THE RULES OF COURT

RULE 1

General Provisions

Section 1.Title of the Rules. — These Rule shall be known and cited as the
Rules of Court. (1)

Section 2.In what courts applicable. — These Rules shall apply in all the
courts, except as otherwise provided by the Supreme Court. (n)

Section 3.Cases governed. — These Rules shall govern the procedure to be

observed in actions, civil or criminal and special proceedings.

(a) A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement
or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong, (1a, R2)

A civil action may either be ordinary or special. Both are

governed by the rules for ordinary civil actions, subject to the specific
rules prescribed for a special civil action. (n)

(b) A criminal action is one by which the State prosecutes a person for an
act or omission punishable by law. (n)

(c) A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a

status, a right, or a particular fact.

Personal Action and Real Action

Action In Personam, Action In Rem, and Quasi-In Rem

Q: What is the significance of determining whether an action Is Personal Action

or a Real action?
A: It determines place where the court is located or the venue and which court
has jurisdiction over the case.

Q: What is the Significance In Determining Whether The Action Is In Personam

As Against In Rem And Quasi In Rem?
A: It ascertains whether jurisdiction over the person of the defendant or the res
was properly obtained through summons.

In a personal action - the plaintiff seeks the recovery of personal property, the
enforcement of a contract or the recovery of damages.

In a real action - the plaintiff seeks the recovery of real property, or, as indicated
in Section 2 (a), Rule 4 of the then Rules of Court, a real action is an action
affecting title to real property or for the recovery of possession, or for partition or
condemnation of, or foreclosure of mortgage on, real property.

1
An action in personam is one which seeks a judgment for or against a person
directly. Jurisdiction over the parties is required in action in personam because
they seek to impose personal responsibility or liability upon a person.

Action in rem is directed against the thing or “res” itself instead of the person.
(e.g. petition for adoption, annulment of marriage, correction of entries in the birth
certificate, land registration case, probate of a will)

Action quasi in rem names a person as a defendant but its object is to subject
that person’s interest in property to a corresponding lien or obligation.

Jurisdiction over the parties is not required in actions in rem and quasi in rem.

Examples:

1. Recovery of land (Accion Publiciana) between A and B, is a real action as it

involves title to or ownership over a real property. The decision of that case
would not bind a third party C who claim ownership over it since it is an
action in personam,which object or intention is to bind the litigating
parties, but does not bind the whole world.
2. An action for annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage is a personal
action as it involves the status of a person as the subject matter and not a
real property or involves title to or possession thereof, but it is an action in
rem as it intends to bind the whole world.

3. Land registration is a real action and an action in rem to bind the whole
world.

4. probate proceedings for allowance of a will is a real action and an action

in rem.

Quasi In Rem – is actually an action in personam because it is directed against

a particular individual but the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his
property to the obligation, burdening it. The object of the case is the sale
or other disposition of property of the defendant over which one has a
right or lien over the property. It is against the person in respect to the
res (thing).The judgment entered in these proceedings is conclusive only
between the parties.
e.g.
a). foreclosure proceedings of real estate – creditor has a lien since it was
mortgaged to him.
b). Attachment

Action in rem and quasi in rem.

[G.R. No. 190710. June 6, 2011.]

