Totality Rule-Kinds of Actions
Totality Rule-Kinds of Actions
Flores vs Mallare-Phillips In the case at bar, the lower court correctly held that the jurisdictional
test is subject to the rules on joinderof parties pursuant to Section 5 of
Facts: Rule 2 and Section 6 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court and that, after
Flores sued the respondents for refusing to pay him certain amount of acareful scrutiny of the complaint, it appears that there is amisjoinder of
money as alleged in the complaint: parties for the reason that theclaims against respondents Binongcal and
Calion are separate and distinct and neither of which falls withinits
-first cause of action alleged in the complaint was against respondent jurisdiction.
Ignacio Binongcal for refusing to pay the amount of P11,643.00
representing cost of truck tires which he purchased on credit Section 6 of Rule 3 which provides as follows:Permissive joinder of
frompetitioner on various occasions from August to October, 1981; parties.-All persons in whom or against whom any right to relief
inrespect to or arising out of the same transaction or series of
-second cause of action was against respondent Fernando Calion for transactions is alleged to exist,whether jointly, severally, or in the
allegedly refusing to pay theamount of P10,212.00 representing cost of alternative, may, except as otherwise provided in theserules, join as
truck tires which he purchased on credit from petitioner onseveral plaintiffs or be joined as defendants in one complaint, where any
occasions from March, 1981 to January, 1982. question oflaw or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all such
defendants may arise in the action;but the court may make such orders
The action was opposed by an action to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. as may be just to prevent any plaintiff or defendantfrom being
Under Sec 19 of BP 129, theregional trial court had exclusive original embarrassed or put to expense in connection with any proceedings in
jurisdiction if the amount of the demand is more than P20,000.That whichhe may have no interest
although, the other respondent was indebted in the amount of P10,
212.00, his obligation wasseparate and distinct from that of the other 2. Ching and Po Wing vs. Rodriguez Digest
respondent.The trial court by Judge Mallare (one of the respondents)
dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.Plaintiff appealed by FACTS:
certiorari in Supreme Court. The respondents filed a Complaint against the petitioners and Stroghold
Issue: Insurance Company, Global Business Bank, Inc. (formerly PhilBank),
Elena Tiu Del Pilar, Asia Atlantic Resources Ventures, Inc., Registers of
WON the trial court correctly ruled on the application of the permissive Deeds of Manila and Malabon, and all persons claiming rights or titles
joinder of parties under theRules of Court. from Ramon Ching (Ramon).
The sole issue to be resolved is whether Makati City is the proper venue 2. For failure to attend the pre-trial conference, the RTC
to assail the foreclosure of the subject real estate mortgage. This Court ordered the ex parte presentation of evidence for Pacleb.
rules in the affirmative.
3. Belen subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss citing the
According to the Rules, real actions shall be commenced and tried in the judgment of dismissal issued by the Superior Court of
court that has jurisdiction over the area where the property is situated. California; however the MTD was dismissed for failure to
In this case, all the mortgaged properties are located in the Province of submit a copy of the judgment of dismissal
Cebu. Thus, following the general rule, PAGLAUM and HealthTech should
have filed their case in Cebu, and not in Makati. 4. Spouses Pacleb, for their part, filed for the amendment of
the complaint, stating that they withdrew the complaint
However, the Rules provide an exception, in that real actions can be (in California) because of the prohibitive cost of
commenced and tried in a court other than where the property is litigation.
situated in instances where the parties have previously and validly
agreed in writing on the exclusive venue thereof. In the case at bar, 5. For failure of spouses Belen to appear in the rescheduled
the parties claim that such an agreement exists. The only dispute is pre-trial conference, RTC declared Belen in default and
whether the venue that should be followed is that contained in the Real allowed the presentation of ex parte evidence. In the
Estate Mortgages, as contended by Union Bank, or that in the meantime, the counsel (Alcantara) of petitioners died
Restructuring Agreement, as posited by PAGLAUM and HealthTech. This without the RTC being informed of such fact. The RTC
Court rules that the venue stipulation in the Restructuring ruled against Belen and ordered them to pay Pacleb
Agreement should be controlling. 6. A copy of the decision was sent to Atty. Alcantara but was
returned with the notation “addressee deceased.” A copy
of the same was then sent to the last known address of In an action in personam wherein the defendant is a non-resident
spouses Belen in Laguna. Atty. Culvera, the new counsel who does not voluntarily submit himself to the authority of the
of spouses Belen, filed a motion to quash the Writ of court, personal service of summons within the state is essential to
Execution as well as a notice of appeal. The RTC denied the acquisition of jurisdiction over her person. This method of
the same. service is possible if such defendant is physically present in the
country. If he is not found therein, the court cannot acquire
7. Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari (Rule jurisdiction over his person and therefore cannot validly try and
65) alleging that CA committed grave abuse of discretion decide the case against him. An exception was laid down
in denying petitioners’ motion to quash the writ of in Gemperle v. Schenker wherein a non-resident was served with
execution and notice of appeal despite sufficient legal summons through his wife, who was a resident of the Philippines
bases in support thereof. and who was his representative and attorney-in-fact in a prior civil
ISSUE: WON the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the persons of case filed by him; moreover, the second case was a mere offshoot of
petitioners through either the proper service of summons or the the first case.
appearance of Atty. Alcantara on behalf of petitioners CAB: the records of the case reveal that spouses Belen were permanent
HELD: Yes. Courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the filing residents of California. It has been consistently maintained that they
of the complaint. On the other hand, jurisdiction over the defendants in were not physically resent in the Philippines. Therefore, the service of
a civil case is acquired either through the service of summons upon them summons in the petitioners’ address in Laguna was defective and did not
or through their voluntary appearance in court and their submission to serve to vest in court jurisdiction over their person. Nevertheless, the CA
its authority. As a rule, if defendants have not been summoned, the court correctly concluded that the appearance of Atty. Alcantara and his filing
acquires no jurisdiction over their person, and a judgment rendered of numerous pleadings were sufficient to vest such jurisdiction. By
against them is null and void. To be bound by a decision, a party should supplying the court with various documents that could only have been
first be subject to the court’s jurisdiction. supplied by spouses Belen, implied authorization could be gleaned from
such. In sum, there was voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the
In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is RTC.
necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case. Jurisdiction
over the person of a resident defendant who does not voluntarily appear The running of the fifteen-day period for appeal did not commence upon
in court can be acquired by personal service of summons as provided the service of the RTC decision at the address on record of Atty.
under Sec 7, Rule 14 ROC. If he cannot be personally served with Alcantara or at the Laguna address. It is deemed served on petitioners
summons within a reasonable time, substituted service may be made in only upon its receipt by Atty. Culvera on 29 December 2003. Therefore,
accordance with Sec 8 of said Rule. If he is temporarily out of the the filing of the Notice of Appeal on 06 January 2004 is within the
country, any of the following modes of service may be resorted to: (1) reglementary period and should be given due course.
substituted service set forth in Sec 8; (2) personal service outside the 5. Planters Development Bank, vs Julie Chandumal, respondent
country, with leave of court; (3) service by publication, also with leave of
court; or (4) any other manner the court may deem sufficient. Facts:
BF Homes and Julie Chandumal entered into a contract to sell a parcel of (2) The Court notes that aside from the allegation that she did not
land located in Las Pinas. Later, BF Homes sold to PDB all its rights over receive any summons, Chandumal’s motion to set aside order of default
the contract. and to admit attached answer failed to positively assert the trial court
lack of jurisdiction. In fact, what was set forth therein was the
Chandumal paid her monthly amortizations until she defaulted in her substantial claim that PDB failed to comply with the requirements of R.A.
payments. So, PDB sent a notice to Chandumal with a demand to vacate No. 6552 on payment of cash surrender value, which already delves into
the land within 30days, otherwise all of her rights will be extinguished the merits of PDB’s cause of action. In addition, Chandumal even
and the contract will be terminated and deemed rescinded. In spite of appealed the RTC decision to the CA, an act which demonstrates her
the demand, Chandumal failed to settle her account. recognition of the trial court’s jurisdiction to render said judgment.
PDB filed an action for judicial confirmation of notarial rescission and (3) R.A. No. 6552 recognizes the right of the seller to cancel the contract
delivery of possession but still Chandumal refused to do so. Summons but any such cancellation must be done in conformity with the
were then issued and served by deputy sheriff Galing but its was requirements therein prescribed. In addition to the notarial act of
unavailing as she was always out of her house on the dates the summons rescission, the seller is required to refund to the buyer the cash
were served. surrender value of the payments on the property. The actual cancellation
RTC then issued an order granting the motion of PDB. Chandumal filed of the contract can only be deemed to take place upon the expiry of a
an urgent motion to set aside order of default and to admit attached thirty (30)-day period following the receipt by the buyer of the notice of
answer. Chandumal said that she did not receive the summons and was cancellation or demand for rescission by a notarial act and the full
not notified of the same and her failure to file an answer within the payment of the cash surrender value.
reglementary period was due to fraud. RTC denied Chandumal's motion Petition is denied.
to set aside the order of default.
6. Ma. Teresa Biaco vs Philippine Countryside Rural Bank
Chandumal appealed to the CA. CA nullified the RTC's decision.
515 SCRA 106 – Civil Procedure – In rem vs In personam proceedings –
Issue: (1) Whether there was valid substituted service of summons? (2) Service of Summons – Resident Defendant – Extrinsic Fraud
Whether Chandumal voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the
RTC? (3) Whether there was proper rescission by notarial act of the Ernesto Biaco, husband of Teresa Biaco, acquired several loans from
contract to sell? Philippine Countryside Rural Bank (PCRB) from 1996 to 1998. To secure
the loans, he mortgaged certain property in favor of the bank. He was
Held: able to pay loans from 1996 to 1997 but he defaulted in loans obtained
(1) Correctly ruled that the sheriff’s return failed to justify a resort to in 1998 which amounted to more than a million pesos.
substituted service of summons. According to the CA, the Return of Eventually, PCRB filed a complaint for foreclosure against the spouses
Summons does not specifically show or indicate in detail the actual Biaco. Summons were issued by the trial judge. The Sherriff served the
exertion of efforts or any positive step taken by the officer or process summons to Ernesto at the latter’s office. No summons was served to
server in attempting to serve the summons personally to the defendant. Teresa.
Ernesto did not file a responsive pleading (so did Teresa because she made to personally serve summons upon her but that such efforts failed.
was not aware sans the summons being served her). The case was heard Further, the order of the trial court compelling Teresa to pay off the debt
ex-parte and the spouses were ordered to satisfy the debt and failure to using her personal property is a judgment in personam which the court
do so will authorize the Sheriff to auction the mortgaged the property. cannot do because it only acquired jurisdiction over the res and not over
the person of Teresa.
Eventually, the mortgaged property was auctioned for P150k which is
not sufficient to cover the P1 M+ debt. Upon motion by PCRB, a notice of On the issue of extrinsic fraud, the Court of Appeals, agreeing with PCRB,
levy was issued against the personal properties of Teresa to satisfy the is correct that there is none in the case at bar. Extrinsic fraud exists
deficiency. when there is a fraudulent act committed by the prevailing party outside
of the trial of the case, whereby the defeated party was prevented from
It was only at this point that Teresa learned of the previous ex parte presenting fully his side of the case by fraud or deception practiced on
proceedings. She then sought to have the judgment annulled as she now him by the prevailing party. Extrinsic fraud is present where
claims that she was deprived of due process when she did not receive the unsuccessful party had been prevented from exhibiting fully his case,
summons; that it was only her husband who received the summons; that by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent, as by keeping
there was extrinsic fraud because her husband deliberately hid the fact him away from court, a false promise of a compromise; or where
of the foreclosure proceeding. the defendant never had knowledge of the suit, being kept in ignorance
PRCB argued that the foreclosure proceeding is an action quasi in rem, by the acts of the plaintiff; or where an attorney fraudulently or without
hence Teresa’s participation is not required so long as the court acquires authority assumes to represent a party and connives at his defeat; or
jurisdiction over the res which is what happened in the case at bar; that where the attorney regularly employed corruptly sells out his client’s
Teresa cannot invoke extrinsic fraud because such situation cannot interest to the other side. The above is not applicable in the case of
occur in her case because she is a co-defendant of Ernesto. Teresa. It was not PCRB which made any fraud. It should be noted that
spouses Biaco were co-defendants in the case and shared the same
ISSUE: Whether or not the judgment of the trial court should be interest.
annulled.
However, Javier did not appear in the proceedings and was On December 27, 2002, the respondent's case was dismissed and
declared in default, so, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of the the petitioners were held to be purchasers in good faith. The trial court
petitioners. The decision and its Certificate of Finality were annotated in also held that the petitioners' action for specific performance against
the title of the property. Javier was already final, and the trial court also ordered the respondents'
heirs and all other persons claiming under them to surrender the
On March 10, 1995, the petitioners and Ramon and his wife possession of the property to the petitioners. Upon appeal by the
entered into an agreement that the spouses will pay Ramon P500,000 in respondent, the CA reversed the trial court's decision. Hence, this
exchange for the waiver of his tenancy rights over the land. petition.
On October 12, 1995, the respondent filed a Complaint for ISSUE: WON the action for specific performance filed by the petitioners
annulment of deed of sale and other documents arising from it claiming against Javier is not merely an action in personam, but an action in rem,
that the deed of sale supposedly executed between him and his late first and is thus, conclusive and binding upon respondent even if he was not a
wife and Del Rosario was spurious and the signatures were forged. He party thereto since it involves a question of possession and ownership of
also moved for the summons to be served upon Del Rosario via real property.
publication since her address cannot be found, but was denied. So,
respondent moved to dismiss the case which was granted by the trial HELD: The action for specific performance and damages filed by
court. petitioners against Javier to compel him to perform his obligations under
their Contract to Sell is an action in personam.
The purpose of the action is to compel Javier to accept the full payment Here, since the proper docket fee was not paid for the original complaint,
of the purchase price, and to execute a deed of absolute sale over the it’s as if there is no complaint to speak of. As a consequence, there is no
property in favor of the petitioners. The obligations of Javier mentioned original complaint duly filed which can be amended. So, any subsequent
attach to Javier alone and do not burden the property. Thus, the proceeding taken in consideration of the amended complaint is void.
complaint filed by the petitioners is an action in personam and is binding
only upon the parties properly impleaded therein and duly heard or Manchester’s defense that this case is primarily an action for specific
given an opportunity to be heard. So, the action cannot bind the performance is not merited. The Supreme Court ruled that based on the
respondent since he was not a party therein and considering the fact that allegations and the prayer of the complaint, this case is an action for
his signature and that of his late first wife were forged in the deed of damages and for specific performance. Hence, it is capable of pecuniary
sale. Hence, the petition is denied and the Court affirms the ruling of the estimation.
CA finding the respondent having a better right over the property as the Further, the amount for damages in the original complaint was already
true owner thereof. provided in the body of the complaint. Its omission in the PRAYER
8. Manchester Development vs Court of Appeals clearly constitutes an attempt to evade the payment of the proper filing
fees. To stop the happenstance of similar irregularities in the future, the
SCRA 562 – Remedial Law – Civil Procedure – Payment of Docket Fees – Supreme Court ruled that from this case on, all complaints, petitions,
Claimed Damages must be Stated in the BODY and PRAYER of pleadings answers and other similar pleadings should specify the amount of
damages being prayed for not only in the body of the pleading but also in
A complaint for specific performance was filed by Manchester the prayer, and said damages shall be considered in the assessment of
Development Corporation against City Land Development Corporation the filing fees in any case. Any pleading that fails to comply with this
to compel the latter to execute a deed of sale in favor Manchester. requirement shall not bib accepted nor admitted, or shall otherwise be
Manchester also alleged that City Land forfeited the former’s tender of expunged from the record.
payment for a certain transaction thereby causing damages to
Manchester amounting to P78,750,000.00. This amount was alleged in
the BODY of their Complaint but it was not reiterated in the PRAYER of
same complaint. Manchester paid a docket fee of P410.00 only. Said
docket fee is premised on the allegation of Manchester that their action
is primarily for specific performance hence it is incapable of pecuniary
estimation. The court ruled that there is an under assessment of docket
fees hence it ordered Manchester to amend its complaint. Manchester
complied but what it did was to lower the amount of claim for damages
to P10M. Said amount was however again not stated in the PRAYER.
HELD: No. The docket fee, its computation, should be based on the
original complaint. A case is deemed filed only upon payment of the
appropriate docket fee regardless of the actual date of filing in court.