Dean Riano Transcript

REMEDIAL LAW

How does Remedial Law operate? When a right has been violated.

The very first part of Civil Procedure is to file a complaint because your right is violated.

 Right of action – the right to file a complaint - It arises when your right has been violated. - Remedial, not substantive law.

- You have a right of action because you have a cause of action.

Do you need a cause of action in all civil actions?

No. A cause of action is mandatory only in ordinary civil actions.

Start with Rule 2 where the real meat starts, Remedial law starts. Not with Rule 1 because it is only introductory.

Cause of Action is in Sec. 2. It involves a right that is violated. Example. I borrowed P1M from you and I promise to pay you on April 2014. But when you demanded I didn’t pay you. I violated your right as a creditor to be paid. You now have a cause of action. Can go to court. Civ pro now starts to operate. Same example. I promised to pay you my debt on April 2014 and on that day until now I didn’t pay. You went to court to sue me. You have no cause of action as there was no demand. Art. 1169, NCC, no delay if no demand. All substantive laws are related to remedial law.

You do not need a violation of a right in some special civil actions. But you need a violation of a right in ordinary civil actions. Example. Warehouseman. A claims to be the owner. B also claims to be the owner. W is now confronted by 2 conflicting claim of ownerships. If W deliver the goods to A, B would sue W. W is not a court. So W goes to court and throw the problem to the court for it to decide. Interpleader. Someone did not violate W’s right. W went to court not because his right is violated but rather to settle the confusion of the claim of ownership.

Expropriation. I didn’t violate the right of the government. It is the government taking my property.

ROC is very clear. Only in ordinary action where cause of action is mandatory.

Filing of the Complaint: Prepare the Complaint: Rule 2,4,3,6,7,8 Rule 1.

Jurisdiction over subject matter is not procedural. Not a part of rules of court. It is a substantive law.

What are the EFFECTS OF THE FILING OF COMPLAINT on jurisdiction over the parties?

1. The court acquires jurisdiction over the plaintiff not the defendant.

Example, an Australian resident filed a case for accounting plus damages through his lawyers. Defendant filed an MTD on the ground for lack of jurisdiction as the plaintiff did not personally come to the Phil.

Answer: 1.1. MTD is denied.

1.2. Rule. Personal filing and coming to the Phil is not a requisite for jurisdiction. When the complaint is filed, the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff.

2. On the issue of prescription in your civil code. The cause of action will no longer prescribe because the complaint is filed in court. Art. 1155, NCC.

The prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed before the court.

Rule 14 Summons

When the complaint is filed and lawful feels are paid.

Clerk of court issues the summons not the court. Summons tell the defendant to appear and file his answer. Even if the summons tell you to file an answer, the Answer is not the first option of the defendant. Defendant may read the complaint and say that there are allegations that are hazy, thus it is possible to file a motion for bill of particulars, Rule 12.

Rule 12 Bill of Particulars

To clarify the allegations of the complaint. Needs detail. You don’t file this to ask for evidence but just to ask for details in the complaint. The purpose of this is to enable you to prepare a responsive pleading.

Rule 16 Motion to Dismiss

Now, it is possible that since the complaint is now clarified that the defects thereof are also clear, thus you can file a motion to dismiss.

Rule 10 Amendment

If you were the plaintiff and there was a motion to dismiss, what is your possible move? Amend your complaint. MTD is not a pleading, it is only a motion. So, you can still amend the pleading as a matter of right. But if there is already an answer, it is no longer a matter of right, so you need a leave of court.

Rule 17 Dismissal of Actions A plaintiff can still dismiss his own complaint.

Rule 6 Answer A responsive pleading to the complaint. Possibilities:

 An answer but there are no specific denials: effect is all are admissions: NO ISSUE AT ALL: Judgment on the Pleadings, Rule 34.

 An answer and the only issue NOT A GENUINE ISSUE (ex. He admitted he was negligent but denied liability on the amount of damages and not the existence of damages): Summary Judgment, Rule 35. Can file a claim against plaintiff: An Answer with Counterclaim.

- It actually involves 2 pleadings: an answer and a counterclaim

- The kinds of counterclaim:  Compulsory

 Permissive Counterclaim – D v. P Cross-claim- D1 v. D2

Third Party Claim – D v. 3rdy. Needs a leave of court. A 3rdy is not yet a party to the case so you need the permission of the court to include him.

Intervention – to protect my legal right. Needs leave of court. Rule 19.

Reply – plaintiff wants to reply to the answer. Not mandatory. Even without this, all allegations in the answer are deemed denied.

Rule 18 Pre-Trial - can even use the modes of discovery  - if no amicable settlement, go to Trial

Rule 30 Trial

Normally, plaintiff presents the evidence first. But it is possible to have reverse trial in civil case. 

Can file demurrer to evidence, Rule 33. It is actually a motion to dismiss but with another name in order to avoid confusion with Rule 16. A motion to dismiss is filed even before an Answer is served but a Demurrer to evidence is filed after the plaintiff rests his case, meaning he is done with the presentation of his evidence.

Rule 33 Demurrer to Evidence

That plaintiff has not proven anything. He is not entitled to the relief sought for.

Rule 36 Judgment Remedies against the Judgment. Post-Judgment Remedies. Remedies of a Losing party.

Our Rules do not logically arrange these topics. So let’s rearrange these.

BEFORE JUDGMENT BECOMES EXECUTORY (within the period for appeal)

 Motion for Reconsideration, R37  Motion for New Trial, R37  Appeal- R 40, 41, 42, 43, 45

AFTER JUDGMENT BECOMES EXECUTORY (after the period of appeal has lapsed)

 Annulment of Judgment- R47  Petition for Relief- R38  Certiorari – R65

Rule 39

Execution and Satisfaction of Judgments PROVISIONAL REMEDIES

Temporary reliefs during the pendency of action and before the judgment is executed.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS Certiorari R. 65

Now to the nitty gritty... JURISDICTION

-The court has jurisdiction, not the judge.

