Rule 03-Parties To Civil Actions

Rule 03
Parties to Civil Actions
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition
Rule 03
PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS

CLASSES OF PARTIES:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
Real Parties in Interest

Representative Parties
Permissive Parties
Indispensable Parties
Necessary Parties
Sec. 1. Who may be parties; plaintiff and defendant. - Only natural or

juridical persons, or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil
action.
The term "plaintiff" may refer to the claiming party, the counterclaimant, the cross-claimant, or the third (fourth, etc.)-party plaintiff. The
term "defendant" may refer to the original defending party, the defendant in a
counterclaim, the cross-defendant, or other third (fourth, etc.)-party
defendant. (1a)
Q: Who may be parties to a civil case?

A: Only natural or juridical persons or entities authorized by law may be
parties in a civil action. So, you cannot sue or be sued unless you are a person. A dead
man cannot sue and he cannot be sued because he has no more personality.
That is why in one case, Brod Pito sued the firm name, Paningkamot Store. So, it is
Brod Pito vs. Paningkamot Store. The SC said, that is wrong. Paningkamot Store is not a
person. PangaIan ng tindahan iyan. The correct procedure is you sue the owner because
he is the real person. But the defect is not really substantial. It is only a formal defect that
can easily be corrected.
ENTITIES AUTHORIZED BY LAW
Q: Give an example of an entity authorized by law which can be sued although it is not
a person.
A: The best example is Section 15 of this rule.
Section 15. Entity without juridical personality as defendant.- When two or
more persons not organized as an entity with juridical personality enter into u
transaction, they may be sued under the name by which they are generally or
commonly known.
In the answer of such defendant the names and addresses of the persons
composing said entity must all be revealed.
Another example of an entity authorized by law which may not be a natural or juridical
person is a labor union under the Labor Code. It is an entity authorized by law to file a
case in behalf of the of its members. Although it may not have been incorporated under
the Corporation Law but registered under the Labor Code.
Q: Who are the plaintiffs, defendants?
A: The term PLAINTIFF may refer to the claiming party, the original plaintiff, the
counter-claimant, the cross-claimant, the third (fourth, etc.)- party plaintiff. So,
the word plaintiff covers them.
The term DEFENDANT may refer to the original defending party, the defendant in
a counterclaim, the cross-defendant, or other third (fourth, etc.)-party
defendant. These are explained in Rule 6, Sections 6, 8 & 11.
I. REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
Sec 2. Parties in interest. - A real party in interest is the party who
stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party
entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these
Property of LAKAS ATENISTA
74

2001 Edition
Rule 03
Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party
in interest. (2a)
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. (Section 2)
That is a new sentence taken form jurisprudence because the prior rule never gave a
definition of real parties in interest but jurisprudence gives a definition. That definition is
taken from the leading case of SALONGA VS. WARNER BARNES & CO. (88 Phil. 125). That is
exactly how it is defined and that definition has been repeated through the years.
every action must be prosecuted or defended
in the name of the real party in interest
So a complaint is dismissible if it is not made in the name of the real party in

interest.
In an action to recover a piece of land , you do not file a case against tenant. He is not
the real party in interest. You must file the case against the owner of the land.
When you are riding in a bus which collided and you were injured, do not file a case
against the driver for damages. Your contract in not with the drive. Your contract is with
the operator. So you file a case of culpa contractual against the owner or operator.
GENERAL RULE: In a breach of contract, the real parties in interest are the parties to
the contract. So strangers, as a rule, have no business suing in a contract because they
are not real parties in interest.
EXCEPTION: When there is a stipulation in the contract favorable to a third person
(stipulation pour autrui Art. 1311, NCC) Example: Third-Party Liability (TPL) in insurance.
A insured his car with B for TPL. A bumped C. C can file a case against A and B to recover
from the insurance contract.
BALIWAG TRANSIT vs. COURT OF APPEALS
169 SCRA 649 [1989 BAR]
FACTS: A student who was riding in one of the Baliwag buses met an
accident. So, an action was filed where the parents and the injured boy were the
co-plaintiffs against Baliwag Transit. While the case was going on, the boy
entered into amicable settlement with the bus company. Based on the
settlement, Baliwag moved to dismiss the case. The parents objected, We are
objecting because we are also plaintiffs. We didnt know about the settlement.
We were the ones who spent money, therefore it should not be dismissed simply
because our son is withdrawing the case.
HELD: The parents are not the real party in interest. The were not
passengers. The real parties in a contract of carriage are the parties to
contract itself. In the absence of any contract of carriage between
transportation company and the parents of the injured party, the parents are
real parties in interest in an action for breach of contract.
the
the
the
not
SALONGA vs. WARNER BARNES

88 Phil. 125 [Bar Problem]
FACTS: Aiza Guadolope decided to go abroad but she has properties in the
Philippines. So she executed a special power of attorney in favor of Ken A.
Sabayah: You have the full power to administer, to collect all my money; to
withdraw my money in the bank; with full power to sue these people who owe
75

2001 Edition
Rule 03
me; with the authority to hire a lawyer; and enter into a contract. Practically, you
are my alter ego. And then Aiza went abroad.
Ken started to manage the property. One of the tenants failed to pay rentals.
So in accordance with the authority, he hired a lawyer. In preparation of the
complaint, it was stated that, Ken, plaintiff vs. Lewee Yoda, defendant.
ISSUE: Is the action properly filed?
HELD: NO. The real property in interest is the principal, the owner of the
property. Ken is only an attorney-in-fact. An attorney-in-fact cannot use in his
own name because he is not the real party in interest. Ken is given the authority
to sue, to manage, hire a lawyer but not as the plaintiff because the real party in
interest is Aiza. The complaint should be name as Aiza, plaintiff vs. Leewee
Yoda, defendant. Yaan!
Q: Suppose Ken, the lawyer will amend the complaint: Ken, as attorney-in-fact of Aiza,
plaintiff vs. Leewee Yoda, defendant is the complaint properly filed.
A: NO. This is even worse because Ken is admitting that he is only an attorney-in-fact.
The more reason na nahalata ka that he is not the real party in interest. If Ken wants to
include the his name, it should be: Aiza, plaintiff, represented by Ken, his attorney-in-fact
vs. Leewee Yoda, defendant.
Q: Does the law require Aiza to come here to file the case?
A: NO. Take note that the law does not require the principal (A) to come back to file the
case because, the law does not say every action must be prosecuted and defendant BY
the real party in interest. Hindi naman sinabing by eh. So an attorney-in-fact can
prosecute or defend a party but in the name of the real party in interest. The real party in
interest has submitted to the jurisdiction of the court by filing the complaint through his
lawyer.
II. REPRESENTATIVE PARTY
Sec. 3. Representatives as parties. - Where the 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. A representative may be a trustee
of an express 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.
(3a)
Section 3 is a relaxation of Section 2 because under Section 2, you cannot sue and be
sued if you are not the real party in interest. But Section 3 allows one who is not a real
party in interest to sue and be sued in behalf of somebody else. It is possible if you can
qualify as a representative party.
Example: GUARDIAN. Suppose Judee, a minor was injured. A case for damages has to
be filed in behalf of the minor. A minor cannot sue and be sued but she is the real party in
interest. The law allows the parents to come in and also be the plaintiff. The parents are
what we the representative party. The law still requires for the minor to be included in the
case. The law states that the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and
shall be deemed to be the real party in interest.
Example: TRUSTEE; EXECUTOR; ADMINISTRATOR. Another example is a trustee of an
express trust, or executor or administrator of the estate of a deceased person. When a
person dies, what survives after him is his estate which represents everything that is left
behind. This later on will be given to his heirs. But for the meantime under the law on
succession, the executor or administrator will take charge of his property.
Q: If the estate of the deceased has some collectibles, who will file the case?
76

