KUPALOURD RULES 1-5
REM 1 BRONDIAL
RULE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS
So starting with Rule 1, ano ang importanteng sections diyan in Rule 1?
Sections 3, 4, and 5.
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.
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.
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, right, or a particular fact.
In Section 3, you are told about the different kinds of action. Diba? A civil
action, a criminal action, and a special proceeding. The enforcement of
a right or the preservation of a right, civil in nature. BUT when the State
prosecutes an offense, criminal. BUT when you seek the establishment of a
right, status or particular fact, special proceeding.
As to civil actions, they’re here what you call ordinary actions and of course,
you have special civil action. Where lies the difference? The difference is that
the regular, rules of court are only suppletory when it concerns a special civil
action because they are governed by specific rules as they are provided for.
You start with interpleader. Ang interpleader…
Now, you know now the distinction between an action in rem or an action in
personam. That is one set of classification. The other set of classification is
of course personal action and real action. When it involves real property, real
action. When it involves personal rights, personal action.
But when you distinguish action in rem, action in personam, you distinguish
them as to their binding effect. An action in personam binds only the person,
the parties to the case, while an action in rem binds the whole world like for
example, adoption. Adoption is an action in rem so everyone has to respect
the person as being an adopted person.
Real actions. So ibang classification yan ha. So you don’t… can it happen
that a personal action is an action in rem? YES! Or can it happen that a real
action is an action in personam? YES! But you always label them under the
Rules as quasi, diba?
Now, it is either quasi in rem, meaning to say, that the emphasis is on the
binding effect which binds the whole world or quasi in personam. SO it can
happen. Foreclosure of mortgage for example under Rule 48. It’s a personal
action, but it is quasi in rem. Foreclosure of real estate mortgage.
Real action that which involves a thing, recovery of real property, is of course
a real action. Recovery of money is of course a personal action. It involves
only… it involves personal right. Enough with this.
Now, what is Sec 4 ito nga yung Actions where these Rules of Court are only
suppletory: (4)
Naturalization
Land Registration
Insolvency Proceedings
Election Cases
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.
They are governed by special rules. Now, if the ROC will apply only in
suppletory character…
And then Sec 5 would be about commencement of action. We already
discussed that. When we discussed jurisdiction over the parties in a case.
When is an action commenced? It is commenced upon filing of the complaint
and timely payment of the correct docket fees. So that answers Sec 5.
Rule 1, Section 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 dated of the filing of such later pleading, irrespective
of whether the motion for its admission, if necessary, is denied by the court.
Then Sec 6 tells us about which should be favored in case of doubt? In labor
law, in case of doubt, in favor of labor. Dito in civil procedure, in case of
doubt in whose favor? Sec. 6- in favor of the administration of justice. SO it
does not favor any party.
RULE 2 CAUSE OF ACTION
Let’s go now to Rule 2 Cause of Action must be distinguished from Right of
Action.
SEC 1 RULE 2 Cause of Action, defined.- A cause of action is the act or
omission by which a party violates a right of another.
KUPALOURD RULES 1-5
REM 1 BRONDIAL
PLAINTIFF’S “CAUSE OF ACTION”
What is the definition of a cause of action?
The act or omission by which another’s right is violated or the act or omission
in violation of the right of another.
SO if you are asked, where lies the cause of action? In the plaintiff or in the
defendant? Under that definition, it is in the defendant, diba? Why? Because
it is an act or omission, therefore, who commits the act or omission that
violates the right of another? The other there is the plaintiff whose right is
violated and by the act or omission of the defendant, so that is the cause of
action.
But if you try to go to the definition of a complaint under Rule 6, it says there
“plaintiff’s cause of action.”
SEC 3 Rule 6 Complaint.- The complaint is the pleading alleging the plaintiff’s
cause or causes of action. XXX
So ano na ba ito? There seems to be a contradiction. While a cause of action
is the act or omission in violation of the right of the plaintiff, in the definition
of the complaint, it says “plaintiff’s cause of action.” That means plaintiff’s
right of action, so that the term right of action and cause of action are
interchanged. SEE?
Thus, the right of action is with the plaintiff. The right to demand for its
preservation [is the right of action]… preservation of your own right is a right
of action triggered by the defendant’s act or omission in violation of your
right. BUT there can never be a right of action without a cause of action.
What triggers the right of action is the defendant’s cause of action because
the plaintiff can only go to court once his right has been violated.
SO why do I have still to discuss this? Is this important? For your proper
understanding of presentation of cases. Kasi kung minsan i-p-present yung
case, plaintiff’s cause of action, when it should be defendant, but that refers
to right of action, because it is the remedial, it is the remedy of the plaintiff
now because of defendant’s violation.
ONE SUIT FOR A SINGLE CAUSE OF ACTION
Sec 2 and 3 must be joined together. One suit for a single cause of action.
SEC 3 RULE 2 One suit for a single cause of action.- A party may not institute
more than one suit more than one suit for a single cause of action.
One of the best explanations of this is the case of Perez v CA.
Perez vs CA – one suit for a single cause of action, and that is a 2007 case.
Perez vs CA. Although that is studied in Rule 39, one of the issue raised there
