-inclusion in the complaint and
the rights of the unimpleaded co-owners. their opposition to the motion to include said defendants in the complaint as
indispensable parties. It was only because they were ordered by the court a
With this disquisition, there is no need to determine whether petitioners' quo that they included the said defendants in the complaint. The lower court
complaint is one for ejectment or for recovery of title. To repeat, Article 487 erroneously held that the said defendants are indispensable parties.
of the Civil Code applies to both actions.
Notwithstanding, defendants Andres Evangelista and Bienvenido Mangubat
Thus, petitioners, in their complaint, do not have to implead their co-owners not being indispensable parties but only proper parties, their joinder as parties
as parties. The only exception to this rule is when the action is for the benefit defendants was correctly ordered being in accordance with Sec. 8 of Rule 3.
of the plaintiff alone who claims to be the sole owner and is, thus, entitled to
the possession thereof. In such a case, the action will not prosper unless the Case: Spouses Aboitiz vs Po
plaintiff impleads the other co-owners who are indispensable parties.
The Mariano Heirs are not indispensable parties.
Here, the allegation of petitioners in their complaint that they are the sole
owners of the property in litigation is immaterial, considering that they Rule 3, Section 7 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:
acknowledged during the trial that the property is co-owned by Nieves and
her siblings, and that petitioners have been authorized by the co-owners to Section 7. Compulsory Joinder of Indispensable Parties. - Parties in interest
pursue the case on the latter's behalf. Impleading the other co-owners is, without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined
therefore, not mandatory, because, as mentioned earlier, the suit is deemed to either as plaintiffs or defendants.
be instituted for the benefit of all.
However, the seller of the property is not an indispensable party.
In any event, the trial and appellate courts committed reversible error when
they summarily dismissed the case, after both parties had rested their cases Citing Spring Homes Subdivision Co., Inc. v. Spouses Tablad
following a protracted trial commencing in 1974, on the sole ground of failure
to implead indispensable parties. The rule is settled that the non-joinder of Spring Homes, however, which has already sold its interests in the subject
indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. The land, is no longer regarded as an indispensable party, but is, at best,
remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable. Parties may considered to be a necessary party whose presence is necessary to acijudicate
be added by order of the court on motion of the party or on its own initiative the whole controversy, but whose interests are so far separable that a final
at any stage of the action and/or at such times as are just. If petitioner refuses decree can be made in its absence without affecting it. This is because when
to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court, the latter may Spring Homes sold the property in question to the Spouses Lumbres, it
dismiss the complaint/petition for the plaintiff's/petitioner's failure to comply practically transferred all its interests therein to the said Spouses. In fact, a
therewith. new title was already issued in the names of the Spouses Lumbres. As such,
Spring Homes no longer stands to be directly benefited or injured by the
judgment in the instant suit regardless of whether the new title registered in
f. Necessary Parties the names of the Spouses Lumbres is cancelled in favor of the Spouses
Tablada or not.
Case: Seno vs Mangubat
Necessary parties may be joined in the case "to adjudicate the whole
For the determination of this issue, We find it necessary to consider the controversy," but the case may go on without them because a judgment may
distinction between indispensable and proper parties as clearly stated in be rendered without any effect on their rights and interests.
Sections 7 and 8, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court which provide:
The Mariano Heirs may likewise be considered material witnesses to the office, is contrary to the public policy against embroiling the President in
action. A material matter to which a witness can testify on can be a "main fact suits, “to assure the exercise of Presidential duties and functions free from any
which was the subject of the inquiry" or any circumstance or fact "which hindrance or distraction, considering that being the Chief Executive of the
tends to prove" the fact subject of the inquiry, "which tends to corroborate or Government is a job that, aside from requiring all of the office holder’s time,
strengthen the testimony relative to such inquiry," and "which legitimately also demands undivided attention.”
affects the credit of any witness who testifies."
Therefore, former President Macapagal-Arroyo cannot be impleaded as one of
The validity of the Deeds of Sale allegedly executed by the parties in this case the petitioners in this suit. Thus, her name is stricken off the title of this case.
is a material matter in determining who the true owner of the property is.
Thus, the Mariano Heirs, including Ciriaco, may testify as to the Deeds of Case: East West Banking vs Cruz
