EL RESEÑANTE | CIVIL PROCEDURE | PORCEDIMIENTO CIVIL | REMIDIAL LAW | LEY REMEDIAL | MALO NODO, MALUS QUÆRENDUS CUNEUS

NOT ES BY CHURCHILL DESLATE

1|D E S L AT E , C .
F IRST YEAR LAW | DER ECHO DE PRIM ER AÑO | DESPERAT E T IMES CALL FOR DESPERAT E MEA SURES | MALO NODO, MALU S QUÆRENDUS CUNEU S
EL RESEÑANTE | CIVIL PROCEDURE | PORCEDIMIENTO CIVIL | REMIDIAL LAW | LEY REMEDIAL | MALO NODO, MALUS QUÆRENDUS CUNEUS
NOT ES BY CHURCHILL DESLATE

2|D E S L AT E , C .
F IRST YEAR LAW | DER ECHO DE PRIM ER AÑO | DESPERAT E T IMES CALL FOR DESPERAT E MEA SURES | MALO NODO, MALU S QUÆRENDUS CUNEU S
EL RESEÑANTE | CIVIL PROCEDURE | PORCEDIMIENTO CIVIL | REMIDIAL LAW | LEY REMEDIAL | MALO NODO, MALUS QUÆRENDUS CUNEUS
NOT ES BY CHURCHILL DESLATE

RULE 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS days from receipt thereof. None was filed. The Petitioners
argue that there being no answers, the allegation in the formal
charges that they filed should be pursuant to Section 11, Rule
SECTION 1: TITLE OF THE RULES 8 of the ROC.
ISSUE: Whether GSIS may apply suppletorily the provisions of
SECTION 2: IN WHAT COURTS APLICABLE the Rules of Court on the effect of failure to deny the allegations
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS ARE NOT PRECLUDED in the complaint.
RULING: The court finds no merit in the petition. Failure of a
FROM CONDUCTING HAEARINGS ON MATTERS
respondent to file an answer merely translates to a waiver of
ON WHICH THE PARTIES NEED TO BE HEARD his right to file an answer. There is nothing in the rules that says
that the charges are deemed admitted.
CASALLA V. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES1 SECTION 5: COMNECEMENT OF ACTION
Facts: Private respondent filed 2 criminal complaints against
petitioner for violation of the BP 22. Petitioner appealed to the ❖ CIVIL ACTION: After the civil complaint is filed in
RTC, but the latter affirmed the decision of the MeTC. The RTC court/clerk of court
❖ CRIMINAL ACTION: Complaint is filed before the
denied the motion for reconsideration on account of the
Barangay
absence of a notice of hearing. The Court of Appeals noted that ➢ If the barangay has no jurisdiction: Filed before
the petition was filed out of time, because the motion to the Office of the City Prosecutor or Office of the
reconsider the decision of the Trial Court did not contain a Ombusdman.
notice of hearing.
Issue: Whether or not a notice of hearing does not apply in THE “CIVIL ACTION IS COMMENCED” IS
petitioner’s motion? DIFFERENT FROM THE “COURT ACQUIRES
Ruling: NO. The Rules of Court apply to all courts, except as JURISDICTION”
❖ Civil action is commenced: After the civil complaint is
otherwise provided by the Supreme Court. The requirements
filed in court.
laid down in the Rules of Court, that the notice of hearing shall ❖ Court acquires jurisdiction: Upon payment of the
be directed to the parties concerned and shall state the time prescribed docket fee.
and place for the hearing of the motion, are mandatory.
INSUFFICIENT DOCKET FEE
SCETION 3: CASES GOVERNED ➢ Does not automatically lose jurisdiction.
➢ The party filing the case will be required filing
DISTINCTION BETWEEN CRIMINAL AND CIVIL
CASES INTENT TO DEFRAUD THE GOVERNMENT
In criminal cases, a guilty is: In there is intent to defraud the government, the court’s
❖ Punishable by incarceration; jurisdiction os automatically lost.
❖ May be punished by a fine; and
❖ May be put to death penalty. SURIGAO MINE EXPLORATION CO,
INC V. HARRIS SURIGAO-MINIT
In civil cases, a guilty is: MINING SYNDICATE, ET AL.3
❖ Never incarcerated;
Facts: Before the plaintiff could close its defense, the
❖ Must pay the damages; and
defendants moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the
❖ May be put to shame if his property is being sheriffed. ground that, when the action was commenced, plaintiff’s right
of action had not yet been accrued, since, under its own
SECTION 4: IN WHAT CASE NOT APPLICABLE
evidence, the plaintiff did not become the owner of the claims
❖ Election cases; in dispute until after the original complaint was filed in the
❖ Land registration; Court of First Instance of Surigao on October 24, 1935.
❖ Cadastral; Issue: Whether or not the plaintiff can cure the defect in thos
❖ Naturalization; and complaint.
❖ Insolvency proceedings. Ruling: The court hold that unless the plaintiff has a valid and
subsisting cause of action at the time his action is
EXCEPTION: commenced, the defect cannot be cured or remedied by the
❖ By analogy or in a suppletory character. acquisition or accrual of one while the action is pending an a
supplemental complaint or an amendment setting up such
GARCIA V. VILLAVIZA 2 after-accrued cause of action is not permissible.
FACTS: Petitioners filed a separate formal charges against
respondents for Grave Misconduct. Respondents were
directed to submit their written answers under oath within 3

1 G.R. No. 138855, October 29, 2002 3 G.R No. L-45543, MAY 17, 1939, EN BANC
2 G.R. No. 180291, July 27, 2010
3|D E S L AT E , C .
F IRST YEAR LAW | DER ECHO DE PRIM ER AÑO | DESPERAT E T IMES CALL FOR DESPERAT E MEA SURES | MALO NODO, MALU S QUÆRENDUS CUNEU S
EL RESEÑANTE | CIVIL PROCEDURE | PORCEDIMIENTO CIVIL | REMIDIAL LAW | LEY REMEDIAL | MALO NODO, MALUS QUÆRENDUS CUNEUS
NOT ES BY CHURCHILL DESLATE

SECTION 6: CONSTRUCTION state the date on which his Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education Certificate of Compliance was issued.
HOW TO INTERPRET PROCEDURAL RULES? Issue: Whether or not the RTC’s dismissal of the case on the
The adjudicatory bodies and the parties to a case are thus ground that the subject complaint failed to state a cause of
enjoined to abide strictly by the rules. A liberal interpretation action was proper.
and application of the rules of procedure can be restored to Ruling: THE DISMISSAL WAS PROPER. The existence of a
only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and cause of action is determined by the allegations in the
circumstances. complaint. In this relation, a complaint is said to assert a
sufficient cause of action if, admitting what appears solely on
CIVIL ACTIONS its face to be correct, the plaintiff would be entitled to the relief
prayed for.
ORDINARY CIVIL ACTIONS The foregoing allegations, if admitted to be true, would
consequently warrant the reliefs sought for in the said
complaint, the rule that the determination of a decedent’s lawful
RULE 2: CAUSE OF ACTION heirs should be made in corresponding special proceedings
precludes the RTC, in an ordinary action for cancellation of title
SECTION 1: ORDINARY CIVIL ACTIONS, BASIS OF and reconveyance, from granting the same.
CIVIL ACTION ACTION DISTINGUISHED FROM SPECIAL
A party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a PROCEEDINGS
right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong.
ACTIONS SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
❖ Involve 2 or more ❖ Involve at least 1 or
CAUSE OF ACTION
parties more party
Act or omission by which a party violates a right of another
❖ Involve a right and ❖ May involve a right but
violation of such right there need not be a
❖ Interlocutory order5 violation of such right
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF CAUSE OF ACTION cannot be directly and ❖ Interlocutory order can
❖ A right in favor of the plaintiff. immediately appealed directly and
❖ An obligation on the part of the named defendant to to the appellate court immediately appeal
respect or not violate such right. until after final ❖ Multiple pleading is
❖ An act or omission on the part of such defendant in judgment allowed
violation of the right of the plaintiff. ❖ Multiple appeal is not
allowed
WHEN DOES THE RIGHT OF ACTION ACCRUE?
There exists a cause of action, which consist of 3 elements GENERAL RULE: THERE IS A NEED TO INSTITUTE
mentioned.
“FIRST” A SEPARATE SPECIAL PROCEEDING
FOR THE DETERMINATION OF HEIRSHIP BEFORE
ORDINARY CIVIL ACTION AND SPECIAL
RESORTING TO AN ORDINARY CIVIL ACTION
PROCEEDINGS
➢ EXCEPTIONS:
A complaint is said to assert a sufficient cause of action if the
❖ Parties in the civil case had voluntarily submitted the
plaintiff would be entitled to the relief prayed for.
issue to the trial court and already presented their
evidence
HEIRS OF MAGDALENO YPON V.
❖ A special proceeding had been instituted but had
GAUDIOSO PONTERAS RICAFORTE4
been finally closed and terminated
Facts: Petitioners filed a complaint for Cancelation of Title and
Reconveyance with Damages against herein respondent. The
petitioners alleged that Magdaleno Ypon died intestate and ORDINARY CIVIL ACTION
childless, leaving behind Lot Nos. 2-AA, 2-C, 2-F, and 2-J A party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a
which were covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-44 right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong
and T-77-A. The respondent answered that he is the lawful son
of Magdaleno as evidence by his certificate of live birth, letters SPECIAL PROCEEDING
from Polytechnic School, and a certified true copy of his A remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right,
passport. or a particular fact
The case was not prosecuted by the real parties-in-interest, as
there is no showing that the petitioners have been judicially
declared as Magdaleno’s lawful heirs.
The RTC ruled that the subject complaint failed to state a cause
of action against respondent. The plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration but was denied due to the counsel’s failure to

