Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 45

2017 Exclusive original jurisdiction is vested in the

I. The Supreme Court has held that where the
ultimate relief sought by an action is the assertion of title
What trial court outside Metro Manila has
to real property, the action is a real one and not one
exclusive original jurisdiction over the following cases?
incapable of pecuniary estimation. [Brgy. Piapi v. Talip, 7
Explain briefly your answers. Sep 2005]
(a) An action filed on November 13, 2017 to Here the ultimate relief sought by the complaint is
recover the possession of an apartment unit being
the assertion of title since the seller seeks to exercise his
occupied by the defendant by mere tolerance of the
right to repurchase. Hence the action is a real one and
plaintiff, after the former ignored the last demand to
jurisdiction is vested in the MTC since the assessed value
vacate that was duly served upon and received by him on does not exceed P20,000.
July 6,2016.
Alternative Answer:
(b) A complaint in which the principal relief sought
is the enforcement of a seller's contractual right to
repurchase a lot with an assessed value of P15,000.00.
Exclusive original jurisdiction is vested in the
Regional Trial Court.
The Supreme Court has held that an action to
It would be either the MTC or the RTC depending enforce the right of redemption is one which is incapable
upon the assessed value of the apartment unit. of pecuniary estimation and thus within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the RTC pursuant to B.P. Blg.
Under B.P. Blg. 129, jurisdiction over real actions
129. [Heirs of Bautista v. Lindo, 10 March 2014]
is vested in the MTC if the assessed value of the real
property involved does not exceed P20,000 and in the
RTC if such assessed value exceeds P20,000. The action II.
to recover possession can no longer be one for unlawful
detainer since it was brought beyond one year from the
Santa filed against Era in the RTC of Quezon City
last demand to vacate.
an action for specific performance praying for the
delivery of a parcel of land subject of their contract of
sale. Unknown to the parties, the case was inadvertently
raffled to an RTC designated as a special commercial (b) What is the Harmless Error Rule in relation to
court. Later, the RTC rendered judgment adverse to Era, appeals?
who, upon realizing that the trial court was not
a regular RTC, approaches you and wants you to file a (c) When does a public prosecutor conduct an
petition to have the judgment annulled for lack of inquest instead of a preliminary investigation?
What advice would you give to Era? Explain your
answer. (4%) (a)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: The doctrine of hierarchy of courts provides that

where there is a concurrence of jurisdiction by courts
The advice I would give to Era is that the petition over an action or proceeding, there is an ordained
for annulment of judgment on lack of jurisdiction will not sequence of recourse to such courts beginning from the
prosper. lowest to the highest. A direct invocation of the Supreme
Court’s original jurisdiction should be allowed only when
The Supreme Court has held that a special there are special and important
commercial court is still a court of general jurisdiction reasons therefor. [Montes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
and can hear and try a non-commercial case. [Concorde 143797, 4 May 2006]
Condominium Inc. v. Baculio, 17 Feb 2016, Peralta, J.].
Hence the special commercial court had
jurisdiction to try and decide the action for specific The harmless error rule in relation to appeals
performance and to render a judgment therein. provides that the appellate court should not reverse a
judgment as a result of any error or defect which does not
affect the substantial rights of the parties. [See S6 R51;
Bersamin, Appeal & Review in the Philippines 362]
Give brief answers to the following:
Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the public
prosecutor conducts an inquest instead of a preliminary
(a) What is the doctrine of hierarchy of courts?
investigation when a person is lawfully arrested without a
warrant involving an offense which requires a No, the motion to dismiss of ABC Bank should not
preliminary investigation. [S6 R112] be granted.

