KUPALOURD RULES 1-5
REM 1 BRONDIAL
RULE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS
So starting with Rule 1, ano ang importanteng sections diyan in Rule 1? Sections 3,
4, and 5.
SEC 3 Cases Governed.- These Rules shall govern the procedure to be observed
in actions, civil or criminal, and special proceedings.
a. A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or
protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong.
A civil action may either be ordinary or special. Both are governed by the
rules for ordinary civil actions, subject to the specific rules prescribed for
a special civil action.
b. A criminal action is one by which the State prosecutes a person for an act
or omission punishable by law.
c. A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a
status, right, or a particular fact.
In Section 3, you are told about the different kinds of action. Diba? A civil action,
a criminal action, and a special proceeding. The enforcement of a right or the
preservation of a right, civil in nature. BUT when the State prosecutes an offense,
criminal. BUT when you seek the establishment of a right, status or particular fact,
special proceeding.
As to civil actions, they’re here what you call ordinary actions and of course, you
have special civil action. Where lies the difference? The difference is that the
regular, rules of court are only suppletory when it concerns a special civil action
because they are governed by specific rules as they are provided for. You start
with interpleader. Ang interpleader…
Now, you know now the distinction between an action in rem or an action in
personam. That is one set of classification. The other set of classification is of
course personal action and real action. When it involves real property, real action.
When it involves personal rights, personal action.
But when you distinguish action in rem, action in personam, you distinguish them
as to their binding effect. An action in personam binds only the person, the parties
to the case, while an action in rem binds the whole world like for example,
adoption. Adoption is an action in rem so everyone has to respect the person as
being an adopted person.
Real actions. So ibang classification yan ha. So you don’t… can it happen that a
personal action is an action in rem? YES! Or can it happen that a real action is an
action in personam? YES! But you always label them under the Rules as quasi,
diba?
Now, it is either quasi in rem, meaning to say, that the emphasis is on the
binding effect which binds the whole world or quasi in personam. SO it can happen.
Foreclosure of mortgage for example under Rule 48. It’s a personal action, but it is
quasi in rem. Foreclosure of real estate mortgage.
Real action that which involves a thing, recovery of real property, is of course a
real action. Recovery of money is of course a personal action. It involves only… it
involves personal right. Enough with this.
Now, what is Sec 4 ito nga yung Actions where these Rules of Court are only
suppletory:(4)
Naturalization
Land Registration
Insolvency Proceedings
Election Cases
SEC 4 In what cases not applicable.- These Rules shall not apply to election
cases, land registration, cadastral, naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and
other cases not herein provided for, except by analogy or in a suppletory character
and whenever practicable and convenient.
They are governed by special rules. Now, if the ROC will apply only in suppletory
character…
And then Sec 5 would be about commencement of action. We already discussed
that. When we discussed jurisdiction over the parties in a case. When is an action
commenced? It is commenced upon filing of the complaint and timely payment of
the correct docket fees. So that answers Sec 5.
Rule 1, Section 5. Commencement of action. — A civil action is commenced by
the filing of the original complaint in court. If an additional defendant is impleaded
in a later pleading, the action is commenced with regard to him on the dated of the
filing of such later pleading, irrespective of whether the motion for its admission, if
necessary, is denied by the court.
Then Sec 6 tells us about which should be favored in case of doubt? In labor law,
in case of doubt, in favor of labor. Dito in civil procedure, in case of doubt in whose
favor? Sec. 6- in favor of the administration of justice. SO it does not favor any
party.
RULE 2 CAUSE OF ACTION
Let’s go now to Rule 2 Cause of Action must be distinguished from Right of Action.
RULE 2 SEC 1 Cause of Action, defined.- A cause of action is the act or omission
by which a party violates a right of another.
PLAINTIFF’S “CAUSE OF ACTION”
KUPALOURD RULES 1-5
REM 1 BRONDIAL
What is the definition of a cause of action?
The act or omission by which another’s right is violated or the act or omission in
violation of the right of another.
SO if you are asked, where lies the cause of action? In the plaintiff or in the
defendant? Under that definition, it is in the defendant, diba? Why? Because it is
an act or omission, therefore, who commits the act or omission that violates the
right of another? The other there is the plaintiff whose right is violated and by the
act or omission of the defendant, so that is the cause of action.
But if you try to go to the definition of a complaint under Rule 6, it says there
“plaintiff’s cause of action.”
SEC 3 Rule 6 Complaint.- The complaint is the pleading alleging the plaintiff’s
cause or causes of action. XXX
So ano na ba ito? There seems to be a contradiction. While a cause of action is the
act or omission in violation of the right of the plaintiff, in the definition of the
complaint, it says “plaintiff’s cause of action.” That means plaintiff’s right of
action, so that the term right of action and cause of action are interchanged. SEE?