4 G.R. No. 198680, July 08, 2013 5An order is "interlocutory when it does not dispose of the case completely but leaves something
to still be decided by the trial court (Integrated Credit and Corporate Services, Co. V. Novelita
Labrador and Philippians Academy Of Parañaque City, G.R. No. 233127. July 10, 2023)
4|D E S L AT E , C .
F IRST YEAR LAW | DER ECHO DE PRIM ER AÑO | DESPERAT E T IMES CALL FOR DESPERAT E MEA SURES | MALO NODO, MALU S QUÆRENDUS CUNEU S
EL RESEÑANTE | CIVIL PROCEDURE | PORCEDIMIENTO CIVIL | REMIDIAL LAW | LEY REMEDIAL | MALO NODO, MALUS QUÆRENDUS CUNEUS
NOT ES BY CHURCHILL DESLATE

FAUSTINO REYES V. PETER B. another, in the case at bar, the complaint does not have to
ENRIQUEZ6 establish facts providing the existence of a cause of action at
Facts: RTC dismissed the case on the ground that the the outset.
respondent-plaintiff were actually seeking to be declared heirs The elements of cause of action are: 1.) A right in favor of
of Anacleto Cabrera since they cannot demand the partition of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it
the real property without first being declared as legal heirs, and arises or is created; 2.) An obligation on the part of the
such may not be done in an ordinary civil action but through named defendant to respect or not violate such right; and
special proceeding. 3.) An act or omission on the part of such defendant in
Issue: Whether or not the plaintiffs/respondents have to violation of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach
institute a special proceeding to determine their status as heirs of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which
of Anacleto Cabrera before they can file an ordinary civil action. the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages
Ruling: MUST INSTITUTE A SPECIAL PROCEEDING. The or other appropriate reliefs.
Rules of Court provide that only a real party in interest is The fact that the complaint specifically mentioned assessed PC
allowed to prosecute and defend an action in court. Such fee sue on plaintiff’s domestic sale of coconut products did not
interest, to be considered a real interest, must be one which is preclude a cause of action for PCA fee due on plaintiff's export
present and substantial. The heirs of Anacleto Cabrera must sale of coconut products. The petitioner as a copra exporter,
file first the special proceedings so that they can be declared cannot evade its legal obligation to pay PCA fees on the lame
as such heirs. pretext that it never engaged in domestic sale of coconut
products. Cost against petitioner (Soloil, Inc).
SECTION 2: CAUSE OF ACTION, DEFINED
THE TEST IN DETERMINING WHETHER AN
CAUSE OF ACTION
INITIATORY PLEADING STATES A CAUSE OF
The act or omission by which a party violates a right of another.
➢ A formal statement of the operative facts that give rise to ACTION
a remedial right. Admitting the truth of the facts alleged, can the court render a
➢ Failure to make a sufficient allegation of a cause of action valid judgment in accordance with the prayer?
in the complaint warrants its dismissal ➢ To be taken into account are only the material allegations
in the complaint; extraneous facts and circumstances or
other matters aliunde are not considered.
DETERMINING THE CAUSE OF ACTION
➢ Appended annexes or documents , other pleadings of the
In determining whether a complaint states the cause of action,
plaintiff, or admissions in the record.
the trial court can consider all the pleadings filed including
annexes, motions, and evidence on record. SECTION 3: ONE SUIT FOR A SINGLE CAUSE OF
ELEMENTS OF A CAUSE OF ACTION ACTION
❖ A right in favor of the plaintiff It is prohibited under the Rules, to file several suits separately.
❖ An obligation on the part of the defendant The suits must be alleged altogether in one complaint.
❖ An act of omission on the part of such defendant in ➢ Quennie Marie entered into a contract with Erika Mae to
violation of the right of the plaintiff build a gothic Adams family manor for the latter. Quennie
breached the said contract by not delivering an obligation
SOLOIL, INC. V. PHILIPPINE COCONUT to build said manor. Erika Mae must file only one
AUTHORITY7 complaint for damages due breach of contract, refund of
Facts: In January 1995, the Office of the Government budget/money, plus attorney’s fee.
Corporate Counsel sent by registered mail a final demand letter
addressed to herein plaintiff for the payment of the latter’s SECTION 4: SPLITTING A SINGLE CAUSE OF
overdue fees to PCA for the domestic sale of coconut products,
ACTION; EFFECT OF
but the plaintiff did not pay the same. PCA filed in the RTC a
complaint alleging that the plaintiff refused to pay the said fees. SPLITTING A CAUSE OF ACTION
In its answer, the plaintiff raised the defense that PCA’s The act of dividing a single cause of action, claim, or demand
demand for the payment of PCA fees based on domestic sale in two or more parts, and bringing suit for one of such parts
had no factual basis as the plaintiff never engaged in domestic only, intending to reserve the rest for another separate action.
sale of coconut products and hence, no cause of action. The ➢ A ground for dismissal.
RTC ruled in favor of the herein plaintiff and held that PCA
failed to prove the claimed amount of unpaid PCA fees was FORUM SHOPPING
from plaintiff’s sale of domestic coconut products. Splitting a cause of action is a mode of forum shopping by filing
Issue: Whether or not the complaint sufficiently stated a cause multiple cases based on the same cause of action, but with
of action when evidence adduced during trial consisted of different prayers.
plaintiff’s export coconut products.
Ruling: THE PETITION HAS NO MERIT. Under Section 2,
Rule 2 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, a cause of
action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of

6 G.R. No. 162956, April 10, 2008 7 G.R. No. 174806, August 11, 2010
5|D E S L AT E , C .
F IRST YEAR LAW | DER ECHO DE PRIM ER AÑO | DESPERAT E T IMES CALL FOR DESPERAT E MEA SURES | MALO NODO, MALU S QUÆRENDUS CUNEU S
EL RESEÑANTE | CIVIL PROCEDURE | PORCEDIMIENTO CIVIL | REMIDIAL LAW | LEY REMEDIAL | MALO NODO, MALUS QUÆRENDUS CUNEUS
NOT ES BY CHURCHILL DESLATE

NORLINDA S. MARILAG V. WHAT IS THE GROUND OF DISMISSAL FOR

MARCELINO B. MARTINEZ8 SPLITTING A CAUSE OF ACTION AS A MODE OF
Facts: Rafael obtained from petitioner a loan in the amount of FORUM SHOPPING?
Php 160,000.00, with a stipulated monthly interest of 5% Litis pendentia for res judicata
payable within a period of 6 months. The Rafael failed to settle
his obligation upon maturity and despite repeated demands, SECTION 5: JOINDER OF CAUSE OF ACTION
promoting petitioner to file a complaint for Judicial Foreclosure
of Real Estate Mortgage before the RTC. The RTC issued a Quennie Marie entered into a contract with Erika Mae to build
decision in the foreclosure case, declaring the stipulated 5% a gothic Adams Family manor for the latter. Quennie Marie
monthly interest to be usurious and reducing the same to 12% breached the said contract by not delivering an obligation to
per annum. Records do not show that this decision had already build said manor despite the fact that Erika Mae gave the
attained finality. Prior to the notice of Refael’s notice of RCT’s budget/money to Quennie Marie.
decision, respondent Marcelino agreed to pay Rafael’s ➢ Under Section 5, Rule 2, Erika Mae may file only one
obligation to petitioner which was pegged Php 698,000.00. complaint for several causes of action (i.e, for damages
After making a total payment of Php 400,000.00, he executed due breach of contract, refund of budget/money, plus
a promissory note binding himself to pay on or before March attorney’s fee)
31, 1998 the amount of Php 289,000.00. After learning of the ➢ Under Section 3, Rule 2, Erika Mae is prohibited to file
decision of the RTC, respondent refused to pay the covered by several suits separately for a single cause of action.
the subject promissory note despite demands, prompting
petitioner to file a complaint for sum of money and damages. MISJOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION
The court then declared that the causes of action in the Not a ground for dismissal. The court may order the severance
collection and foreclosure cases are distinct, and respondent’s of the misjoined cause of action to be proceeded with
failure to comply with his obligation under the subject separately.
promissory note justifies petitioner to seek judicial relief. The
CA reversed the RTC decision and held that res judicata finds SAPCIO V. MANILA OCEANIC LINES10
application in the case at bar. Facts: Crispin Gicale was driving a passenger jeepney and
Issue: Whether or not the res judicata9 is applicable in the was hit a passenger bus owned by Pantranco North Express
present case. (Pantranco for brevity), driven by Alexander Bucan. Gicale
Ruling: The principle of res judicata is INAPPLICABLE. reported by incident to the Talavera Police Station and to
This is because the records are bereft of any indication that the Standard Insurance Co., Inc. (Standard for brevity), the insurer
Decision in the judicial foreclosure case had already attained of the jeepney. Mirna Gicale, mother of Crispin Gicale
finality. The court held that petitioner’s prosecution of the shouldered the balance of Php 400,000.00. Standard and Mrs.
collection case was barred, instead by the principle of litis Gicale demanded reimbursement from Pantranco and Bucan,
pendentia in view of the substantial identity parties and but they refused. This prompted Standard and Mrs. Gicale to
singularity of the causes of action in the foreclosure and file with the RTC a complaint for sum of money. Pantranco and
collection of cases. Bucan insisted that the trial court has no jurisdiction over the
Litis pendentia as a ground for the dismissal of a civil action case since the cause of action of Standard and Mrs. Gicale did
refers to the situation wherein another action is pending not arise from the same transaction and there are no common
between the same parties for the same cause of action, such question of law and fact common to both parties.
that the second action becomes unnecessary and vexatious. Issue: (1) Whether or not there is identity of cause of action.
(2) whether or not there are different cause of action.
REQUISITES OF LITIS PENDENTIA TO BE Ruling: (1) WON. If Standard and Mrs. Gicale filed separate
INVOKED suits against Pantranco and Bucan, the same evidence would
❖ Identity of parties have been presented to sustain the same cause of action.
❖ Identity of rights and relief prayed for Joinder of parties avoids multiplicity of suits and ensures
❖ The identity of the two preceding particulars is such that convenient, speedy, and orderly administration of justice.
any judgment rendered in the pending case, regardless of (2) WON. The cause of action of Standard and Mrs. Gicale
which party is successful would amount to res judicata in against Pantranco and Bucan arose out of the same
another. transaction. Thus, the amount of the demand shall be the
totality of the claims.
THE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE OF LITIS
PENDENTIA TOTALITY RULE
A party is not allowed to vex another more than once regarding Where there are several claims or causes of action between
the same subject matter for the same cause of action. A party the same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint,
will not be permitted to split up a single cause of action and the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in
make it a basis for several suits. all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of
action arose out of the same or different transactions.