In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme

V. Court held that a party is not bound by a venue
stipulation where he directly assails on the ground of
After working for 25 years in the Middle East, Evan forgery the validity of the contracts containing the venue
returned to the Philippines to retire in Manila, the place stipulation. The reason is that such a party cannot be
of his birth and childhood. Ten years before his expected to comply with the venue stipulation since his
retirement, he bought for cash in his name a house and compliance therewith would mean an implicit recognition
lot in Malate, Manila. Six months after his return, he of the validity of the contracts he assails. [Briones v. Cash
learned that his house and lot were the subject of Asia Credit Corp., 14 January 2015, Perlas-Bernabe, J.]
foreclosure proceedings commenced by ABC Bank on the
basis of a promissory note and a deed of real estate
mortgage he had allegedly executed in favor of ABC Bank VI.
five years earlier.
Hanna, a resident of Manila, filed a complaint for
Knowing that he was not in the country at the time the partition of a large tract of land located in Oriental
the promissory note and deed of mortgage were Mindoro. She impleaded her two brothers John and
supposedly executed, Evan forthwith initiated a Adrian as defendants but did not implead Leica and
complaint in the RTC of Manila praying that the subject Agatha, her two sisters who were permanent residents of
documents be declared null and void. Australia.

ABC Bank filed.a motion to dismiss Evan's Arguing that there could be no final determination
complaint on the ground of improper venue on the basis of the case without impleading all indispensable parties,
of a stipulation in both documents designating Quezon John and Adrian moved to dismiss the complaint.
City as the exclusive venue in the event of litigation
between the parties arising out of the loan and mortgage. Does the trial court have a reason to deny the
motion? Explain your answer.
Should the motion to dismiss of ABC Bank be
granted? Explain your answer. SUGGESTED ANSWER:

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, the trial court has a reason to deny the motion
to dismiss.
Yes, there is a splitting of a single cause of action.
Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, non-joinder of
parties, even indispensable ones, is not a ground of a Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, there is a
motion to dismiss. [S11 R3; Vesagas v. CA, 371 SCRA 508 splitting of a single cause of action if two or more suits
(2001)] are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action. [S4
R2]. A cause of action is the act or omission by which a
party violates a right of another. [S2 R2].
Here, both suits, the foreclosure and the collection
Elise obtained a loan of P3 Million from Merchant suit, arose from the same cause of action, that is, the non-
Bank. Aside from executing a promissory note in favor of payment by Elise of her P3 million loan from Merchant
Merchant Bank, she executed a deed of real estate Bank. The fact that the two actions were based on
mortgage over her house and lot as security for her separate contracts is irrelevant, what matters is that both
obligation. The loan fell due but remained unpaid; hence, actions arose from the same cause of action.
Merchant Bank filed an action against Elise to foreclose
the real estate mortgage. A month after, and while the
foreclosure suit was pending, Merchant Bank also filed an VIII.
action to recover the principal sum of P3 Million against
Elise based on the same promissory note previously A.
executed by the latter.
Laura was the lessee of an apartment unit owned
In opposing the motion of Elise to dismiss the by Louie. When the lease expired, Laura refused to vacate
second action on the ground of splitting of a single cause the property. Her refusal prompted Louie to file an action
of action, Merchant Bank argued that the ground relied for unlawful detainer against Laura who failed to answer
upon by Elise was devoid of any legal basis considering the complaint within the reglementary period.
that the two actions were based on separate contracts,
namely, the contract of loan evidenced by the promissory Louie then filed a motion to declare Laura in
note, and the deed of real estate mortgage. default. Should the motion be granted? Explain your
Is there a splitting of a single cause of action?
Explain your answer. B.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Agatha filed a complaint against Yana in the RTC

in Makati City to collect P350,000.00, an amount
representing the unpaid balance on the price of the car
Yana had bought from Agatha. Realizing a jurisdictional Under the Two-Dismissal Rule, the notice of
error in filing the complaint in the RTC, Agatha filed a dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits
notice of dismissal before she was served with the answer provided it is filed by a plaintiff who has once
of Yana. The RTC issued an order confirming the dismissed in a competent court an action based on or
dismissal. including the same claim. [S1 R17]