- Jurisdiction is not the court. It refers to the authority. A power to hear, try and decide the case- the traditional view. - Echegaray v. SOJ, 1999: another element to jurisdiction: includes the power to execute the decisions.

- in CivPro, there are several aspects of jurisdictions:

> subject matter – a substantive law. It is found now in Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 (BP129), as amended by RA 7691. It is conferred by law. It is determined by the allegations of the complaint.

> parties: plaintiff and defendant. Procedural. Implied in Summons

> issues- Procedural. Implied in Rule 10. > res – Procedural. Implied also in Summons - in CrimPro,

> subject matter: offense charged > person of the accused

> territory - equivalent to venue in civil case. But in civil case, venue is just purely venue. But in criminal case, venue is jurisdiction.

In the civil case, venue is not jurisdiction. But in the criminal case, venue is jurisdiction.

MTD in Civil Case –ground: improper venue MTQ in Crim Case – ground: lack of jurisdiction

Consequences of the principle that jurisdiction of the subject matter is conferred by law:

- Jurisdiction over subject matter cannot be waived. - Cannot be the subject of the stipulation between the

Ex. Suppose the parties and the court believed that the case is within the jurisdiction of the RTC even though technically it should have been under jurisdiction of the MTC, will the exercise of the jurisdiction by the RTC because of good faith validate the judgment of the court that was subsequently rendered? No! Because the judgment was rendered without the jurisdiction. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by good faith or honest belief. Good faith and honest belief are not laws and jurisdiction is conferred by law.

But if you already know that the court has no jurisdiction but you still participated in the trial despite of such knowledge. And when you were about to lose the case, only then you questioned the jurisdiction, you may be stopped in questioning the jurisdiction. This will only come in the following circumstances:

- Previous knowledge that the court has no jurisdiction - Did not question the jurisdiction

- Actively and fully participated in the proceedings - When about to lose, only then that you questioned the

jurisdiction

Tijam v. Sibonghanoy: you are not allowed to gamble with the results of the litigation.

What is the implication of the rule that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of the complaint?

- Do not look at the title of the case given by the plaintiff. Look instead at the material allegations of the complaint. - Barazona v. RTC of Baguio.

- if demand to vacate and pay= unlawful detainer - Vacate or pay= collection of sum of money

- Vacate or comply with the conditions of the lease = not unlawful detainer but an action for specific performance - Vacate and comply with the conditions of the lease =

unlawful detainer

SPECIFICS of JURISDICTION Jurisdiction of RTC and MTC

Sec. 33 of BP 129, as amended

"Sec. 33.Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. — Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise: cdt

"(1)Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant of provisional remedies in proper cases, where the value of the personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila where such personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00), exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the amount of which must be specifically alleged: Provided, That interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses,

and costs shall be included in the determination of the filing fees: Provided, further, That where there are several claims or causes of actions between the same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions;

"(2)Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer: Provided, That when, in such cases, the defendant raises the questions of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession; and

"(3)Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots." REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7691 [1994])

Sec. 19 of BP 129, as amended

"Sec. 19.Jurisdiction in civil cases. — Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction.

"(1)In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation; "(2)In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000,00) or for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;

"(3)In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or claim exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila, where such demand or claim exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00);

"(4)In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of the estate exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in probate matters in Metro Manila, where such gross value exceeds Two Hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00);

"(5)In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations;

"(6)In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;

"(7)In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the Court of Agrarian Relations as now provided by law; and "(8)In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the property in controversy exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in such other cases in Metro Manila, where the demand exclusive of the abovementioned items exceeds Two Hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00)."

||| (Expanding the Jurisdiction of the MeTCs, MTCs and MCTCs, REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7691 [1994])

RA 7691, Section 5.After five (5) years from the effectivity of this Act, the jurisdictional amounts mentioned in Sec. 19(3), (4), and (8); and Sec. 33(1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by this Act, shall be adjusted to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00). Five (5) years thereafter, such jurisdictional amounts shall be adjusted further to

Three hundred thousand pesos

(P300,000.00): Provided, however, That in the case of Metro Manila, the abovementioned jurisdictional amounts shall be adjusted after five (5) years from the effectivity of this Act to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00).



Outside Metro Manila –P300K Beyond these amount- RTC Exactly these amount – MTC

But in computing those amount, there are numbers which are not supposed to include: damages of whatever kind, interests that have not yet accrued, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs. (DIALiC)

Only the main claim!

The rule that damages must not be included in determining jurisdiction applies only when damages is not the main claim. Since the MTC can handle probate cases depending on the gross value of the estate, that is a special proceeding, is there any other spec pro which an MTC can handle? Yes. Special Jurisdiction of MTC – Special proceeding of writ of habeas corpus- not a regular jurisdiction of MTC. Sec. 55 BP129, as amended. Only when the RTC judges are all absent. As long

as there is an RTC judge present, the MTC cannot handle that case.

Normally which court has jurisdiction over land registration or cadastral cases? RTC. MTC if delegated by SC. Delegated jurisdiction. Sec. 34 BP129, as amended.

Which court has an exclusive original jurisdiction over Forcible Entry or Unlawful Detainer? MTC

If an unlawful detainer case was filed in MTC and defendant invoked the defense of ownership, will that defense divest the jurisdiction? No. The court can determine (provisionally) the ownership but only to determine the extent of possession. Can the MTC handle a petition for a writ of Amparo? Writ of Habeas Data? Never. Though they are special proceedings February 19, 2013: SC affirmed na they are spec pro. De Lima v. Magtanggol Magdulap.

The most controversial aspect is the real action. They continued to be debated because many of the judges are the products of the old school concept of jurisdiction. “Title to, possession of or any interest in real property.” Sec. 33, BP129 #3.

"(3)Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots." cd i||| (REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7691 [1994])

Sec. 19, #2. "(2)In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000,00) or for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;||| (REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7691 [1994])

So real property: assessed value, except Unlawful detainer, forcible entry.