8 G.R. No. 201892, July 22, 2015

9 Res judicata is a doctrine that bars the relitigation of the same claim between parties and the
same issue on a different claim between parties. Applicable only in civil cases and not recognized
in criminal proceedings (Riano, 2022: Civil Procedure).
10 L-18776, January 30, 1964

6|D E S L AT E , C .
F IRST YEAR LAW | DER ECHO DE PRIM ER AÑO | DESPERAT E T IMES CALL FOR DESPERAT E MEA SURES | MALO NODO, MALU S QUÆRENDUS CUNEU S
EL RESEÑANTE | CIVIL PROCEDURE | PORCEDIMIENTO CIVIL | REMIDIAL LAW | LEY REMEDIAL | MALO NODO, MALUS QUÆRENDUS CUNEUS
NOT ES BY CHURCHILL DESLATE

JOINDER OF ACTION SECTION 2: PARTIES IN INTEREST

Uniting of two or more demands or rights of action in one action;
the statement of more than one cause of action in a declaration. REAL PARTY IN INTEREST REQUISITES
It is the union of two or more civil causes of action. ❖ Benefited by the judgment of the suit
❖ Injured by the judgment of the suit
PURPOSE OF JOINDER OF ACTION ❖ Entitled to avails of the suit
Avoid such multiplicity of suits but without prejudice to the rights
of the litigants. IN SUITS TO RECOVER PROPERTIES, ALL CO-
OWNERS ARE REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
RULE 3: PARTIES TO A CIVIL ACTION Under the Article 487 of the Civil Code and relevant
jurisprudence, anyone of them may bring an action, any kind of
SECTION 1: WHO MAY BE THE PARTIES; action, for the recovery of the co-owned properties.
PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT ➢ Only one of the co-owners, namely the co-owner who filed
the suit for the recovery of the co-owned property, is an
ILLUSTRATIVE FIGURE: indispensable party thereto. The co-owners are not
indispensable parties.
➢ In a co-ownership, co-owners may bring actions for the
recovery of co-owned property without the necessity of
joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs because the
suits are presumed to have been filed for the benefit of his
co-owners.

SECTION 3: REPRESENTATIVES AS PARTIES

RESPRESENTATIVES MAY BE:
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE ❖ Trustee of an express trust
XX purchased land from YY. The contract of sale stipulated that ❖ Guardian
XX had the right of choice to designate which portion of would ❖ Executor
be the subject of the sale. It appears however, that the land XX ❖ Administrator
selected was already sold to AA. Thereafter, XX was sued by ❖ Lawyer representing a client
AA for accion reinvidicatoria11. ❖ Agent of a principal
AA is the plaintiff, XX is the defendant, XX is also a 3 rd party
plaintiff against YY, and YY is the 4th party plaintiff against AA, EXPRESS TRUST
and AA is a 4th party defendant. Created by the direct and positive acts of the parties
❖ In writing or by deed
FUNCTION OF A THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT ❖ Will or by words
A procedural device whereby a third party who is neither a party
nor privy to the act or deed complained of by the plaintiff, may THEODORE AND NANCY ANG
be brought into the case with leave of court. REPRESENTED BY ATTY. ELDRIDGE
➢ It is independent of and separate and distinct from the MARVIN B. ACERON V. SPOUSES
plaintiff’s complaint. ALLAN AND EM ANG12
➢ It would have to be filed independently and separately Facts: On September 2, 1992, respondents obtained a loan
from the original complaint by the defendant against the from herein petitioners. On even date, the respondents
third-party. But the Rules permit defendant to bring in a executed a promissory note in favor of the petitioners wherein
third-party defendant or so to speak, to litigate his they promised to pay the latter the said amount.
separate cause of action. Notwithstanding the receipt of the sent demand letter,
respondents still failed to pay. Since petitioners were then
WHY PRIOR LEAVE OF COURT IS NECESSARY IN residing at Los Angeles, California, United States of America,
THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT? they executed their respective Special Powers of Attorney in
So that where the allowance of a third-party complaint would favor of Atty. Eldridge Marvin B. Aceron. On September 15,
delay the resolution of the original case, the salutary object of 2006, Atty. Aceron filed a complaint for collection of sum of
the rules would not be defeated, and the court should in such money on behalf of the petitioners. The respondents moved for
cases require defendant a separate action. the dismissal of the complaint on the grounds of improper
venue, averring that they reside in Bacolod City while the
petitioners are in LA, therefore, the filing of the complaint
against them in the RTC of Quezon City was improper.
Issue: (1) Whether or not the complaint is dismissible on the
ground of improper venue. (2) Whether or not Atty. Aceron

11An action for recovery of ownership which must be brought in the proper inferior court or more commonly known as the attributes of ownership (Nicasio Macutay V. Sosima Samoy, et al,
Regional Trial Court (depending upon the value of the property). Xxx In an accion reivindicatoria, G.R. No. 205559, December 02, 2020).
the cause of action of the plaintiff is to recover possession by virtue of his ownership of the land 12 G.R. No. 186993, August 22, 2012

subject of the dispute. This follows that universe of rights conferred to the owner of property, or
7|D E S L AT E , C .
F IRST YEAR LAW | DER ECHO DE PRIM ER AÑO | DESPERAT E T IMES CALL FOR DESPERAT E MEA SURES | MALO NODO, MALU S QUÆRENDUS CUNEU S
EL RESEÑANTE | CIVIL PROCEDURE | PORCEDIMIENTO CIVIL | REMIDIAL LAW | LEY REMEDIAL | MALO NODO, MALUS QUÆRENDUS CUNEUS
NOT ES BY CHURCHILL DESLATE

(representative of the petitioners) is the real party in interest by SECTION 4: SPOUSES AS PARTIES
virtue of his SPA
Ruling: YES, ON THE FIRST ISSUE. The complaint is PRO FORMA PARTIES
dismissible on the ground of improper venue. The Rules give Those who are required to be joined as co-parties in suits by or
the plaintiff the option in choosing where to file his complaint. against another party as may be provided by the applicable
He can file it in the place where he himself or any of them substantive law or procedural rules.
resides, or where the defendant or any of the defendants reside ➢ Can either be:
or may be found. In this case, the complainant, represented by ❖ Indispensable
Atty. Aceron filed the complaint in RTC of Quezon City instead ❖ Necessary
of in Bacolod City. ❖ Neither indispensable nor necessary
YES, ON THE SECOND ISSUE. In reliance on Section 3, Rule
3 of the Rules of Court, Atty. Aceron is likewise a party in
interest as he is an agent acting in his own name.
Petition is DENIED. PRO FORMA PARTIES WHO ARE NEITHER
INDISPENSABLE NOR NECESSARY
WHEN THINGS BELONGING TO THE PRINCIPAL Jimin, husband of Erika Mae, files a recovery of a property
ARE DEALTH WITH, THE AGENT IS BOUND TO which he claims to be part of his exclusive property. Erka Mae
THE PRINCIPAL ALTHOUGH HE DOES NOT have no legal interest in such property, but the rules requires
ASSUME THE CHARACTER OF SUCH AGENT that she be joined as a party.

NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY V. NON-JOINDER OF A SPOUSE

INTERMEDIATE APPEALLATE COURT, Does not warrant dismissal as it is merely a formal requirement
SUPERIOR SHIPPING which may be cured by amendment.
CORPORATION13
Facts: Gil Medalla, a commission agent of Superior Shipping ROGER NAVARRO V. HON. JOSE L.
Corporation (SSC), entered into a contract for hire of ship ESCOBIDO14
known as MV Sea Runner with herein defendant National Facts: The respondent filed a complaint for replevin15 or sum
Grains Authority (NGA) to transport 8,500 sacks of rice belong of money before the RTC with damages against herein
to NGA from port San Jose, Occidental Mindoro to Malabon, appellant, praying for the issuance of writs of replevin for the
Metro Manila. NGA cannot grant payment of freightage and seizure of motor vehicle in appellant’s possession. The RTC
other charges to SSC because the contract to transport the rice granted the prayer, and the said motor vehicle was seized and
was entered into by defendant NGA and defendant Medalla delivered to the plaintiff. Appellant, in his answer, alleged as a
who did not disclose that the latter was acting as mere agent of special affirmative defense that the complaint stated no cause
the plaintiff. Thereupon, defendant NGA paid defendant of action, since the respondent was not a party to the Lease
Madella the sum of Php 25,974.90 for freight services. Agreements with Option to Purchase. The case was dismissed
On December 4, 1979, plaintiff demanded Medalla to return the by the RTC on the ground that the complaint did not state a
Php 27,000.00 paid to him by defendant NGA but he ignored cause of action. The RTC also required the plaintiff to include
the demand. her husband, Glenn Go, in the complaint based on Section 4,
Issue: Whether or not the instant case falls within the exception Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.
of the general rule provided for in Article 1883 of the Civil Code. Issue: Whether or not the non-joinder of indispensable party is
Ruling: NO. Article 1883 should be understood to be a ground to dismiss the complaint.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the actions between principal Ruling: NO. NON-JOINDER OF INDISPENSABLE PARTY IS
and agent. Consequently, when things belonging to the NOT A GROUND TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT. In case of
principal (in this case, SSC) are dealt with, the agent is bound Domingo v. Scheer16, the court either motu proprio17 or upon
to the principal although he does not assume the character of the motion of a party, may order the inclusion of the
such agent and appears acting in his own name. In other indispensable party or give the plaintiff opportunity to amend
words, the agent’s apparent representation yields to the his complaint in order to include indispensable parties. The
principal’s true representation and the contract must be court held that only upon unjustifiable failure or refusal to obey
considered as entered into between the principal and the third the order to include or to amend is the action dismissed.
person.