Three months later, Agatha filed another Here the first dismissal by the plaintiff was not in a
complaint against Yana based on the same cause of action competent court as the RTC in Makati City did not have
this time in the MeTC of Makati City. However, for subject-matter jurisdiction over an action seeking to
reasons personal to her, Agatha decided to have the recover P350,000. Hence Agatha’s third complaint is not
complaint dismissed without prejudice by filing a notice barred by the Two-Dismissal Rule.
of dismissal prior to the service of the answer of Yana.
Hence, the case was dismissed by the MeTC.
A month later, Agatha refiled the complaint against
Yana in the same MeTC. Abraham filed a complaint for damages in the
amount of P750,000.00 against Salvador in the RTC in
May Yana successfully invoke the Two-Dismissal Quezon City for the latter's alleged breach of their
Rule to bar Agatha’s third complaint? Explain your contract of services. Salvador promptly filed his answer,
answer. and included a counterclaim for P250,000.00 arising
from the allegedly baseless and malicious claims of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Abraham that compelled him to litigate and to engage the
services of counsel, and thus caused him to suffer mental
(A) anguish.

No, a Motion to declare the defendant in default is Noting that the amount of the counterclaim was
a prohibited motion in ejectment cases pursuant to S13.8 below the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC,
R70. Abraham filed a motion to dismiss vis-a-vis the
counterclaim on that ground.
Should the counterclaim of Salvador be dismissed?
No, Yana may not successfully invoke the Two- Explain your answer.
Dismissal Rule to bar Agatha’s third complaint
SUGGESTED ANSWER: May Ramon validly object to the proposed
testimonies? Give a brief explanation of your answer.
No, the counterclaim of Salvador should not be
dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. SUGGESTED ANSWER:

In an original action before the RTC, the RTC has 1) Ramon may validly object to the proposed
jurisdiction over a compulsory counterclaim regardless of testimony of an NBI handwriting expert to prove forgery.
its amount. [See S7 R6]
Under S8 R8, the genuineness and due execution
Here Salvador’s counterclaim for damages arising of an actionable document is deemed admitted by the
from the alleged malicious and baseless claims of adverse party if he fails to specifically deny such
Abraham is a compulsory counterclaim as it arises from genuineness and due execution.
Abraham’s complaint. Hence the RTC has jurisdiction
over Salvador’s counterclaim even if it did not exceed the Here the genuineness and due execution of the
jurisdictional amount of P400,000. promissory note, which is an actionable document, was
impliedly admitted by Harold when he failed to deny the
same under oath, his answer being unverified. Hence
X. Harold is precluded from setting up the defense of
forgery and thus Ramon may object to the proposed
On the basis of an alleged promissory note testimony seeking to prove forgery.
executed by Harold in favor of Ramon, the latter filed a
complaint for P950,000.00 against the former in the RTC 2) Ramon may not validly object to the proposed
of Davao City. In an unverified answer, Harold testimony showing that the note was not supported by a
specifically denied the genuineness of the promissory consideration.
The Supreme Court has held that an implied
During the trial, Harold sought to offer the admission under S8 R8 does not preclude the adverse
testimonies of the following: (1) the testimony of an NBI party from introducing evidence that the actionable
handwriting expert to prove the forgery of his signature; document was not supported by a consideration. The
and (2) the testimony of a credible witness to prove that if reason is that such evidence is not inconsistent with the
ever Harold had executed the note in favor of Ramon, the implied admission of genuineness and due execution.
same was not supported by a consideration. [Acabal v. Acabal, 31 March 2005]
The fact that the defense of lack of consideration is What is the mode of appeal applicable to the
inconsistent with Harold’s defense of forgery is also not following cases, and what issues may be raised before the
objectionable. reviewing court/tribunal?

Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may set (a) The decision or final order of the National
forth two or more statements of defense alternatively or Labor Relations Commission.
hypothetically. [S2 R8]
(b) The judgment or final order of the RTC in the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.


