Introduction: Simplified flowchart of an ordinary civil action

Civil procedure is not an easy subject for law students because it is quite technical and, in a way, abstract. It
is easier to learn by doing, just as it is with any subject involving procedure.

When I was a law student, my professor in Remedial Law Review was the late Justice Serafin Cuevas. He
said that studying remedial law (which civil procedure is part of) is like studying chess. It is difficult to
imagine just by reading. It is easier to understand by doing.

And so now that I teach the subject, I can only imagine the struggles of law students in understanding the
concepts and rules of civil procedure.

I wrote this virtual textbook to help you --- the law student --- understand the subject better, and prepare for
the bar exams and for law practice.

So I am starting this virtual textbook with a simplified flowchart of an ordinary civil action. Note that this is
very simplified, and the purpose of this is to give you the big picture. In the beginning, this flowchart may not
make sense to you, but consider each part as a puzzle piece. As you go along, you will be able to put the
puzzle pieces together and the whole picture will make sense.

In any case, if you have questions, post it on the comment box and I will do my best to answer you promptly.

THE FLOWCHART EXPLAINED

The flowchart starts with a cause of action. The cause of action is what triggers the filing of a case.
Remember, without any cause of action, there is no reason for filing a case; there is no basis for filing a
complaint. Later on we will define these concepts and discuss them in detail. For now, I will give you enough
information to make you understand the big picture.

The cause of action belongs to the Plaintiff. He is one of the primary actors in an ordinary civil action. He is
the owner of the right that was violated by the Defendant, the other primary actor in a civil case. Because
his right was violated, the Plaintiff files a Complaint, which we call an initiatory pleading. It initiates or starts
the case.
In response, the Defendant files a pleading called an Answer. The Answer may admit certain matters in the
Complaint, it may also contain the defenses of the Defendant. In the Answer, the Defendant may also raise
certain claims against the Plaintiff, which we will call a counterclaim.

After the Plaintiff and Defendant (known as the Parties) file their Complaint and Answer, respectively, the
case will now be set for pre-trial. Pre-trial has several purposes. Perhaps, the parties might agree on
amicable settlement, which can lead to the early resolution of the case. If not, the parties will be required to
lay their cards on the table by agreeing on the issues to be tried, and disclosing the evidence that they intend
to present during the trial.

Once the pre-trial is over, trial will be held in which the Plaintiff will be required to present evidence first, and
then rest his case. Then the Defendant will present evidence, and rest his case.

After both parties have completed their evidence presentation, the court will render a judgment.

The party who does not agree with the judgment may file a motion for reconsideration, motion for new
trial, or an appeal within 15 days from notice of the judgment. The judgment will become final and executory
after the lapse of 15 days if none of these were filed. On the other hand, if these were filed, the parties will
wait for these to be resolved.

The judgment will then become final and executory, and may now be enforced. For example, if the Plaintiff
won the case and the judge rendered a judgment finding the Defendant liable for a sum of money, this is the
time to enforce the judgment.

However, there are still two extraordinary remedies available to the losing party even after the judgment has
become final and executory. These are a petition for relief and an action to annul the judgment. These can be
availed of only under very exceptional circumstances as we will study later.
As I said, this is a very simplified flowchart of an ordinary civil action. A lot of incidents can and will take
place, such as service of summons, the filing of motions, pre-trial briefs and others. I decided to simply it at
this stage so that you would not be confused. At the end of this course, I will present you with a very detailed
flowchart to show you all the possibilities that can happen in an ordinary civil action. By then, you will be able
to tie all these together and all the different parts will make sense.

In the meantime, I can only advise you to be patient with yourself as you become familiar with the concepts
and procedures.
OVERVIEW OF THE SOURCES OF RULES ON CIVIL
PROCEDURE
For ordinary civil actions, our main source of rules is the Revised Rules of Court with 2019 Amendments,
from Rule 1 (General Provisions) to 71 (Contempt as a special civil action).

Kindly refer to the Revised Model Curriculum of the Basic Law Program of the Legal Education Board (LEB
Memorandum Order No. 24, S. 2021) in which the subjects Civil Procedure 1 and Civil Procedure 2 are
described as follows:

Civil Procedure I (3 units)

A study on the interplay of procedural laws in the resolution of civil disputes, with an indepth focus on the
jurisdiction in civil actions, Rules 1 to 39 of the 1997 Rules of Court as amended, and small claims. The
course also includes discussion of appropriate modes of dispute resolution such as mediation, barangay
conciliation and the like. The study of the rules is supplemented by a study of applicable jurisprudence. The
course also develops familiarity with relevant legal forms. There is no prerequisite course.

Civil Procedure II (3 units)

A study on the interplay of procedural laws in the resolution of civil disputes, with an indepth focus on Rules
40 to 71 of the 1997 Rules of Court as amended, including Provisional Remedies. The study of the rules is
supplemented by a study of applicable jurisprudence. The course also develops familiarity with relevant legal
forms. Prerequisite: Civil Procedure I

Other sources of civil procedure are:

 2016 Revised Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases (Administrative Matter No. 08-8-8-SC)
 Amendments to Sections 2 and 8 of AM No. 08-8-7-SC or the Revised Rules of Procedure for Small
Claims Cases (OCA Circular No. 45-2019)
 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure

SUBSTANTIVE AND REMEDIAL LAW

The foundation of all our rights is the Bill of Rights (Article III) of the 1987 Constitution. The over-arching right
is found in the due process clause, specifically in Section 1 which states:

"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be
denied the equal protection of the laws."

Substantive and procedural laws flow from the due process clause. Substantive laws create rights, while
procedural laws and rules show us how these rights are to be protected and, if there is a violation, how we
are to seek redress.

In connection with this, we have to understand the difference between substantive and procedural due
process.

In the case of ALLIANCE FOR THE FAMILY FOUNDATION, PHILIPPINES, INC. (ALF), ET AL VERSUS
HON. JANETTE L. GAGARIN, et al, GR No. 217872, April 26, 2017, the Supreme Court stated:

"Due process of law has two aspects: substantive and procedural. In order that a particular act may not be
impugned as violative of the due process clause, there must be compliance with both the substantive and the
procedural requirements thereof. Substantive due process refers to the intrinsic validity of a law that
interferes with the rights of a person to his property. Procedural due process, on the other hand, means
compliance with the procedures or steps, even periods, prescribed by the statute, in conformity with the
standard of fair play and without arbitrariness on the part of those who are called upon to administer it."

The Supreme Court also said that:

"By 'due process of law' we mean 'a law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry, and
renders judgment only after trial. ... .' (4 Wheaton, U.S. 518, 581.); or, as this Court has said, 'Due process of
law' contemplates notice and opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered, affecting one's person or
property" (Lopez vs. Director of Lands, 47 Phil. 23, 32) cited in Mariano A. Albert versus University Publishing
Co., Inc., GR No. L-19118, January 30, 1965.

Another reason why we should distinguish between substantive and remedial law relates to the issue of
prospective or retroactive application.

Substantive laws are to be applied prospectively, while remedial laws may be applied retroactively unless
vested rights are going to be impaired.

We can understand this better by studying the case of SPOUSES MARIAN B. LINTAG ET AL VS.
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, GR NO. 158609 (July 27, 2007).

This case involved Republic Act No. 8974 entitled "An act to facilitate the acquisition of right-of-way, site or
location for national government infrastructure projects and for other purposes".

The issue is whether or not RA 8974 is a substantive or remedial law. If it is a substantive law, it cannot be
applied retroactively. If it is a remedial law, it can be applied retroactively.

The petitioners-spouses owned a parcel of land with an area of 80,001 square meters. The National Power
Corporation (NPC) filed a complaint for expropriation in order to acquire an easement of right-of-way over a
portion of the property measuring 8,050 square meters. NPC deposited the initial assessed value of the
property with the bank, in the sum of P2,469.09. Pursuant to the recommendation of commissioners, the
Regional Trial Court directed the NPC to pay the petitioners-spouses P49,665.63 for damage to the
improvements on the property.

About two months later, RA 8974 took effect. Under this law, the value of the property should be based on
the zonal valuation made by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Using P700 per square meter as the basis, the
petitioners-spouses claimed that they are entitled to P5.6 million.

The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners-spouses but the Court of Appeals reversed this ruling. This
prompted the petitioners-spouses to bring the issue before the Supreme Court.

The petitioners-spouses took the position that RA 8974 is a remedial law, as it refers to expropriation, and
therefore, it should be applied retroactively. It should be applied to this case which was filed before RA 8974
took effect, and which is still pending.

The Supreme Court held that RA 8974 is a substantive law.

Citing REPUBLIC VS. GINGOYON, G.R. No. 166429, December 19, 2005, 478 SCRA 474, 520), it stated:

It likewise bears noting that the appropriate standard of just compensation is a substantive matter. It is well
within the province of the legislature to fix the standard, which it did through the enactment of Rep. Act No.
8974. Specifically, this prescribes the new standards in determining the amount of just compensation in
expropriation cases relating to national government infrastructure projects, as well as the payment of the
provisional value as a prerequisite to the issuance of a writ of possession.