2001 Edition
Rule 03
A: The administrator or executor as the representative party. If you want to sue the
estate, you should sue the estate through the administrator or executor.
CHING vs. COURT OF APPEALS
181 SCRA 9
FACTS: Angel Maya wanted to sue Devil John who owe her a sum of money.
The problem is, she cannot locate Johns whereabouts. Also, Maya was not
certain whether John is dead or alive. So, to play it safe, what the Maya did was
to file a case against the defendant and/or the estate of defendant. Maya
obtained a judgment against the defendant and/or the estate of defendant.
Later on when the judgment was enforced, it turned out that the John was
already dead (tsk! tsk!) but he has properties left behind. So, they started to
take hold of their properties. Now, the heirs of the John challenged the decision.
ISSUE: Whether or not there was a valid judgment against the defendant/or
the estate of the defendant.
HELD: The decision is void. The decision of the lower court insofar as the
deceased is concerned, is void for lack of jurisdiction over his person. He was
not, and he could not have been validly served with summons. He had no more
civil personality. His juridical personality, that is fitness to be subject of legal
relations, was lost through death (Arts. 37 and 42 Civil Code).
The same conclusion would still inevitably be reached notwithstanding
joinder of Bs estate as co-defendant. It is a well-settled rule that an estate can
sue or be sued through an executor or administrator in his representative
capacity.
So, the Court cited Section 3. In order to bind the estate, you should sue the executor
or the administrator of his estate. So, either way, the case cannot prosper.
The last sentence of Section 3:
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.
The agent cannot sue because the principal is the real party in interest. But when an
agent acts in his own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal, he may sue
and be sued, EXCEPT when the contract involves things belonging to the principal. Under
the exception, the principal has really to be included. The agent cannot file a case where
the principal will lose his property without being named as part to the case.
Sec 4. Spouses as parties. - Husband and wife shall sue or be sued jointly,
except as provided by law. (4a)
Normally, the husband and the wife should sue and be sued together. Even if
the wife borrowed money alone and you want to sue the woman, still the husband should
be included. Why? In the property relationship between the husband and wife, they are
governed by absolute community or conjugal partnership. Whether you like it or not, the
implication of the wife is also the implication of the husband because of the property
relationship.
In the same manner, if the wife wants to collect, even if the husband does not know
anything about it, the husband should still be named as party plaintiff, on the ground
again that in the income that she can get redounds to the benefit of the conjugal
partnership.
And there were decided cases in the part where even if for example, a wife sues
without the husband, the defect is not fatal but merely formal. The complaint
77

2001 Edition
Rule 03
should not be dismissed. All that is to be done is to amend the complaint

impleading the husband. (Cuyugan vs. Dizon, 76 Phil. 80)
Q: Give an exception to that general rule that husband and wife shall sue or be sued
jointly.
A: The EXCEPTION is in case of Complete Separation of Property (Article 145,
Family Code), and under Article 111, Family Code:
Art. 111. A spouse of age may mortgage, alienate, encumber or otherwise
dispose of
his or her exclusive property without the consent of the other
spouse and appear alone in court to litigate with regard to the same. (Family
Code)
Sec 5. Minor or incompetent persons. - A minor or a person alleged to be

incompetent, may sue or be sued, with the assistance of his father, mother,
guardian, or if he has none, a guardian ad litem. (5a)
Section 5 is related to Section 3. The minor or incompetent person must be assisted by

the parents and considered as representative party. Incompetent persons includes insane
people or mentally retarded people. They are supposed to be under the custody of other
persons, the guardians. If no guardian, the court has to appoint a guardian called the
guardian ad litem.
III. PERMISSIVE PARTY
Sec 6. Permissive joinder of parties. - All persons in whom or against any
right to relief in respect to or arising out of the same transaction or series
of transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the
alternative, may, except as otherwise provided in these Rules, join as
plaintiffs or be joined as defendants in one complaint, where any question of
law or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in
the action; but the court may make such orders as may be just to prevent any
plaintiff or defendant from being embarrassed or put to expense in connection
with any proceedings in which he may have no interest. (6)
Section 6 is known as permissive joinder of parties. This is related to Section 5 [a] of

Rule 2 on joinder of causes of action because when there is proper joinder of parties,
necessarily there is also automatic joinder of causes of action. But there could be
joinder of causes of action without joinder of parties.
Q: May two or more persons join in one complaint as plaintiffs? Or can two or more
persons be joined together as defendants?
A: YES, under two conditions, to wit:
1.) There is a right to relief in favor of or against or against the parties joined in
respect to or arising out of the same transaction or series of
transactions; and
2.) There is a question of law or fact common to the parties joined in the
action.
PROBLEM: Suppose some passengers riding a particular common carrier are injured
because of an accident. All of them want to sue the operator of the carrier for damages
arising out of the breach of contract of carriage. Under the Law on Transportation, it
possible for each passenger to file his own case because our causes of action are different
from each other. But can they be joined together in one complaint against the common
carrier?
A: YES because there is a common question of law or fact in the causes of actions of
the injured passengers: the evidence is identical; the issues whether the carrier is at fault
are the came; the witnesses for both parties will be the same; the report will be the same;
the defense of the operator against one party will be the same defense as against the
78