Sale they executed to prove which sale is the valid one.
The Bank's failure to state a cause of action, then, justifies the RTC's
However, it is clear that the Mariano Heirs are not indispensable parties. They dismissal of its Complaint. Given that Ian called for the dismissal of the
have already sold all their interests in the property to the Spouses Aboitiz. Complaint, the trial court correctly considered the allegations in the
They will no longer be affected, benefited, or injured by any ruling of this Complaint and the annexes in eventually assessing that the Bank failed to
Court on the matter, whether it grants or denies the complaint for state a cause of action. Moreover, the trial court declared that the Bank was
reconveyance. The ruling of this Court as to whether the Spouses Po are not the real party- in-interest to institute the action – another question of law.
entitled to reconveyance will not affect their rights. Their interest has, thus,
become separable from that of Jose, Ernesto, and Isabel. In this regard, a reading of the Complaint reveals that the Bank is not actually
the real party-in-interest, since Alvin and Francisco were the ones who would
Case: Caravan Travel and Tours vs Abejar stand to be benefitted or injured by the debiting of their respective deposits
without their consent, as well as the issuance and subsequent denial of the
The plaintiff may first prove the employer's ownership of the vehicle involved demand to collect from the supposed spurious FEFCs. In relation to this,
in a mishap by presenting the vehicle's registration in evidence. Thereafter, a Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court states:
disputable presumption that the requirements for an employer's liability under
Article 2180[of the Civil Code have been satisfied will arise. The burden of Section 2. Parties in Interest. – A real party in interest is the party who stands
evidence then shifts to the defendant to show that no liability under Article to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to
2180 has ensued. 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
Having exercised substitute parental authority, respondent suffered actual loss interest.
and is, thus, a real party in interest in this case.
The Bank did not comply with the aforementioned provision when it filed the
In her Complaint, respondent made allegations that would sustain her action instant Complaint. Worse, the Bank did not take into consideration Section
for damages: that she exercised substitute parental authority over Reyes; that 10, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
Reyes' death was caused by the negligence of petitioner and its driver; and
that Reyes' death caused her damage. Respondent properly filed an action Section 10. Unwilling co-plaintiff. - If the consent of any party who should be
based on quasi-delict. She is a real party in interest. joined as plaintiff cannot be obtained, he may be made a defendant and the
reason therefor shall be stated in the complaint.
We note that Reyes was already 18 years old when she died. Having reached
the age of majority, she was already emancipated upon her death. While The Bank arbitrarily impleaded Francisco and Alvin as unwilling co-plaintiffs
parental authority is terminated upon emancipation, respondent continued to without securing their consent, and did not bother to explain in the Complaint
support and care for Reyes even after she turned 18. Except for the legal why their permission was not obtained. The Bank conveniently reasoned that
technicality of Reyes' emancipation, her relationship with respondent Francisco and Alvins' demand pursuant to the FEFCs which it subsequently
remained the same. The anguish and damage caused to respondent by Reyes' denied should be construed as an "explanation" for the consent requirement.
death was no different because of Reyes' emancipation. All the same, since this "explanation" is insufficient, Francisco and Alvin
should have been impleaded as defendants in the Complaint instead, absent
Petitioner's argument that it should be excused from liability because Bautista their express consent to be included as co-plaintiffs.
was already dropped as a party is equally unmeritorious. The liability
imposed on the registered owner is direct and primary. It does not depend on
the inclusion of the negligent driver in the action. Agreeing to petitioner's h. Misjoinder and Non-joinder of Parties
assertion would render impotent the rationale of the motor registration law in
fixing liability on a definite person.
i. Class Suit
Bautista, the driver, was not an indispensable party under Rule 3, Section 7 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Rather, he was a necessary party under Case: Sulo vs Bayan
Rule 3, Section 8. Instead of insisting that Bautista—who was nothing more
than a necessary party—should not have been dropped as a defendant, or that Appellant maintains, however, that the amended complaint may be treated as
petitioner, along with Bautista, should have been dropped, petitioner (as a co- a class suit, pursuant to Section 12 of Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court.
defendant insisting that the action must proceed with Bautista as party) could
have opted to file a cross-claim against Bautista as its remedy. In order that a class suit may prosper, the following requisites must be
present:

g. Unwilling Co-plaintiff (1)that the subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general
interest to many persons;
Case: Resident Marine Mammals vs Reyes
(2) that the parties are so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all
Section 10, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court provides: before the court.

Sec. 10. Unwilling co- plaintiff. - If the consent of any party who should be Under the first requisite, the person who sues must have an interest in the
joined as plaintiff can not be obtained, he may be made a defendant and the controversy, common with those for whom he sues, and there must be that
reason therefor shall be stated in the complaint. unity of interest between him and all such other persons which would entitle
them to maintain the action if suit was brought by them jointly.
Under the foregoing rule, when the consent of a party who should be joined as
a plaintiff cannot be obtained, he or she may be made a party defendant to the As to what constitutes common interest in the subject matter of the
case. This will put the unwilling party under the jurisdiction of the Court, controversy, it has been explained in Scott v. Donald, thus:
which can properly implead him or her through its processes. The unwilling
party’s name cannot be simply included in a petition, without his or her "The interest that will allow parties to join in a bill of complaint, or that will
knowledge and consent, as such would be a denial of due process. enable the court to dispense with the presence of all the parties, when
numerous, except a determinate number, is not only an interest in the
Moreover, the reason cited by the petitioners Stewards for including former question, but one in common in the subject matter of the suit; a community of
President Macapagal-Arroyo in their petition, is not sufficient to implead her interest growing out of the nature and condition of the right in dispute; for,
as an unwilling co-petitioner. Impleading the former President as an unwilling although there may not be any privity between the numerous parties, there is a
co-petitioner, for an act she made in the performance of the functions of her common title out of which the question arises, and which lies at the
foundation of the proceedings, here the only matter in common among the In determining the question of fair and adequate representation of members of
plaintiffs, or between them and the defendants, is an interest in the question a class, the court must consider
involved, which alone cannot lay a foundation for the joinder of parties. There
is scarcely a suit at law, or in equity, which settles a principle or applies a (a) whether the interest of the named party is coextensive with the interest of
principle to a given state of facts, or in which a general statute is interpreted, the other members of the class;
that does not involved a question in which other parties are interested.."
(b) the proportion of those made a party, as it so bears, to the total
Here, there is only one party plaintiff, and the plaintiff corporation does not membership of the class; and
even have an interest in the subject matter of the controversy, and cannot,
therefore, represent its members or stockholders who claim to own in their (c) any other factor bearing on the ability of the named party to speak for the
individual capacities ownership of the said property. rest of the class.
Moreover, as correctly stated by the appellees, a class suit does not lie in
actions for the recovery of property where several persons claim ownership of Previously, we held in Ibañes v. Roman Catholic Church that where the
their respective portions of the property, as each one could allege and prove interests of the plaintiffs and the other members of the class they seek to
his respective right in a different way for each portion of the land, so that they represent are diametrically opposed, the class suit will not prosper.
cannot all be held to have identical title through acquisitive prescription.
It is worth mentioning that a Manifestation of Desistance, to which the
Case: Banda vs Ermita previously mentioned Affidavit of Desistance[10] was attached, was filed by
the President of the National Printing Office Workers Association
Since petitioners instituted this case as a class suit, the Court, thus, must first (NAPOWA). The said manifestation expressed NAPOWA's opposition to the
determine if the petition indeed qualifies as one. filing of the instant petition in any court.

In Board of Optometry v. Colet, we held that "courts must exercise utmost Even if we take into account the contention of petitioners' counsel that the
caution before allowing a class suit, which is the exception to the requirement NAPOWA President had no legal standing to file such manifestation, the said
of joinder of all indispensable parties. For while no difficulty may arise if the pleading is a clear indication that there is a divergence of opinions and views
decision secured is favorable to the plaintiffs, a quandary would result if the among the members of the class sought to be represented, and not all are in
decision were otherwise as those who were deemed impleaded by their self- favor of filing the present suit. There is here an apparent conflict between
appointed representatives would certainly claim denial of due process." petitioners' interests and those of the persons whom they claim to represent.
Since it cannot be said that petitioners sufficiently represent the interests of
Section 12, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court defines a class suit, as follows: the entire class, the instant case cannot be properly treated as a class suit.

Sec. 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 j. Alternative Defendants
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 k. Unknown Identity or Name of Defendant
shall have the right to intervene to protect his individual interest.

