Lecture Rule 1 To 3

Lecture CivPro_AMEV 1 Rule 1 to 3
RULE 1 GENERAL PROVISONS Pursuant to the provisions of Section 5(5) of Article VIII of the Constitution, the Supreme Court hereby adopts and promulgates the following rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged: Section 1. Title of the Rules. These Rules shall be known and cited as the Rules of Court. the enactment was pursuant to the rule making power of the court. SC does not only exercise judicial but also legislative but only with regards to procedures but not to substantive law. SB before it can only issue mandamus, habeas corpus in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. Mateo v People- person charged w/ murder, appeal must made directly to the SC. they transferred it to CA. St Martin Funeral Homes Problem: sila naman tanggap ng tanggap ng kaso. In US there are only 9 members in their SC, They only dispose of 90 cs per yr bec the harder part of their judicial fn was to decide what not to decide. Only cases na magkaroon ng doctrinal ruling. The purpose of the SC is only to lay down doctrines. In US, there are several Federal Circuit CA. In the circuit of Washington DC alone, Sec. 2. In what courts applicable. These Rules shall apply in all the courts, except as otherwise provided by the Supreme Court. Sec. 3. Cases governed. These Rules shall govern the procedure to be observed in actions, civil or criminal, and special proceedings. (a) A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong. cause of action- better understood. A civil action may either be ordinary or special. Both are governed by the rules for ordinary civil actions, subject to the specific rules prescribed for a special civil action. classification of civil action : ordinary or special what does it mean? special civil action : Rules 62 to 71 general rule: special civil action follows ordinary civil action except specific rules are provided (b) A criminal action is one by which the State prosecutes a person for an act or omission punishable by law. (c) A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. impt: we have to dist action fr special proceedings special proceeding : status : adoption, naturalization right: App for Land Registration, you are not asking the court to confer ownership but to CONFIRM a right to that particular prop and register it under Torrens System. Fact: Asking for the Probate of a will, Fact: that this is the Last Will and Testament of . dist special proceeding from ACTION: 1. 2. 3. SP to establish a status, fact or a right Action- requires filing of formal proceeding action- 2 definite and particular adverse parties, plaintiff and defendant SP- there is no definite adverse party bec the proceeding is usually against the whole world eg. Land Registration Case.- all those who might be minded must come to court bec their rights might be affected. They have to come now before the court. Sec. 4. In what cases not applicable. These Rules shall not apply to election cases, land registration, cadastral, naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and other cases not herein provided for, except by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient. take note : election cs- special proceedings to establish a FACT, Public office as a right Land Reg: Insolvency : establish the fact that you are insolvent. Once you are insolvent you will no longer pay your debts. 4 categories actions or proceedings Sec 3 a, b and c election case: special proceeding to establish a fact that you are a winner. if the protestee dies eg Mayor, the Vice Mayor will become the Mayor- thats why he shld be a FORCED party. if you are not a party to a protest but later on declared as the winner- Special Proceedings. You do not apply the rules here except when you are in court. Sec. 5. Commencement of action. A civil action is commenced by the filing of the original complaint in court. If an additional defendant is

impleaded in a later pleading, the action is commenced with regard to him on the date of the filing of such later pleading, irrespective of whether the motion for its admission, if necessary, is denied by the court. for purposes of tolling of prescriptive pd: 1. make an extrajudicial demand and 2. judicial demand There is a contract prescriptive pd is 10 yrs. motion to dismiss on the ground of prescriptive pd. SC an action is commenced by filing of a complaint in court. The reconing is not the service of summons but the filing of complaint However, it is not merely the filing of complaint but also the filing of APPROPRIATE DOCKET FEE.- to complete the commencement of action Manchester : if the proper appellate docket fee is not paid no filing- no jurisdiction however in Sun Insurance v J. Asuncion Action as to Cause or Foundation: 1. Real Action- over real property, privity in real property - brought for specific recovery of land, tenements - seeks to recover ownership or possession of RP e.g. Partition of Property, Mortgage of RP, expropriate expropriate- transfer title fr owner to expropriator you are transferring OWNERSHIP or POSSESSION An action to annul a real estate mortgage involving a real property- Personal Action but can also be If the annulment of REM done after foreclosure bec youre action is not only the annulment BUT TO RETURN BACK or REVERSION OF REAL PROPERTY back to the owner jurisdiction is with the RTC- assessed value is more than P20k or P50k if Metro Manila MTC- ejectment suits unlawful detainer and forcible entry Personal Action enforcement for recovery of damages, injury to person or property relate Jurisdiction to Sec 19 Sec 8 of BP 129 Personal action 3. Mixed Action - recovery RP plus damages. Ouano v PGTT1. 2. you only apply No 8 after considering the 1 7 disregard damages As to the Filing of the Case: Rule 4 - Venue local must be brought in a part place transitory follows the party wherever he may reside
st
As to Object1. 2. In Personam against a specific person and seeks judgment only against that particular person In Rem the obj is to bar indifferently all who might be minded to an objection against one whom it is sought to be established. against the thing itself and judgment against the whole world eg : Official Gazette Quasi In Rem Ching v CAAn action to redeem, or to recover title to or possession of, real property is not an action in rem or an action against the whole world, like a land registration proceeding or the probate of a will; it is an action in personam, so much so that a judgment therein is binding only upon the parties properly impleaded and duly heard or given an opportunity to be heard. Actions in personam and actions in rem differ in that the former are directed against specific persons and seek personal judgments, while the latter are directed against the thing or property or status of a person and seek judgments with respect thereto as against the whole world. An action to recover a parcel of land is a real action but it is an action in personam, for it binds a particular individual only although it concerns the right to a tangible thing If the ACTION IS IN PERSONAM there MUST BE A PERSONAL SERVICE OF SUMMONS. JORGE C. PADERANGA, petitioner, vs. Hon. DIMALANES B. BUISSAN, the property is located in Osamiz City, Elumba industries filed a case in Dipolog City being the main office of plaintiff and renting a commercial space in Ozamiz. the contract has no specification of the amt Paderange repossessed of the lease premises, Elumba went to Dipolog for Damages and for the fixing of period. A motion to dismiss filed by Paderanga Real Actionwhere the RP is located thus must be filed in Ozamiz SC: you are not only asking for the fixing of the pd not only for the but the whole thus you are in effect asking for the REPOSSESSION, it is a Mixed Action. Confusion on the concepts of Real: Personal, In Rem: In Personam , it is indubitable that the action instituted by private respondent against petitioner affects the parties alone, not the whole world. Hence, it is an action in personam, i.e., any judgment therein is binding only upon the
3.
2.
1. 2.

parties properly impleaded. However, this does not automatically mean that the action for damages and to fix the period of the lease contract is also a personal action. For, a personal action may not necessarily be an action in personam and a real action may not at the same time be an action in rem. In Hernandez v. Rural Bank of Lucena, Inc., we held thus In a personal action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of personal property, the enforcement of a contract or the recovery of damages. In a real action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of real property, or, as indicated in Section 2(a) of Rule 4, a real action is an action affecting title to real property or for the recovery of possession, or for partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of a mortgage on, real property. An action in personam is an action against a person on the basis of his personal liability, while an action in rem is an action against the thing itself, instead of against the person. Hence, a real action may at the same time be an action in personam and not necessarily an action in rem. While the instant action is for damages arising from an alleged breach of the lease contract, it likewise prays for the fixing of the period of lease at five (5) years. If found meritorious, private respondent will be entitled to remain not only as lessee for another five (5) years but also to the recovery of the portion earlier taken from him as well. This is because the leased premises under the original contract was the whole commercial space itself and not just the subdivided portion thereof. While it may be that the instant complaint does not explicitly pray for recovery of possession, such is the necessary consequence thereof. The instant action therefore does not operate to efface the fundamental and prime objective of the nature of the case which is to recover the one-half portion repossessed by the lessor, herein petitioner. Indeed, where the ultimate purpose of an action involves title to or seeks recovery of possession, partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of mortgage on, real property, such an action must be deemed a real action and must perforce be commenced and tried in the province where the property or any part thereof lies. NICANOR G. DE GUZMAN, JR., petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS Quasi in Rem Individual is named as a defendant, all proceedings the sale and disposition of prop are classified as Quasi in Rem judgment is conclusive only bet the parties quasi in Rem, by entering into a lien- it can be directed against the res but it is only bet you. any person can still ask for recovery of the title. Sec 3 (a) An action means an ordinary suit in a court of justice, by which one party prosecutes another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prosecution or redress of a wrong. Shld every action have a cause of action? Yes. What is a cause of Action? A cause of action is the fact or combination of facts which affords a party a right to judicial interference in his behalf. What are the elements? 1. 2. 3. a party has a right defendant has an obligation to respect such right act or omission of the defendant in violation of plaintiffs right Ordinary Civil Action : must have a cause of action Special Proceedings: not necessary to have an act or omission The term right of action is the right to commence and maintain an action. 5 In the law on pleadings, right of action is distinguished from cause of action in that the former is a remedial right belonging to some persons, while the latter is a formal statement of the operative facts that give rise to such remedial right. The former is a matter of right and depends on the substantive law, while the latter is a matter of statement and is governed by the law of procedure. In this case, is there a sufficient cause of action? Yes From the allegation of the complaint in this case it appears that, (1) petitioner has a primary right, because of having paid his obligation to private respondent, to have the checks he issued to cover the amount returned to him or otherwise cancelled by private respondent; and (2) the primary right of was violated when private respondent demanded payment of a settled obligation relying on the very checks of petitioner he had not returned. Consequently, on account of such demand for payment for an obligation duly settled, the petitioner thereby suffered damages 13 and should be afforded such relief as prayed for in the complaint. you can only have a right when it is demandable and enforceable no right of action- superior right of non-suability of the State. there can be no right against the authority fr which the right depends. What are the reqts of Right of Action? 1. 2. plaintiff must have sufficient cause of action conformed with the condition precedents in filing a cause of action. What is the condition precedent before filing an action with the court? Conciliation with the Katarungang Pambrgy. When will you object? Motion to Dismiss or Answer if not it is deemed waived 3. must be a real part in interest