Teddy filed against Buboy an action for rescission A.

of a contract for the sale of a commercial lot. After having
been told by the wife of Buboy that her husband was out (a)
of town and would not be back until after a couple of
days, the sheriff requested the wife to just receive the No, there was no valid service of summons upon
summons in behalf of her husband. The wife acceded to Buboy.
the request, received the summons and a copy of the
complaint, and signed for the same. The Supreme Court has held that in order that
there will be valid substituted service of summons, the
(a) Was there a valid service of summons upon sheriff must have exerted diligent efforts to effect
Buboy? Explain your answer briefly. personal service of summons within a reasonable time.

(b) If Buboy files a motion to dismiss the complaint Here there were no such diligent efforts on the part
based on the twin grounds of lack of jurisdiction over his of the sheriff since he effected substituted service on his
person and prescription of the cause of action, may he be very first try. Hence there was no valid service of
deemed to have voluntarily submitted himself to the summons upon Buboy.
jurisdiction of the court? Explain your answer briefly.
(3%) (b)

B. No, Buboy may not be deemed to have voluntarily

submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court.
Judgment was rendered against defendant Jaypee
Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the inclusion in an action for unlawful detainer. The judgment ordered
in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of Jaypee to vacate and to pay attorney's fees in favor of
personal jurisdiction shall not be deemed a voluntary Bart, the plaintiff.
appearance. [S20 R14]
To prevent the immediate execution of the
B. judgment, would you advise the posting of
a supersedeas bond as counsel for Jaypee?
Explain your answer briefly.
There is no mode of appeal from a decision or final
order of the NLRC, since such decision or final order is B.
final and executory pursuant to the Labor Code. [Art.
223]. A temporary restraining order (TRO) was issued
on September 20, 2017 by the RTC against defendant Jeff
The remedy of the aggrieved party is to file a enjoining him from entering the land of Regan, the
special civil action for certiorari with the Court of plaintiff.
Appeals. [St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC, 295 SCRA
494]. Such special civil action may raise questions both On October 9, 2017, upon application of Regan, the
of fact and law. [Aggabao v. COMELEC, 449 SCRA 400]. trial court, allegedly in the interest of justice, extended
the TRO for another 20 days based on the same ground
(b) for which the TRO was issued.

The mode of appeal applicable to judgments or On October 15, 2017, Jeff entered the land subject
final orders of the RTC in the exercise of its appellate of the TRO.
jurisdiction is a petition for review under R42. The
petition may raise questions both of fact and law. [S2 May Jeff be liable for contempt of court? Why?
No, as counsel for Jaypee I would not advise the
A. posting of a supersedeas bond.
Under the R70, a supersedeas bond is necessary to Tomas was criminally charged with serious
prevent immediate execution only if the judgment physical injuries allegedly committed against Darvin.
awarded rents, damages, and costs. During the pendency of the criminal case, Darvin filed a
separate civil action for damages based on the injuries he
Here the judgment only ordered Jaypee to vacate had sustained.
and to pay attorney’s fees. A supersedeas bond is not
required to cover attorney’s fees. [Once v. Gonzalez, 31 Tomas filed a motion to dismiss the separate civil
March 1977]. Hence the posting of a supersedeas bond is action on the ground of litis pendentia, pointing out that
not required. when the criminal action was filed against him, the civil
action to recover the civil liability from the offense
(B) charged was also deemed instituted. He insisted that the
basis of the separate civil action was the very same act
No, Jeff may not be liable for contempt. that gave rise to the criminal action.

Under the Rule on Preliminary Injunction, a TRO Rule on Tomas' motion to dismiss, with brief
is effective only for a period of 20 days from service on reasons.
the person sought to be enjoined. It is deemed
automatically vacated if the application for preliminary SUGGESTED ANSWER:
injunction is denied or not resolved within the said period
and no court shall have the authority to extend or renew Tomas’s motion to dismiss on the ground of litis
the TRO on the same ground for which it was issued. [S5 pendentia should be denied.
In cases of physical injuries, a civil action for
Here the extension of the TRO by the RTC was damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal
invalid since it was for the same ground for which the action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil
TRO was issued. Hence the TRO was deemed action shall proceed independently of the criminal action
automatically vacated and thus Jeff may not be liable for (Art. 33, Civil Code; S3 R111) and hence may not be
contempt for ignoring it. dismissed on the ground of litis pendentia.

