Civil Procedure

PAGE 2

Notes and CasesIn Civil Procedure

(A review material)By: Fernando P. Cabato

Retired RTC Judge and Guest

Lecturer, College of Law

Saint Louis UniversityApplication of the Rules of CourtGeneral Provisions(Rule 1)Q. Are the Rules of Procedure mandatory?

A. Yes. The rules of procedure are mandatory, except only when, for the most persuasive of reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate to the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying therewith. Limpot v. Court of Appeals, 170 SCRA 367 [1989] Q. How should the Rules of Procedure be construed or interpreted? A. The Rules of Court should be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. (Section 6, Rule 1, Rules of Court; Delgado v. Court of Appeals, 467 SCRA 418 [2005]; Lustana v.Jimena-Lazo,457 SCRA 429 [2005];California Bus Lines, Inc. Court of Appeals,, 562 SCRA 403 [2008])

Notes and Cases

Technical rules of procedure are not designed to frustrate the ends of justice. They are provided to effect the proper and orderly disposition of cases and effectively prevent clogging of court dockets. (Vibar International Construction, Inc. v. FEB Leasing and Finance Corporation, 456 SCRA 588 [2005]) The Rules of Procedure are not intended to hamper litigants or complicate litigation.. Rather, The Rules provide a vital system of justice where suitors may be heard following judicial procedure and in the correct forum. (Audi AG v. Mejia, 528 SCRA 378 [2007] En Banc; Purefoods Corporation v. Nakakaisang Samahang Mangagagawa ng Purefoods Rank and File, 563 SCRA 471 [2008] ); Valino v. Vergara, 581 SCRA 454 [2009]).

Q. How should the rules of procedure be treated?

A. Procedural rules should not be belittled or be disregarded..(Enriquez v. BPI, 544 SCRA 590 [2008]) ] They are prescribed to insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. (Enriquez v. BPI, 544 SCRA 590 [2008]) Like all rules, their application is necessary save for the most persuasive of reasons, strict compliance with procedural requirements must be observed.(Metro Drug Distribution, Inc. v. Narciso, 495 SCRA 286 [2006])

Case: :Deceased Spouses Vicente S. Arcilla and Josefa Asuncion Arcilla v. Teodoro, 561 SCRA 545 [2008] Litigation is not merely a game of technicalities. Rules of procedure should be viewed as tools aimed at facilitating the attainment of justice, rather than its frustration. Where there is substantial compliance, a liberal interpretation of procedural rules is more in keeping with the constitutional mandate to secure justice

Case: Limpot v. Court of Appeals, 170 SCRA 367 [1989] Rules of procedure are intended to ensure the orderly administration of justice and the protection of substantive rights in judicial or extrajudicial proceedings. Substantive land and adjective law are not contradictory \ to each other.. The policy is to give effect to both kinds of law, as complementing each other, in the just and speedy resolution of disputes between litigants. Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a partys substantial rights. Like all rules, they are require3d to be followed except only when for the must persuasive of reasons they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed. .

Q. How should the rules of procedure be cited?

A. It is cited as the Rules of Court. (Section 1, Rule 1, Rules of Court) Alhough the Rules of Court has been on occasions modified or amended, it is cited as The Rules of Court. Q. How are the procedural rules applied? . A. As a rule, procedural rules are applied prospectively.. However, they may be given retroactive effect when its application will not do injustice to the affected party. Conversely, giving retroactive effect may not be done if it will work injustice to the affected party. A litigant cannot selectively apply one set of rules favorable to him and another when the one chosen works against him.. (Queensland Tokyo Commodities, Inc. v. Matsuda, 512 SCRA 276 [2007]) Case:Real v. Belo, 513 SCRA 111 [2007] The steadfast guide of judicial action is that a party litigant be accorded the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his action or defense rather than for him to lose life, honor or property on mere technicalities. (Real v. Belo, 513 SCRA 111 [2007] Case: Springfield Development Corporation , Inc. v. Presiding Judge, RTC, Bran 40, Misamis Oriental, 514 SCRA 326 [2007] Judicial policy is that cases should be determined on the merits, after full opportunity to all parties for ventilation of their causes and defenses, rather than on technicality or some procedural imperfections.Case: Serrano Galant Maritime Services, Inc. 408 SCRA 523 [2003]) The ends of justice is better served if it is determined on the merits, after full opportunity is given to all parties for ventilation of their causes and defenses, rather than on technicality or some procedural imperfections. It is far better to dispose of the case on the merits, which is a primordial end, rather than a technicality that may result in injustice. Case: . Vette Industrial Sales Co., Inc. Cheng, 509 SCRA 532 [2006] While it is desirable that the Rules of Court be faithfully observed, courts should not be too strict with procedural lapses that do not really impair the proper administration of justice. The rules are intended to ensure the proper and orderly conduct of litigation because of the higher objective they seek, which is the

Q. May the Rules of Procedure be disregarded in the guise of liberal construction? Explain.

A. No. The Rules of Procedure exist for a noble purpose. To disregard such rules, in the guise of liberal construction, would be to defeat such purpose. They are not to be disdained as mere technicalities, and may not be ignored to suit the convenience of a party. They ensure the effective enforcement of substantive rights through the orderly and speedy administration of justice. .(Audi AG v. Mejia, 528 SCRA 378[2007]; Valino v. Vergara, 581 SCRA 454 [2009]).Notes and Cases .An utter disregard of the Rules, however, cannot justly be rationalized by harping on the policy of liberal construction (Torres v. Abundo, 512 SCRA 556 [2007] nor the rules of procedure be misused and abused as instruments for the denial of substantial justice. (Tanhu v. Ramolete, 66 SCRA 425 [1975];Anson Trade Center, Inc. v. Pacific Bank Corporation, 581 SCRA 751 [2009]} Case: Alonso v. Villamor, 16 Phil. 315 [1910) Litigation is not a game of technicality, in which one more deeply schooled and skilled in the subtle art of movement and position entraps and destroys the other. It is rather a contest in which each contending party fully and failure lays before the court the facts in issue and then, brushing aide as wholly trivial and indecisive all imperfection of forms and technicalities of procedure, asks that justice to be won upon the merits. Technically, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chide enemy deserves scant consideration from courts. (See: Anson Trader Center, Inc. et al., v. Pacific Banking Corporation, 581 SCRA 751 [2009]Dismissal of an appeal on pure technical grounds not favored.Case: Heirs of Victoriana Villagracia v. Equitable Banking Corporation, 550 SCRA 60 [2008] This case is for the recovery ownership and possession of four parcels, annulment of affidavit and damages on the ground of forgery and bad faith on the part of the mortgagees. After trial, the RTC rendered its decision dismissing the complaint. The Heirs of Villagracia appealed to the CA which affirmed the decision of the RTC. The heirs of Villagracia, now petitioners, filed their appellants brief out of time, hence, the CA dismissed their appeal. After a motion for reconsideration was denied, the Heirs of Villagracia, Petitioners, filed the present petition for review on certiorari. Issue: Whether or not the dismissal of the appeal on purely technical grounds was valid. Held: No. The dismissal of the appeal was not proper. Dismissal of appeals on purely technical grounds is not encouraged. The rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid and technical sense, for they have been adopted to help secure, not override, substantial justice. (Remulta v. Manlongat, 422 SCRA 226 [2004] As held in Republic v. Imperial, 303 SCRA 127 [1999],the filing of the appellants brief on appeal is not a jurisdictional requirement. But an appeal may be dismissed by the CA on grounds enumerated under Rule 50 of the Rules of Court. The court has the power to relax or suspend the rules or to except a case from their operation when compelling reasons so warrant, or when the purpose of justice requires it. What constitutes good and sufficient cause that will merit suspension of the rules is discretionary upon the court. Adjudication: The petition was granted, the resolutions of the CA were set aside, petitioners appeal was reinstated and case was remanded to the CA for further proceedings.

Notes and Cases

But while it is true that procedural rules are to be construed liberally, rules prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done, or certain proceedings taken, must be construed strictly to prevent needless delays, and to the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business. Such compliance with such rules is mandatory and imperative. (Philippine Coconut Authority v. Garrido, 374 SCRA 154 [2002];Motorola Philippines, Inc. Ambricio, 582 SCRA 502 [2009]

Case: Alvero v. De la Rosa, 76 Phil. 428 [1946] Although the rule is that the Rules of Court should be liberally construed, however, their strict observance which has been considered indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and to he orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business, is an imperative necessity. The rules prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done or certain proceedings taken, are considered absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and to the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business and therefore must be strictly complaint with. Case: Ponciano Jr., v. Laguna Lake Development Authority, 570 SCRA 207 [2008] In a civil case, a judgment wax rendered. The aggrieved party appealed from said decision. Counsel for the appellant received a copy of the judgment rendered by the CA on 28 February 2006 and filed a motion for reconsideration on March 16, 2006. Issue: Whether or not the motion for reconsideration was filed on time> Held: No, it was filed one (1) day late. Section 1, Rule 52 requires that an aggrieved party may file a motion for reconsideration of the judgment or resolution within fifteen (15)days from notice. The counsel received the judgment of the CA on 28 February 2006 and thus he has until 15 March 2006 to file his motion for reconsideration. But counsel filed the motion on 16 March 2006,or a day after the expiration of the fifteen (15) days. This period fixed is non-extendible.

