RULE 8 ON CONDITIONS PRECEDENT (PHILIPPINE CIVIL PROCEDURE)

Governing Provision
- Rule 8, Section 3 of the 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (previously the same section in the 1997 Rules) provides:
  
  “In any pleading, a general averment of the performance or occurrence of all conditions precedent shall be sufficient.”
Meaning and Purpose
- A “condition precedent” refers to any act or event (other than a lapse of time) that must exist or occur before a right to file a legal action (or enforce an obligation) accrues.
- The rule allows a pleader to simply state that “all conditions precedent have been duly complied with or have occurred.” This general averment obviates the need to plead in meticulous detail each condition precedent—unless the rules or relevant statutes explicitly require specific averments.
- By deeming a general averment sufficient, the Rules reduce pleading technicalities and ensure expediency. The focus is placed on whether the party indeed complied, which can later be challenged by the opposing party.
Examples of Common Conditions Precedent
- Barangay Conciliation: Under Chapter VII, Title I, Book III of the Local Government Code (Republic Act No. 7160), certain disputes require referral to the Lupong Tagapamayapa (Barangay Conciliation) before court action. A complaint must allege that this conciliation process was undertaken (or that it is excepted by law).
- Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: Some statutes or regulations require that the aggrieved party first exhaust remedies at the administrative level (e.g., an appeal to an administrative agency) before going to court.
- Prior Demand or Notice: Certain causes of action—for instance, ejectment suits or actions on a demandable obligation—require prior demand or notice before a complaint may be filed.
- Insurance Claims: Insurance contracts sometimes stipulate conditions such as notice of claim or submission of proof of loss within a prescribed period. Non-compliance may bar recovery, so pleading compliance can be crucial.
How to Plead Compliance
- General Averment is Enough:
  - The Rules explicitly state that a general averment—for example, “Plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent required by law or contract before filing this action”—is sufficient.
- Exception: Specificity Required by Statute or Rule
  - When the law expressly mandates a detailed statement (e.g., a specific certificate or a specific step undertaken), it should be pled with particularity. In those instances, a simple general statement may not suffice (e.g., the need to indicate the date and manner of referral to barangay conciliation).
Effect of Failing to Plead or Prove Conditions Precedent
- Ground for Dismissal: Failure to allege or prove compliance with conditions precedent (where specifically required by law) can lead to the dismissal of the action for lack of cause of action.
- Curing the Defect: If the oversight is merely in the pleading (i.e., the plaintiff actually complied but failed to allege it properly), courts generally permit an amendment of the complaint to correct the error, subject to the Rules on amendment. However, the timing and circumstances (e.g., if the case is already set for pre-trial) can affect whether such amendment is allowed.
Defenses and Objections
- Specific Denial by the Defendant: If the complaint merely states a general averment of compliance, it is up to the defendant to specifically deny that the plaintiff complied or that the condition precedent occurred. A simple denial without particularity may not suffice.
- Burden of Proof:
  - Once the condition precedent’s compliance is properly alleged, the plaintiff still carries the burden to prove such compliance if specifically contested.
  - The general averment in the pleading shifts the initial burden to the defendant to challenge or deny compliance; but if disputed, the plaintiff must present evidence.
Relevant Jurisprudence
- Pascual v. Pascual (G.R. No. ____): Illustrates that a general statement in the complaint that all conditions precedent have been met is enough to withstand a motion to dismiss, unless the defendant, by way of a specific negative averment, discredits the plaintiff’s compliance.
- Spouses Agpalo v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. ____): Emphasizes the necessity of alleging (and proving) referral to the Barangay Lupon in matters covered by the Katarungang Pambarangay Law. Although a general averment is allowed, if a party specifically denies such referral or asserts an exception does not exist, the plaintiff must show actual compliance.
Practical Tips and Drafting Suggestions
- Model Paragraph in a Complaint:
  
  “Plaintiff hereby avers that all conditions precedent to the filing of this action, whether required by law, contract, or otherwise, have been complied with and/or have occurred prior to the institution of this suit.”
- Where certain laws require specific allegations (e.g., dates, type of notice given), include a brief but clear statement of when and how compliance was done:
  
  “Plaintiff avers that on May 10, 2025, this matter was referred to the Barangay Lupon of Barangay X, Manila, pursuant to Section 412 of R.A. No. 7160, and the parties appeared before the Lupon on May 15 and May 20, 2025, but no settlement was reached.”
- Verification and Certification: Ensure that the Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping (if required) does not contradict any statement on conditions precedent.
Interaction with Other Rules
- Rule 9 (Effect of Failure to Plead Defenses): If a defendant fails to specifically challenge the plaintiff’s compliance with a condition precedent, that defense can be deemed waived.
- Rule 15 (Motions): A motion to dismiss for failure to comply with conditions precedent will test whether the complaint sufficiently alleges—under Rule 8—compliance with the required steps or demands.
- Rule 2 (Cause of Action): The performance or occurrence of conditions precedent is often tied to the accrual of a cause of action. No compliance, no cause of action; or if no compliance is alleged, the complaint could be vulnerable to dismissal.
Key Takeaways
- General Averment: Sufficient under Rule 8, Section 3.
- Challenge by Defendant: Must be a specific denial or claim of non-compliance to compel the plaintiff to prove actual compliance.
- Statutory Exceptions: Some laws demand specific statements or proof of compliance.
- Practical Safeguard: Always err on the side of detailed allegations for conditions precedent you know are important in your case (e.g., barangay conciliation dates, letters of demand, etc.)—even though the Rules say a general averment is sufficient. This can prevent easy procedural attacks.

That is all there is to know on allegations of conditions precedent under Rule 8 of the Philippine Rules of Civil Procedure: the general rule allowing a short-form allegation, the interplay with specific statutory requirements, the consequences of non-compliance or non-allegation, and the typical practice of including sufficient detail to foreclose technical objections.