Thus, the right of action is with the plaintiff. The right to demand for its
preservation [is the right of action]… preservation of your own right is a right of
action triggered by the defendant’s act or omission in violation of your right.BUT
there can never be a right of action without a cause of action. What triggers the
right of action is the defendant’s cause of action because the plaintiff can only go
to court once his right has been violated.
SO why do I have still to discuss this? Is this important? For your proper
understanding of presentation of cases. Kasi kung minsan i-p-present yung case,
plaintiff’s cause of action, when it should be defendant, but that refers to right of
action, because it is the remedial, it is the remedy of the plaintiff now because of
defendant’s violation.
ONE SUIT FOR A SINGLE CAUSE OF ACTION
Sec 2 and 3 must be joined together. One suit for a single cause of action.
RULE 2 SEC 3 One suit for a single cause of action.- A party may not institute
more than one suit more than one suit for a single cause of action.
One of the best explanations of this is the case of Perez v CA.
Perez vs CA – one suit for a single cause of action, and that is a 2007 case. Perez
vs CA. Although that is studied in Rule 39, one of the issue raised there is precisely
the one suit for a single cause of action. If there is only one act which violates the
right of another, from this single act must emanate only one suit. One suit for a
single cause of action. Kapag ini-split mo yan, you have splitting a single cause of
action which is violative of the rule Section 3, splitting a single cause of action 3
and 4 kasi yon.
Halimbawa, Mr. A versus Mr. B. A is a the lessee to a parcel of land to B for a
period of 1 year, after the expiration of the period of lease, B failed to return the
parcel of land, and therefore B violated his obligation to return the parcel of land,
so that is one act in violation of the right of A. A may file for recovery of the parcel
of land, well and good. One suit for a single cause of action.
Suppose he file recovery of the fruits from the land, would there be splitting a
cause of action? Yes because there is only one act which violated the right of A, so
you split it into 2, it violates the doctrine on multiplicity, in fact it is a multiplicity of
suit, it violated the doctrine of one suit for a single cause of action.
When there is a splitting of a single cause of action, what is the remedy of B? A
motion to dismiss under Rule 16.
Rule 16, Section 1, (e) That there is another action pending between
the same parties for the same cause;
Rule 2, Section 4. Splitting a single cause of action; effect of. — If
two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action,
the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as
a ground for the dismissal of the others.
But if judgment has already been rendered, the remedy of B is motion to dismiss
on the ground of res judicata.
Rule 16, Section 1, (f) That the cause of action is barred by a prior
judgment xxx
JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION
If B borrows money from A, in the amount of 100K in January, and then borrowed
again money from A in the amount of 50K in the month of May of the same year,
and then again 150K in the month of December. No payment was made at all, how
many causes of action did B commit? Three, there are 3 acts here of nonpayment,
and therefore A can file 3 cases against B. But to facilitate the case of A to B or
against B, the rule provides for joinder of causes of action. So can he join this 3
causes of action in one complaint? So this is now akin to an exemption to one suit
for a single cause of action. Because here there are also 3 causes of action, it’s
nonpayment of an obligation is a cause of action by itself, and therefore A can file
3 causes of action against B, 3 suits rather, but to facilitate, under the rules, A is
granted a right of joining the 3 causes of action in one suit, does that violate one
suit for a single cause of action? No, it does not. So please revisit the requirement,
go again and try to memorize the 4 requirements for joinder for causes of action.
In our example:
KUPALOURD RULES 1-5
REM 1 BRONDIAL

A would like to join the causes of action must comply:
1. with joinder of parties, you are cross referred to Sec 6 of Rule 3,
permissive joinder of parties;
2. there can be no joinder of causes of action if these suits are
governed or in the nature of an ordinary suit and a special civil
action. Hindi pwede;
o Suppose A files 3 [separate] cases, collection, 100K, 200K and
another case of real estate mortgage, can he do that? YES.
 Separate actions nga eh.
o But can he join them? NO HE CANNOT, because the first 2
cases are ordinary actions and the last case is special civil
action.
Halimbawa, i-complicate pa lalo natin onti.

3. If the causes of action are within the jurisdiction of different
courts, as long as one of the causes of action is cognizable to the
RTC, it must be brought to the RTC;
4. If it is for sum of money, the totality rule should apply, the aggregate
amount of the claim determines the jurisdiction of the court.