(Note: If the trial court is satisfied with the reason why the appeal was one day late, it trial court may in the exercise of its discretion, and in the interest of substantial judtice, may allow the appeal to have been perfected)Case: Hon. Fortich v. Hon. Corona, 298 SCRA 678 [l998] In that case, the Court made an observation that there has been some instances wherein this Court allowed a relaxation in the application of the rules, but this flexibility was never intended to forge a bastion for erring litigants to vioate the rules with impunity. A liberal interpretation and application of the rules of procedure can be resorted to only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances. Case: Anson Trade Center, Inc. v. Pacific Banking Corporation, 581 SCRA 751 [2009] Anson Trade Center, Inc. (ATCI) and Anson emporium Corporation )AEC) obtained a loan from the Pacific Banking Corporation. ATCI and AEC executed a deed entitled Continuing Suretyship Agreements whereby it was stipulated that as security for any and all the indebtedness or obligations of ATCI and AEC had the right to retain a lien upon any and all moneys or other properties and/or proceeds thereof in the name or for the account or credit of ATCI and AEC. ATCI and AEC defaulted in the payment of the loans, and despite several demands made for payment they were unanswered. PBC filed with the RTC a case for sum of money against ATCI and AEC. Both filed a motion to dismiss to which the PBC filed its reply. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss. ATCI and AEC filed a joint answer. A pre-trial conference was set by the RTC. By the suggestion of the trial court, the case was referred to the Philippine Mediation Center for arbitration. The arbitration proceedings were unsuccessful. The case was remanded to the RTC and set another pre-trial conference. But at the set date for pre-trial, ATCI and AEC appeared but PBC did not. On motion of the ATCT and AEC they prayed for the dismissal of the case for failure of the PBC to appear at the pre-trial. The RTC granted the motion without prejudice. A motion for reconsideration was filed by the PBC but the trial court denied the same. PBC filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA for grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction for dismissing the complaint based on a technicality, that is, failure of PBC to appear at the pre-trial despite notice. The CA granted the petition of PBC and reversed the assailed RTC orders which dismissed the civil complaint for sum of money. The CA ruled that the RTC lost sight of the fact that even the Rules of Court mandate a liberal construction of the rules and the pleadings in order to effect substantial justice. The overriding principle and the present trend in the rulings of the court is to afford every party-litigant the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause. A motion for reconsideration was filed by ATCI and AEC but the CA denied it. Hence, ATCI and AEC filed a petition for review on certiorari. Issue: Whether or not the CA in reversing the orders of dismissal of the RTC was correct. Held: The CA was correct.. Sections 4 and 5, Rule 18, on Pre-Trial mandate that the non-appearance by the plaintiff in the pre-trial shall be a cause for dismissal of the action. However, every rule is not without an exception. Section 4, Rule l8 explicitly provides that the non-appearance of a party may be excused if a valid cause is shown therefor. In this case, there was a valid cause. There is no question that PBC received the notice of the pre-trial conference but it failed to attend the same. Such non-appearance notwithstanding, the CA annulled the questioned orders of the RTC after it found that PBC did not intentionally snub the pre-trial conference. There is no reason to disturb such a finding. PBC was not remiss in its duties to prosecute its case. Except for the lone instance of the pre-trial conference, PBC promptly and religiously attended the hearings set by the RTC. When the RTC failed to act immediately on the motion to dismiss, PBC filed two motions to resolve. The actuations of the PBC revealed its interest in prosecuting the case, instead of any intention to delay the proceedings. Adjudication: Petition for review on certiorari was denied. The decision and resolution of the CA setting aside the questioned orders of the RTC were affirmed. Case:Anson Trade Center, Inc. v. Pacific Banking Corporation, 581 SCRA 751 [2009]) The rules of procedure may not be misused and abused as instruments for the denial of substantial justice. Some members of the bar, availing themselves of their proficiency in invoking the letter of the rules without regard to their real spirit and intent, succeed in inducing courts to act contrary to the dictates of justice and equity, and, in some instances, to wittingly or unwittingly abet unfair advantage by ironically camouflaging their actuations as earnest efforts to satisfy the public clamor for speedy disposition of litigations, forgetting all the while that the plain injunction of Section 2 of Rule 1 is that the rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their object and to assist the parties in obtaining not only speedy but more imperatively, just and inexpensive determination of every action and proceedings.

Case: Victory Liner, Inc. v. Malinias,.523 SCRA 279 [2007] There is no innate right to appeal. Appeal is a statutory right which may be exercised within the prescribed limits. By pursuing a wrong remedial tack is no excuse. The Rules of Procedure provides for a rational and orderly method by which appeal can be pursued, and even contingency remedial measures if appeal could no longer be timely pursued. The failure of the petitioner to undertake a timely appeal, or to engage in the available modes of relief even if appeal was no longer possible has to bear the consequences. The failure of the petitioners to undertake a timely appeal or to engage in the available modes of relief simply has to bear the consequence.Case: Motorola Philippines, Inc. v. Ambrosio, 582 SCRA 502 [2009] The delay was eleven (11) days beyond the 15-day reglementary period; worse, there was no explanation proffered by the respondents. The fact that the respondents were more than a hundred will not justify the relaxation of the rule. . The bare invocation of substantial justice is not a magic wand that will compel the court to suspend the rules of procedure. Rather, the appellate court needs to assess if the appeal is absolutely meritorious on its face. Only after such a finding case it ease the often stringent rules of procedureThe rules of procedure, particularly on the observance of time fixed to do certain act should not be construed strictly when to do will unjustly prejudice the substantial rights of the aggrieved party. The Court has the power suspend the Rules to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice. Case: Amorganda v. Court of Appeals, 166 SCRA 203 [l988] Spouses Amorganda were the lessees of a fishpond initially for 10 years on a yearly rental of P3,000.00 The lease period was extended twice to end on July 31, l997. But on January 5, l986, the lessors, without the knowledge and consent of the lessees harvested bangus and shrimps from the fishpond. The spouses Amarganda filed a complaint for qualified theft in the Provincial Prosecutors Office against the lessors. On February 27 l986, the lessors with the aid of armed men, forcibly entered the leased fishpond and prevented the spouses Amorganda and their workers from entering the leased premises. The spouses Amorganda filed a complaint with the RTC to compel the defendants to return the leased premises to them and for damages and prayed for a writ of preliminary injunction. The defendants Sayson filed their answer. The RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction as prayed for by the plaintiffs. The defendants filed a petition with the CA praying for the annulment of the order issued by the RTC granting the writ of preliminary investigation because the RTC has no jurisdiction since the complaint filed is in the nature of recovery of possession and should have been filed with the MTC, that there is no cause of action, and non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. The plaintiffs filed their comment. The CA issued its judgment declaring the order issued by the RTC null and void because the court a quo has no jurisdiction and directed the RTC to dismiss the complaint.. The plaintiffs filed by registered mail its motion for reconsideration of the decision but was denied for having been filed beyond the reglementary period. Hence, the plaintiffs, now the petitioners filed the present petition. Issue: Whether or not the motion for reconsideration was filed out of time... Held. The petitioners received a copy of the decision of the CA on 24 July 1987. They have, under the Rules, a 15-day period to file their motion for reconsideration or appeal. Petitioners, however, filed their motion for reconsideration only on 10 August l987, or two days after the expiration of the reglementary period. Counsel for the petitioners explained that that the last day for filing the motion for reconsideration was on 8 August l987 which fell on a holiday, Saturday, so that he filed the motion for reconsideration on Monday, 10 August l987. Saturday was not a holiday, and therefore the motion for reconsideration was filed beyond the reglementary period. But there are compelling reason, that is, the prevention of a grave miscarriage of justice exists in this case that warrant a suspension of the Rules and excuse the delay of two calendar days in the filing of the motion for reconsideration. The respondents admitted that they unilaterally terminated the lease contract between them and the and prevented the petitioners from entering the fishpond despite the fact that the lease period has not yet expired. The respondents admitted that the fishpond was forfeited in favor of the government, and that all improvements thereon introduced by their predecessor-in-interest were likewise forfeited in favor of the government. The Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) ruled that the respondents have no more leg o stand on, much less anymore personality to assert any right over the fishpond. That being the case, the respondents had no right to enter the fishpond and exclude the petitioners there from. . The respondents appeared to be guilty of coercion, stand to unjustly profit from their fraudulent and deceitful act at the expense of the petitioners who may not be able to recovery the rentals advanced by them to the respondent. These are compelling reasons sufficient for the court to suspend the Rules to prevent grave miscarriage of justice. Adjudication: The judgment appealed from is reversed and set aside and affirming the order of the RTC.. Case: Lagunzad v. Court of Appeals, 154 SCRA 199 [1987] The Court ruled that We cannot must ignore petitioners plea for the review of his case in this instance. There is not the slightest indication of malice on the part of or the desire to delay the proceedings and to transgress the rules on procedure. If at all,. his was an honest mistake or miscalculation worsened by some fortuitous occurrence which we deem condonable under the circumstances. For we have, in many cases granted relief where a stringent application of the requirement of timeliness of pleadings would have denied a litigant substantial justice and equity. Suffice it to note that the rules on technicality were promulgated to secure not to override substantial justice, and especially because the petition appears to be impressed with merit.Q. In sum, what is the role of the court in dealing with the application of the Rules of procedure?