From the foregoing definition, the requisites of a class suit are: l. Entity Without Juridical Personality as Defendant

1) the subject matter of controversy is one of common or general interest to i. Corporation by Estoppel
many persons;
Section 20, R.A. No. 11232 or the Revised Corporation Code
2) the parties affected are so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them
all to court; and Section 20

3) the parties bringing the class suit are sufficiently numerous or Corporation by Estoppel.— All persons who assume to act as a corporation
representative of the class and can fully protect the interests of all concerned. knowing it to be without authority to do so shall be liable as general partners
for all debts, liabilities and damages incurred or arising as a result thereof:
An action does not become a class suit merely because it is designated as such Provided, however, That when any such ostensible corporation is sued on any
in the pleadings. Whether the suit is or is not a class suit depends upon the transaction entered by it as a corporation or on any tort committed by it as
attending facts, and the complaint, or other pleading initiating the class action such, it shall not be allowed to use its lack of corporate personality as a
should allege the existence of the necessary facts, to wit, the existence of a defense. Anyone who assumes an obligation to an ostensible corporation as
subject matter of common interest, and the existence of a class and the such cannot resist performance thereof on the ground that there was in fact no
number of persons in the alleged class, in order that the court might be corporation.
enabled to determine whether the members of the class are so numerous as to
make it impracticable to bring them all before the court, to contrast the
number appearing on the record with the number in the class and to determine m. Death of Party
whether claimants on record adequately represent the class and the subject
matter of general or common interest. i. Existence of the Claim after a Party’s Death

Here, the petition failed to state the number of NPO employees who would be 1. Rule on Substitution of Parties vis-à-vis Stage of the Action
affected by the assailed Executive Order and who were allegedly represented
by petitioners. It was the Solicitor General, as counsel for respondents, who
pointed out that there were about 549 employees in the NPO. The 67 ii. Duty of Counsel to Inform and Order of Substitution
petitioners undeniably comprised a small fraction of the NPO employees
whom they claimed to represent. Subsequently, 32 of the original petitioners Case: Saligumba vs Palanog
executed an Affidavit of Desistance, while one signed a letter denying ever
signing the petition, ostensibly reducing the number of petitioners to 34. Petitioners contend that the RTC-Branch 3 Decision of 7 August 1987 in
Civil Case No. 2570 is null and void since there was no proper substitution of
We note that counsel for the petitioners challenged the validity of the the deceased spouses Saligumbas despite the trial court's knowledge that the
desistance or withdrawal of some of the petitioners and insinuated that such deceased spouses Saligumbas were no longer represented by counsel. They
desistance was due to pressure from people "close to the seat of power." Still, argue that they were deprived of due process and justice was not duly served
even if we were to disregard the affidavit of desistance filed by some of the on them.
petitioners, it is highly doubtful that a sufficient, representative number of
NPO employees have instituted this purported class suit. A perusal of the Petitioners argue that the trial court even acknowledged the fact of death of
petition itself would show that of the 67 petitioners who signed the spouses Saligumbas but justified the validity of the decision rendered in that
Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping, only 20 petitioners were case despite lack of substitution because of the negligence or fault of their
in fact mentioned in the jurat as having duly subscribed the petition before the counsel. Petitioners contend that the duty of counsel for the deceased spouses
notary public. In other words, only 20 petitioners effectively instituted the Saligumbas to inform the court of the death of his clients and to furnish the
