De Leon v.

CA, GR 104796, 3/6/98 A review of the jurisprudence of this Court indicates that in determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation, this Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the courts of first instance would depend on the amount of the claim. However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, or where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, like in suits to have the defendant perform his part of the contract (specific performance) and in actions for support, or for annulment of a judgment or to foreclose a mortgage, this Court has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by courts of first instance. The rationale of the rule is plainly that the second class cases, besides the determination of damages, demand an inquiry into other factors which the law has deemed to be more within the competence of courts of first instance, which were the lowest courts of record at the time that the first organic laws of the Judiciary were enacted allocating jurisdiction (Act 136 of the Philippine Commission of June 11, 1901). Russel v. Vestil, GR 119347, 3/17/99 The main purpose of petitioners in filing the complaint is to declare null and void the document in which private respondents declared themselves as the only heirs of the late spouses Casimero Tautho and Cesaria Tautho and divided his property among themselves to the exclusion of petitioners who also claim to be legal heirs and entitled to the property. While the complaint also prays for the partition of the property, this is just incidental to the main action, which is the declaration of nullity of the document above-described. It is axiomatic that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and is determined by the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims asserted therein Hernandez v. Rural Bank of Lucena
A real action is not the same as an action in rem and a personal action is not the same as an action in personam. 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 tithe to real property or

for the recovery of possession. or for partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of a mortage 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 (1 C. J. S. 943-4), Hence, a real action may at the same time be an action in personam and not necessary an action in rem. In this case, the plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that they were residents of San Juan, Batangas, which in their brief (They characterize as their legal residence and which appears to be their domicile of origin. On the other hand, it is indicated in the promissory note and mortgage signed by them and in the Torrens title covering the mortgaged lots that their residence is at 11 Chicago Street, Cubao, Quezon City, which apparently is the place where the said lots are located, The plaintiffs did not testify during the trial. So, they have no testimony in the records as to their actual residence.

BANDA v. ERMITA, GR 166620, 4/20/10

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. From the foregoing definition, the requisites of a class suit are: 1) the subject matter of controversy is one of common or general interest to many persons; 2) the parties affected are so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all to court; and 3) the parties bringing the class suit are sufficiently numerous or representative of the class and can fully protect the interests of all concerned.
Here, the petition failed to state the number of NPO employees who would be affected by the assailed Executive Order and who were allegedly represented by petitioners. It was the Solicitor General, as counsel for respondents, who pointed out that there were about 549 employees in the NPO.4 The 67 petitioners undeniably comprised a small fraction of the NPO employees whom they claimed to represent. Subsequently, 32 of the original petitioners executed an Affidavit of Desistance, while one signed a letter denying ever signing the petition,5 ostensibly reducing the number of petitioners to 34. We note that counsel for the petitioners challenged the validity of the desistance or withdrawal of some of the petitioners and insinuated that such desistance was due to pressure from people "close to the seat of power."6 Still, even if we were to disregard the affidavit of desistance filed by some of the petitioners, it is highly doubtful that a sufficient, representative number of NPO employees have instituted this purported class suit. A perusal of the petition itself would show that of the 67 petitioners who signed the Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping, only 20 petitioners were in fact mentioned in the jurat as having duly subscribed the petition before the notary public. In other words, only 20 petitioners effectively instituted the present case.

NAVARRO v. ESCOBIDO, GR 153788, Nov. 27, 2009

SEC. 2. Parties in interest. A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest. As the registered owner of Kargo Enterprises, Karen Go is the party who will directly benefit from or be injured by a judgment in this case. Thus, contrary to Navarros contention, Karen Go is the real party-in-interest, and it is legally incorrect to say that her Complaint does not state a cause of action because her name did not appear in the Lease Agreement that her husband signed in behalf of Kargo Enterprises. Whether Glenn Go can legally sign the Lease Agreement in his capacity as a manager of Kargo Enterprises, a sole proprietorship, is a question we do not decide, as this is a matter for the trial court to consider in a trial on the merits. Petitioners also overlook Article 160 of the New Civil Code. It provides that "all property of the marriage is presumed to be conjugal partnership, unless it be prove[n] that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife." This article does not require proof that the property was acquired with funds of the partnership.The presumption applies even when the manner in which the property was acquired does not appear.