4. Probate cases where the gross value of the estate
exceeds P300,000, or in Metro Manila, P400,000.
5. Actions not falling within the exclusive jurisdiction
of any other court, tribunal, body, or person, exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions.


[a] Briefly explain the procedure on "Interrogatories to

Parties" under Rule 25 and state the effect of failure to
serve written interrogatories. (2.5%)
[b] Briefly explain the procedure on "Admission by
I Adverse Party" under Rule 26 and the effect of failure to
file and serve the request. (2.5%)
State at least five (5) civil cases that fall under the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(RTCs). (5%) (a)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: The procedure on “Interrogatories to Parties” under Rule

25 is briefly explained as follows:
The following civil cases fall under the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the RTCs: 1. A party desiring to elicit material and relevant facts
from an adverse party shall file and serve upon the latter
1. Actions where the demand or the value of the written interrogatories to be answered by the latter.
property in controversy exceeds P300,000, or, in Metro 2. The interrogatories shall be answered fully in
Manila, P400,000, exclusive of damages, attorney’s fees, writing and shall be signed and sworn to by the person
litigation expenses, interests, and costs. making them. The interrogatories shall be answered
2. Real actions where the assessed value of the real within 15 days from service thereof. The answers may be
property involved exceeds P20,000, or in Metro Manila, used for the same purposes provided for in Section 4 of
P50,000. Rule 23 on depositions.
3. Actions whose subject matter is incapable of 3. Objections to any interrogatories may be made
pecuniary estimation. within 10 days after service thereof.
The effect of the failure to serve written interrogatories is adverse party of material and relevant facts at issue which
that unless allowed by the court for good cause shown are, or ought to be, within the personal knowledge of the
and to prevent a failure of justice, a party not served with latter, shall not be allowed to present evidence on such
written interrogatories may not be compelled by the facts.
adverse party to give testimony in open court, or to give a
deposition pending appeal. III

(b) What are the contents of a judicial affidavit? (5%)