present case. name and address of the executor, administrator, heir or legal representative
of the decedent under Rule 3 presupposes adequate or active representation by
counsel.
 For the protection of the interests of the decedent, this Court has in previous
Civil Case No. 2570 is an action for quieting of title with damages which is instances recognized the heirs as proper representatives of the decedent, even
an action involving real property. It is an action that survives pursuant to when there is already an administrator appointed by the court. When no
Section 1, Rule 87 as the claim is not extinguished by the death of a party. administrator has been appointed, as in this case, there is all the more reason
And when a party dies in an action that survives, Section 17 of Rule 3 of the to recognize the heirs as the proper representatives of the deceased.
Revised Rules of Court provides for the procedure, thus:
Josefa's death certificate shows that she was single at the time of her death.
Section 17. Death of Party. - After a party dies and the claim is not thereby The records do not show that she left a will. Therefore, as correctly held by
extinguished, the court shall order, upon proper notice, the legal the CA, in applying Section 16, Rule 3, her heirs are her surviving sisters
representative of the deceased to appear and to be substituted for the (Michaelis, Maria, Zosima, and Consolacion) and the children of her deceased
deceased, within a period of thirty (30) days, or within such time as may be sister, Lourdes (Manuel, Cesar, Huros and Regulo) who should be her legal
granted. If the legal representative fails to appear within said time, the court representatives. Menendez, although also a sister, should be excluded for
may order the opposing party to procure the appointment of a legal being one of the adverse parties in the cases before the RTC.
representative of the deceased within a time to be specified by the court, and Case: Rioferio vs Court of Appeals
the representative shall immediately appear for and on behalf of the interest of
the deceased. The court charges involved in procuring such appointment, if Pending the filing of administration proceedings, the heirs without doubt have
defrayed by the opposing party, may be recovered as costs. The heirs of the legal personality to bring suit in behalf of the estate of the decedent in
deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased, without requiring accordance with the provision of Article 777 of the New Civil Code "that the
the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court may appoint rights to succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the
guardian ad litem for the minor heirs. decedent." The provision in turn is the foundation of the principle that the
property, rights and obligations to the extent and value of the inheritance of a
Under the express terms of Section 17, in case of death of a party, and upon person are transmitted through his death to another or others by his will or by
proper notice, it is the duty of the court to order the legal representative or operation of law.
heir of the deceased to appear for the deceased. In the instant case, it is true
that the trial court, after receiving an informal notice of death by the mere Even if administration proceedings have already been commenced, the heirs
notation in the envelopes, failed to order the appearance of the legal may still bring the suit if an administrator has not yet been appointed. This is
representative or heir of the deceased. There was no court order for deceased's the proper modality despite the total lack of advertence to the heirs in the
legal representative or heir to appear, nor did any such legal representative rules on party representation, namely Section 3, Rule 3 and Section 2, Rule 87
ever appear in court to be substituted for the deceased. Neither did the of the Rules of Court.
respondent ever procure the appointment of such legal representative, nor did
the heirs ever ask to be substituted. Even if there is an appointed administrator, jurisprudence recognizes two
exceptions, viz:
Consequently, Atty. Miralles was responsible for the conduct of the case since
he had not been properly relieved as counsel of record. His acts bind his (1) if the executor or administrator is unwilling or refuses to bring suit;[30]
clients and the latter's successors-in-interest. and