Pantranco v. Standard Insurance, GR 140746, 3/16/05

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." Permissive joinder of parties requires that: (a) the right to relief arises out of the same transaction or series of transactions; (b) there is a question of law or fact common to all the plaintiffs or defendants; and (c) such joinder is not otherwise proscribed by the provisions of the Rules on jurisdiction and venue.6 In this case, there is a single transaction common to all, that is, Pantrancos bus hitting the rear side of the jeepney. There is also a common question of fact, that is, whether petitioners are negligent. There being a single

transaction common to both respondents, consequently, they have the same cause of action against petitioners. To determine identity of cause of action, it must be ascertained whether the same evidence which is necessary to sustain the second cause of action would have been sufficient to authorize a recovery in the first.7 Here, had respondents filed separate suits against petitioners, the same evidence would have been presented to sustain the same cause of action. Thus, the filing by both respondents of the complaint with the court below is in order. Such joinder of parties avoids multiplicity of suit and ensures the convenient, speedy and orderly administration of justice.
(Imson v. CA, 239 SCRA 58 [1994]
But this is not all. Defendants in Civil Case No. 248-R are not all indispensable parties. An indispensable party is one whose interest will be affected by the court's action in the litigation, and without whom no final determination of the case can be had. The party's interest in the subject matter of the suit and in the relief sought are so inextricably intertwined with the other parties' that his legal presence as a party to the proceeding is an absolute necessity. 13 In his absence there cannot be a resolution of the dispute of the parties before the court which is effective, complete, or equitable. 14 Conversely, a party is not indispensable to the suit if his interest in the controversy or subject matter is distinct and divisible from the interest of the other parties and will not necessarily be prejudiced by a judgment which does complete justice to the parties in court. 15 He is not indispensable if his presence would merely permit complete relief between him and those already parties to the action, or will simply avoid multiple litigation. 1i it is true that all of petitioner's claims in Civil Case No. 248-R is premised on the wrong committed by defendant truck driver. Concededly, the truck driver is an indispensable party to the suit. The other defendants, however, cannot be categorized as indispensable parties. They are merely proper parties to the case. Proper parties have been described as parties whose presence is necessary in order to adjudicate the whole controversy, but whose interests are so far separable that a final decree can be made in their absence without affecting them. 17 It is easy to see that if any of them had not been impleaded as defendant, the case would still proceed without prejudicing the party not impleaded. Garcia vs. Reyes, et al., 17 Phil. 127 The plaintiff seeks to annul the transfer of a house that belonged to the defendant's father, and which was sold at public auction by the sheriff to the plaintiff. The complaint alleges that prior to the sale by the sheriff, the deceased father of the defendant transferred his said house to Messrs. Chicote, Miranda & Sierra, a law firm, and this, in turn, transferred the same to Rafael Sierra, one of the members of said firm, who afterwards made a gift of the house to the minor defendants. It was held that all the persons who intervened in the transfers from the original owner to the defendants in the case are parties necessary to the suit, because the transfers and donation are asked to be declared null and void.

The principle involved has been briefly stated as follows: Where the result of the suit is dependent upon the validity of the right or title of an absent person, as suit for an injunction against one who is acting under the charter of another, or a suit between lessees of different persons for the same property, the absent party is indispensable, (Moore's Federal Practice, Vol. 2, p. 2151, citing Northern Indiana RR. Co. vs. Michigan Cent. RR. Co. (1853) 15 How. 233, 14 Law Ed. 674; McConnell vs. Dennis

Adlawan v. Adlawan, GR 161916, 1/20/06, 479 SCRA 275

ART. 487. Any one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment. This article covers all kinds of actions for the recovery of possession. Article 487 includes forcible entry and unlawful detainer (accion interdictal), recovery of possession (accion publiciana), and recovery of ownership (accion de reivindicacion).26 A co-owner may bring such an action without the necessity of joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs because the suit is presumed to have been filed to benefit his co-owners. It should be stressed, however, that where the suit is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone who claims to be the sole owner and entitled to the possession of the litigated property, the action should be dismissed.27 The renowned civilist, Professor Arturo M. Tolentino, explained A co-owner may bring such an action, without the necessity of joining all the other co-owners as coplaintiffs, because the suit is deemed to be instituted for the benefit of all. If the action is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone, such that he claims possession for himself and not for the coownership, the action will not prosper. (Emphasis added)28

Pleadings TANTUICO v. REPUBLIC, GR 89114, 12/2/91 Facts: Nothing is said in the complaint about the petitioner's acts in execution of the alleged
"systematic plan to accumulate ill-gotten wealth", or which are supposed to constitute "flagrant breach of public trust", "gross and scandalous abuse of right and power", and "violations of the Constitution and laws of the Philippines". The complaint does not even allege what duties the petitioner failed to perform, or the particular rights he abused. The rules on pleading speak of two (2) kinds of facts: the first, the "ultimate facts", and the second, the "evidentiary facts." In Remitere vs. Vda. de Yulo, 21 the term "ultimate facts" was defined and explained as follows: The term "ultimate facts" as used in Sec. 3, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, means the essential facts constituting the plaintiffs cause of action. A fact is essential if it cannot be stricken out without leaving the statement of the cause of action insufficient. . . . (Moran, Rules of Court, Vol. 1, 1963 ed., p. 213). Ultimate facts are important and substantial facts which either directly form the basis of the primary right and duty, or which directly make up the wrongful acts or omissions of the defendant. The term does not refer to the details of probative matter

or particulars of evidence by which these material elements are to be established. It refers to principal, determinate, constitutive facts, upon the existence of which, the entire cause of action rests. while the term "evidentiary fact" has been defined in the following tenor:
Those facts which are necessary for determination of the ultimate facts; they are the premises upon which conclusions of ultimate facts are based. Womack v. Industrial Comm., 168 Colo. 364,451 P. 2d 761, 764. Facts which furnish evidence of existence of some other fact. 22