A. The courts are vested with the authority to relax compliance with the procedural rules, even of the most mandatory character, mindful of the duty to reconcile both the need to put an end to litigation speedily and the parties right to an opportunity to be heard. (Reyes v. NLRC,578 SCRA 322 [2009] Q. In what courts are the Rules of Court applicable? When are they not applicable?A. The Rules of Court shall apply in all the courts, except as otherwise provided by the Supreme Court. (Section 2, Rule 1)

The Rules of Court are not applicable in (1) election cases (2) land registration (3) cadastral (4) naturalization (5) insolvency proceedings, and (6) other cases not provided for, except by analogy and convenient. (Section 4, Rule 1)

Q. What is the foundation of the Rules of Court?

A. The basis of the provisions of the Rules of Court is the constitutional authority vested on the Supreme Court to promulgate rules governing pleadings, practice and procedure in all courts; such rules are simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases. (Section 5, Article VIII, Philippine Constitution)

Q. Has the Supreme Court the power and authority to suspend the effects of or disregard the Rules of Court? A. Yes, the Supreme Court, has the power to suspend the application or effects of the Rules of Court in the higher interest of justice. If the Supreme Court is constitutionally empowered to promulgate rules of procedure, it follows that it has the power to amend, modify or revise the rules of procedure whenever interest of justice is better served. (De Guzman v. Sandiganbayan, 256 SCRA 171 [l996] En Banc.)

In the De Guzman case, the Court said that a situation where a rigid applicztion of rules of procedure must bow to the overriding goal of courts of justice to render justice where justice is due to secure to every individual all possible legal means to prove his innocence of a crime of which he is charged. Said case cited the earlier case of People v. Court of Appeals, March 7, l995 where substantial justice was upheld anew in allowing therein the appeal of the accused espise the withdrawal of his notice of appeal and his subsequent escape from confinement that only to truly make the courts really genuine instruments in the administration of justice.

Note: The Court has the power to suspend procedural rules in the exercise of its inherent power, as expressly recognized in the Constitution, to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure in all courts. In proper cases, procedural rules may be relaxed or suspended in the interest of substantial jusdice, w2hich otherwise may be miscarried because of a rigid and formalistic adherence to such rules. (Solicitor r General v. The Metro Manila Authority,204 SCRA 837 [l991]; Strategic Alliance Development Corporation v. Radstocl Securities Limied, 607 SCRA 413 [2009]Notes and Cases

The contention that substantive law and adjective law are contradictory to each other is not true. The policy of the courts is to give effect to both kinds of law, as complementing each other, in the just and speedy resolution of the dispute between the parties. Observation of both substantive and procedural rights is equally guaranteed by due process, be it the Constitution or only a statute or a rule of court. (Limpot v. Court of Appeals, 170 SCRA 367 [l989] Tupas v. Court of Appeals, 193 SCRA 567 [1991]; Materia: Mangahas v. Court of Appeals, 566 SCRA 373 [2008])Civil Actions(Ordinary Civil Actions)(Rule 2) Q. Define civil action. A. A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right or the prevention or redress of a wrong. (Section 3(a), Rule 1; Heirs of Guido and Yaptinchay v. Del Rosario, 304 SCRA 18 [1999]) Notes and Cases

The term action and suit are synonymous. The operative fact which converts a justiciable claim or cause into an action or suit is the filing of the civil complaint with the proper court.(Lopez v. Filipinas Compana de Seguros, 16 SCRA 855 [1966]

A justiciable question is that which affects civil, personal or property rights accorded to every member of the community or nation. (Avelino v. Cuenco, 83 Phil. 71[[1941] Justiciable controversy, on the other hand, is one involving an active antagonistic assertion of a legal right on one side and a denial thereof on the other concerning a real, ad not mere theoretical question or issue. (Delunen v. Republic,94 Phil. 288 [1953]

A civil action may either be an ordinary action as for instance an action for the collection of sum of money; or a special civil action as for instance a petition for certiorari pursuant to Rule 65.(Section 3[a], par. 2, Rule 1)Q. Define special proceeding.

A. A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. (Section 3[c], Rule 1) Notes and Cases

Special proceedings are those instituted and prosecuted according to specials rules as distinguished from actions which are prosecuted and tried according to the ordinary rules and provisions of civil procedure Both ordinary and special rules are found in the Rules of Court.For instance, an action like recovery damages arising from quasi-delict an action for recession of contract prosecuted under the general rules of civil procedure. (See: Rules l to 37, Rules of Court) On the other hand, settlement of estate of a deceased is a special proceeding because it is governed by special rules provided in the Rules of Court (See: Rules 73-91, Rules of Court } .Guardianship, habeas corpus, change of name are special proceedings because each are prosecuted under special rules (See: Rules 92-97 Guardianship; Rule 102-Habeas Corpus; Rule 103, Rules of Court)

Q. Distinguish civil action from special proceeding.

A. Civil action differs from a special proceedings as follows:

(1) A civil action requires the filing of formal pleadings, while a special proceeding relief may be obtained by mere application or petition;. (2) In a civil action, there are two definite and particular adverse parties, the party demands a right called the plaintiff and the party whom the right is sought called the defendant, whereas in a special proceeding, while there is a definite party petitioner, there is no definite adverse party, as it is a proceeding usually considered to be against the whole world. (Hagans v.Wislizenus, 42 Phil. 880 [1920]) (3) A civil action in particular is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong, while a special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. (Section 3[a] and [c], Rule 1)

Q. Give an example of a civil action and a special proceeding.

A. Pedro was forcibly dispossessed of his peaceful and actual possession of his land by Juan. Pedro would like to recover the possession of his land from Juan. His remedy is to file an action for recovery of possession either by an action for forcible entry or by accion publiciana. (See: Article 539, Civil Code, in conjunction with Rule 70, Rules of Court) This is a civil action.

Diego has a younger sister, Pauline, who is suffering from an incurable mental illness. Diego would like to take care of his sister and administer her properties she inherited from her parents, both deceased. The remedy of Diego is to file a petition for guardianship over the person and property of Pauline. This is a special proceeding. (See: Rule 93, Rules of Court; Pacific Banking Corporation Employees Organization, et al., v. Court of Appeals, 242 SCRA 492Marc [l995])Q. When is a civil action deemed commenced?

A. An original civil complaint is deemed commenced upon its filing with the proper court, (Section 5, first sentence, Rule 1) and the payment of the corresponding docket fee and such other fees required. The period of commencement is reckoned from the date of the full payment of the docket fees and other fees required by the Rules to be paid..(Magaspi et al v. Ramolete, 115 SCRA 193 [1982])

Notes and Cases

An actual case or controversy is one that involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution; the case must not be moot or academic or based on extra-legal or other similar considerations not cognizable by a court of justice. (Garcia .Executive Secretary, 583 SCRA 119 [2009] En Banc)Q. When does the court acquire jurisdiction over the complaint?

A. The court acquires jurisdiction over any case falling within its jurisdiction only upon the filing of the Complaint and the payment of the corresponding prescribed docket fee. The payment of the docket is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional. ( Excellent Quality Apparel, Inc. v. Win Multi-Rich Builders, Inc., 578 SCRA 272 [2009]Notes and Cases

The docket fees in cases involving real property depend upon the fair market value of the same. (Sections 7[a] and 7[b](1) of Rule 141). The later imposes a fixed or flat rate of docket fees on actions incapable of pecuniary estimation.. (Ruby Shelter Builders and Realty Development Corporation v. Formaran III, 578 SCRA 283 [2009]

In ordinary appeal, perfection of the appeal requires (1) the filing of the notice of appeal on time and (2) the payment of the correct docket appeal fee. (Ruiz v. Delos Santos, 577 SCRA 29 [2009]

Q. The second sentence of Section 5, Rule 1, states that if an additional defendant is impleaded in a later pleading, the action is commenced with respect to him on the date of the filing of such later pleading, irrespective of whether the motion for its admission, if necessary, is denied by the court. Give an example.A. The case of Cabrera v. Tiano, 8 SCRA 542 [l963] is in point. Plaintiff filed a complaint with the RTC, and defendant in due time filed his Answer. Later, or some months thereafter, Plaintiff with leave of court filed a motion to admit attached amended complaint impleading another defendant. The trial court admitted the amended complaint. Issue: Insofar as the new defendant named in the amended complaint is concerned when did the Complaint commence as to him? Held: As to the new defendant is concerned, the action is deemed commenced on the date of the filing of the amended complaint, even if the motion to admit was denied by the trial court.

