(4) 1999 Bar Question: Distinguish action from cause of action.

(2%)

Answer: An action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement of
protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong (Sec. 3[a], Rule 1). A
cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another
(Sec. 2, Rule 2). An action must be based on a cause of action (Sec. 1, Rule 2).

1999 Bar: What is the rule against splitting a cause of action and its effect on the
respective rights of the parties for failure to comply with the same? (2%)

Answer: The rule against splitting a cause of action and its effect is that if two or
more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one
or a judgment on the merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal
of the others (Sec. 4, Rule 2)

2005 Bar: Raphael, a warehouseman, filed a complaint against V Corporation, X

Corporation and Y Corporation to compel them to interplead. He alleged therein
that the three corporations claimed title and right of possession over the goods
deposited in his warehouse and that he was uncertain which of them was
entitled to the goods. After due proceedings, judgment was rendered by the
court declaring that X Corporation was entitled to the goods. The decision
became final and executory.

Raphael filed a complaint against X Corporation for the payment of P100,000.00

for storage charges and other advances for the goods. X Corporation filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of res judicata. X Corporation
alleged that Raphael should have incorporated in his complaint for interpleader
his claim for storage fees and advances and that for his failure he was barred
from interposing his claim. Raphael replied that he could not have claimed
storage fees and other advances in his complaint for interpleader because he
was not yet certain as to who was liable therefor.

Resolve the motion with reasons. (4%)

Answer: The motion to dismiss should be granted. Raphael should have
incorporated in his complaint for interpleader his claim for storage fees and
advances. They are par of Raphael‘s cause of action which he may not split. The
filing of the interpleader is available as a ground for the dismissal of the second
case (Sec. 4, Rule 2). It is akin to a compulsory counterclaim which, if not set up, is
barred (Sec. 2, Rule 9). The law also abhors the multiplicity of suits; hence, the
claim for storage fees should have been made part of his cause of action in the
interest of complete adjudication of the controversy and its incidents (Arreza vs.
Diaz, 364 SCRA 88 [2001])

1999 Bar: What is the rule on the joinder of causes of action? (2%)

Answer: The rule on joinder of causes of action is that a party may in one pleading
assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as many causes of action as he may have
against an opposing party, provided that the rule on joinder of parties is complied
with; the joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed by
special rules, but may include causes of action pertaining to different venues or
jurisdictions provided, one cause of action falls within the jurisdiction of the
Regional Trial Court and venue lies therein; and the aggregate amount claimed
shall be the test of jurisdiction where the claims in all the causes of action are
principally for the recovery of money. (Sec. 5, Rule

1999 Bar: A secured two loans from B, one for P500,000.00 and the other for
P1,000,000.00, payable on different dates. Both have fallen due. Is B obliged to
file only one complaint against A for the recovery of both loans? Explain. (2%)

Answer: No. Joinder is only permissive since the loans are separate loans which
may be governed by the different terms and conditions. The two loans give rise to
two separate causes of action and may be the basis of two separate complaints.
2005 Bar: Perry is a resident of Manila, while Ricky and Marvin are residents of
Batangas City. They are the co-owners of a parcel of residential land located in
Pasay City with an assessed value of P100,000.00. Perry borrowed P100,000.00
FROM Ricky which he promised to pay on or before December 1, 2004.
However, Perry failed to pay his loan. Perry also rejected Ricky and Marvin‘s
proposal to partition the property.

Ricky filed a complaint against Perry and Marvin in the Regional Trial Court of
Pasay City for the partition of the property. He also incorporated in his
complaint his action against Perry for the collection of the latter‘s P100,000.00
loan, plus interests and attorney‘s fees.

State with reasons whether it was proper for Ricky to join his causes of action in
his complaint for partition against Perry and Marvin in the Regional Trial Court
of Pasay City. (5%)

Answer: It was not proper for Ricky to join his causes of action against Perry in his
complaint for partition against Perry and Marvin. The causes of action may be
between the same parties, Ricky and Perry, with respect to the loan but not with
respect to the partition which includes Marvin. The joinder is between a partition
and a sum of money, but the partition is a special civil action under Rule 69, which
cannot be joined. Also, the causes of action pertains to differentvenues and
jurisdictions. The case for a sum of money pertains to the municipal court and
cannot be filed in Pasay City because the laintiffs from Manila while Ricky and
Marvin are from Batangas City (Sec.5, Rule 2).

1998 Bar: Give the effects of the following: Non-joinder of a necessary party.
(2%)

Answer: The effect of the non-joinder of a necessary party may be stated as

follows:

The court may order the inclusion of an omitted necessary party if jurisdiction
over his person may be obtained. The failure to comply with the order for his
inclusion without justifiable cause is a waiver of the claim against such party. The
court may proceed with the action but the judgment rendered shall be without
prejudice to the rights of such necessary party (Sec. 9, Rule 3).

(4) 2002 Bar: P sued A and B in one complaint in the RTC-Manila, the cause of
action against A being on an overdue promissory note for P300,000.00 and that
against B on an alleged balance of P300,000.00 on the purchase price of goods
sold on credit. Does the RTC-Manila have jurisdiction over the case? Explain.
(3%)

Answer: No, the RTC-Manila has no jurisdiction over the case. A and B could not
be joined as defendants in one complaint because the right to relief against both
defendants do not arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions and
there is no common question of law or fact common to both (Sec. 6, Rule 3).
Hence, separate complaints will have to be filed and they would fall under the
jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts (Flores vs. Mallare-Phillips, 144 SCRA
377 [1988])

2008 Bar: Half-brothers Roscoe and Salvio inherited from their father a vast
tract of unregistered land. Roscoe succeeded in gaining possession of the parcel
of land in its entirety and transferring the tax declaration thereon in his name.
roscoe sold the northern half to Bono, Salvio‘s cousin. Upon learning of the sale,
Salvio asked Roscoe to convey the southern half to him. Roscoe refused as he
even sold one-third of the southern half along the West to Carlo. Thereupon,
Salvio filed an action for the reconveyance of the southern half against Roscoe
only. Carlo was not impleaded.

After filing his answer, Roscoe sold the middle third of the souther half to Nina.
Salvio did not amend the complaint to implead Nina.

After trial, the court rendered judgment ordering Roscoe to reconvey the entire
southern half to Salvio. The judgment became final and executory. A writ of
execution having been issued, the Sheriff required Roscoe, Carlo and Nina to
vacate the southern half and yield possession thereof to Salvio as the prevailing
party. Carlo and Nina refused, contending that they are not bound by the
judgment as they are not parties to the case.

Is the contention tenable? Explain fully. (4%)

Answer: As a general rule, no stranger should be bound to a judgment where he is

not included as a party. The rule on transfer of interest pending litigation is found
in Sec. 19, Rule 3. The action may continue unless the court, upon motion, directs
a person to be substituted in the action or joined with the original party. Carlo is
not bound by the judgment. He became a co-owner before the case was filed
(Asset Privatization Trust v. CA, GR No. 121171, 12/29/1998).

However, Nina is a privy or a successor in interest and is bound by the judgment

even if she is not a party to the case (Sec. 19, Rule 3). A judgment is conclusive
between the parties and their successors-in-interest by title subsequent to the
case (Sec. 47, Rule 39; Cabresos v. Tiro, 166 SCRA 400 [1988]).

) 2005 Bar: Distinguish derivative suit from a class suit.

Answer: A derivative suit is a suit in equity that is filed by a minority shareholder

in behalf of a corporation to redress wrongs committed against it, for which the
directors refuse to sue, the real party in interest being the corporation itself (Lim
v. Lim-Yu, 352 SCRA 216 [2001]). A class suit is filed in behalf of several persons so
numerous that it is impracticable to join all parties (Sec. 12, Rule 3)

1999 Bar: What is the effect of the death of a party upon a pending action? (2%)

Answer: When the claim in a pending action is purely personal, the death of
either of
the parties extinguishes the claims and the action is dismissed. When the claim is
not

purely personal and is not thereby extinguished, the party should be substituted
by his

heirs or his executor or administrator (Sec. 16, Rule 3). If the action is for recovery
of

money arising from contract express or implied, and the defendant dies before
entry of

judgment in the court in which the action was pending at the time of such death,
it shall

not be dismissed but shall instead be allowed to continue until entry of final
judgment. A

favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff shall be enforced in the manner

provided in

the rules of prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased person (Sec. 20,
Rule

3).

(6) 2000 Bar: PJ engaged the services of Atty. ST to represent him in a civil case
filed by

OP against him which was docketed as Civil Case No. 123. A retainership
agreement

was executed between PJ and Atty. ST whereby PJ promised to pay Atty. ST a

retainer

sum of P24,000.00 a year and to transfer ownership of a parcel of land to Atty. ST

after
presentation of PJ‘s evidence. PJ did not comply with his undertaking. Atty. ST
filed a

case against PJ which was docketed as Civil Case No. 456. During the trial of Civil

Case No. 456, PJ died.

Is the death of PJ a valid ground to dismiss the money claim of Atty. ST in Civil
Case

No. 456? Explain. (2%)

Answer: No. Under Sec. 20, Rule 3, when an action is for the 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 is pending at the time of such death, it shall not
be

dismissed but it shall instead be allowed to continue until entry of the final
judgment. A

favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff shall be enforced by in the manner

specifically provided in the Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of
deceased

person.

2008 Bar: (a) Angela, a resident of Quezon City, sued Antonio, a resident of
Makati City
before the RTC of Quezon City for the reconveyance of two parcels of land
situated in

Tarlac and Nueva Ecija, respectively. May her action prosper? (3%)

(b) Assuming that the action was for foreclosure on the mortgage of the same
parcels of

land, what is the proper venue for the action? (3%)

Answer: (a) No. The action will not prosper because it was filed in the wrong
venue.

Since the action for reconveyance is a real action, it should have been filed
separately

in Tarlac and Nueva Ecija, where the parcels of land are located (Sec. 1, Rule 4).

However, an improperly laid venue may be waived, if not pleaded in a timely

motion to

dismiss (Sec. 4, Rule 4). Without a motion to dismiss on the ground of improperly
laid

venue, it would be incorrect for the court to dismiss the action for improper
venue

(United Overseas Bank Philippines v. Roosemore Mining & Development Corp.,

GR

Nos. 159669 and 163521, 03/12/2007)

(b) The action must be filed in any province where any of the lands involved lies—

whether in Tarlac or in Nueva Ecija, because the action is a real action. However,
an
improperly laid venue may be waived if not pleaded as a ground for dismissal
(Sec. 4,

Rule 4; Bank of America v. American Realty Corp., GR No. 133876, 12/29/1999