This ruling was reiterated in this Court's Resolution of February 1, 2006, which further states that:

[I]f the rule takes away a vested right, it is not procedural, and so the converse certainly holds that if the rule
or provision creates a right, it should be properly appreciated as substantive in nature. Indubitably, a matter is
substantive when it involves the creation of rights to be enjoyed by the owner of property to be expropriated.
The right of the owner to receive just compensation prior to acquisition of possession by the State of the
property is a proprietary right, appropriately classified as a substantive matter and, thus, within the sole
province of the legislature to legislate on.

It is possible for a substantive matter to be nonetheless embodied in a rule of procedure, and to a certain
extent, Rule 67 does contain matters of substance. Yet the absorption of the substantive point into a
procedural rule does not prevent the substantive right from being superseded or amended by statute, for the
creation of property rights is a matter for the legislature to enact on, and not for the courts to decide upon.
Indeed, if the position of the Government is sustained, it could very well lead to the absurd situation wherein
the judicial branch of government may shield laws with the veneer of irrepealability simply by absorbing the
provisions of law into the rules of procedure. When the 1987 Constitution restored to the judicial branch of
government the sole prerogative to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure, it should
be understood that such rules necessarily pertain to points of procedure, and not points of substantive law.
It is a well-entrenched principle that statutes, including administrative rules and regulations, operate
prospectively unless the legislative intent to the contrary is manifest by express terms or by necessary
implication because the retroactive application of a law usually divests rights that have already become
vested. This is based on the Latin maxim: Lex prospicit non respicit (the law looks forward, not backward).

In the application of RA No. 8974, the Court finds no justification to depart from this rule. First, RA No. 8974
is a substantive law. Second, there is nothing in RA No. 8974 which expressly provides that it should have
retroactive effect. Third, neither is retroactivity necessarily implied from RA No. 8974 or in any of its
provisions. Unfortunately for the petitioners, the silence of RA No. 8974 and its Implementing Rules on the
matter cannot give rise to the inference that it can be applied retroactively. In the two (2) cases wherein this
Court applied the provisions of RA No. 8974, the complaints were filed at the time the law was already in full
force and effect. Thus, these cases cannot serve as binding precedent to the case at bench.

Retroactive and prospective application of procedural laws

Should procedural laws be given retroactive effect? Should they apply to pending actions?

Let me respond with an illustration.

On June 23, 2003, Republic Act No. 9211 was approved which prohibited smoking in hospital buildings,
among others. Fines shall be imposed for violations.

A person who smoked before the law was passed will not be penalized because the law should apply only to
future violations. This is what we mean when we say that substantive laws take effect prospectively.

However, this rule does not apply to procedural laws which may, as a rule, apply to cases that remain
unresolved as of the time said laws take effect.

Note though that procedural laws will not be applied retroactively when this would result in a great injustice.

The Supreme Court clearly explained the general rule and exception in the case of Jaime Tan Jr. vs. Court of
Appeals, GR No. 136368, January 16, 2002. Here are excerpts from the ruling:

"It is evident that if we apply the old rule on finality of judgment, petitioner redeemed the subject property
within the 120-day period of redemption reckoned from the appellate court's entry of judgment. The appellate
court, however, did not apply the old rule but the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. In fine, it applied the
new rule retroactively and we hold that given the facts of the case at bar this is an error.

There is no dispute that rules of procedure can be given retroactive effect. This general rule, however, has
well-delineated exceptions. We quote author Agpalo:

'9.17. Procedural laws.

Procedural laws are adjective laws which prescribe rules and forms of procedure of enforcing rights or
obtaining redress for their invasion; they refer to rules of procedure by which courts applying laws of all kinds
can properly administer justice. They include rules of pleadings, practice and evidence. As applied to criminal
law, they provide or regulate the steps by which one who commits a crime is to be punished.

The general rule that statutes are prospective and not retroactive does not ordinarily apply to procedural
laws. It has been held that 'a retroactive law, in a legal sense, is one which takes away or impairs vested
rights acquired under laws, or creates a new obligation and imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability,
in respect of transactions or considerations already past. Hence, remedial statutes or statutes relating to
remedies or modes of procedure, which do not create new or take away vested rights, but only operate in
furtherance of the remedy or confirmation of rights already existing, do not come within the legal conception
of a retroactive law, or the general rule against the retroactive operation of statutes.' The general rule against
giving statutes retroactive operation whose effect is to impair the obligations of contract or to disturb vested
rights does not prevent the application of statutes to proceedings pending at the time of their enactment
where they neither create new nor take away vested rights. A new statute which deals with procedure only is
presumptively applicable to all actions - those which have accrued or are pending.

Statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending and
undetermined at the time of their passage. Procedural laws are retroactive in that sense and to that extent.
The fact that procedural statutes may somehow affect the litigants' rights may not preclude their retroactive
application to pending actions. The retroactive application of procedural laws is not violative of any right of a
person who may feel that he is adversely affected. Nor is the retroactive application of procedural statutes
constitutionally objectionable. The reason is that as a general rule no vested right may attach to, nor arise
from, procedural laws. It has been held that 'a person has no vested right in any particular remedy, and a
litigant cannot insist on the application to the trial of his case, whether civil or criminal, of any other than the
existing rules of procedure.'

Thus, the provision of Batas Bilang 129 in Section 39 thereof prescribing that 'no record on appeal shall be
required to take an appeal' is procedural in nature and should therefore be applied retroactively to pending
actions. Hence, the question as to whether an appeal from an adverse judgment should be dismissed for
failure of appellant to file a record on appeal within thirty days as required under the old rules, which question
is pending resolution at the time Batas Bilang 129 took effect, became academic upon the effectivity of said
law because the law no longer requires the filing of a record on appeal and its retroactive application
removed the legal obstacle to giving due course to the appeal. A statute which transfers the jurisdiction to try
certain cases from a court to a quasi-judicial tribunal is a remedial statute that is applicable to claims that
accrued before its enactment but formulated and filed after it took effect, for it does not create new nor take
away vested rights. The court that has jurisdiction over a claim at the time it accrued cannot validly try the
claim where at the time the claim is formulated and filed the jurisdiction to try it has been transferred by law to
a quasi-judicial tribunal, for even actions pending in one court may be validly taken away and transferred to
another and no litigant can acquire a vested right to be heard by one particular court.

9.18. Exceptions to the rule.

The rule that procedural laws are applicable to pending actions or proceedings admits certain exceptions.
The rule does not apply where the statute itself expressly or by necessary implication provides that pending
actions are excepted from its operation, or where to apply it to pending proceedings would impair vested
rights. Under appropriate circumstances, courts may deny the retroactive application of procedural laws in
the event that to do so would not be feasible or would work injustice. Nor may procedural laws be applied
retroactively to pending actions if to do so would involve intricate problems of due process or impair the
independence of the courts."

We hold that section 1, Rule 39 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Procedure should not be given retroactive
effect in this case as it would result in great injustice to the petitioner. Undoubtedly, petitioner has the right to
redeem the subject lot and this right is a substantive right. Petitioner followed the procedural rule then
existing as well as the decisions of this Court governing the reckoning date of the period of redemption when
he redeemed the subject lot. Unfortunately for petitioner, the rule was changed by the 1997 Revised Rules of
Procedure which if applied retroactively would result in his losing the right to redeem the subject lot. It is
difficult to reconcile the retroactive application of this procedural rule with the rule of fairness. Petitioner
cannot be penalized with the loss of the subject lot when he faithfully followed the laws and the rule on the
period of redemption when he made the redemption. The subject lot may only be 34,829 square meters but
as petitioner claims, "it is the only property left behind by their father, a private law practitioner who was felled
by an assassin's bullet."

Petitioner fought to recover this lot from 1988. To lose it because of a change of procedure on the date of
reckoning of the period of redemption is inequitous. The manner of exercising the right cannot be changed
and the change applied retroactively if to do so will defeat the right of redemption of the petitioner which is
already vested."

LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF PROCEDURAL RULES

The norm is that procedural rules should be interpreted liberally to attain substantial justice. Technicalities of
procedure should be avoided. This guideline is found in Rule 1, Section 6 of the ROC which states:

Sec. 6. Construction. These Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing
a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.

However, the Supreme Court is careful to point out that procedural rules should be respected and observed,
and cannot just be disregarded by invoking the interest of justice. If it is to be invoked as a basis for failure to
meet procedural requirements, the movant should give a good justification. The High Court stated that:

"... the bare invocation of 'the interest of substantial justice' is not a magic wand that will automatically compel
courts to suspend procedural rules." (Jose F. Latogan vs. People, January 22, 2020, GR No. 238298)

Cases:

1) Dr. Joseph L. Malixi et al vs. Dr. Glory V. Baltazar, GR No. 208224, November 22, 2017
Petitioners Dr. Malixi et al filed an administrative complaint against Dr. Baltazar for gross misconduct. The
case was filed before the Civil Service Commission.