Q. Why is the date of commencement of action important? A. The commencement of an action is important because it is the date when the running of the period of prescription is suspended, (Cabrera v. Tiano, supra.)Q. How is a civil action determined? Explain briefly. A. The aim and object of a civil action determines its character, and whether it is an action in rem, or action in personam or action quasi in rem, it is determined by its nature and purpose, and by these only.. (Damagas v. Jensen, 448 SCRA 663 [2005]

Q. How are civil actions classified as to cause or foundation? Define each, and give examples. A. They are classified into.(1) personal action {2) real action and (3) quasi in rem action. Q.Define each and give example..

(1) A personal action is one founded on privity of contract, and is brought for the recovery of personal property, for the enforcement of a contract or recovery of damages for the commission of an injury to person or property. (Marcos-Araneta, et al. v. Court of Appeals, supra; Domagas v. Jensen, 448 SCRA 663 [2005]) Some examples:: An action for recovery of damages for breach of contract of carriage, or an action for the enforcement of a promissory note which became due and payable or an action for enforcement of a contract or recovery of personal property and damages are personal action These are actions founded on privity of contract. Another example is an action seeking to compel recognition of an alleged just arrangement. is a personal action. (Marcos-Araneta, et al. v. Court of Appeals, supra; Domagas v. Jensen, 448 SCRA 663 [2005]) An action to recover sum of money or property, real or personal, is an action in personam. (Ang Lam v. Rosillosa, 86 Phil. 447 [1950] An action for the accounting of the properties of a deceased person, is a personal action A judgment rendered in an action in personam binds only the parties properly impleaded therein and duly heard or given the opportunity to be heard. An action for specific performance praying for the execution of a deed of sale in connection with an undertaking in a contract, such as the contract to sell, is an action in personam (Yu v. Pacleb, 580 SCRA 197 [2008]Notes and CasesWhen the purpose of an action or proceeding is to impose, through judgment of a court, some responsibility or liability directly upon the person of the defendant, the action is a personal action. A personal action has for its object a judgment against the person that is to compel a defendant to specifically perform some act or actions to fasten a pecuniary liability., A personal action is a proceeding to enforce personal rights or obligations, such action is bought against the person , although it may involve his right to, or the exercise of ownership of, specific property, or seek to compel him to control or dispose of its in accordance with the mandate of the court. (Yu v. Pacleb, 580 SCRA 197 [2008]Case: Yu v. Pacbleb, 580 SCRA 197 [2008] An action for specific performance for the execution of deed of sale in connection with an undertaking in a contract such as a contract to sell, is an action in personam. (:Cabutihan v.Landcenter Constructiion and Development Corporation, 383 SCRA 353 [2002]}

Q. What is the test to determine whether an action is in personam?

A. The test is if the object of the suit is to establish a claim generally against some particular person, with a judgment which, in theory, at least, binds his body, or to bar some individual claim or obligation, so that only certain persons are entitled to be heard in defense, the action is in personam., although it may concern the right to or possession of a tangible thing. (Sandejas v .Robles, 81 Phil. 421 [1948]

Q. How is the residence of the plaintiff determined in a personal action?A. A plaintiff who is not a resident of a particular place cannot, in a personal action, contextually opt for said place as venue of his complaint for reconveyance One can easily secure a basic residence tax certificate practically anytime in any Bureau of Internal Revenue treasurers office and dictate whatever relevant date one desires entered. (Yu v Pacleb, 580 SCRA 197 [2008]]

: (2) A real action is founded on privity of real estate, and is brought for the specific recovery of lands, tenements. Or, real actions are those founded on the privity of real estate, such as actions affecting title to, or for recovery of possession, or for partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of mortgage on, real property.(De la Cruz v. Seminary of Manila, 18 Phil. 330.[1910] For example:: An action for reconveyance or to remove cloud of or quieting title to real property are real actions because they involve title to, or possession of, or interest therein.. (See: Valeriano S. Concha, Sr. v. Lumosco, 540 SCRA l, [2007] Another example is an action for the recovery of a specific realty.(De la Cruz v. Seminary of Manila, supra)(3)) Mixed actions are actions such as pertain to some degree to both real and personal and real, therefore, are properly reducible to neither of them, being brought for the specific recovery of land and for damages sustained in respect of such land. (De la Cruz v. Seminary of Manila, supra) For example: An action for replevin is a mixed action, partly in rem and partly in personam. It is in rem insofar as the recovery of specific property is concerned, and in personam as regards to damages involved. (BA Finance Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 258 SCRA 102 [1996]

Q. How are civil actions classified as to their object? Explain and give example of each.A. As to object, civil actions are classified into: (accion in personam or personal action; (2) accion in rem or action in rem or (3) accion quasi in rem. Or action quasi in rem.

(1) An action in personam is a suit to establish a claim generally against some particular person, with a judgment which, in theory, at least, binds his body, or to bar some individual claim or objection, so that only certain persons are entitled to be heard in defense, although it may concern the right to or possession of a tangible thing. ( Grey Alba v. De la Cruz, 17 Phil.49 [1910]; Sandejas v. Robles, 81 Phil. 421 [1948]; Domaga v. Jensen, 448 SCRA 663 [2005]

For example: A civil action upon a cause of action for performance or non-performance of the terms and conditions of a contract of sale and for the resolution or enforcement thereof is an accion in personam.(Sandejas v. Robles, supra.) Another examples is an ejectment suit wherein judgment is binding only upon parties properly impleaded and given an opportunity t be heard. (Pasion v. Melgre=ito, 519 SCRA 378 [2007]}

Notes and Cases

The purpose of an action in personam is to impose, through the judgment of a court, some responsibility or liability directly upon the person of the defendant. (Asiavest Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, 296 SCRA 539 [1996] It is a suit to compel a defendant to specifically perform some act or action to fasten a pecuniary liability on him. It has for its object a judgment against a person. It is an action to enforce personal rights and obligations, such action is brought against the person. For instance a suit for injunctive relief is an injunctive act which is in personam. (Domagas v. Jensen, supra)

(2 ) An accion in rem is a suit whereby the object is to bar indifferently all who might be minded to make an objection of any sort against the right sought to be established, and if anyone in the world has a right to be heard on the strength of alleging facts which, if true, show an inconsistent interest. (Grey Alba v. De la Cruz, 17 Phil. 49 [1910]

For example: An action or application for the issuance of a certificate of title under the Torrens System of land registration or an action for the confirmation of an imperfect title to realty. These proceedings bind the whole world (See: Reyes v. Razon, 38 Phil. 480; Act 141, as amended; Act 496 as amended; Presidential Degree No. 1529 or the Property Registration Decree, as amended; and related pertinent laws) For another, an action for the annulment of marriage is an accion in rem. (Rayray v. Chae Kyung Lee, 18 SCRA 450 [1966]) All civil actions involving property, whether real or personal, are invariably real actions; but not all real actions are actions in rem.. For instance, an application for confirmation of title to PD 1529,as amended, is an action in rem as well as it is a real action.

Case:Rayray v. Chac Kyung Lee, 18 SCRA 450 [1966]) If the object of the action is to bar indifferently all whom who might be minded to make an objection of any sort against the right sought to be established, and if any one in the world has a right to be heard on an allegations of facts which, if true, shows an inconsistent interest, the action or proceeding is said to be in rem.

(3) Quasi in rem: It is an action which deals with the status, ownership. or liability of a particular property but which are intended to operate on these questions only as between the particular parties to the proceedings and not to ascertain or cut off the rights or interests of all possible claimants. The judgment therein is binding only upon the parties who joined in the actions. (Domagas v. Jensen, 448 SCRA 63 [2005]; Yu v , Pacleb, 580 SCRA 197 [2008]

A quasi in rem action is one brought against persons seeking to subject the property of such persons to the discharge of the claims assailed. In an action quasi in rem, an individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject the interests therein to the obligation or loan burdening the property. (Yu v , Pacleb, 580 SCRA 197 [2008]Examples: an action to quiet title over a parcel of land is a quasi in rem proceeding because while it involves a real property, the judgment that shall be rendered therein is binding only between the parties to the suit. (Domaga v. Jensen, supera) An action for unlawful detainer or forcible enty by their nature and purpose is a real and in personam actions. The plaintiff seeks to enforce a personal obligation or liability on the defendant, and for the latter to vacate the property subject of the action, restore physical possession thereof to the plaintiff., and pay actual damages or for the use and occupation of the property.(Article 539, Civil Code of the Phlippines; Rule 70, Rules of Court; Progressive Development Corporation, Inc. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 637 [l999]

