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

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 matter of the opposing party‘s claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. Such a counterclaim must be within the jurisdiction of the court, both as to the amount and the nature thereof , except that in an original action before the RTC, the counterclaim may be considered compulsory regardless of the amount (Sec. 7, Rule 6). ELEMENTS:  A counterclaim is compulsory where: [1] It arises out of, or is necessarily connected with the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party‘s claim; [2] It does not require jurisdiction over third parties for adjudication; and [3] The trial court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim. TESTS:  The tests to determine whether or not a counterclaim is compulsor

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).   ADVERTISEMENT Work from home! Be an online English tutor. Earn at least PHP100/hour. 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

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

Negative pregnant is an admission in avoidance which does not qualify as a specific denial. It is a form of negative expression which carries with it an affirmation or at least an implication of some kind favorable to the adverse party. It is a denial pregnant with an admission of the substantial facts alleged in the pleading. Where a fact is alleged with qualifying or modifying language and the words of the allegation as so qualified or modified are literally denied, the qualifying circumstances alone are denied while the fact itself is admitted ( Republic vs. Sandiganbayan ).

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

The Rules do not apply (a) in those cases where a specific rule or law provides otherwise; or (b) where the parties have validly agreed in writing before the filing of the action on the exclusive venue thereof (Sec. 4, Rule 4). ( Auction in Malinta v. Luyaben )

2008 Bar: (a) Angela, a resident of Quezon City, sued Antonio, a resident of Makati City before the RTC of Quezon City for the reconveyance of two parcels of land situated in Tarlac and Nueva Ecija, respectively. May her action prosper? (3%) (b) Assuming that the action was for foreclosure on the mortgage of the same parcels of land, what is the proper venue for the action? (3%) (a) No, the action may not prosper because it was filed in the wrong venue. Real action must be filed in the place where the res in litem is situated. Since the action for reconveyance is a real action, it should have been filed separately in Tarlac and Nueva Ecija, where the parcels of land are located (Sec. 1, Rule 4). However, an improperly laid venue may be waived, if not pleaded in a timely motion to dismiss (Sec. 4, Rule 4). Without a motion to dismiss on the ground of improperly laid venue, it would be incorrect for the court to dismiss the action for improper venue ( United Overseas Bank Philip

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).

2008 Bar: Half-brothers Roscoe and Salvio inherited from their father a vast tract of unregistered land. Roscoe succeeded in gaining possession of the parcel of land in its entirety and transferring the tax declaration thereon in his name. roscoe sold the northern half to Bono, Salvio‘s cousin. Upon learning of the sale, Salvio asked Roscoe to convey the southern half to him. Roscoe refused as he even sold one-third of the southern half along the West to Carlo. Thereupon, Salvio filed an action for the reconveyance of the southern half against Roscoe only. Carlo was not impleaded. After filing his answer, Roscoe sold the middle third of the souther half to Nina. Salvio did not amend the complaint to implead Nina. After trial, the court rendered judgment ordering Roscoe to reconvey the entire southern half to Salvio. The judgment became final and executory. A writ of execution having been issued, the Sheriff required Roscoe, Carlo and Nina to vacate the southern half and yield posse