is precisely the one suit for a single cause of action. If there is only one act
which violates the right of another, from this single act must emanate only
one suit. One suit for a single cause of action. Kapag ini-split mo yan, you
have splitting a single cause of action which is violative of the rule Section
3, splitting a single cause of action 3 and 4 kasi yon.
Halimbawa, Mr. A versus Mr. B. A is a the lessee to a parcel of land to B for
a period of 1 year, after the expiration of the period of lease, B failed to
return the parcel of land, and therefore B violated his obligation to return
the parcel of land, so that is one act in violation of the right of A. A may file
for recovery of the parcel of land, well and good. One suit for a single cause
of action.
Suppose he file recovery of the fruits from the land, would there be splitting
a cause of action? Yes because there is only one act which violated the right
of A, so you split it into 2, it violates the doctrine on multiplicity, in fact it is
a multiplicity of suit, it violated the doctrine of one suit for a single cause of
action.
When there is a splitting of a single cause of action, what is the remedy of
B? A motion to dismiss under Rule 16.
Rule 16, Section 1, (e) That there is another action pending
between the same parties for the same cause;
Rule 2, Section 4. Splitting a single cause of action; effect of.
— If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause
of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one
is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others.
But if judgment has already been rendered, the remedy of B is motion to
dismiss on the ground of res judicata.
Rule 16, Section 1, (f) That the cause of action is barred by a
prior judgment xxx
JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION
If B borrows money from A, in the amount of 100K in January, and then
borrowed again money from A in the amount of 50K in the month of May of
the same year, and then again 150K in the month of December. No payment
was made at all, how many causes of action did B commit? Three, there are
3 acts here of nonpayment, and therefore A can file 3 cases against B. But
to facilitate the case of A to B or against B, the rule provides for joinder of
causes of action. So can he join this 3 causes of action in one complaint? So
this is now akin to an exemption to one suit for a single cause of action.
KUPALOURD RULES 1-5
REM 1 BRONDIAL
Because here there are also 3 causes of action, it’s nonpayment of an
obligation is a cause of action by itself, and therefore A can file 3 causes of
action against B, 3 suits rather, but to facilitate, under the rules, A is granted
a right of joining the 3 causes of action in one suit, does that violate one suit
for a single cause of action? No, it does not. So please revisit the
requirement, go again and try to memorize the 4 requirements for joinder
for causes of action.
In our example:
A would like to join the causes of action must comply:
1. with joinder of parties, you are cross referred to Sec 6 of Rule 3,
permissive joinder of parties;
2. there can be no joinder of causes of action if these suits are
governed or in the nature of an ordinary suit and a special civil
action. Hindi pwede;
3. If the causes of action are within the jurisdiction of different courts,
as long as one of the causes of action is cognizable to the RTC, it
must be brought to the RTC;
4. If it is for sum of money, the totality rule should apply, the
aggregate amount of the claim determines the jurisdiction of the
court.
Those are, let me illustrate, again A vs B,
1. in my example already B borrowed money in January in the amount
of 100K,
2. then in May of the same year, he borrowed 200k, 300 na lahat,
3. by November of the same year, B again went to A, I would like to
borrow 1MIL again from you,
a. then A says, I can lend you 1MIL but you did not even pay
the 300K, how sure I am, what guarantee?
b. I will mortgage to you my property located in Baguio. How
much are you going to borrow? 1MIL, my property in
Baguio has a zonal value of 2MIL
c. so they entered into Real Estate Mortage, or load (?), what
is now the indebtedness of B to A? 1MIL plus 200K plus
100K, so 1.3MIL.
Let us apply now joinder of causes of action…
- Is it mandatory on the part of A to join the 3 cases against B?
o NO.
o Remember that joinder of causes of action is never
mandatory. So he can file the 3 cases against B separately.
o It is only to facilitate and to avoid multiplicity of suits, but
it is not mandatory.
- Can A join the 3 causes of action?
o Kung ganun ang question ano sagot niyo?
o Depende kung ano causes of action.
o If it is for sum of money why not?!
 so he can join a collection suit for
 100
 200
 BUT 1MIL, you have to qualify.
o Suppose A files 3 [separate] cases, collection, 100K, 200K
and another case of real estate mortgage, can he do
that? YES.
 Separate actions nga eh.
o But can he join them? NO HE CANNOT, because the first
2 cases are ordinary actions and the last case is special
civil action.
Halimbawa, i-complicate pa lalo natin onti.
A as a resident of QC and B is a resident of Cavite, Tagaytay City. The same
scenario, binigyan lang natin ng additional, A resident of QC, B Tagaytay, A
borrowed 100L 200KL 1MIL secured by real estate mortgage of property
located in Baguio.
Now, syempre yung joinder ng collection suit walang problem, he join 100
and 200, but if it’s for a collection suit for 1MIL he can join them.
Suppose it is 100K 200K and recovery halimbawa lang recovery of that
property located in Baguio,
- the first 2 actions are personal actions, the last action is real
action, can you join them?
o YES, you can join personal and real actions provided
you observe venue and jurisdiction. Ok?
 So because of the other requirement if the cases
fall under different jurisdictions and venue,
 then as long as one of the cases fall within
the jurisdiction of the RTC you file it with
RTC.
So if A goes to you and asks for your advice, Atty., I am filing a case for
recovery of 100K and 200K and recovery of parcel of land in Beaguio, where
would I file it? WHERE, meaning what is the venue of the action, are you
going to apply rule on venue under Rule 4?
KUPALOURD RULES 1-5
REM 1 BRONDIAL
- This is now, may personal action, [na] may real action. So what?