Dist Cause of Action v Right of Action 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. RP- right to institute the action CA_ pleadings RP- Substantive RP- will be affected by statute of limitations. etc Relief v Remedy Relief- redress, protection, award sought by the plaintiff Remedy- appropriate legal form of Relief kinuha sayo possession ng Property remedy accion publiciana, ejectment What determines the nature of an action? Allegation of the complaints and not the relief demanded. Paderanga v Buissan : while the relief is only to seek pd of lease but if the effect will result in asking the reconveyance or repossession of of prop, then it is a real action bec it is determined by the allegations of the complaint and not by the relief demanded. allegations can not be changed by plaintiffs reply to defendants answer How many suits may a party may institute for a single cause of action? Rule 2 Sec. 3. One suit for a single cause of action. A party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action. What is splitting a single cause of action? dividing a single cause of action into separate parts What is the effect? Sec. 4. Splitting a single cause of action; effect of. If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others. the filing of the 1 will be an abatement on another action and judgment on merits in 1 will be litis pendentia - filing of the 1 will be an abatement on another action res judicata if the 1 action a judgment has already nd rendered the 2 will be dismissed on the ground of res judicata Reason fr the prohibition on splitting cause of action? the rules against pleading a cause action is prevent repeated litigation bet the same parties in regard the
st st st
same subject of controversy. To protect defendant fr unnecessary vexation, cost on numerous suits. multiplicity of suits which is not condusive to the proper admin of justice What is the test if the cause of action is single? there shld be only 1 action for a single cause of action (delict or wrong committed by act or omission of defendant in violation of that right) INDUSTRIAL FINANCE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON. SERGIO A. F. APOSTOL In 1968, spouses Joaquin Padilla and Socorro Padilla bought on credit three units of Isuzu trucks from the Industrial Transport and Equipment, Inc. They executed a promissory note for P159,600, the balance of the purchase price, securing payment thereof by a chattel mortgage of said trucks and, as additional collateral, a real estate mortgage on their property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-133625 in favor of the seller. 1 Subsequently, Industrial Transport and Equipment, Inc. indorsed the note and assigned the real estate mortgage to petitioner Industrial Finance Corporation (IFC), which assignment was duly registered in the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City and annotated on the title of the mortgaged realty. On May 15, 1970, in view of the failure of the Padillas to pay several installments on the note, the assignee IFC sued Joaquin Padilla in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Quezon City) for the recovery of the unpaid balance on the note including attorney's fees. they were able to secure judgment based on the promissory note. the new owner sought for the cancellation of mortgage lien Industrial Finance objected. there are 2 remedies available : ordinary colln suit(w/c they filed) and foreclosure of mortgage
there shld be only 1 action for a single cause of action (delict or wrong committed by act or omission of defendant in violation of that right) payment of principal and interest- there is only 1 delict which is NON-pyt (act or omission) non pyt of interest still arose fr one wrong w/c is failure to pay the principal. judgment was rendered based on the PN, can the mortgage be cancelled? Yes bec to allow this recognizing the right of mortgagee to foreclose will rise another suit for the same delict or wrong. In a principal contract there is a subsidiary contract: eg Mortgage, which can not exist w/o the principal. They are intertwined w/ each other. Failure of pyt: you have 2 remedies, invoking 1 will be abandoning the other remedy.

I promise to pay P1m, on or before dates specified: a. b. on or before jan 31 p100k on or before feb 28 100k and so on each installment constitutes separate delicts, you can file action per month. can you file 3 actions? one for Jan, Feb and March? No. All installment due must all be included otherwise it will constitute splitting. Contract has many parts: a. b. c. use cement use steel plywood etc. Shld you sue several actions based on several pars? No. All violation son the contract must already be in a single action otherwise it will be splitting cause of action. When there is only 1 delict or wrong, there shld only be 1 cause of action regardless of number of rights violated such. single delict or wrong must be a violation of only 1 contract or tran otherwise it may give rise to separate cause of action Bahrach Deprivation of your right as a co-owner : You are asking for an action for partition and accounting: this must be a single cause of action. Bayang v CA Sometime in November 1969, Juan Bayang filed a complaint for quieting of title with damages against Benigno Biong in the Court of First Instance of Surigao del Norte, Branch I, docketed as Civil Case No. 1892. 1 In 1970, while the case was pending, Biong succeeded in dispossessing the plaintiff of the land in question and remained there until January 25, 1978. 2 On February 21, 1972, the case was decided in favor of Biong, but the Court of Appeals on December 8, 1977, reversed the trial court, declaring in the dispositive portion of its decision: "WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is reversed and appellants are hereby declared owner of the property in litigation, and defendant-appellee are (sic) hereby ordered to pay appellant the sum of P56.40 as the latter's share in the proceeds from the sale of the copra derived from the third harvest of coconuts from the same land, and P1,000.00 as attorney's fees, and costs of litigation." 3 This decision became final on February 2, 1978. cdasia On February 6, 1978, Bayang filed a second case, docketed as Civil Case No. 2589, with the CFI of Surigao del Norte, Branch II, seeking to recover from Biong the incomes earned from the same land from 1970 up to the quarterly incomes from 1978 until the said land was delivered to the plaintiff. The petitioner would draw a distinction between the land in dispute in Civil Case No. 1892 and the income from that land being claimed in Civil Case No. 2589. But that is in our view splitting hairs to split a cause of action. The subject-matter is essentially the same in both cases as the income is only a consequence or accessory of the disputed property. We cannot agree that there are involved here two causes of action calling for two separate cases. The claim for the income from the land was incidental to, and should have been raised by Bayang in his earlier claim for, ownership of the land. when you filed the action- you must have included everything How many actions for Breach of Contract containing sec 1. 2. gen rule: contract has only 1 cause of action- may be violated only ones a contract everytime installment is not paid, can be filed but all due obligations must be included or else they will be barred. when the failure to compoly on 1 of sev stipulation in a continuing constituting a single breach file only one action eg of stipulation on cont contract w/ separate breach in the event that borrower does not pay installment the entire will become due- acceleration clause- wag mong paghiwalayin. consolidation of the amount until it became P500kcomment of sir : MTC can render judgment in excess. ELEANOR ERICA STRONG ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. FRANCISCO GUTIERREZ REPIDE defenses not raised are deemed waived The partyCcan only file 1 suit for 1 cause of action. A suit for colln will bar foreclosure otherwise it will constitute splitting. if a plaintiff is riding in a bus and another bus bumped into it and was injured. You can sue them in the alternative. Insurance Co v Warner Burns- if you are not sure who is liable you can sue them in the alternative. You filed a case against the owner of ithe vehicle which is breach of contrant against the other is quasi delict. You also filed a criminal case against the driver for reckless imprudence. Included therein is civil liab arising fr quasi-delict. The other driver was sued by the driver for Tort. Other driver sued the driver for the criminal case, can it be done? Is it not splitting cause of action?

Owner A sued B for Tort bec he failed to observe the diligence of a good father of a family in the supervision of the ee. Filed also criminal cs for negligence. Drive also sued him for negligence. Can it be done? is it not a fact that it arose in the same delict or wrong? Owner sues B, vehicle for crim cs filed another action on the same act for tort, is it not arising from the same delict or wrong on the assumption that there is no reservation (deemed instituted) after that he went to another court filing another case for negligence. Can that be done? Casupanan v Laroya: when a criminal cs is filed what is deemed instituted is only the civil liab arising fr the offense charged and not on other sources of obli. You can do that even it arose out of the same omission. What is a cause of action? right-obligation-act or omission 1. right: civil liab arising fr crime Art 100 right : arising fr quais-delict in these instances it is allowed NCC- double recovery is not allowed Sec. 5. Joinder of causes of action. A party may in one pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as many causes of action as he may have against an opposing party, subject to the following conditions: (a) The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the rules on joinder of parties; (b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed by special rules; c. unlawful detainer and forcible entry- within the jurisdiction of MTC- ejectment Where the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the Regional Trial Court provided one of the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein; and - these rules apply only with the RTC and not with MTC - same parties dapat. if the RTC has jurisdiction on ATLEAST 1 cause of action and it has venue in atleast 1 action it can be heared by the court 1. 2. collection of money: p1m and recovery of ownership of RP located in Sulu - you can file it in Angeles if the property of the RP is only P10k you can also file it in RTC bec the P1m collection suit is w/in the jurisdiction of RTC REMEDIO V. FLORES, petitioner, vs. HON. JUDGE HEILIA S. MALLARE-PHILLIPPS, IGNACIO BINONGCAL & FERNANDO CALION in this case 1 plaintiff- 2 defendants who were not able to pay purchase pr ice of tires in a separate trans---held: misjoinder defendant 1 11k defendant 2 10k filed it is RTC of Baguio (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. TOTALITY RULE the totality rule applies only for RECOVERY OF MONEY. 1 : p100K- mtc, 2 alternativeINSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, plaintiffappellant, vs. WARNER, BARNES you sue them in the alternative- your claim is based on different right- breach of contract and quasi-delict. Rule 2 Sec 5 (b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed by special rules 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 with separately. The 1 rule is that it shld comply with the rule on the joinder of parties. Rule 3 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 of transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative, may, except as otherwise provided in these Rules, join as plaintiffs or be joined as defendants in one complaint, where any question of law or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in the action; but the court may make such orders as may be just to prevent any plaintiff or defendant from being embarrassed or put to expense in connection with any proceedings in which he may have no interest.
st ST ND
P150K-MTC, 3 100K-JOINDER- RTC
RD