Notes and Cases

In an action quasi in rem, an individual is named as defendant, and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his property to the obligation or lien burdening it.( Banco de Brazil v. Court of Appeals, 333 SCRA 545 [2000]; Domagas v. Jensen, 448 SCRA 663 [2005] All proceedings having for their sole object the sale or other disposition of the property of the defendant, whether by attachment, foreclosure or other form of remedy, are in a general way thus designated. The judgment entered in these proceedings is conclusive only between the parties. (Sandejas v.Robles, 81 Phil. 421 [1948] All proceedings having for their sole object the sale or some disposition of the property of the defendant, whether it be on foreclosure, attachment, or another remedy, are actions quasi in rem. The judgment rendered in such proceedings is conclusive only between the parties.(Banco Expanol-Filipino v. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921 [1918]

Q. What is the test in determining whether an action is in rem?

A. The test is if the object of the suit is to bar indifferently all who might be minded to make an objection of any sort against the right sought to be established, and if anyone in the world has a right to be heard on the strength of alleging facts which, if true, show an inconsistent interest, the proceeding is an action in rem. (Grey Alba v. De la Cruz, supra; Sandejas v. Robles, supra) Q. What are the four remedies of person unlawfully deprived of his possession of real property? How do you classify these actions?A. Depending on the obtaining facts and circumstances, these remedies are:(1) An action for unlawful detainer or forcible entry; (2) An accion publiciana or an action to recover possession; (3) accion reinvindecatoria or an action to recover ownership and possession. These are real actions at the same time in personam because they involve title to, or possession of or an interest real property and the plaintiff seeks judgment compelling the defendant to vacate the possession of the property subject of the suit, hence, an action personam. .Q. Briefly explain each remedy.. A. (1) The generic term ejectment refers to suit for the recovery of possession de facto of a realty. This is either be an action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer. Both actions are summary in nature, and should be resolved expeditiously. . . Forcible entry is filed with the proper MTC within one year from the unlawful dispossession of realty. The plaintiff must allege in his Complaint and prove that he was in prior possession of the land or building and that he was deprived thereof by the defendant by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth. This action is summary in nature and filed with the proper MTC. (Yu v. Pacleb, 512 SCRA 402 [2007]) The only form of damages that may be recovered is the fair rental value or the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the property. Other damages may be claimed in an ordinary action. (CGR Corporation v. Treyes, Jr., 522 SCRA 765 [2007] Unlawful detainer involves the persons withholding from another of the possession of real property in which the latter is entitled, after the expiration or termination of the formers right to hold possession under contract, either expressed or implied..(Republic v. Luriz, 512 SCRA 140 2007] This is filed with the proper MTC. The only issue to be resolved is physical possession or material possession of the realty involved, independent of any claim of ownership. (Mendoza v. Court of Appeals, 452 SCRA 117 [2005]) The judgment rendered shall be conclusive with respect to the possession only and shall in no wise bind the title or affect ownership of the land or building. Such judgment would not bar an action between the same parties respecting title to land or building. (Roberts v. Pupio, 515 SCRA 346 [2007] Where the issue of ownership is raised in an unlawful detainer action, the courts may pass upon the issue of ownership in order to determine who has the right to possess the property and for the sole purpose of settling the issue of possession., the issue of ownership being inseparably linked thereto. (Pascual v. Coronel, 527 SCRA 474 [2007])

(2) Accion publiciana an is a plenary action filed with the proper RTC to recover possession of realty which is filed a year after the unlawful dispossession thereof .The question to be resolved in this case3 who between the parties has a better right of possession over the real property. Regis, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 528 SCRA 611 [2007] . (3) Accion reivindicatoria is a action filed with the proper RTC which involves not only possession but ownership of real property. (Bejar v. Calung, 516 SCRA 84 [2007. The plaintiff sets up a title in him and prays that he be declared owner and be given full possession thereof. (Amoroso v. Alegre, 524 SCRA 641 [2007]) Q. In actions in rem and quasi-in-rem, when does the jurisdiction attaches?

A. In actions in rem and quasi-in-rem, the court must acquire jurisdiction over the res or the subject matter of the action. .

Cause of action(Rule 2)II

Q. Define cause of action? A. A cause of action is a partys act or omission that violates the rights of the other.{Section 2, Rule 2; Dela Rama v. Mendiola, 401 SCRA 704 [2003]) Or, a cause of action may be defined as the fact or combination of facts which affords a party a right to judicial interference in his behalf. (Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 514 SCRA 569 [2007]; Heirs of Tomas Dolleton v. Fil-Estate Management, Inc., 584 SCRA 409 [2009])

In Pari materia: Verceles v. Posada, 522 SCRA 518 [2007]Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association v. Nicolas, 567 SCRA 540 [2008]; Canete v. Genuino Ice Company, Inc., 542 SCRA 206 [2008] Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation v. Domingo, 580 SCRA 397 [2008].Q. What is a right of action?

A. It is the right of a person to commence and prosecute an action before a court of law to enforce or protect a right, or prevent or redress of a wrong.(Marquez v. Varela, 92 Phil. 373 [1952] . But it does not accrue until all the facts which constitute the cause of action have occurred. (Borbe v. Calalo, 535 SCRA 89 [2007]Notes and CasesFor a right of action to exist, there must be a person called the plaintiff who has a valid cause of action, and performs all conditions precedent to the filing of the action, and the right to institute the action against another person called the defendant who transgressed or violated plaintiffs legal right.. A right of action must rest on a valid cause of action, and converted it into an action pleaded in the complaint and filed with the proper court. .Q. Define remedy. Explain briefly. A. Remedy is simply the means by which the obligation or the corresponding action is effected. It is the appropriate legal form of relief whereby a remedial right may be enforced. (Rachrach v. Icaringal, 68 Phil. 287 [1939]) It should not be confused with a cause of action. Notes and Cases A single cause of action may give rise to two or more remedies, but the plaintiff may not pursue all such remedies, whether simultaneously or successively. (Quique v. Bautista, 114 Phil. 401 [l962] When a party is entitled to more than one remedy to enforce his rights, he is obligated to make a choice from among such remedies. Once an election of the remedy is made, he can not be permitted, after an adverse judgment was rendered against him, to return to another forum and there assert his rights inconsistent with the earlier judgment rendered against him. (Pascual, et al. v. Hon. Francisco Ortega, et al., CA G.R. No. 25374-R, June 29, l961, I Court of Appeals Reports, Second Series, p. 348)Q. Give an examples of one cause of action which may give rise to two or more remedies..

A. For example: (1) failure to pay an indebtedness secured by a mortgage is a single cause of action. To enforce it, two remedies are available, namely, foreclose the mortgage or collection of sum of money. Where the creditor-mortgagee pursues an action for foreclosure of mortgage, the other remedy of collection of sum of money is waived; conversely, if collection of sum of money is pursued, the remedy of foreclosure of mortgage is deemed abandoned. Another example (2) is a breach of contract which is a single cause of action for the enforcement of which two remedies are open, namely, an action for specific performance or an action for rescission of contract. These remedies are alternative not successive. Plaintiff is entitled only to one remedy and not both. (See: Movido v. RFC, 105 Phil. 886 [1959]; Quioque v. Bautista, 114 Phil. 401 [l962]

The choice of a remedy becomes the foundation of the theory of the case. .

Case: Bashier v. Commission on Elections, 43 SCRA 266 [l972]) A party is bound by the theory he adopts and by the cause of action he stands on. He cannot be permitted after having lost thereon to repudiate his theory and cause of action, and thereafter adopt another and seek to re-litigate the matter anew either in the same forum or on appeal A party having pursued one theory and lost thereon, he may no longer pursue another inconsistent theory without thereby trifling with court processes and burdening the court with endless litigation.

A party should decide early what version or theory he is going to advance A change of theory in the latter stage of the proceedings is objectionable not due to the strict application of procedural rules, but because it is contrary to the rules of fair play, justice and due process. (Dalisay v. Mauricio, Jr., 479 SCRA 307 [2006]

To allow a party, who has lost in a battleground of his choice, to again test the validity of his rights in another case would be to allow him to use the machinery of one court and then jump to another when the ride went against him. This would be to thwart a judgment by a re-litigation in a trial de novo destructive of the public policy that judicial proceedings be upheld. (Espanol-Filipino v. Palanca, 37 Philippines 921 [l918]

. Q. State the differences between a cause of action and right of action. A. (1) A cause of action refers to the delict or wrong committed by the defendant, while a right of action refers to the right of the plaintiff to institute and prosecute the action. (2) A cause of action is determined by the initiatory pleading, while a right of action may be taken away by the running of the statute of limitations, or by estoppel or other circumstances which do not affect at all the cause of action. (Marquez and Gutierrez v. Francisco Varela and Carmen Valera, 92 Phil. 373 [1952]Q. Distinguish action from a cause of action.A. An action is a legal demand of ones rights in a court of justice, a legal proceeding in a court of justice to enforce a right or to redress a wrong, while a cause of action consists merely of the primary right, the primary duty, and the breach of that duty. The action is the means of redress of the legal wrong described by the words cause of action and the cause of action precedes and affords the right to the remedy. Q. Distinguish action, cause of action and relief.A. An action is a suit brought for the enforcement or protection of the rights violated; while cause of action is an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right or rights of the other; while relief is the specific coercive measure prayed for by plaintiff from the court for the wrongful violation of his legal right which resulted to an injury causing loss o damage by the defendant

Q. What determines the aim, object and nature of an action?

Whatever be the action, be it a proceeding in rem, or personal action, or quasi in rem, the action is determined by its nature and purpose, and ascertained from the material allegations of the complaint constituting the cause of action and the character of the relief sought,. (Calo v.Roldan, 76 Phil. 445 [1946]) whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to any or all of such reliefs. (Del Valle, Jr. v. Dy, 585 SCRA 355 [2009]In pari materia: Benguet State University v. Commission of Audit, 524 SCRA 437 [2007]; Hernudd v. Lofgren, 534 SCRA 205 [2007] Q. What are the essential elements of a cause of action?

