CIVIL PROCEDURE (Atty.

Catherine Guerzo-Barrion) 1
1ST EXAM COVERAGE Case Digest
OVER PERSON OF PARTIES
BARCO v. COURT OF APPEALS
FACTS:
A Petition for Correction of Entries in the Certificate
of Birth was filed by Nadina Gustilo, praying for the
correction of the Certificate of Birth of her daughter
(June Salvacion) to the effect that the name of the
latters father be changed from Francisco Maravilla
to Armando Gustilo. (RTC: Granted)

When Armando Gustilo died,

proceedings arose from his death.

two

estate

Milagros Barco filed in her capacity as the natural

guardian and/or guardian ad litem of her daughter
Mary Joy Ann Gustillo, a Motion for Intervention
with a Complaint-in-Intervention, alleging that Mary
Joy had a legal interest in the annulment of the
RTC Order as she was likewise fathered by
Armando Gustilo.

Barco assailed the RTC Order on the ground of lack

of jurisdiction since she should have been made a
party to Nadinas petition for correction.

ISSUE:

Whether the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the parties
due to the failure to implead Barco as a party to the petition
for correction. NO.
RULING:
Section 3, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, states:
Section 3. Parties When cancellation or correction of an
entry in the civil register is sought, the civil registrar and all
persons who have or claim any interest which would be
affected thereby shall be made parties to the proceeding.
Undoubtedly, Barco is among the parties referred to in
Section 3 of Rule 108. Her interest was affected by the
petition for correction, as any judicial determination that June
was the daughter of Armando would affect her wards share
in the estate of her father.

It cannot be established whether Nadina knew of Mary Joys

existence at the time she filed the petition for correction.
Indeed, doubt may always be cast as to whether a petitioner
under Rule 108 would know of all the parties whose interests
may be affected by the granting of a petition. For example, a
petitioner cannot be presumed to be aware of all the
legitimate or illegitimate offsprings of his/her spouse or
paramour.
The fact that Nadina amended her petition to implead
Francisco and Gustilo indicates earnest effort on her part to
comply with Section 3 as quoted above.
Yet, even though Barco was not impleaded in the petition,
the defect was cured by compliance with Section 4, Rule
108, which requires notice by publication, thus:
Section 4. Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall, by
order, fix the time and place for the hearing of the same, and
cause reasonable notice thereof to be given to the persons
named in the petition. The court shall also cause the order to
be published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in
a newspaper of general circulation in the province.
The purpose precisely of Section 4, Rule 108 is to bind the
whole world to the subsequent judgment on the petition. The
sweep of the decision would cover even parties who should
have been impleaded under Section 3, Rule 108, but were
inadvertently left out.
Verily, a petition for correction is an action in rem, an action
against a thing and not against a person. The decision on
the petition binds not only the parties thereto47 but the whole
world.
An in rem proceeding is validated essentially through
publication. Publication is notice to the whole world that the
proceeding has for its object to bar indefinitely all who might
be minded to make an objection of any sort against the right
sought to be established. It is the publication of such notice
that brings in the whole world as a party in the case and
vests the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it.

CIVIL PROCEDURE (Atty. Catherine Guerzo-Barrion) 2

1ST EXAM COVERAGE Case Digest
civil causes of action, each of which could be made the basis
of a separate suit, in the same complaint, declaration or
petition.

SEC. 5 and 6, RULE 2

ADA v. BAYLON
FACTS:

Herein petitioners filed two separate, distinct and

independent actions.
(1) Original Case Filed: Partition of the estate of
Sps. Florentino and Maximina Baylon; and

(2) Supplemental Pleading: Rescission of the

donation inter vivos made by Rita Baylon in
favor of Florante Baylon.

The RTC ruled for the partition of the subject

properties, and rescinded the donation inter vivos.

ISSUE:

1.

WON the joinder of the causes of action was

proper. NO.

The objectives of the rule or provision are to avoid a

multiplicity of suits where the same parties and subject
matter are to be dealt with by effecting in one action a
complete determination of all matters in controversy and
litigation between the parties involving one subject matter,
and to expedite the disposition of litigation at minimum cost.
Nevertheless, while parties to an action may assert in one
pleading, in the alternative or otherwise, as many causes of
action as they may have against an opposing party, such
joinder of causes of action is subject to the condition, inter
alia, that the joinder shall not include special civil actions
governed by special rules.
Here, there was a misjoinder of causes of action. The action
for partition filed by the petitioners could not be joined with
the action for the rescission of the said donation inter vivos in
favor of Florante. Lest it be overlooked, an action for partition
is a special civil action governed by Rule 69 of the Rules of
Court while an action for rescission is an ordinary civil action
governed by the ordinary rules of civil procedure.
2. A misjoined cause of action, if not severed upon
motion of a party or by the court sua sponte, may be
adjudicated by the court together with the other cause of
action.
Nevertheless, misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground
for dismissal. Indeed, the courts have the power, acting upon
the motion of a party to the case or sua sponte, to order the
severance of the misjoined cause of action to be proceeded
with separately.
However, if there is no objection to the improper joinder or
the court did not motu proprio direct a severance, then there
exists no bar in the simultaneous adjudication of all the
erroneously joined causes of action.

1. The actions of partition and rescission cannot be

joined in a single action.

Misjoinder of causes of action and parties do not involve a

question of jurisdiction of the court to hear and proceed with
the case. They are not even accepted grounds for dismissal
thereof. Instead, under the Rules of Court, the misjoinder of
causes of action and parties involve an implied admission of
the courts jurisdiction. It acknowledges the power of the
court, acting upon the motion of a party to the case or on its
own initiative, to order the severance of the misjoined cause
of action, to be proceeded with separately (in case of
misjoinder of causes of action); and/or the dropping of a
party and the severance of any claim against said misjoined
party, also to be proceeded with separately (in case of
misjoinder of parties).

By a joinder of actions, or more properly, a joinder of causes

of action is meant the uniting of two or more demands or
rights of action in one action, the statement of more than one
cause of action in a declaration. It is the union of two or more

It should be emphasized that the foregoing rule only applies

if the court trying the case has jurisdiction over all of the
causes of action therein notwithstanding the misjoinder of
the same.

2.

WON the ruling of the RTC is null and void. NO.

RULING:

CIVIL PROCEDURE (Atty. Catherine Guerzo-Barrion) 3

1ST EXAM COVERAGE Case Digest
If the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over a
misjoined cause of action, then such misjoined cause of
action has to be severed from the other causes of action,
and if not so severed, any adjudication rendered by the court
with respect to the same would be a nullity.
Here, Florante posed no objection, and neither did the
RTC direct the severance of the petitioners action for

rescission from their action for partition. While this may

be a patent omission on the part of the RTC, this does not
constitute a ground to assail the validity and correctness of
its decision. The RTC validly adjudicated the issues raised in
the actions for partition and rescission filed by the
petitioners.