The CSC dismissed the case on the ground of forum shopping. The CSC denied the Petitioners' Motion for
Reconsideration, prompting them to appeal the case before the Court of Appeals.

The CA dismissed the appeal on technical grounds, namely:

1. The Petitioners did not state the date they received the CA decision, and the date they filed their Motion for
Reconsideration;

2. The attached Decision and Resolution are mere photocopies;

3. The Mandatory Compliance Legal Education (MCLE) compliance date of the Petitioners' counsel is not
stated;

4. There is no proof of competent evidence of identities.

The CA denied the Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration. This prompted the Petitioners to bring the case
before the Supreme Court.

Petitioners maintain that they indicated the important dates in their appeal before the Court of Appeals and
that they attached certified true copies of the assailed Decision and Resolution. However, they admit that
they failed to indicate the date of their counsel's Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) compliance
and to provide proof of "competent evidence of identities."

In this case, the Supreme Court pointed out that procedural rules should be observed for the orderly
administration of justice. However, there are certain exceptions.

Citing Aguam v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court stated:

The court's primary duty is to render or dispense justice. "A litigation is not a game of technicalities."
Lawsuits, unlike duels, are not to be won by a rapier's thrust. Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as
an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from
courts." Litigations must be decided on their merits and not on technicality. Every party litigant must be
afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the
unacceptable plea of technicalities.

2) Jose F. Latogan vs. People, January 22, 2020, GR No. 238298

Jose F. Latogan was charged and convicted of murder in a Decision dated June 5, 2015. He filed a Motion
for Reconsideration in which the notice stated:

Upon receipt hereof, please submit the same for hearing for the kind consideration of the Honorable Court.
Further, please schedule the same for oral arguments as soon as the Prosecution files its comment thereto.

The RTC denied this Motion because it did not state the date on which it is to be set for hearing, contrary to
the provision of the Rules of Court.

On July 24, 2015, the Accused filed a Notice of Appeal. The RTC denied the notice on the ground that the
Decision had become final.

The Accused filed a special civil action for Certiorari (Rule 65) before the Court of Appeals but this was
dismissed by the CA on technical grounds.

Almost five months after receipt of the Resolution dated September 29, 2015, the petitioner filed an Omnibus
Motion for Reconsideration on March 14, 2016. He claimed that he stands to serve reclusion perpetua for a
heinous crime he purportedly committed; and that his petition was meant to correct the order of the RTC
judge denying his appeal. Considering the judge's blatant and grave error in convicting him of Murder instead
of Homicide, and in the interest of justice, technicalities should be set aside and his petition, as well as the
notice of app al, should be given due course.22

In the meantime, the CA in the Resolution dated February 26, 2016 denied due course to petitioner's Notice
of Appeal for being erroneous and belatedly filed remedy.
Undeterred, petitioner filed the present petition arguing that the CA gravely erred in denying his Omnibus
Motion for Reconsideration and Notice of Appeal.25 Essentially, he points out to the Court that his conviction
carries a prison term of reclusion perpetua which, standing alone, is a circumstance exceptional enough to
allow him the opportunity to challenge the RTC's Decision for reasons of equity and substantial justice.

We grant the petition.

The notice in the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner before the RTC reads as follows:

NOTICE:

The CLERK OF COURT

Regional Trial Court
Br. 6, Justice Hall,
Baguio City

Sir:

Upon receipt hereof, please submit the same for hearing for the kind consideration of the Honorable Court.
Further, please schedule the same for oral arguments as soon as the Prosecution files its comment thereto.

Thank you very much.

The notification prays for the submission of the motion for reconsideration for hearing but without stating the
time, date, and place of the hearing of the motion. This is not the notice of hearing contemplated under
Sections 4 and 5, Rule 1527 of the Rules of Court. The rules are explicit and clear. The notice of hearing
shall state the time and place of hearing and shall be served upon all the parties concerned at least three
days in advance. The reason is obvious: unless the movant sets the time and place of hearing, the court
would have no way to determine whether the other party agrees to or objects to the motion, and if he objects,
to hear him on his objection, since the Rules themselves do not fix any period within which he may file his
reply or opposition.

The Court is well aware of the judicial mandate that rules prescribing the time which certain acts must be
done, or certain proceedings taken, are absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and
the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business. With respect to notices of hearing of motions, in
particular, the Court has consistently warned that a notice of hearing which does not comply with the
requirements of the Rules of Court is a worthless piece of paper and would not merit any consideration from
the Court.

However, procedural rules were precisely conceived to aid the attainment of justice. If a stringent application
of the rules would hinder rather than serve the demands of substantial justice, the former must yield to the
latter. Section 6, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court enjoins the liberal construction of the Rules of Court in order to
promote its objective to assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every
action and proceeding.30 As to be discussed below, given the realities obtaining in this case, the liberal
construction of the rules will better promote and secure a just determination of petitioner's culpability.

The CA likewise pointed out several procedural infirmities in petitioner's petition for certiorari, such as: (1) the
lack of motion for reconsideration from the trial court's order denying petitioner's notice of appeal; (2) failure
to implead the respondent People of the Philippines in the petition and furnish the Office of the Solicitor
General with a copy of the petition; (3) lack of proof of service and affidavit of service as to whether the
petition was served by personal service or by registered mail; and (4) failure to prove that the petition was
timely filed. Records show as well that petitioner's Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration of the CA's
September 29, 2015 Resolution was filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period and, as a consequence, it
already attained finality which bars any review. On this ground alone, his petition was properly dismissed
outright.

Withal, as in the liberal construction of the rules on notice of hearing, the Court has enumerated the factors
that justify the relaxation of the rule on immutability of final judgments to serve the ends of justice, including:
(a) matters of life, liberty, honor or property; (b) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (c) the
merits of the case; (d) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the
suspension of the rules; (e) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; and
(f) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.
In one case, the CA dismissed petitioner's appeal for failure to timely file a motion for reconsideration of the
RTC's Decision. According to the CA, the RTC decision could no longer be assailed pursuant to the doctrine
of finality and immutability of judgments. Upon petition for review, though; the Court relaxed the application of
the doctrine and held that the doctrine must yield to practicality, logic, fairness, and substantial justice.

After a thorough review of the records, the Court finds that compelling circumstances are extant in this case
to justify the relaxation of the rules. Primarily, petitioner's life and liberty are at stake. The trial court has
sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and this conviction attained finality on the basis of a
mere technicality, not entirely through his fault or own doing. It is but proper, under the circumstances, that
petitioner be given the opportunity to defend himself and pursue his appeal. To do otherwise would be
tantamount to grave injustice. Both petitioner's motion for reconsideration before the RTC and his
subsequent petition for certiorari in the CA also appear to stand on meritorious grounds. In addition, there is
lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory.

In setting aside the aforementioned technicalities, infirmities, and thereby giving due course to tardy appeals
and defective petitions, it must be emphasized that the Court is mindful of the extraordinary situations that
merit liberal application of the Rules. In this case, where technicalities were dispensed with, the Court's
decisions were not meant to undermine the force and effectivity of the periods set by the law. On the
contrary, in those rare instances, there always existed a clear need to prevent the commission of grave
injustice as in this case. Our judicial system and the courts have always tried to maintain a healthy balance
between the strict enforcement of procedural laws and the guarantee that every litigant be given the full
opportunity for the just and proper disposition of his cause.

The Court is fully aware that procedural rules are not to be simply disregarded as they insure an orderly and
speedy administration of justice. Nonetheless, it is equally true that courts are not enslaved by technicalities.
They have the prerogative to relax compliance with procedural rules of even the most mandatory character,
mindful of the duty to reconcile both the need to speedily put an end to litigation and the parties' right to an
opportunity to be heard. Cases should be decided only after giving all parties the chance to argue their
causes and defenses. Technicality and procedural imperfection should, as a rule, not serve as bases of
decisions. In that way, the ends of justice would he served.

RULE-MAKING POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT; POWER

TO SUSPEND OR AMEND RULES
The Constitution authorizes the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure.
This is the basis of its authority in promugating the Rules of Court and other procedural rules.

The 1987 Constitution, Article XVIII, Section 5(5) provides that the Supreme Court has the power to:

"Promulgate 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. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify
substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective
unless disapproved by the Supreme Court."

This provisions lays down limitations for the exercise of this rule-making power:

1) The procedure shall be simplified and inexpensive.

2) The goal the speedy disposition of cases.

3) The rules must be uniform for all courts of the same grade. This means, for example, that rules of
procedure for all RTCs should appply all throughout the country; the same is true for all first level-courts or
MTCs.

