Bar provisions

Under the rule on joinder of causes of action, a party may in one pleading
assert as many causes of action as he may have against an opposing
party. Under the totality rule, where the claims in all the causes of action
are principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall
be the test of jurisdiction.

Although the rules on joinder of causes of action state that the joinder shall
not include special civil actions, the remedy resorted to with respect to the
third loan was not foreclosure but collection. Hence joinder of causes of
action would still be proper.

The Supreme Court has held that subject-matter jurisdiction is determined

by the amount of the claim alleged in the complaint and not the amount
substantiated during the trial.

Under the Rules of Court, the amendment of Rule 14 allowing service

of summons by facsimile transmittal refers only to service of summons
upon a foreign private juridical entity under Section 12 of Rule 14, not to a
non-resident defendant under Section 15 of Rule 14. Service of summons
by facsimile cannot be effected under Section 15 unless leave of court was
obtained specifically permitting service by facsimile transmittal.

Under Section 3(c) of Rule 9, when a pleading asserting a claim states a

common cause of action against several defending parties, some of whom
answer and the others fail to do so, the court shall try the case against all upon
the answers thus filed and render judgment upon the evidence presented.

The Supreme Court has held that despite its designation as a Family Court,
a Regional Trial Court remains possessed of authority as a court of general
jurisdiction to resolve the constitutionality of a statute.

The Supreme Court has held that non-joinder of an indispensable party is

not a ground of a motion to dismiss.

Under Rule 19, a person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation
may intervene in the action.
Under the Rule on Special Proceedings, in the absence of special
provisions, the rules provided for in ordinary actions, shall be, as far as
practicable, applicable in special proceedings.
Such application is practicable since it would be a waste of time to continue
hearing the case if upon the facts and the law, guardianship would not be
proper.

Under Section 3(d) of Rule 29, a court cannot direct the arrest of a
party for disobeying an order to submit to a physical or mental
examination. The court may impose other penalties such as rendering
judgment by default or issuing an order that the physical or mental
condition of the disobedient party shall be taken as established in
accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the order.

In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court held that the
requirement that the petition be filed in the area where the actionable
neglect or omission took place relates to venue and not to subject-matter
jurisdiction. Since what is involved is improper venue and not subject-
matter jurisdiction, it was wrong for the court to dismiss outright the petition
since venue may be waived.

The Supreme Court has held that in environmental cases, the defense of
failure to exhaust administrative remedies by appealing the ECC issuance
would apply only if the defect in the issuance of the ECC does not have any
causal relation to the environmental damage.

Under Section 2 of Rule 8, a party may set forth two or more statements of
a defense alternatively or hypothetically. The Supreme Court has held that
inconsistent defenses may be pleaded alternatively or hypothetically
provided that each defense is consistent with itself.

Under Section 2 of Rule 35, a defendant may at any time, move with
supporting admissions for a summary judgment in his favor.
Here the Plaintiff had impliedly admitted the genuineness and due
execution of the acknowledgment receipt, which was the basis of
Defendants defense, by failing to specifically deny it under oath.
Under Section 5 of Rule 7, a certification against forum shopping is
required only for initiatory pleadings or petitions.
Here the Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution, although
erroneously denominated as a petition is actually a motion for issuance of a
writ of execution under Rule 39.
Hence the motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of a certification
against forum shopping should be denied.

Under Section 10(a) of Rule 39, if a judgment directs a party to execute a

conveyance of land and the party fails to comply, the court may direct the
act to be done at the disobedient partys cost by some other person
appointed by the court or the court may by an order divest the title of the
party and vest it in the movant or other person.

the Supreme Court held that a foreign divorce decree must first be
recognized before it can be given effect. The Supreme Court stated that
the recognition may be prayed for in the petition for cancellation of the
marriage entry under Rule 108. I would file the petition in the regional trial
court of Makati City, where the corresponding civil registry is located.
(Section 1 of Rule 108). For the Rule 108 petition, the jurisdictional facts
are the following:

1. Joinder of the local civil registrar and all persons who have or
claim any interest which would be affected by petition.
2. Notice of the order of hearing to the persons named in the
petition.
3. Publication of the order of hearing in a newspaper of general
circulation in the province.

Section 2 of Art. III of the Constitution does not mandatorily require

the judge to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. The
judge may opt to personally evaluate the report and supporting documents
submitted by the regarding the existence of probable cause and on the
basis thereof issue a warrant of arrest.

There is no requirement of a prior order by the judge finding probable

cause. The SC has held that the judge may rely upon the resolution of the
investigating prosecutor provided that he personally evaluates the same
and the affidavits and supporting documents, which he did.