Those are, let me illustrate, again A vs B,
1. in my example already B borrowed money in January in the amount of
100K,
2. then in May of the same year, he borrowed 200k, 300 na lahat,
3. by November of the same year, B again went to A, I would like to borrow
1MIL again from you,
a. then A says, I can lend you 1MIL but you did not even pay the
300K, how sure I am, what guarantee?
b. I will mortgage to you my property located in Baguio. How much
are you going to borrow? 1MIL, my property in Baguio has a
zonal value of 2MIL
c. so they entered into Real Estate Mortage, or load (?), what is
now the indebtedness of B to A? 1MIL plus 200K plus 100K, so
1.3MIL.
Let us apply now joinder of causes of action…
- Is it mandatory on the part of A to join the 3 cases against B?
o NO.
o Remember that joinder of causes of action is never mandatory.
So he can file the 3 cases against B separately.
o It is only to facilitate and to avoid multiplicity of suits, but it is
not mandatory.
- Can A join the 3 causes of action?
o Kung ganun ang question ano sagot niyo?
o Depende kung ano causes of action.
o If it is for sum of money why not?!
 so he can join a collection suit for
 100
 200
 BUT 1MIL, you have to qualify.
A as a resident of QC and B is a resident of Cavite, Tagaytay City. The same
scenario, binigyan lang natin ng additional, A resident of QC, B Tagaytay, A
borrowed 100L 200KL 1MIL secured by real estate mortgage of property located in
Baguio.
Now, syempre yung joinder ng collection suit walang problem, he join 100 and
200, but if it’s for a collection suit for 1MIL he can join them.
Suppose it is 100K 200K and recovery halimbawa lang recovery of that property
located in Baguio,
- the first 2 actions are personal actions, the last action is real action,
can you join them?
o YES, you can join personal and real actions provided you
observe venue and jurisdiction. Ok?
 So because of the other requirement if the cases fall
under different jurisdictions and venue,
 then as long as one of the cases fall within the
jurisdiction of the RTC you file it with RTC.
So if A goes to you and asks for your advice, Atty., I am filing a case for recovery
of 100K and 200K and recovery of parcel of land in Beaguio, where would I file it?
WHERE, meaning what is the venue of the action, are you going to apply rule
on venue under Rule 4?
- This is now, may personal action, [na] may real action. So what?
o You have the option as to where to file it, pwede QC,
Tagaytay, or Baguio. In the joinder of causes of action.
Suppose A has a claim against B of:
- 250K by contract
- another 250K by contract
- recovery of parcel of land in Tagaytay
- amount of 500k pursuant to a contract of employment as wages, unpaid
wages.
- Can he join that?
o NO. He cannot join that because this is not cognizable by
regular courts. It is cognizable by the NLRC or the Arbitration
Branch of the NLRC.
KUPALOURD RULES 1-5
REM 1 BRONDIAL
Suppose A filed already the case and paid the correct docket fees on time, joining
recovery for 100K, 200K [ordinary civil actions] and foreclosure of mortgage
[special civil action], (bawal mag-join ng ordinary and special civil action par. B
Sec 5 Rule 2) if you were the judge what will you do? Will you dismiss the case?
- NO. Because under the next section of Rule 2 [Sec. 6] Misjoinder of
Causes of Action is not a ground for dismissal of an action. XXX
- So what is your remedy?
o Amend by dropping it or adding it. It says there you can drop
at any time.
o XXX A misjoined cause of action may, on motion of a party or on
initiative of the court, be severed and proceeded with separately.
So point is misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground.
Suppose the court says you have a misjoinder of causes of action, so
[Remedy:]AMEND your complaint. Order ng court, [what if] you did not
[comply?], can the court dismiss?
- YES, not because of misjoinder but because of non-compliance of
the order of the court pursuant to Sec 3 of Rule 17. Dismissal of
actions.
What are the requirements [for joinder of causes of action]Sec. 5 Rule 2?
1. It must comply with the rule on joinder of parties,
a. itong illustration natin there is singular party plaintiff and party
defendant no problem about it. A vs B.
b. “it must comply with joinder of parties” pag joinder of parties
meaning there is multiple plaintiffs or defendants as the
case may be
i. so it may be ABC vs X, or A vs XYZ.
1. the former is multiple plaintiff vs singular
defendant.
2. the latter singular plaintiff multiple defendant
3. can it happened ABC vs XYZ?
a. Yes that is still joinder of parties and
the rule applies in the joinder of
parties.
c. When can there be joinder of parties?
i. When there is a common question of fact or law which
of course arises in the same transaction or series of
transactions.
ii. Rule 3 Sec 6 Permissive Joinder of Parties.- All persons
in whom or against whom any right of relief in respect
to or arising out of the same transaction or series of
transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly,
severally, or in the alternative, may, except as
otherwise provided in these Rules, join as plaintiffs or
be joined as defendants in one complaint, where
any question of law or fact common to all such
plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in the
action XXX
2. Joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed by
special rules;
3. Where the causes of action are between the same parties BUT PERTAIN
TO DIFFERENT VENUES or JURISDICTIONS, the joinder may be allowed in
the RTC prov. one of the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of
said court AND the venue lies therein; and
4. Where the claims in all causes of action are principally for recovery of
money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.