4) The rules shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights. Only laws passed by the lawmaking
body can affect substantive rights. Procedural rules are intended to govern pleading, practice and procedure
in order to protect (not modify) substantive rights.

As part of its rule-making power, the Supreme Court is authorized to amend or suspend its own rules to
serve the interest of justice. So it was held in Julie S. Sumbilla vs. Matrix Finance Corporation, GR No.
197582, June 29, 2015 where the Supreme Court stated:
xxx the immutability of final judgments is not a hard and fast rule. The Court has the power and prerogative to
suspend its own rules and to exempt a case from their operation if and when justice requires it. After all,
procedural rules were conceived to aid the attainment of justice. If a stringent application of the rules would
hinder rather than serve the demands of substantial justice, the former must yield to the latter, as specifically
mandated under Section 2, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court:

xxx

Substantial justice demands that we suspend our Rules in this case. 'It is always within the power of the court
to suspend its own [R]ules or except a particular case from its operation, whenever the purposes of justice
require. x x x Indeed, when there is a strong showing that a grave miscarriage of justice would result from the
strict application of the Rules, this Court will not hesitate to relax the same in the interest of substantial
justice.' Suspending the Rules is justified 'where there exist strong compelling reasons, such as serving the
ends of justice and preventing a miscarriage thereof.' After all, the Court's 'primordial and most important duty
is to render justice x x x.'

ACTIONS
Civil Procedure 1 deals with ordinary civil actions.

You must know the technical meaning of an action, as opposed to a proceeding. You also have to know the
differences among ordinary civil actions, special civil actions, criminal actions, and special proceedings.
These words are not interchangeable and have technical meanings of their own.

Let's start with civil action. This is referred to in Rule 1, Section 3(a) as follows:

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.

As you can see, a civil action has two purposes: first, the enforcement or protection of a right; second, the
prevention or redress of a wrong.

Note that remedial law does not declare or create rights. That is done by substantive law, such as the 1987
Constitution and the Family Code. The Bill of Rights of the Consitution (Article (III) enumerates certain human
rights which are inherent in every individual, such as the right to privacy, and the right to equal protection of
the law. The Family Code enumerates the rights and obligations of husband and wife, such as the right to live
together, observe mutual love, respect, and fidelity, and render mutual help and support.

What remedial law does, specifically the rule on ordinary civil actions is to enforce or protect a right or to
prevent or redress a wrong. Thus, to provide redress when one's right to privacy has been violated, one can
bring an action for damages. Or to enforce a spouse's right to financial support, the aggrieved spouse can
bring an action for support.

The determinative word in the phrase "ordinary civil action" is the word "action". Its technical meaning is that
of a dispute, a contention, or a conflict between the parties. You can imagine one party fighting another, and
this will connote "action" in your mind.

Cause of action

Why am I emphasizing this? Because in an ordinary civil action, there has to be a cause of action. There has
to be a conflict, a contention, a dispute. Remember, without any cause of action, there is no civil action. But,
there could be a special proceeding which, by definition, is "a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a
status, a right, or a particular fact." (Rule 1, Section 3c) More on that later. For this moment, let us focus on
the word "action."

Cause of action is defined this way in Rule 2, Section 2:

Sec. 2. Cause of action, defined. - A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of
another.

Elements of a cause of action

A cause of action has three elements. As stated in the case of Spouses Nolasco Fernandez et al vs. Smart
Communications, Inc., GR No. 212885, July 17, 2019:

A complaint states a cause of action if it sufficiently avers the existence of the three (3) essential elements of
a cause of action, namely: (a) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it
arises or is created; (b) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such
right; and (c) an act or omission on the part of the named defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or
constituting a breach of the obligation of defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action
for recovery of damages. If the allegations of the complaint do not state the concurrence of these elements,
the complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action.
(Emphasis supplied)

These three elements must all be present in a civil action, otherwise, the case will be dismissed.
Rights and obligations

I looked at the popular definitions of rights, and they are as follows:

 a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way. (Oxford
Languages)
 a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way. (Merriam-Webster)
 a power or privilege held by the general public as the result of
a constitution, statute, regulation, judicial precedent, or other type of law. (Wex Toolbox)
Article 1157 of the New Civil Code gives five sources of obligations, and I would therefore also consider
these as the sources of rights because the rights of one person are the obligation of another:
 Law
 Contracts
 Quasi-contracts
 Delicts
 Quasi-delicts
For more information, see Project Jurisprudence.

Parties to a civil action

The parties to an ordinary civil action are known as the plaintiff and defendant. Rule 3, Section1 states:

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
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 counterclaim, the cross-defendant, or the third (fourth, etc.)
- party defendant.

The word "plaintiff" comes from the Anglo-French word "pleintif" which means "complaining". It can be traced
back to the word "plaint" meaning "lamentation."

From there, you can see that the plaintiff and the defendant are contending against each other. The plaintiff
is claiming from the defendant, while the latter is defending himself.

That is not the case in special proceedings.

Special proceedings

I mentioned earlier that ordinary civil actions refer to "actions" but not "proceedings". There is a technical
meaning for special proceedings in remedial law, and this is found in Rule 1, Section 3(c):

(c) A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact.

Do not interchange these two terms. Actions have the three elements of a cause of action, while special
proceedings do not pertain to any action, conflict, or dispute. Instead, they seek to establish a status, a right,
or a particular fact.

There are several kinds of special proceedings, one of which is guardianship under Rules 92 to 97. There are
two main facts sought to be established in this kind of proceeding. First, that the person sought to be placed
under guardianship is an "incompetent" as defined by law. Second, that the person sought to be appointed
as guardian is duly qualified.

A guardianship proceeding does not involve any dispute between the prospective guardian and the
prospective ward. One is not suing the other because of any violation.

Therefore, the person who brings the proceeding is not a plaintiff. He is a petitioner. He is petitioning, or
praying, for something. The prospective ward is not a defendant. He is not defending himself against any
claim of the petitioner. If he will oppose the petition, he does so by proving that he does not come under the
definition of incompetent, but he will not be denying any liability to the petitioner because he has not
committed any act or omission against the petitioner. He can be designated as an oppositor or a respondent,
but not a defendant.

Special Civil Actions

Special civil actions are those which are governed by specific provisions of the Rules of Court, such as
interpleader, petition for certiorari, mandamus or prohibition, foreclosure of real estate mortgage, or
expropriation.

Criminal Actions

Criminal actions are those by which the State prosecutes persons for acts or omissions punishable by law.
These are governed by the Revised Penal Code, the Rules of Criminal Procedure, and other penal laws.
Actions and proceedings not covered by the Rules of Court

There are also actions and proceedings that are not covered by the Rules of Court because there are
specific laws and rules that govern them. Under Rule 1, Section 4, these are election cases, land registration,
cadastral, naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and other cases not provided for.

In these cases, the Rules of Court may apply by analogy or in a suppletory character whenever practicable
and convenient.
MEANING OF A COURT; DISTINGUISH BETWEEN COURT
AND JUDGE

Definition
A court is "a tribunal presided over by a judge, judges, or a magistrate in civil and criminal cases." (Oxford
Languages)

Under Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution,

Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be
established by law.

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which
are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
Government.

A court is the office or tribunal, while the judge is the officer who presides over the office or
tribunal.

Subject matter jurisdiction of courts in civil cases

Specific courts can take cognizance only of certain types of cases. This means that each court level has a
specific set of subjects that come within its jurisdiction.

Earlier, we discussed that courts have exclusive jurisdiction, original jurisdiction, and concurrent jurisdiction.
Familiarize yourselves with these distinctions in the post on Philippine courts: definition, classifications, and
principles.