A. A cause of action exists when these elements are present: (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 for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages. (Pioneer International, Ltd. v. Guadiz, Jr.., 536 SCRA 584 [2007] In Pari materia: Canete v. Genuino Ice Company, Inc., 542 SCRA 206 [2008];Philippine National Bank v. Spouses Encina, 544 SCRA 68 [2008]; Camarines Sur IV Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Aguino, 566 SCRA 263 [2008]); Heirs of Tomas Dolleton v. Fil-Estate Management, Inc., 584 SCRA 4009 [2009])Notes and CasesA right is a claim or title to an interest in anything whatsoever that is enforceable by law. Conversely, an obligation is a juridical necessity to give, to do or not to do. Thus, for every right enjoyed by any person, there is a corresponding obligation on the part of another person to respect such right. (Makati Stock Exchange, Inc. v. Campos, 585 SCRA 120 [2009]

The mere assertion of a right and claim of an obligation to an initiatory pleading, whether a Complaint or Petition, without identifying the basis or source thereof, is merely a conclusion of fact and law which is would not stand for ultimate facts essential to the rights of action or defense asserted.. (Makati Exchange, Inc. v. Campos, supra) Q. When a complaint fails to state a cause of action or it lacks a cause of action, what is the remedy of the defendant? Explain.

A. The remedy of the defendant is to file a motion to dismiss the Complaint for lack or absence of a cause of action.

A complaint which does not state a cause of action may be dismissed via a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack or absence of a cause of action. To sustain the motion to dismiss, the Complaint must show on its face that the claim for relief does not exist, rather than that a claim has been defectively stated, or is ambiguous, indefinite or uncertain. (Universal Aquarius, Inc. v. Q.C. Human Resources Management Corporation, 533 SCRA 38 [2007]; Luistro v. Court of Appeals, 585 SCRA 244 [2009]) When the defendant moves to dismiss the Complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action, he is regarded as having hypothetically admitted as true all the averments thereof. (Makati Exchange, Inc. v. Campos, 585 SCRA 120 [2009] A ruling on this motion should be based only on the facts alleged in the complaint, (Perkin Elmer Singapore Pte Ltd. v. Dakila Trading Corporation, 530 SCRA 170 [2007] and no other. Q. State the test in determining whether or not a complaint states a cause of action?

A. The test for failure to state a cause of action is whether the complaint alleges facts which if true would justify the relief demanded. The inquiry is into the sufficiency, not the veracity , of the material allegations. If the allegations in the complaint furnish sufficient basis on which it can be maintained, it should not be dismissed regardless of the defense that may be presented by the defendant.(Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, Limited v. Catalan,440 SCRA 498 [2004])Q. Is insufficiency of cause of action a ground to dismiss the Complaint?

A. No. A complaint may not be dismissed for insufficiency of cause of action if it appears clearly from the complaint and its attachments that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. (Universal Aguarius, Inc. v. Q.C. Human Ressources Management Corp.. (533 SCRA 38 [2007]) Notes and Cases

The caption of the Complaint is not important in determining the sufficiency of a cause of action. The litmus test is whether the facts alleged in therein clearly show the presence of the essential elements of a cause of action. (Benito Saguitan-Ruiz, 394 SCRA 250 [2002]) And the ultimate facts or facts are essential if stricken out, they leave the cause of action inadequate or insufficient. Philippine Crop Insurance Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 567 SCRA 1 [2008]Czndgd v.Geronimo, 542 SCRA 206 [2008])The focus is on the sufficiency, and not the veracity, of the material allegations which determination is confined within the four corners of the Complaint. (Malicdem v. Flores, 501 SCRA 248 [2002] .

In pari material: Philippine Crop Insurance Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 567 SCRA 1 [2008]Q. If the cause of action is insufficient, what is the remedy of the defendant considering that he cannot file a motion to dismiss on that ground? .A. The remedy of the defendant is to file his Answer and incorporate therein as affirmative defense the insufficiency of the cause of action. Then, file a motion for the preliminary hearing of the affirmative defense as if a motion to dismiss was filed. ( Sections 4 and 5 [b], Rule 6 in conjunction with Section 6, Rule 16). If motion is denied proceed to trial.Notes and CasesThe defendant should file his Answer with affirmative or special defenses. Let the trial on the merits proceed, and plaintiff adduces evidence to prove the allegations of his Complaint. After plaintiff has rested his case, the defendant believes that the plaintiff has not shown to be entitled to relief may file a motion to demur to the evidence on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. (Rule 23- Demurer to Evidence; New Regent Sources, Inc. v. Tanjuatco, Jr., 585 SCRA 329 [2009]) Q. What is the test in determining the sufficiency of the facts in the complaint as constitutive of a cause of action?

A. The test of the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint to constitute a cause of action is whether or not, admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer of the complaint. (Francia, Jr. v. Power Merge Corp. 476 SCRA 62 [2005];Flour Daniel, Inc. Philippines v. E.R. Villarosa & Partners Co., Ltd., 528 SCRA 321 [2007] ];Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association v. Nicolas, 567 SCRA 540 [2008])

Case Heirs of Tomas Dolleton v. Fil-Estate Management, Inc., 584 SCRA 409 [2009] : The test for failure to state of cause of action is whether the complaint alleges facts which if true would justify the relief demanded. The inquiry is into the sufficiency, not veracity, of the material allegations. If the allegations in the Complaint furnish sufficient basis on which it can be maintained, it should not be dismissed regardless of the defense that may be presented by the defendant..

Q. If the defendant files a motion to dismiss on the ground that the action has already prescribed, how should the motion be resolved?

A. The motion to dismiss should be denied. The affirmative defense of prescription does not automatically warrant a dismissal of a complaint. An allegation of prescription can effectively be sued in a motion to dismiss only when the Complaint on its face shows indeed the action has already prescribed. If the issue of prescription is one involving evidentiary mattes requiring a full-blown trial on the merits., it cannot be determined in a motion to dismiss. (National Irrigation Administration v. Court of Appeals, 318 SCRA 255 [l999]

In Pari material: Pomeda v. Heirs of Eliseo Guevarra, 515 SCRA 627 [2007]; Heirs of Tomas Dolleton v. Fil-Estate Management, Inc., 584 SCRA 409 [2009] Notes and Cases Where the question to be resolved in a motion to dismiss a civil complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action, only the allegations of the complaint must be examined, and only the facts therein alleged,, which are hypothetically admitted true, would justify the relief demanded and the court can render judgment thereon, then the complaint alleges a cause of action and should not be dismissed, and consequently the motion to dismiss cannot prosper. Where the question of prescription of action is raised in a motion to dismiss, the motion can be granted only where it is shown clearly on the face of the Complaint that indeed the action had prescribed,. Otherwise, the motion must be denied, as evidence is required to show that the action had presr4ibed Consequently, rial on the merits follows.Case: Heirs of Tomas Dolleton v. Fil-Estate Management, Inc., 584 SCRA 409 [2009] Eight Complaints for Quieting of Title and/or Recovery of ownership and possession were filed by Heirs of Tomas Dolleton and numerous other plaintiffs over several parcels of land against Fil-Estate Management, Inc. Theallegations of these complaints were similarly worded and contained identical cause of action of 90 years of uninterrupted possession until they were forcibly ousted by armed men hired by the defendant; they have been paying their yearly realty tax over the several lots now titled in the name of the defendant; that the titles were fraudulently obtained and spurious. The thrust of the complaints is that the subject properties are different from the lands titled properties claimed by the defendant, or that land covered by the certificates of title do not include the land of the plainttf. Plaintiff prayed for the issuance of a preliminary injunction to enjoin the defendant from developing the properties and after trial judgment be rendered in their favor by directing the defendant to reconvey these lands to them and the damages. Claimed by awarded. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss on several grounds among them is lack of cause of action and prescription.. The RTC after hearing found the motion to dismiss meritorious that the complaints lack cause of action and that the action has prescribed. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated notice of appeal.. The Court of Appeals found that the defendants title to the subject properties were indispensable because they were registered under the Torrens System and that the actions had prescribed. The motion for reconsideration filed by them was denied. Hence, the plaintiffs below, now the Petitioners filed the present for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Issue: Whether or not the 8 complaints lack cause of action and whether or the defense of prescription be sustained in a motion to dismiss. Held. The Court was convinced that each of he Complaints filed by the petitioners sufficiently stated a cause of action. The Complaints alleged that the petitioners are the owners of the subject properties by acquisitive prescription. As owners thereof, they have the right to remain in peaceful possession of the said properties and, if deprived thereof they may recover the same under Article 428 of the Civil Code. The Complaints should not have been dismissed True,, the essential elements to constitute a cause of action were present in all the complaints.. To sustain a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action, the complaint must show that the claim for relief does not exist, rather than that a claim has been defectively stated, or is ambiguous, indefinite or uncertain. The complaints likewise passed the test in determining the presence or absence of a cause of action. The test for failure to state of cause of action is whether the complaint alleges facts which if true would justify the relief demanded. The inquiry is into the sufficiency, not veracity, of the material allegations. If the allegations in the Complaint furnish sufficient basis on which it can be maintained, it should not be dismissed regardless of the defense that may be presented by the defendant.