Rule 3 PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS
Rule 3 parties. Walang kainan dyan ha.
These parties refer to who may be a party to a case.
Rule 3, Section 1. Who may be parties; plaintiff and defendant. — Only
natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil
action. The term "plaintiff" may refer to the claiming party, the counter-claimant,
the cross-claimant, or the third (fourth, etc.) — party plaintiff. The term
"defendant" may refer to the original defending party, the defendant in a counter-
claim, the cross-defendant, or the third (fourth, etc.) — party defendant.
Sec 1 tells us as who may be the parties
- they are:
o natural
 what makes you a natural person is your intellect of will
 warm body
o juridical persons,
 those which are created by law like a corporation
o entities authorized by law
 estate, or the totality of a decedent’s assets and
liabilities
 e.g. A B C, warm bodies, natural persons, put up an
unregistered business, unifier (?) enterprises. Can
Unifire Enterprises sue and be sued?
 Yes, because it is an entity authorized by law
 Common example of entity authorized by law is the
estate of a person
 when the person dies, he never leaves this
world legally speaking
 he continues with his estate
- but take note if you read further, you will find out that there is now a
clarification as to who is the plaintiff, and this is crucial as early as Sec 1
of Rule 3
KUPALOURD RULES 1-5
REM 1 BRONDIAL
- sinasabihan na tayo that when you speak of the plaintiff it is not always
Mr. A. Mr. B can also be the plaintiff, diba? And together with the 3rd
party, 4th party, the term plaintiff and defendant cannot be limited to Mr.
A and B because in one case, B can also be a plaintiff or a can also be the
defendant. How is that so?
o Through a counterclaim, or a crossclaim,
- these are the persons who can be parties only, so if we are raided by
inhabitants of Jupiter, pumunta rito, something happened, can we sue
them?
o NO, because they are not natural persons. So what do we do
with them? Kill them. Also, they cannot sue us para ‘di niyo
makalimutan.
- But even if you’re a natural person, juridical person, entities authorized by
law, can you sue as a matter of fact?
o No, you must be a party in interest.
o Section 2 of Rule 3
Rule 3, Section 2. Parties in interest. — A real party in interest is the party who
stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled
to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every
action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in
interest.
o You must be a party in interest, and who is that? That who will
be benefitted, prejudiced or damaged in a judgment in a suit.
o Who is not a party in interest? A third party in a contract. In an
action for breach of contract, only those who are privy to the
contract are real parties in interest.
o There are certain jurisprudence that you have to distinguish a
party in interest with someone as locus standi.
 Locus Standi (legal standing) is a term, which is more
of a political term rather than a remedial term
 a party with legal standing is one who has a
personal and substantial interest in the case
 imbued with public interest
 Jurisprudence has included persons of with
legal standing the taxpayers, voters, concerned
citizens, legislators in cases involving
paramount interest and of transcendental
importance. They are considered to be parties
with legal standing.
 I don’t know if you are familiar with the case of
Hernandez vs House of representatives:
One of our late professors, Jimmy Soriano, intervened there, who was teaching in
Arellano Remedial law, as well. His case was dismissed by SC on the ground that
he has no locus standi, and he argued [that] this is equivalent to a taxpayer’s suit.
SC said NO. I think this is about the Davide case.
o Just distinguish locus standi from parties in interest.
 Parties in Interest are those who will be benefited or
prejudiced in a judgment in a suit.
A filed a case against X Y Z. There is already a joinder of parties-defendants or A B
C against X Y Z. Joinder of parties-plaintiff and parties-defendant.
Now, if that is the case, is it mandatory or not? It depends.
- Mandatory joinder of parties only happen if the parties are indispensable
parties.
Rule 3, Section 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. — Parties in
interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be
joined either as plaintiffs or defendants.
- And regarding indispensable parties, the latest is Bacalso (?) v Padigos,
April 18, 2008. The doctrine: the joinder of indispensable parties is a sine
qua non for the exercise of judicial power.
- When an indispensable party is not before the court, the action should be
dismissed. The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent
actions of the court, null and void, not just for want of authority to act,
not only as to the absent parties but even as to those who are present. So
that is how important indispensable parties are.
Ang tanong, ano ba yung indispensable parties and who are the necessary parties?
Binigyan ko kayo ng medaling determinansya, diba?