13G.R. No. 75640, April 5, 1990 action (Milagros P. Enriquez V. The Mercantile Insurance Co., Inc. [G.R. No. 210950, August 15,
14G.R. No. 153788, November 27, 2009 2018]).
15Replevin is an action for the recovery of personal property. It is both a principal remedy and a 16 466 Phil. 235 (2004)

provisional relief. When utilized as a principal remedy, the objective is to recover possession of 17 Motu proprio (sua sponte) is used to indicate an act taken by a court without a motion from a

personal property that may have been wrongfully detained by another. When sought as a party.
provisional relief, it allows a plaintiff to retain the contested property during the pendency of the
8|D E S L AT E , C .
F IRST YEAR LAW | DER ECHO DE PRIM ER AÑO | DESPERAT E T IMES CALL FOR DESPERAT E MEA SURES | MALO NODO, MALU S QUÆRENDUS CUNEU S
EL RESEÑANTE | CIVIL PROCEDURE | PORCEDIMIENTO CIVIL | REMIDIAL LAW | LEY REMEDIAL | MALO NODO, MALUS QUÆRENDUS CUNEUS
NOT ES BY CHURCHILL DESLATE

DISTINCTION BETWEEN REAL PARTY IN SECTION 6: PERMISSIVE JOINDER OF PARTIES

INTEREST, NECESSARY PARTY, INDISPENSABLE
PARTY THREE (3) REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMISSIVE
REAL PARTY NECESSARY INDISPENSABLE JOINDER OF PARTIES
IN INTEREST PARTY PARTY ❖ Right to relief arises out of the same transaction or series
Stands to be Not Without whom no of transactions
benefited or indispensable but final determination ❖ There is a question of law or fact common to all the
injured of the suit who ought to be can be had of an plaintiffs and defendants
or a party that joined as a party if action. ❖ Such joinder is not proscribed by the provisions of the
avails the suit. complete relief is ➢ Only the wife Rule on Jurisdiction and Venue
➢ A party who to be accorded. filed a case
entered into without PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS, INC.
a contract including the AND ALEXANDER BUNCAN V.
husband. STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY,
INC. AND MARTINA GICALE19
ALL CO-OWNERS ARE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST Facts: Crispin Gicale, driving a passenger Jeepney owned by
his mother, Martina Gicale, got hit by passenger bus owned by
However, under Article 487 of the Civil Code, any one of them
Pantranco North Express, Inc. (Pantranco for brevity), driven
may bring an action, any kind of action, for the recovery of co-
by Alexander Buncan. The total cost of the repair was
owned properties.
Php21,415.00, but Standard Insurance Company, Inc.
❖ Indispensable party: Co-owner who filed the suit
(Standard for brevity) paid only 8,000.00, and Martina Gicale
❖ Not indispensable nor necessary party: Other co-
owners shouldered the 13,415.00 balance.
Standard and Martina demanded reimbursement from
➢ Complete relief can be accorded to the suit even
petitioners.
without their participation, since the suit is filed for the
Applying the 3 requirements for permissive joinder of
benefit of all co-owners.
parties:
❖ Single transaction common to all
SPOUSES SUED FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF
➢ Both respondents demanded reimbursement from
THE OBLIGATION ENTERED INTO BY THEM petitioners.
They are impleaded in their capacity as representatives of the ❖ Common question of law or fact
conjugal partnership and not as independent debtors. Hence, ➢ Whether petitioners are negligent.
either of them can be sued for the whole amount, similar to that ❖ Joinder is not proscribed by the provisions of the Rule on
of a solidary liability. jurisdiction and venue
➢ 3rd requirement is applied.
SECTION 5: MINOR OR INCOMPETENT PERSONS
MEANING OF THE WORD INCOMPETENT HOW TO DETERMINE THE IDENTITY OF CAUSE
A person who, though of sound mind, but by reason of age, OF ACTION?
disease, weak mind, or other similar causes, are incapable of It must be ascertained whether the same evidence which is
taking care of themselves without outside aid (Section 2, Rule necessary to sustain the second cause of action would have
92 of the Rules of Court). been sufficient to authorize a recovery in the first.

GUARDIANS AD LITEM ARE CONSIDERED IMPORTANCE OF JOINDER OF PARTIES

OFFICERS OF THE COURT Avoids multiplicity of suits and ensures convenient, speedy,
The office of such guardian is to represent the interest of the and orderly administration of justice.
incompetent or the minor.
SECTION 7: COMPULSORY JOINDER OF
APPOINTING GUARDIAN AD LITEM 18 INDISPENSABLE PARTIES
The court has discretion to appoint guardian ad litem.
Appointment of guardian ad litem is designed to assist the court AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY IS ONE WHO MUST
in its determination of the incompetent’s best interest. BE INCLUDED IN AN ACTION BEFORE IT MAY
PROPERLY PROCEEDED
CAN A MINOR OR AN INCOMPETENT SUE OR BE Without the indispensable party, there cannot be a
SUED? determination between the parties already before the court,
Yes. With the assistance of their: which is effective, complete, or equitable.
❖ Father
❖ Mother
❖ Guardian
❖ Guardian ad litem

18A "guardian ad litem" is a person appointed by the court where the case is pending for a child 19 G.R. No. 140746, March 16, 2005
who is a victim of, accused of, or a witness to a crime to protect the best interests of the said
child (A.M. NO. 004-07-SC, November 21, 2000)
9|D E S L AT E , C .
F IRST YEAR LAW | DER ECHO DE PRIM ER AÑO | DESPERAT E T IMES CALL FOR DESPERAT E MEA SURES | MALO NODO, MALU S QUÆRENDUS CUNEU S
EL RESEÑANTE | CIVIL PROCEDURE | PORCEDIMIENTO CIVIL | REMIDIAL LAW | LEY REMEDIAL | MALO NODO, MALUS QUÆRENDUS CUNEUS
NOT ES BY CHURCHILL DESLATE

HEIRS OF FAUSTINO MESINA AND SENO V. MANGUBAT21

GENOVEVA S. MESINA, REP. BY Facts: That on sometime, the plaintiff and defendant
NORMAN MESINA V. HEIRS OF negotiated a mortgage over a subject parcel of land so the
DOMINGO FIAN, SR. REP. BY former can pay off a previous indebtedness. The defendant
THERESA FIAN YRAY, ET AL20 agreed and the plaintiff assured the latter that the said land will
Facts: Spouses Faustino and Genoveva Mesina, during their not be foreclosed. A deed of absolute sale was executed by
lifetime, brought two parcels of land on installment from Andres Evangelista and Bienvenido Magbuhat, transferring
Spouses Domingo Fian Sr. and Maria Fian. Upon the death of their share in the subject property in favor of the defendant.
spouses Fian, their heirs (whose name did not appear on the Thereafter, the plaintiff found and learned that the defendant
records) claimed ownership of the said lands. Spouses Mesina sold the subject property in favor of spouses Luzame and
denied that their late parents sold the land to spouses Fian. Penaflor, prompting the plaintiff to file a case against said
Spouses Fian refused to vacate the lots despite repeated spouses. Furthermore, said defendant spouses filed a motion
demands from the heirs of Mesina. Norman S. Mesina as the to implead22 Andres Evangelista and Bievenido Magbuhat as
attorney-in-fact of his co-heirs, filed an action for the quieting of defendant.
the title and damages before the Regional Trial Court. Issue: Whether or not defendants Andres Evangelista and
Theresa Fian Yray filed a Motion to Dismiss the case on the Bievenido Magbuhat are indispensable parties.
ground of no cause of action and for grossly violating Sections Ruling: NO. The defendant became the absolute owner of the
1 and 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, claiming that the heirs of subject property by virtue of the sale to him by Andres
Mesina cannot be considered a juridical person to file a civil Evangelista and Bievenido Magbuhat. Therefore, they are no
action, further stating as well that heirs of Fian, as defendants, rights of defendants Andres Evangelista and Bievenido
cannot be juridical person as well. Magbuhat to be safeguarded if the sale is an absolute sale or
The RTC granted the motion and dismissed the case. The if it is an equitable mortgage. Said defendants no longer have
appellees filed a motion for consideration but was denied by an interest in the subject property. However, their presence is
the Court of Appeals. necessary in order to settle all the possible issue.
Issue: Whether or not the complaint states no cause of action
on the ground of non-joinder of indispensable parties. SECTION 9: NON-JOINDER OF NECESSARY
Ruling: MERITORIOUS. FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF PARTIES
ACTION REFERS TO THE INSUFICIENCY OF THE
PLEADING. In the case at bar, the inclusion of Theresa’s co- NON-JOINDER OF NECESSARY PARTIES DOES
heirs does not fall under any of the essential elements of cause NOT RESULT IN THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE
of action. The infirmity is not failure to cause action but the Non-joinder of necessary parties shall not prevent the court
inclusion of indispensable parties. Non-joinder of indispensable from proceeding in the action, and the judgment rendered
parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action, the therein shall be without prejudice to the right of such necessary
remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be parties.
indispensable. PETITION IS GRANTED.
SECTION 10: UNWILLING CO-PLAINTIFF
SECTION 8: NECESSARY PARTY
UNWILLING CO-PLAINTIFF MAY BE MADE A
DISTINCTION BETWEEN SECTION 7 AND DEFENDANT, AND THE REASON THEREOF SHALL
SECTION 8 OF RULE 3 BE STATED IN THE COMPLAINT
Erika Mae S. Remollo, Rogybiv Lagne-Claudio, Quennie Marie
SECTION 7 SECTION 8 T. Quia, and Sairah M. Malic are sisters, their Nayshie,
Indispensable parties must Necessary parties must be Churchill Deslate left them a 1,000 sqm parcel of land. Erika
always be joined either as joined in order to adjudicate
Mae was able to transfer and to register the 500sqm of the said
plaintiffs or as defendants, the whole controversy and
for the court cannot proceed avoid multiplicity of suit. land in her name only. Rogybiv wants to reclaim the excess
without them. 250sqm, but Quennie Marie and Sairah does not want to file a
case against Erika Mae.
INDISPENSABLE PARTIES ➢ Rogybiv can implead Quennie and Sairah as defendants
Are those with such an interest in the controversy that a final for they are unwilling co-plaintiffs. However, Rogybiv must
decree would necessarily affect their rights. state the reason in her complaint why she impleaded
NECESSARY PARTIES Quennie Marie and Sairah as party-defendants.
Whose presence are necessary to adjudicate the whole
controversy, but whose rights are so far inseparable that a final
decree can be made in their absence without affecting them.