TRANSCRIPT 2 c.f. Valeriano Poncia v. Sps Lomocso 540 scra 1 Accion publiciana

Accion reivindicatoria Partition of real property Foreclosure of REM

Cancellation of title to real property Reconveyance of title to real property Quieting of title

Some of those real actions are also actions incapable of pecuniary estimation which are cognizable by RTC. But if the actions are incapable of pecuniary estimation and at the same time a real action, look at the assessed value.

Cancellation of title to real property, involves an interest in real property, thus a real action. But the issue is, do you have a right to cancel the real property – incapable of pecuniary estimation. So, must look at the assessed value.

Look then at the material allegations of the complaint to determine the real and primary purpose of the action. Am I going to use the doctrine on incapable of pecuniary estimation? Or am I going to use the doctrine on real actions? So if the topic is specific performance, do not immediately answer incapable of pecuniary estimation, thus RTC. Look at the way the problem has been phrased! The nature of the cause of action and jurisdiction is again determined by the material allegations of the complaint!

Example: 1. I offered to sell a parcel of land to you. You accepted it. Price is P10M. You paid me. I told you, you can now occupy the l and. So you built a mansion on the land. But the sale is oral, no written document. Is the sale valid? Yes. Art. 1319. Meeting of the minds: offer is certain, acceptance is absolute.

Art.1475

So the buyer went to the RD to register the land. But the RD refused to register without the deed of absolute sale. Now the seller won’t execute the deed. So the buyer would file a case an action to compel the seller a notarized deed of sale. An action for specific performance. Are you going to look at the assessed value of the land or are you going to the RTC because it is incapable of pecuniary estimation? RTC! Your purpose is only to get a notarized deed of sale and not to acquire ownership. You already are the owner, the land was already delivered to you. You are not filing an action for specific performance to acquire ownership, instead it was to get the notarized deed of sale. That document did not give you ownership. There was already a delivery. It is the delivery of the subject matter of the sale that brings ownership.

2. I offered to sell a parcel of land to you. You accepted it. You paid me. But I told you, you cannot occupy the land until after 6 months. Hence there was payment, meeting of the minds but there is no delivery yet. So the buyer is not yet the owner of the land. Payment and sale are not modes of acquiring ownership. It is the delivery as a consequence to the sale that makes one an owner. So after 6 months still I did not give to you the land. So you filed an action for specific performance to compel me to execute a notarized deed of sale. The purpose here is to acquire ownership because there was yet no delivery. So the execution of notarized deed of sale is equivalent to delivery. Art. 1498, NCC. So this is a real action; the purpose of acquiring ownership.

Look at the facts of the case! Specific performance is not de-kahon!

Accion publiciana is to be treated differently from UD/FE. Although all of them involved possession of real property. The only problem is UD/FE are actions cognizable by MTC always. But AP is cognizable either by MTC or RTC depending upon the assessed value and the location of the property. When is an action to recover possession real property an accion publiciana. Short story: an UD/FE are actions that have to be filed within 1 year from the accrual of action. If you were dislodged of the possession by force, intimidation, stealth, strategy, - FE

One year from last demand to vacate – UD

If lagpas one year- AP na  a delayed action for UD/FE AP is not a summary proceeding. It is an ordinary civil action. FE/UD falls under summary procedure.

An instance when an action to recover real property is an accion publiciana aside from the fact that is filed more than one year from the accrual of the cause of action is when the complaint does not allege how the defendant took possession of the property; consider it as an accion publiciana.

If the allegations of the complaint state clearly the occupancy by the defendant was legal at the beginning but because he did not pay the rentals or violated the conditions and demand to vacate was made and he did not vacate, unlawful detainer. The possession was legal but became illegal later.

If he entered the property by force, intimidation, it is forcible entry. The possession is illegal from the beginning.

Suppose there are no allegations that would point as to whether it is forcible entry or unlawful detainer, and you are recovering possession of real property, that is considered as accion publiciana. The issue is only possession.

If the ownership is the issue; You are recovering possession because you are the owner, that is already accion reivindicatoria. Look at the assessed value.

Removal of the cloud on the title, Quieting of title . They are real actions and at the same time incapable of pecuniary estimation. Look at the assessed value.

Quinagoran v. CA- accion publiciana August 24, 2007.

The doctrine on which the RTC anchored its denial of petitioner's Motion to Dismiss, as affirmed by the CA — that all cases of recovery of possession or accion publiciana lies with the regional trial courts regardless of the value of the property — no longer holds true. As things now stand, a distinction must be made between those properties the assessed value of which is below P20,000.00, if outside Metro Manila; and P50,000.00, if within. ||| (Quinagoran v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 155179, August 24, 2007)

Heirs Valeriano case December 12, 2007

In a number of cases, we have held that actions for reconveyance of or for cancellation of title to or to quiet

title over real property are actions that fall under the classification of cases that involve "title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein."

The original text of Section 19 (2) of B.P. 129 as well as its forerunner, Section 44 (b) of R.A. 296, 47 as amended, gave the RTCs (formerly courts of first instance) exclusive original jurisdiction "[i]n all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein,except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon Metropolitan Trial Courts, [MTCs], and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (conferred upon the city and municipal courts under R.A. 296, as amended)." Thus, under the old law, there was no substantial effect on jurisdiction whether a case is one, the subject matter of which was incapable of pecuniary estimation, under Section 19 (1) of B.P. 129 or one involving title to property under Section 19 (2). The distinction between the two classes became crucial with the amendment introduced by R.A. No. 7691 48 in 1994 which expanded the exclusive original jurisdiction of the first level courts to include "all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs." Thus, under the present law, original jurisdiction over cases the subject matter of which involves "title to, possession of, real property or any interest therein" under Section 19 (2) of B.P. 129is divided between the first and second level courts, with the assessed value of the real property involved as the benchmark. This amendment was introduced to "unclog the overloaded dockets of the RTCs which would result in the speedier administration of justice." ||| (Heirs of Concha, Sr. v. Spouses Lumocso, G.R. No. 158121, December 12, 2007)

Real action- involves title to, possession of or any interest to real property

Specific performance (incapable of pecuniary estimation) (main action) AND P100,000 damages (MTC) (incidental)= RTC.