The affirmative defense of prescription does not automatically warrant a dismissal of a complaint. An allegation of prescription can effectively be sued in a motion to dismiss only when the Complaint on its face shows indeed the action has already prescribed. If the issue of prescription is one involving evidentiary mattes requiring a full-blown trial on the merits., it cannot be determined in a motion to dismiss. In this case, the respondents must first be able to establish by evidence that the subject properties are indeed covered by their certificates of title before they can argue that any remedy assailing the registration of said properties or issuance of the certificates of title over the same in he names of respondents or their predecessors--in-interest has prescribed. Adjudication: Petition granted. The decision of the RTC and the Resolution of the Court of Appeals are reversed and set aide. That the records of the cases returned to the court of original and ordered to try and decide the case with dispatch. Q. What determines the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of a complaint?A. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the Complaint, irrespective whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein, and the law at the time when the action is commenced. Jurisdiction if a court over an action is determent by law at the time the action is commenced. (Abad v. Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, 206 SCRA 579 [2002]; Fernando v. Lim,563 SCRA 147[2008];Cadimas, etc.v. Carreon, et al, Sept. 29, 2008] Notes and CasesThe phrase subject matter of the action means the physical facts, the things, real or personal, the money, land and chattels, and the like, in relation to which a suit is prosecuted. It refers to the thing or object in dispute. The cause of action is based on and formulated upon the thing or object for the purpose of enforcing or protecting a right or seeking redress of a wrong in a court of law.

The relief is the redress sought or prayed for by the plaintiff. Remedy is the appropriate legal form of relief whereby a remediable right may be enforced. (Bachrach v. Icaringal, 68 Phil. 287 [1939]) The presence of a cause of action rests on the sufficiency, and not on the veracity of the allegations in the complaint. (Pioneer International, Ltd. v. Guadiz, Jr., 535 SCRA 584 [2007])Splitting of a single action(Sections 3 and 4, Rule 2)Q. What does splitting a single cause of action mean?

A. Splitting a single cause of action is the practice of dividing one cause of action into different parts and making each part the subject of a separate complaint. (Bataan Hardwood Corporation v. Dy, 43 SCRA 450 [1972]

Q. What does one suit for a single cause of action mean? And what is its effect if two or more suits are instituted on the same cause of action? A. A party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action.(Section 3, Rule 2;Laperal v. Kartigbak, 4 SCRA 582 [1962]) If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others. (See: Sections3,and Section 4, Rule 2); Bataan Hardwood Corp. v. Dy Pac & Co., Inc., supra)

Notes and Cases

Spitting a single cause of action is not allowed. A contract, for instance, to do several things at several times is divisible in its nature, so as to authorize successive actions; and a judgment recovered for a single breach of a continuing contract or covenant is no bar to a suit for a subsequent breached thereof. On the other hand, where the covenant or contract is entire or indivisible, and the breach total, there can only be one action, and the plaintiff recovers all his damages. Blossom & Co v. Manila Gas Corp. 55 Phil. 226 [1930]; Quioque v. Bautista, 4 SCRA 476 [1962];[Bataan Hardwood Corp. v. Dy Pac & Co., Inc., supra)

Q. State the reasons for the rule against splitting a single cause of action.

A. The rule is intended to prevent repeated litigations between the same parties in regard to the same subject of controversy; to protect the defendant from unnecessary vexation; and to avoid the costs incident to numerous suits. (Bachrach . Icaringal, 68 Phil. 287 [1939] )Notes and CasesSee: 567 SCRA 375

The principles of res judicata, or bar by prior judgment, or law of the case, or conclusive of judgment may come into play. Once a cause or defense has been finally resolved in a judicial proceeding, the same cause or defense may no longer be re-litigated in another forum by the same parties.The principle of res judicata in actions in personam is found in Sections 49[b] and 49[c], Rule 39. It comes in two concepts, namely, (a) bar by prior judgment with is found in Section 47[b], Rule 39 and (2) conclusiveness of judgment found in Section 47[c], Rule 39, Rules of Court.

.

The rule on bar by prior judgment means that when a judgment has been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction over a case between he litigants, it is a bar to a new action or suit involving the same cause of action either before the same or any other tribunal. This judgment rendered in the first case is an absolute bar to the subsequent action since said judgment is conclusive not only as to the matters offered and resolved to sustain that judgment but also as to any other matter which might have been offered for that purpose and which could have been adjudged. .

The rule on conclusiveness of judgment means that any right, fact, or matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the determination of an action before a competent court in which a judgment is rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the judgment therein and cannot again be litigated between the parties and their privies whether or not the claim or demand, purpose, or subject matter of the two suits are the same.

Res judicata as a bar by prior judgment when there is an identity in the cause of in the cause in both cases involved, in conclusiveness of judgment, the cause of action in the first case is different from that in the second case. Both bar by prior judgment and conclusiveness of judgment are founded on the principle of estoppel based on the salutary policy against unnecessary multiplicity of suits. Camara v. Court of Appeals, 310 SCRA 608 [1999]; Garcia v. Philippine Air Lines, 558 SCRA 171 [2008])Q. When is a cause of action considered single?

A. Where there is only one delict or wrong, there is but a single cause of action, regardless of the number of rights violated, and all of those rights violated must be asserted and prayed for in one complaint. (Camara v. Aguilar, 94 Phil. 527 [19 ) But the single delict or wrong must violate only one contract or transaction, for if there are separate and distinct contracts or transactions, betwe3en plaintiff and defendant, violation of each contract or transaction would constitute a separate action. (Landol, Inc. v. Monroy, 102 Phili. 753 [l957]; Joseph v. Bautista, et al.,170 SCRA 540 [l989]) Notes and Cases

: When ones property is taken through violence or intimidation, by another, a single wrong or delict is committed consisting of the illegal taking or unlawful dispossession of the property. Here there is only one single cause of action. At the same time, such single cause of action entitles the one unlawfully deprived of his possession two claims: one is for the recovery of the possession of the property, and the other for damages for the reasonable use and occupation of the land. Under the rule, the illegally disposed person can only file one Compliant for recovery of possession and damages. He cannot file two separate actions, one for recovery of possession, and the other for damages, for he would be splitting a single cause of action into two parts. .(Bataan Hardwood Corp. v. Dy Pac & Co., Inc., 43 SCRA 450 [l972] ) Q. May a motion to dismiss filed in a MTC on the ground that another action for quieting of title is pending before the RTC under Section 1[e], Rule 16, involving the same parties and the same subject matter prosper?A. No. In order that this ground be availed of there must be, between the action for forcible entry and the other action for quieting of title, these requisites must be present: (1) Identity of parties, or at least such as represent ting the same interest in both actions; (2) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (3) the identity on the two proceedings particulars should jibe such that any judgment which may be rendered on the other will regardless of which party is successful amount to res-justicata. While there may be identity of parties and subject matter in the forcible entry case and the quieting of title case, the rights asserted and the relief prayed for in the said cases are not the same. Consequently, lacking this element, the ground relied upon will justify the grant of the motion to dismiss. ((Quimpo v. Dela Victoria, 46 SCRA 130 [l972])Case: Quinpo v. Dela Victoria, 46 SCRA 139 [1972] \Victoria filed two cases: one for quieting of title with the CFI nor RTC, and the other for forcible entry with the CC of Davao, now MTCC of Davao. Involving one and the same parcel of land against Quimpo in both cases. Quimpo filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint for forcible entry alleging another action for quieting of title is pending before the RTC. The MTCC denied the motion to dismiss for the reason that there is no identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for and it does not appear it does not appear that any judgment which would be rendered on the other action will amount to res judicata. For failure to file his Answer, Quimpo was declared in default, plaintiff adduced evidence and submitted the case for resolution. The MTCC rendered judgment ordering Quiimpo to vacate the premises and pay the accured rentals. Quimpo moved for a reconsideration but was denied. Quimpo appealed to the RTC and restated his arguments contained in his Quimpo. Meamtine, Victoria moved for the issuance of an order for writ of execution. His appeal was dismissed. Quimpo filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied. Hence, the present petition assailing the decisions of both MTCC and RTC. Issue: Whether or not the court was correct in granting the issuance of immediate execution before resolving the issue of the fact that there is another pending action involving the same parties and the same subject matter. Held: No, the court a quo did not commit an error. There might be an identify of parties and subject matter in the case of forcible entry and in the action for quieting of title, the rights asserted and the relief prayed for in these cases are not the same. In the forcible entry the legal right claimed is possession, while in quieting of title the legal rist asserted is ownership. In the action for quieting of title the question involved is whether the pasture permit could include property for which OCT issued in the name of Victoria. On the other hand, in forcible entry case, the issue is whether, assuming that Quimpos pasture permit were valid, he had the right to forcibly eject the prior occupant Victoria. Adjudication: The questioned orders were affirmed, finding no reversible error committed by the court a quo..When there is one delict or wrong committed, there is only one cause of action regardless of the umber of rights that may have been violated belonging to one person.