20 G.R. No. 201816, April 8, 2013 22 To bring into a lawsuit

21 G.R. No. L-44339, December 2, 1987
10 | D E S L A T E , C .
F IRST YEAR LAW | DER ECHO DE PRIM ER AÑO | DESPERAT E T IMES CALL FOR DESPERAT E MEA SURES | MALO NODO, MALU S QUÆRENDUS CUNEU S
EL RESEÑANTE | CIVIL PROCEDURE | PORCEDIMIENTO CIVIL | REMIDIAL LAW | LEY REMEDIAL | MALO NODO, MALUS QUÆRENDUS CUNEUS
NOT ES BY CHURCHILL DESLATE

SECTION 11: MISJOINDER AND NON-JOINDER OF SECTION 13: ALTERNATIVE DEFENDANTS

PARTIES HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY V.
MISJOINDER ANS NON-JOINDER OF PARTIES MANILA PORT SERVICE AND MANILA
RAILROAD COMPANY25
ARE NOT A GROUND FOR DISMISSAL
SS Hamburg Maru arrived at the Port of Manila and began
The rule prohibits dismissal of a suit on the ground for the
discharging its cargoes, including 1 drum Heliogen blue B
dismissal of the action.
powder, 4 bags tylose and 1 drum anti-skinning agent into the
custody of defendant Manila Port Service, the arrastre operator
HOW MAY MISJOINED PARTIES BE ADDED OR acting as a subsidiary of the Manila Railroad Company. The
DROPPED shipping documents were endorsed and transmitted to General
By order of the court on motion of any party or on its own Paint Corporation (Philippines) through Luzon, Brokerage
initiative at any state the action and on such terms as are Company, Inc. Manila Port Service failed to deliver the drum of
justified. anti-skinning agent.
As subrogee of the rights of the consignee, plaintiff filed a claim
SECTION 12: CLASS SUIT with the arrastre operator (breach of contract) for the amount
of thus paid, and upon failure to collect, sued in the alternative,
NECESSARY ELEMENTS FOR THE
the owner of the carrying vessel and its agents in the
MAINTAINANCE OF A CLASS SUIT Philippines, American Stream Agencies, Inc., on the other
❖ Subject matter or controversy is one of common or hand and the arrastre operator and its principal on the other,
general interest to many persons;
alleging that it was uncertain as to who was the party
❖ Parties affected are so numerous that it is impracticable responsible for the loss of the shipment in question.
to bring them all to court; and
❖ Parties bringing the class suit are sufficiently numerous SECTION 14: UNKNOWN IDENTITY OR NAME OF
or can fully protect the interest of all concerned.
DEFENDANT
REPRESENTATIVE SUIT AS DISTINGUISHED PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE
FROM CLASS SUIT CORPORATION V. EXPLORER
REPRESENTATIVE SUIT CLASS SUIT MARITIME CO., LTD26
There are multiple rights or One right of cause of action FACTS: The Petitioner, Philippine Charter Insurance
causes of actions pertaining or belonging in common to Corporation (PCIC), alleged that the identity of the defendant,
separately to several many persons not Wallen Philippines Shipping, Inc., is unknown since the latter
individuals separately or severally to was a foreign corporation whose identity and name or office
distinct individuals address were not disclosed to herein petitioner.
Avoids a cumbersome Obtain relief for or against The petitioner prayed for the trial court to order the respondent
procedure of brining all numerous persons as a to disclose its identity and whereabouts. The said
complainants to the court group or as an integral prayer/motion was not acted upon since it was filed in different
entity. court/branch.
All complainants must be All complainants may not The respondent filed for a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds
named in the complaint with be named with certainty that PCIC failed to prosecute its action for an unreasonable
certainty length of time, which the petitioner claimed that the reason for
its non-prosecution of the said case is due to the reason that
MATHAY V. THE CONSOLIDATED the court has not acted yet on its Motion to Disclose the identity
BANK AND TRUST COMPANY23 of the respondent.
An action does not become a class suit merely because it is The trial court dismissed the case for failure of petitioner to
designated as such in the pleadings. It depends upon the prosecute for an unreasonable length of time, which was
attending facts, and the complaint, or other pleading initiating affirmed by the Appellate Court.
the class action should allege the necessary facts, to wit the ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is correct in waiting for
existence of a subject matter of common interest, and the the trial court to issue an order that will direct defendant to
existence of a class and the number of persons in the alleged issued an order to disclose the unknown owner.
class. RULING: NO. The respondent had already been properly
impleaded pursuant to Section 14, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.
WHAT ARE THE PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF As all parties have been properly impleaded, the resolution of
A TAXPERY'S CALSS SUIT IN AN ENVIROMENTAL the Motion to Disclose was unnecessary. The Supreme
CASE? Court therefor hold that the RTC was correct in dismissing the
That the plaintiffs are all citizens of the Republic of the case for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute the same for an
Philippines, taxpayers, and entitled to all the full benefit, use unreasonable length of time.
and enjoyment of the natural resource treasure, that is, the Petition is DENIED.
country's virgin tropical forests24.

23 157 Phil. 551, 563-564 (1974) 25 G.R No. L-20976, January 23, 1967
24 Juan Antonio et al V. Fulgencio Factoran (G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993) 26 G.R. No. 175409, September 7, 2011
11 | D E S L A T E , C .
F IRST YEAR LAW | DER ECHO DE PRIM ER AÑO | DESPERAT E T IMES CALL FOR DESPERAT E MEA SURES | MALO NODO, MALU S QUÆRENDUS CUNEU S
EL RESEÑANTE | CIVIL PROCEDURE | PORCEDIMIENTO CIVIL | REMIDIAL LAW | LEY REMEDIAL | MALO NODO, MALUS QUÆRENDUS CUNEUS
NOT ES BY CHURCHILL DESLATE