Specific performance OR P100,000 damages = MTC,

Look at the amount of the damage, because it is in the alternative.

The jurisdiction of the respective courts is determined by the value of the demand and not the value of the transaction out of which thedemand arose; that is what the law says in unmistakable terms. The alternative prayer for specific performance is also of the same value, for, as said above, the alternative prayers would not have been made in the complaint if one was more valuable than the other; hence, the specific performancealternatively prayed for, is capable of pecuniary estimation at P644.31 (sec. 88, par. 2, Rep. Act No. 296).

In view of the foregoing, it is declared that the respondent Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal is without jurisdiction to try the case referred to, and he is ordered to stop further proceedings by dismissing the case.

||| (Cruz v. Tan, G.R. No. L-3448, November 27, 1950)

Action for interpleader: if the object of the interpleader is personal property or movable property like goods, look at the value of the property. If you are in Metro Manila, P400,000. Outside it is P300,000. That is if personal property

If the object of the interpleader is a real property, look at the assessed value because it is a real property, Manila P50,000. Outside, P20,000

If the object is a performance of the service, RTC, it is incapable of pecuniary estimation.

Petition for declaratory relief- RTC, incapable of pecuniary estimation.

RULE 63

Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies

SECTION 1. Who may file petition. — Any person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation may, before breach or violation thereof, bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any question of construction or validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder.

An action for the reformation of an instrument, to quiet title to real property or remove clouds therefrom, or to consolidate ownership under Article 1607 of the Civil Code, may be brought under this Rule. (1a, R64) (As amended by Resolution of the Supreme Court, Feb. 17, 1998)

||| (Rules of Court [1997])

- An action for reformation of an instrument, quieting of title, removal of clouds, consolidation of ownership – RTC, incapable of pecuniary estimation.

- You are not filing an action to reform a contract. It is to reform an INSTRUMENT!

- If the contract itself is defective, you just enter a new contract. It is not defined as a document nor an instrument. It is the meeting of the mind.

In consolidation of ownership, do not look at the assessed value because you file it not to acquire ownership as you are already the owner but instead you file it so that your consolidation of ownership will be registered. There can be no registration without a court order. Local Sales: two kinds of redemption: Legal redemption, Conventional redemption. Let’s say I sold to you a house and lot subject to redemption. Within the period for redemption I was not able to redeem. What happens? Consolidation of ownership upon the buyer. So the ownership is acquired by the buyer by operation of law

by failure of the seller to redeem. But that consolidation of ownership needs a court order for it to be registered.

Art. 1607, NCC. In case of real property, the consolidation of ownership in the vendee by virtue of the failure of the vendor to comply with the provisions of article 1616 shall not be recorded in the Registry of Property without a judicial order, after the vendor has been duly heard. (n)

- The failure to redeem already has the effect of consolidation of ownership. But it shall not be recorded in the Registry of Property without judicial order. Which court has jurisdiction over the judgments of COMELEC and COA?

- SC. Rule 64.

- There is NO MODE OF APPEAL! Be very careful on this. You don’t go to SC from the COMELEC or COA in order to appeal. SC has no jurisdiction over appellate procedures from COMELEC and COA. You go to the SC in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 which is not a mode of appeal. It is an independent original special civil action. IT IS NOT AN APPEAL! It is a mode of Review. There are 2 modes of review:

1) Appeal 2.)Certiorari, Rule 65

Certiorari under Rule 64 is only directed to the COA and COMELEC. Rule 65 in Rule 64 is mestizo Rule 65. The pure and true Rule 65 is the certiorari in Rule 65. The certiorari in Rule 65 is to be filed within 60 days from notice of judgment or final order. But the Rule 65 in Rule 64 is to be filed in 30 days. Rule 65 in Rule 64 is only for COMELEC and COA. Rule 65 in Rule 65 is for all other tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.

Where can you file the Rule 65 petition in Rule 65? RTC, CA, Sandiganbayan, SC

Rule 65 under Rule 64? Only SC

Let’s go to Rule 65  the 3 special civil actions: Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus

- Can be filed in any court except for Certiorari where the lowest court that it can be filed is RTC

- When you file petition for certiorari under R65, you are not appealing. You are not talking about the merits of the case. You are concentrating on the fact that the lower tribunal has committed acts amounting to lack of jurisdiction. It acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of jurisdiction amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The issue is JURISDICTIONAL. The petition for certiorari Rule 65 might have its roots in the case below. But it is not about whether the court committed errors in the appreciation of the facts and evidence. But it is the grave abuse of discretion. When you file certiorari under Rule 65 is like filing a new action.

- Ex. I filed a petition for certiorari in the CA against the grave abuse of discretion of the RTC. I lost in the CA. What is the remedy against the CA? Appeal. Because it is like filing a new case. Ang decision sa certiorari hindi mo cinecertiorari. Ang decision sa certiorari ina-appeal

mo dahil ang petition ng certiorari ay para kang nag-file ng original na kaso na kapag natalo ka mag-aapeal ka.  - Ang mode of appeal ay ang Rule 45. Rule 65 hindi mode

of appeal!

- San mo fina-file ang Rule 45, SC lang. ;)

- The filing of the petition for certiorari in CA does not have the effect of interrupting the course of the principal case in the RTC. The RTC judge has the obligation to proceed with the case in the RTC within 10 days from filing the petition for certiorari. To stop the proceedings below, you have to get a writ of preliminary injunction or a TRO.