- Indispensable, if there is no final determination of the case.
- Necessary, if there is no complete determination of the case.
Rule 3, Section 8. Necessary party. — A necessary party is one who is not
indispensable but who ought to be joined as a party if complete relief is to be
accorded as to those already parties, or for a complete determination or settlement
of the claim subject of the action.
Incidentally, dito sa sinasabi kong joinder or mandatory joinder of indispensable
parties, the case of De Castro v CA, July 18, 2002. The rule on mandatory
joinder of indispensable parties is not applicable when co-owners
- Remember, co-owners as a general rule are indispensable
o Jurisprudence speaks of indispensable party co-owners as
indispensable parties. You know in partition, Rule 69, the first
stage of partition is the determination of WON there is co-
ownership. WHY? Because there can be no partition if even
one co-owner is left out. That is why co-owners are
indispensable parties.
- but this one is exceptional
o when co-owners are solidarily liable under a contract of agency.
KUPALOURD RULES 1-5
REM 1 BRONDIAL

o In solidary obligation, obligors may be compelled to pay the
entire obligation.
o So i-t-tie up mo sa obligations and contracts.
o So this is in the case of De Castro v CA.
- In one case, the SC held that while co-owners are indispensable parties
but if they are co-owners plaintiffs, then one will suffice to file a case
without impleading or including all the other co-owners.
o Ano ang rationale?
o When a co-owner files a case it is presumed that he files it for
and in behalf of the other co-owners.
o But there is no jurisprudence on the matter that when co-
owners are defendants.
o They should all be impleaded. Because if you miss one of the co-
owners as I said, settled is the rule that the judgment is not only
null and void as to those who were not impleaded but even as to
those who were impleaded.
- So may distinction ha! Co-owners as plaintiffs and co-owners as
defendants.
- must be assisted by their guardian or guardian ad litem.
- That is why, as to necessary party, it is provided for by the rule that you
have to allege why you are not impleading a necessary party, otherwise if
you do not allege that in your pleading why you are missing or not
including a necessary party, you waived your right agaisnt him. You
cannot sue him anymore for the same cause. You get that? So necessary
party, if you did not implead them, you have to state the reason why you
are not impleading them otherwise you will be losing your right, you can
no longer sue them.
- In one bar question distinguish a representative party from class suit? Actually the
Rule 3, Section 9. Non-joinder of necessary parties to be pleaded. —
Whenever in any pleading in which a claim is asserted a necessary party is not
joined, the pleader shall set forth his name, if known, and shall state why he is
omitted. Should the court find the reason for the omission unmeritorious, it may
order the inclusion of the omitted necessary party if jurisdiction over his person
may be obtained.
impleading them otherwise you will be losing your right, you can no
longer sue them.
Rule 3, Section 10. Unwilling co-plaintiff. — If the consent of any party who
should be joined as plaintiff can not be obtained, he may be made a defendant and
the reason therefor shall be stated in the complaint.
Rule 3, Section 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. — Neither
misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is ground for dismissal of an action. Parties
may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or on its
own initiative at any stage the action and on such terms as are just. Any claim
against a misjoined party may be severed and proceeded with separately.
Now as we move on to Rule 3 you will find out there are number of possible parties
in a case.
A minor in an incompetent can they file cases? Yes, but not by themselves they
Rule 3, Section 5. Minor or incompetent persons.- A minor or a person
alleged to be incompetent, may sue or may be sued, with the assistance of his
father, mother, guardian, or if he has none, a guardian ad litem.
How about representative party [and class suit] ?
question is wrong. They don’t have a common ground: one is a party and the
other is a suit. The correct question should distinguish a representative party from
a party from a class suit. You should answer it that way.
- What are the requirements in a class suit? The cause of action is common
to many parties and the parties are so numerous that it is very impractical
to bring them all before the court.

The failure to comply with the order for his inclusion, without justifiable cause, - A party in a class suit is one representing a class which has common
issues to be threshed out while a representative party is not really a party
shall be deemed a waiver of the claim against such party.
in interest. He is only representing one who is the real party in interest.
The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent the court from proceeding
Rule 3, Section 3. Representatives as parties. — Where the action is allowed
in the action, and the judgment rendered therein shall be without prejudice to the
to be prosecuted and defended by a representative or someone acting in a
rights of such necessary party.
fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and shall
be deemed to be the real property in interest. A representative may be a trustee of
- as to necessary party, it is provided for by the rule that you have to allege an expert trust, a guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party authorized by
why you are not impleading a necessary party, otherwise, if you do not law or these Rules. An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an
allege that in your pleading why you are missing or not including a
undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without joining the principal except when
necessary party, you waived your right against him. You cannot sue him
the contract involves things belonging to the principal.
anymore for the same cause. You get that? So necessary party, if you did
not implead them, you have to state the reason why you are not
KUPALOURD RULES 1-5
REM 1 BRONDIAL
- you take note that anyone may file a case through representation but in a
representative suit or a representative party in a suit, we must
specifically state in his complaint that he was not the party
plaintiff or the party defendant but he is only representing
someone.