(2) when the administrator is alleged to have participated in the act

iii. Representatives complained of and he is made a party defendant.

Case: Sumaljag vs Spouses Literato Evidently, the necessity for the heirs to seek judicial relief to recover property
of the estate is as compelling when there is no appointed administrator, if not
The rule on substitution in case of death of a party is governed by Section 16, more, as where there is an appointed administrator but he is either disinclined
Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, which provides: to bring suit or is one of the guilty parties himself.

Section 16. Death of a party; duty of counsel. -Whenever a party to a pending All told, therefore, the rule that the heirs have no legal standing to sue for the
action dies, and the claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of recovery of property of the estate during the pendency of administration
his counsel to inform the court within thirty (30) days after such death of the proceedings has three exceptions, the third being when there is no appointed
fact thereof, and to give the name and address of his legal representative or administrator such as in this case.
representatives. Failure of counsel to comply with this duty shall be a ground
for disciplinary action.
iv. Death or Separation of a Public Officer
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. n. Incompetency or Incapacity

The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to

appear and be substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice. o. Transfer of Interest

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 p. Indigent Party
may order the opposing party, within a specified time, to procure the
appointment of an executor or administrator for the estate of the deceased, i. Indigent Litigant Exempt from Legal Fees (Rule 141, Section 19)
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 ii. Exemption as Indigent Litigant, When Mandatory or Discretionary
party, may be recovered as costs.
Case: Spouses Algura vs LGU of Naga City
The purpose behind this rule is the protection of the right to due process of
every party to the litigation who may be affected by the intervening death. The Alguras instituted the instant petition raising a solitary issue for the
The deceased litigant is herself or himself protected as he/she continues to be consideration of the Court: whether petitioners should be considered as
properly represented in the suit through the duly appointed legal indigent litigants who qualify for exemption from paying filing fees.
representative of his estate.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, therefore, the two (2) rules can
The duty of counsel under the aforecited provision is to inform the court stand together and are compatible with each other. When an application to
within thirty (30) days after the death of his client of the fact of death, and to litigate as an indigent litigant is filed, the court shall scrutinize the affidavits
give the name and address of the deceased's legal representative or and supporting documents submitted by the applicant to determine if the
representatives. Incidentally, this is the only representation that counsel can applicant complies with the income and property standards prescribed in the
undertake after the death of a client as the fact of death terminated any further present Section 19 of Rule 141-that is,
lawyer-client relationship.
1. the applicant's gross income and that of the applicant's immediate family do
In the present case, it is undisputed that the counsel for Josefa did in fact not exceed an amount double the monthly minimum wage of an employee;
notify the lower court, although belatedly, of the fact of her death.
2. the applicant does not own real property with a fair market value of more
than Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP 300,000.00).
 c. Venue in Personal Actions
If the trial court finds that the applicant meets the income and property
requirements, the authority to litigate as indigent litigant is automatically Section 2, Rule 4, Rules of Court
granted and the grant is a matter of right.
Section 2. Venue of personal actions. — All other actions may be commenced
However, if the trial court finds that one or both requirements have not been and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where
met, then it would set a hearing to enable the applicant to prove that the the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a
applicant has "no money or property sufficient and available for food, shelter non-resident defendant where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff.
and basic necessities for himself and his family." In that hearing, the adverse
party may adduce countervailing evidence to disprove the evidence presented
by the applicant; after which the trial court will rule on the application d. Venue of Actions Against Non-Residents
depending on the evidence adduced. In addition, Section 21 of Rule 3 also
provides that the adverse party may later still contest the grant of such Section 3, Rule 4, Rules of Court
authority at any time before judgment is rendered by the trial court, possibly Section 3. Venue of actions against nonresidents. — If any of the defendants
based on newly discovered evidence not obtained at the time the application does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, and the action affects the
was heard. If the court determines after hearing, that the party declared as an personal status of the plaintiff, or any property of said defendant located in the
indigent is in fact a person with sufficient income or property, the proper Philippines, the action may be commenced and tried in the court of the place
docket and other lawful fees shall be assessed and collected by the clerk of where the plaintiff resides, or where the property or any portion thereof is
court. If payment is not made within the time fixed by the court, execution situated or found.
shall issue or the payment of prescribed fees shall be made, without prejudice
to such other sanctions as the court may impose.
e. When Rules of Venue Not Applicable
The Court concedes that Rule 141, Section 19 provides specific standards
while Rule 3, Section 21 does not clearly draw the limits of the entitlement to Section 4, Rule 4, Rules of Court
the exemption. Knowing that the litigants may abuse the grant of authority,
the trial court must use sound discretion and scrutinize evidence strictly in Section 4. When Rule not applicable. — This Rule shall not apply.
granting exemptions, aware that the applicant has not hurdled the precise
standards under Rule 141. The trial court must also guard against abuse and (a) In those cases where a specific rule or law provides otherwise; or
misuse of the privilege to litigate as an indigent litigant to prevent the filing of
exorbitant claims which would otherwise be regulated by a legal fee (b) Where the parties have validly agreed in writing before the filing of the
requirement. action on the exclusive venue thereof.

