Parties

Who may be parties to a civil action?

1. NATURAL
2. JURIDICAL
3. ENTITIES AUTHORIZED BY LAW
4. REPRESENTATIVE
Cases:
Resident Marine Mammals of Taon Strait case represented and joined in i.e.
natural persons were included among the animal plaintiffs
Oposa vs. Factoran generations yet unborn
* see also: citizens suit (re: rules in envi. cases)
Real party-in-interest (one who stands to be benefited or injured)
1. INDISPENSABLE PARTY: for whom joinder is compulsory, i.e. should be impleaded for
there to be final determination of the suit
Case: Divinagracia vs. Padilla partition of realty case, co-owners = indispensable
Distinguish from action for ejectment; only 1 party need file; is enough
2. NECESSARY PARTY: not indispensable; case can go on w/o him/her (e.g. joint debtors)
But: if a necessary party is not impleaded, an explanation must be given to the court
* If person impleaded/pleading is not RPI, action can be dismissed
Ground: FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION
Joinder of parties (R3 S6)
1. Same transaction/event/series of transactions
2. Common question of law/fact
Rules of same being applicable to joinder of causes of action (cf. R2 S5[1])
XPN: no application if P vs. D only (i.e. apply R2 S5[2-4] only)
Dean Rianos example:
- 1 P, 1 D
- 3 debts
- 3 causes of action
Here, a maximum of 3 cases can be filed, but P can go with one case only, w/ the 3
causes of action JOINED in said case, as there is only 1 defendant!
* To determine w/c court has jurisdiction, apply the TOTALITY RULE (i.e. aggregate amount)
Also: note R2 S5(2), e.g.:
- 3 debts
o 2 ordinary civil actions
o 1 covered by the rules on Summary Procedure
- These CAN BE JOINED (the 3rd debt loses its being summary upon joinder)
(cf. S1, last par., RSP)
Class suit where there is common/general interest in the subject matter of the action
No class suit if the claims/interests are individualized
Dean Rianos actual physical facts/bodies test: e.g. in a plane crash scenario,
the bereaved cannot file a class suit. Why? Kanya-kanyang patay.

Case: Divinagracia vs. Padilla Misjoinder or non-joinder of causes of action, not a ground for
dismissal but only for separation/splitting of causes of action
Q: What if plaintiff refuses to split?
A: Court can DISMISS due to fault of plaintiff (R17 S3)

Omnibus motion rule (R15 S8) a motion* attacking a pleading/proceeding shall include all
available** objections; objections not so included are deemed WAIVED
* MTD = one such omnibus motion
If no MTD has been filed: objections/grounds for dismissal can be pleaded as affirmative
defenses in the ANSWER (R16 S6)
** if an objection is not available yet, there is no obligation to raise under pain of waiver
Venue
Jurisdiction vs. venue
1. Venue is for parties convenience
2. Venue is procedural, thus:
(a) Can be waived
(b) Can be subject of agreement
Court takes cognizance if:
- In writing, &
- Before institution of action
3. NO MOTU PROPRIO DISMISSAL RE: IMPROPER VENUE
The court cannot take the cudgels for the parties; must wait for MTD
CONTRA: SumProc can motu proprio dismiss under any of the grounds for MTD
Re: personal & real actions
1. Real where property (or any part thereof) is located
2. Personal residence of plaintiff/defendant, or where a non-resident defendant may be
found, at the option of the plaintiff [same rule in culpa aquiliana cases]
Re: stipulations on venue
1. Restrictive/Exclusive
Shall alone restrictive; there should be other words of exclusivity (e.g. only)
2. Permissive venue stipulated, considered in addition to the venues in the RoC
Cases:
Briones vs. CA attacking a contracts validity renders one unbound by its stipu. on venue
Sweet Lines case stipulations on venue in contracts of adhesion may not be honored by the
court if inconvenient/oppressive
Case: Samson case re: reconveyance of real property = look @ primary purpose (cf. material
allegations) to determine if personal or real