- If an atty-in-fact files a case, may special power of attorney, but he files
the case in his private capacity for his principal, that case should be
dismissed for being an erroneous party to a suit because when you are
representing someone, it is mandated by the rule that you have to state
whom you are representing.
- In this connection, remember that when you are representing a juridical
person you should not be armed with a special power of attorney, mali
yon. You should be armed with a board resolution.
- So in a representative party where the party is a corporation or a juridical
entity, the power or authority is not and should not be an SPA but a board
resolution.
- Examples: guardian, administrator, executor. They are not the parties in
interest. They only filed the case for the parent/the minor children. The
rule provides that when a representative party files a case, it is
mandatory that the parties in interest must be named.
Rule 3, Section 12. Class suit. — When the subject matter of the controversy is
one of common or general interest to many persons so numerous that it is
impracticable to join all as parties, a number of them which the court finds to be
sufficiently numerous and representative as to fully protect the interests of all
concerned may sue or defend for the benefit of all. Any party in interest shall have
the right to intervene to protect his individual interest.
- If the party in a class suit is someone who can sufficiently represent a
class, can it be just one?
o YES, it can be just one and still a class suit. It does not follow
kasi, tignan niyo sa section 12 ang word diyan ay “or” (not
“and”). Representative of a class must be numerous sufficient
enough, di ba? But the conjunction is NOT ‘and’ but “OR”
therefore is it possible that just one individual can file a class
suit? Yes, if he is representative of a class.
o the case of METHODIST CHURCH v. CA, an old case where only
one individual represented the class, the Methodist church.
Although sa Catholic Church settled na ‘yon di ba? Yung catholic
church is corporation sole. But we are talking here of a class suit
or representative suit. The requirement of a class suit or a
representive suit is that:
 There must be numerous parties but it is impracticable
for all of themto be brought to court.
 Now this impracticability referred to by the rule
is not the physical impracticability.
 It is legal impracticability.
 Halimbawa, preparation of pleadings- pano
kung 100 yung plaintiff eh dun palang sa
caption, 5 pages ka na.
 A good example would be the case of Pepsi
357,yung promo, sila. Can you imagine if you
bring them all to court.
 That they must arise from a common cause of action.
 In one case, they brought a class suit
representing tenants of a bliss project
(Imelda). The SC dismissed as a class suit
because according to SC, its tenant has a
separate interest.
o Halimbawa, ung isa 100k utang, yung
isa 50k, so there must be common or
representative of the class.
 In a subdivision for example, titignan niyo kung
ano ang claim.
o Example a subdivision composed of
several lot owners, can they file
regarding lightings, electricity,
service? COMMON BA?
o NO, they cannot because each one
may require a diff kind of service.
o How about garbage collection?
o PWEDE SIGURO.
- This is class suit. You must always also go into the basic requirement of a
class suit.
- Titignan niyo yung interest so we cannot have here a hard and fast rule.
Every situation will call for a different solution. What is important for you
for bar purposes is rationalize. Rationalize HA!
Rule 3, Section 16. Death of party; duty of counsel. — Whenever a party to a
pending action dies, and the claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty
of his counsel to inform the court within thirty (30) days after such death of the
fact thereof, and to give the name and address of his legal representative or
representatives. Failure of counsel to comply with his duty shall be a ground for
disciplinary action.
The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased,
without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court
may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.
The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to
appear and be substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice.
If no legal representative is named by the counsel for the deceased party, or if the
one so named shall fail to appear within the specified period, the court may order
the opposing party, within a specified time to procure the appointment of an
executor or administrator for the estate of the deceased and the latter shall
immediately appear for and on behalf of the deceased. The court charges in
KUPALOURD RULES 1-5
REM 1 BRONDIAL
procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may be recovered
as costs.
- Sec. 16 refers to death of a party pendente lite. Don’t confuise that with
death of a party under Rule 39. Death of a party under Sec 7 of Rule 39-
parties are already judgment obligors and obligees. Dito plaintiffs and
defendant pendete lite.