For now, here is an enumeration of specific subjects that fall within the jurisdiction of courts in civil cases:

Supreme Court

 Original exclusive
 Certiorari, prohibition, mandamus against the Court of Appeals, Commission on Elections,
Commission on Audit, and Court of Tax Appeals
 Disciplinary proceedings against members of the judiciary and attorneys
 Original concurrent
 Certiorari, prohibition, mandamus against the Regional Trial Court, Civil Service
Commission, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, National Labor Relations Commission, other quasi-
judicial agencies
 Concurrent original jurisdiction
 Certiorari, prohibition, mandamus against lower courts and bodies, concurrently with Court of
Appeals and Regional Trial Courts
 Quo warranto, habeas corpus, amparo, habeas data petitions concurrently with CA and RTC
 Cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers and consuls, concurrently with RTC
 Appellate jurisdiction
 Decisions of the CA and RTC on pure questions of law through petitions for review on
certiorari also known as appeal by certiorari
 Cases involving the constitutionality or validity of a law, treaty, international or executive
agreement, ordinance or regulation
Court of Appeals
 Original exclusive
 Actions for annulment of judgment of RTCs
 Original concurrent
  Certiorari, prohibition, mandamus against RTC, CSC, other quasi-judicial agencies under
Rule 43, NLRC [concurrent with the SC]
 Certiorari, prohibition, mandamus against lower courts and bodies [concurrent with the SC
and RTC]
 Exclusive appellate jurisdiction
 Decisions of RTC and Family Courts [by way of ordinary appeal]
 Decisions of RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction [by way of petition for review]
 Decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of the CSC and other agencies mentioned in Rule
43 [by way of petition for review]
 Appellate jurisdiction
 Decisions of Municipal Trial Courts in cadastral or land registration cases pursuant to its
delegated jurisdicion

Regional Trial Court

 All civil actions in which the subject is incapable of pecuniary estimation

 All civil actions involving title to, possession or, real property or interest therein where the assessed
value of the property exceeds Php400,000 (RA 11576) except forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases
which come within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the MTC
 All actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction in which the demand or claim exceeds
Php2,000,000
 All matters of probate, testate and intestate, where the gross value of the estate exceeds
Php2,000,000
 All actions involving marriage and marital relations (These come within the jurisdiction of Family
Courts under RA 8369 but if there are none, these cases shall be within the cognizance of RTCs)
 Cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions
 Cases in which the demand exclusive of interest, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and
costs exceed Php2,000,000
Family Courts

 Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus in relation to the latter;
 Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation thereof;
 Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage and those relating to marital
status and property relations of husband and wife or those living together under different status and
agreements, and petitions for dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains;
 Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment;
 Summary judicial proceedings brought under the provisions of Executive Order No. 209, otherwise
known as the “Family Code of the Philippines”;
 Petitions for declaration of status of children as abandoned, dependent or neglected children,
petitions for voluntary or involuntary commitment of children; the suspension, termination, or restoration of
parental authority and other cases cognizable under Presidential Decree No. 603, Executive Order No. 56,
(Series of 1986), and other related laws;
 Petitions for the constitution of the family home;
 Violations of Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as the “Special Protection of Children Against
Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act,” as amended by Republic Act No. 7658; and
 Cases of domestic violence against:
 Women – which are acts of gender based violence that results, or are likely to result in
physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women; and other forms of physical abuse such as
battering or threats and coercion which violate a woman’s personhood, integrity and freedom movement; and
 Children – which include the commission of all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation,
violence, and discrimination and all other conditions prejudicial to their development.
If any question involving any of the above matters should arise as an incident in any case pending in the
regular courts, said incident shall be determined in that court.

Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts

Exclusive original jurisdiction

 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 demand does not exceed Two million pesos (P2,000,000) exclusive of interest,
damages and whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the amount of which must
be alleged.
 Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer: Provided, That
when, in such cases, the defendant raises the question of ownership in his pleadings and the question
of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership
shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession.
  Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property,
or any interest therein where the assessed value of the property or any interest therein does not
exceed Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000,00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs; Provided, That in cases of land not declared for taxation
purposes, the value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots.
 Exclusive original jurisdiction in admiralty and maritime actions where the demand or claim does not
exceed Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00).
Delegated jurisdiction

 Cadastral or land registration cases covering lots where there is no controversy or

opposition, or contested lots where the value does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.),
such value to be ascertained by the affidavit of the claimant or by agreement of the respective claimants if
there are more than one, or from the corresponding tax declaration of the real property. Their decisions in
these cases shall be appealable in the same manner as decisions of the Regional Trial Courts.
Special jurisdiction
 In the absence of all the RTC judges in a province or city, any Metropolitan Trial Judge, Municipal
Trial Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Judge may hear and decide petitions for a writ of habeas corpus or
applications for bail in criminal cases in the province or city where the absent RTC judges sit.

Summary procedure
 Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases
 Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations
 Violations of the rental law
 Such other cases requiring summary disposition as the Supreme Court may determine. The
Supreme Court shall adopt special rules of procedure applicable to such cases in order to achieve an
expeditious and inexpensive determination thereof without regard to technical rules.
Small claims
 Money claims not exceeding P300,000 outside Metro Manila exclusive of interest and costs
 Money claims not exceeding P400,000 within Metro Manila exclusive of interest and costs
Barangay conciliation

Though not courts under our judicial system, you should know the jurisdiction of the Lupang Tagapaya which
conducts barangay conciliation proceedings as a condition precedent for the filing of certain cases in court.

The Guidelines on the Katarungan Pambarangay Conciliation Procedure to Prevent Circumvention of the
Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law (Sec. 399 to 422, Chapter VII, Title I, Book III, RA 7160 [The Local
Government Code of 1991] provides that prior recourse thereto is a pre-condition before filing a complaint in
court or any government offices except in the following disputes:

1. Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof;

2. Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the performance of his official
functions;

3. Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities and municipalities, unless the parties
thereto agree to submit their difference to amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon;

4. Any complaint by or against corporations, partnership or juridical entities, since only individuals shall be
parties to Barangay conciliation proceedings either as complainants or respondents (Sec. 1, Rule VI,
Katarungang Pambarangay Rules);

5. Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or municipalities, except
where such barangay units adjoin each other and the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to
amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon;

6. Offenses for which the law prescribes a maximum penalty of imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or a
fine over five thousand pesos (P5,000.00);

7. Offenses where there is no private offended party;

8. Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to prevent injustice from being committed or further
continued, specifically the following:

a. Criminal cases where accused is under police custody or detention (see Sec. 412 (b) (1), Revised
Katarungang Pambarangay Law);

b. Petitions for habeas corpus by a person illegally deprived of his rightful custody over another or a person
illegally deprived or on acting in his behalf;

c. Actions coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery of personal
property and support during the pendency of the action; and
d. Actions which may be barred by the Statute of Limitations.

9. Any class of disputes which the President may determine in the interest of justice or upon the
recommendation of the Secretary of Justice;

10. Where the dispute arises from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) (Sec. 46 & 47, R.A.
6657);

11. Labor disputes or controversies arising from employer-employee relations (Montoya vs. Escayo, et al.,
171 SCRA 442; Art. 226, Labor Code, as amended, which grants original and exclusive jurisdiction over
conciliation and mediation of disputes, grievances or problems to certain offices of the Department of Labor
and Employment);

12. Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise which may be filed directly in court (See Sanchez vs.
Tupaz, 158 SCRA 459).

INCAPABLE OF PECUNIARY ESTIMATION

Cases in which the subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation come
under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC except when the law provides
that these should come under the original jurisdiction of the MTC.

When is a subject matter incapable of pecuniary estimation? When we cannot

give a monetary value due to the nature of the case. If a subject matter can be
given a monetary value, even if we do not know the value as of now, then it is
capable of pecuniary estimation.

This was explained by the Supreme Court in Alona G. Roldan vs. Spouses
Clarence I. Barrios et al, GR No. 214803, April 23, 2018:

The RTC dismissed the foreclosure cases finding that being a real action and
the assessed value of the mortgaged property is only ₱13,380.00, it is the first
level court which has jurisdiction over the case and not the RTC.

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine cases of
the general class to which the proceedings in question belong. It is conferred by
law and an objection based on this ground cannot be waived by the parties. To
determine whether a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case, it is
important to determine the nature of the cause of action and of the relief sought.

Batas Pambansa Big. (BP) 129 as amended by Republic Act No. (RA) 7691
pertinently provides for the jurisdiction of the RTC and the first level courts as
follows:

Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. - Regional Trial Courts shall exercise
exclusive original jurisdiction:

1. In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary
estimation;

2. In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or
any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds
Twenty thousand pesos (₱20,000.00) or, for civil actions in Metro Manila, where
such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (₱20,000.00) except actions for
forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction
over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.

and

Sec. 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:

xxxx

3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of
the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos
(₱20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value
does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (₱50,000.00) exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs:
Provided, That in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value of
such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots.

From the foregoing, the RTC exercises exclusive original jurisdiction in civil
actions where the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation. It
also has jurisdiction in civil cases involving title to, or possession of, real
property or any interest in it where the assessed value of the property involved
exceeds ₱20,000.00, and if it is below P20,000.00, it is the first level court which
has jurisdiction. An action "involving title to real property" means that the
plaintiff's cause of action is based on a claim that he owns such property or that
he has the legal right to have exclusive control, possession, enjoyment, or
disposition of the same.