o You have the option as to where to file it, pwede QC,
Tagaytay, or Baguio. In the joinder of causes of action.
Suppose A has a claim against B of:
- 250K by contract
- another 250K by contract
- recovery of parcel of land in Tagaytay
- amount of 500k pursuant to a contract of employment as wages,
unpaid wages.
- Can he join that?
o NO. He cannot join that because this is not cognizable
by regular courts. It is cognizable by the NLRC or the
Arbitration Branch of the NLRC.
Suppose A filed already the case and paid the correct docket fees on time,
joining recovery for 100K, 200K [ordinary civil actions] and foreclosure of
mortgage [special civil action], (bawal mag-join ng ordinary and special civil
action par. B Sec 5 Rule 2) if you were the judge what will you do? Will you
dismiss the case?
- NO. Because under the next section of Rule 2 [Sec. 6] Misjoinder
of Causes of Action is not a ground for dismissal of an action.
XXX
- So what is your remedy?
o Amend by dropping it or adding it. It says there you can
drop at any time.
o XXX A misjoined cause of action may, on motion of a party
or on initiative of the court, be severed and proceeded with
separately.
So point is misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground.
Suppose the court says you have a misjoinder of causes of action, so
[Remedy:] AMEND your complaint. Order ng court, [what if] you did not
[comply?], can the court dismiss?
- YES, not because of misjoinder but because of non-
compliance of the order of the court pursuant to Sec 3 of
Rule 17. Dismissal of actions.
What are the requirements [for joinder of causes of action] Sec. 5 Rule 2?
1. It must comply with the rule on joinder of parties,
a. itong illustration natin there is singular party plaintiff and
party defendant no problem about it. A vs B.
b. “it must comply with joinder of parties” pag joinder of
parties meaning there is multiple plaintiffs or
defendants as the case may be
i. so it may be ABC vs X, or A vs XYZ.
1. the former is multiple plaintiff vs
singular defendant.
2. the latter singular plaintiff multiple
defendant
3. can it happened ABC vs XYZ?
a. Yes that is still joinder of
parties and the rule applies in
the joinder of parties.
c. When can there be joinder of parties?
i. When there is a common question of fact or law
which of course arises in the same transaction or
series of transactions.
ii. Rule 3 Sec 6 Permissive Joinder of Parties.- All
persons in whom or against whom any right of
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 XXX
2. Joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed by
special rules;
3. Where the causes of action are between the same parties BUT
PERTAIN TO DIFFERENT VENUES or JURISDICTIONS, the joinder
may be allowed in the RTC prov. one of the causes of action falls
within the jurisdiction of said court AND the venue lies therein; and
4. Where the claims in all causes of action are principally for recovery
of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of
jurisdiction.
Rule 3 PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS
Rule 3 parties. Walang kainan dyan ha.
These parties refer to who may be a party to a case.
Rule 3, Section 1. Who may be parties; plaintiff and defendant. —
Only natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by law may be parties
KUPALOURD RULES 1-5
REM 1 BRONDIAL
in a civil action. The term "plaintiff" may refer to the claiming party, the
counter-claimant, the cross-claimant, or the third (fourth, etc.) — party
plaintiff. The term "defendant" may refer to the original defending party, the
defendant in a counter-claim, the cross-defendant, or the third (fourth, etc.)
— party defendant.
Sec 1 tells us as who may be the parties
- they are:
o natural
 what makes you a natural person is your intellect
of will
 warm body
o juridical persons,
 those which are created by law like a corporation
o entities authorized by law
 estate, or the totality of a decedent’s assets and
liabilities
 e.g. A B C, warm bodies, natural persons, put up
an unregistered business, unifier (?) enterprises.
Can Unifire Enterprises sue and be sued?
 Yes, because it is an entity authorized by
law
 Common example of entity authorized by law is
the estate of a person
 when the person dies, he never leaves
this world legally speaking
 he continues with his estate
- but take note if you read further, you will find out that there is now
a clarification as to who is the plaintiff, and this is crucial as early
as Sec 1 of Rule 3
- sinasabihan na tayo that when you speak of the plaintiff it is not
always Mr. A. Mr. B can also be the plaintiff, diba? And together
with the 3rd party, 4th party, the term plaintiff and defendant cannot
be limited to Mr. A and B because in one case, B can also be a
plaintiff or a can also be the defendant. How is that so?
o Through a counterclaim, or a crossclaim,
- these are the persons who can be parties only, so if we are raided
by inhabitants of Jupiter, pumunta rito, something happened, can
we sue them?
o NO, because they are not natural persons. So what do we
do with them? Kill them. Also, they cannot sue us para ‘di
niyo makalimutan.
- But even if you’re a natural person, juridical person, entities
authorized by law, can you sue as a matter of fact?
o No, you must be a party in interest.
o Section 2 of Rule 3
Rule 3, Section 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.
o You must be a party in interest, and who is that? That who
will be benefitted, prejudiced or damaged in a judgment in
a suit.
o Who is not a party in interest? A third party in a contract.
In an action for breach of contract, only those who are
privy to the contract are real parties in interest.
o There are certain jurisprudence that you have to
distinguish a party in interest with someone as locus
standi.
 Locus Standi (legal standing) is a term, which is
more of a political term rather than a remedial
term
 a party with legal standing is one who
has a personal and substantial interest
in the case
 imbued with public interest
 Jurisprudence has included persons of
with legal standing the taxpayers,
voters, concerned citizens, legislators in
cases involving paramount interest and
of transcendental importance. They are
considered to be parties with legal
standing.