Held: RTC has no jurisdiction. RTC- 20k Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in civil cases. Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise: (1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant of provisional remedies in proper cases, where the value of the personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila where such personal property, estate, or amount of the demand 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 the totality of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions; BASIS OF TOTALITY RULE BASIS OF Rule 2 Sec 5 (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. TOTALITY RULE but he case was dismissed bec it is a misjoinder of parties then there is also a misjoinder of causes of action. You drop the misjoined then wala na p20k then wala ng jurisdiction ang RTC. 1 rule : totality Rule 2 Rule : misjoinder bec it does not arise from same or several tran and there is no common qn of fact. Case: I have a House and Lot and you will be my exclusive selling agent and I give you a pd of 60 days then you will receive 5% of the purchase price. What the agent sought the help of B with a separate agreement. B was able to find a buyer. But the owner does not want to pay. I have no agreement with you but only to my agent. Is there a misjoinder? the law does not require that there is privity bet the parties joined with the opposing party. What is reqd is that there is the right of relief for and against the party jointIn this case it is a series of tran involving the same thing which is right to commission bec of the agency and there is a common qn of fact and law. Filing Fee Rules:
nd st
1. 2.
Manchester devt corp. If the filing fee is not properly made, the court has no jurisdiction Sun Insurance. A party may be given a reasonable time to pay the appropriate docket fee provided that it is not beyond the prescriptive period. when is a civil case filed? filing of original cs in court and payment of docket fee Cabrera vs Tejano : the 10 yr is not the service of summon but the filing of case in court.
3.
when the amt is not specified the party may be given a reasonable time to specify damages that he is asking to have a basis for comp of proper docket fee. Rule 141. Pyt of fees- in full Ayala v Madayag Sabio filed a case against Ayala, for specific performance with damages before the sala of J. Madayag Ayala moved to dismiss bec the prescribed docket fee was not paid and it also failed to specify the amt of damages both in the body and prayer the amt of exemplary damages they are seeking. The plaintiffs paid only P1k. The Spouses Sabio argued that anyway they can pay it later on the basis of - where the judgment awards a claim not specified in the pleading, or if specified, the same has been left for the determination of the court, the additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the judgment" only damages that may arise after the filing of complaint DAMAGES PENDENTE LITE BP 129 (8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the property in controversy exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (100,000.00) or, in such other abovementioned items exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (200,000.00) bank filed a complaint must include all ACCRUED interest for purposes of Jurisdiction. What does exclude interest? interest that accrues pendent lite. eg MTC 300k- umutang ka ng P200k, at the time of filing of complaint my interest p60k including interest accruing while case is pending, while case is pending nag-accrue na, umabot ng p500k. MTC can award bec din a kasali ung for purposes of jurisdiction. Sabio alleged that they need not state it now. those are the only damages that will arise PENDENTE LITE which the court may award. You will pay filing fee there constituting a LIEN on the judgment.
1.

Cabrera v Tejano Institution ; FILING OF CASE AND PYT OF DOCKET FEE IN FULL. JOE HODGES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS 3 lawyers filed separate action against Hodges for Defamatory stmt w.o pyt of proper docket As early as Lazaro vs. Endencia, 4 this Court held that an appeal is not deemed perfected if the appellate court docket fee is not fully paid. In Lee vs. Republic, 5 this Court ruled that a declaration of intention to be a Filipino citizen produced no legal effect until the required filing fee is paid. In Malimit vs. Degamo, 6 We held that the date of payment of the docket fee must be considered the real date of filing of a petition for quo warranto and not the date it was mailed. In Magaspi vs. Ramolete, 7 the well-settled rule was reiterated that a case is deemed filed only upon payment of the docket fee regardless of the actual date of its filling in court. 8 The rule in Manchester was relaxed in Sun Insurance vs. Hon. Maximiano Asuncion, 10 whereby this Court declared that the trial court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. Nevertheless, in Sun Insurance, this Court reiterated the rule that it is the payment of the prescribed docket fee that vests the trial Court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the case. reglementary pd: In election protest you must file the action 10 days fr the proclamation. SC : it will not be th tolerated anymore, bayad ka. kung sa 12 ka nagbayad wala na. ARTURO Q. SALIENTES, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. PACITA CANIZARES-NYE On September 29, 1987, petitioner Arturo Q. Salientes, in his capacity as receiver of and representing the heirs of the registered co-owners of Maysilo Estate, filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court, seeking to recover possession of a portion of said estate allegedly occupied illegally by Destilleria Limtuaco & Co., Inc. to the extent of 6,885 square meters, more or less, valued at P500,000.00 and praying among others for an Order to said company to pay Salientes "actual or compensatory damages in the amount of not less than P500,000.00 and such other exemplary damages as the Honorable Court may allow . . ." Where the action involves real property and a related claim for damages as well, the legal fees shall be assessed on the basis of both (a) the value of the property and (b) the total amount of related damages sought. The Court acquires jurisdiction over the action if the filing of the initiatory pleading is accompanied by the payment of the requisite fees, or, if the fees are not paid at the time of the filing of the pleading, as of the time of full payment of the fees within such reasonable time as the court may grant, unless, of course, prescription has set in the meantime. But where as in the case at bar the fees prescribed for an action involving real property have been paid, but the amounts of certain related damages (actual, moral and nominal) being demanded are unspecified, the action may not be dismissed. The Court undeniably has jurisdiction over the action involving the real property, acquiring it upon the filing of the complaint or similar pleading and payment of the prescribed fee. And it is not divested of that authority by the circumstance that it may not have acquired jurisdiction over the accompanying claims for damages because of lack of specification thereof. What should be done is simply to expunge those claims for damages as to which no amounts are stated, . . . or allow, on motion, a reasonable time for the amendment of the complaints so as to allege the precise amount of each item of damages and accept payment of the requisite fees therefor within the relevant prescriptive period ." this is a mixed action Real and Personal paid fee in the real action but not to personal- dinismiss lahat: wrong! yung di lang nabayaran ang tanggalin mo. SUN INSURANCE OFFICE, LTD., (SIOL), E.B. PHILIPPS AND D.J. WARBY, petitioners, vs. HON. MAXIMIANO C. ASUNCION, 3 Basic Rules in Sun Insurance Thus, the Court rules as follows: 1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory 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 filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. 2. The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third-party claims and similar pleadings, which shall not be considered filed until and unless the filing fee prescribed therefor is paid. The court may also allow payment of said fee within a reasonable time but also in no case beyond its applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. - compulsory are excluded Under Rules 141 SEC 7 a. permissive or compulsory-

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, subsequently, the judgment awards a claim not specified in the pleading, or if specified the same has been left for determination by the court, the additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy to enforce said lien and assess and collect the additional fee. -= Ayala The exception contemplated as to claims not specified or to claims although specified are left for determination of the court is limited only to any damages that may arise after the filing of the complaint or similar pleading for then it will not be possible for the claimant to specify nor speculate as to the amount thereof. MAERSK-TABACALERA SHIPPING AGENCY (FILIPINAS), INC., petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS "On May 21, 1985, a complaint for damages was filed by plaintiff Monet's Export and Manufacturing Corporation (Monet's) and/or Vicente Tagle against defendants Maersk Tabacalera Shipping (Maersk) and the New Asia Enterprises (New Asia) and/or Manuel Ranola, alleging, among other things, that plaintiff, like defendant New Asia, is engaged in the export of locally-made handicrafts and products, while defendant Maersk Line is engaged in furnishing containerized services through which Monet's and New Asia normally ship their goods; that on March 11, 1984, plaintiff, after complying with all the export and custom requirements, loaded its goods in Maersk's container to be delivered on or before March 15, 1984 to Manila for immediate transshipment to its port of destination; that through fraud and malice, and without prior notice to Monet's, Maersk unloaded the goods at New Asia's factory site at Tagas, Daraga, Albay to give way to the latter's own export shipment ; that Monet's shipment was later returned to its warehouse at Banag, Daraga, Albay; and that because of this occurrence, Monet's had to secure another shipper, thereby incurring unnecessary expenses as well as suffering mental anguish, worry and sleepless nights thinking of the possibility of losing its trading partners which would seriously doubt Monet's capacity as a respectable exporter. Monet's likewise alleged having suffered actual, moral and exemplary damages ( Monet did not pay the correct filing fee on its claims for actual, moral and exemplary damages, the amounts of which were not specified in the body and prayer of its complaint, Maersk should have raised its objection to the trial court's jurisdiction when the case was still in that court. It should not have waited for an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals before waking up to raise the question of jurisdiction. Since this is a case where some of the claims (for moral and exemplary damages) were not specified in the plaintiff's pleading and were left for determination by the court, the applicable rule is the third rule set out in the decision of this Court in Sun Insurance Office Ltd., et al. vs. Hon. Maximiano Asuncion, e al., 170 SCRA 274, to wit: "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, subsequently, the judgment awards a claim not specific, in the pleading, or if specified the same has been left for determination by the court, the additional filing fee therefore shall constitute a lien on the judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy to enforce said lien and assess and collect the additional fee." but bayad pa rin, it will constitute a lien on the judgment but can not be a ground for dismissal of the case. It was raised too late. ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and HOME INSURANCE AND GUARANTY CORPORATION, petitioner Original Development and Construction Corporation (ODECOR for brevity) filed a complaint for breach of contract and damages against private respondent Home Insurance and Guaranty Corporation (HIGC for short), National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC for short) and Caloocan City Public School Teachers Association (CCPSTA for brevity simultaneously they paid 2 checks and P86 based on one numerical figure which is p2m representing taking out 22 proceeds fr lot buyers ODECOR's first complaint as well as its amended complaint vaguely asserted its claim for actual, consequential, exemplary and moral damages, "the amount of which will be proved at the trial" and the demand for attorney's fees as "equivalent to 25% of the total monetary liability and other expenses of litigation and costs of this suit". Such terms are certainly not definite enough to support the computation of the proper docket fees. While it is not required that the exact amounts be stated, the plaintiff must ascertain, in this estimation, the sums he wants and the sums required to determine the amount of such docket and other fees. Thus, it is evident that the complaint did not state enough facts and sums to enable the Clerk of Court of the lower court to compute the docket fees payable and left to the judge "mere guesswork" as to these amounts, which is fatal.