- SC has observed that whenever a counsel does not agree with the court the counsel always file a petition for certiorari against the court and this delays the proceedings below. Because if you file a case for petition for certiorari in the CA against the RTC, the old practice was that the RTC will not continue with the case on the ground of judicial courtesy that there is a pending certiorari against them. So it will stop the case below. Justice is delayed. That judicial courtesy is no longer allowed. Lower court should proceed with the case unless it is prevented from doing so through a writ of preliminary injunction or TRO. If the judge does not continue with the case and there is no injunction or TRO, he will be subjected to disciplinary action.

- Sec. 7, Rule 65 is a five-star provision.

SECTION 7. Expediting Proceedings; Injunctive Relief. — The court in which the petition is filed may issue orders expediting the proceedings, and it may also grant a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction for the preservation of the rights of the parties pending such proceedings. The petition shall not interrupt the course of the principal case, unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction has been issued, enjoining the public respondent from further proceeding with the case. The public respondent shall proceed with the principal case within ten (10) days from the filing of a petition for certiorari with a higher court or tribunal, absent a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, or upon its expiration. Failure of the public respondent to proceed with the principal case may be a ground for an administrative charge.

- ||| (Amendments to Rules 41, 45, 58 and 65 of the Rules of Court, A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC [2007])

- This is a potential question for an essay problem. This has far-reaching significance!

- Problem: <P, plaintiff: D, defendant> suppose, D noticed a defect in the allegations. So D filed an MTD for failure to state a cause of action. Denied. D filed an MR. Alleging grave abuse of discretion, D filed R65 for certiorari before CA against RTC. P filed a motion to declare D in default for failure to file an answer within the period. RTC granted the default. Is the RTC wrong when it declared D in default? No. The filing of the petition for certiorari does not interrupt the period for filing the answer absent TRO or prelim injunction, thus default.

- How can you prevent the court from making the declaration of default? Ask for the issuance of TRO and writ of preliminary injunction.

Where do you file expropriation proceeding under Rule 67? RTC. Always incapable of pecuniary estimation even if the object is a real property. The issue in this case is, does the government agency has the right to expropriate the property. The issue as to the right is incapable of pecuniary estimation. Where do you file for the foreclosure of the REM? Look at the assessed value. Rule 68.

Where do you file the partition of real property under Rule 69? Look at the assessed value. A partition of real property involves an interest of real property and it requires determination of the assessed value.

Where do you file Rule 70, forcible entry/unlawful detainer? MTC

Where do you file a petition for indirect contempt? In the court which is the object of the contempt. But if the object is the MTC, you can file it either in RTC or MTC itself. Ang finafilan ng action is indirect contempt. Ang direct contempt walang action2x, right there and then you can be declared direct contempt. Ang indirect contempt may action pa yan. Pag inaway ka ng misis mo, at inuntok ka ng misis mo, anong court ang may jurisdiction? Wala, hospital ka muna! @.@

JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES -basically there are 2 parties: plaintiff and defendant

How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiff? By filing complaint

How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the defendant? By serving summons or voluntary submission

When the issue is jurisdiction over the defendant, not all cases require jurisdiction over defendant. Why? Because there are some civil cases without defendant. And even if there is a named defendant, it is not a true defendant but only a nominal defendant. You only acquire jurisdiction over the defendant when it is a true defendant that is in an action in personam. Example. I filed a land registration case, cognizable by RTC (generally unless delegated to MTC). There is no defendant. The object of the action is the property. The res. Jurisdiction over the res. Land registration case is an action in rem. I filed a probate proceeding for allowance of the will. What is the object? The will. I am not filing it against a particular defendant. So no need of jurisdiction over defendant because there is no defendant. Probate proceeding is an action in rem. On the other hand, there are actions where there are named defendants but they are only nominal defendants because you cannot proceed with the case without naming the person. Ex. Elen and Pedro are couple. Pedro filed an action for annulment of marriage against Elen because of force and intimidation against the former. Is there a defendant named? Yes. Elen but only a nominal defendant. The action is directed against the relationship. The relationship involves the status as

a married person. It is not an action in personam. But an action in rem. Pedro cannot file an action for annulment without mentioning that he is married so he must mention the person to whom he is married.

When an action is in rem or quasi-in rem, jurisdiction over the defendant is not required. What is required is jurisdiction over the res. The res is the property or the status of the plaintiff. You only need a jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in an action in personam. It is in action in personam where there is a true defendant where you want him to be liable, to perform an act in your favour.

An action to declare my filiation is an action in rem, it is about my status. But when I file an action against this lady to recognize me as her natural child, the action is directed to her for her to recognize me. It is not an action against the whole world dahil hindi ako anak ng mundo! Anak lang ako nya. I-recognize mo ako! That is an action in personam. But an action to declare mere filiation is an action in rem.

Kung si armi ay nangutang sakin ng P1M at ayaw nyang magbayad and when I demanded money binatukan nya ako ng singkamas then I sue her for collection of sum of money. The court needs to acquire jurisdiction over her. That is an action in personam.

Si Elen ay nagdadrive ng kotse na pakantakanta pa with feelings and closed her eyes. I crossed the street. She hit me but I survived and I want to sue her for damages. An action in personam. The court needs jurisdiction over her person. If X is renting my apartment and he does not pay the rentals and I want him to vacate the premises. I will file unlawful detainer. It is an action in personam. A recovery of property from the person possessing it is an action in personam (accion publiciana, unlawful detainer, forcible entry, replevin). Quasi in rem. No need jurisdiction over the person of the defendant but only over the res. Action for accounting. Attachment proceedings. Partition of real property. Foreclosure of REM.

In personam, the court needs jurisdiction over the person. Action for a sum of money. Action for damages, UD/FE, accion publiciana, accion reivindicatoria.

JURISDICTION OVER THE ISSUES

How do you know the issues of the civil case? Look at the pleadings of the parties. The complaint as material allegations. If the material allegations are not specifically denied, no issues. They are deemed admissions.