 I don’t know if you are familiar with the
case of Hernandez vs House of
representatives:
One of our late professors, Jimmy Soriano, intervened there, who was
teaching in Arellano Remedial law, as well. His case was dismissed by SC on
the ground that he has no locus standi, and he argued [that] this is
equivalent to a taxpayer’s suit. SC said NO. I think this is about the Davide
case.
o Just distinguish locus standi from parties in interest.
 Parties in Interest are those who will be
benefited or prejudiced in a judgment in a suit.
KUPALOURD RULES 1-5
REM 1 BRONDIAL
A filed a case against X Y Z. There is already a joinder of parties-defendants
or A B C against X Y Z. Joinder of parties-plaintiff and parties-defendant.
Now, if that is the case, is it mandatory or not? It depends.
- Mandatory joinder of parties only happen if the parties are
indispensable parties.
Rule 3, Section 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. —
Parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an
action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants.
- And regarding indispensable parties, the latest is Bacalso (?) v
Padigos, April 18, 2008. The doctrine: the joinder of indispensable
parties is a sine qua non for the exercise of judicial power.
- When an indispensable party is not before the court, the action
should be dismissed. The absence of an indispensable party renders
all subsequent actions of the court, null and void, not just for want
of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to
those who are present. So that is how important indispensable
parties are.
Ang tanong, ano ba yung indispensable parties and who are the necessary
parties? Binigyan ko kayo ng medaling determinansya, diba?
- Indispensable, if there is no final determination of the case.
- Necessary, if there is no complete determination of the case.
Rule 3, Section 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.
Incidentally, dito sa sinasabi kong joinder or mandatory joinder of
indispensable parties, the case of De Castro v CA, July 18, 2002. The rule
on mandatory joinder of indispensable parties is not applicable when
co-owners
- Remember, co-owners as a general rule are indispensable
o Jurisprudence speaks of indispensable party co-owners as
indispensable parties. You know in partition, Rule 69, the
first stage of partition is the determination of WON there
is co-ownership. WHY? Because there can be no
partition if even one co-owner is left out. That is why
co-owners are indispensable parties.
- but this one is exceptional
o when co-owners are solidarily liable under a contract of
agency.
o In solidary obligation, obligors may be compelled to pay
the entire obligation.
o So i-t-tie up mo sa obligations and contracts.
o So this is in the case of De Castro v CA.
- In one case, the SC held that while co-owners are indispensable
parties but if they are co-owners plaintiffs, then one will suffice
to file a case without impleading or including all the other co-
owners.
o Ano ang rationale?
o When a co-owner files a case it is presumed that he files it
for and in behalf of the other co-owners.
o But there is no jurisprudence on the matter that when co-
owners are defendants.
o They should all be impleaded. Because if you miss one of
the co-owners as I said, settled is the rule that the
judgment is not only null and void as to those who were
not impleaded but even as to those who were impleaded.
- So may distinction ha! Co-owners as plaintiffs and co-owners as
defendants.
-
- That is why, as to necessary party, it is provided for by the rule that
you have to allege why you are not impleading a necessary party,
otherwise if you do not allege that in your pleading why you are
missing or not including a necessary party, you waived your right
agaisnt him. You cannot sue him anymore for the same cause. You
get that? So necessary party, if you did not implead them, you have
to state the reason why you are not impleading them otherwise you
will be losing your right, you can no longer sue them.
-
Rule 3, Section 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.
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.
- as to necessary party, it is provided for by the rule that you have
to allege why you are not impleading a necessary party, otherwise,
if you do not allege that in your pleading why you are missing or
KUPALOURD RULES 1-5
REM 1 BRONDIAL
not including a necessary party, you waived your right against him.
You cannot sue him anymore for the same cause. You get that? So
necessary party, if you did not implead them, you have to state the
reason why you are not impleading them otherwise you will be
losing your right, you can no longer sue them.
Rule 3, Section 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.
Rule 3, Section 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 the action and on such terms as