Ching v CA INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION , vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. SALVADOR TENSUAN and FILIPINAS CARBON AND MINING CORPORATION The fact that the main action or principal relief sought in the complaint is for specific performance and/or rescission is only determinative of jurisdiction in the sense that, regardless of the amount of incidental or additional claims for damages, the case is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. This does not mean, however, that the separate claims for damages therein are exempt from the payment of docket fees. The prayer in private respondent's second amended complaint 8 reveals that, in addition to the principal relief of specific performance and/or rescission, it categorically and unconditionally seeks the payment of actual, moral and exemplary damages, with attorney's fees and expenses of litigation. LEONARDO A. AURELIO and YAO BUN SHIONG, petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Ninth Division, HON. JUDGE ALOYSIUS C. ALDAY Sabio's "Counter-Complaint" is a compulsory counterclaim, not a third-party complaint, hence, no separate filing fee may be required for asserting it. PARTIES RULE 3 PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS 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. The term "plaintiff" may refer to the claiming party, the counterclaimant, the cross-claimant, or the third (fourth, etc.) party plaintiff. The term "defendant" may refer to the original defending party, the defendant in a counterclaim, the cross-defendant, or the third (fourth, etc.) party defendant. may a labor union be a party? yes, provided it is registered juridical person is one that is created by law. Labor union is a corp registered w/ DOLE homeowners association- registered w/ Home Financed Mortgaged Association if it is not registered is it only an association. no personality San Juan de Dios and Santa Isabel- if signed by Archbishop of Manila it is approved no need for Corp Papers. bought a property 5 yrs after died 13 yrs after his death plaintiff filed petition summon by publication, he was declared in default for failing to answer heirs of Ching learned abt the judgment: annulment- no jurisdiction in the person of Ching Defense- action quasi in rem, fr in personam SC: no, it is still in personam which requires personal service of summons. if person cant be located can use publication. but the court did not apply it? the person is already dead. basic in service of summon can only be served if person is still alive even for substituted service where person shld also be alive bec it requires natural and juridical person. A person who is dead is not a natural person thus you can no longer serve summons. but there are exceptions May a civil association of persons not legally organized may sue and be sued? eg Friday Grp. hehehe no, it is not registered. Only natural and juridical person. You go to proper authority to seek primay franchise bec you want to ask govt to recognize you as a person. There is only one natural person, tayo no need to seek for recognition. Upon birth we have inalienable rights. Municipal Corporation: A corporation is an artificial being having rights, pro and fn recognized by law. 1. an artificial being created by law. it is artificial bec it does not exist in reality. there are exceptions to the rule: Class Suit: when the parties are so numerous that it is impractible to bring them into court 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 impracticable to join all as parties, a number of them which the court finds to be sufficiently numerous and representative as to fully protect the interests of all concerned may sue or defend for the benefit of all. Any party in interest shall have the right to intervene to protect his individual interest. 2. Sec. 15. Entity without juridical personality as defendant. When two or more persons not organized as an entity with juridical personality enter into a transaction, they

may be sued under the name by which they are generally or commonly known. In the answer of such defendant, the names and addresses of the persons composing said entity must all be revealed. 3. juansing Hardware v Mendoza NCC 487- co-ownership- anyone may bring an action for ejectment ---on the property co-owned May foreign corp sue in our courts? It depends. Gen Rule: HANG LUNG BANK, LTD., petitioner, vs. HON. FELINTRIYE G. SAULOG petitioner Hang Lung Bank, Ltd., which was not doing business in the Philippines, entered into two (2) continuing guarantee agreements with Cordova Chin San in Hongkong whereby the latter agreed to pay on demand all sums of money which may be due the bank from Worlder Enterprises to the extent of the total amount of two hundred fifty thousand Hongkong dollars (HK $250,000). Worlder Enterprises having defaulted in its payment, petitioner filed in the Supreme Court of Hongkong a collection suit against Worlder Enterprises and Chin San. Summonses were allegedly served upon Worlder Enterprises and Chin San at their addresses in Hongkong but they failed to respond thereto Cordova has property in the Phils. When the case was filed RTC dismissed the claim upon Motion to Dismiss br defendant bec there is no cause of action bec the bank cannot sue in our courts bec it has no license to do business in the Phils. A foreign corp can only sue if it has license. "SEC. 69. No foreign corporation or corporation formed, organized, or existing under any laws other than those of the Philippines shall be permitted to transact business in the Philippines or maintain by itself or assignee any suit for the recovery of any debt, claim, or demand whatever, unless it shall have the license prescribed in the section immediately preceding. Any officer, director or agent of the corporation or any person transacting business for any foreign corporation not having the license prescribed shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than two years or by a fine of not less than two hundred pesos nor more than one thousand pesos, or by both such imprisonment and fine, in the discretion of the Court." In this case can Hang Lung bank sue? it is not the lack of the prescribed license (to do business in the Philippines) but doing business without license, which bars a foreign corporation from access to our courts." CONVERSE RUBBER CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. UNIVERSAL RUBBER PRODUCTS, INC Respondent (Phil) Universal Rubber Products, Inc. filed an application with the Philippine Patent office for registration of the trademark "UNIVERSAL CONVERSE AND DEVICE" used on rubber shoes and rubber slippers. Petitioner Converse Rubber Corporation (foreign) filed its opposition to the application for registration on grounds thatIt is unfortunate that respondent Director of Patents has concluded that since the petitioner is not licensed to do business in the country and is actually not doing business on its own in the Philippines, it has no name to protect in the forum and thus, it is futile for it to establish that "CONVERSE" as part of its corporate name identifies its rubber shoes. That a foreign corporation has a right to maintain an action in the forum even if it is not licensed to do business and is not actually doing business on its own therein has been enunciated many times by this Court the rule is that it is not the lack of license but doing business w/o a license is the bar fr our court there is an ISOLATED TRANSACTION rule- you can sue The ruling in the aforecited case is in consonance with the Convention of the Union of Paris for the Protection of Industrial Property to which the Philippines became a party on September 27, 1965. Article 8 thereof provides that "a trade name [corporate name] shall be protected in all the countries of the Union without the obligation of filing or registration, whether or not it forms part of the trademark." THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, petitioner, vs. K.M.K. GANI, INDRAPAL & CO., and the HONORABLE COURT OF TAX APPEALS foreign corp as plaintiff ha? that if a foreign corp is doing bus w/o a license you can sue it anytime but the foreign corp can not. We are cognizant of the fact that under the "isolated transaction rule," only foreign corporations and not just

