Real v personal actionsPADERANGA v DIMALANES / ELUMBA INDUSTRIES / ELUMBAF: Petitioner enteredd into an oral contract of with respondent Elumba Industries, which was represented by its GM Private Respondent Elumba. The contract was for a commercial space in a building owned by P in Ozamiz City, and was for an indefinite period, paid on a monthly basis.Four years later, Paderanga subdivided the premises into 2 via a partition wall, and took possession of the first half. Allegedly suffering damages from the construction of the wall, R instituted an action for damages which PRAYED FOR THE FIXING OF THE PERIOD OF LEASE AT 5 YEARS (at the CFI Zamboanga del Norte). The petitioner, however, filed a MOTION TO DISMISS on the ground that venue was improperly laid-- the action was a REAL ACTION which shoud have been filed in the CFI Misamis Occidental (Ozamiz) where the property was situated.R Judge denied the motion to dismiss: this was merely an enforcement of contract, and while affecting a portion of real property, there was no question of ownership raised. MR was denied, leading to the present case in the SC, where he argues that this is actually a case for recovery of possession of the portion surrendered to him when he placed the partition wall AND to fix the period of lease.Elumba argues that the action is for damages, with the recovery of possession being incidental. He also argues that the action is in personam and not in rem. Venue may be laid where either reside.I: Whether or not venue was properly laid (whether or not the issue was properly characterized as a real action).To start, there is a difference between personal v real (determines venue) and actions in rem and in personam (determines binding effect if a party is impleaded or not). This is an action in personam-- it binds only the parties. However, this does not mean it is a personal action-- a personal action seeks the recovery of (or deals with) personal property, while a real action seeks the recovery of (or deals with) real property.What is important here is determination if this is a real/personal action. If real, venue is where the subject property/part thereof lies. If personal, at the residence of either party.The thing here is that the prayer asks for the fixing of period of lease. If found meritorious, possessory rights and recovery of property would be possible. This is not a consequence-- it is his ultimate purpose. It is a real action. MTD proper.--LUCAS v LUCASF: On Jul 26, 2007, petitioner Jesse Lucas filed a Petition to Establish Ilegit Filiation (with Motion for Submission of Parties to DNA Testing) before the RTC Vale. He narrates:- In 1967, his mother, Elsie, migrated to Manila and in a night club, she met the supposed father, Jesus. They got pregnant and gave birth to Jesse. However, Jesus was not stated in the certificate of live birth.- Still, Elsie told Jesse about his father. Supposedly, Jesus extended support for two years, but ended. Jesus wanted to support Jesse himself (at the cost of raising him on his own), but Elsie refused. They never made up.He attached several evidence of identity (birth certificate, baptismal certificate, diploma, certificate of recognition, etc.). And the proceedings happened:>> R did not receive a copy of the petition at first, but he later learned of it, and obtained a copy.>> P filed with the RTC a Very Urgent Motion to Try and Hear the Case. The RTC found the petition to be sufficient in form and substance, and issued an Order setting the case for hearing and urging anyone who has an objection to file his opposition. He also directed that the Order be published 1/wk for 3 cons. week in ANY NEWSPAPER of GENERAL CIRCULATION in the Philippiines, and that the SolGen be furnished a copy so that he may appear and represent the case. (MOST IMPORTANT PART!!!)>> The respondent's reply to this is that this was not proper summons as the petition was adversarial in nature. He would only be waiving service of summons and making a voluntary appearance if the court agreed that summons was required. Finally, the publication was improper due to the confidentiality of the subject matter. He filed a Special Appearance for this purpose. He also filed an MR against the order, claiming that the petition was lacking in form and substance and that jurisprudence is stil unsettled on the acceptability of DNA evidence.>> THE RTC DISMISSED THE CASE, citing the 4-fold test in Herrera v Alba-- a prima facie case, affirmative defenses, presumption of legitimacy, and physical resemblance (he did not present any defenses against those). However, on MR, the case was set for hearing.>> The RTC held that the filing of the petition is premature as a full-blown trial has not yet taken place. However, the petition was sufficient in form and substance-- verified, v forum shopping, ultimate facts, etc. The allegations made by R were refuted-- lack of personal knowledge was an evidentiary matter, and that DNA acceptability is already there given the RUle on DNA Evidence.>> The CA reversed the RTC decision, stressing the lack of summons. Special appearance was not voluntary appearance bec it was filed only for the purpose of questioning jurisdiction. The CA again stressed that the prima facie case (traditional test) was required. CA denied on MR.(assailed orders were interlocutory orders which should not be questioned in SCA certio)I: Whether or not summons was properly served.- An action in personam is lodged against a person based on personal liability; in rem against the thing itself; quasi in rem names a person as defendant, but the object is to subject that person's interest in property to a lien/obligation. A petition again the status of a person, such as this one, is an action in rem.- The effect here is that summons over the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court; it just needs jurisdiction over the res via seizure or institution of proceedings.- Here, this was acquired through the filing of the petition. And as it was an action in rem, publication was a proper mode of summons.- The summons to the defendant was a due process requirement, but NOT a jurisdictional requirement. In fact, it may be waived if the adverse party failed to seasonably file his opposition (like in this case)-- worse, he participated in the proceedings and filed sole opposition.I: Whether or not there was failure to state a cause of action due to lack of substance of the petition to establish illegit filiation.- Yes, indeed this is adversarial in nature despite the caption of the petition which lacked a defendant, failure to implead, etc. It is adversarial where the party seeking relief has given legal warning to the other party and afforded the latter an opportunity to contest it. Here, this was done through publication.- The petition to establish is sufficient in substance. A cause of action requires a plain, concise, and direct statement of the ultimate facts of the claim, which contains a right, obligation, and a/o.- As such, the argument that the allegations were supposedly hearsay is an evidentiary matter that cannot negate a cause of action. In an MTD based on lack of cause of action, the facts are hypothetically admitted regardless of sufficiency. The test is w/n admitting the facts, the court cound render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer. After that, it's a matter of trial.- The traditional paternity requirements were misapplied. These are also evidentiary requirements, which require presentation and cross-examination of evidence.- At any rate, there are safeguards in the DNA testing rule, right in the Rules themselves, and note that it's still discretionary even after a show cause order.--Proceedings in civil actions aka the poorly written decisionVELARDE v SJSF: SJS filed a Petition for Dec Relief before the RTC-Manila v Ps. SJS is a political party that sought the interpretation of several consti provisions, and sought a declaratory judgment on the constitutionality of the acts of religious leaders endorsing a candidate for elective office, or urging or requiring the members of their flock to vote for a specified candidate. The Ps sought the dismissal of the petition on the grounds of lack of cause of action and lack of justiciable controversy.The lower court wrote a lengthy discussion on the separation of church and state, but DID NOT include a dispositive portion. Hence this PFR. (it took the petition, MTDs were filed but SUMMARILY DISMISSED WITHOUT REASONS, MR was ignored, then decided without a dispositive)PI: Whether or not the requirements for a proper petition for declaratory relief were met.- Sec. 1 Rule 63 allows any person interested under a deed, etc. whose rights are affected by government regulation to, before breach or violation, bring an action in the appropriate RTC to determine a question of construction/validity + his rights. The requirements for this are: justiciability, cause of action, legal interest, and ripeness.Justiciability: Argument - SJS was premised on mere speculation.Jusiticiability - one appropriate for determination, not one merely conjectural or anticipatory. Here, the case was not justiciable-- no violations were alleged, no rights were cited. Election season had not even begun (Jan 2003). No ultimate facts (which were necessary for a complaint!) were given. All they did was speculate.Cause of action - (repeat cause of action) However, in SCA for dec relief, cause of action is different-- there should at least be an impending, imminent or at least threatened violation. Here, it was a very general verment that does not suffice to constitute a legal right ("keenly interested..."). The problem here is it is speculative and it is uncertain if the loss will occur-- "they might participate..."Legal standing - direct injury test. No showing of damage if question not resolved, and interest is too general and vague. However, they dispensed with the standing requirement because of TFI.- It must also be noted that the proceedings in the trial court were highly improper (wala ngang dispositive).>> COMPLAINT PLUS FILING FEES>> POSSIBLE DISMISSAL DUE TO FAILURE TO STATE CAUSE OF ACTION AND RELIEFS SOUGHT (either motu propio or upon MTD)>> SUMMONS with DIRECTIVE TO FILE ANSWER WITHIN 15 DAYS (GR); FAILURE MEANS A JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT MAY BE GRANTED>> POSSIBLE COUNTERCLAIM/CROSSCLAIM in ANSWER: REPLY 10 d from service>> IF ANSWER FAILS TO TENDER AN ISSUE OR ADMITS THE ALLEGATIONS, THE COURT MAY DIRECT JUDGMENT ON THAT PLEADING. SUMMARY JUDGMENT MAY BE MOVED FOR.>> AT THIS POINT, MTD CAN STILL BE FILED.>> MOTION HEARING BEGINS: ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE TO BE SUBMITTED. COURT MAY PREFATORILY DISMISS/DENY BASED ON THIS. IF DENIED, MAY FILE AN ANSWER IF HE HASN'T FILED ALREADY. COURT MAY ORDER AMENDMENT.>> AFTER FILING OF LAST PLEADING, PRETRIAL BEGINS. NONAPPEARANCE OF P WILL LEAD TO DISMISSAL; OF R, ALLOWS PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE EX PARTE, AND JUDGMENT MAY BE RENDERED BASED ON THAT ALONE.>> SUBMISSION OF PRETRIAL BRIEFS. COURT TO RECITE THE DETAILS IN PRETRIAL CONFE. MODES OF DISCOVERY MAY BE AVAILED OF.>> TRIAL BEGINS. ADDUCE EVIDENCE, ARGUE. CASE MAY BE REFERRED TO A COMMISSIONER (WILL LATER BE SET FOR HEARING, and MAY ADOPT THE FINDINGS).>> JUDGMENT TO BE RENDERED, determining the merits of the case. Decision shall be in writing, personally and directly prepared by the judge, stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based, signed by the issuing magistrate, and filed with the clerk of court.- So what happened here:1. The pleading of SJS was clearly inadequate for failure to state any ultimate facts. It did not even specify a relief. This was failure to state a cause of action. It should have dismissed outright.2. During the proceedings, when MTDs were filed, there were supposedly schedule settings on the positions of the parties. These were not disclosed in the records. All that happened was a summary denial of the MTDs WITHOUT hearing or a statement for denial. It did not rule on their MRs and moved to the decision.3. The RTC issued a decision without allowing the filing of answers AND there was no joinder of issues. If the answers were filed, the judge would have known that there really was no basis for the suit.THIS IS OBVIOUSLY GAD.SI: Whether or not the decision complied with the fundamental requirements of a decision.- The Constitution itself commands that no decision shal be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and law on which it is based, nor shall a PFR or MFR be refused or denied without stating the basis therefor. The rules reflect this policy. Such is part of due process.- Remember: there was no dispositive. This must be explicitly stated, and cannot be implied from the opinion. The dispositive is a FINAL ORDER.- And so the court lectured on the parts of a decision: statement of case (nature of action), statement of facts, issues, ruling, and dispositive. SI: Whether or not endorsements by religious leaders is u/c.- There were no ultimtae facts and arguments for the claim. This was asking the court to answer a hypothetical question, and in essence, asked for an advisory opinion, which was outside the court's mandate.- The decision was clearly void.--Splitting of cause of actionCHUA v METROBANKF: Petitioners obtained from Rs a P4m loan secured by a real estate mortgage on several parcels of land owned by P Chua. The value of the collateral was more than a loan, so an open credit line was given-- more loans were obtained.However, the Ps failed to fully pay, so they entered into a Debt Settlement Agreement for restructuring. A year later, R still demanded that P fully pay their liabilities (P103 million). They failed to pay, so R sought extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgages. A petitio for foreclosure was filed 25 Apr 2001, then a notice of sale was issued the next day, with the auction sale a month later. The Ps received a copy of the Notice of Sale in the meantime.P filed a case before the RTC Paranaque for INJUNCTION with PRAYER FOR ISSUANCE OF TRO, PRELIM INJUNCTION, and DAMAGES. A TRO was issued against the sale. The case was not finished yet, but the TRO expired-- the sale was later ordered rescheduled, and Metrobank won.P then filed a motion to admit amended complaint, impleading the Register of Deeds. They allege a FALSIFIED CERTIFICATE OF SALE (no sale conducted on the auction day), and even then, THERE WAS DISOBEDIENCE OF A LAWFUL ORDER OF THE RTC. They also pray DAMAGES considering bad faith, as well as another TRO and PI against the sale.Injunction was denied as the properties were already sold. MR was not acted upon, leading to a petition for certiorari to the CA, which reversed the decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. Such was affirmed by the SC in a previous case.The case was re-raffled. This time, in a DIFFERENT BRANCH OF THE RTC PARANAQUE, Ps file a verified complaint for DAMAGES against Rs. They also filed a MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE the two cases, stressing that the subject matter, parties, and issues are almost the same.Rs opposed, and prayed for the dismissal of the second complaint on the ground of forum shopping. Still, the MTC was granted and the case was transferred to the court of the first case. MRs were filed, again stressing forum shopping. They were granted. Such was affirmed by the CA (community of interest and same cause of action-- judgment in either case would result in RJ).I: Whether or not there was forum shopping (and what would the effect be).Forum shopping exists when a pary repeatedly avails himself of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court.Ultimately, what is truly important in determining whether forum shopping exists or not is the vexation caused the courts and party-litigant by a party who asks different courts to rule on the same or related causes and/or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same issue.It can be committed in three ways: multiple cases on same COA and prayer, but the previous case was not resolved yet (remedy: LP), similar but the previous case was resolved (res judicata), or here, SPLITTING OF CAUSE OF ACTION (same COA, diff prayers, remedy is LP or RJ).In the certificate of non-FS, the petitioners failed to state the existence of the previous case, and just ratiocinated that they do not have the same ultimate objective and that they would not affect each other.In reality, this was still splitting the cause of action. They are based on the same COA, and in fact, looking at the records, in the amended complaint, the Ps actually sought damages (which was the subject of the second case). The acts and reliefs sought were present in both. All is based on the Nov 8 sale. Although there is discrepancy in the value of the claims, they were still premised on the same sale and the same appraisal report.The fact that one will not determine the outcome the other does not justify the filing of separate cases. These are separate remedies for a single cause of action, which goes against the whole point of the rule-- no man shall be twice vexed for one and the same cause. All of this was even admitted.Effect: If not willful/deliberate, the case shall be dismissed without prejudice (can proceed/be refiled). If willfull, it will be dismissed with prejudice (effect of RJ). Here, they actually moved for consolidation, which was not considered willful FS (probably honest belief).--SPS. PEREZ and AVISO v HERMANOF: Petitioners filed a civil case for Enforcement of Contract and Damages with Prayer for Issuance of TRO and PI against Zescon Land, its President Sales-Contreras, Atty. Vitan-Ele and R Hermano before the RTC QC. Hermano filed answer with CCl and a motion with leave to either dismiss the complaint or severe to separate trial. This was granted 28 Feb.The Ps received the order 21 Mar, then filed MR on the 23rd. They received the denial 18 Jun, but filed certio with the CA on 17 AUg. This was dismissed for having been filed beyond the reglementary period under Rule 65. The MR was denied.PI: Whether or not the petition was filed within the reglementary period.The applicable rule was AM 00-2-03-SC where on denial of the motion, a fresh reglementary period would accrue. They filed on the 60th day.I: Whether or not there was proper joinder of parties/causes of action.There were three causes of action in the complaint:1 - enforcement of contract to sell2 - supposed fraud involving Hermano (tricked to sign documents; deeds over the properties where there were mortgages in favor of Hermano, who they never met)3 - damages against all defendants due to failure to comply with obligations and the misrepresentationIn Hermano's CCl, he denied allegations and filed a separate civil case for foreclosure of the REM (he filed the MTD/MTS due to this on the theory that these were improperly joined).A joinder of actions is a uniting of multiple demands/rights in one action. They could be made the basis of separate suits, and is generally permissive even if they arose from the same factual setting. The reason for this is to avoid a multiplicity of suits and promote the efficient administration of justice.Joinder is allowed if (1) it will not violate the rules on jurisdiction, venue and joinder, and (2) if they arose out of the same contract/transaction/relation or are for demands of money or are of the same nature and character.If misjoined, the remedy is to severe the cause of action. These occur if: the rules of joinder of parties are not met, or the joinder includes SCAs or those under special rules. It seems there was a misjoinder of parties. What is important here is if there is a question of fact/law common to the parties arising out of the same transaction(s). Here, there was: the deeds of sale which actually had mortgage deeds in favor of Hermano. As such, for a mortgage to be valid, it is imperative that the Mor be the absolute owner-- if the sale was valid, the mortgage would become void. There was also the question of fraud involving Hermano. There was proper joinder.