are just. Any claim against a misjoined party may be severed and proceeded
with separately.
Now as we move on to Rule 3 you will find out there are number of possible
parties in a case.
A minor in an incompetent can they file cases? Yes, but not by themselves
they must be assisted by their guardian or guardian ad litem.
Rule 3, Section 5. Minor or incompetent persons.- A minor or a person
alleged to be incompetent, may sue or may be sued, with the assistance of
his father, mother, guardian, or if he has none, a guardian ad litem.
How about representative party [and class suit] ?
In one bar question distinguish a representative party from class suit?
Actually the question is wrong. They don’t have a common ground: one is
a party and the other is a suit. The correct question should distinguish a
representative party from a party from a class suit. You should answer it that
way.
- What are the requirements in a class suit? The cause of action is
common to many parties and the parties are so numerous that it is
very impractical to bring them all before the court.
- A party in a class suit is one representing a class which has common
issues to be threshed out while a representative party is not really
a party in interest. He is only representing one who is the real party
in interest.
Rule 3, Section 3. Representatives as parties. — Where the action is
allowed to be prosecuted and 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 property in interest. A
representative may be a trustee of an expert 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.
- you take note that anyone may file a case through representation
but in a representative suit or a representative party in a suit, we
must specifically state in his complaint that he was not the
party plaintiff or the party defendant but he is only
representing someone.
- If an atty-in-fact files a case, may special power of attorney, but he
files the case in his private capacity for his principal, that case
should be dismissed for being an erroneous party to a suit because
when you are representing someone, it is mandated by the rule that
you have to state whom you are representing.
- In this connection, remember that when you are representing a
juridical person you should not be armed with a special power of
attorney, mali yon. You should be armed with a board resolution.
- So in a representative party where the party is a corporation or a
juridical entity, the power or authority is not and should not be an
SPA but a board resolution.
- Examples: guardian, administrator, executor. They are not the
parties in interest. They only filed the case for the parent/the minor
children. The rule provides that when a representative party files a
case, it is mandatory that the parties in interest must be named.
Rule 3, Section 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.
- If the party in a class suit is someone who can sufficiently represent
a class, can it be just one?
o YES, it can be just one and still a class suit. It does not
follow kasi, tignan niyo sa section 12 ang word diyan ay
KUPALOURD RULES 1-5
REM 1 BRONDIAL
“or” (not “and”). Representative of a class must be
numerous sufficient enough, di ba? But the conjunction is
NOT ‘and’ but “OR” therefore is it possible that just one
individual can file a class suit? Yes, if he is representative
of a class.
o the case of METHODIST CHURCH v. CA, an old case where
only one individual represented the class, the Methodist
church. Although sa Catholic Church settled na ‘yon di ba?
Yung catholic church is corporation sole. But we are talking
here of a class suit or representative suit. The requirement
of a class suit or a representive suit is that:
 There must be numerous parties but it is
impracticable for all of them to be brought to
court.
 Now this impracticability referred to by
the rule is not the physical
impracticability.
 It is legal impracticability.
 Halimbawa, preparation of pleadings-
pano kung 100 yung plaintiff eh dun
palang sa caption, 5 pages ka na.
 A good example would be the case of
Pepsi 357, yung promo, sila. Can you
imagine if you bring them all to court.
 That they must arise from a common cause of
action.
 In one case, they brought a class suit
representing tenants of a bliss project
(Imelda). The SC dismissed as a class
suit because according to SC, its tenant
has a separate interest.
o Halimbawa, ung isa 100k
utang, yung isa 50k, so there
must be common or
representative of the class.
 In a subdivision for example, titignan
niyo kung ano ang claim.
o Example a subdivision
composed of several lot
owners, can they file regarding
lightings, electricity, service?
COMMON BA?
o NO, they cannot because each
one may require a diff kind of
service.
o How about garbage collection?
o PWEDE SIGURO.
- This is class suit. You must always also go into the basic
requirement of a class suit.
