RULE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS
Real action that which involves a thing, recovery of real property, is of course a
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. 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”
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
party from class suit? Actually the question is wrong. They don’t have a common
ground: one is a party and the other is a suit. The correct question should
distinguish a representative party from a party from a class suit. You should
answer it that way.
- What are the requirements in a class suit? The cause of action is common
to many parties and the parties are so numerous that it is very impractical
to bring them all before the court.
- A party in a class suit is one representing a class which has common
issues to be threshed out while a representative party is not really a party
in interest. He is only representing one who is the real party in interest.
Rule 3, Section 3. Representatives as parties. — Where the action is allowed
to be prosecuted and defended by a representative or someone acting in a
fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and shall
be deemed to be the real property in interest. A representative may be a trustee of
an expert trust, a guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party authorized by
law or these Rules. An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an
undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without joining the principal except when
the contract involves things belonging to the principal.
- you take note that anyone may file a case through representation but in a
representative suit or a representative party in a suit, we must
specifically state in his complaint that he was not the party
plaintiff or the party defendant but he is only representing
someone.
- If an atty-in-fact files a case, may special power of attorney, but he files
the case in his private capacity for his principal, that case should be
dismissed for being an erroneous party to a suit because when you are
representing someone, it is mandated by the rule that you have to state
whom you are representing.
- In this connection, remember that when you are representing a juridical
person you should not be armed with a special power of attorney, mali
yon. You should be armed with a board resolution.
- So in a representative party where the party is a corporation or a juridical
entity, the power or authority is not and should not be an SPA but a board
resolution.
- Examples: guardian, administrator, executor. They are not the parties in
interest. They only filed the case for the parent/the minor children. The
rule provides that when a representative party files a case, it is
mandatory that the parties in interest must be named.
Rule 3, Section 12. Class suit. — When the subject matter of the controversy is
one of common or general interest to many persons so numerous that it is
impracticable to join all as parties, a number of them which the court finds to be
sufficiently numerous and representative as to fully protect the interests of all
concerned may sue or defend for the benefit of all. Any party in interest shall have
the right to intervene to protect his individual interest.
- If the party in a class suit is someone who can sufficiently represent a
class, can it be just one?
o YES, it can be just one and still a class suit. It does not follow
kasi, tignan niyo sa section 12 ang word diyan ay “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
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.
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.
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.