any business organization or entity can avail themselves of the privilege of suing before Philippine courts even without a license. Counsel Armando S. Padilla stated before the respondent Court of Tax Appeals that his clients are "suing upon a singular and isolated transaction." But there is no proof to show that K.M.K. and INDRAPAL are indeed what they are represented to be. It has been simply stated by Attorney Padilla that K.M.K. Gani is "a single proprietorship," while INDRAPAL is "a firm," and both are "doing business in accordance with the laws of Singapore . . .," with specified addresses in Singapore. In cases of this nature, these allegations are not sufficient to clothe a claimant of suspected smuggled goods of juridical personality and existence. The "isolated transaction rule" refers only to foreign corporations. Here the petitioners are not foreign corporations. They do not even pretend to be so. MERRILL LYNCH FUTURES, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, and the SPOUSES PEDRO M. LARA and ELISA G. LARA principle of estoppel against Lara spouses because they willingly transacted with Merrill Futures knowing that it is a foreign corp doing bus in the Phil w/o a license. ONE WHO HAS DEALT WITH A CORPORATION OF FOREIGN ORIGIN AS A CORPORATE ENTITY IS ESTOPPED TO DENY ITS CORPORATE EXISTENCE AND CAPACITY TO SUE CASE AT BAR. In other words, if it be true that during all the time that they were transacting with ML FUTURES, the Laras were fully aware of its lack of license to do business in the Philippines, and in relation to those transactions had made payments to, and received money from it for several years, the question is whether or not the Lara Spouses are now estopped to impugn ML FUTURES capacity to sue them in the courts of the forum. The rule is that a party is estopped to challenge the personality of a corporation after having acknowledged the same by entering into a contract with it. [SEE Ohta Development Co. v. Steamship 'Pompey,' et al., 49 Phil. 117 120 (1926); Asia banking Corporation v. Standard Products Co., 46 Phil. 144 (1924)] And the "doctrine of estoppel to deny corporate existence applies to foreign as well as to domestic corporations;" [14 C.J. 227] "one who has dealt with a corporation of foreign origin as a corporate entity is estopped to deny its corporate existence and capacity." [36 Am Jur 2d, pp. 296-297, although there is authority that said doctrine "does not, by analogy, require that such person be held estopped to deny that the corporation has complied with the local statutes imposing conditions, restrictions, and regulations on foreign corporations and that it has acquired thereby the right to do business in the state"] The principle "will be applied to prevent a person contracting with a foreign corporations from later taking advantage of its noncompliance with the statutes, chiefly in cases where such person has received the benefits of the contract (Sherwood v. Alvis, 83 Ala 115, 3 So 307, limited and distinguished in Dudley v. Collier, 87 Ala 431, 6 So 304; Spinney v. Miller 114 Iowa 210, 86 NW 317), where such person has acted as agent for the corporation and has violated his fiduciary obligations as such, and where the statute does not provide that the contract shall be void, but merely fixes a special penalty for violation of the statute." The doctrine was adopted by this Court as early as 1924 in Asia Banking Corporation v. Standard Products Co., in which the following pronouncement was made: "The general rule that in the absence of fraud a person who has contracted or otherwise dealt with an association in such a way as to recognize and in effect admit its legal existence as corporate body is thereby estopped to deny its corporate existence in any action leading out of or involving such contract or dealing, unless its existence is attacked for causes which have arisen since making the contract or other dealing relied on as an estoppel and this applies to foreign as well as domestic corporations. (14 C.J. 227; Chinese Chamber of Commerce vs. Pua Te Ching, 14 Phil. 222)." There would seem to be no question that the Laras received benefits generated by their business relations with ML FUTURES. Those business relations, according to the Laras themselves, spanned a period of seven (7) years; and they evidently found those relations to be of such profitability as warranted their maintaining them for that not insignificant period of time; otherwise, it is reasonably certain that they would have terminated their dealings with ML FUTURES much, much earlier. In fact, even as regards their last transaction, in which the Laras allegedly suffered a loss in the sum of US$160,749.69, the Laras nonetheless still received some monetary advantage, for ML FUTURES credited them with the amount of US $75,913.42 then due to them, thus reducing their debt to US $84,836.27. Given these facts, and assuming that the Lara Spouses were aware from the outset that ML FUTURES had no license to do business in this country and MLPI, no authority to act as broker for it, it would appear quite inequitable for the Laras to evade payment of an otherwise legitimate indebtedness due and owing to ML FUTURES upon the plea that it should not have done business in this country in the first place, or that its agent in this country, MLPI, had no license either to operate as a "commodity and/or financial futures broker." JUASING HARDWARE, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE RAFAEL T. MENDOZA Finally, there is no law authorizing sole proprietorships like petitioner to bring suit in court. The law merely recognizes the existence of a sole proprietorship as a form of business organization conducted for profit by a

single individual, and requires the proprietor or owner thereof to secure licenses and permits, register the business name, and pay taxes to the national government. It does not vest juridical or legal personality upon the sole proprietorship nor empower it to file or defend an action in court. Cdpr Thus, the complaint in the court below should have been filed in the name of the owner of Juasing Hardware. CHIANG KAl SHEK SCHOOL, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and FAUSTINA FRANCO OH An unpleasant surprise awaited Fausta F. Oh when she reported for work at the Chiang Kai Shek School in Sorsogon on the first week of July, 1968. She was told she had no assignment for the next semester. Oh was shocked. She had been teaching in the school since 1932 for a continuous period of almost 33 years. And now, out of the blue, and for no apparent or given reason, this abrupt dismissal. The original defendant was the Chiang Kai Shek School but when it filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that it could not be sued, the complaint was amended . 2 Certain officials of the school were also impleaded to make them solidarily liable with the school. SCHOOL HAVING REPRESENTED ITSELF AS POSSESSED OF JURIDICAL PERSONALITY ESTOPPED FROM DENYING THE SAME. There is no question that having contracted with the private respondent every year for thirty two years and thus represented itself as possessed of juridical personality to do so, the petitioner Chiang Kai Shek School is now estopped from denying such personality to defeat her claim against it. According to Article 1431 of the Civil Code, "through estoppel an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying on it Suability of the State is it a juridical person? yes. it was incorporated by the social contract- we created the concept of the sovereign. 1. you apply non-suability- pyt of damages but w/ regards in stopping it fr doing something w/c is not correct, the State cannot invoke immunity. Tanada v Tuvera Smart entered into a contract w/ COMELEC, can you mandamus them to proceed? Yes. you can sue COMELEC, di ka naman humihingi ng pera---damages. when State sues a private individual, individual can sue exercise of Proprietary fn GOCC HMF, NAWASA, LBP, 5. suit against officials or its agents. recite___ PABLO RALLA v . PEDRO RALLA In a decision dated July 25, 1986, the Court of Appeals 4 reversed the trial court and reinstated the disinheritance clause after finding that the requisites of a valid disinheritance had been complied with in the will. The appellate court noted that Pedro had threatened to kill his father, who was afraid of him and had earlier sued him for slander and grave oral defamation. validly disinherited heir, and not claiming to be a creditor of his deceased father, Pedro Ralla had no legal personality to question the deed of sale dated November 29, 1957, between Rosendo Ralla and his son Pablo. Legally speaking, Pedro Ralla was a stranger to the transaction as he did not stand to benefit from its annulment. His disinheritance had rendered him hors de combat. In absolute Community except donation during marriage. JESUS M. IBONILLA v. PROVINCE OF CEBU, CEBU STATE COLLEGE OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY province of Cebu donated parcels of land to Cebu Agri School w/ a condition that if it ceases to operate donation will be revoked Cebu Agri merged or became an extension of Cebu State College thus Province req for revocation - parents, teachers, officers not real party in interest bec not owners. VSC COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, OSCAR ESTOPACE and JOSE SILAPAN, leases in the Market filed a complaint questioning the title of VSC- lessor to the subjected land leases- estopped fr qn title of lessor leases- not real party in interest but the govt theirs is only an expectancy Sec. 2. Parties in interest. A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. (representative) Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.
2. 3. 4.

Sec. 3. Representatives as parties. Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the real party in interest. A representative may be a trustee of an express trust, a guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party authorized by law or these Rules. An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without joining the principal except when the contract involves things belonging to the principal. why can there be no representative in an implied trust? based on fraud and the obli of the trustee is to deliver back and he cannot use it. an agent may be sued alone 1. 2. 3. when he acts in his own name 1897- binds himself exceeds the limit of his authority w/o informing the party that he exceeded. J.M. TUASON & CO., INC., represented by its Managing PARTNER, GREGORIO ARANETA, INC to recover possession of registered land situated in barrio Tatalon, Quezon City. plaintiff named in the title but not necessarily by the real party in interest defendant OCEAN of the land--- title of plaintiff obtained thru fraud- 1 yr after decree- can no longer qn the title an assignee for a valuable consideration- is a real party in interest even the assignment is only for colln Carlos v 100 P 28 Only parties to a contract may sue are the heirs of the deceased real party in interest? yes. If the action arises out of a right pertaining to the deceased and it is one of those actions w/c survive heirs are real party in interest. provided no pending settlement proceeding of the decedent in court Derivative Suit- you are a minority stockholder. yung majority ninanakawan na ang corp. You can sue as minority stockholder. It is the corp who is the real party in interest and you derive it. The minority who brings the action and actively prosecuted it is a mere nominal plaintiff but it is allowed by law. the action must still be prosecuted in the Sec. 4. Spouses as parties. Husband and wife shall sue or be sued jointly, except as provided by law. except: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. legal separation separation of prop agreed in the settlement transferred to the wife by judicial decree donation inter vivos and mortis causa- you can not sue civil liab arising fr a criminal offense litigation is incidental to occupation, profession, business where wife is engaged quasi-delict suit bet H and W May a married woman sue alone with respect to her sep paraphernal? yes but not to the fruits of paraphernal pro- forming part of the community prop.- eg fruits of rental effect of failure to join the husband in the suit- wife as real party in interest has a capacity to sue, defect is merely procedural and can be amended. May a H alone maintain an action w/ respect to paraphernal prop of the wife? no except for fruits reyes v dela rosa minor assisted by her father. slander against her honor against the W. In the suit H was not included. SC: it is not necessaryto join bec NCC civil liab arising fr crim offense H need not be joined While a married woman sep paraphernal prop but when damages for the paraphernal H must be included. fruits Lim v Dee Appeal by plaintiff from the order of the Manila court of first instance dismissing, upon motion and without trial, his complaint to recover his wife's share (and its fruits) in the estate left by her deceased father. He included his wife as codefendant because she was unwilling to sue with him. Dee Chian Hong died intestate in Manila on February 1, 1945 leaving valuable stock in financial and commercial institutions, Crispina Dee was one of his legitimate children and the other fourteen defendants were other heirs. In March 1946 these other heirs executed an extrajudical settlement of the estate, dividing it among themselves, and in fraud of Crispina, awarded nothing to her. In April 1948 plaintiff Bienvenide, Lim married Crispina; and in March 1954 he filed his action demanding a new partition, delivery of