Thus, the trial court should have applied Rule 3, Section 21 to the application
of the Alguras after their affidavits and supporting documents showed that f. Stipulations on Venue
petitioners did not satisfy the twin requirements on gross monthly income and
ownership of real property under Rule 141. Instead of disqualifying the Case: Polytrade Corporation vs Blanco
Alguras as indigent litigants, the trial court should have called a hearing as
required by Rule 3, Section 21 to enable the petitioners to adduce evidence to The stipulation adverted to is only found in the agreements covering the third
show that they didn't have property and money sufficient and available for and fourth causes of action. An accurate reading, however, of the stipulation,
food, shelter, and basic necessities for them and their family. "The parties agree to sue and be sued in the Courts of Manila," does not
preclude the filing of suits in the residence of plaintiff or defendant. The plain
In that hearing, the respondents would have had the right to also present meaning is that the parties merely consented to be sued in Manila. Qualifying
evidence to refute the allegations and evidence in support of the application of or restrictive words which would indicate that Manila and Manila alone is the
the petitioners to litigate as indigent litigants. Since this Court is not a trier of venue are totally absent therefrom. We cannot read into that clause that
facts, it will have to remand the case to the trial court to determine whether plaintiff and defendant bound themselves to file suits with respect to the last
petitioners can be considered as indigent litigants using the standards set in two transactions in question only or exclusively in Manila. For, that
Rule 3, Section 21. agreement did not change or transfer venue. It simply is permissive. The
parties solely agreed to add the courts of Manila as tribunals to which they
Recapitulating the rules on indigent litigants, therefore, if the applicant for may resort. They did not waive their right to pursue remedy in the courts
exemption meets the salary and property requirements under Section 19 of specifically mentioned in Section 2(b) of Rule 4. Renuntiatio non
Rule 141, then the grant of the application is mandatory. On the other hand, praesumitur.
when the application does not satisfy one or both requirements, then the
application should not be denied outright; instead, the court should apply the Case: Unimasters Conglomeration vs Court of Appeals
"indigency test" under Section 21 of Rule 3 and use its sound discretion in
determining the merits of the prayer for exemption. An analysis of these precedents reaffirms and emphasizes the soundness of
the Polytrade principle. Of the essence is the ascertainment of the parties'
intention in their agreement governing the venue of actions between them.
q. Notice to the Solicitor General That ascertainment must be done keeping in mind that convenience is the
foundation of venue regulations, and that construction should be adopted
which most conduces thereto. Hence, the invariable construction placed on
VI. VENUE (Rule 4) venue stipulations is that they do not negate but merely complement or add to
the codal standards of Rule 4 of the Rules of Court.
a. General Principles
In other words, unless the parties make very clear, by employing categorical
i. Definition of Venue and suitably limiting language, that they wish the venue of actions between
ii. Venue vs. Jurisdiction them to be laid only and exclusively at a definite place, and to disregard the
iii. Real Actions vs. Personal Actions prescriptions of Rule 4, agreements on venue are not to be regarded as
iv. Local Actions vs. Transitory Actions mandatory or restrictive, but merely permissive, or complementary of said
rule.
b. Venue in Real Actions
The fact that in their agreement the parties specify only one of the venues
Section 1, Rule 4, Rules of Court mentioned in Rule 4, or fix a place for their actions different from those
specified by said rule, does not, without more, suffice to characterize the
Section 1. Venue of real actions. — Actions affecting title to or possession of agreement as a restrictive one. There must, to repeat, be accompanying
real property, or interest therein, shall be commenced and tried in the proper language clearly and categorically expressing their purpose and design that
court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved, actions between them be litigated only at the place named by them, 32
or a portion thereof, is situated. regardless of the general precepts of Rule 4; and any doubt or uncertainty as
to the parties' intentions must be resolved against giving their agreement a
Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced and tried in the restrictive or mandatory aspect. Any other rule would permit of individual,
municipal trial court of the municipality or city wherein the real property subjective judicial interpretations without stable standards, which could well
involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. result in precedents in hopeless inconsistency.
The record of the case at bar discloses that UNIMASTERS has its principal Section 4. When Rule not applicable. - This Rule shall not apply
place of business in Tacloban City, and KUBOTA, in Quezon City. Under
Rule 4, the venue of any personal action between them is "where the (a) In those cases where a specific rule or law provides otherwise; or
defendant or any of the defendants resides or may be found, or where the
plaintiff or any of the plaintiffs resides, at the election of the plaintiff." 33 In (c) Where the parties have validly agreed in writing before the filing of the
other words, Rule 4 gives UNIMASTERS the option to sue KUBOTA for action on the exclusive venue thereof.
breach of contract in the Regional Trial Court of either Tacloban City or
Quezon City. Based on these provisions, the venue for personal actions shall - as a general
rule - lie with the court which has jurisdiction where the plaintiff or the
But the contract between them provides that " . . All suits arising out of this defendant resides, at the election of the plaintiff. As an exception, parties
Agreement shall be filed with / in the proper Courts of Quezon City," without may, through a written instrument, restrict the filing of said actions in a
mention of Tacloban City. The question is whether this stipulation had the certain exclusive venue.
effect of effectively eliminating the latter as an optional venue and limiting
litigation between UNIMASTERS and KUBOTA only and exclusively to In Briones v. Court of Appeals, the Court explained:
Quezon City.
In light of all the cases above surveyed, and the general postulates distilled Written stipulations as to venue may be restrictive in the sense that the suit
therefrom, the question should receive a negative answer. Absent additional may be filed only in the place agreed upon, or merely permissive in that the
words and expressions definitely and unmistakably denoting the parties' parties may file their suit not only in the place agreed upon but also in the
desire and intention that actions between them should be ventilated only at the places fixed by law. As in any other agreement, what is essential is the
place selected by them, Quezon City or other contractual provisions clearly ascertainment of the intention of the parties respecting the matter.
evincing the same desire and intention the stipulation should be construed, not
as confining suits between the parties only to that one place, Quezon City, but As regards restrictive stipulations on venue, jurisprudence instructs that it
as allowing suits either in Quezon City or Tacloban City, at the option of the must be shown that such stipulation is exclusive. In the absence of qualifying
plaintiff (UNIMASTERS in this case). or restrictive words, such as "exclusively," "waiving for this purpose any
other venue," "shall only" preceding the designation of venue, "to the
One last word, respecting KUBOTA's theory that the Regional Trial Court exclusion of the other courts," or words of similar import, the stipulation
had "no jurisdiction to take cognizance of UNIMASTERS’ action considering should be deemed as merely an agreement on an additional forum, not as
that venue was improperly laid." limiting venue to the specified place.