Case: Joseph v. Bautista, 170 SCRA 540 [1989\] Joseph filed a suit against several defendants Peres, Villa, Vargas, Sioson, Villanueva and Pagarigan in the CFI, now RTC, for damages against Peres, as owner of the cargo truck, based on breach of contract of carriage and against Sioson and Villanueva, as owner and driver, respectively, of the pick up truck, based on quasi-delict. Sioson filed his answer disclaiming ownership of the pick up truck and never will he acquire ownership thereof. With leave of court, Joseph filed an amended complaint and included additional defendants Pagarigan and Vargas as alternative defendants because he could not ascertain the real owner of the cargo truck was, whether Perez or Vargas, and who was the real owner of the pick up truck, whether Sioson or Pagarigan. Perez filed an amended answer with cross-claim against her co-defendants for indemnity and subrogation in the event she is ordered to pay Josephs claims. In his amended complaint, Joseph prayed that defendantw be declared jointly and solidarily liable. Defendants Villanueva, Cardeno, Sioson and Pagarigan, through their insurer, Insurance Corporation of the Philiippines, paid Josephs claim in the sum of P1,300.00 thereby Joseph executed a release of claim against the insurer, Cardeno, Villanueva, Sioson and Pagarigan. Later, Villaueva, Cardeno and their insurer paid Perezs claim for damages to her cargo truck in the amount of P7,420.51. Consequently, Sioson, Pagarigan, Cardeno and Villueva filed a joint motion to exclude and exonerate them from .any liability alleging that they reached an amicable settlement with Joseph. Perez filed opposition to cross-defendants motion and filed a counter motion to dismiss premised on the fact that the release of claim executed by Joseph in favor of the other defendants inured to her benefit considering that all the defendants were solidarily liable. to Joseph. The trial dismissed the case Joseph filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied, Joseph filed with the Court a petition on appeal by certiorari praying that the order dismissing the case, and the order denying his motion for reconsideration be annulled and set aside.

Joseph, the Petitioner, argued that the court below presided by Judge Bautista erred in declaring that the release of claim executed by him in favor of the Respondents Sioson, Villanueva and Pagarigan inured to the benefit of Perez, therefore, erred in dismissing the case. Joseph contended that there were two causes of action embodied in his Complaint, hence the judgment on the compromise agreement under the cause of action based on quasi-delict is not a bar to the cause of action for breach of contract of carriage.. Issue: Were the arguments submitted by Petitioner tenable? Held: No. The Petition is not impressed with merit. A cause of action is understood to be the delict or wrongful act or omission committed by the defendant in violation of the primary rights of the plaintiff. It is true that a single act or omission can be violative of various rights at the same time, as when the act constitutes a violation of several separate and distinct legal obligations. However, where there is only one delict or wrong, there is but one single cause of action regardless of the number of rights that may have been violated. The singleness of a cause of action lies in the singleness of the delict or wrong violating the rights of one person. Nevertheless, if only one injury resulted from several wrongful acts, only one cause of action arises. In this case, Petitioner sustained a single injury on his person that vested him a single cause of action, with the correlative rights of action against the different respondents through the appropriate remedies allowed by law. The trial court was correct in holding that there was only one cause of action involved although the bases of recovery invoked by Petitioner against respondents therein were not necessarily identical since the respondents were not identically circumstanced. A recovery by the Petitioner under one remedy necessarily bars recovery under the other. This, in essence, is the rationale for the proscription in our law against double recovery for the same act or omission which, obviously, stems from the fundamental rule against unjust enrichment. There is no question that the private respondents, defendants below, were solidarily liable was found by the trial court and as prayed for by the Petitioner.. The argument of the Petitioner that the impleaded respondents below as solidary debtors was intended only to apply in case of execution is vacuous as there is nothing in law or jurisprudence which would countenance such a procedure.. Adjudication: The petition dismissed, and the questioned orders of the trial court affirmed.. .Case: Tayag v. Court of Appeals, 209 SCRA 665 [l992] In one complaint two causes of action: are alleged: one to.compel recognition and the other is claim for inheritance These causes of action can be uoined in one Complaint. Q. Rep v. Court of Appeals and Hernandez, 253 SCRA 509 . Q. In case of violation of the rule against splitting cause of action, what is its effect and what would be the remedy?A. In case of a violation of the rule against splitting a cause of action, the defendant may file his Answer and he may plead the splitting of a cause of action as an affirmative defense. Then defendant may file a motion to for a preliminary hearing of said defense as if a motion to dismiss has been filed. (Section 6, Rule 16).When two or more suits are instituted on the basis of a single cause of action, there is a clear splitting of causes of action, hence, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others (See:. :Section 4, Rule 2) Notes and Cases In lis pendentia, the theory behind is that a party is not allowed to vex another more than once regarding the same subject matter and for the same cause of action. Lis pendentia is a ground to move for the dismissal of a civil case wherein another action is pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, such that the second action becomes unnecessary and vexatious. (Villarica Pawnshop, Inc. v. Gernale, 582 SCRA 67 [2009])Case: Arceo v. Oliveros, 134 SCRA 308 [1985] It is not disputed that there is another civil case (Case No. 435-G) pending between Arceo, plaintiff-appellant and Jose Oliveros, defendant-appellees Rufina Cabangan. That case involves the case the same parcel of land and similar issues as those case (Civil Case No. C-105}. In said said case, the Oliveros spouses, as plaintiffs, impugn the extrajudicial settlement between Sixta and Pablo Arceo wherein the former renounced her right over the disputed lot in favor of the later and seek to annl the transfer certificate of title issued to Pablo Arceo over thesaid lot. Said spouses based their action upon a claim of ownership over the land pursuant to a Deed of Absolute Sale whereby Sixta Arceo sold to them her definite or specific share on the homestead she and her brother inherited from their father. In his Anwer in the said case (Civil Case No. 435G) Pablo Arceo, as defendant, sets up by way of counterclaim his right of compulsory redemption over the same lot pursuant to Section 119 of the Public Land Act, claiming further that the property has never been partitioned between him and her sister. Issue: Whether or not lis pendens may be inperposed in the counterclaim and when so done cannot again be advanced in a seprate complaint as a cause of action. Held: This is exactly what plaintiff-appellant Pablo Arceo seeks to accomplish in Civil Case No. C-105- to exercise his right of compulsory redemption. In Civil Case No. 435-G and Civil Case No. C-105, the parties are litigating over the same subject matter (the lot inherited by the Arceows from their father) and the same issues validity of the sake made by Sixta Arceo to the Oliveros spouses and Pablo Arceos right of compulsory redemption under Section 119 of the Public Land Act as co-heir of his ssister Sixta ARceo. The only difference being, that in Cvivil Case No. C-105, Pablo Arceo asserts this right of compulsotry redemption as a cause of action in his complaint; whereas, in Civil Case No. 435-G he asserts said claim by way of counterclaim, which makes no difference anyway. For while lis pendens is normally interposed as a defense when another case is pending upon the same cause of action between the same parties in two complaints, it may also be interposed even if said claim is set forth by way of counterclaim since the latter partakes the naure of a complaint by the defendant against the plaintiff. Hence, it has been held that to interpose cause of action a counterclaim and again advanced the same in a complaint against the same party, as in the case, would be vilaltive of the rule against splitting a single cause of action which is prohibited by the Rules. Joinder and misjoinder

cf causes of action

(Section 3 and 4)

Q. Define joinder of action or joinder of causes of action?

A. Joinder of causes of action is meant the uniting of two or more demands or rights of rights of action in one action. (1 CJS, 1181)

Q. When is a joinder of causes of action available? State the general rule.A. The general rule is that a party may in one pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, ,as may causes of action as he may have against an opposing part. (Section 5, Rule 2)

Q. State the exceptions to the general rule. In another way of putting it, what causes of action may be joined in one complaint?

A. A party may in one pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as many causes of action as he