SECTION 15: ENTITY WITHOUT JURIDICAL it appear that Ridgewood Estate Inc. and Camella Homes are
one and the same.
PERSONALITY AS DEFENDANT
WHAT SHOULD BE DONE IF ANSWERING ALLEN MACASAET ET AL V. FRANCISCO R. CO, JR.30
DEFENDANT DID NOT INCLUDE THE NAME AND FACTS:The respondent sued Abante Tonite, a daily tabloid of
THE ADDRESS OF THE OTHER PERSON general circulation, and among others for damages, claiming
that the latter published a libelous article on June 6, 2000.
COMPOSING THE ENTITY? Petitioners moved to dropp Abante Tonite as defendant by
The rule is silent. However, the trial court may issue an order,
virtue of not being a juridical person that could be impleaded
pursuant to Section 15, Rule 3 of the ROC to require the as a party in a civil action.
answering defendant to include the name and address of the
The RTC denied the Motion and held that Abante Tonite is not
person composing the entity. registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
➢ Defendant may not file his answer if already filed in court. Hence, it is deemed a corporation by estoppel cosnidering that
it possesses attributes of a juridical person. The CA affirmed
ALL PERSONS WHO ASSUME TO ACT AS A the decision of the RTC.
CORPORATION KNOWING IT TO BE WITHOUT ISSUE: Whether or not Abante Tonite can be impleaded as a
AUTHORITY TO DO SO party in the case considering that considering that it has no
Shall be liable as general partners of all debts, liabilities, and juridical personality.
damages incurred or arising as a result thereof xxx one who RULING: The contention that Abante Tonite could not be
assumes an obligation to an ostensible corporation as such, impleaded as a defendant due to its lack of juridical personality
cannot resist performance thereof on the ground that there was is WITHOUT MERRIT. Abante Tonite was categorized by the
in fact no corporation27. Court of Appeals as a CORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL as a
result of its having represented itself to the reading public as a
IF THE ANSWERING DEFENDANT REFUSES TO corporation despite its not being incorporated.
FOLLOW THE ORDER OF THE COURT
He can be held in CONTEMPT OF COURT28 for failure to AN ENTITY MUST HAVE THE LEGAL CAPACITY TO
follow the Order. SUE AN ACTION IN COURT
If a petitioner has no legal capacity, its representative/s who
RIDGE WOOD ESTATE V. EXPEDITO filed the petition is likewise devoid of legal personality to bring
BELAOS29 an action in court.
FACTS: Petitioner is a subdivision developer that sells
properties under the trade name “Camella Homes”. The LOCUS STANDI OR LEGAL STANDING
respondent, Expedito Belaos entered into a contract to sell with A personal and substantial interest in the case such that the
petitioner for the purchase of a house and lot at Tierra Nevada, party has sustained or will sustain a direct injury as a result of
Gen. Trias, Cavite. Respondent issued several post dated the governmental act that is being challenged.
checks in favor of the petitioner, as amortization for the said
property. However, petitioner failed to construct the said house SECTION 16: DEATH OF PARTY; DUTY OF
which prompted the respondent to rescind the contract to sell COUNSEL
and demanded the amount he paid as well as the postdated
checks. THE SPIRIT BEHIND THE GENERAL RULE OF
Respondent filed before the RTC Manila a complaint for REQUIRING A FORMAL SUBSTITUTION OF HEIRS
damages against Camella Homes for encashing the post dated Not because substitution of heirs is a jurisdictional requirement,
checks despite repeated demands to return the same. but because ono-compliance therewith results in the
The petitioner filed a motion to dismiss due to the fact that the undeniable violation of the right to due process.
complaint states no cause of action since the contract to sell
was entered into between Expedito L. Belaos and Ridgewood FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 16, RULE 3
Estate, Inc. The petitioner further argue that since Camella
OF THE RULES OF COURT RENDERS VIOD THE
Homes is not a natural or juridical person, it is not an entity
authorized by law to be a party to a civil suit.
DECISION
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner Ridgewood Estate Inc. can
use lack of juridical personality of Camella Homes. VDA. DE HABERER V. COURT OF
RULING: NO. The complaint itself referred to Ridgewood APPEALS31
Estate Inc. as the authorized representative of Camella Homes. When a party dies and no substitution has ever been effected,
Therefore, petitioner cannot use the lack of juridical capacity to the trial held by the court without such legal representatives or
Camella Homes as a reason to evade its liability to petitioner. heirs and judgment rendered after such trial are NULL AND
Petitioner used Camella Homes as its business name, making VOID because the COURT ACQUIRED NO JURISDICTION
over the persons of the legal representatives or the heirs xxx.
No valid substitution had been effected sine there had been no:

27Section 21 of the Corporation Code to do an act or duty which it refuses to perform. Harbour Centre Port Terminal, Inc., V. La Filipina
28Civil contempt is committed when a party fails to comply with an order of a court or judge "for Uygongco Corp. And Philippine Foremost Milling Corp (G.R. No. 240984, September 27, 2021).
the benefit of the other party.” Xxx This stems from the two (2)-fold aspect of contempt which 29 G.R. No. 166751, June 8, 2006

seeks: (i) to punish the party for disrespecting the court or its orders; and (ii) to compel the party 30 G.R. NO. 156759, JUNE 5, 2013
31 G.R. Nos. L-42699, May 26, 1981, 104 SCRA 534, November 29, 2006

12 | D E S L A T E , C .
F IRST YEAR LAW | DER ECHO DE PRIM ER AÑO | DESPERAT E T IMES CALL FOR DESPERAT E MEA SURES | MALO NODO, MALU S QUÆRENDUS CUNEU S
EL RESEÑANTE | CIVIL PROCEDURE | PORCEDIMIENTO CIVIL | REMIDIAL LAW | LEY REMEDIAL | MALO NODO, MALUS QUÆRENDUS CUNEUS
NOT ES BY CHURCHILL DESLATE

➢ Court order for the legal representatives of the deceased SECTION 18: INCOMPETENCE OR INCAPACITY
to appear;
➢ Legal representatives appeared in court to be substituted WHY IS THERE A NEED TO FILE A MOTION AND
for the deceased; THE COURT CANNOT ACT MOTU PROPRIO?
➢ Neither had the complainant ever procured the The said party is the one who knows the condition or situation
appointment of such legal representative of the deceased; of a party. The motion must be with notice to the other party.
➢ Neither Appellant ever asked to be substituted for the WHO MAY ASSIT THE INCOMPETENT OR THE
deceased. INCAPACITATED?
His/her legal guardian or guardian ad litem
SECTION 17: DEATH OR SEPARATION OF A PARTY
WHO IS A PUBLIC OFFICER LEGAL GUARDIAN
A person appointed by the incapacitated or incompetent
person, but the appointment must be done prior to his being
MAYOR RHUSTOM L. DAGADAG V.
incapacitated, otherwise such appointment be null and void for
MICHAEL C. TONGNAWA AND
lack of knowledge, consent, or free will.
ANTONIO GAMMOD32
FACTS: The petitioner sent a memorandum ordering the
respondents to explain within 72 hours shy they should not be LEGAL GUARDIAN/S OF INCAPACITATED
administratively sanctioned for acts unbecoming of a public PERSON AND PROPERTY OF AN
servants and failure to perform their duties. After investigation, UNEMANCIPATED CHILD, BY OPERATION OF LAW
the respondents were found liable for insubordination, non- The mother and father. Without necessity of a court
performance of duties, and Absence without Official Leaves appointment.
(AWOL), prompting the petitioner to issue an order to suspend
the respondents. The petitioners appealed to the Civil Service GUARDIAN AD LITEM
Commission contending that their right to due process has A person appointed by the court where the case is pending for
been violated. The CSC affirmed the petitioner’s order of an incapacitated person or unemancipated
suspending the respondents. When the respondents motioned
for reconsideration, the CSC denied the said motion, prompting NILO OROPESA V. CIRILO OROPESA33
the respondents to file to the Court of Appeals a petition for FACTS: A certain Ms. Louie Ginez, herein petitioner, petitioned
review. before the RTC seeking appointment over the property of his
The CA granted the respondents petition and reverse the father, herein respondent. In the petition, petitioner alleged that
CSC’s decision. respondent has been afflicted with several maladies and has
The petitioner filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking been sickly for over 10 years, making his judgment and
to reverse the decision of the CA, however, the petitioner is no memory impaired, which manifested even before his stroke on
longer a mayor at the time he filed the petition. April 1, 2003 and June 1 of the same year.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner has lost his legal On July 6, 2004, respondent filed his Opposition to the Petition
personality to interpose the instant petition. for Guardianship, and, the court a quo dismissed the Petition.
RULLING: YES. PETITIONER LOST HIS LEGAL The petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, but
PERSONALITY. Pursuant to Section 17, Rule 3 of the 1997 was likewise dismissed.
Rules of Court, the SC held that where the petitioner (a public ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent is considered an
officer) ceases to be a mayor, the appeal and/or action initiated incompetent person as defined under section 2, Rule 3, of the
by him may be continued and maintained by his successor id Rules of Court.
there is substantial need to do so. Records show that upon RULING: NO. The court noted the absence of any testimony of
petitoner’s cessation from public office, his successor did not a medical expert which states that the respondent does not
file any manifestation to the effect that he is continuing and have mental, emotional, and physical capacity to manage his
maintaining this appeal. PETITION DENIED. own affairs. In a Neuropsychological Screening presented by
➢ Aguinaldo doctrine (condonation doctrine) the respondent, it was shown therewith that the respondent
Changes in administration should not be a ground to performs on the average rage in the most of the domains that
evade prosecution and/or evade liabilities committed by were tested. Furthermore, the respondent is also capable of
the erring public employee/s and official/s. mental calculations and can provide solutions to problem
➢ Hence, such doctrine was already set by the situations. PETITION IS HEREBY DENIED.
Supreme Court in its ruling in the case of Makati
Mayor Erwin “Junjun” Binay Jr., wherefore, base on
the aforementioned case, the ruling in the case of
Mayor Rhustom L. Dagadag shall likewise be
overturned.