Crispina's inheritance. together with its income, and attorney's fees. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of lack of personality and prescription. Crispina submitted a motion to dismiss, alleging that plaintiff's complaint usurped a cause of action completely hers, and that she had never authorized him to institute any action concerning the estate of her deecased father. After hearing the parties, the court dismissed the action. The contract of partition was not void, but merely voidable in so far as it concerns strangers who had mistakenly been included in the partition, as alleged by plaintiff. Consequently, so long as it was not avoided, the contract had its effects; and when plaintiff married Crispina in 1948 such partition agreement was existing. Wherefore, to all intents and purposes there was no inheritance brought by her to the marriage; hence, her husband acquired no rights thereto. Not only that but the wife objects to the action, and under Article 1382 of the Civil Code the husband may not maintain actions of any kind whatsoever with respect to the paraphernal property, without the intervention or consent of the wife. Anyway, her conduct practically amounts to a renunciation or disposition of her share or paraphernal property. Sec. 5. Minor or incompetent persons. A minor or a person alleged to be incompetent, may sue or be sued, with the assistance of his father, mother, guardian, or if he has none, a guardian ad litem. Juan Dela Cruz- a minor herein assisted by his father if no father or mother- guardian if none guardian ad litem(to the litigation- court apptd) 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 of transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative, may, except as otherwise provided in these Rules, join as plaintiffs or be joined as defendants in one complaint, where any question of law or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in the action; but the court may make such orders as may be just to prevent any plaintiff or defendant from being embarrassed or put to expense in connection with any proceedings in which he may have no interest. when is a joinder of action permissive? 1. All persons in whom or against whom any right to relief in respect to or arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions is alleged to exist, who is an indispensable party? w/o him being a party no final determination can be had in the action. e.g. A asked for reconveyance of title, plaintiff filed an action for reconveyance. respondent was able to mortgage it, which is registered. Is the ME indispensable? yes, bec if you annul the title you will also annul the mortgage, you will prejudice the ME If you buy a prop, then here comes Lino filing a suit saying that he has a better title. Can you claim that Vendor shld be included? you can sue the vendee alone, no need to sue the vendor. You have a complete relief against the vendee alone having the title. co-owners- you can not have a complete relief , it will prejudice the rights of other co-owners who were not joined. partition: lahat ng co-owners dapat isali mo lahat. Sec. 8. Necessary party. A necessary party is one who is not indispensable but who ought to be joined as a party if complete relief is to be accorded as to those already parties, or for a complete determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action. 2. any question of law or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in the action; Labor : one ee has his own contract with the er---late, absence etc if we are ees we try to form a union. er dismissed usunion busting- same tran- engaging in union busting w/ common qn of fact and law. owner of 10 door apt. 5 of tenants failed to pay no commonality, no same tran or series of tran. but where there is agency, owner appts agent then appt sub-agent- can agent and sub-agent join to sue? yes, series of tran agency. their right to relief is collection. when is joinder of parties compulsory? Sec. 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. Parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action (indispensable parties) shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants.

I sold the property to you, then you sold it to another. lino claiming better title. lino sued both what will be the effect? if only to vendee- vendee has the natural right to go rd against the vendor filing a 3 party complaint. relief is only as w/ lino and you but as to your claim as to the warrantee of the vendoe the peaceable possession and title ---complete relief---pati vendee may relief na rin can the creditor sue alone the principal debtor w/o surety? yes, he can sue either. solidarily liable. joinder of partied can be compulsory is persons are INDISPENSABLE PARTIES WHO is an indispensable? Sec 7 Parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action (indispensable parties) shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. eg. co-ownsership, if you want to seek partition of the prop- you must include all of the co-owners bec failure to include one may prejudice his rights. mortgagee- no valid judgment for annulment of title, bec the ME is an indispensable party might be prejudiced if not include. what is an indispensable is not included? gen rule: judgment is Void. bec an indispensable partyw/o whom no final determination can be had an indispensable partys presence is sine qua non in the exercise of judicial power. necessary party: if he can not be joined for not reason or another, may be excluded and judgment will not eg. against the surety-principal debtor is only a proper party, not indispensable bec surety is solidarily liable thus complte relief may be granted. indispensable party is not only is the pt of view of if he is a defendant but relief to plaintiff. in an action to annul a partition- indispensable party action for recognition- all the heirs are indispensable party bec if an illegitimate will be recognized the hereditary rights of legitimates will will diminished. where the widow not included indispensable- entitled to one legitimate heir. if A sells his prop to B and X files an action against B the buyer, A is not indispensable party bec complete relief may given to X w/o including A. Robles v CA A sold his prop to B, later plaintiff brother of A claiming to be a co-owner- recover his share fr B. Is A an rd indispensable? No, but the defendant B may file a 3 oarty complaint against A based on warranty against eviction. Nunal v CA - de leon for her self as guardian ad litem filed a partition suit against Luisa Nunal. Judgment was redenred by RTC ordering partition. CA affirmed. Order of Exectution. During the execution, Marie filed a motion to quash the execution on the ground that she is a co-owner. court ordered to include Marie in the distribution CA ordered inclusion of new party in the partition SC- decision of RTC is civil c is final, trial judge lost jurisdiction on the cs. Judge can no longer modify during the pd of execution to include Marie bec it will amt to amending a final and executor judgment The remedy of Mary Lyon Martin is to file an independent suit against the parties in Civil Case No. 872 and all other heirs for her share in the subject property, in order that all the parties in interest can prove their respective claims. Metrobank Cs MBTC was not included as ME, suit was only against the owner, while REM is annotated. Judgment is null and void bec MBTC was not included. It was apparent in the certificate that there is a ME (difference fr Nunal Cs) Sec. 9. Non-joinder of necessary parties to be pleaded. Whenever in any pleading in which a claim is asserted a necessary party is not joined, the pleader shall set forth his name, if known, and shall state why he is omitted. Should the court find the reason for the omission unmeritorious, it may order the inclusion of the omitted necessary party if jurisdiction over his person may be obtained. The failure to comply with the order for his inclusion, without justifiable cause, shall be deemed a waiver of the claim against such party. order inclusion if not-penalty eg. Surety and Principal debtor. Creditor sues only the surety, but since allegation is only a surety , must name the principal and state why

he was not included (reason: his whereabts is unknow, fugitive fr justice, migrated to Vietnam. if the court issues an order for the inclusion of necessary and plaintiff refuses. what is the penalty? shall be deemed a waiver of the claim against such party. SERVICEWIDE SPECIALISTS INCORPORATED, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS motor vehicle 1 owner from Carmark-Filinvest 1 owner- deed of sale w/ assumption of mortgage to 2 owner then 3 owner Dollente but as to the 4 owner there was only a deed of sale but no assumption of mortgage. SWS- foreclosure/replevin only to Custodio (on who is possession) w/o impleading Dollente the mortgagor and w/o service of summons. It appeared that there is a new th buyer 4 one but not recorded. Mortgagor was dropped fr the complaint. Qn: whether or not Mortgagor shld be impleaded. The answer has to be in the affirmative. In a suit for replevin, a clear right of possession must be established. A foreclosure under a chattel mortgage may properly be commenced only once there is default on the part of the mortgagor of his obligation secured by the mortgage.---shld establish a) CM and 2) default in pyt. these facts that there is a loan and default of pyt, will not be established w/o the existence of the indispensable party who is the mortgagor. Difference with REM: you cannot hide the land bec if you have the title, it is presumed that you are the owner- caveat emptor- let the buyer beware except good faith and bought it fr a store (w/ receipt). Replevin is a possessory action, mere step to foreclose. In REM, di tumatakbo yan. You can rely on the title and if there are no circumstances that will put you on notice to make further investigation, you are considered a buyer in good faith, pag di nagbayadforeclose which is not applicable in personal propertieskung bibili ka nito, you have to see it, eg motor vehiclest you will not buy it unless you see it, you shld get it 1 , how? replevin. A replevin suit- you must 1 establish your rught as possessor as owner or Mortgagee, you must establish your right of possession but before this you shld establish the fact that there is a 1. loan, 2. chattel 3. default. To establish these 3 things is to make the Mortgagor an indispensable parties.
st th rd st nd st
The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent the court from proceeding in the action, and the judgment rendered therein shall be without prejudice to the rights of such necessary party. Sec. 10. Unwilling co-plaintiff. If the consent of any party who should be joined as plaintiff can not be obtained, he may be made a defendant and the reason therefor shall be stated in the complaint. Sec. 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is ground for dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just. Any claim against a misjoined party may be severed and proceeded with separately. If initially there is non-inclusion of indispensable party, you shld not immediately file a motion to dismiss, you set a hearing as a judge,l and you find him as indispensable party, require the plaintiff the inclusion what if the party refuses to include the indispensable party? penalty? If necessary : waiver of claim as to the necessary party If indispensable party: The inclusion is MANDATORY, indispensable nga!!! the action will be dismissed!!! penalty: DISMISSAL but initially the non-inclusion is not a ground for a motion to dismiss, why? court may order the if Joinder is not proper: not a ground for dismissal, court may order joinder of parties. Mina v Pacson Plaintiffs Ligaya, Jaime, Silvina, Fausta, Pablo and Miguel, all surnamed Mina, are alleged to be the illegitimate children of the deceased Joaquin Mina with plaintiff Pilar Lazo from 1933-1958, while married to Antonia Pacson. Joaquin Mina died in August, 1958, leaving no descendants nor ascendants except his widow , the defendant herein Antonia Pacson. On April 9, 1958, Joaquin Mina, then still living, executed a deed of absolute sale (Annex "B" to Complaint) of three parcels of land situated in the municipality of Muoz, Nueva Ecija, in favor of the defendants Crispino Medina and Cresencia Mina for the sum of P12,000. On April 15, 1958 again he executed another deed of sale (Annex "C" to Complaint) of 13 parcels of land covered by 12