2001 Edition
Rule 03
other passenger. So, since there is a common denominator on their causes of action, they
can be joined.
It would be different if the passengers were riding on different buses belonging to the
same company, and all of them met an accident. What happened to Passenger No. 1 does
not concern Passenger No. 2. The evidence will not be the same. So, there is no common
denominator no common question of fact. Therefore, they cannot be joined.
PROBLEM: Suppose a story appeared in the Inquirer where 5 people were called as
jueteng kings. They were allegedly involved in jueteng these are the jueteng kings: Ken,
Kenneth, Francis, Thad and Sheriff. Now, the five of them want to sue the Inquirer for
damages arising from libel. Is it possible for the five (5) people named in the article to file
only one complaint against the editor and publisher of the Inquirer?
A: YES because it is of the same story. Their names appeared in the same story. It is not
a different issue. So there is a common question of act law in their cause of action.
PROBLEM: Myra, while driving a car, bumped another vehicle, injuring the driver and
causing injury to other passengers. So, there are three offended parties : the owner of the
vehicle, the driver of the vehicle , and the passenger. There are three(3) causes of action.
Can they join in one complaint against Myra, the owner of the car which bumped them?
A: YES because there is a common question of fact and law. There is only one accident.
Q: But suppose the three of them will file 3 separate cases against Myra, puwede?
A: Puwede, because permissive joinder of parties is not mandatory. Kaya nga
permissive eh! It is not mandatory but optional although the law encourages permissive
joinder of parities.
Q: Why does the law encourage joinder of parties?
A: The following are the reasons:
1.) to promote convenience in trial;
2.) to prevent multiplicity of suits;
3.) to expedite the termination of the litigation; and
4.) to attain economy of procedure under which several demands arising out of the
same occurrence may be tried together thus avoiding the repetition of evidence
relating to facts common to the general demands.
Now, take note that when there is joinder of parties, there is automatically a
joinder of causes of action. That is why one of the conditions of limitations in joinder of
causes of action is you must observe the rule on joinder of parties. If joinder of parties is
improper under Rule 3, the joinder of causes of action is also improper under Rule 2,
Section 5
Principle: WHEN THERE IS JOINDER OF PARTIES (it presupposes that there are
two or more parties to one action) , THERE IS ALSO A JOINDER OF CAUSES OF
ACTION. BUT THERE CAN BE A JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION WITHOUT A
JOINDER OF PARTIES.
Paano yun?
EXAMPLE: When there is only one plaintiff and one defendant : Suppose
Melissa will secure three (3) loans from me.
Q: How many causes of action do I have if Melissa will not pay me?
A: Three (3) man ba!
Q: Now, can I join them in one complaint?
A: Yes.
Q: Is there joinder of causes of action?
A: Yes.
79

2001 Edition
Rule 03
Q: Is there joinder of parties?

A: NONE, because there is only one plaintiff and one defendant.
So, there can be joinder of causes of action without joinder of parties because there is
only one plaintiff and one defendant. But if you join parties in Rule 3, automatically,
there is joinder of causes of action. This is the relationship of these two provisions.
Finally, the last two types of parties to the action are the so-called indispensable
parties and necessary parties. (Section 7 and Section 8, respectively)
INDISPENSABLE PARTY and NECESSARY PARTIES
Sec. 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. Parties in interest
without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined
either as plaintiffs or defendants. (7)
Sec. 8. Necessary party. A necessary party is one who is not indispensable
but who ought to be joined as a party if complete relief is to be accorded as to
those already parties, or for a complete determination or settlement of the
claim subject of the action. (8a)
Take note that under the Old Rules, Section 8, the party there was called proper party.
Now they change the word from proper party to necessary party. This readopts the old
name under the 1940 Rules. Under the old rules, the parties were either indispensable or
necessary. Then under the 1964 Rule, it was changed from necessary to proper. Now,
under the new rule, back to its old name: necessary party.
Q: Distinguish indispensable from necessary party.
A: An INDISPENSABLE PARTY must be joined under any and all conditions, his
presence being a sine qua non of the exercise of judicial power, for without him, no
final determination can be had of the action. (Borlasa vs. Polistico, 47 Phil. 345)
A NECESSARY PARTY ought to be joined whenever possible in order to
adjudicate the whole controversy and avoid multiplicity of suits, but if for some reason
or another he cannot be joined, the court may proceed without him and the judgment shall
not prejudice his rights. (Ibid.)
Q: Give examples of indispensable party.
A: In an action for partition of land, all the co-owners thereof are indispensable parties.
(De Lara vs. De Lara, 2 Phil. 294) In an action for annulment of partition, all of the heirs
must be made parties. (Caram vs. CA, 101 Phil. 315) In an action for recovery of ownership
of land, the person who claims to be the owner of the land is the indispensable party
defendant and not the one in possession as tenant. (Sanidad vs. Cabotaje, 5 Phil. 204;
Manza vs. Santiago, 96 Phil. 938)
Q: Give examples of necessary party.
A: In an action for collection of debt instituted by the creditor against the surety, the
principal debtor is merely a necessary party. (Vao vs. Alo, 95 Phil. 495) In an action for
recovery of debt instituted by the creditor against the debtor, the guarantor or surety is
merely a necessary party. (Ibid.) In an action for foreclosure of a real estate mortgage
instituted by the first mortgagee, the second mortgagee is merely a necessary party.
(Somes vs. Govt of Phil., 62 Phil. 432)
REVIEW: What is the difference between a surety and a guarantor? The liability of
guarantor to the creditor is only secondary. Meaning, the guarantor is only liable to the
creditor if the principal debtor cannot pay like when the debtor is insolvent. On the other
hand, a surety is principally liable to the creditor whether or not the debtor can pay.
PROBLEM: In credit transactions, there is a creditor, debtor and surety. Debtor borrowed
money from the creditor, then another acted as the surety. Now, suppose the debtor will
not pay, the creditor files now a case against the surety without the debtor. The debtor
was not included in the case.
80

2001 Edition
Rule 03
Q: Can the case proceed even without the debtor being sued?
A: YES, the case may proceed.
Now, the surety may be ordered to pay. Pero bag binayaran ng surety iyong creditor,
what will he do next? He will now sue the principal debtor for reimbursement. Meaning,
there is still a future case. Thus, there could be no complete relief between those who are
parties. So, the debtor is a necessary party, and not indispensable. But it is advisable to
join the debtor in one case, para pag nag-claim ang creditor from the surety, the latter can
automatically claim from the debtor. Pang-one time ba!
PROBLEM: Kuya Mortz borrowed money from Doa Eugenia a.k.a. Genie. Ate Maya is
the guarantor. The Doa Genie filed a case against Kuya Mortz. She did not include the
guarantor.
Q: Can the case proceed even without the guarantor?
Q: YES because the guarantor is merely a necessary party. And if the debtor turns out
to be insolvent, the creditor will now file another case against the guarantor.
REVIEW: What is the difference between joint debtors and solidary debtors? In solidary,
the creditor can collect the whole obligation from any of the debtors without prejudice to
the right of the latter for reimbursement of his share in the obligation from his co-debtors.
On the other hand, in joint obligation, the creditor can only get from a debtor the latters
share in the whole obligation. Meaning, the creditor cannot compel the debtor to pay the
share of his co-debtor. Kanya-kanya tayo.
PROBLEM: Manuel and Cathy are JOINT debtors of P100,000 (50-50 sharing). Doa
Eugenia is the creditor. Both did not pay Doa Eugenia.
Q: If Doa Eugenia files a case against Manuel only, can the case proceed without
Cathy?
A: YES but Doa Eugenia can only collect from Manuel up to P50,000 only because of
their joint obligation. Cathy is only necessary insofar as Manuels share is concern. But
Manuel is indispensable party insofar as his share is concern.
Q: But if Doa Eugenia wants to collect the entire P100,000, what should she do?
A: She should file a case against both Manuel and Cathy.
PROBLEM: Manuel and Cathy are SOLIDARY debtors of P100,000 (50-50 sharing). Doa
Eugenia is the creditor. Both did not pay Doa Eugenia.
Q: If Doa Eugenia files a case against Manuel only, can the case proceed without
Cathy?
A: YES and Manuel is required to pay Doa Eugenia the whole amount of the debt
because of solidary obligation. Then Manuel can proceed against Cathy for
reimbursement. Be is merely necessary party.
Sec. 9. Non-joinder of necessary parties to be pleaded. Whenever in any
pleading in which a claim is asserted a necessary party is not joined, the
pleader shall set forth his name, if known, and shall state why he is omitted.
Should the court find the reason for the omission unmeritorious, it may order
the inclusion of the omitted necessary party if jurisdiction over his person may
be obtained.
The failure to comply with the order for his inclusion, without justifiable
cause, shall be deemed a waiver of the claim against such party.
The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent the court from
proceeding in the action, and the judgment rendered therein shall be without
prejudice to the rights of such necessary party. (8a, 9a)
If you do not implead a necessary party, you must give an explanation why you did not
implead him. The law requires as much as possible that all parties be impleaded to avoid
multiplicity of suits. EXAMPLE: Tato The Hunk files a case against Andre The Hippie, a
surety, without including Sheriff The Punk as the debtor. In the complaint of Tato, he
shall explain why he is not including Sheriff.
81