The allegations and reliefs sought in petitioner's action for foreclosure of

mortgage showed that the loan obtained by respondents spouses Barrios from
petitioner fell due and they failed to pay such loan which was secured by a
mortgage on the property of the respondents spouses; and prayed that in case
of default of payment of such mortgage indebtedness to the court, the property
be ordered sold to answer for the obligation under the mortgage contract and the
accumulated interest. It is worthy to mention that the essence of a contract of
mortgage indebtedness is that a property has been identified or set apart from
the mass of the property of the debtor-mortgagor as security for the payment of
money or the fulfillment of an obligation to answer the amount of indebtedness,
in case of default in payment. Foreclosure is but a necessary consequence of
non-payment of the mortgage indebtedness. In a real estate mortgage when the
principal obligation is not paid when due, the mortgagee has the right to
foreclose the mortgage and to have the property seized and sold with the view of
applying the proceeds to the payment of the obligation. Therefore, the
foreclosure suit is a real action so far as it is against property, and seeks the
judicial recognition of a property debt, and an order for the sale of the res.
Petitioner cites Russell v. Vestil to show that action for foreclosure of mortgage
is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation and, therefore, within the
jurisdiction of the RTC. We are not persuaded. In the Russell case, we held:

In Singson vs. Isabela Sawmill, we had the occasion to rule that:

[I]n 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, where
the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief
sought, this Court has considered such actions as cases where the subject of
the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable
exclusively by courts of first instance (now Regional Trial Courts).

Examples of actions incapable of pecuniary estimation are those for specific

performance, support, or foreclosure of mortgage or annulment of judgment;
also actions questioning the validity of a mortgage, annulling a deed of sale or
conveyance and to recover the price paid and for rescission, which is a
counterpart of specific performance.

While actions under Sec. 33(3) of B.P. 129 are also incapable of pecuniary
estimation, the law specifically mandates that they are cognizable by the MTC,
METC, or MCTC where the assessed value of the real property involved does
not exceed ₱20,000.00 in Metro Manila, or ₱50,000.00, if located elsewhere. If
the value exceeds ₱20,000.00 or ₱50,000.00 as the case may be, it is the
Regional Trial Courts which have jurisdiction under Sec. 19(2). However, the
subject matter of the complaint in this case is annulment of a document
denominated as "DECLARATION OF HEIRS AND DEED OF CONFIRMATION
OF PREVIOUS ORAL PARTITION.

Clearly, the last paragraph clarified that while civil actions which involve title to,
or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, are also incapable of
pecuniary estimation as it is not for recovery of money, the court's jurisdiction will
be determined by the assessed value of the property involved.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED as we find no grave

abuse of discretion committed by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Kalibo,
Aklan in dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

Cause of action
A civil action is hinged on the Plaintiff's cause of action. This is the reason for filing a case. It is what triggers
the filing of a complaint.
A cause of action is vital to an ordinary civil action. This is why Rule 2, Section 1 states that "Every ordinary
civil action must be based on a cause of action."

Cause of action is defined as follows:

Section 2. Cause of action, defined. - A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a
right of another.

It has three elements, as held in China Banking Corporation vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, GR No. 153267,
June 23, 2005:

Otherwise stated, a cause of action has three elements, to wit, (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever
means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to
respect or not to violate such right; and (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the
right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff.

It bears stressing that it is only when the last element occurs that a cause of action arises. Accordingly, a
cause of action on a written contract accrues only when an actual breach or violation thereof occurs.

Some examples of cause of action are breach of contract, fraud, and torts.

Do not confuse cause of action with the relief sought. Cause of action refers to the violation, and is the
reason for filing a complaint, while the remedy is the ultimate solution for the violation.

Breach of contract is a cause of action, while the relief sought may be either specific performance or
damages. In specific performance, the court will require the defendant to do what he committed under the
contract, in order to restore the parties as closely as possible to their positions or situations before the
breach. If the act can no longer be performed, then the court will order the defendant to pay damages which,
again, is intended to restore the parties as closely as possible to their positions before the breach.

The choice of cause of action is important because this will determine what allegations you will need to make
in your complaint, and what evidence you need to present.

If your cause of action is torts, the relief sought would be damages. Then you have to allege and prove there
was an act or omission committed by the defendant that damaged your client.

Readings:

1) Dr. Genevieve L. Huang vs. Philippine Hoteliers, Inc. at al, GR No. 180440, December 5, 2012

2) Rebecca T. Cabutihan vs. Landcenter Construction & Development Corporation, GR No. 146594, June
10, 2002

at February 17, 2022

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Overview of pleadings
There is a tendency for many lawyers and law students to refer to all court submissions as
pleadings, including motions, manifestations, and memoranda.

However, under the ROC, there are only nine (9) kinds of pleadings:

1. Complaint (Rule 6, Section 3)

Section 3. Complaint. — The complaint is the pleading alleging the plaintiffs or claiming party's cause or
causes of action. The names and residences of the plaintiff and defendant must be stated in the complaint.

2. Answer (Rule 6, Section 4)

Section 4. Answer. - An answer is a pleading in which a defending party sets forth his or her defenses.

3. Counterclaim (Rule 6, Section 6)

Section 6. Counterclaim. — A counterclaim is any claim which a defending party may have against an
opposing party.

4. Cross-claim (Rule 6, Section 8)

Section 9. Counter-counterclaims and counter-cross-claims. — A counterclaim may be asserted against an

original counter-claimant. A cross-claim may also be filed against an original cross-claimant.

5. Third party, fourth party etc. complaint (Rule 6, Section 11)

Section 11. Third, (fourth, etc.)-party complaint. — A third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint is a claim
that a defending party may, with leave of court, file against a person not a party to the action, called
the third (fourth, etc.)-party defendant for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief, in
respect of his opponent's claim.

The third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint shall be denied admission, and the court shall require the defendant
to institute a separate action, where: (a) the third (fourth, etc.)-party defendant cannot be located within
thirty (30) calendar days from the grant of such leave; (b) matters extraneous to the issue in the principal
case are raised; or (c) the effect would be to introduce a new and separate controversy into the action.

6. Complaint-in-intervention (Rule 6, Section 2; Rule 19, Section 3)

Section 3. Pleadings-in-intervention. — The intervenor shall file a complaint-in-intervention if he or she

asserts a claim against either or all of the original parties, or an answer-in-intervention if he or she unites
with the defending party in resisting a claim against the latter.

7. Answer-in-intervention (Rule 19, Section 3)

Section 3. Pleadings-in-intervention. — The intervenor shall file a complaint-in-intervention if he or she

asserts a claim against either or all of the original parties, or an answer-in-intervention if he or she unites
with the defending party in resisting a claim against the latter.

8. Reply (Rule 6, Section 10)

Section 10. Reply. — All new matters alleged in the answer are deemed controverted. If the plaintiff
wishes to interpose any claims arising out of the new matters so alleged, such claims shall be set
forth in an amended or supplemental complaint. However, the plaintiff may file a reply only if the
defending party attaches an actionable document to his or her answer.

A reply is a pleading, the office or function of which is to deny, or allege facts in denial or avoidance
of new matters alleged in, or relating to, said actionable document.

9. Rejoinder (Rule 6, Section 10)

Section 10 - In the event of an actionable document attached to the reply, the defendant may file a
rejoinder if the same is based solely on an actionable document.
Complaint Part 2 - Jurisdiction (subject matter jurisdiction)
When you draft a Complaint, you should be careful to indicate the court which has the proper subject matter
jurisdiction over your case. As stated, this is indicated in the caption of the Complaint. At first glance, you will
be able to tell whether the Complaint is to be filed in the MTC or RTC.

Remember that your choice of subject matter jurisdiction must be correct, because if a case is filed in the
court that has no subject matter jurisdiction, your case can be dismissed at anytime during the proceedings
either upon motion of the Defendant, or by the court motu proprio. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
is one of four grounds for dismissal that can be raised any time.

Although subject matter jurisdiction is conferred by law, it is determined by the allegations of the
Complaint. To reiterate, it is the Complaint that determines subject matter jurisdiction. The Answer does not
do so.
To illustrate this concept more concretely, if the Complaint is for unawful detainer, the MTC has subject
matter jurisdiction. An action for unlawful detainer can be filed by a landlord who leased out a piece of real
properrty, but the lessee continued to stay despite the termination of the lease contract.

Suppose the lessee, as Defendant, claims in his Answer that he owns the real property, in an attempt to
prove that the case is not for unlawful detainer, and that the issue involves ownership of the property. The
Defendant insists that the RTC, not the MTC, has subject matter jurisdiction given the assessed value of the
property. He now files a motion to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Will this prosper?

The answer is no. The reason is that the allegations of the Complaint (not the Answer) determine subject
matter jurisdiction.

Your assignment:

Editha Padlan vs. Elenita Dinglasan and Felicisimo Dinglasan, GR No. 180321, March 30, 2013

VENUE OF CASES
In the Complaint, you will also see in which venue the case is to be filed, or is actually filed.

What is venue?

Venue is the area where the case is to filed. It refers to geographic location. It is different from subject matter
jurisdiction which refers to the court where the case is to be filed based on the hierarchy of courts, whether it
should be filed with the MTC, RTC, CA or SC.

Rules on venue

Here are the rules on venue under Rule 4 of the ROC:

Section 1. Venue of real actions. - Actions affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest
therein, shall be commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the
real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.

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. (1)

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 nonresident defendant where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff. (2)

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. (3)

Section 4. When Rule not applicable. - 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. (3a, 5a)

Venue of real actions

A real action is one in which the issue is title to, interest in, or possession of real property including partition
of real property and foreclosure of real estate mortgage. Your memory aid for this is TIP-PF.