This is not an accurate statement of legal principle. It equates venue with In Pilipino Telephone Corporation v. Tecson, the Court held that an exclusive
jurisdiction; but venue has nothing to do with jurisdiction, except in criminal venue stipulation is valid and binding, provided that:
actions. This is fundamental.
(a) the stipulation on the chosen venue is exclusive in nature or in intent;
The action at bar, for the recovery of damages in an amount considerably in (b) it is expressed in writing by the parties thereto; and
excess of P20,000,00, is assuredly within the jurisdiction of a Regional Trial (c) it is entered into before the filing of the suit.
Court. 35 Assuming that venue were improperly laid in the Court where the
action was instituted, the Tacloban City RTC, that would be a procedural, not After a thorough study of the case, the Court is convinced that all these
a jurisdictional impediment precluding ventilation of the case before that elements are present and that the questioned stipulation in the lease contract,
Court of wrong venue notwithstanding that the subject matter is within its i.e., Section 21 thereof, is a valid venue stipulation that limits the venue of the
jurisdiction. cases to the courts of Pasay City.

However, if the objection to venue is waived by the failure to set it up in a Section 21. Should any of the party (sic) renege or violate any terms and
motion to dismiss, 36 the RTC would proceed in perfectly regular fashion if it conditions of this lease contract, it shall be liable for damages. All actions or
then tried and decided the action. case[s] filed in connection with this lease shall be filed with the Regional
Trial Court of Pasay City, exclusive of all others.
This is true also of real actions. Thus, even if a case "affecting title to, or for
recovery of possession, or for partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of The above provision clearly shows the parties' intention to limit the place
mortgage on, real property" were commenced in a province or city other than where actions or cases arising from a violation of the terms and conditions of
that "where the property or any part thereof lies," if no objection is seasonably the contract of lease may be instituted. This is evident from the use of the
made in a motion to dismiss, the objection is deemed waived, and the phrase "exclusive of all others" and the specification of the locality of Pasay
Regional Trial Court would be acting entirely within its competence and City as the place where such cases may be filed.
authority in proceeding to try and decide the suit.

Case: Ley Construction vs Sedano VII. Uniform Procedure in Trial Courts (Rule 5)

Rule 4 of the Rules of Court governs the rules on venue of civil actions, to a. Uniform Procedure
wit:
Section 1, Rule 5, Rules of Court
Rule 4
Section 1. Uniform procedure. - The procedure in the Municipal Trial Courts
VENUE OF ACTIONS shall be the same as in the Regional Trial Courts, except (a) where a particular
provision expressly or impliedly applies only to either of said courts, or (b) in
Section 1. Venue of real actions. - Actions affecting title to or possession of civil cases governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure.
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. b. Meaning of Terms

Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced and tried in the Section 2, Rule 5, Rules of Court
municipal trial court of the municipality or city wherein the real property
involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. Section 2. Meaning of terms. - The term "Municipal Trial Courts" as used in
these Rules shall include Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in
Section 2. Venue of personal actions. - All other actions may be commenced Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
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.

Section 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.