2001 Edition
Rule 03
Assuming that a necessary party cannot be impleaded, his non-inclusion does not
prevent the court from proceeding with the action. The judgment rendered shall be
without prejudice to the rights of such necessary party.
However, if the court finds no valid reason for not impleading a party, the court may
order the inclusion of the necessary party under Section 9. And take note that under the
new rules, the failure to comply with the order of inclusion without justifiable
cause shall be deemed a waiver of the claim against such (necessary) party.
EXAMPLE: If Tato, without justifiable cause, refuses to include Sheriff despite the order
of the court, and later on, Andre cannot also pay Tato, there is no way now for Tato to go
against Sheriff anymore because he (Tato) failed to comply with the order of inclusion
without justifiable cause.
Sec. 10. Unwilling co-plaintiff. If the consent of any party who should be
joined as plaintiff can not be obtained, he may be made a defendant and the
reason therefor shall be stated in the complaint. (10)
This is particularly true with INDISPENSABLE parties the case cannot proceed without
you.
EXAMPLE : There are 4 brothers and 1 sister. They have to file a case against somebody
to recover property which they believe was owned by their parents. Then, brother 4 say to
sister 1, Let us file a case. But sabi ni sister 1, Pilitin mo muna ako. Then she says,
Ayoko nga, hindi mo ako pinilit eh! Meaning, all of them will suffer because ayaw ni sister
1 mag-file ng kaso.
Q: Now, what is the remedy of the 4 brothers?
A: Under Section 10, include the one who refused as one of the defendants. If there is
unwilling plaintiff, name him as defendant whether he likes it or not.
MISJOINDER AND NON-JOINDER OF PARTIES
Sec. 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. Neither misjoinder nor nonjoinder of parties is ground for dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped
or added by order of the court on motion of any party or on its own initiative
at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just. Any claim against a
misjoined party may be severed and proceeded with separately. (11a)
This is similar to Section 6 of Rule 2 misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for
dismissal of an action. Misjoinder or non-joinder at parties is not a ground for a
motion to dismiss because at any stage of the case, the court can order a misjoined
party to be removed or a party not joined to be included.
Q: Do you know what MISJOINDER of parties mean?
A: It means that two or more parties should not be joined but they are improperly
joined. A good example is, if there is no common question of fact or law. Meaning, you do
not have any business to be here but you are joined or misjoined. That is what we call
misjoinder of parties. It is also known as spurious class suit.
Well, NON-JOINDER is different. A party who should be joined was not joined such as a
necessary party.
Q: What happens if a party is misjoined or if there is a non-joinder, should the case be
dismissed?
A: Not, that is not a ground for dismissal.
Q: So what is the remedy then?
A: The remedy is to order the removal of the party who is misjoined, or to order the
inclusion of the party who should be joined. And that is not a defect which should cause
82
Rule 03

2001 Edition
the dismissal of the case because the can always issue an order ordering the removal of a
misjoined party or the inclusion of joinder of a party who should be included.
Q: Does it mean to say therefore, that the plaintiff has the license to include anybody
in an action? Like for example, I have a case against somebody in the class, the trouble is
in the meantime, I cannot identify who among you who did the wrong to me. So I will file a
case against all of you. Anyway later on, I can dump you kung hindi ka talaga sabit. Now,
is this allowed?
A: NO. That is not a license. What the law contemplates, according to the SC, the party
was joined in good faith believing that he was a defendant but actually it turned out to be
wrong. So, you have no right to sue anybody just like that. That is not an excuse for suing
any party left and right. In the case of
REPUBLIC vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
173 SCRA 72 [1989]
HELD: Section 11 of Rule 3 does not comprehend whimsical and irrational
dropping or adding of parties in a complaint. What it really contemplates is
erroneous or mistaken non-joinder and misjoinder of parties. No one is free to
join anybody in a complaint in court only to drop him unceremoniously later at
the pleasure of the plaintiff. The rule presupposes that the original inclusion had
been made in the honest conviction that it was proper and the subsequent
dropping is requested because it turned out that such inclusion was a mistake.
CLASS SUIT
SEC. 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. (12a)
As a GENERAL RULE, if there are several real parties in interest, they shall be included
in the case whether indispensable or necessary. Example: There are 30 of us. The
general rule is that all parties in interest, indispensable or necessary shall be included.
EXCEPTION to the General Rule: Class Suit. Meaning, some of you will sue to
represent the rest. That is also known as the doctrine of virtual representation. The
concept of a class suit was first enunciated in the old case of
BORLAZA vs. POLISTICO
47 Phil. 345
FACTS: This case has something to do with raffle. A group of people decided
to form an association which they called Turnuhang Polistico. You become a
member of this association by contributing a certain sum of money. And then
every Sunday after mass, half of the collection will go to the treasurer of the
association. The other half will be raffled off. This has been going on for months
and years. The time came when the funds of the association became very big.
Some of the members, in behalf of all the members, decided to file a case
against the officers to render an accounting of all the amounts. The real parties
in interest would be the members.
ISSUE: Is the suit filed by some members in behalf of some members proper?
HELD: YES, because if We will require all the members to appear, it will be
quite impossible. Therefore, some members must be made to sue but only in
behalf of all the members who are not around and it is impracticable to bring
them all to the court. A number of them may sue for the benefit of all.
Q: What are the CONDITIONS FOR A VALID CLASS SUIT?
83

2001 Edition
Rule 03
A: Under Section 12, the following are the conditions of a valid class suit:
1. The subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general
interest to many persons (such as the funds of the association in the case of
POLISTICO); and
2. The parties are so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all
before the court.
In which case a number of them which the court finds to be sufficient and
numerous and representative as to fully protect the interests of all concerned may
sue or defend for the benefit of all. Example is a taxpayers suit filed in behalf of all the
taxpayers in the Philippines. And there is no specific number of persons that is provided by
law.
Now, we will go to some interesting cases on class suit decided by the Supreme Court:
SULO NG BAYAN vs. ARANETA, INC.
72 SCRA 347 [1976]
FACTS: This concerns the big property of the Aranetas in Quezon City. It has
been the subject matter o f litigation for the past years 3 or 4 decades. It is a
big track of land in Quezon City occupied by so many people who want to
acquire it. They are questioning the title of the Aranetas
So, Sulo (torch) ng Bayan is the association of squatters. Since the properties
of the Araneta is very big, they subdivided it kanya-kanyang lote. Then a case
was filed by Sulo ng bayan Association against Araneta to annul the title of the
latter.
ISSUE #1: Whether or not the action was file in the name of the real in
interest.
HELD: Sulo ng Bayan is not the real party in interest. It violates Section 2
the action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real parties in
interest. The members occupying the land are the plaintiffs. The association is
not the one occupying the lot. So, the first question is, who should be the
plaintiff? It should be the members.
ISSUE #2: Whether or not the action was properly pleaded as a class suit
HELD: NO. This is the more important reason why they cannot qualify as a
class suit: In a class suit, the subject matter is of common interest to all.
Meaning, lahat tayo is interesado. To illustrate:
You are Occupant No. 1, which lot do you occupy? Here (a particular lot).
Meron ka bang interest diyan? Meron. Do you have an interest in
that
(another lot) portion? Wala. If that is so, then the subject matte is not of
common interest. The interest of one occupant is only on the lot he occupies.
Meaning, My neighbor does not have an interest on the lot I occupied.
What should be done is that all of them to sue together to cover the entire property, for
each one has a lot. So, in that case, Section 6 should be applied permissive joinder of
parties because there is a common question of fact. This is more of permissive joinder of
Parties rather than a class suit. Thats why you can confuse Section 6 with Section 12. But
the permissive joinder of parties kailangan, lahat kayoi nandiyan. Hindi puwede na I will
represent you. Kanya-kanya yan but they can join together. Unlike in a class suit, the
subject matter is of interest to everybody and we cannot all be joined because we are so
numerous.
BULIG-BULIG KITA KAMAGANAK ASSOCIATION, ET AL vs. SULPICIO

LINES
May 19, 1989
84

2001 Edition
Rule 03
RE: Doa Paz Tragedy iyong lumubog na barko owned by Sulpicio Lines.
FACTS: There we so many relatives who filed a case against Sulpicio Lines
and there was an attempt to file a class suit in behalf of everyone who were
drowned including those who were not identified.
HELD: That cannot be. The survivors have no interest in the death of other
passengers. The interest in this case is individual. What would have been proper
is permissive joinder of parties because of common question of tact or law, but
not class suit.
OPOSA vs. FACTORAN
224 SCRA 12 [1993]
FACTS: Oposa et al were all minors. Some were small boys duly represented
by their parents. They filed a case against then DENR Secretary Factoran. The
prayer in the case is to order the DENR to cancel all existing Timber License
Agreements (TLAs), to cease and desist from proceeding, accepting, processing,
renewing all accruing new TLAs. So, in effect, it prays for a total log ban in the
country to preserve the remaining forest all over the Philippines.
These young boys sue with their parents. They are suing in their behalf, in
behalf of the other citizens who are of their age because they stand to suffer if
the environment will be deteriorated. They say that they are entitled to the full
benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural resources of our countrys rich tropical
rainforests. They say, the case was tiled for themselves and others for the
preservation of our rainforest and we are so numerous that it is impracticable to
bring all plaintiffs to court. They say that they represent their generations and
generations yet unborn.
HELD: The civil case is indeed a class suit. The case however has a special
and novel element. The personality of the minors to sue for the succeeding
generations is based on the concept of inter-generational responsibility insofar
as a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Every generation has a
responsibility to preserve the ecology. The minors right to a sound environment
constitute at the same time the performance of the obligation to ensure the
protection of the rights or the generations to come.
Q: In case of doubt, should a class suit be allowed?
A: NO. When the issue is not so clear, a class suit should not be allowed because class
suit is an exception to the general rule that all parties should be included.
CADALIN vs. POEA ADMINISTRATOR
238 SCRA 721 [1995]
HELD: While it is true that class suit is allowed, it should be allowed with
caution because the fact that you represent others is only a fiction of law. For all
you know, those others may not want to be represented. So okey lang kung
manalo ang kaso. Eh kung matalo ang kaso? All others start blaming you. That is
why the court is extra-cautious in allowing class suits because they are the
exceptions to the condition sine qua non requiring joinder of all indispensable
parties.
In an improperly instituted class suit, there would be no problem it the
decision secured is favorable to the plaintiffs. The problem arises where the
decision is adverse to them. In which case, the parties who are impleaded
through their self-appointed representatives would surely plead denial of due
process.
Q: Distinguish a representative suit from a class suit.
A: In the case of
85

2001 Edition
Rule 03
LIANAS SUPERMARKET vs. NLRC

257 SCRA 186 [May 31, 1996]
FACTS: A labor union filed a case against the employer in behalf of hundreds
of employees. Is this a representative suit or a class suit?
HELD: What makes the situation a proper case for a class suit is the
circumstance that there is only one right or cause of action pertaining or
belonging in common to many persons, not separately or severally to distinct
individuals. The object of the suit is to obtain relief for or against numerous
persons as a group or as an integral entity, and not as separate, distinct
individuals whose rights or liabilities are separate from and independent of those
affecting the others.
In a representative suit, there are different causes of action pertaining
different persons.
In the present case, there are multiple rights or causes of action pertaining
separately to several, distinct employees who are members of respondent Union.
Therefore, the applicable rule is that provided in Rule 3 on Representative
Parties. Nonetheless, as provided for in the Labor Code, a legitimate labor
organization has the right to sue and be sued in its registered name. This
authorizes a union to file a representative suit for the benefit of its members in
the interest of avoiding an otherwise cumbersome procedure of joining all union
members in the complaint, even if they number by the hundreds. For
convenience, the Labor Code allows a union to file a representative suit.
It is important to note the following:

1. CLASS SUIT
2. REPRESENTATIVE SUIT
3. DERIVATIVE SUIT only peculiar to the corporation law where the minority files a
suit in behalf of the entire corporation because intra-corporate remedy is
useless.
ALTERNATIVE DEFENDANTS
Sec. 13. Alternative defendants. Where the plaintiff is uncertain against
who of several persons he is entitled to relief, he may join any or all of them
as defendants in the alternative, although a right to relief against one may be
inconsistent with a right of relief against the other. (13a)
Alternative defendants is also related to alternative causes of action even if your

right against one is inconsistent with your right to relief against the other party,
you may file a suit against the alternative defendant. (c.f. Rule 2, Section 5
Joinder of Causes of Action)
You filed a case against the operators of two vehicles. In effect, your cause of action is
either culpa aquiliana or culpa contractual. Is that not inconsistent? The law says,
although a right to relief against one may be inconsistent with a right against the other.
In other words, even if the two causes of action is inconsistent with each other, it is
allowed.
As a matter of fact, this is the best policy because the plaintiff is a sure winner. The
only question is, who among the two will be held liable.
Although the law is silent, if there is such a thing as alternative defendants, there is
no reason why the grounds for alternative plaintiffs should not be allowed.
Q: (Taken from Remedial Law Reviewer by Nuevas) May plaintiff join in the alternative?
86

2001 Edition
Rule 03
A: YES, plaintiffs may join in the alternative under the same principle as
alternative joinder of defendants. When several persons are uncertain as to who
among them is entitled to relief from a certain defendant, they may join as
plaintiffs in the alternative. This is also sanctioned by the rule on permissive joinder of
parties (Pajota vs. Jante, L-6014, Feb. 8, 1955). Thus, the principal and his agent may join
as plaintiffs in the alternative against a defendant. If the agency is proved, the relief is
awarded to the principal. If not, award is then made to the agent.
Sec. 14. Unknown identity or name of defendant. Whenever the identity or
name of a defendant is unknown, he may be sued as the unknown owner, heir,
devisee, or by such other designation as the case may require; when his identity
or true name is discovered, the pleading must be amended accord. (14)
Q: Can you sue somebody who is unknown?

A: YES, under Section 14.
BAR PROBLEM: While Leyva The Rapper was walking on the street. He was bumped
by a car, say a Toyota Altis, 2001 model, color blue. Now, so far, he could not determine
who is the owner. If you are the lawyer of the Leyva, how would you sue the defendant?
A: Under Section, I will sue the owner of that car as an unknown defendant. I can place
in my complaint, Leyva the rapper, plaintif, vs. the registered owner of Honda motor
vehicle with plate number so and so. And later if you discover the true identity of the
owner, we can amend the complaint to place the name of the defendant.
Section 14 is similar with Rule 110 in Criminal Procedure a case may be filed against
an unknown accused.
RULE 110, SEC. 7. Name of the accused. The complaint or information must
state the name and surname of the accused or any appellation or nickname by
which he has been or is known. If his name cannot be ascertained, he must be
described under a fictitious name with a statement that his true name is
unknown.
If the true name of the accused is thereafter disclosed by him or appears in
some other manner to the court, such true name shall be inserted in the
complaint or information and record. (7a)
ENTITY WITHOUT JURIDICAL PERSONALITY AS DEFENDANT

Sec. 15. Entity without juridical personality as defendant. When two or more
persons not organized as an entity with juridical personality enter into a
transaction, they may be sued under the name by which they are generally or
commonly known.
In the answer of such defendant, the names and addresses of the persons
composing said entity must all be revealed.
Rule 1, Section 1 provides that only natural of juridical persons may be sued.
Entity without juridical personality as defendant. Under the old law, this was
known as suing two or more persons involved in a business under a common name. When
two or more persons transact in a business under a common name, they may be sued
under their common name.
Q: Who are really the defendants here? A: The persons involved.
Now, it is worded in this manner: When two or more persons not organized as an
entity with juridical personality, instead of a common name. You cannot sue the entity
because it has no juridical personality. But you do not also know the members of that
entity, so the law allows you to file a case against the entity.
Under the second paragraph of Section 15, when the defendants file an answer, they
must file under their names as they are really the real parties in interest . When the lawyer
answers the complaint, he is duty-bound to provide the names of all the defendants.
87

2001 Edition
Rule 03
Q: How do you summon this kind of defendant?

A: Rule 14, Section 8:
RULE 14, Sec. 8. Service upon entity without juridical personality. When
persons associated in an entity without juridical personality are sued under the
name by which they are generally or commonly known, service may be effected upon
all the defendants by serving upon any one of them, or upon the person in charge
of the office or place of business maintained in such name. But such service
shall not bind individually any person whose connection with the entity has,
upon due notice, been severed before the action was brought. (9a)
Correlate this with Rule 36, Section 6:

Sec. 6. Judgment against entity without juridical personality. When judgment
is rendered against two or more persons sued as an entity without juridical
personality, the judgment shall set out their individual or proper names, if
known. (6a)
GENERAL RULE: actions must be filed against real parties in interest.

EXCEPTIONS: (When may an action be filed without naming all the parties in involved?)
1. Class suit (Section 12, Rule 3);
2. Entity without juridical personality (Section 15, Rule 3);
3. Any co-owners may bring an action for ejectment (Article 487, New Civil Code)
EFFECT OF DEATH OF A PARTY
Sec. 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 this 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. (16, 17a)
First of all, there are cases when a party to a pending action dies and the claim is not
thereby extinguished (this is what they called an action which survives as we will explain
later) and there are certain actions where if a party dies, the claim is automatically
extinguished. Meaning, the death of a party causes death of the action. But these are very
few. Majority of cases when the party dies, the case or the cause of action continues.
It is the duty of the lawyer of the deceased to inform the court within 30 days
after the death of the party thereof. He must inform the court and give the
name and address of his legal representative/s (e.g. administrator of executor of the
estate)
Well of course, under the rule in legal ethics, the lawyer -client relationship is
automatically terminated by the death of the client because the lawyer-client relationship
is personal. But procedurally, you must tell the court and you must give the name of the
legal representative. The latter may re-hire the lawyer but under a new contract.
88

2001 Edition
Rule 03
The purpose there is for substitution so that the legal representative will be ordered
substituted. And there is a new provision under the new rules. That is, failure of the
counsel to comply with his duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action. That is not found
in the prior rule. So, the lawyer can be subjected to disciplinary action.
So the provision continues, 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.
So, other than the legal representative, before anything else, the representative refers
to the executor or administrator, and the other alternative will be the heirs, such as the
surviving children, wife or spouse.
Although there was a case decided by the SC way back in 1986 in the case of
LAWAS vs. COURT OF APPEALS
146 SCRA 173
HELD: The priority of substitution would be the executor or administrator not
the heirs. The heirs would only be allowed to be substituted if there is an (1)
unreasonable delay in the appointment of administrator or executor, or (2) when
the heirs resort to extrajudicial partition. But outside of those two reason, the
law always gives priority to the administrator or executor.
Under the rule, priority is given co the legal representative of the deceased. That is, the
executor or the administrator of his estate. Many courts do not enforce it strictly. Normally,
patay na, O! Ito ang heirs o! OK! Substitute! Actually, that is wrong based on LAWAS
case. The priority is given to the administrator or executor. It is only when there is
unreasonable delay in the appointment, or when the heirs resort to extrajudicial partition
because there is no more administrator or executor in extrajudicial settlement.
VDA. DE SALAZAR vs. COURT OF APPEALS
250 SCRA 303 [November 23, 1995]
FACTS: This is an ejectment. case. The defendant died while the case is going
on. What is the procedure? There should be substitution. But there was no
substitution in the case for ten years, until it was decided. The court was not
informed of the death of the defendant. Until finally, there was a decision.
ISSUE: When there is failure to effectuate the substitution of heirs before the
rendition of judgment, is the judgment jurisdictionally detective? Because here,
the case continued eh, in which somebody is already dead.
HELD: NO, the judgment is valid where the heirs themselves appeared
before the trial court and participated in the proceedings. Therein, they
presented evidence in defense of the deceased defendant. It is undeniably
evident that the heirs themselves sought their day in court and exercised their
right to due process.
In other words, when there was a defect the heirs however cannot used that because
they themselves appeared and continued the case. So, in effect, there was estoppel.
EFFECT OF DEATH OF A PARTY ON MONEY CLAIMS
Now, one of the radical changes again introduced by the new rules is the effect of the
death of the defendant in a money claim action to collect a sum of money.
Sec. 20. Action on 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
89