transfer certificates of title to the same spouses Crispino Medina and Cresencia Mina. plaintiffs are hereby directed to amend their complaint within fifteen (15) days from receipt hereof by including as party defendant the surviving widow of the deceased Joaquin Mina and other necessary parties. dismissal based on res judicata is proper the present action should be considered barred in respect to the action for the annulment of the deeds of sale and as regards the defendants spouses Crispino Medina and Cresencia Mina; but as to the case for the declaration of the plaintiffs as illegitimate children and heirs of the deceased Joaquin Mina this latter case is not barred by the previous action as above explained and may still be prosecuted. 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 impracticable to join all as parties, a number of them which the court finds to be sufficiently numerous and representative as to fully protect the interests of all concerned may sue or defend for the benefit of all. Any party in interest shall have the right to intervene to protect his individual interest. an exceptional situation when there are numerous persons in the same plight and all of them constituting common constituency. Permits the action to proceed when the class is SUFFIECIENTLY represenatted to enable the court to deal w/ the issus properly. reqts: 1. 2. subj matter one of common general interest to many persons parties are SO NUMEROUS that it is impractible to bring them all to court Acar v Rosal sugar workers. Sugar Act 1964- in every picul of sugar sold, (haciendero, miller, warehouseman, govt and sacada- workers in the field) 9k of them were not paid. Imagine preparation the cs for 9k petitioners. How many pp in the title of the case. Class Suit- association VICTORIANO BORLASAS, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. VICENTE POLISTICO, ET AL each member pd a fixed sum per wk and the lucky no was entitled to all money collected during the wk. so much money was accumulated, members became numerous action for acctg, dissolution, funds and prop filed against Polistico since numerous members proper cs of CLASS SUIT common and gen interest to all members, parties are so numerous impracticable to bring them all to court, plaintiffs are enough to represent everyone. Sec. 13. Alternative defendants. Where the plaintiff is uncertain against who of several persons he is entitled to relief, he may join any or all of them as defendants in the alternative, although a right to relief against one may be inconsistent with a right of relief against the other. eg. Insurance Co of America v Warner there is a vehicular collision. The other vehicle, you are not sure who between the drivers are negligent. Basis: contract of carriage and on the other bus : tort the right of relief to one is based on contract while the other is based on tort even causes of action are inconsistent, eg .suing in the alternative causes of action Sec. 14. Unknown identity or name of defendant. Whenever the identity or name of a defendant is unknown, he may be sued as the unknown owner, heir, devisee, or by such other designation as the case may require; when his identity or true name is discovered, the pleading must be amended accord. Sec. 15. Entity without juridical personality as defendant. When two or more persons not organized as an entity with juridical personality enter into a transaction, they may be sued under the name by which they are generally or commonly known. In the answer of such defendant, the names and addresses of the persons composing said entity must all be revealed 2 or more persons, transact business as an entity but not really organized as an entity, they may be sued under the name by which they are commonly known. eg. May ABC and Co sue the bank? no, bec no juridical personality This applies only when the defendant is unorganized entity but not as plaintiff why? this is for the protection of the public.

eg. Luisa and Sons bakery: assume it is a dept store, bought TV fr them, if you are the public, you will no longer ask who are these Luisa and Sons, but later you found out that there is a defect in the TV, you sue Juan dela Cruz v Unknown defendants doing business under the name of Luisa and Sons. refers only to entities w/o juridical personality. but these juridical personality can not sue in that name What is the effect of death? If an action is filed by a party, will the death of the party will bring abt the death of the cs? if the action is purely personal in nature- the action will also die with the party if the action is an action that survives annulment of marriage personal support- personal annulment of contract of sale- will survive legal separation based on infidelity, concubinage or adultery- personal most of the actions usually survives. what are these? what is the procedure, if the party dies pendente lite? sec 16 1. counsel to inform the court within thirty (30) days after such : a.)death of the fact thereof, b.) and to give the name and address of his legal representative or representatives 2. The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased. 3. court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to appear and be substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice. a. that death cert is attached b. names and address of legal rep - that they appear w/in 30 days to be substituted to the person of the deceased. the order will ORDER and not to serve summon. Why? They merely stepped into the shoes of the deceased with whom the court already jurisdciton while he was alive. Jurisdiction was already vested. Sec. 16. Death of party; duty of counsel. Whenever a party to a pending action dies, and the claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of his counsel to inform the court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact thereof, and to give the name and address of his legal representative or representatives. Failure of counsel to comply with this duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action. The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased, without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs. The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to appear and be substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice. If the Legal Rep failed to appear, what happens? the court will order the OTHER party to initiate settlement of the estate proceedings in order that the executor/ administrator shall now appear in the person of the deceased party. If no legal representative is named by the counsel for the deceased party, or if the one so named shall fail to appear within the specified period, the court may order the opposing party, within a specified time, to procure the appointment of an executor or administrator for the estate of the deceased and the latter shall immediately appear for and on behalf of the deceased . The court charges in procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may be recovered as costs. what happens to the lawyer-cl rel upon death of the party? Extinguished!!!bec it is a fiduciary rel, agencydeath of principal terminates the agency, lalo na ito fiduciary. AGUSTIN O. CASEAS, plaintiff-appellant, vs. CONCEPCION SANCHEZ VDA. DE ROSALES A and B filed an action against X and Y for specific performance and rights under deed of sale. After action was filed, counsel informed the court that A (plaintiff) died and X(defendant) died. Court ordered the survicing plaintiff to amend the complaint to include the heirs of the deceasedbut Casenas was not able to do so. Case was dismissed Later Casenas, filed a complaint against Y and children of X. Motion to dismiss on res judicata SC: the 1 order of dismissal was improper, bec it was an order to AMEND. The procedure shld have been ORDER to SUBSTITUTION ( that counsel of deceased informed : death and names and add, the court shall order heirs to appear to be substituted) THE PROCEDURE IS NOT TO ORDER THE PLAINTIFF TO AMEND. Abogado ng namatayan ha!!! hindi ng buhay pa. hehehe Dael v Teves plaintiffs filed an action for recovery of ownership and damages
st

2 of the defendants who are indispensable parties (who inherited the prop fr parents) died before the filing of the complaint court ordered to amend the complaint to include heirs of the deceased defendants. dismissed: failure to amend failure of the defendants counsel to give name and add of the the deceased Dismissal is correct. In the Casenas cs, the court ordered amendment, did not comply, dismiss-res judicata, but the proper procedure is not to amend but order substitution. In this case the order of amendment is proper because the death in this case occurred BEFORE the filing of the complaint. The procedure for substitution applies only if death occurred AFTER the filing of the complaint- death occurred pendent lite. JOSE BARRAMEDA, DOLORES B. MAGADIA, and JULIAN BARRAMEDA, JR., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. PAULINO BARBARA and MARCELA BARBARA Although the attorney for the deceased defendant did not furnish the name of the legal representative of his deceased client, the court directly ordered the plaintiffs to make the substitution without previously requiring the defendants to do so. NON-COMPLIANCE WITH COURT'S ORDER. Although the attorney for the deceased defendant did not furnish the name of the legal representative of his deceased client, the court directly ordered the plaintiffs to make the substitution without previously requiring the defendants to do so. Consequently, the order of the court requiring the plaintiffs to make substitution without previously ordering the attorney for the defendants to name the legal representative and ordering the latter to appear, was a violation of Rule 3, sections 16 and 17, and was, therefore, void. The noncompliance with the order could not be considered as failure to prosecute. The fault of the defendants should not be attributed to the plaintiffs, making the latter suffer the serious consequences. AMANDA L. VDA. DE DELA CRUZ, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS action for ejectment against tenants after action was filed. Felix, defendant died. No substitution was effected after his demise. same cannot enforce the need of the substi is based on the right of party to due process. nothing in the rules shall substi is mandatory reqd in action which survives bec the right to be heared is impt.
THE HEIRS OF THE LATE FLORENTINA NUGUID VDA. DE HABERER, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS Haberer appeared before CA Atty given 90 days to file appellants brief- up to Sept 25 Vda died on May 26, n1975 cousel gave notice of death to the court asked to suspend running of filing of appellants brief petition for probate was pending in another court original granted was abt to expire asked for extension of 60 days. not certain that their services will be extended by the heirs; SC- ROC sets rule of substi in cs of death. It is the court who is called upon, claim not extinguish TO ORDER for subst the legal rep to appear. Since no admin yet apptd bec pending determination in another court. action of extension is well taken. New Rules : If no appearance fr rep - the court may order the opposing party, within a specified time, to procure the appointment of an executor or administrator for the estate of the deceased and the latter shall immediately appear for and on behalf of the deceased . when there is death the lawyer cl rel is extinguished. Thus there is a need to suspend the running of the pd of extension bec they no longer have right to represent. CA knew already knew abt the death, you shld hve ordered rep to appear judgment rendered null and void bec no jurisdiction to legal rep. Lawas v CA A sued B, for ownership and partition. B died, where his daughter was apptd admin. at the hearing on Nov 1975, Attys C and D. atty for the deceased defendant manifested that law-cl rel was terminated and none of the rep renewed it but called another lawyer. The judge still ordered substi of the deceased. ordered to present evidence absence of previous lawyers, and treated the cs for decision. widow and children moved for recon (not the apptde admin) it was approved. SC both the TC and CA erred in considering former counsels as counsels of heirs. Widow as admin, shld have been substi for the deceased, bec the admin has the priority which was not done in this cs.

