PROJECT JURISPRUDENCE

Reply is a pleading, the office or function of which is to deny, or allege facts in denial or avoidance of new matters alleged by way of defense in the answer and thereby join or make issue as to such matters. If a party does not file such reply, all the new matters alleged in the answer are deemed controverted (Sec. 10, Rule 6). A reply is necessary when an actionable document is in issue.

A cross-claim is any claim by one party against a co-party arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter either of the original action or of a counterclaim therein. Such cross-claim may include a claim that the party against whom it is asserted is or may be liable to the cross-claimant for all of part of a claim asserted in the action against the cross-claimant (Sec. 8, Rule 6).

By contracts, all uncontested in this case, machinery and equipment are included in the mortgage in favor of RCBC, in the foreclosure of the mortgage and in the consequent sale on foreclosure also in favor of petitioner. ( Star Two vs. Paper City Corporation ) The real estate mortgage over the machineries and equipments is even in full accord with the classification of such properties by the Civil Code of the Philippines as immovable property. Thus: Article 415. The following are immovable property: (1) Land, buildings, roads and constructions of all kinds adhered to the soil; (2) Trees, plants, and growing fruits, while they are attached to the land or form an integral part of an immovable; (3) Everything attached to an immovable in a fixed manner, in such a way that it cannot be separated therefrom without breaking the material or deterioration of the object; (4) Statues, reliefs, paintings or other objects for use or ornamentation, placed in buildings or on lands by the owner of

Permissive counterclaim is a counterclaim which neither arises out of nor is necessarily connected with the subject matter of the opposing party‘s claim. It is not barred even if not set up in the action. The requirements of a permissive counterclaim are: [1] It does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction; [2] It must be within the jurisdiction of the court wherein the case is pending and is cognizable by the regular courts of justice; [3] It does not arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions subject of the complaint, and; [4] Payment of correct docket fee , which is not required for compulsory counterclaims.

1998 Bar: A, a resident of Lingayen, Pangasinan, sued X a resident of San Fernando, La Union in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City for the collection of a debt of P1 million. X did not file a motion to dismiss for improper venue but filed his answer raising therein improper venue as an affirmative defense. He also filed a counterclaim for P80,000 against A for Attorney‘s fees and expenses for litigation. X moved for a preliminary hearing on said affirmative defense. For his part, A filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim for lack of jurisdiction. Rule on the motion to dismiss the counterclaim on the ground of lack jurisdiction over the subject matter. (2%) There should be a denial of the motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. Under the Rules, a compulsory counterclaim is one which, being cognizable by the regular courts of justice, arises out of or is connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting the subject ma

Every pleading shall contain in a methodical and logical form , a plain, concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the party relies for his claim and defense, as the case may be, omitting the statement of mere evidentiary facts (Sec. 1, Rule 8).

This was a question raised Ms. Gilda Flores on August 30, 2017 at 4:06PM on Facebook. Honestly, it is a good question and should be asked in the Bar. Before we answer the question, we should notice that it is an unqualified question which may require a qualified answer. Hence, we should use the it-depends response. Also note that this appears to be a civil law question. More particularly, it involves the law on property. However, this question may also be viewed through the lenses of the law on intellectual property regarding the contents of the letter (RA 8293, Section 178.6). IMPORTANT NOTE!  Opinion has been expressed that the word "wrote" has, in its ordinary use, the meaning of "write and deliver," as in, "She wrote me a letter last month. I have not responded yet." In view of this, the  SUGGESTED ANSWER   answer below may suffer some inaccuracies. SUGGESTED ANSWER: A owns the letter. Under the law on property, ownership is transferred, amon

A counterclaim is different from a cross-claim. A cross-clam is any claim by one party against a co-party arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter either of the original action or of a counterclaim therein. A counterclaim is against a co-party (Sec. 6, Rule 6).

A counterclaim is any claim which a defending party may have against an opposing party ( Sec. 6, Rule 6 ). It is in itself a claim or cause of action interposed in an answer. It is either compulsory or permissive.

Affirmative defenses are allegations of new matters which, while hypothetically admitting the material allegations in the pleading of the claimant, would nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by him. Affirmative defenses include: (a) Fraud (b) Statute of limitations (c) Release (d) Payment (e) Illegality (f) Statute of frauds (g) Estoppel (h) Former recovery (i) Discharge in bankruptcy (j) Any other matter by way of confession and avoidance ( Sec. 5[b], Rule 6 ). Affirmative defenses hypothetically admit the material allegations in the pleading of the claimant, but nevertheless interpose new matter.

Negative defenses are the specific denials of the material fact or facts alleged in the pleading of the claimant essential to his cause or causes of action ( Sec. 5[a], Rule 6 ). When the answer sets forth negative defenses, the burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff, and when the answer alleges affirmative defenses, the burden of proof devolves upon the defendant. The three modes of specific denials are: (a) Absolute Denial – This is where the defendant specifies each material allegations of fact, the truth of which he does not admit and whenever practicable sets forth the substance of the matters upon which he relies to support such denial. (b) Partial Denial – This is where the defendant does not make a total denial of the material allegations in a specific paragraph, denying only a part of the averment. In doing so, he specifies that part the truth of which he admits and denies only the remainder. (c) Denial by Disavowal of Knowledge – This is where the defendant a

An answer is a pleading in which a defending party sets forth his defenses (Sec. 3, Rule 6). It may allege legal provisions relied upon for defense (Sec. 1, Rule 8).

Complaint is the pleading alleging the plaintiff's cause or causes of action , stating therein the names and residences of the plaintiff and defendant (Sec. 3, Rule 6).

Pleadings are written statements of the respective claims and defenses of the parties submitted to the court for appropriate judgment (Sec. 1, Rule 6). The aim of pleadings is to define the issues and foundation of proof to be submitted during the trial, and to apprise the court of the rival claims of the parties.

The parties may stipulate on the venue as long as the agreement is: (a) in writing; (b) made before the filing of the action, and; (c) exclusive ( qualifying or restrictive ) as to the venue (Sec. 4[b], Rule 4). The settled rule on stipulations regarding venue is that, while such are considered valid and enforceable, venue stipulations in a contract do not, as a rule, override the general rule set forth in Rule 4 in the absence of qualifying or restrictive words . They should be considered merely as an agreement or additional forum, not as limiting venue to the specified place. They are not exclusive but rather permissive. If the intention of the parties were to restrict venue, there must be accompanying language clearly and categorically expressing their purpose and design that actions between them be litigated only at the place named by them. In interpreting stipulations as to venue, there is a need to inquire as to whether the agreement is restrictive or not. If the sti

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%) No, it is not a valid ground to dismiss Atty. ST's claim for sum of money. Under Section 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

When the claim in a pending action is purely personal , the death of either of the parties extinguishes the claims and the action shall be 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).

The Doctrine of Incomplete Privilege is a concept is civil law regarding the right of an owner of a thing and the limitation to this right in cases of interference. This doctrine has been codified in Article 432 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. It is also called the rule on "state of necessity." Article 432. The owner of a thing has no right to prohibit the interference of another with the same, if the interference is necessary to avert an imminent danger and the threatened damage, compared to the damage arising to the owner from the interference, is much greater. The owner may demand from the person benefited indemnity for the damage to him.

If any of the defendants does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, and the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff, or any property of said defendant located in the Philippines, the action may be commenced and tried in the court of the place where the plaintiff resides , or where the property or any portion thereof is situated or found (Sec. 3, Rule 4), or at the place where the defendant may be found, at the option of the plaintiff (Sec. 2).

All other actions may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides , or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides , all at the option of the plaintiff (Sec. 2, Rule 4).

Actions affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein, shall be commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved or a portion thereof is situated. Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced and tried in the municipal trial court of the municipality or city wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated (Sec. 1, Rule 4).

The death of the client extinguishes the attorney-client relationship and divests a counsel of his authority to represent the client. Accordingly, a dead client has no personality and cannot be represented by an attorney ( Laviña vs. CA ). Neither does he become the counsel of the heirs of the deceased unless his services are engaged by said heirs ( Lawas vs. CA ). Upon the receipt of notice of death, the court shall order the legal representative or representatives of the deceased to appear and be substituted for the deceased within thirty (30) days from notice (Sec. 16, Rule 3). The substitution of the deceased would not be ordered by the court in cases where the death of the party would extinguish the action because substitution is proper only when the action survives ( Aguas vs. Llamas ). Where the deceased has no heirs, the court shall require the appointment of an executor or administrator . This appointment is not required where the deceased left an heir because the hei

Jurisdiction treats of the power of the Court to decide a case on the merits, while venue refers to the place where the suit may be filed. In criminal actions, however, venue is jurisdictional. Jurisdiction is matter of substantive law; venue, of procedural law. Jurisdiction may not be conferred by consent through waiver upon a court, but venue may be waived, except in criminal cases (Nocum vs. Tan; Santos III vs. Northwest Airlines).

Jurisdiction POWER.  Treats of the power of the Court to decide a case on the merits SUBSTANCE.  A matter of substantive law NON-WAIVABILITY.  May not be conferred by consent through waiver upon a court RELATIONSHIP.  Establishes a relation between the court and the subject matter LEGAL NOT VOLUNTARY.  Fixed by law and cannot be conferred by the parties MOTU PROPRIO.  Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is a ground for a motu propio dismissal Venue PLACE.  The place where the suit may be filed. (In criminal actions – in criminal cases, jurisdictional) PROCEDURE.  A matter of procedural law WAIVABILITY.  May be waived, except in criminal cases RELATIONSHIP.  Establishes a relation between plaintiff and defendant, or petitioner and respondent VOLUNTARY.  May be conferred by the act or agreement of the parties MOTION.  Not a ground for a motu propio dismissal except in cases subject to summary procedure

Venue is the place or the geographical area where an action is to be filed and tried. In civil cases, it relates only to the place of the suit and not to the jurisdiction of the court ( Manila Railroad Company vs. Attorney General ).

RULE 120: JUDGMENT Section 6. Promulgation of judgment. — The judgment is promulgated by reading it in the presence of the accused and any judge of the court in which it was rendered. However, if the conviction is for a light offense, the judgment may be pronounced in the presence of his counsel or representative. When the judge is absent or outside of the province or city, the judgment may be promulgated by the clerk of court. If the accused is confined or detained in another province or city, the judgment may be promulgated by the executive judge of the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the place of confinement or detention upon request of the court which rendered the judgment. The court promulgating the judgment shall have authority to accept the notice of appeal and to approve the bail bond pending appeal; provided, that if the decision of the trial court convicting the accused changed the nature of the offense from non-bailable to bailable, the application for

A party is misjoined when he is made a party to the action although he should not be impleaded. A party is not joined when he is supposed to be joined but is not impleaded in the action. Under the rules, neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is a ground for the dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just (Sec. 11, Rule 3) . Misjoinder of parties does not involve questions of jurisdiction and not a ground for dismissal ( Republic v. Herbieto ). Even if neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is a ground for dismissal of the action, the failure to obey the order of the court to drop or add a party is a ground for the dismissal of the complaint under Sec. 3, Rule 17. The rule does not comprehend whimsical and irrational dropping or adding of parties in a complaint. What it really contemplates is erroneous or mistaken non-join