- Titignan niyo yung interest so we cannot have here a hard and fast
rule. Every situation will call for a different solution. What is
important for you for bar purposes is rationalize. Rationalize HA!
Rule 3, Section 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 his
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 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.
- Sec. 16 refers to death of a party pendente lite. Don’t confuise that
with death of a party under Rule 39. Death of a party under Sec 7
of Rule 39- parties are already judgment obligors and obligees. Dito
plaintiffs and defendant pendete lite.
- What does sec. 16 provides?
o Section 16 provides that when a party dies pendente lite,
the counsel of the party must inform the court about the
disease or demise of the plaintiff or defendant, then
substitute him with another WITHOUT (tandaan niyo ito
dahil I ti tie up niyo sa settlement of estate) the
appointment of an executor or administrator of the estate
o so i-substiutute mo lang, HEIR. O yan na. namatay si X.
ang anak ni X ay si Y. so pag namatay si X sabihin ng
lawyer si Y na po yan, anak.
o Sasabihin, di pwede… BAKIT? Kasi estate na yon? NO, the
rule so provides, “wihtout the necessity of appointment of
executor or administrator.
o Read further sec. 16 makikita mo bandang 3rd par. “That
if the counself of the decedent does not comply with his
duty he can be subject to disciplinary action” [so] should
the case be dismissed? NO it is incumbent upon the
adverse party to substitute.. but the substitution of the
KUPALOURD RULES 1-5
REM 1 BRONDIAL
adverse party, requires the appointment of an
executor or administrator.
o So don’t ever miss that and don’t ever exchange one for
the other. Pag yung kabila, kasi hindi ginawa ng counsel
ng decedent, it should not be dismissed but [instead] it is
incumbent upon the adverse counsel to substute the
decedent (yung kalaban niya) but with the appointment of
exec or admin of his estate.
- The appointment of the executor or administrator cannot be done
easily by motion. You have to file a separate petition for that under
settlement of estate proceeding.
- There is a sanction on the part of the lawyer who does not comply
with this obligation.
- To compare that with section 17, it includes resignation and
incompetence and it refers to a public officer. The public officer
MAY (not mandatory) substitute or discontinue the case.
- Tatandaan niyo yung mga i-t-tie up natin sa 86 and 87 RULES
Claims against the Estate and Actions by or against Exec or Admin,
respectively.
- Tingnan niyo yon kung ano ung mga actions by kasi what is also
important is to find out what kind of action is it? See?
o Coz if it is a judgment for money, then claimable against
the estate
o but if this is an action for recovery, real or personal, you
file that against the Exec or Admin of the estate
Rule 3, Section 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 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.
- Sect. 17, the person here na nawawala is a public officer. Mar
roxas halimbawa, he has a case and he resigns, he becomes
incompetent or death, under sec. 17. Ano ba mangyayare? Will the
case continue?
o NO! It is incumbent upon the successor to inform the court
that the case must continue. That is a very bad rule. That
is a bad rule. Kaya tayo maraming corruption. Pag nawala
na yung may kaso, next administration, pababayaan na
lang. Dapat stringent yan., but that's it. That is what the
rule provides.
o The successor will determine if it is reasonable to continue
the case or not. If he does not continue, then so be it,
mawawala na lang yan. Parang nangyayari ngayon, pag
may bagong administrasyon. Nawawala na yung mga kaso
because of that rule. That should be amended. But so be
it, it is there.
So [minors and] incompetents…
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 the incapacitated person
assisted by his legal guardian or guardian ad litem.
Rule 3, Section 19. Transfer of interest. — In case of any transfer of
interest, the action may 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.
- The transferee is only a necessary party.
- A files a case against B for recovery of a parcel of land. Pendete lite,
B dies. Can the case continue?
o Yes, it can continue. Siyempre, i-apply mo muna ung Sec.
16.
o But before he died, he transferred it to X. [The case is] A
v. B. Pendente lite, B transferred the property to X. Should
X be included? Is it mandated that X replace B?
 NO. The case can continue between A and B
without impleading X. That is meant there by
transfer of interest.
 So X is a necessary party only. The transferee is
a necessary party not an indispensable party.
o What is the exception? When the courts so ORDERS
then he should be impleaded.
- What happens now to B if he is impleaded? CO-DEFENDANT na.
Still he would be the indispensable party. (!?!??!?!?!)