Rule 8, SECTION 11. Allegations Not Specifically Denied Deemed Admitted. — Material averment in the complaint, other than those as to the amount of unliquidated damages, shall be deemed admitted when not specifically denied. Allegations of usury in a complaint to recover usurious interest are deemed admitted if not denied under oath. (1a, R9) An issue arises when the party specifically denies a material allegation. For example,

Allegations:

1. The complaint says that D borrowed P5M from P. D did not deny that particular allegation. There is an admission. So no more issue as to WON there is debt coz there’s no specific denial. There is no issue.

2. That the debt is already due. There was no specific denial that the debt is due. So there is no issue as to whether the debt is already due.

3. There was a demand of the duty to pay. There was no specific denial. The demand was not denied. It is admitted. Due date is not denied. It is admitted. Existence of the debt is admitted.

4. Despite demand he did not pay, no it’s not true coz I paid. The issue is whether or not there was payment.

That is how an issue arises.

Because if he admits that there was no payment despite demand, plaintiff may simply file a motion for judgment on the pleadings which presupposes that there is no issue at all. Summary judgment presupposes a non-genuine issue.

Now, issues in the case can also arise because of the stipulation of the parties during the pre-trial. What do you mean when you say that the court has jurisdiction over the issues? That simply means that if the parties are quarrelling over P5M, the issue in the pleadings, the court has no jurisdiction to render judgment for P10M because that P10M is not the issue of the case. The issue is only P5M. When the issue on the case is only ownership as found in the pleadings, the court can only render judgment as to ownership but cannot render judgment as to possession where possession is not the issue of the case because ownership is not possession and possession is not ownership. They are different concepts. But even if a matter is not an issue in the pleading but that is tried in the case with the consent of the other party because there was no objection, that matter which is not an issue in the case is considered to have become an issue on the case as if found in the pleadings because they were tried with the consent of the parties.

Rule 10, SECTION 5. Amendment to Conform to or Authorize Presentation of Evidence. — When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these issues may be made upon motion of any party at any time, even after judgment; but failure to amend does not affect the result of the trial of these issues. If evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the issues made by the pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be amended and shall do so with liberality if the presentation of the merits of the action and the ends of substantial justice will be subserved thereby. The court may grant a continuance to enable the amendment to be made. (5a)

Illustration: I sued X for P5K. While I was presenting my evidence, it was shown that he owes me P7K. You are the counsel of the other party what is your move? Objection your honor, the P7K is irrelevant as the pleadings only talked about P5K. What will the court say? Sustain. The P7K is not in the pleadings. The evidence must prove up to the extent of P5K because that is in the pleadings. Now, suppose you do not object to the P7K, it is as if the pleadings were talking about P7K not P5K because you consented to it. So the court can render judgment on it na. If segurista ka, you can move to amend the pleadings, to conform to the evidence. But even if you do not amend it, it doesn’t matter na coz it is considered as part of the pleadings. This is an implied amendment of the pleadings. Failure to object.

There was an action to collect a sum of money P500K. In the complaint, there was no allegation that he demanded payment before filing the action. There was no objection from the other side. During the trial, the plaintiff offered in evidence, Exhibit A- a written demand to pay. There was no objection from the other party. Question, is the court in error if it admits Exhibit A? No. It was tried with the consent of the other party. There was no objection. An implied amendment of the pleading to include the demand even if it was not included in the pleading. It is not enough to know about jurisdiction. You must also know about where the court sits. About the geographical location. VENUE.

There are many MTCs but which MTCs? The one in Mandaue? Lapu2x? Cebu City? Venue in the civil case is only venue.

Venue in criminal case is jurisdictional 

When the venue in the civil case is erroneous, the ground for the MTD is improper venue.

When the venue in the criminal case is erroneous, the ground for the MTQ is lack of jurisdiction.

There is a shortcut to determine venue. Is the action a personal action or is it a real action? That is the first thing that should come to your mind.

The rules do not define the personal actions. It only defines real actions. Those not falling under real actions are personal actions.

Real Actions. — Actions affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein.

If the action is real you are going to look at where the property or any part of it is situated. Do not consider the residences of the parties. The plaintiff has no choice, there is only one choice- where the real property is located.

If the action is person, ask where does the plaintiff reside? Defendant reside? The plaintiff has the choice.

Action to collect a sum of money, plaintiff is from Quezon City, defendant is from Makati City, amount to be collected P350K. Which court has jurisdiction? Metropolitan Trial Court. In what place shall the action be filed (venue)? This is a personal action, the venue is the residence of the plaintiff, residence of defendant at the option of the plaintiff. So the plaintiff can file it in Quezon City or Makati City. If it is filed in Pasay City, improper venue. Remedy is MTD on the ground of improper venue. If denied, file first an MR. Denied, there is now grave abuse of discretion, file with the RTC (hierarchy of courts) a certiorari.

Change the problem. A parcel of land located in Pasay City. The plaintiff is from Manila, defendant is from Quezon City. The action is an accion publiciana. The venue is at Pasay City. The court which has jurisdiction depends on the assessed value.

If the land is located on the borderline of Pasay and Paranaque, file the action in either place where the part of the real property in litigation is located. You cannot file in both places because it will amount to forum shopping.

A parcel of land located in Batangas City. Plaintiff lives in Manila, Defendant lives in Lucena City. Accion publiciana. Assessed value is P10K. What court has jurisdiction?MTC. Plaintiff filed it in MTC Manila because he is from Manila. MTC dismissed it on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Improper ground, it should have been improper venue. MTC has jurisdiction over the accion publiciana where the assessed value is P10K. The problem is venue and not jurisdiction. But if it was filed in RTC Manila, the problem is not only venue but also jurisdiction. In the civil case where the venue is the defect do not include jurisdiction in your answer. Jurisdiction has nothing to do with venue.