The procedure on “Admission by Adverse Party” under SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Rule 25 is briefly explained as follows:
The contents of a judicial affidavit are as follows:
1. At any time after issues have been joined, a party
may file and serve upon any other party a written request (a) The name, age, residence or business address, and
for the admission by the latter of the genuineness of any occupation of the witness;
material and relevant document or the truth of any (b) The name and address of the lawyer who conducts or
material and relevant matter of fact. supervises the examination of the witness and the place
2. Each of the matters of which an admission is where the examination is being held;
requested shall be deemed admitted unless, within the (c) A statement that the witness is answering the
period designated in the request, which shall not be less questions asked of him, fully conscious that he does so
than 15 days after service thereof, the party to whom the under oath, and that he may face criminal liability for
request is directed files and serves upon the requesting false testimony or perjury;
party a sworn statement either denying specifically the (d) Questions asked of the witness and his corresponding
matters of which an admission is requested or setting answers, consecutively numbered, that:
forth in detail why he cannot truthfully either admit or
deny those matter. 1. Show the circumstances under which the witness
3. Objections to any request for admission shall be acquired the facts upon which he testifies;
submitted to the court within the period for and prior to 2. Elicit from him those facts which are relevant to
the filing of his sworn statement. the issues that the case presents; and
3. Identify the attached documentary and object
The effect of the failure to file and serve request for evidence and establish their authenticity in accordance
admission is that, unless allowed by the court for good with the Rules of Court;
cause shown and to prevent a failure of justice, a party
who fails to file and serve a request for admission on the
(e) The signature of the witness over his printed name; should have been filed in Makati where the real property
and is situated.
(f) A jurat with the signature of the notary public who
administers the oath or an officer who is authorized by V
law to administer the same.
[a] What is the "most important witness" rule pursuant to
IV the 2004 Guidelines of Pretrial and Use of Deposition-
Discovery Measures? Explain. (2.5%)
Eduardo, a resident of the City of Manila, filed before the [b] What is the "one day examination of witness" rule
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila a complaint for the pursuant to the said 2004 Guidelines? Explain. (2.5%)
annulment of a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage he signed
in favor of Galaxy Bank (Galaxy), and the consequent· SUGGESTED ANSWER:
foreclosure and auction sale of his mortgaged Makati
property. Galaxy filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground (a)
of improper venue alleging that the complaint should be The “most important witness” rule pursuant to the 2004
filed with the RTC of Makati since the complaint involves Guidelines of Pretrial and Use of Deposition-Discovery
the ownership and possession of Eduardo's lot. Resolve Measures provides that the judge shall, during the
the motion with reasons. (5%) pretrial conference, determine the most important
witnesses to be heard and limit the number of witnesses.
The motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue The “one-day examination of a witness” rule pursuant to
should be granted. the 2004 Guidelines of Pretrial and Use of Deposition-
Discovery Measures provides that a witness has to be
Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the venue of real fully examined in one day only, subject to the court’s
actions shall be with the proper court having jurisdiction discretion to extend the direct and/or cross-examination
over the area where the real property involved is for justifiable reasons.
situated. An action for annulment of mortgage is a real
action if there has already been a foreclosure VI
sale. (See Chua v. Total Office Products and Services, 30
September 2005). Pedro and Juan are residents of Barangay Ifurug,
Municipality of Dupac, Mountain Province. Pedro owes
Here there was already a foreclosure sale. Hence the Juan the amount of P50,000.00. Due to nonpayment,
action for annulment of mortgage is a real action which Juan brought his complaint to the Council of Elders of
said barangay which implements the bodong justice rent of P5,000.00. The monthly minimum wage per
system. Both appeared before the council where they employee in Metro Manila does not exceed P13,000.00.
verbally agreed that Pedro will pay in installments on They do not own any real property. The spouses want to
specific due dates. Pedro reneged on his promise. Juan collect a loan of P25,000.00 from Jojo but do not have
filed a complaint for sum of money before the Municipal the money to pay the filing fees.
Trial Court (MTC). Pedro filed a Motion to Dismiss on the [a] Would the spouses qualify as indigent litigants under
ground that the case did not pass through the barangay Section 19, Rule 141 on Legal Fees? (2.5%)
conciliation under R.A. No. 7160 and that the RTC, not [b] If the spouses do not qualify under Rule 141, what
the MTC, has jurisdiction. In his opposition, Juan argued other remedy can they avail of under the rules to exempt
that the intervention of the Council of Elders is them from paying the filing fees? (2.5%)
substantial compliance with the requirement of R.A. No.
7160 and the claim of P50,000.00 is clearly within the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
jurisdiction of the MTC. As MTC judge, rule on the (a)
motion and explain. (5%) No, the spouses would not qualify as indigent litigants
under Section 19, Rule 141 since their combined gross
SUGGESTED ANSWER: monthly income of P30,000 exceeds P26,000, the
amount double the monthly minimum wage.
As MTC judge, I would deny the motion to dismiss.
Under the Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases, a (b)
motion to dismiss on whatever ground is a prohibited The other remedy the spouses can avail of under the rules
motion. to exempt them from paying the filing fees is to apply for
Here the complaint falls under the coverage of the Rules exemption pursuant to the “indigency test” under Section
of Procedure for Small Claims Cases since the claim for 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court if they can prove that they
sum of money did not exceed P100,000. Hence the have “no money or property sufficient and available for
motion to dismiss filed by Pedro is a prohibited motion food, shelter and basic necessities for [themselves] and
and should thus be denied. [Note: Threshold amount their family.” (Sps. Algura v. City of Naga, 30 October
was subsequently increased to P200,000] 2006).

