PAGE 1 ANSWERS

1. Venue is the place where the action is instituted while in jurisdiction is the power of the
court to hear and decide a case.

Venue is procedural. While jurisdiction is substantive.

Venue may be changed by the written agreement of the parties. While jurisdiction cannot
be the subject of the agreement of the parties

Venue is not a ground for a motupropio dismissal except in summary procedure. While
jurisdiction is a ground for motupropio dismissal.

2.
Accionreinvindicatoria- mtc/rtc
Probate proceedings- mtc/rtc
Action to reform an instrument- rtc
An action to rescind a contract of sale- rtc
Accionpubliciana- mtc/rtc
Quieting of title- rtc/mtc
Removal of cloud in the title- rtc/mtc
Partition of real property- rtc/mtc(rtc incapable of pecuniary estimation)
Foreclosure of real estate mortgage- rtc/mtc(rtc incapable of pecuniary estimation)

Remember the jurisdictional amounts (assessed value of real property) of 50,000

(outside MM), 20,000 (within MM) for actions involving title to or possession of property

Actions incapable of pecuniary estimation: rtc

3. Strictly speaking, Rule 4 Sec 2 should apply WHERE PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT

RESIDES. However, rules on venue in civil cases is not substantive and is merely
procedural, and thus may be changed for the convenience of the plaintiff. If RTC Manila
is convenient for the plaintiff then it can be filed there, Rule 1 Sec 6 provides for liberal
interpretation of the Rules in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy
and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. The court can only
motuproprio dismiss the complaint based on improper venue if the collection suit
involves a small claim, if the amount to be recovered is within small claims then it can be
dismissed motuproprio due to improper venue in a summary procedure.(It is not a
ground for motuproprio dismissal, but it can be dismissed upon motion of the parties
because the venue is mandated by Rule 4 sec 2, collection cases being a personal
action. UNLESS Rule 4 sec 4 can be complied with. MTC has jurisdiction is SMALL
CLAIMS. Take note of the amount: pure money claim of P100,000)
4. Rule 14 Sec 15 in action in personam against a non-resident who does not voluntarily
submit himself to the authority of the court, personal service w/n the State is essential to
the acquisition of jurisdiction over his person. This method is possible if defendant is
physically present in the country BUT if not found therein the court cannot acquire
jurisdiction over his person and thus cannot validly try the case. Summons by publication
will also not work to enable the court to have jurisdiction. The least that the party can do
is attach the property of the non-resident defendant here in PH if any, if none, the party
has no recourse but to have the case archived.

5. Res judicata- the defense of res judicata is not waived even if not included as on
objection in the motion to dismiss because it is one of the non- waivabledefenses
enumerated in rule 9. Since res judicata were made available at the time the defendant
filed a motion to dismiss, he may use res judicata as an affirmative defense in the
answer.

6. A. DISTINGUISH ABSENCE OF A CAUSE OF ACTION FROM FAILURE TO STATE

CAUSE OF ACTION

The mere existence of a cause of action is not SUFFICIENT for a COMPLAINT to

prosper. Even if the plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendant, the complaint
may be dismissed if the complaint or the pleading asserting the claim “SATATES NO
CAUSE OF ACTION”. This means that the cause of action must unmistakably be stated
of alleged in the complaint or that all the elements of the cause of actions required by
substantive law must clearly appear from the mere reading of the complaint.

In order to avoid an early dismissal of the complaint, the simple dictum to be followed is:
“ IF YOU HAVE A CAUSE OF ACTION, THEN BY ALL MEANS, STATE IT!”

Where the defect or insufficiency in the statement of the cause of action, a complaint, a
complaint may be dismissed not because of absence or lack of cause of action but
because the complaint states no cause of action.

ABSENCE of A CAUSE OF ACTION – there is failure to prove of establish by evidence

one’s stated cause of action. This comes right after the evidence has been presented
and justified. This is under Rule 33 where you file a DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE for
absence of cause of action.

FAILURE TO STATE CAUSE OF ACTION – there is an insufficiency in the allegations of

the complaint. This can be alleged even before the filing of an answer under RULE 16.

B. DISTINGUISH REASONS FOR APPEAL AND CERTIORARI

 Reason for Appeal – based on Rule 45 of the Rules of court, there is a defect in the
decision in either question of law or fact that warrants an appeal to review. ( APPEAL
MAY BE USE FOR ERROR IN JUDGMENT).

Reason for Certiorari – This is based on Rule 65 of the Rules of court where, it is being
justified that the petition for review is based on grave abuse of Discretion amounting to
lack or excess in jurisdiction. (CERTIORARI MAY BE USED IN ERROR IN
JURISDICTION).

7. The actions may be joined in one complaint. Although each debt is a separate cause of
action because it is the subject of different transaction, the rules on joinder of causes of
action warrants it under Section 5, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court.

8. The suit may still be filed in Quezon City since no allegations are given that the
agreement as to the venue was in writing before the filing of the action and that such
venue was exclusive. In effect, Makati City only serves as an additional venue where the
action may be filed.