HEIRS OF MAXIMO REGOSO, petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS W filed an action against H for partition, acctg and damages of their common prop. H died on Jan 7 1995 after cs was submitted for decision No notice of hius death was filed. Promlgation pushed thru Nov Atty filed notice of appeal. the appellee, W filed a motion to dismiss appealdefendant ceased to have legal personality and that lawyer-cl expired upon the Hs death CA- dismissed the cs SC- supervening death did not extinguish right of W to action on conjugal trial of the cs was finished. since it was not informed of fact of death. TC can not be faulted, its judgment is binding in so far as the subj matter is concerned. The decision is binding to heirs by title. Atty notice of appeal in CA correctly dismissed bec it was unauthorized pleading hence invalid. Melgar v Bienviaje vehicular accident 3 vehicles owner of V1 bus- Felicidad Balla - died and driver of V1 Domingo Casim died V2- jeep Relloso, driver died also v3- passenger bus- Fabian Prades died heirs of driver V3 filed action for damages of heirs of V1 owner. defendants move to dismiss- no cause of action- not liable for the alleged negligence of their mother, must be in the proper instestate proceeding when no action is taken, absence of intestate proceeding may be avoided by req heirs to rep the deceased. if heirs resort to extrajud settlement, sourt may allow heir to subst for the deceased. if it involves prop- sustitution action for damages substitution provided the heirs will inherit baka abonado pa sila This cs is an action for damages, it is predicated fr the fact the substitute heirs has something to receive by way of inheritance. the owner Balla being sued as er of his negligent driver who was the author of the negligent act. Art 2180vicarious liability those persons enumerated has supervision and control over the authors of the negligent act. Paredes v Moya Sec. 17. Death or separation of a party who is a public officer. When a public officer is a party in an action in his official capacity and during its pendency dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold office, the action may be continued and maintained by or against his successor if, within thirty (30) days after the successor takes office or such time as may be granted by the court, it is satisfactorily shown to the court by any party that there is a substantial need for continuing or maintaining it and that the successor adopts or continues or threatens to adopt or continue the action of his predecessor. Before a substitution is made, the party or officer to be affected, unless expressly assenting thereto, shall be given reasonable notice of the application therefor and accorded an opportunity to be heard. the action is against public officer in his official capacity (if personal- no substitution). do you continue sustaining the position of your predecessor? yes, tuloy and asunto. Sec. 18. Incompetency or incapacity. If a party becomes incompetent or incapacitated, the court, upon motion with notice, may allow the action to be continued by or against the incompetent or incapacitated person assisted by his legal guardian or guardian ad litem. the incompetency of incap occurs pendent lite if already in existence must already be assisted by his guardian Rule 3 sec 5 Sec. 19. Transfer of interest. In case of any transfer of interest, the action may (not mandatory) be continued by or against the original party, unless the court upon motion directs the person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted in the action or joined with the original party. during pendency you can transfer interest is it necessary to have substi. Res Judicata: Rule 39, sec 47 Sec. 47. Effect of judgments or final orders. The effect of a judgment or final order rendered by a court of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or final order, may be as

follows: (a) In case of a judgment or final order against a specific thing, or in respect to the probate of a will, or the administration of the estate of a deceased person, or in respect to the personal, political, or legal condition or status of a particular person or his relationship to another, the judgment or final order is conclusive upon the title to the thing, the will or administration, or the condition, status or relationship of the person; however, the probate of a will or granting of letters of administration shall only be prima facie evidence of the death of the testator or intestate; - in rem actions conclusive (b) In other cases, the judgment or final order is, with respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to any other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and their successors in interest (how) by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity; and in personam the successors in interest acquires title to the thing subj of the litigation transfer of interest occurred after the commencement of the suit bec if it is prior- the successor in interest prior is not binding as to him Sec. 19. Transfer of interest. In case of any transfer of interest, the action may (not mandatory) be continued by or against the original party, unless the court upon motion directs the person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted in the action or joined with the original party. if there is no substitution, is the transferee bound by the judgment against the original party defendant? yes Jocson - bought a car, Filinvest later on repossessed it. Cr was assigned it to Filivest Cr, later on sue Filivest Finance when it repossessed the car. Filinvest was acquired by BPI, amended. BPI acquired all assets of BPI Credit Corp. but there was no formal substitution. Filinvest Finace and BPI Cr filed notice of appeal writ of execution was served to BPI BPI invoke due process SC- a transferee pendent lite stands exactly in the same position as his successor in interest- bound- it is proper not indispensable party- will follow even not formally substituted. It is not mandatory the substitution shld. be made (c) In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors in interest, that only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment or final order which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or which was actually and necessarily included therein or necessary thereto. in personam Plaintiff filed an action for recovery of ownership, defendant donated it to X. Plaintiff won, done is saying that can not enforce judgment bec he is not bound. is he bound? Opinion of Sir- effect of Torrens system. If you do not know of any defect in the title and you relied in the 4 corners of the title. You are a transferee in good faith and for value. You are a transferee for value and in good faith. since there is no notice of lis pendens, dapat patatakan mo ng notice of lis pendens para ma-notify yung transferee- this is an effect of a higher law. Sec. 20. Action on contractual money claims. When the action is for recovery of money ( not of real or personal prop) arising from contract, express or implied, and the defendant dies before entry of final judgment in the court in which the action was pending at the time of such death, it shall not be dismissed but shall instead be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment. A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the manner especially provided in these Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased person. recovery of money- KWARTA. only money!!! arising from contract what if it arises fr delict? hindiwhat happens? THE DEFENDANT DIES not the plaintiff when? before entry of final judgment what happens to the cs? will not be dismissed but will be allowed to continue until final judgment. the court that rendered judgment for money in favor of the plaintiff against defendant who died(substitution), pag substi- the court who rendered it can not enforce judgment why? bec it shld be presented for pyt in the probate court. Paredes v Moya P sued D, for colln of separation pay judgment rendered against D D appealed to CA while pending D died and substi by his wife appeal was dismissed, records remanded to TC execution with D prop levied- execution sale P highest bidder motion to quash writ of execution, granted by TC TC- quashing w/o prejudice to filing of claim in the probate court

qn: did TC acted correctly when it quashed the execution and ordered the prop to be returned to the estate of the defendant? Yes. why? Upon the death, it shall continue money claim arising fr contract of employment. Judgment in favor of plaintiff, pag namatay na the court has no more power to execution IT SHLD BE PRESENTED AS A CLAIM IN THE PROBATE COURT. Jurisdiction: authority to hear and decide and execute unless provided otherwise by the rules: this is an example of exception. Torijos v Ca Accused has prop sold it to X then to Y, estafa- double sale x- sued the accused he was convicted pending appeal, he died CA- dismissed the cs. Art 100 both crim and civil exdelicto- dismissed But SC: pwd pa- the civil liab even preexisted the offense. When accused sold it to x, it already created a juridical tie of an obligation. Estafa occurred only when nd it was sold for the 2 time-pwd pa kahit patay na Sandidiego: Pending appeal he died: as treasurer, his civil liab preexisted the offense Bayotas in the light of the new rule while the civil obligation in the contract of sale pre-existed the offense, the civil liab arising ex-contracto will not be deemd instituted Stated differently, the claim for civil liability is also extinguished together with the criminal action if it were solely based thereon, i.e., civil liability ex delicto. People v Sandaydiego these 2 decisions were superseded in the cs of Sumaya v People and Sec. 21. Indigent party. A party may be authorized to litigate his action, claim or defense as an indigent if the court, upon an ex parte application and hearing, is satisfied that the party is one who has no money or property sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic necessities for himself and his family. Such authority shall include an exemption from payment of docket and other lawful fees, and of transcripts of stenographic notes which the court may order to be furnished him. The amount of the docket and other lawful fees which the indigent was exempted from paying shall be a lien on any judgment rendered in the case favorable to the indigent, unless the court otherwise provides. Acar v Rosal- suit filed by only 10 persons for their behalf and 9k other laborers working. filing fee- to sue as pauperis- being mere laborers. SC- free access to courts shld not be denied by reason of poverty. Changed the term fr pauper to indigent. A person indigent who has no prop or source of income sufficient for their support. You need not be at public expense. Any adverse party may contest the grant of such authority at any time before judgment is rendered by the trial court. If the court should determine after hearing that the party declared as an indigent is in fact a person with sufficient income or property, the proper docket and other lawful fees shall be assessed and collected by the clerk of court. If payment is not made within the time fixed by the court, execution shall issue for the payment thereof, without prejudice to such other sanctions as the court may impose. Sec. 22. Notice to the Solicitor General. In any action involving the validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, executive order, presidential decree, rules or regulations, the court, in its discretion, may require the appearance of the Solicitor General who may be heard in person or through a representative duly designated by him.

Lecture Rule 1 To 3

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Lecture Rule 1 To 3

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Lecture CivPro_AMEV 1 Rule 1 to 3

Lecture CivPro_AMEV 2 Rule 1 to 3

Lecture CivPro_AMEV 3 Rule 1 to 3

Lecture CivPro_AMEV 4 Rule 1 to 3

Lecture CivPro_AMEV 5 Rule 1 to 3

Lecture CivPro_AMEV 6 Rule 1 to 3

P150K-MTC, 3 100K-JOINDER- RTC

Lecture CivPro_AMEV 7 Rule 1 to 3

Lecture CivPro_AMEV 8 Rule 1 to 3

Lecture CivPro_AMEV 9 Rule 1 to 3

Lecture CivPro_AMEV 10 Rule 1 to 3

Lecture CivPro_AMEV 11 Rule 1 to 3

Lecture CivPro_AMEV 12 Rule 1 to 3

Lecture CivPro_AMEV 13 Rule 1 to 3

Lecture CivPro_AMEV 14 Rule 1 to 3

Lecture CivPro_AMEV 15 Rule 1 to 3

Lecture CivPro_AMEV 16 Rule 1 to 3

Lecture CivPro_AMEV 17 Rule 1 to 3

Lecture CivPro_AMEV 18 Rule 1 to 3

Lecture CivPro_AMEV 19 Rule 1 to 3

Lecture CivPro_AMEV 20 Rule 1 to 3

Lecture CivPro_AMEV 21 Rule 1 to 3

Lecture CivPro_AMEV 22 Rule 1 to 3

Lecture CivPro_AMEV 23 Rule 1 to 3

Lecture CivPro_AMEV 24 Rule 1 to 3

Anda mungkin juga menyukai