32 G.R. Nos. 161166-67, February 3, 2025, En banc 33 G.R. No. 184528, April 25, 2012
13 | D E S L A T E , C .
F IRST YEAR LAW | DER ECHO DE PRIM ER AÑO | DESPERAT E T IMES CALL FOR DESPERAT E MEA SURES | MALO NODO, MALU S QUÆRENDUS CUNEU S
EL RESEÑANTE | CIVIL PROCEDURE | PORCEDIMIENTO CIVIL | REMIDIAL LAW | LEY REMEDIAL | MALO NODO, MALUS QUÆRENDUS CUNEUS
NOT ES BY CHURCHILL DESLATE

SECTION 19: TRANSFER OF INTEREST SECTION 20: ACTION AND CONTRACTUAL MONEY
DISTINCTION BETWEEN INTERVENOR (SEC. 1, CLAIMS
RULE 19) AND A TRANSFEREE PENDENTE LILTE ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE:
(SEC. 19, RULE 3) Erika Mae borrowed Php 25,573,290, 483.00 from Sairah.
Erika Mae executed a promissory note. Erika Mae did not pay
INTERVENOR TRANSFEREE PENDENTE LITE her loan. Sairah filed a case of sum of money against Erika
Enable a stranger to an action The purpose of Sec. 19, Rule 3 is Mae. The Trial Court rendered its decision against Erika Mae.
to become a party to protect to provide substitution of the After Erika Mae read the decision (which is not yet final and
his interest, and the court to transferee pendente lite precisely executory), she pulled a pink blinged out clock 9mm pistol from
settle all conflicting claims. because his is not a stranger but a her clutch purse, shot herself in the head, and died very
successor-in-interest of the demure, very mindful, and very cutesy.
transferor, who is a party to the ➢ Pursuant to Section 20, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
action. Procedure, as Amended, the case shall not be dismissed
Cannot just disregard Sec. 20 Has the option to avail Sec. 20, but shall instead be allowed to continue until entry of final
of Rule 3 but opt to participate Rule 3 or Sec. 2, Rule 12. judgment.
as an intervenor when it is
more convenient for it to do so. WHAT HAPPENS IF THE DECISION AGAINST THE
Stands in the same position as its DECEASED DEFENDANT BECOMES FINAL AND
predecessor-in-interest. However, EXECUTORY?
he/she must choose to participate The claim or the judgment shall be filed in the probate court,
in the proceedings, it can only do and the said judgment shall be the basis of the money claim
so as a substituted defendant or against the estate.
as a joint party defendant. He/she ❖ Requirements:
is a proper party and not an ➢ Certificate of entry of final judgment
indispensable party.
WHAT IF THE DECISION IS STILL UNDER REVIEW
SANTIAGO LAND DEVELOPMENT BY THE APPELLATE COURT
CORPORATION V. HEIRS OF It shall not be dismissed but shall instead be allowed to
NORBERTO QUISUMBING34 continue until entry of final judgment.
FACTS: The respondent brought an action against PNB to IF THE SAID DECISION IS STILL UNDER REVIEW
enforce an allege right to redeem certain real properties
foreclosed by the said bank.
BY THE APPELLATE COURT, CAN THE PLAINTIFF
On December 11, 1989, petitioner filed a Motion to intervene, GO TO THE PROBATE COURT TO FILE HIS CLAIM
alleging that it was the transferee pendente lite of the property AGAINST THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED-
and that any adverse ruling or decision which might be DEFENDANT?
rendered against PNB would necessarily affect the petitioner. No. The plaintiff must wait for the decision to be final and
The Motion was granted by the Trial Court, however, the Court executory.
of Appeals reversed the Order of the said court.
ISSUE: Whether petitioner, as transferee pendente lite of the WHAT IS FINAL JUDGMENT?
property in litigation has a right to intervene. One that finally disposes of a case, leaving nothing more to be
RULING: NO. Since petitioner is a transferee pendente lite with done by the court in respect thereto.
notice of the pending litigation between respondent and PNB, ➢ Nothing more remains to be done by the court except to
petitioner stands exactly in the shoes of defendant PNB and is await the parties’ next move and ultimately to cause the
bound by any judgment or decree which may be rendered for execution of the judgment once it becomes final and
or against PNB. executory.
Moreover, transferee pendente lite simply takes the place of
the transferor, hence, is bared from presenting a new or IF HUSBAND AND WIFE BOUND THEMSELVES
different claim. JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, IN CASE OD
➢ Under Sec. 19, Rule 3, the action may be continued HUSBAND’S DEATH, WIFE MAY BE SUED FOR THE
against PNB, the original defendant. It was not essential WHOLE DEBT
that the transferee be substituted and the latter insisted on Her liability is independent of and separate from her husband;
such substitution. The trial court could have directed that she may be sued for the whole debt, and it would be error to
petitioner be instituted as party-defendant or joined with hold that the claim against her as well as the claim against her
the defendant. husband should be made in the decedent’s estate35. Therefore,
the contention that the remaining defendants cannot avoid the
action by claiming that the death of one of the parties to the
contract has totally extinguished their obligation is without
merit.

34 G.R. No. 106194, January 28, 1997 35Agcaoili v. Cda. De Agcaoili, 90 Phil. 97; cited in the case of Purita Alipio v. Court of Appeals,
G.R No. 134100, September 29, 2000
14 | D E S L A T E , C .
F IRST YEAR LAW | DER ECHO DE PRIM ER AÑO | DESPERAT E T IMES CALL FOR DESPERAT E MEA SURES | MALO NODO, MALU S QUÆRENDUS CUNEU S
EL RESEÑANTE | CIVIL PROCEDURE | PORCEDIMIENTO CIVIL | REMIDIAL LAW | LEY REMEDIAL | MALO NODO, MALUS QUÆRENDUS CUNEUS
NOT ES BY CHURCHILL DESLATE

THE TEST TO DETERMINE WHETHER ACTION Petitioner filed an Ex-Parte Motion to Litigate as Indigent
SRUVIVES OR NOT (BONILLA V. BARCENA 36) Litigants, to which petitioners showed a gross monthly income
It depends on the nature of the action and not on the object or of Php 10,474.00 and a net pay of Php 3,616.99 for the month
kind of property sought to be recovered. of July 1999.
❖ CAUSE OF ACTION SURVIVES: the wrong complained In its response, the respondent filed a Motion to Disqualify the
affects primarily and principally the property and property petitioners for Non-payment of fees, asserting in addition to
rights, the injuries to the person being merely incidental. more than Php 3,000.00 net income of petitioner Antonio
❖ CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH DO NOT SURVIVE: The Algura, who is a member of the Philippine National Police, his
injury complained of is to the person, the property and spouse had a mini store as well as a computer shop on the
rights of property effected by being incidental. ground floor of their residence, which was patronized by
students and their boarders. Hence, respondent concluded that
SECTION 21: INDIGENT PARTY the petitioners were not indigent litigants. The RTC ruled in
favor of the respondents and ordered to disqualify the
INDIGENT PARTY petitioners as indigent litigants on the ground that they failed to
A party who has no money or property sufficient and available substantiate their claim for exception from payment of legal
for food, shelter, and basic necessities for himself and his fees and complying with the 3rd paragraph of Rule 114, Section
family. 18 of the Revised Rules of Court.
ISSUE: Whether petitioners should be considered as indigent
WHAT IS THE EFFECT IF A PARTY IS CONSIDERED litigants qualified for exemption from paying filing fees.
AN INDIGENT PARTY BY THE COURT? RULING: The petition of the respondents is MERITORIOUS.
Such party shall be expected from payment of docket and other In the payslip of petitioner Antonio F. Algura shows that a gross
lawful fees, and transcript of stenographic notes which the monthly income of Php 10,474.00, and a certification of Naga
court may order to be furnished him. City Assessor reveals that petitioner do not have property
➢ Shall be a lien 37 on any judgment rendered in favor of the declared in their name for taxation, and so the property
indigent, unless the court otherwise provides. requirement is met. However, with respect to their income, it is
clear that the gross monthly income of Php 10,474.00 of
MAY THE INDIGENT PARTY WHO WINS petitioner and Php 3,000.00 income of Lorencita Algura when
THEREAFTER IN THE CASE BE CHARGED FOR combined, were above Php 1,500.00 monthly income threshold
THE PAYMENT OF A FILING FEE? prescribed by then Rule 141, Section 16 of ROC, and therefore,
Yes. However, the court may still exempt the party from paying income requirement was not satisfied.
the filing fee although he won in his case (as explained in the
previous question above).
SECTION 22: NOTICE OF THE SOLICITOR
GENERAL
MAY THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT IN A WHEN IS NOTICE TO THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
VIOLATION OF BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG 22 REQUIRED?
(BOUNCING CHECK LAW) BE REPRESENTED BY In any action involving the validity of any:
A PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (FICAL) IN A TRIAL? ❖ Law;
No. Unless the private complainant is declared an indigent ❖ Treaty;
party by the court. ❖ Ordinance;
❖ Presidential decree;
PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE IS DISQUALIFIED ❖ Rules or regulations; and
TO REPRESENT AN ACCUSED WHO CAN AFFORD ❖ Executive order.
A PRIVATE COUNSEL
In a Memorandum from the Department of Justice, PAO is NOWHERE IN SEC. 22, RULE 3 OF ROC STATED
disqualified to represent an accused who can afford a private THAT FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE SOLICITOR
counsel. GENERAL ABOUT THE ACTION IS A
JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT
SPOUSES ANTONIO F. ALGURA AND
LORENCITA S.J. ALGURA V. THE LUCENA GRAND CENTRAL
LOCAL GOVERNMENT OF NAGA38 TERMINAL, INC. V. JAC LINER, INC.39
FACTS: The petitioners filed a Verified Complaint for damages FACTS: The petitioner argues that the Trial Court never
against herein respondent for the alleged illegal demolition of acquired jurisdiction over the case since the Trial Court failed
their resident and boarding house and for payment of loss of to serve a copy to the Office of the Solicitor General. The
income derived from rentals paid by their boarder amounting to petitioner cited Section 22, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court,
Php 7,000.00 monthly. emphasizing that the court in its discretion, may required the
appearance of the Solicitor General. Furthermore, the

3671 SCRA 491 payment of some debt or obligation (People v. Regional Trial Court of Manila, 258-A Phil. 68, 76
37A lien is a charge on property usually for the payment of some debt or obligation. A lien is a [1989] cited from Dimayuga Law Offices V. Titan-Ikeda Construction and Development
qualified right or a proprietary interest, which may be exercised over the property of another. It is Corporation, [G.R. No. 247724, September 23, 2020]).
a right which the law gives in order for a debt to be satisfied out of a particular thing. It signifies a 38 G.R. No. 150135, October 30, 2006

legal claim or charge on property, either real or personal, as a collateral or security for the 39 G.R. No. 148339, February 23, 2000, en banc