JESSE U. LUCAS vs. JESUS S. LUCAS

2
Facts:

Petitioner, who claimed to be an illegitimate son, filed a Petition to

Establish Illegitimate Filiation (with Motion for the Submission of Parties
to DNA Testing) before the Regional Trial Court Valenzuela City against
his father, the respondent. The RTC, finding the petition to be sufficient
in form and substance, issued the Order setting the case for hearing
and also directed that the Order be published once a week for three
consecutive weeks in any newspaper of general circulation in the
Philippines, and that the Solicitor General be furnished with copies of
the Order. Respondent assailed in that the petition for recognition is
adversarial in nature; hence, he should be served with summons.
Issue:
Whether it was necessary to serve summons on respondent for the
court to acquire jurisdiction over the case. In other words, was the
service of summons jurisdictional?
Ruling:
The answer to this question depends on the nature of petitioner's
action, that is, whether it is an action in personam, in rem, or quasi in
rem.
An action in personam is lodged against a person based on personal
liability; an action in rem is directed against the thing itself instead of
the person; while an action quasi in rem names a person as defendant,
but its object is to subject that person's interest in a property to a
corresponding lien or obligation. A petition directed against the "thing"
itself or the res, which concerns the status of a person, like a petition for
adoption, annulment of marriage, or correction of entries in the birth
certificate, is an action in rem.
In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case. In
a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court,
provided that the latter has jurisdiction over the res. Jurisdiction over
the res is acquired either (a) by the seizure of the property under legal
process, whereby it is brought into actual custody of the law, or (b) as a
result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the
court is recognized and made effective.
The herein petition to establish illegitimate filiation is an action in
rem. By the simple filing of the petition to establish illegitimate filiation
before the RTC, which undoubtedly had jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the petition, the latter thereby acquired jurisdiction over the
case. An in rem proceeding is validated essentially through publication.
Publication is notice to the whole world that the proceeding has for its
object to bar indefinitely all who might be minded to make an objection
of any sort to the right sought to be established. Through publication, all
interested parties are deemed notified of the petition.

3
 [G.R. No. 49475. September 28, 1993.]
JORGE C. PADERANGA, vs. Hon. BUISSAN and
ELUMBA INDUSTRIES COMPANY
Facts:

Plaintiff and the defendant corporation entered into an oral contract of

lease for the use of a commercial space within a building owned by plaintiff.
Later, the corporation instituted an action for damages and prayed for the fixing
of the period of lease at five (5) years, before the then Court of First Instance of
Zamboanga del Norte based in Dipolog City where the plaintiff resides. Defendant
moved for its dismissal contending that the action was a real action which should
have been filed with the Court of First Instance of Ozamiz City where the property
is located. Defendant contended that the action was seeking recovery of
possession, thus, a real action, but argues that the action is one in personam
and not in rem. Therefore venue may be laid in the place where plaintiff or
defendant resides at the option of plaintiff.

Ruling:

Defendant appears to be confused over the difference between personal and

real actions vis-a-vis actions in personam and in rem. The former determines
venue; the latter, the binding effect of a decision the court may render over a
party, whether impleaded or not.

The action instituted by plaintiff affects the parties alone, not the whole
world. Hence, it is an action in personam, i.e., any judgment therein is binding
only upon the parties properly impleaded. A personal action may not necessarily
be an action in personam and a real action may not at the same time be an
action in rem.

In a personal action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of personal property,

the enforcement of a contract or the recovery of damages. In a real action, the
plaintiff seeks the recovery of real property. An action in personam is an action
against a person on the basis of his personal liability, while an action in rem is
an action against the thing itself, instead of against the person. Hence, a real
action may at the same time be an action in personam and not necessarily an
action in rem.

The distinction between an action in personam and an action in rem for

purposes of determining venue is irrelevant. Instead, it is imperative to find out if
the action filed is a personal action or a real action.

While the instant complaint does not explicitly pray for recovery of
possession, such is the necessary consequence thereof. Indeed, where the
ultimate purpose of an action involves title to or seeks recovery of possession,
partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of mortgage on, real property, such
an action must be deemed a real action and must perforce be commenced and
tried in the province where the property or any part thereof lies.

Let’s revisit the antiquated case of El Banco Espanol v. Palanca, which

is frequently cited by recent jurisprudence.

4
 [G.R. No. L-11390. March 26, 1918.]
EL BANCO ESPAÑOL-FILIPINO vs. VICENTE PALANCA

Facts:

El Banco Español-Filipino instituted an action to foreclose a mortgage

upon parcels of real property situated in the city of Manila against Engracio
Palanca upon a mortgage executed by the latter. As the defendant Palanca was a
nonresident, the court issued an order for the publication of the foreclosure
proceeding in a newspaper of the city of Manila and an order of notice by
registered mail to serve copy of the summons and complaint to the defendant at
his last place of residence, the city of Amoy, China.