The allegations in the complaint, above-referred to, pertaining to petitioner are, therefore, deficient in that they merely articulate conclusions of law and presumptions unsupported by factual premises. Hence, without the particulars prayed for in petitioner's motion for a bill of particulars, it can be said the petitioner can not intelligently prepare his responsive pleading and for trial.

FAR EAST MARBLES v. CA Facts: Non payment of loan despite repeated demands.
Section 3 of Rule 6 state that a "complaint is a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's cause or causes of action." Further elaborating thereon, Section 1 of Rule 8 declares that every pleading, including, of course, a complaint, "shall contain in a methodical and logical form, a plain, concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts . . . omitting the statement of mere evidentiary facts." "Ultimate facts" are the essential and substantial facts which either form the basis of the primary right and duty or which directly make up the wrongful acts or omissions of the defendant (Tantuico, Jr. vs. Republic of the Phil., et al., 204 SCRA 428 [1991]), while "evidentiary facts" are those which tend to prove or establish said ultimate facts. What then are the ultimate facts which BPI had to allege in its complaint so as to sufficiently establish its cause of action? Basically, a cause of action consists of three elements, namely: (1) the legal right of the plaintiff; (2) the correlative obligation of the defendant; and (3) the act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right (Nabus vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 193 SCRA 732 [1991]); Rebollido vs. Court of Appeals et al., 170 SCRA 800 [1989]). These elements are manifest in BPI's complaint, particularly when it was therein alleged that: (1) for valuable consideration, BPI granted several loans, evidenced by promissory notes, and extended credit facilities in the form of trust receipts to Far East (photocopies of said notes and receipts were duly attached to the Complaint); (2) said promissory notes and trust receipts had matured; and (3) despite repeated requests and demands for payment thereof, Far East had failed and refused to pay. Clearly then, the general allegation of BPI that "despite repeated requests and demands for payment, Far East has failed to pay" is sufficient to establish BPI's cause of action. Besides, prescription is not a cause of action; it is a defense which, having been raised, should, as correctly ruled by the Court of Appeals (DBP vs. Ozarraga, 15 SCRA 48 [1965]), be supported by competent evidence. But even as Far East raised the defense of prescription, BPI countered to the effect that the prescriptive period was interrupted and renewed by written extrajudicial demands for payment and acknowledgment by Far East of the debt.

A complaint is sufficient if it contains sufficient notice of the cause of action even though the allegation may be vague or indefinite, for in such case, the recourse of the defendant would be to file a motion for a bill of particulars (Ramos vs. Condez, 20 SCRA 1146 [1967]). It is indeed the better rule that, pleadings, as well as remedial laws, should be liberally construed so that the litigants may have ample opportunity to prove their respective claims so as to avoid possible denial of substantial justice due to legal technicalities (Adamo, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., 191 SCRA 195 [1990]).

Arenas v. CA A counterclaim is compulsory where: (1) it arises out of, or is necessary connected with, the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing partys claim;[26] (2) it does not require the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction; and (3) the trial court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim.[27] The following are the tests by which the compulsory nature of a counterclaim can be determined: (1) Are the issues of fact and law raised by the claim and counterclaim largely the same? (2) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendants claim absent the compulsory counterclaim rule? (3) Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiffs claim as well as defendants counterclaim? (4) Is there any logical relation between the claim and counterclaim?[28] We do not agree with the Court of Appeals that the claims in Civil Case No. 16890 may be pleaded as compulsory counterclaims in Civil Case No. 658. First. In Civil Case No. 16890, the damages prayed for arose not from contract but from quasi-delict.[29] They constitute separate and distinct causes of action. A cause of action has the following elements: (1) the legal right of plaintiff, (2) the correlative obligation of the defendant, and (3) the act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right.[30] Res judicata exists when the following elements are present:
(a) the former judgment must be final; "(b) the court which rendered judgment had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter; "(c) it must be a judgment on the merits;

"(d) and there must be between the first and second actions identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action."[3

Tan v. Kaakbay Finance Corp. GR 146595, 6/20/03