Note that not every action that involves real property is a real action. It refers only to situations when the
issue is one of the five that I mentioned. Again, these are title to, interest in, possession of real property, the
partition of real property, and foreclosure of real estate mortgage.

We need to know this because real actions are filed in the court that has territorial jurisdiction over the real
property. For instance, where the property at issue is located in Bataan, the case should be filed in Bataan
even though none of the parties reside in Bataan.

This is known as local venue.

Venue of personal actions

All other actions are personal actions, which may be filed either in the place where the Plaintiff resides or
where the Defendant resides, at the option of the Plaintiff.

This is known as transitory venue.

Venue against nonresident Defendants

This rule refers to jurisdiction over the person of the Defendant. As we studied earlier, the concept of
jurisdiction has several aspects, including jurisdiction over the persons (the parties) and jurisdiction over the
subject matter.

Our basic premise is that we can bring personal actions only against persons who are either residents of the
Philippines or who may be found in the Philippines. If they are non-residents, but they are physically present
in the Philippines for a short visit, for example, then they can be sued and brought under the jurisdiction of
Philippine courts. If they are residents, definitely they can be brought under the jurisdiction of Philippine
courts. These of course presuppose that summons is validly served upon them, which we will discuss later.

But what if a person is not a resident and could not be found in the Philippines? The general rule is that the
courts cannot acquire jurisdiction over his person. There is no way for him to be served with summons. And
the court cannot proceed with the case, much less, render judgment.

But there are two exceptions:

(a) When the action affects the personal status of the Plaintiff;

(b) When the action affects the property of the non-resident Defendant which is located within the Philippines.

In these two situations, the Court can proceed because it has jurisdiction over the res.

Venue when stipulated

I also stated that venue is determined by the above rules. However, the parties can agree on a venue that is
neither the Plaintiff's nor the Defendant's residence for personal actions, or which is not the place where the
real property is located for real action.

In Section 4, cited above, stipulations on venue are valid as long as three requisites are present:

1. There is a written agreement

2. The agreement was made before the controversy arose
3. The agreement must contain words of exclusivity.
An example of a venue stipulation is this: "The parties agree that in case a dispute arises out of this contract,
any action must be filed exclusively within the courts of Makati City."

The Supreme Court has held that words of exclusivity (such as "exclusively", "only", and "solely") must be
used for the stipulation to be recognized as exclusive. Otherwise, the stipulation though valid will not be
deemed as an agreement on an exclusive venue. The venue agreed upon will only be an addition to that
which is already provided for in the Rules.

When the law or rule provides a specific venue

There are situations when the law or rule provides for a specific venue that the parties cannot stipulate on.

For instance, in quo warranto cases, the petition may be brought in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or
the Regional Trial Court which has jurisdiction over the territorial area where the respondent or where any of
the respondents resides. When the action is commenced by the Solicitor General, the petition may be
brought in the Regional Trial Court of the City of Manila, the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court (Sec. 7,
Rule 66).

Differences between venue and jurisdiction

1. Jurisdiction is conferred bylaw. Venue is determined by the Rules of Court.

2. Objections to subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived. Objections to venue may be waived.

3. Jurisdiction cannot be the subject of stipulation. Venue can be the subject of stipulation.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE: Ley Construction and Development Corporation vs. Marvin Medel Sedano, GR No.
222711, August 23, 2017.

Facts:

Ley Construction rented a 50,000-square-meter parcel of land from the Philippine National Construction
Corporation (PNCC). The land is located in Pasay City.

Ley Construction subleased 14,000 square meters of the land to Marvin Medel Sedano. Sedano agreed to
pay P1.2 million a month to Ley Construction as rent. The lease was for a 10-year period.
Ley Construction sued Sedano before the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, claiming that the latter did not
pay rent from August to December 2011.

In his Answer, Sedano stated that he paid Ley Construction until July 2011 when PNCC informed him that
Ley Construction had been evicted from the property due to non-payment of rentals, so he gave his
payments to PNCC starting in August 2011.

He filed a third-party complaint against PNCC so that if he is found liable to Ley Construction, the latter can
proceed against PNCC for relief.

Also in his Answer, Sedano raised the affirmative defense of improper venue. He cited a stipulation in
Section 21 of the Lease Contract stating that "all actions or cases filed in connection with this case shall be
filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, exclusive of all others."

Ley Construction argued that the stipulation is void because it is a stipulation on jurisdiction, not venue.
Furthermore, Sedeno sought several affirmative reliefs from RTC-Valuenzuela when he asked for extensions
of time to file Answer, set up counterclaims, and impleaded PNCC as a third-party defendant.

RTC Valenzuela's ruling - Venue is improper, so the case should be dismissed.

Issue: Was the venue improperly laid, hence, the dismissal of the case is proper?

Held: No. Venue was properly laid.

Ratio:

"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.

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.

Section 4. When Rule not applicable. - 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. (Emphases supplied)

Based on these provisions, the venue for personal actions shall - as a general rule - lie with the court which
has jurisdiction where the plaintiff or the defendant resides, at the election of the plaintiff. As an exception,
parties may, through a written instrument, restrict the filing of said actions in a certain exclusive venue. In
Briones v. Court of Appeals, the Court explained:

Written stipulations as to venue may be restrictive in the sense that the suit may be filed only in the place
agreed upon, or merely permissive in that the parties may file their suit not only in the place agreed upon but
also in the places fixed by law. As in any other agreement, what is essential is the ascertainment of the
intention of the parties respecting the matter.

As regards restrictive stipulations on venue, jurisprudence instructs that it must be shown that such
stipulation is exclusive. In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, such as "exclusively," "waiving for
this purpose any other venue," "shall only" preceding the designation of venue, "to the exclusion of the other
courts," or words of similar import, the stipulation should be deemed as merely an agreement on an
additional forum, not as limiting venue to the specified place.

In Pilipino Telephone Corporation v. Tecson, the Court held that an exclusive venue stipulation is valid and
binding, provided that: (a) the stipulation on the chosen venue is exclusive in nature or in intent; (b) it is
expressed in writing by the parties thereto; and (c) it is entered into before the filing of the suit.

After a thorough study of the case, the Court is convinced that all these elements are present and that the
questioned stipulation in the lease contract, i.e., Section 21 thereof, is a valid venue stipulation that limits the
venue of the cases to the courts of Pasay City. It states:

Should any of the party (sic) renege or violate any terms and conditions of this lease contract, it shall be
liable for damages. All actions or case[s] filed in connection with this lease shall be filed with the Regional
Trial Court of Pasay City, exclusive of all others.

The above provision clearly shows the parties' intention to limit the place where actions or cases arising from
a violation of the terms and conditions of the contract of lease may be instituted. This is evident from the use
of the phrase "exclusive of all others" and the specification of the locality of Pasay City as the place where
such cases may be filed.

Notably, the fact that this stipulation generalizes that all actions or cases of the aforementioned kind shall be
filed with the RTC of Pasay City, to the exclusion of all other courts, does not mean that the same is a
stipulation which attempts to curtail the jurisdiction of all other courts. It is fundamental that jurisdiction is
conferred by law and not subject to stipulation of the parties. Hence, following the rule that the law is deemed
written into every contract, the said stipulation should not be construed as a stipulation on jurisdiction but
rather, one which merely limits venue. Moreover, "[t]he parties are charged with knowledge of the existing
law at the time they enter into the contract and at the time it is to become operative." Thus, without any clear
showing in the contract that the parties intended otherwise, the questioned stipulation should be considered
as a stipulation on venue (and not on jurisdiction), consistent with the basic principles of procedural law.

In this case, it is undisputed that petitioner's action was one for collection of sum of money in an amount that
falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC. Since the lease contract already provided that all actions or
cases involving the breach thereof should be filed with the RTC of Pasay City, and that petitioner's complaint
purporting the said breach fell within the RTC's exclusive original jurisdiction, the latter should have then
followed the contractual stipulation and filed its complaint before the RTC of Pasay City. However, it is
undeniable that petitioner filed its complaint with the Valenzuela-RTC; hence, the same is clearly dismissible
on the ground of improper venue, without prejudice, however, to its refiling in the proper court.

That respondent had filed several motions for an extension of time to file a responsive pleading, or that he
interposed a counterclaim or third-party complaint in his answer does not necessarily mean that he waived
the affirmative defense of improper venue. The prevailing rule on objections to the improper venue is that the
same must be raised at the earliest opportunity, as in an answer or a motion to dismiss; otherwise, it is
deemed waived. Here, the respondent timely raised the ground of improper venue since it was one of the
affirmative defenses raised in his Answer with a Third-Party Complaint. As such, it cannot be said that he had
waived the same.

Answer
The Answer is a pleading filed by the Defendant in an ordinary civil action. It is also known as a responsive
pleading.