- What does sec. 16 provides?
o Section 16 provides that when a party dies pendente lite, the
counsel of the party must inform the court about the disease or
demise of the plaintiff or defendant, then substitute him with
another WITHOUT (tandaan niyo ito dahil I ti tie up niyo sa
settlement of estate) the appointment of an executor or
administrator of the estate
o so i-substiutute mo lang, HEIR. O yan na. namatay si X. ang
anak ni X ay si Y. so pag namatay si X sabihin ng lawyer si Y na
po yan, anak.
o Sasabihin, di pwede… BAKIT? Kasi estate na yon? NO, the rule
so provides, “wihtout the necessity of appointment of executor or
administrator.
o Read further sec. 16 makikita mo bandang 3rd par. “That if the
counself of the decedent does not comply with his duty he can be
subject to disciplinary action” [so] should the case be dismissed?
NO it is incumbent upon the adverse party to substitute.. but
the substitution of the adverse party, requires the
appointment of an executor or administrator.
o So don’t ever miss that and don’t ever exchange one for the
other. Pag yung kabila, kasi hindi ginawa ng counsel ng
decedent, it should not be dismissed but [instead] it is incumbent
upon the adverse counsel to substute the decedent (yung
kalaban niya) but with the appointment of exec or admin of his
estate.
- The appointment of the executor or administrator cannot be done easily
by motion. You have to file a separate petition for that under settlement
of estate proceeding.
- There is a sanction on the part of the lawyer who does not comply with
this obligation.
- To compare that with section 17, it includes resignation and incompetence
and it refers to a public officer. The public officer MAY (not
mandatory) substitute or discontinue the case.
- Tatandaan niyo yung mga i-t-tie up natin sa 86 and 87 RULES Claims
against the Estate and Actions by or against Exec or Admin, respectively.
- Tingnan niyo yon kung ano ung mga actions by kasi what is also
important is to find out what kind of action is it? See?
o Coz if it is a judgment for money, then claimable against the
estate
o but if this is an action for recovery, real or personal, you file that
against the Exec or Admin of the estate
Rule 3, Section 17. Death or separation of a party who is a public officer.
— When a public officer is a party in an action in his official capacity and during its
pendency dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold office, the action may be
continued and maintained by or against his successor if, within thirty (30) days
after the successor takes office or such time as may be granted by the court, it is
satisfactorily shown to the court by any party that there is a substantial need for
continuing or maintaining it and that the successor adopts or continues or
threatens to adopt or continue to adopt or continue the action of his predecessor.
Before a substitution is made, the party or officer to be affected, unless expressly
assenting thereto, shall be given reasonable notice of the application therefor and
accorded an opportunity to be heard.
- Sect. 17, the person here na nawawala is a public officer. Mar roxas
halimbawa, he has a case and he resigns, he becomes incompetent or
death, under sec. 17. Ano ba mangyayare? Will the case continue?
o NO! It is incumbent upon the successor to inform the court that
the case must continue. That is a very bad rule. That is a bad
rule. Kaya tayo maraming corruption. Pag nawala na yung may
kaso, next administration, pababayaan na lang. Dapat stringent
yan., but that's it. That is what the rule provides.
o The successor will determine if it is reasonable to continue the
case or not. If he does not continue, then so be it, mawawala na
lang yan. Parang nangyayari ngayon, pag may bagong
administrasyon. Nawawala na yung mga kaso because of that
rule. That should be amended. But so be it, it is there.
So [minors and] incompetents…
SEC 18 Incompetency or incapacity.- If a party becomes incompetent or
incapacitated, the court, upon motion with notice, may allow the action to be
continued by or against the incompetent or the incapacitated person assisted by
his legal guardian or guardian ad litem.
Rule 3, Section 19. Transfer of interest. — In case of any transfer of interest,
the action may be continued by or against the original party, unless the court upon
motion directs the person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted in
the action or joined with the original party.
- The transferee is only a necessary party.
- A files a case against B for recovery of a parcel of land. Pendete lite, B
dies. Can the case continue?
o Yes, it can continue. Siyempre, i-apply mo muna ung Sec. 16.
o But before he died, he transferred it to X. [The case is] A v. B.
Pendente lite, Btransferred the property to X. Should X be
included? Is it mandated that X replace B?
 NO. The case can continue between A and B without
impleading X. That is meant there by transfer of
interest.
 So X is a necessary party only. The transferee is a
necessary party not an indispensable party.
KUPALOURD RULES 1-5
REM 1 BRONDIAL
o What is the exception? When the courts so ORDERS then he
should be impleaded.
- What happens now to B if he is impleaded? CO-DEFENDANT na. Still he
would be the indispensable party. (!?!??!?!?!)
Rule 3, Section 20. Action and contractual money claims. — When the action
is for recovery of money arising from contract, express or implied, and the
defendant dies before entry of final judgment in the court in which the action was
pending at the time of such death, it shall not be dismissed but shall instead be
allowed to continue until entry of final judgment. A favorable judgment obtained by
the plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the manner especially provided in these
Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased person.