Car A rear-ended Car B, tinamaan sa likuran, coz the driver was negligent. Accident happened in San Fernando, Pampanga. A is from Manila, B is from Quezon City. The action is reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property. Venue? This is a criminal action, so where the offense occurred. So it is in San Fernando, Pampanga. But it was filed in Quezon City, ground for MTQ? Lack of jurisdiction. No criminal case filed, instead an action for damages was filed based on quasi-delict. Venue? Either Manila or Quezon at the option of plaintiff. If the venue is improper because it was filed in Pampanga, the ground for MTD is improper venue. Watch out for stipulations of venue. Can venue be stipulated upon? Yes, venue can be the subject of stipulation. Jurisdiction cannot be the subject of stipulation. Venue can even be waived by the parties if nobody objects; while jurisdiction cannot be waived.

For a stipulation of venue to be submitted to the court, 1. It has to be a written stipulation.

Rule 4, SECTION 4. When Rule not Applicable. — 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. (3a, 5a)

An oral stipulation of venue will not bind the court. The court may or may not disregard that stipulation.

2. The stipulation must be agreed upon before any action is filed.

3. For the stipulation to prevail, the stipulation must be an exclusive or restrictive stipulation because if it is not restrictive the stipulated venue may not be followed even by a party. Jurisprudence calls it a permissive stipulation. If the stipulation is restrictive or exclusive there is no other venue except the one agreed upon. The Rules we talked about a few minutes ago (residence if personal action, location if real action) will no longer apply except the agreed venue. But if the stipulation is permissive, the Rules will still apply including the stipulated venue. To determine whether it is restrictive or permissive, use common sense, just look at the words 

Example. The promissory note was executed by the maker. If the maker is from QC, payee is from Manila. The agreement was that all actions arising from the note shall be filed in Malolos, Bulacan and in no other place. If there was no stipulation and the payee in Manila files a case againt the maker the venue would have been either Manila or QC at the option of the plaintiff. But here you have such a stipulation. It cannot be filed in Manila or QC. It is restrictive, thus it can only be filed in Malolos, Bulacan. If in the example there was no phrase “and in no other place”, it becomes permissive. Thus the action can be filed in Manila or QC or Malolos, Bulacan  Malolos becomes then an additional venue.

The case was filed in RTC, an action for the recission for the contract of sale of a car. P from Manila, D from QC. The action should be filed in either Manila or QC, the car is not a real property. But the case was filed in Makati City. So the court on its own initiative dismissed the complaint on the ground of improper venue. Did the court act correctly in motu proprio in dismissing the complaint? No. No matter how wrong the venue is, if no party complains (there is a waiver of venue) about it, it is not for the court to take the cudgels for the party and dismiss it motu proprio.

Is there an instance where the court can dismiss the case on any ground including improper venue motu proprio even without an MTD? Yes. When the case falls under summary procedure. The most popular cases are forcible entry and unlawful detainer. 

Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, SECTION 4. Duty of Court. — After the court determines that the case falls under summary procedure, it may, from an examination of the allegations therein and such evidence

as may be attached thereto, dismiss the case outright on any of the grounds apparent therefrom for the dismissal of a civil action. If no ground for dismissal is found it shall forthwith issue summons which shall state that the summary procedure under this Rule shall apply. d-c

The court may dismiss on any of the grounds for the dismissal civil action even without an MTD on forcible entry and unlawful detainer. But the general rule is that the court cannot dismiss the case motu proprio on the ground of improper venue.

The court can motu proprio dismiss the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, res judicata, litis pendentia, prescription. This does not include improper venue. These grounds are found in Rule 9, SECTION 1. Defenses and Objections Not Pleaded. — Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. However, when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim. (2a)

Example: The case is in the RTC. MTD was filed for lack of jurisdiction. The court said it had the jurisdiction because it was an action incapable of pecuniary estimation. But the venue was improper so the court dismissed it in its own motion, did the court act correctly? No. It would tantamount to motu proprio dismissal and the court cannot do that. Look, the case was in RTC, surely it was not a summary procedure because if it were so then it would have been filed in MTC. The case is in the MTC, forcible entry, ground for MTD is lack of jurisdiction. The court said it had the jurisdiction but there was improper venue so it decided to motu prorpio dismiss the case. The court is correct because it is a summary procedure where the court can make a motu proprio dismissal on any of the grounds for the dismissal of the civil actions including improper venue.

The case is in the RTC, MTD on the ground of improper venue. The court said that the venue is proper but the court had no jurisdiction because the amount is P350,000 and the place is Pasay City. So the court decided to motu proprio dismiss the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction even if the MTD is anchored on improper venue. Can the court do that? Yes. For lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, litis pendentia, res judicata and prescription.

For all other grounds, there must be an MTD except when the case falls under a summary procedure.

CAUSE OF ACTIONS It is mandatory in ordinary civil actions only ^_^

When you have a cause of action, the rule is that you state it! If you do not state it you are risking a dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the complaint states no cause of action. In relation to cause of action, the ground for dismissal is not lack of or absence of cause of action but failure to state the cause of action.

RULE 16, SECTION 1. Grounds. — Within the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any ofthe following grounds:

x x x

(g) That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action;

x x x

You may have a cause of action but if you did not state that in your complaint it could be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. Kunyari, ang love is cause of action. Mahal na mahal ko sya. Head over heels. Sa pagmamahal ko sa kanya bumabalentong na ako. May cause of action ako sa kanya. Di na nga ako nakakatulog sa pagmamahal ko sa kanya. But di ko masabi na mahal ko sya, that is failure to state a cause of action. Boom! That is a ground for dismissal. 

Nangutang ako sa kanya ng P500K. The debt has been due 3 days ago. She demanded but I did not pay. She has a cause of action against me. But once she filed a case against me the allegations are the following: the defendant borrowed P500K; the debt is due; until now the debt has not been paid. There is here a failure to state a cause of action due to absence of one element which is the demand to pay.

Do not split a single cause of action. OW, that would be multiplication of suits. That would clog the court dockets. How do you know that there is a splitting of cause of action? Very difficult to explain but we can illustrate.