However, the clerk of court failed to comply with the order of notice by
registered mail. A judgment by default was rendered in favor of the
plaintiff.Vicente Palanca, as administrator of the estate of the deceased
defendant Engracio Palanca, filed a motion to the court to set aside the order of
default and the judgment rendered, upon grounds that the court had not
acquired jurisdiction over the defendant or over the subject of the action.

Ruling:

The court has acquired jurisdiction over the res in the action to foreclose a
mortgage. Jurisdiction over the person is acquired by the voluntary appearance
of a party in court and his submission to its authority, or it is acquired by the
coercive power of legal process exerted over the person. Jurisdiction over the
property which is subject of litigation may result either from:(a) seizure of the
property under legal process, whereby it is brought into the actual custody of the
law or actual seizure like in attachment; or it may result from (b) the institution
of legal proceedings wherein the property though within the potential power of
the court, but not taken into actual custody, like in land registration proceeding.

The action quasi in rem differs from action in rem in that in the former
an individual is named as defendant, and the purpose of the proceeding is to
subject his interest therein to the obligation or lien burdening the property. All
proceedings having for their sole object the sale or other disposition of the
property of the defendant, whether by attachment, foreclosure, or other form of
remedy. The judgment entered in these proceedings is conclusive only between
the parties.

Actions distinguished from Special Proceedings:

The purpose of an action is either to protect a right or prevent or redress a wrong.

The purpose of a special proceeding is to establish a status, a right or a
particular fact (e.g. determination of heirs and declaration of heirship, rights of
filiation).

Rules of special proceedings are provided for in the following cases (section 1
Rule 72)

5
 a) settlement of estate of deceased persons
b) escheat
c) guardianship and custody of children
d) trustees
e) adoption
f) rescission and revocation of adoption
g) hospitalization of insane persons
h) habeas corpus
i) change of names
j) voluntary dissolution of corporations
k) judicial approval of voluntary recognition of minor natural children
l) constitution of family home
m) declaration fo absence and death
n) cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registrar

A petition for a writ of amparo is also a special proceeding, although not included
in the said provision of the Rules of Court.

NOTE: The rules of ordinary civil actions have suppletory application in special
proceedings.

Application of Ordinary Rules in Special Proceedings:

G.R. No. 132524 December 29, 1998

FEDERICO SUNTAY vs. ISABEL COJUANGCO-SUNTAY   

Facts:

Isabel filed a Petition for issuance of Letter of Administration of the Estate

of her late grandmother Cristina. However, her grandfather Federico filed an
Opposition claiming that he is the surviving spouse of the decedent. For
almost 2 years after filing an opposition, oppositor filed a Motion to Dismiss
arguing that Isabel under Art. 992 Civil Code, being an illegitimate child has
no right to succeed by representation the legitimate relatives of her father.

Ruling:

A motion to dismiss at this juncture is inappropriate. The 1997 rules of

civil procedure governs the procedure to be observed in actions, civil or criminal
and special proceedings. A motion to dismiss may be filed within the time for but
before filing the answer to the complaint. The motion should have been filed on or
before the filing of petitioner’s Opposition which is the counterpart of an answer
in ordinary civil actions.

The RTC acting in its general jurisdiction is devoid of

authority to render adjudication and resolve issue of

6
advancement of property which is covered in special
proceedings.

[G.R. No. 133000. October 2, 2001.]

PATRICIA NATCHER V. COURT OF APPEALS

Facts:

Graciano and Graciana del Rosario are married. Upon death of Graciana,
Graciano and 6 children entered into an extra-judicial settlement of the estate
whereby Graciano donated a portion of his share equally with his 6 children.
Later he married Patricia and the latter obtained title over the remaining portion
of the property. Graciano’s surviving children filed a complaint for
reconveyance/annulment of title alleging that Patricia through fraud made it
appear that Graciano executed a deed of sale in her favor, and as a consequence
the children’s legitimes have been impaired.
The RTC of Manila found the deed of sale is prohibited by law. However,
the court also ruled that the deed of sale might still be regarded as an extension
of advance inheritance of Patricia being a compulsory heir of the deceased.

Ruling:

Matters relating to settlement of estate such as advancement of property

made by decedent, partake the nature of a special proceeding, requires
application of specific rules (Rule 90 sec. 2). The RTC acting in its general
jurisdiction is devoid of authority to render adjudication and resolve issue of
advancement of property.

Marked distinction between an action and special proceeding:

Civil action – is a formal demand of one’s right in a court of justice in the

manner of prescribed by the court or by the law. It is the method of applying
legal remedies according to definite established rule.

Special Proceedings – an application or proceeding to establish the status

or right of a party or a particular fact. Usually , in a special proceedings , no
formal pleadings are required unless the statute expressly to provides. The
remedy is granted generally upon an application or motion.

G.R. No. 150206   March 13, 2009

Heirs of TEOFILO GABATAN vs. COURT OF APPEALS

Facts:

The lot in Cagayan de Oro City was declared for taxation for purposes in the
name of Juan Gabatan. Lourdes, claiming to be a granddaughter of Juan, filed a

7
complaint for Recovery of Ownership and Possession of Property at the RTC
against his uncle (brother of her deceased father Juan) who is keeping the
property. The RTC ruled that plaintiff Lourdes is the lawful owner and ordering
the defendants to reconvey the OCT in her favor.

On appeal, the CA ruled that Lourdes’ claim of filiation with Juan Gabatan was
sufficiently established during trial, that she had proven her status as sole and
surviving heir of Juan Gabatan.

Ruling:

The respondent's main cause of action is the recovery of ownership and

possession of property. Jurisprudence dictates that the determination of who are
the legal heirs of the deceased must be made in the proper special proceedings
in court, and not in an ordinary suit for recovery of ownership and possession of
property. This must take precedence over the action for recovery of possession
and ownership. The Court has consistently ruled that the trial court cannot make
a declaration of heirship in the civil action for the reason that such a declaration
can only be made in a special proceeding.

Section 4.In what case not applicable. — These Rules shall not apply to
election cases, land registration, cadastral, naturalization and
insolvency proceedings, and other cases not herein provided for,
except by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever
practicable and convenient. (R143a)

Section 5.Commencement of action. — A civil action is commenced by the

filing of the original complaint in court. If an additional
defendant is impleaded in a later pleading, the action is
commenced with regard to him on the dated of the filing of such
later pleading, irrespective of whether the motion for its
admission, if necessary, is denied by the court. (6a)

FILING OF THE COMPLAINT: PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEE

All complaints, petitions, answers and other similar pleadings

should specify the amount of damages being prayed for not only
in the body of the pleading but also in the prayer, and said
damages shall be considered in the assessment of the filing fees
in any case. Any pleading that fails to comply with this
requirement shall not be accepted nor admitted, or shall
otherwise be expunged from the record.

8
 EN BANC
G.R. No. 75919. May 7, 1987
MANCHESTER DEVELOPMENT CORP. vs. CA

Facts:

Plaintiff through counsel filed the original complaint omitting any

specification of the amount of damages in the prayer although the amount of over
P78 million is alleged in the body of the complaint. Apparently it was designed to
avoid payment of docket fee. Plaintiff through another counsel filed an amended
complaint, deleting all mention of the amount of damages in the body of the
complaint. The trial court directed plaintiff that the amount of damages be
specified in the amended complaint. Hence, in the amended complaint, the
amount of damages was put in the body of the complaint, but reduced at P10
million and was not sought in the prayer thereof. Plaintiff paid only P410.00 as
docket fee.

Ruling:

The rule is well-settled "that a case is deemed filed only upon payment of
the docket fee regardless of the actual date of filing in court." Neither can the
amendment of the complaint thereby vest jurisdiction upon the Court. For all
legal purposes there is no such original complaint that was duly filed which could
be amended. Consequently, the order admitting the amended complaint and all
subsequent proceedings and actions taken by the trial court are null and void.
The Court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon payment of the
prescribed docket fee. The Court serves warning that it will take drastic action
upon a repetition of this unethical practice.

To put a stop to this irregularity, henceforth all complaints, petitions,

answers and other similar pleadings should specify the amount of damages being
prayed for not only in the body of the pleading but also in the prayer, and said
damages shall be considered in the assessment of the filing fees in any case. Any
pleading that fails to comply with this requirement shall not be accepted nor
admitted, or shall otherwise be expunged from the record.

A more liberal interpretation: While payment of docket

fee is a jurisdictional requirement, nonpayment at the
time of filing does not automatically causes the
dismissal of the case, as long as the fee is paid within
the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.

[G.R. Nos. 79937-38. February 13, 1989.]

SUN INSURANCE OFFICE, LTD. vs. HON. MAXIMIANO ASUNCION

Facts:

9
 Manuel Tiong filed a complaint in the RTC of Quezon City for the refund of
premiums and the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against SIOLs.
The complaint sought the payment of actual, compensatory, moral, exemplary
and liquidated damages, attorney's fees, expenses of litigation and costs of the
suit. Although the prayer in the complaint did not quantify the amount of
damages sought, said amount may be inferred from the body of the complaint to
be about Fifty Million Pesos (P50,000,000.00).

Only the amount of P210.00 was paid by plaintiff as docket fee which
prompted an objection by the defendant. Upon RTC’s order, plaintiff filed a
"Compliance and a Re-Amended Complaint" stating therein a claim of not less
than P10,000,000.00 as actual compensatory damages in the prayer, however,
in the body it alleges actual and compensatory damages and attorney's fees in
the total amount of about P44,601,623.70.

The RTC issued an Order admitting the second amended complaint, the
reassessment by the Clerk of Court was based on the claim of "not less than
P10,000,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages" in the body.

Defendant filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.

Plaintiff filed a supplemental complaint alleging an additional claim of

P20,000,000.00 as damages so the total claim amounts to about P64,601,623.70.
Seven months after filing the supplemental complaint, the plaintiff paid the
additional docket fee.

Ruling:

The facts and circumstances of this case are similar to Manchester.

The principle in Manchester could very well be applied in the present case.
The pattern and the intent to defraud the government of the docket fee due is
obvious not only in the filing of the original complaint but also in the filing of the
second amended complaint.

However, in Manchester, petitioner did not pay any additional docket fee
until the case was decided by this Court. Thus, in Manchester, due to the fraud
committed on the government, this Court held that the court a quo did not
acquire jurisdiction over the case and that the amended complaint could not
have been admitted inasmuch as the original complaint was null and void.

In the present case, a more liberal interpretation of the rules is called for
considering that, unlike Manchester, private respondent demonstrated his
willingness to abide by the rules by paying the additional docket fees as required.

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

10
 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.

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.

EN BANC
[G.R. Nos. 88075-77. December 20, 1989.]
MAXIMO TACAY, et al vs. RTC Tagum, Davao del Norte, and
GODOFREDO PINEDA.

Facts:

Godofredo Pineda filed 3 actions for recovery of possession

(accionpubliciana) against 3 defendants Noel, Panes and Tacay. The two cases
were presided over by judge Fernandez and one by judge Matas.

The allegations of facts read in substance as follows:

a) That plaintiff is the owner of parcel of land evidenced by TCT;

b) Previous owner allowed defendants to occupy portions of the land by mere
tolerance;
c) Plaintiff as new owner demanded defendants to vacate but refused to
leave;
d) the last demand had been more than a year prior to commencement of
suit.

Prayer:
a) plaintiff be declared owner;
b) defendants be ordered to vacate;
c) each be ordered to pay:
1) P2,000 as monthly rents from Feb, 1987
2) actual damages as proven
3) moral and nominal damages as the Honorable Court may fix
4) P30,000 as attorney’s fees and representation fees of P5,000 per
day of appearance

Defendants filed a Motions to Dismiss arguing that the court has not
acquired jurisdiction of the case for the reason that the complaint violates the
mandatory and clear provision of Circular No. 7 of the Supreme Court dated

11
March 24, 1988, by failing to specify all the amounts of damages which plaintiff’s
claiming from defendants.

Judge Matas denied The Motion To Dismiss but ordered the expunction of
the allegations regarding moral and as well as nominal damages absent any
specification of particular amount as required by the rules.

Judge Fernandez also denied the Motion To Dismiss contending that since
the “action at bar is for Reinvendicatoria, Damages and Attorney’s fees, the
court has jurisdiction. That the claims for actual, moral and nominal damages are
only one aspect of the cause of action, they should be “expunged from the records”.

Ruling:

It is true that the complaint does not state the amount being claimed for
actual, moral and nominal damages. However, the actions are principally for
recovery of possession of real property. Determination of the court’s jurisdiction
in this type of action is the nature thereof, not the amount of damages allegedly
arising from or connected with the issue of title or possession.A real action may
be commenced and prosecuted without an accompanying claim for actual, moral,
nominal or exemplary damages.

Circular No. 7 dated March 24, 1998 does not apply. That circular
avowedly inspired by the doctrine laid down in Manchester Development Corp.
v. CA, May 1997, has but limited application to such actions aimed at the practice
of certain parties who omit from the prayer of their complaints “ any specification of
the amount of damages” the omission being clearly intended to evade the payment
of the correct filing fee.

In the instant case, the RTC has jurisdiction over the real action upon filing of
the complaint and payment of the prescribed docket fee. What should be done is
simply to:

a) expunge those claims for damages as to which no amounts are stated.

b) 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 fees within the relevant prescriptive period.

Clarificatory and additional rules laid down in Sun Insurance Office Ltd.
V. Asuncion, revising Circular No. 7 in the rule that, the trial court now being
authorized to allow payment of the docket fee within a reasonable time but in no
case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.

Note :

Payment of Appellate docket fee and other lawful fees for purposes of appeal must
be paid within the same period for taking an appeal. This is clear from the opening
sentence of Section 4, Rule 41 Rules of Civil Procedure as held in the case of Ma.
Concepcion L. Regalado vs. Antonio S. Go [G.R. No. 167988. February 6, 2007] )

12
What does it mean by non-payment of docket fee to
“constitute a lien on the judgment” pursuant to CIRCULAR
NO. 7?

[G.R. No. 151242. June 15, 2005.]

PROTON PILIPINAS CORPORATION vs. BANQUE NATIONALE DE PARIS

In this case, the SC citing Ayala Corporation v. Madayag, clarified that in

interpreting the third rule laid down in Sun Insurance when the judgment of the
court “awards a claims not specified in the pleading,” that the same refers only to
damages arising after the filing of the complaint or similar pleading as to which
the additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the judgment.

[G.R. No. 165147. July 9, 2008.]

PHILIPPINE FIRST INSURANCE CO., INC. vs. PYRAMID
LOGISTICS AND TRUCKING CORPORATION.

Facts:

Pyramid Logistics and Trucking Corporation filed a complaint for specific

performance and damages, againstPhilippine First Insurance Company, Inc. and
Paramount General Insurance Corporation before the RTC of Makati.

Thebody of the Amended Complaint, alleged the lost goods valued atPhp
907,149.07 and plaintiff incurred expenses, suffered damages and was
constrained to engage the services of counsel to recover compensation for which
services it obligated itself to pay the sum equivalent to twenty-five (25%) of any
recovery in the instant action, as and for attorney's fees and legal expenses.

The Prayer of the Complaint omitted to specify these damages. The Prayer
reads:

. . . that after due proceedings, judgment be rendered,

ordering the defendants to comply with their obligation
under their respective Insurance Policies by paying to
jointly and severally, the claims arising from the subject
losses.

that defendants be adjudged jointly and severally to pay,

in addition to the foregoing, the following:

1. The sum of PHP50,000.00 plus PHP1,500.00 for each

Court session attended by counsel until the instant case is
finally terminated, as and for attorney's fees;

2. The costs of suit; and for other reliefs just and equitable
in the premises.

Thus, defendant insurers filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of

jurisdiction, plaintiff not having paid the docket fees in full. The clerk charged the
plaintiff P610.00 only as a filing fee, which she was based on the amount of

13
Php50,000.00 attorney's fees only in the prayer. The trial court denied the Motion
to Dismiss contending that the action is for specific performance not recovery of
sum of money.

Ruling:

InTacay v. Regional Trial Court of Tagum, Davao del Norte the Court
clarified the effect of the Sun Insurance ruling on the Manchester ruling as
follows:

a). the trial court now being authorized to allow payment of the fee within
a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive
period or reglementary period.

b). Moreover, a new rule has been added, governing the awards of claims
not specified in the pleading — i.e., damages arising after the filing of
the complaint or similar pleading — as to which the additional filing fee
therefor shall constitute a lien on the judgment.

Pyramid captioned its complaint as one for "specific performance and

damages". Even if it was, yet the allegations in its body showed, it seeks in the
main, collection of sum of money. As it failed to specify in the prayer in the
complaint the amount of its claims/damages, what should be done by the trial
court is allow amendment of the complaint and pay the correct docket fee.

Apparently, the trial court misinterpreted paragraph 3 of the Sun

Insurance ruling wherein it stated that "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" by considering it to mean that there is no need to specify the
amount being sought, and that any award thereafter shall constitute a lien on the
judgment. The exception contemplate 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.

While payment of correct docket fee is a jurisdictional

requirement, but it should be raised seasonably. Otherwise,
estoppel sets in.

[G.R. No. 123215. February 2, 1999.]

NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION vs. COURT OF APPEALS

Facts:

Plaintiff filed a complaint for specific performance against the National

Steel involving a transfer of Stock Certificate against defendant-corporation. The
defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on prescription but not upon incorrect
payment of docket fees until judgment has been rendered adverse to it.

Ruling:

14
 Plaintiff failed to pay the correct docket fee. However, even though the
payment of the proper docket fees is a jurisdictional requirement, the trial court
may allow the plaintiff in an action to pay the same within a reasonable time
before the expiration of the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. If the
plaintiff fails to comply with this requirement, the defendant should timely raise
the issue of jurisdiction or else he would be considered in estoppel.

[G.R. No. 167988. February 6, 2007.]

MA. CONCEPCION L. REGALADO vs. ANTONIO S. GO

The appellate docket and other lawful fees must be paid within the same
period for taking an appeal. This is clear from the opening sentence of Section 4,
Rule 41 of the same rules that, "Within the period for taking an appeal, the
appellant shall pay to the clerk of court which rendered the judgment or final order
appealed from, the full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees."

Time and again we rule that the use of the word "shall" underscores the
mandatory character of the Rule. The term "shall" is a word of command, and one
which has always or which must be given a compulsory meaning, and it is
generally imperative or mandatory.

In Enriquez v. Enriquez, the SC held thus:

“Time and again, this Court has consistently held that payment of
docket fee within the prescribed period is mandatory for the
perfection of an appeal. Without such payment, the appellate court
does not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action
and the decision sought to be appealed from becomes final and
executory.”

Section 6.Construction. — These Rules shall be liberally construed in order

to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and
inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.

15