Rule 3, Section 20. Action and contractual money claims. — When the
action is for recovery of money 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.
- Contractual Money Claim, under the present rule now, if the claim
is based on contract, claim for money is based on contract, and the
KUPALOURD RULES 1-5
REM 1 BRONDIAL
defendant dies pendente lite, the case shall not be dismissed
that but should proceed up to entry of judgment. This is a U-
turn from the 1960 Rules of Court where the case must be
dismissed. The reason is to expedite the proceeding.
- A final judgment is different from an entered judgment. Even if
there is an appeal, the appeal continues. Even if there is a petition
for review after the appeal, the petition continues. It must conclude
up to entry of judgment.
- After entry of judgment, what is the next move of the judgment
obligee? Ordinarily, you avail of Rule 39 (Execution of Judgment).
o But Rule 39 will not apply. To satisfy the judgment, you
have to file it as a money claim against the estate
under Rule 86:
 1. All claims for money against the decent, arising
from contract, express or implied, whether the
same be due, not due, or contingent;
 2. All claims for funeral expenses;
 3. Expense for the last sickness of the decedent,
and
 4. Judgment for money against the decent.
- Rule 87 is an action for or against executors or
administrators. All other actions except those which are claimable
against the estate may be brought for or against the executor or
administrator.
Section 20 must always be correlated with Rule 86 and 87 to see a bird’s
eye view of the entire provisions.
- Now, if there is a writ of preliminary attachment, the death of the
party-defendant does not discharge the writ of preliminary
attachment so YOU can run after the property under custodia
legis, pursuant to the writ of preliminary attachment, by
undertaking sale on attachment.
o Baka mabigla kayo nilagay niyo doon sale on execution.
Ibang-iba yon. 39 yung sale on execution. Dito, it will be
sale on attachment.
- So if you file it as a claim against the estate, how do you go about
it?
o A vs B, this is a contractual money claim. B borrowed
P1,000,000 from A. This is a contract of loan. B did not
pay so A filed a case for sum of money based on contract
(contractual money claim). B died. The case must continue
up to entry of judgment. When there is already an entry
of judgment, what should A do? He cannot avail of Rule
39. He cannot go to court and file a motion for execution
because the defendant here already died.
o He must file it as a claim against the estate. How? You
cannot claim against the heirs of the decedent. It must
be claimed against the estate. The heirs are different from
the estate. If the heirs would be representing the estate,
that would be another matter.
o How will the judgment obligee, A, file a claim against the
estate of B? There is a procedure under Rule 86.
 If there is no pending settlement of the estate of
the decedent, A should file a settlement of estate
proceeding. Is A authorized to do that? Yes. Who
may file a settlement of the estate? A creditor
may do so.
 But if there is already a pending settlement of the
estate, A should just submit a copy of the
judgment together with the entry of judgment.
Under settlement of estate proceedings, you
apply for preference of credits.
o A is riding his car along Roxas Boulevard and he collided
with another car driven by B, and nobody would like to
accept obligation or liability. A filed a case for sum of
money against B. B, pendente lite, dies. Can you apply
Section 20?
 NO, Section 20 deals with contractual money
claims. There is no contract in this case.
o If B is a taxi driver and A is his passenger, this becomes a
contractual money claim (based on the contract of
transportation) if A files a suit.
RULE 4 VENUE OF ACTIONS
The venue of an action is what the law or rule provides (Example: Give a
law providing for the venue of an action: Rule 66 or petition for quo warranto,
where the venue is the residence of the respondent. In a special proceeding
for guardianship, the venue is the residence of the ward. In adoption, the
venue is the residence of the prospective adopter. In these cases, you cannot
agree otherwise).
In the absence of any rule, the agreement of the parties will govern. See
Pacific Consultants Philippines, Inc. (PPI) vs Schonfeld
In the absence of any agreement, you distinguish whether the action is real
or personal. If it is a personal action, the venue is the residence of the
plaintiff, or any of the plaintiffs, or the residence of the defendant, or any of
the defendants, at the option of the plaintiff. If it is a real action, the venue
is where the property is located.
Rule 4, Section 1. Venue of real actions. — Actions affecting title to or
possession of real property, or interest therein, shall be commenced and
KUPALOURD RULES 1-5
REM 1 BRONDIAL

tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real
property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.
Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced and tried in the
municipal trial court of the municipality or city wherein the real property
involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.

Rule 4, Section 2. Venue of personal actions. — All other actions may

be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs
resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides,
or in the case of a non-resident defendant where he may be found, at the
election of the plaintiff.

Rule 4, Section 3. Venue of actions against nonresidents. — If any of

the defendants does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, and the
action affects the personal status of the plaintiff, or any property of said
defendant located in the Philippines, the action may be commenced and tried
in the court of the place where the plaintiff resides, or where the property or
any portion thereof is situated or found.

Rule 4, Section 4. When Rule not applicable. (GENERAL RULE)— This

Rule shall not apply.
(a) In those cases where a specific rule or law provides otherwise;
or
(b) Where the parties have validly agreed in writing before the filing
of the action on the exclusive venue thereof.

RULE 5 UNIFORM PROCEDURE IN TRIAL COURTS

Rule 5, Section 1. Uniform procedure. — The procedure in the Municipal

Trial Courts shall be the same as in the Regional Trial Courts, except (a)
where a particular provision expressly or impliedly applies only to either of
said courts, or (b) in civil cases governed by the Rule on Summary
Procedure.

Uniformity rule – the Rules of Court applies in all courts.

Correlate this with Rule 1, regarding the non-application of the Rules to

naturalization cases, land registration cases, cadastral cases, election cases,
insolvency proceedings.

Section 4. In what case 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.