- Contractual Money Claim, under the present rule now, if the claim is
based on contract, claim for money is based on contract, and the
defendant dies pendente lite, the case shall not be dismissed that but
should proceed up to entry of judgment.This is a U-turn from the
1960 Rules of Court where the case must be dismissed. The reason is to
expedite the proceeding.
- A final judgment is different from an entered judgment. Even if there is an
appeal, the appeal continues. Even if there is a petition for review after
the appeal, the petition continues. It must conclude up to entry of
judgment.
- After entry of judgment, what is the next move of the judgment obligee?
Ordinarily, you avail of Rule 39 (Execution of Judgment).
o But Rule 39 will not apply. To satisfy the judgment, you have to
file it as a money claim against the estate under Rule 86:
 1. All claims for money against the decent, arising from
contract, express or implied, whether the same be due,
not due, or contingent;
 2. All claims for funeral expenses;
 3. Expense for the last sickness of the decedent, and
 4. Judgment for money against the decent.
- Rule 87 is an action for or against executors or administrators. All
other actions except those which are claimable against the estate may be
brought for or against the executor or administrator.
Section 20 must always be correlated with Rule 86 and 87 to see a bird’s eye view
of the entire provisions.
- Now, if there is a writ of preliminary attachment, the death of the party-
defendant does not discharge the writ of preliminary attachment
so YOU can run after the property under custodia legis, pursuant to the
writ of preliminary attachment, by undertaking sale on attachment.
o Baka mabigla kayo nilagay niyo doon sale on execution. Ibang-
iba yon. 39 yung sale on execution. Dito, it will be sale on
attachment.
- So if you file it as a claim against the estate, how do you go about it?
o A vs B, this is a contractual money claim. B borrowed P1,000,000
from A. This is a contract of loan. B did not pay so A filed a case
for sum of money based on contract (contractual money claim).
B died. The case must continue up to entry of judgment. When
there is already an entry of judgment, what should A do? He
cannot avail of Rule 39. He cannot go to court and file a motion
for execution because the defendant here already died.
o He must file it as a claim against the estate. How? You cannot
claim against the heirs of the decedent. It must be claimed
against the estate. The heirs are different from the estate. If the
heirs would be representing the estate, that would be another
matter.
o How will the judgment obligee, A, file a claim against the estate
of B? There is a procedure under Rule 86.
 If there is no pending settlement of the estate of the
decedent, A should file a settlement of estate
proceeding. Is A authorized to do that? Yes. Who may
file a settlement of the estate? A creditor may do so.
 But if there is already a pending settlement of the
estate, A should just submit a copy of the judgment
together with the entry of judgment. Under settlement
of estate proceedings, you apply for preference of
credits.
o A is riding his car along Roxas Boulevard and he collided with
another car driven by B, and nobody would like to accept
obligation or liability. A filed a case for sum of money against B.
B, pendente lite, dies. Can you apply Section 20?
 NO, Section 20 deals with contractual money claims.
There is no contract in this case.
o If B is a taxi driver and A is his passenger, this becomes a
contractual money claim (based on the contract of
transportation) if A files a suit.
RULE 4 VENUE OF ACTIONS
The venue of an action is what the law or rule provides (Example: Give a law
providing for the venue of an action: Rule 66 or petition for quo warranto, where
the venue is the residence of the respondent. In a special proceeding for
guardianship, the venue is the residence of the ward. In adoption, the venue is the
residence of the prospective adopter. In these cases, you cannot agree otherwise).
In the absence of any rule, the agreement of the parties will govern. See Pacific
Consultants Philippines, Inc. (PPI) vs Schonfeld
In the absence of any agreement, you distinguish whether the action is real or
personal. If it is a personal action, the venue is the residence of the plaintiff, or
any of the plaintiffs, or the residence of the defendant, or any of the defendants, at
the option of the plaintiff. If it is a real action, the venue is where the property is
located.
KUPALOURD RULES 1-5
REM 1 BRONDIAL

Rule 4, Section 1. Venue of real actions. — Actions affecting title to or

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 4, Section 4. When Rule not applicable. (GENERAL RULE)— This Rule
shall not apply.
(a) In those cases where a specific rule or law provides otherwise; or
(b) Where the parties have validly agreed in writing before the filing of
the action on the exclusive venue thereof.

RULE 5 UNIFORM PROCEDURE IN TRIAL COURTS

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

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

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

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

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

Section 4. In what case not applicable. — These Rules shall not apply to
election cases, land registration, cadastral, naturalization and insolvency
proceedings, and other cases not herein provided for, except by analogy or in a
suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient.