CABRERA VS TIANO

Petitioner: Josefina Potestas

Cresencia Potestas

Cabrera and

Respondent: Mariano Tiano

After the death of their mother the siblings
were left a parcel of land as their inheritance.
Ciriaco the father of the two sold the land to
Mariano Tiano. Now the petitioners filed for
partition and recovery of real estate in the
CFI of Misamis Occidental. The petitioners
alleged that Josefina did not sign the deed of
sale and that Cresencia is a minor.
The defendant Tiano however assert that he
is a buyer in good faith and that ownership is
vested through prescription since he
received the notice on July 2.
The CFI ruled in favor of the petitioner
granting them 1/8 of the property plus
damages. Thus the petition filed in the SC.
The SC held that prescription had not set in,
first the running of the limitation is
interrupted upon filing of the complaint not
after receiving the notice, and also, no facts
were presented pertaining to the alleged
good faith of the respondent. Such facts
could have been raised if the appeal was
filed in the CA not in the SC directly.
Decision: affirmed LC
Note: Remember when the law talks about a
year it means 365 days.
Rule 141 states the fees to be paid in court.
If the proper docket fees are not paid,
the court does not have jurisdiction to
hear the case.
Rule 111 when a criminal complaint is filed a
civil case is deemed instituted unless the
right has been reserved.
Hodges vs CA

JOE HODGES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF

APPEALS
3 lawyers filed separate action against
Hodges for Defamatory stmt w.o pyt of
proper docket
As early as Lazaro vs. Endencia, 4 this Court held
that an appeal is not deemed perfected if the
appellate court docket fee is not fully paid. In Lee
vs. Republic, 5 this Court ruled that a declaration
of intention to be a Filipino citizen produced no
legal effect until the required filing fee is paid. In
Malimit vs. Degamo, 6 We held that the date of
payment of the docket fee must be considered
the real date of filing of a petition for quo
warranto and not the date it was mailed. In
Magaspi vs. Ramolete, 7 the well-settled rule was
reiterated that a case is deemed filed only upon
payment of the docket fee regardless of the
actual date of its filling in court. 8
The rule in Manchester was relaxed in Sun
Insurance vs. Hon. Maximiano Asuncion, 10
whereby this Court declared that the trial court
may allow payment of the fee within a
reasonable time but in no case beyond the
applicable prescriptive or reglementary
period. Nevertheless, in Sun Insurance, this
Court reiterated the rule that it is the payment of
the prescribed docket fee that vests the trial
Court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or
nature of the case.
reglementary pd: In election protest you must
file the action 10 days fr the proclamation. SC : it
will not be tolerated anymore, bayad ka. kung sa
12th ka nagbayad wala na.

SUN INSURANCE OFFICE, LTD., (SIOL), E.B.

PHILIPPS AND D.J. WARBY, petitioners, vs.
HON. MAXIMIANO C. ASUNCION,
3 Basic Rules in Sun Insurance
Thus, the Court rules as follows:
1.
It is not simply the filing of the
complaint or appropriate initiatory
pleading, but the payment of the prescribed
docket fee that vests a trial court with
jurisdiction over the subject matter or

nature of the action. Where the filing of the

initiatory pleading is not accompanied by
payment of the docket fee, the court may
allow payment of the fee within a
reasonable time but in no case beyond the
applicable prescriptive or reglementary
period.
2.
The same rule applies to permissive
counterclaims, third-party claims and
similar pleadings, which shall not be
considered filed until and unless the filing
fee prescribed therefor is paid. The court may
also allow payment of said fee within a
reasonable time but also in no case beyond
its applicable prescriptive or reglementary
period.
- compulsory are excluded
Under Rules 141 SEC 7
a. permissive or compulsory- (are included)
(but this is already suspended)
3.
Where the trial court acquires
jurisdiction over a claim by the filing of the
appropriate pleading and payment of the
prescribed filing fee but, subsequently, the
judgment awards a claim not specified in
the pleading, or if specified the same has
been left for determination by the court, the
additional filing fee therefor shall constitute
a lien on the judgment. It shall be the
responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly
authorized deputy to enforce said lien and assess
and collect the additional fee.
-= Ayala
The exception contemplated as to claims not
specified or to claims although specified are
left for determination of the court is limited
only to any damages that may arise after
the filing of the complaint or similar
pleading for then it will not be possible for
the claimant to specify nor speculate as to
the amount thereof.
Ayala v Madayag
Sabio filed a case against Ayala, for specific
performance with damages before the sala
of J. Madayag

Ayala moved to dismiss bec the prescribed

docket fee was not paid and it also failed to
specify the amt of damages both in the
body and prayer the amt of exemplary
damages they are seeking. The plaintiffs
paid only P1k. The Spouses Sabio argued
that anyway they can pay it later on the
basis of - where the judgment awards a claim
not specified in the pleading, or if specified, the
same has been left for the determination of the
court, the additional filing fee therefor shall
constitute a lien on the judgment" only
damages that may arise after the filing of
complaint DAMAGES PENDENTE LITE
BP 129
(8) In all other cases in which the demand,
exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs or
the value of the property in controversy exceeds
One hundred thousand pesos (100,000.00) or, in
such other abovementioned items exceeds Two
hundred thousand pesos (200,000.00)
bank filed a complaint must include all ACCRUED
interest for purposes of Jurisdiction. What does
exclude interest? interest that accrues pendent
lite.
eg MTC 300k- umutang ka ng P200k, at the time
of filing of complaint my interest p60k including
interest accruing while case is pending, while
case is pending nag-accrue na, umabot ng p500k.
MTC can award bec din a kasali ung for purposes
of jurisdiction.
Sabio alleged that they need not state it now.
those are the only damages that will arise
PENDENTE LITE which the court may award. You
will pay filing fee there constituting a LIEN on the
judgment.

Failure to specify applies only to damages

that may arise after the filing of complaint.
ARTURO Q. SALIENTES, vs. COURT OF
APPEALS, HON. PACITA CANIZARES-NYE
On September 29, 1987, petitioner Arturo Q.
Salientes, in his capacity as receiver of and
representing the heirs of the registered coowners of Maysilo Estate, filed a complaint

before the Regional Trial Court, seeking to

recover possession of a portion of said
estate allegedly occupied illegally by
Destilleria Limtuaco & Co., Inc. to the extent
of 6,885 square meters, more or less, valued at
P500,000.00 and praying among others for an
Order to said company to pay Salientes "actual or
compensatory damages in the amount of not less
than P500,000.00 and such other exemplary
damages as the Honorable Court may
allow . . ."
Where the action involves real property and
a related claim for damages as well, the
legal fees shall be assessed on the basis of
both (a) the value of the property and (b) the
total amount of related damages sought.
The Court acquires jurisdiction over the action
if the filing of the initiatory pleading is
accompanied by the payment of the
requisite fees, or, if the fees are not paid at
the time of the filing of the pleading, as of
the time of full payment of the fees within
such reasonable time as the court may
grant, unless, of course, prescription has
set in the meantime. But where as in the
case at bar the fees prescribed for an action
involving real property have been paid, but
the amounts of certain related damages
(actual, moral and nominal) being
demanded are unspecified, the action may
not be dismissed. The Court undeniably has
jurisdiction over the action involving the
real property, acquiring it upon the filing of
the complaint or similar pleading and
payment of the prescribed fee. And it is not
divested of that authority by the circumstance
that it may not have acquired jurisdiction over
the accompanying claims for damages because
of lack of specification thereof. What should be
done is simply to expunge those claims for
damages as to which no amounts are
stated, . . . or allow, on motion, a
reasonable time for the amendment of the
complaints so as to allege the precise
amount of each item of damages and accept
payment of the requisite fees therefor
within the relevant prescriptive period."
-

this is a mixed action Real and Personal

paid fee in the real action but not to personaldinismiss lahat: wrong! yung di lang
nabayaran ang tanggalin mo.

MAERSK-TABACALERA SHIPPING AGENCY

(FILIPINAS), INC., petitioner, vs. THE HON.
COURT OF APPEALS
"On May 21, 1985, a complaint for damages
was filed by plaintiff Monet's Export and
Manufacturing Corporation (Monet's) and/or
Vicente Tagle against defendants Maersk
Tabacalera Shipping (Maersk) and the New
Asia Enterprises (New Asia) and/or Manuel
Ranola, alleging, among other things, that
plaintiff, like defendant New Asia, is
engaged in the export of locally-made
handicrafts and products, while defendant
Maersk Line is engaged in furnishing
containerized services through which
Monet's and New Asia normally ship their
goods; that on March 11, 1984, plaintiff, after
complying with all the export and custom
requirements, loaded its goods in Maersk's
container to be delivered on or before March
15, 1984 to Manila for immediate
transshipment to its port of destination;
that through fraud and malice, and without prior
notice to Monet's, Maersk unloaded the goods
at New Asia's factory site at Tagas, Daraga,
Albay to give way to the latter's own export
shipment; that Monet's shipment was later
returned to its warehouse at Banag, Daraga,
Albay; and that because of this occurrence,
Monet's had to secure another shipper,
thereby incurring unnecessary expenses as
well as suffering mental anguish, worry and
sleepless nights thinking of the possibility
of losing its trading partners which would
seriously doubt Monet's capacity as a
respectable exporter. Monet's likewise alleged
having suffered actual, moral and exemplary
damages
Monet did not pay the correct filing fee on
its claims for actual, moral and exemplary
damages, the amounts of which were not
specified in the body and prayer of its
complaint,
Maersk should have raised its objection to the
trial court's jurisdiction when the case was still in
that court. It should not have waited for an
adverse decision by the Court of Appeals before
waking up to raise the question of jurisdiction. =
waiver of the party to the jusrisdiction.

Since this is a case where some of the

claims (for moral and exemplary damages)
were not specified in the plaintiff's pleading
and were left for determination by the
court, the applicable rule is the third rule
set out in the decision of this Court in Sun
Insurance Office Ltd., et al. vs. Hon. Maximiano
Asuncion, e al., 170 SCRA 274, to wit:
"3.
Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction
over a claim by the filing of the appropriate
pleading and payment of the prescribed filing fee
but, subsequently, the judgment awards a claim
not specific, in the pleading, or if specified the
same has been left for determination by the
court, the additional filing fee therefore shall
constitute a lien on the judgment. It shall be the
responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly
authorized deputy to enforce said lien and assess
and collect the additional fee."
ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT AND
CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS and HOME
INSURANCE AND GUARANTY CORPORATION,
petitioner Original Development and
Construction Corporation (ODECOR for
brevity) filed a complaint for breach of
contract and damages against private
respondent Home Insurance and Guaranty
Corporation (HIGC for short), National Home
Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC for
short) and Caloocan City Public School
Teachers Association (CCPSTA for brevity
simultaneously they paid 2 checks and P86
based on one numerical figure which is p2m
representing taking out 22 proceeds fr lot
buyers
ODECOR's first complaint as well as its
amended complaint vaguely asserted its
claim for actual, consequential, exemplary
and moral damages, "the amount of which
will be proved at the trial" and the demand
for attorney's fees as "equivalent to 25% of
the total monetary liability and other
expenses of litigation and costs of this suit".
Such terms are certainly not definite enough
to support the computation of the proper
docket fees. While it is not required that the
exact amounts be stated, the plaintiff must
ascertain, in this estimation, the sums he

wants and the sums required to determine

the amount of such docket and other fees.
Thus, it is evident that the complaint did not
state enough facts and sums to enable the
Clerk of Court of the lower court to compute
the docket fees payable and left to the
judge "mere guesswork" as to these amounts,
which is fatal.
-

Rule 2 Sec. 3. One suit for a single cause of

action.
A party may not institute more than one suit for a
single cause of action.
What is splitting a single cause of action? dividing
a single cause of action into separate parts
What is the effect?
Sec. 4. Splitting a single cause of action;
effect of.

but bayad pa rin, it will constitute a lien on

the judgment but cannot be a ground for
dismissal of the case. It was raised too late.

If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of

the same cause of action, the filing of one or a
judgment upon the merits in any one is available
as a ground for the dismissal of the others.

Pag hindi bayad no jurisdiction, but the court

can allow time to pay within reasonable time.
Sa Suns verify if compulsory is already
included
Damages not specified are those arising
after not before.

In Criminal cases:
Payment of damages applies only to moral,
exemplary not actual. Except in cases BP22,
the rules sec 1 rule 11 bayad muna filing fee.
When do you pay the fees?
Claravall case and Alfeche case.
The damages and amount are specified in
the information.
In Manuel vs Alfeche: XXX
Commencement not only the filing but also
the payment of proper docket fees.
RULE 2.
For an ordinary civil action to exist, what is
the essential element? Cause of action. Rule
2 Sec 1
Cause of action=Rule 2 Sec 2
Rule one suit per action
Splitting a single cause of action
How many suits may a party may institute for a
single cause of action?

The filing of the 1st will be an abatement on

another action and judgment on merits in 1 will
be
litis pendentia - filing of the 1st will be an
abatement on another action
res judicata if the 1st action a judgment has
already rendered the 2nd will be dismissed on the
ground of res judicata
Reason for the prohibition on splitting cause of
action?
-

The rules against pleading a cause action is

prevent repeated litigation bet the same parties
in regard the same subject of controversy. To
protect defendant from unnecessary vexation,
cost on numerous suits.
multiplicity of suits which is not conducive to the
proper administration of justice
What is the test if the cause of action is
single?
There should be only 1 action for a single cause
of action (delict or wrong committed by act or
omission of defendant in violation of that right)
INDUSTRIAL FINANCE CORPORATION,
petitioner, vs. HON. SERGIO A. F. APOSTOL
In 1968, spouses Joaquin Padilla and Socorro
Padilla bought on credit three units of Isuzu
trucks from the Industrial Transport and
Equipment, Inc. They executed a promissory
note for P159,600, the balance of the
purchase price, securing payment thereof
by a chattel mortgage of said trucks and, as
additional collateral, a real estate mortgage
on their property covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-133625 in favor of the
seller. 1 Subsequently, Industrial Transport
and Equipment, Inc. indorsed the note and

assigned the real estate mortgage to

petitioner Industrial Finance Corporation
(IFC), which assignment was duly registered
in the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City and
annotated on the title of the mortgaged realty.
On May 15, 1970, in view of the failure of the
Padillas to pay several installments on the
note, the assignee IFC sued Joaquin Padilla
in the Court of First Instance of Rizal
(Quezon City) for the recovery of the unpaid
balance on the note including attorney's
fees.
They were able to secure judgment based on the
promissory note.
The new owner sought for the cancellation of
mortgage lien
Industrial Finance objected.
There are 2 remedies available : ordinary
collection suit(w/c they filed) and foreclosure of
mortgage
-

there should be only 1 action for a single cause of

action (delict or wrong committed by act or
omission of defendant in violation of that right)
payment of principal and interest- there is only 1
delict which is NON-payment (act or omission)
non-payment of interest still arose from one
wrong w/c is failure to pay the principal.
judgment was rendered based on the PN, can the
mortgage be cancelled? Yes because to allow this
recognizing the right of mortgagee to foreclose
will rise another suit for the same delict or wrong.
In a principal contract there is a subsidiary
contract: eg Mortgage, which cannot exist w/o the
principal. They are intertwined w/ each other.
Failure of pyt: you have 2 remedies, invoking 1
will be abandoning the other remedy.

Test:
When there is one delict or wrong there is
only one cause of action, even though there
is no. of rights violated.
Not on the no. of remedies available.
Remedy is a relief
Breach of contract:
Does the contract embrace only one cause of
action
even
if
it
contains
several
stipulations?

I promise to pay P1m, on or before dates

specified:
a. on or before jan 31 p100k
b. on or before feb 28 100k
and so on
- each installment constitutes separate delicts, you
can file action per month.
- can you file 3 actions? one for Jan, Feb and
March?
- No. All installment due must all be included
otherwise it will constitute splitting.
Contract has many parts:
a. use cement
b. use steel
c. plywood
etc.
Shld you sue several actions based on several
pars? No. All violations on the contract must
already be in a single action otherwise it will be
splitting cause of action.
When there is only 1 delict or wrong, there shld
only be 1 cause of action regardless of number of
rights violated such.
single delict or wrong must be a violation of only
1 contract or tran otherwise it may give rise to
separate cause of action
Cases of acceleration clause: may only constitute
one cause of action

JOINDER OF PARTIES

1. subject to the proper joinder requirement

2. no special civil action or actions governed
by special rules
3. Venue and jurisdiction.
a. Conditions: between the same
parties
b. pertain to different venues or
jurisdictions
c. will be allowed in the RTC but one
of the subject falls within the
jurisdiction of RTC
4. principally for recovery of money, the
aggregate amount claimed shall be the test
of jurisdiction. TOTALITY RULE (when
do we apply-when the action is principally
an action to recover an amount of money)