2001 Edition
Rule 03
plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the manner especially provided in these

Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased person. (21a)
The best example here is an action to collect an unpaid loan. And while the case is
pending the defendant died. What will happen to the case? The law says: If the defendant
dies before the entry of the final judgment in the court at the time of death, it shall not be
dismissed but it shall instead be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment.
Under the OLD RULES, the case shall be dismissed. So, the civil case is not suspended
but it will be dismissed. Eh, paano 'yung utang? Now, you file a case against the estate of
the deceased under the Rules on Special Proceedings. But definitely the civil case hindi na
matuloy . . . patay na iyon when the defendant dies.
Now, under the NEW RULE, the case will not be dismissed but rather, the case will now
continue until entry of final judgment. That is a radical change of procedure! So case will
not be dismissed. It shall be allowed to continue until entry of final judgement. Meaning,
until it becomes final and executory.
Q: But of course, if the judgment is favorable to you (the plaintiff), can you move to
execute? Can you move to execute the decision against or buy the property of the
defendant?
A: NO, because the law provides, xxx a favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff
therein shall be enforced in the manner specially provided in these Rules for prosecuting
claims against the estate of a deceased person.
Q: And what is that procedure?
A: YOU FILE A CLAIM against the estate under Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court,
but there will be no execution.
[Note: SEE OUTLINE AT THE LAST PART OF THIS RULE.]
Q: We are talking of death of a party in a pending civil action. While there is a case and
a party dies, what will happen to the case?
A: I will distinguish Anong klaseng kaso iyan. Is that an ACTION WHICH DOES NOT
SURVIVE or an ACTION WHICH SURVIVES?
1.) ACTION WHICH DOES NOT SURVIVE
An action which does not survive is an action which is abated upon the death of a
party. The case cannot go on once a party dies. And normally, that refers to actions
which are purely personal in character like an action for annulment of marriages,
an action for declaration of the nullity of marriage or, an action for legal separation, or
an action for support. These are the cases arising from the Family Code.
Example: The husband files a case against the wife for annulment of
marriage or legal separation. One of them dies. Wala nang substitution,
TAPOS NA! When one of the parties dies, the marriage is dissolved. There is
nothing to annul because the marriage is already dissolved. So, these are the
actions which are purely personal .
Q: So, what is the effect of the death of the party in actions which does
not survived?
A: The case is dismissed!
However, these cases are very few. Majority of the cases are damage suit,
recovery of possession, recovery of land, recovery of unpaid loans, etc. So, these
are what you call actions which survive. Meaning , if a party dies, you cannot say
that the case is terminated upon the death of the party. So, ano ang mga kaso na
iyan?
90

2001 Edition
Rule 03
2.) ACTIONS WHICH SURVIVE Is it a contractual money claim or non-contractual

claim? If it is a contractual claim, who died is it the plaintiff or is it the
defendant? If the defendant is the one who died, when did he die?
2a.) Actions which survive; CONTRACTUAL MONEY CLAIMS:
2a1.) If it is the plaintiff who dies, the case will continue. The heirs or
legal representatives will proceed. So, there is substitution.
2a2.) If it is the defendant who dies, the question is: KAILAN NAMATAY?
Before entry of final judgment or after entry? This is where Section 20 will
come in.
2a2a.) If the defendant died before entry of final judgment, you apply
Section 20 of Rule 3. Meaning, the case shall not be dismissed but shall be
allowed to continue until entry of final judgment. And the 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, and that is Section 5 of Rule 86.
2a2b.) If the defendant died after the entry of the final judgment but
before execution (after the judgment became final but before there could be
levy or execution) you cannot move to execute. Again, you apply Section 5 of
Rule 86 which is the governing rule you file your judgment as a claim against
the estate of the deceased defendant. [Section 5, Rule 86 - Please refer to your
codals.] The purpose there is, so that the creditor will share with the other
creditors pro-rata in the distribution of the estate.
2a2c) If the defendant died after levy or execution but before the
auction sale meaning, the property was already levied by the sheriff bago pa
namatay we will now apply Section 7[c] of Rule 39:
Rule 39, Sec. 7. Execution in case of death of party. In case of the
death of party, execution may issue or be enforced in the following manner:
x x x x x x
(c) In case of the death of the judgment obligor, after execution is
actually levied upon any of his property, the same may be sold for the
satisfaction of the judgment obligation, and the officer making the sale
shall account to the corresponding executor or administrator for any surplus
in his hands. (7a)
Meaning, after the levy, namatay, auction sale proceeds as scheduled.

And if there is an excess, the excess shall be delivered to the administrator of
executor.
2b.) Actions which survive; NON-CONTRACTUAL MONEY CLAIMS:
EXAMPLE: an action for recovery of property, real or personal like
replevin, forcible entry, unlawful detainer, action publiciana, action
reinvidicatoria, or action for damages, (damages that is not the same for
transaction of money because damages arising from culpa aquiliana is
one not arising from contract.)
If a party dies in an action which survives which is a non-contractual
money claim, obviously, there is substitution of parties. So, what are these
non-contractual money claims which survive? These are those mentioned in
Section 7 of Rule 86 and Section 1 of Rule 87. That is in the study of Special
Proceedings on settlement of the estate of a deceased person.
So, that is the outline in the light of the amendments of the Rules of Court. [PLEASE
REFER TO THE OUTLINE HEREIN ATTACHED.]
Note: What Section 20 says is that: before the case can be decided and the defendant
dies (in actions involving money claims) the case shall not be dismissed but shall instead
91

2001 Edition
Rule 03
be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment. BUT CONTINUE AGAINST WHOM?
Against the deceased? Now, to my mind, you correlate this with Section 16 --- there should
still be substitution.
But assuming, there was no substitution and the heirs fought in the case; there is
waiver because the defect is procedural. Just like what happened in the case of VDA. DE
SALAZAR. Actually, what Section 20 emphasized is that, the action shall not be dismissed
but shall continue to emphasize that it is now different compared with the prior RULE.
But obviously, there will always be a substitution
Sec. 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 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. (18a)
This applies only when the public officer is party to an action in his official
capacity. If he (1) dies; (2) resigns; or (3) cease to hold office, there will be a
succession.
Q: What will happen to the case?
A: The following:
1.) If the successor intends to continue with the policy.
EXAMPLE: Mayor Pascua threatened to demolish the building of Mr. Nuere
as a hazard. If Mayor Pascua dies, Vice-Mayor Angeles becomes the mayor. If
Vice-Mayor Angeles who is now the mayor says that he will continue with the
demolition, he will be substituted and he is given 30 days to comment.
2.) If the successor does not adopt the policy, the case will be dismissed.
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 incapacitated person assisted by his
legal guardian or guardian ad litem. (19a)
EXAMPLE: Francis files a case against Kenneth. While the case is pending, Kenneth
becomes insane. (tsk! tsk!) The case will continue but Kenneth has to be assisted by his
guardian ad litem Thad.
This is related to Rule 3, Section 3 on representative party but in Section 3, Kenneth
was already insane before the case is filed. [inborn na yan eh!]
Sec. 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. (20)
EXAMPLE: Rudolpho files a case against Leweh to recover a piece of land. While the
case is pending, Leweh sold the land to Erec. Erec now assumes the risk and takes the
property subject to the outcome of the case.
Q: Can the case continue against Leweh?
A: YES.
1.) If Leweh loses and cannot pay, Erec is subsidiary liable;
2.) Leweh can be removed and Erec will be substituted; or
3.) Leweh can stay and Erec will be added.
92
Rule 03

2001 Edition
In all 3 cases, Erec will be bound by the judgment.
Sec. 21. Indigent party. A party may be authorized to litigate his action,
claim or defense as an indigent if the court, upon an ex parte application and
hearing, is satisfied that the party is one who has no money or property
sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic necessities for himself and
his family.
Such authority shall include an exemption from payment of docket and other
lawful fees, and of transcripts of stenographic notes which the court may order
to be furnished him. The amount of the docket and other lawful fees which the
indigent was exempted from paying shall be a lien on any judgment rendered in
the case favorable to the indigent, unless the court otherwise provides.
Any adverse party may contest the grant of such authority at any time before
judgment is rendered by the trial court. If the court should determine after
hearing that the party declared as an indigent is in fact a person with
sufficient income or property, the proper docket and other lawful fees shall be
assessed and collected by the clerk of court. If payment is not made within the
time fixed by the court, execution shall issue for the payment thereof, without
prejudice to such other sanctions as the court may impose. (22a)
In criminal cases, the court assigns a counsel de officio. Under the Constitution on Bill
of Rights, no person shall be denied access to courts by reason of poverty.
In civil cases, a plaintiff need not pay docket fee if he is an indigent if he files
an application (ex-party application) to allow him to litigate as an indigent litigant. But if
the indigent wins, he has to pay the fees file now, pay later) the amount shall
be a lien on any favorable judgment.
The third paragraph is new. The other party may contest the claim of the indigent if he
is really an indigent or not.
Sec. 22. Notice to the Solicitor General. In any action involving the
validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, executive order, presidential decree,
rules or regulations, the court, in its discretion, may require the appearance
of the Solicitor General who may be heard in person or through a representative
duly designated by him. (23a)
EXAMPLE: Inday (the love-is-blind club president) files a case against Kenneth Bruce
Lim for declaration of nullity on the ground of psychological incapacity. Kenneth alleges
that Article 38 of the Family Code is unconstitutional. So the court will rule on the validity
of the law in which case, the Solicitor General has to be involved in the case to defend the
validity of the law.
REASON: The Solicitor General is the legal counsel of the Republic of the Philippines
whose duty is to defend all the official acts of the Government.
published by
LAKAS ATENISTA 1997 1998: FOURTH YEAR: Anna Vanessa Angeles Glenda Buhion Joseph
Martin Castillo Aaron Philip Cruz Pearly Joan Jayagan Anderson Lo
Yogie Martirizar Frecelyn Mejia Dorothy Montejo Rowena Panales Regina Sison
Ruby Teleron Marilou Timbol Maceste Uy Perla Vicencio Liberty Wong Jude Zamora
Special Thanks to: Marissa Corrales and July Romena
SECOND YEAR: Jonalyn Adiong Emily Alio Karen Allones Joseph Apao
Melody Penelope Batu Gemma Betonio Rocky Cabarroguis Charina Cabrera
Marlon Cascuejo Mike Castaos Karen de Leon Cherry Frondozo Jude Fuentes Maila Ilao
Ilai Llena Rocky Malaki Jenny Namoc Ines Papaya Jennifer Ramos Paisal Tanjili
93

2001 Edition
Rule 03
LAKAS ATENISTA 20012002: REVISION COMMITTEE: Melissa Suarez Jessamyn Agustin

Judee Uy Janice Joanne Torres Genie Salvania Pches Fernandez Riezl Locsin
Kenneth Lim Charles Concon Roy Acelar Francis Ampig Karen Cacabelos
Maying Dadula Hannah Examen Thea Guadalope Myra Montecalvo Paul Ongkingco
Michael Pito Rod Quiachon Maya Quitain Rina Sacdalan Lyle Santos Joshua Tan
Thaddeus Tuburan John Vera Cruz Mortmort
94

Rule 03-Parties To Civil Actions

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Rule 03-Parties To Civil Actions

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Rule 03

Parties to Civil Actions

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS

Real Parties in Interest

Sec. 1. Who may be parties; plaintiff and defendant. - Only natural or

Q: Who may be parties to a civil case?

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

Q: Who is a real party in interest?

So a complaint is dismissible if it is not made in the name of the real party in

SALONGA vs. WARNER BARNES

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

should not be dismissed. All that is to be done is to amend the complaint

Sec 5. Minor or incompetent persons. - A minor or a person alleged to be

Section 5 is related to Section 3. The minor or incompetent person must be assisted by

Section 6 is known as permissive joinder of parties. This is related to Section 5 [a] of

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

Q: Is there joinder of parties?

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

BULIG-BULIG KITA KAMAGANAK ASSOCIATION, ET AL vs. SULPICIO

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

LIANAS SUPERMARKET vs. NLRC

It is important to note the following:

Alternative defendants is also related to alternative causes of action even if your

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

Q: Can you sue somebody who is unknown?

ENTITY WITHOUT JURIDICAL PERSONALITY AS DEFENDANT

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

Q: How do you summon this kind of defendant?

Correlate this with Rule 36, Section 6:

GENERAL RULE: actions must be filed against real parties in interest.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the manner especially provided in these

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2.) ACTIONS WHICH SURVIVE Is it a contractual money claim or non-contractual

Meaning, after the levy, namatay, auction sale proceeds as scheduled.

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA