Q. Can the court declare a defendant for failure to file an answer, in default if the case is governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure?
A. Where no answer is filed, the court may not declare defendant in default because a motion to declare defendant in default is a prohibited pleading. (Lesaca vs. CA 21 Oct 1991)
Q. X filed an ejectment suit against Y who filed an answer. Y filed a motion to dismiss in the guise of a position paper. X objected on the ground that such motion is a prohibited motion under the Rule on Summary Procedure. Rule on the objection.
A. Objection not meritorious. While this is indeed a prohibited motion (Sec 19[a] of Revised Rules on Summary Procedure), it should be noted that the motion was filed after an answer had already been submitted within the reglementary period. In essence, therefore, it is not pleading prohibited by the Rule on Summary Procedure. What the rule prohibits is a Motion to Dismiss which would stop the running of the period to file an Answer and cause undue delay.
Q. What are the prohibited pleadings and motions under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure?
A. They are the following:
(1) Motion to dismiss the complaint or to quash the complaint or information except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or failure to comply with referral to Lupon for conciliation.
(2) Motion for a bill of particulars
(3) Motion for new trial or for reconsideration of a judgment or for reopening of trial (4) Petition for relief of judgment
(5) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or any other papers.
(6) Memoranda
(7) Petition for certiorari, mandamus or prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by the court (8) Motion to declare the defendant in default
(9) Dilatory motion for postponement (10) Reply
(11) Third-party complaints (12) Interventions.
Q. In a case for unlawful detainer under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, the MTC rendered a decision in favor of A, the lessor, ordering B, the lessee, to vacate A’s apartment and to pay the back rentals. B appealed to the RTC which affirmed MTC’s decision. A anticipating another appeal by B, filed a motion for execution pending appeal pursuant Sec 21of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. B likewise within the reglementary period filed a petition for review of the RTC’s decision with the CA.
(1) May the RTC grant A’s motion for execution pending appeal after B filed his petition for review with the CA? Explain.
(2) May B validly oppose the motion for execution pending appeal on the ground that the motion is not based on the good reasons for which an execution pending appeal may be issued under Sec 2 Rule 39 of the Rules of court.
A.
(1) Yes because the decision of the RTC is immediately executory despite the appeal (Sec 21 Revised Rules of Summary Procedure)
(2) No because Sec 2 of Rule 39 is not applicable to this case which falls under Summary Procedure.
Q. For failure of the tenant, Marivic, to pay rentals, Letty, the court-appointed administrator of the estate of Santos Lindawan decides to file an action against Marivic for the recovery of possession of the leased premises located in Plaridel, Bulacan and for the payment of the accrued rentals in the total amount of P100,000.
If the case is filed with the Municipal Trial Court, is it covered by the Revised Rule of Summary Procedure?
A. Yes it is covered by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure because Sec 1 A [1] provides that “All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, irrespective of the amount of damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered”. This is a clear case of unlawful detainer and the accrued rentals of P100,000 is immaterial to the application of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.
Q. Distinguish action from cause of action. (1999 Bar Exam)
A. An action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right or the prevention or redness of a wrong. (Sec. 3 Rule 1 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.) A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. ( Sec 2 Rule 2 of 1997 Rules. An action must be based on a cause of action. (Sec. 1 Rule 2 of 1997 Rules)
Q. A sued B to recover P500,000 based from a promissory note due and payable on 5 Dec. 1995. The compliant was filed on 30 Nov. 1998 and summons was served on B on 7 Dec. 1998. B interposes a motion to dismiss on the ground that the compliant states no cause of action. If you were the judge, how would you rule on the motion? (1999 Bar Exams)
A. If I were the judge, I would grant the motion on the ground that the compliant states no cause of action. When the complaint was filed, the promissory note was not yet due and demandable and hence the compliant was filed prematurely. This defect was not cured by the service of the summons on the defendant after the date when the promissory note became due and payable.
Q. Distinguish:
1) An action IN REM from an action QUASI IN REM.
2) An action QUASI IN REM from an action IN PERSONAM.
3) An action IN PERSONAM from personal action.
4) An action IN REM from real action.
5) A personal action from a local action. (1994 Bar ) A.
1) An action IN REM is an action against all who might be minded to make an objection of any sort against the right sought to be established. While an action QUASI IN REM is an action against an individual although the purpose of the suit is to subject his interest in a particular property to the obligation or lien burdening the property.
The judgment rendered in actions IN REM binds the whole world, while the judgment rendered in actions QUASI IN REM is conclusive only between the parties.
2) An action QUASI IN REM, as stated is an action against a person over a particular property or claims relating thereto, while an action in PERSONAM is an action to establish a claim against a person with a judgment that binds him personally.
3) An action in PERSONAM, as stated, is an action against a person on the basis of his personal liability while a personal action is an action where the plaintiff seeks the recovery of personal property, the enforcement or the resolution of a contract or the recovery of damages.
4) An action IN REM is an action against all who might be minded to make an objection of any sort against the right sought to be established, while a real action is an action affecting title to real property or for the recovery of possession or for partition or condemnation of or foreclosure of a mortgage on real property.
5) A personal action is an action where the plaintiff seeks the recovery of personal property, the enforcement or resolution of a contract or the recovery of damages, while a local action is that which must be brought in a particular place.
Plaintiff in a personal action may file it in the place where he resides or where the defendant resides while in a local action, plaintiff has no choice except to file the action in the place where the property is located.
Q. Distinguish civil actions from special proceedings. (1998 Bar Exam)
A. A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of the right or the prevention or redress of a wrong, (Sec 3(a) Rule 1, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure), while a special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right or a particular fact. (Sec 3(c) Rule 1)
Q. Ruby filed a collection of sum of money case against Grany on April 18, 2003, which the later contested when she filed her answer during the reglementary period. Ruby filed an amended compliant impleading Mildred as additional defendant upon a motion properly filed on May 23, 2003. When is the civil action deemed commence?.
A. As to Grany, the original defendant, the civil action is deemed commenced on April 18, 2003. But with regard to Mildred, the additional defendant, it is deemed commenced on May 23, 2003. “A civil action is commenced by the filing of the original compliant on court. If the additional defendant is impleaded in a later pleading the action is commenced with regard 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.” (Sec 5 Rule 1, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
Q. How shall the Rules of Court be construed (1998 Bar Exams)
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. (Sec 6, Rule 1 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
However, strict observance of the rules is an imperative necessity when they are considered indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and to an orderly and speedy dispatch of judicial business (Alvero vs. Judge dela Rosa, 76 Phil 428 and other cases)
Q. What are the kinds of actions for the recovery of possession of real property ? Explain each.
A. The kinds of actions are the following:
(1) The summary action for forcible entry and unlawful detainer – forcible entry is a summary action to recover material or physical possession of real property when the person who originally held it was deprived of possession by force, intimidation, strategy, threat or stealth. An action for unlawful detainer, on the other hand may be filed when possession by a land lord, vendor, vendee or other person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of contract, express or implied. Both actions may be filed with the municipal trial court within one year after unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession.
(2) Accion publiciana is the plenary action to recover the right of possession when dispossession has lasted for more than one year or when dispossession was affected by means other than those mentioned under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.
Q. Define Cause of Action and give its essential elements.
A. A cause of action is defined as an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right or rights of another. Its essential elements are: (1) legal right of the plaintiff: (2) correlative obligation of the defendant and (3) an act or omission of the defendant on violation of said legal right. There must be damage or prejudice otherwise, no right of action arises in favor of plaintiff.
Q. Butch purchased a lot from Cosme for P1.5M. he gave a down payment of P500,000, signed a promissory note payable for 30 days after date, and as security for the settlement of the obligation, mortgaged the same lot to Cosme. When the note fell due and Butch failed to pay Cosme commended suit to recover from Butch the balance of P1M. After securing a favorable judgment on his claim, Cosme brought another action against Butch before the same court to foreclose the mortgage. Butch now files a motion to dismiss the second action on the ground of bar by prior judgment. Rule on the motion. (1999 Bar Exams)
A. The motion to dismiss should be granted. When Cosme commenced suit to collect on the promissory note, he waived his right to foreclose the mortgage. He split his cause of action which he cannot validly do.
Q. What is the rule against splitting a cause of action and its effect on the respective rights of the parties for failure to comply with the same? (1999 and 1998 Bar Exams)
A. The rule against splitting a cause of action and its effect are that 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 dismissal of the other, the ground for dismissal is either lis pendens (if the actions are still pending) or res judicata (if the judgment in one case has already become final. (Sec 4 Rule 2 of 1997 Rules.
Q. Marife secured two loans from Nimfa, one for P500,000 and the other for P1,000,000 payable on different dates. Both have fallen due. Is Nimfa obliged file only one compliant against Marife for the recovery of both loans. Explain. (1999 Bar Exams)
A. No. Joinder is only permissive since the loans are separate loans which may be governed by different terms and conditions. The two loans give rise to two separate causes of action and maybe the basis of two separate complaints.
Q. What is the rule on joinder of causes of action? ( 1999 Bar Exams)
A. The rule on joinder of causes of action is that a party may in one pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as many causes of action as he may have against an opposing party, provided that:
(1) the rule on joinder of parties is complied with
(2) the joinder should 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 maybe allowed in the Regional Trial Court provided one of the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein
(4) Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction. (Sec. 5 Rule 2 1997 Rules)
Q. May a complaint be dismissed on the ground of misjoinder of causes of action?
A. No. Misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for dismissal of an action. Misjoined causes of action may, on motion of a party or on the initiative of the court, be severed and proceeded with separately. (Sec. 6 Rule 2 1997 Rules)
Q. Distinguish joinder of causes of action from joinder of parties. (1996 Bar Exams)
A. Joinder of causes of action maybe made in the same complaint by one party against another, the totality of the demand determines jurisdiction of the court.
But in cases of joinder of causes of action by or against several parties, the right to relief must arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions and there must be a common question of fact or law. If these requisites are present, the totality of the demand determines the jurisdiction of the court.
Q. The complaint filed before the RTC of Candon City states two (2) causes of action, one for rescission of contract and the other for the recovery of P100,000 both of which arose out of the same transaction. Is the joinder of the two causes of action proper? Explain. (1996 Bar Exams.)
A. Yes, since the first cause of action for rescission of contract falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC of Candon City, because the subject is incapable of pecuniary estimation and the second cause of action for recovery of P100.000 is within the jurisdiction of a lower court and arose out of the same transaction, both may be joined in the complaint filed with the RTC.
Q. Who may be parties to a civil action?
A. Parties to a civil action are the plaintiff and defendant. Persons having an interest in the subject of the action and in obtaining the relief demanded maybe plaintiffs. Persons claiming an interest in controversy adverse to the plaintiffs maybe defendants. Parties should be (1) natural persons, (2) juridical persons (3) entities authorized by law to be parties such as labor organizations and entities without legal personality when sued as defendants. (Sec. 1 Rule 3 1997 Rules)
Q. Who is a real party in interest?
A. 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. (Sec 2 Rule 3 of 1997 Rules)
Q. Mr. Garcia, an attorney-in-fact of Mr. Ringor prosecuted a case in favor of the latter without including Mr.
Ringor. The defendant Mr. Galang filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint states no cause of action. Rule on the motion.
A. Motion should be granted. The attorney in fact is not a real party in interest hence cannot prosecute the case only in his name. The complaint should include Mr. Ringor as real party in interest. Where action is allowed to be prosecuted or 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 party in interest. (Sec.
2 and 3 Rule 3 1997 Rules)
Q. When is permissive joinder of parties proper?
A. Permissive joinder of parties is proper when the following requisites are present:
(1) The persons in whom or against whom any right to relief in respect to or arising out of the same transaction or series of transaction or series of transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly or severally or in the alternative, may join as plaintiffs or be joined as defendants in one complaint ; and
(2) There is a question of law or fact common to all such plaintiff or to all such defendants in the action.
(Sec. 6 Rule 3 1997 Rules)
Q. Balbin Subdivisions Inc. developed, subdivided and conveyed to lot buyers parcels of land in a subdivision owned by it. Mr. Pre claiming as owner of the whole subdivision filed a case against Balbin Subdivision Inc. for recovery of real properties. Will the action prosper?
A. No the action will not prosper. In an action for recovery of parcels of land, which had already been subdivided and conveyed to lot buyers, the latter are indispensable parties and their having been not impleaded as defendants renders the judgment and all proceedings therein held null and void for want of authority on the part of the court to act not only as to the absent parties but also as to the present.
(Metropolitan Waterworks & Sewerage System vs. LA 297 s 287) Sec. 7, Rule 3 of 1997 Rules provides that
“parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. Failure to include indespensable parties is a ground for dismissal of action.
Q. Who is a necessary party?
A. 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.
Q. Distinguish indispensable and necessary parties.
A. A proper party or necessary party is one which ought to be a party if complete relief is to be accorded as between those already parties. An indispensable party is a party who must be made a party either as
plaintiff or defendant if final determination can be had of an action. In other words, a necessary party need not be joined as party litigant and the court can still adjudicate the controversy as between the parties already in court. On the other hand, an indispensable party must be joined under all circumstances to enable the court to resolve the dispute; otherwise the case must be dismissed.
Q. Give the effect of the non-joinder of a necessary party. (1998 Bar Exams)
A. The effect of the non-joinder of a necessary party may be stated as follows: the court may order the inclusion of an omitted necessary party if jurisdiction over his person may be obtained. The failure to comply with the order for his inclusion without justifiable cause is a waiver of the claim against such party. The court
A. The effect of the non-joinder of a necessary party may be stated as follows: the court may order the inclusion of an omitted necessary party if jurisdiction over his person may be obtained. The failure to comply with the order for his inclusion without justifiable cause is a waiver of the claim against such party. The court