Complaints or causes of action normally have 2 parts. 1. Main relief 2. The incidental relief

For example. The main relief is collection of a sum of money. The incidental relief could be interest and/or damage. When you file an action to collect a sum of money you have to include a demand the payment for interest and/or damage because they constitute a single cause of action. The splitting of a single cause of action comes when you file a complaint for sum of money and later on you file a separate complaint for the recovery of interest and/or damages for the same action for the sum of money. That cannot be done. Normally it is the 2nd _{suit that will be dismissed on the basis of litis pendentia. If} the main action is done and after that you sued me for P1M, you won and recovered the P1M. But you forgot to include a claim for interest and/or damages. So you filed an action for that interest and/or damages. That action will be dismissed by filing MTD on the ground of res judicata dahil tapos na yung unang kaso. If pending both, the ground would be litis pendentia. If the ground was res judicata or litis pendentia, isang case lang madi-dismiss. Para ma-dismiss mo yung 2 cases ng sabay huwag mong gamitan ng res judicata or litis pendentia, ground mo dapat forum-shopping, dismiss lahat yan ^_^ willfull and deliberate forum shopping, summary ang

dismissal. That kind of forum shopping is a separate ground for dismissal not found in Rule 16.

Joinder of Causes of Action

This is not bawal. It is the splitting of the cause of action that is bawal. Ang isa huwag mong paramihin. But yung marami pwede mong pag-isahin, that’s not bawal. Example, Alex married a widow who has a child. Don’t separate that child from his mom, bawal ang splitting. Sa Pinas, mahilig sa joinder. Pag pinakasalan kita, pati nanay mo, tatay mo pwede tumira sa’tin.

This presupposes several causes of action that can be joined. In analyzing this, we are going to make a formula for our own consumption only. hehe. DO NOT USE THESE WORDS IN THE BAR as the bar examiner will not understand you. Formula 1: One on One Situation

- One plaintiff vs. One defendant

- Ex. Defendant owes the following amounts: PN: P250K, P185K, P275K, borrowed for different reasons, separate transactions, and all of them are already due and demands are made for the payment but no payment was made. How many causes of action are there? 3. How many complaints to be filed? 3. One cause of action = one complaint. Now, is it possible for the plaintiff to file a single action to collect those 3 amounts represented by 3 promissory notes? Yes. If there is only one plaintiff and one defendant, no problem even if they are totally unrelated from each other, they can all be joined as long as none of them is a special civil action nor governed by special rules. If you are outside Metro Manila and you file them separately, the MTC has jurisdiction. If you join all of them, apply the totality rule, now the RTC has jurisdiction.

Formula 2: Rumble Situations

- Several plaintiffs or several defendants TRANSCRIPT 3

The clerk of court issues summons pursuant to constitutional due process. The summons are served upon the defendant telling him to file an answer; otherwise, the court would grant the relief sought for. But then he tells himself; how can I file the answer when the allegation are vague? He needs more details so he is now going to file a motion for a bill of particulars. So the court orders the plaintiff to file a bill of particulars. The plaintiff followed it. Then the complaint was made clear, the defects became patent as well. So defendant filed an MTD. Unfortunately the court denied it. So defendant just have to file an answer. If he doesn’t file an answer, the consequence would be that he will be in default upon motion to declare default by the plaintiff.

Defendant filed an answer but did not make any specific denials. The effect is that all material allegations in the complaint have been admitted. There are no issues, no trial. Plaintiff files a motion on the judgment of pleadings.

Defendant filed an answer but did not deny the material allegations. He only denied the amount of interest and/or

damages. There is an issue as to the amount of interest and/or damages but is not a genuine issue. So plaintiff can possibly file a motion for summary judgment.

In filing the answer, the defendant could include a claim against the plaintiff which is called Counterclaim. Defendant could include a claim against a co-defendant called, cross-claim. Someone not party to the action may be brought by the defendant to become a party to the action with leave of court so that he will answer for the liability, thus a Third-Party Complaint. But there is this guy who is not a party to the action, he notices that he has a legal interest in the action, he wants to gate crash but with the permission of the court and that method of entering in the case is called an Intervention. Plaintiff files a complaint, defendant files an answer, plaintiff wants to file an answer to the answer and this is called Reply. All the pleadings now are in court and the pleading stage is over. Then the plaintiff files a motion to set the case for pre-trial. Amicable settlement. Trial. Judgment. Losing party can avail of certain remedies against the judgment.

Period for appeal: MR, MNT, Appeal

After the period of appeal: Annulment of judgment, Petition for Relief, Certiorari.

After all remedies have been exhausted and the defendant still lost, the plaintiff shall file a motion for execution of judgment. Is it possible for a party to have remedies even before the case is over? Yes. Can he get something from the court even the court makes a final judgment? Yes. Provisional Remedies. Sample bar problem. X is a stockholder of a corporation. He went abroad and transferred his shares of stocks to Y a mere trustee. For 5 years, Y was receiving the dividends. X came back to Phil and asked Y to transfer back the shares. Y refused. X filed a case and won. When the shares were transferred to the name of X. X then filed a case to recover the dividends Y had received for 5 years. Y filed an MTD on the ground of res judicata. Is the 2nd _{action is barred by a prior} judgment? Yes. When he filed an action to recover his shares he should have included in his prayer the recovery of the dividends that accrued to those shares for the 5 years. They constitute a single cause of action. The main action was to recover the shares, the incidental action was to recover the dividends accruing to those shares. They cannot be separated. There should be no splitting of the cause of action. Failure to include the recovery of damages barred recovery because the first case was already over. Res judicata

REMEDIAL LAW; ACTIONS;

SPLITTING OF SINGLE CAUSE OF ACTION; INSTANT CASE. — Appellant's position that the second action of appellee for the collection of surcharges cannot be maintained because (1) a party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action; and (2) appellee'saction for recovery of the surcharges in question is barred by prior judgment is essentially correct. There is no