15 | D E S L A T E , C .
F IRST YEAR LAW | DER ECHO DE PRIM ER AÑO | DESPERAT E T IMES CALL FOR DESPERAT E MEA SURES | MALO NODO, MALU S QUÆRENDUS CUNEU S
EL RESEÑANTE | CIVIL PROCEDURE | PORCEDIMIENTO CIVIL | REMIDIAL LAW | LEY REMEDIAL | MALO NODO, MALUS QUÆRENDUS CUNEUS
NOT ES BY CHURCHILL DESLATE

petitioner also cited Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 63, putting THE REAL PROPERTY IS SITUATED. In OTHER ACTION
emphasis on: “the Solicitor General shall be notified by the (PERSONAL ACTIONS) whether the PLAINTIFF OR
party assailing the same.” And that “in any local government, if DEFENDANT RESIDES.
such ordinance is alleged to be unconstitutional, the Solicitor The Court held that what determines the venue of the case is
General shall also be notified and entitled to be heard”. the primary objective for the filing of the case. In his complaint,
ISSUE: Whether the court has jurisdiction over the case, it not petitioner sought the return of the portion of the subject
having furnished the Office of the Solicitor General copy of the property or its venue on the basis of his co-ownership thereof.
orders it issued therein. Clearly, petitoner's claim where the property lies, which in this
RULING: THE TRIAL COURT HAS JURISDICTION. Nowhere case, is the RTC of Morong, Rizal.
it is stated in Section 22, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court that failure ➢ Atty. Samson’s Attorney's fee in the form of land goes
to notify the Solicitor General about the action is a jurisdictional back to his clients after the latter executed their right of
defect. Rule 3, Section 22 gives the courts in any action legal redemption, because Atty. Samson and the
involving the “validity” of any ordinance, intere alia, “discretion spouses-clients are co-owners of the real property, and
to notify the Solicitor General. Also, the Court held that there is the law allows the co-owners to exercise their right of legal
no procedural defect, since herein respondent actually served redemption.
a copy of its petition upon the Office of the Solicitor General on
October 1, 1998, two days it was filed. SECTION 2: VENUE OF PERSONAL ACTIONS

RULES 4: VENUE OF ACTIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF VENUE, THE LESS

TECHINCAL DEFINITION OF RESIDENCE IS
SECTION 1: VENUE OF REAL ACTIONS ADOPTED
It is understood to mean as the “personal, actual, or physical;
EMILIANO S. SAMSON V. SPS. JOSE habitation of a person, actual residence or place of abode. It
AND GUILLERMINA GABOR, TANAY signifies physical presence in a place and actual stay thereat,
RURAL BANK, INC. AND REGISTER OF not legal residence or domicile. Residence is not domicile, but
DEEDS OF MORONG, RIZAL40 domicile is residence coupled with the intention to remain for
FACTS: On November 14, 1985, the spouses Gabor executed an unlimited time.
a Deed of Assignment transfering Php 20,631 sqm undivided
portion of the aforementioned parcel of land in favor of SUPREME COURT RULED THAT AN ACTION FOR
petitioner Emiliano S. Samson as Attorney’s fee. On October THE CENCELLATION OF A REAL ESTATE
22, 1987, petitioner executed a Deed of Assignment MORTGAGE IS A PERSONAL ACTION IF THE
transferring the same undivided portion on favor of Ms.
MORTGAGE HAS NOTFORECLOSED THE
Remedios P. Ramos. Upon learning of the sale, respondent
spouses filed an action for legal redemption with the RTC of MORTGAGE AND THE MORTGAGOR IS IN
Tanay, Rizal. The RTC dismissed the suit for legal redemption. POSESSION OF THE PREMISES
On appeal, the CA reversed the decision of the RTC and
upheld the spouses Gabor's right of legal redemption. ANTONIO T. CHUA V. TOTAL OFFICE
During the pendency of the case, petitioner filed an action for PRODUCTS AND SERVICES
Partition of Real Property and Damages against respondent (TOPROS)41
spouses on the ground that the finality of the case pending in FACTS: The TOPROS (defendant), represented by its
the CA effectively barred the action for partition. president Chang Jr., sought an annulment of contract of loan
On April 4, 2006, petitioner filed a complaint before the Pasig and real estate mortgage against Antonio Chua (petitioner).
RTC for Recovery of Property on its Value against the The said contract sought to be annulled allegedly extended by
respondent spouses, Tanay Rural Bank, Inc, and the Register petitioner to defendant in the amount of Php10,400,000.00 and
of Deeds of Morong, Rizal, claiming the petitioner had been the said real estate mortgage contract covering 2 parcels of
paying his one-third share of realty taxes covering the subject land. Defendant alleged that the said contract of loan and real
portion of land for the year 2003 to 2004. The RTC dismissed estate mortgage contract are fictitious, since it never
the complaint on the grounds of improper venue, res judicata, authorized anybody to enter said transaction. Petitioner filed a
and that the complaint states no cause of action. Petitioner filed motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue as it should
an appeal to the CA, but the latter likewise dismissed the same be filed in the RTC of Quezon City where the real properties
for having been improperly brought before it. are located instead of Pasig City where the parties reside. The
ISSUE: Whether or not the complaint for the Recovery of court denied the said motion because annulment of loan and
Property is filed with the wrong venue. mortgage contracts are personal action, and thus the venue
RULING: YES. THE CASE WAS FILED WITH WRONG where the suit is filed is correct. The Court of Appeals affirmed
VENUE. The same should be filed in the RTC of Morong, Rizal, the said decision.
whether the subject of this case is situated. In the case of ISSUE: Whether or not an action to annul a loan and mortgage
Latorre v. Latorre, REAL ACTION or actions affecting title to or contract alleged to be fictitious for having no consideration is a
possession of real property or an interest therein shall be personal action.
commenced and tried in the PROPER COURT THAT HAS RULING: Yes. The court cited the case of Hernandez v. Bank
TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER THE AREA WHERE of Lucena, Inc., No. L-29791, January 10, 1978, 81 SCRA 75

40 G.R. No. 182970, July 23, 2014 41 G.R. No. 152808, September 30, 2005
16 | D E S L A T E , C .
F IRST YEAR LAW | DER ECHO DE PRIM ER AÑO | DESPERAT E T IMES CALL FOR DESPERAT E MEA SURES | MALO NODO, MALU S QUÆRENDUS CUNEU S
EL RESEÑANTE | CIVIL PROCEDURE | PORCEDIMIENTO CIVIL | REMIDIAL LAW | LEY REMEDIAL | MALO NODO, MALUS QUÆRENDUS CUNEUS
NOT ES BY CHURCHILL DESLATE

that cancelation of the mortgage over their lot is a real action

affecting the title to real property, which should have been filed
in the place where the mortgaged lots were situated, citing
section 2, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court. In the present case, the
action for annulment of a real estate mortgaged, section 2, Rule
4 of the Rules of Court likewise applies. Therefore, the court
affirmed the decision of the lower and appellate court that RTC
of Pasig City is the proper venue.

THE CAUSE OF ACTION, UPON WHICH THE

PROCEEDING IN MANDAMUS IS BASED, IS
PERSONAL

FENANDO GUEVARRA AND MARCOS

GUEVARRA V. HON. VICENTE DEL
ROSARIO, ET AL42
FACTS: A crime of falsification of public documents were
charged against Calaug, Fiscal Tayabas, Javier, Mayor
Tayabas, Buendia, Saraiaya, and others. The petitioners for a
writ of mandamus compelled the lower court to conduct a
preliminary investigation upon a complaint filed against the said
persons. When the petitioners died, their heirs prayed to be
allowed to substitute the petitioners in the case at bar.
ISSUE: Whether or not upon the death of the petitioners, the
action brought in this proceeding survived to their heirs or legal
representatives.
RULING: No. The right of the petitioners to filed a complaint
charging the commission of a crime is personal. Pursuant to
Section 2, Rule 106, charging a person with an offense must
be subscribed by the offended party. The cause of action upon
which this proceedings in mandamus is based is personal. The
cause of action in this proceeding did not survive to the heirs
or legal representatives of the late petitioners because the
complaint filed by the petitioners with the respondent court from
which the cause of action in this proceeding arose abated upon
the death of said petitioners. MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION
IS DENIED.

42 G.R. No. L-49252, November 13, 1946, En banc

17 | D E S L A T E , C .
F IRST YEAR LAW | DER ECHO DE PRIM ER AÑO | DESPERAT E T IMES CALL FOR DESPERAT E MEA SURES | MALO NODO, MALU S QUÆRENDUS CUNEU S
EL RESEÑANTE | CIVIL PROCEDURE | PORCEDIMIENTO CIVIL | REMIDIAL LAW | LEY REMEDIAL | MALO NODO, MALUS QUÆRENDUS CUNEUS
NOT ES BY CHURCHILL DESLATE

18 | D E S L A T E , C .
F IRST YEAR LAW | DER ECHO DE PRIM ER AÑO | DESPERAT E T IMES CALL FOR DESPERAT E MEA SURES | MALO NODO, MALU S QUÆRENDUS CUNEU S
EL RESEÑANTE | CIVIL PROCEDURE | PORCEDIMIENTO CIVIL | REMIDIAL LAW | LEY REMEDIAL | MALO NODO, MALUS QUÆRENDUS CUNEUS
NOT ES BY CHURCHILL DESLATE

19 | D E S L A T E , C .
F IRST YEAR LAW | DER ECHO DE PRIM ER AÑO | DESPERAT E T IMES CALL FOR DESPERAT E MEA SURES | MALO NODO, MALU S QUÆRENDUS CUNEU S