An Answer may also be filed by the Plaintiff in response to the Defendant's counterclaim. It may also be filed
by a Defendant in response to a Co-Defendant's crossclaim.

Rule 6, Section 4 states: "An answer is a pleading in which a defending party sets forth his or her defenses."

There are two kind of defenses that can be raised in an Answer: negative and affirmative defenses.

A negative defense is one that denies the allegations in the Complaint (Section 5a) while an affirmative
defense is one that hypothetically admits the allegations in the Complaint but alleges new matter that would
prevent recovery by the Plaintiff (Section 5b).

Section 5. Defenses. — Defenses may either be negative or affirmative.

(a) A negative defense is the specific denial of the material fact or facts alleged in the pleading of the
claimant essential to his or her cause or causes of action.

(b) An affirmative defense is an allegation of a new matter which, while hypothetically admitting the
material allegations in the pleading of the claimant, would nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by him or her.
The affirmative defenses include fraud, statute of limitations, release, payment, illegality, statute of frauds,
estoppel, former recovery, discharge in bankruptcy, and any other matter by way of confession and
avoidance.

Affirmative defenses may also include grounds for the dismissal of a complaint, specifically, that the court
has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action pending between the same parties for
the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment.

Negative defenses

There are three ways of alleging a negative defense, and these are found in Section 10 of Rule 8:

Section 10.Specific denial. — A defendant must specify each material allegation of fact the truth of which he
or she does not admit and, whenever practicable, shall set forth the substance of the matters upon which he
or she relies to support his or her denial. Where a defendant desires to deny only a part of an averment, he
or she shall specify so much of it as is true and material and shall deny only the remainder. Where a
defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment
made to the complaint, he or she shall so state, and this shall have the effect of a denial.

The first way is by straight denial of an allegation in the Complaint. For example, the Complaint alleges:
3. The Defendant borrowed the sum of Php500,000 from the Plaintiff on January 15, 2022."

The Defendant can deny this outright by stating:

3. The Defendant specifically DENIES the allegation in paragraph 3 of the Complaint, the truth being that he
never borrowed any amount of money from the Plaintiff on January 15, 2022 or or any other date."

The Rules of Court requires that the denial should be accompanied with a statement of the substance of
what Plaintiff relies on to support his denial. In other words, it is important for him to state what the truth is as
far as he is concerned. Otherwise, his denial will be considered an admission.

To illustrate, suppose the Answer states in paragraph 3:

3. The Defendant specifically DENIES the allegations in paragraph 3 of the Complaint."

This statement will be considered an admission even if he uses the phrase "specifically denies." The reason
is that it does not contain any assertion of what Defendant alleges as a fact. A general denial, and therefore
an admission, will no longer require proof and cannot be contradicted unless shown to have been made with
palpable mistake.

The second way is by making partial denial. Going back to the sample allegation in paragraph 3 of the
Complaint, a partial denial would appear something like this:

"3. The Defendant ADMITS the allegation in paragraph 3 of the Complaint that he borrowed a sum of money
from the Plaintiff on January 15, 2022 but DENIES that it was for the amount of Php500,000, the truth being
that he borrowed only the sum of Php100,000."

The third way is known as "denial for disavowal of knowledge" or "denial for want to knowledge". Below are
examples of allegations in the Complaint, an admission in the Answer, and a denial for want of knowledge:

Complaint:

3. The Plaintiff purchased the Toyota Wigo car of the Defendant for Php500,000 on January 15, 2021.

4. The Plaintiff insured said car with XYZ insurance company on January 17, 2021 upon payment of premium
in the sum of Php30,000.

Answer:

3. The Defendant ADMITS the allegation in paragraph 3 of the Complaint.

4. The Defendant DENIES the allegation in paragraph 4 of the Complaint for lack of knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief on the truth or falsity thereof.

Note that the denial for want of knowledge is effective only if the Defendant is really not in a position to know
if the allegation is true. Otherwise, the denial will be deemed an admission. In this example:

3. The Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract of loan dated January 15, 2022 where the
Defendant borrowed the sum of P500,000 from the Plaintiff and committed to pay the amount in full on June
15, 2022.

In this example, the Defendant is obviously in a position to state if the allegation is true or false. He cannot
deny for want of knowledge, and if he does so, it will be deemed an admission.

Affirmative defenses

Affirmative defenses are those that hypothetically admit the allegations in the Complaint but introduce new
matters which would absolve the Defendant from liability.

One affirmative defense is payment. The Defendant can admit that he borrowed a sum of money from the
Plaintiff but allege that he has paid, and so he is no longer liable.

For example, the Complaint states:

3. The Defendant borrowed Php500,000 from the Plaintiff on January 15, 2022, promising to pay it in full on
June 15, 2022.

The Answer states:

3. The Defendant ADMITS the allegation in paragraph 3 of the Complaint and by way of affirmative defense,
alleges that on June 15, 2022, he paid the amount in full to the Plaintiff as shown by the receipt attached as
Annex "A" and made an integral part hereof.
There are several affirmative defenses in Rule 8, Section 12 as well as Rule 6, Section 5b. These are:

1. The court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defending party
2. The venue is improperly laid
3. The plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue
4. The pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action
5. A condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with
6. Fraud
7. Statute of limitations
8. Release
9. Payment
10. Illegality
11. Statute of frauds
12. Estoppel
13. Former recovery
14. Discharge in bankruptcy
15. Any other matter by way of confession and avoidance.

Note that there is a difference between affirmative defense and affirmative relief. An affirmative defense is
raised by the defending party to defeat the opposing party's claim. An affirmative relief is a remedy that either
party is asking from the court to sustain its legal position.

Examples of affirmative reliefs are:

1. Motion to admit answer

2. Motion for additional time to file answer
3. Motion for reconsideration of a default judgment
4. Motion to lift order of default.

(See United Coconut Planters Bank versus Sps. Alison Ang-Sy, et al, GR No. 204753, March 27, 2019)

Admissions

Admissions in the Answer can be express or implied.

Express admissions are made when the Defendant directly admits the allegations in the Complaint. For
example, the Complaint alleges in paragraph 1:

1. Plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under Philippine laws with principal address at 12345
Sucar avenue, Paranaque City.

The Defendant can admit this directly without causing harm to his defense and in order to abbreviate the
proceedings, thus, he can state in his Answer:

1. Defendant ADMITS the allegation in paragraph 1of the Complaint.

Implied admissions are made in two ways: when the Answer does not specifically deny the allegations in the
Complaint (as when the Answer does not mention anything about it); or when the Answer makes a general
denial. Section 11 of Rule 8 states:

Section 11. Allegations not specifically denied deemed admitted. — Material averments in a pleading
asserting a claim or claims, other than those as to the amount of unliquidated damages, shall be deemed
admitted when not specifically denied.

What is the effect of an admission? The Defendant can no longer contradict it. Section 4, Rule 129 of the
Revised Rules on Evidence as amended states:

Section 4.
Judicial admissions.
– An admission, oral or written, made by [the] party in the co
urse of the
proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be
contradicted only by showing
Section 4. Judicial admissions. – An admission, oral or written, made by [the] party in the course of the
proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing
that it was made through palpable mistake or that the imputed admission was not, in fact, made.
Actionable documents

There are times when the cause of action, or the defense, is based on an actionable document. These are
documents on which the action or defense is based.

For instance, the Plaintiff's claim against the Defendant is based on a promissory note. That promissory note
is an actionable document.

Here are the rules on pleading when actionable documents are involved:

Section 7.Action or defense based on document. - Whenever an action or defense is based upon a written
instrument or document, the substance of such instrument or document shall be set forth in the pleading, and
the original or a copy thereof shall be attached to the pleading as an exhibit, which shall be deemed to be a
part of the pleading. (7a)

Section 8.How to contest such documents. - When an action or defense is founded upon a written
instrument, or attached to the corresponding pleading as provided in the preceding section, the genuineness
and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath
specifically denies them, and sets forth what he or she claims to be the facts; but the requirement of an oath
does not apply when the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument or when compliance
with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is refused. (8a)

Counterclaims and cross-claims

A counterclaim is a claim raised by the Defendant against the Plaintiff, while a cross-claim is a claim raised
by a Defendant against a co-Defendant.

If these are existing as of the time the Answer is filed, these should be included in the Answer.

Counterclaims may either be compulsory or permissive, while cross-claims should either be compulsory.
Compulsory means that the claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter
of the opposing party's claim.

Factual basis

Similar to a Complaint, the Answer should include the names of the Defendant's witnesses and the
substance of their testimonies, a list of the evidence to be presented by the Defendant, and copies of the
judicial affidavits of the witnesses.

Relief sought, verification, certification against forum shopping

The Defendant should state the relief sought and include a verification if the Answer raises a counterclaim or
cross-claim. If so, it should also include a Certification against Forum Shopping.