PAGE 2

1. The action against D may be dismissed but the ground should be improper venue and
not lack of jurisdiction. First, it incorrect to allege that the MTC Quezon City has no
jurisdiction as Sec. 33 of B.P. Blg. 129 provides that the MTC has exclusive original
jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer.
Second, as to the venue of actions of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, Rule 4, Sec 4,
par. 2 of the Rules of Court provides: "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." The proper venue for the
unlawful detainer case should be the MTC of Makati City as the building is located in
Makati City.
Third, the MTC Quezon City may motuproprio dismiss the complaint for improper venue
as the case is governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure. Sec. 1 of the 1991
Revised Rules on Summary Procedure provides: "Scope — All cases of forcible entry
and unlawful detainer irrespective of the amount of damages or unpaid rentals sought to
be recovered." In Sec. 4 of the same rules, it is provided that: "After the court determines
that the case falls under summary procedure, it may, from an examination of the
allegations therein and such evidence as may be attached thereto, DISMISS THE CASE
OUTRIGHT on any of the grounds apparent therefrom for the dismissal of a civil action."
As a general rule, courts cannot motuproprio dismiss a complaint for improper venue as
venue is only for the convenience of the parties. However, this rule does not apply to
 cases governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure. Consequently, the MTC Quezon
City may dismiss the case motuproprio for improper venue.

2. The action of the court is improper. Rule 2, Sec. 5, (c) of the Rules of Court provides:
"Where the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to different
venues or jurisdiction, the joinder may be allowed in the Regional Trial Court provided
one of the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and venue lies
therein." Specific performance is incapable of pecuniary estimation which is well within
the jurisdiction of the RTC as provided in Sec. 19 of B.P. 129. However, the damages in
the amount of 200,000 is cognizable in the MTC as provided in Sec. 33 of B.P. 129.
Nevertheless, as alternative causes of action pertaining to different jurisdictions have
been asserted, and one of the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC,
the joinder may properly be had in the RTC or Quezon City. Hence, the motuproprio
dismissal of the court for lack of jurisdiction was improper.

3. . (a) The court erred in declaring the defendant in default on its own motion. The court
has no authority to motoproprio declare the defendant in default. A motion to declare the
defending party must be filed but the claiming party before a declaration of default is
made by the court. This rule is clear and is provided under Sec. 3 of Rule 9, "upon
motion of a claiming party...".

(b) the remedy of the defendant under the circumstances is the file a petition for
certiorari under rule 65 because the court is considered to have acted with grave abuse
of discretion.

4. Yes. The court is correct in denying the motion. Under Section 4 of Rule 2, the Rules of
Court cannot apply to insolvency proceedings, therefore, a motion to declare the
defendant or a party in default is not an available motion in insolvency proceedings

5. (a) The court may dismiss the said action motuproprio by virtue of Sec.1 of Rule 9 which
provides litispendencia, among others, as a ground of dismissal of cases motuproprio.
The motion to dismiss or invoking such as an affirmative defense is not necessary for
the dismissal of the case

(b) The said case involves litispendencia in accordance with Sec 4 Rule 2 which
provides that if two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action,
the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for the
dismissal of the others

6. (same as page 1 number 1)

7. ERROR IN JURISDICTION – is one where the act complained of was issued by the
court without or in excess of jurisdiction. It occurs when the court exercises jurisdiction
not conferred upon it by law, or when the court or tribunal although with jurisdiction acts
in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction.

ERROR IN JUDGMENT – is one which the court may commit in the exercise of
jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its discretion will amount to
nothing more than mere errors of judgment. Errors of judgment include errors of
procedure or mistakes in the court’s findings.

*** Errors of judgment are correctible by APPEAL; errors of Jurisdiction are correctible by
the extraordinary writ of CERTIORARI. Any judgment rendered without jurisdiction is a
total nullity and may be struck down at any time, even on appeal. The only exception is
when the party raising the issue is barred by estoppel.

8. The case must be dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.
The Court that has jurisdiction in this case is the Regional Trial Court since the demand
is greater than P400,000. The action is in the nature of a recovery of a sum of money
because an unlawful detainer case is characterized by a demand to pay AND vacate. In
this case, no demand to vacate is alleged in the complaint. Jurisprudence had always
stressed the need to inquire into the material allegations of the complaint and the
character of the relief sought.

9. (a) The court can dismiss the action despite the presence of the plaintiff during the pre
trial if the plaintiff failed to file thepre trial brief. Under Section 6, Rule 18 of the Rules of
Court, the failure to file the pre trial brief shall have the same effect as failure to appear
at thepre trial. Failure to appeal during pre trial shall be cause the dismissal of the action
under Section 5 of the same rule. Hence, the court can dismiss the action.

(b) The court may not render judgment in such case. It is expressly stated in Section 4,
Rule 8 " A similar failure on the part of the defendant shall be cause to allow the plaintiff
to present his evidence ex parte and the court to render judgment on the basis thereof."

10. As provided for by Sec.1 of Rule 9:

a. Lack of Jurisdiction
b. Barred by prior judgment ( RES JUDICATA)
c. LITIS PENDENCIA
d. PRESCRIPTION or violation of the Statute of Limitations.

As provided for by Sec. 3 of Rule 17 (dismissal due to fault of plaintiff) :

a. Failure to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time
b. Failure to comply with Court Order
c. Failure to comply with these Rules
d. Failure to appear on the date of presentation of his evidence in chief