Spouses Marlon and Edith have three (3) children ages
15, 12 and 7, who are studying at public schools. They Juan sued Roberto for specific performance. Roberto
have a combined gross monthly income of P30,000.00 knew that Juan was going to file the case so he went out
and they stay in an apartment in Manila with a monthly of town and temporarily stayed in another city to avoid
service of summons. Juan engaged the services of Sheriff should be read as referring only to a
Matinik to serve the summons but when the latter went valid substituted service of summons; otherwise the
to the residence of Roberto, he was told by the caretaker answer would be kilometric as there are several ways to
thereof that his employer no longer resides at the house. serve summons under Rule 14]
The caretaker is a high school graduate and is the godson
of Roberto. Believing the caretaker's story to be true,
Sheriff Matinik left a copy of the summons and complaint IX
with the caretaker. Was there a valid substituted service
of summons? Discuss the requirements for a valid service [a] Is the buyer in the auction sale arising from an extra-
of summons. (5%) judicial foreclosure entitled to a writ of possession even
before the expiration of the redemption period? If so,
SUGGESTED ANSWER: what is the action to be taken? (1%)
[b] After the period of redemption has lapsed and the title
Yes, there was a valid service of summons. to the lot is consolidated in the name of the auction
In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court held buyer, is he entitled to the writ of possession as a matter
that there was a valid substituted service of summons of right? If so, what is the action to be taken? (2%)
since the defendant was engaged in deception to thwart [c] Suppose that after the title to the lot has been
the orderly administration of justice. consolidated in the name of the auction buyer, said buyer
Here the defendant was also engaged in deception since sold the lot to a third party without first getting a writ of
he temporarily stayed in another city to avoid service of possession. Can the transferee exercise the right of the
summons and his caretaker falsely said he no longer auction buyer and claim that it is a ministerial duty of the
resides in the house. (Sagana v. Francisco, 2 Oct 2009). court to issue a writ of possession in his favor? Briefly
explain. (2%)
The requirements for a valid substituted service of
summons are: SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. The defendant, for justifiable reasons, cannot be Yes, under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, the buyer in such
personally served with summons within a reasonable auction sale is entitled to a writ of possession even before
time. the expiration of the redemption period. The action to be
2. Copies of the summons shall be left at the taken is to file an ex parte petition for a writ of possession
defendant’s residence with some person of suitable age with the RTC furnishing a bond to the debtor. Upon
and discretion residing therein, or by leaving the copies at approval of the bond, the buyer would be entitled to the
defendant’s office or regular place of business with some issuance of a writ of possession.
competent person in charge thereof. [Note: The call
Also under Section 47 of the General Banking Law, the the continued neglect of defendants in performing their
purchaser at a judicial or extrajudicial foreclosure sale duties has resulted in serious deterioration of the water
where the mortgagee is a bank shall have the right to quality of the lake and the degradation of the marine life
enter and take possession of the property immediately in the lake. The plaintiffs prayed that said government
after the date of the confirmation of the auction sale. agencies be ordered to clean up Laguna de Bay and
restore its water quality to Class C waters as prescribed by
(b) Presidential Decree No. 1152, otherwise known as the
Yes, the buyer is entitled to the writ of possession as a Philippine Environment Code. Defendants raise the
matter of right. After consolidation of ownership, a writ defense that the cleanup of the lake is not a ministerial
of possession will issue as a matter of course, without the function and they cannot be compelled by mandamus to
filing and approval of a bond. The action to be taken is to perform the same. The RTC of Laguna rendered a
file an ex parte petition for issuance of writ of possession decision declaring that it is the duty of the agencies to
with the RTC pursuant to Section 7 of Act No. clean up Laguna de Bay and issued a permanent writ of
3135. (Navarra v. CA, 204 SCRA 850). mandamus ordering said agencies to perform their duties
prescribed by law relating to the cleanup of Laguna de
(c) Bay.
Yes. The Supreme Court has held that a transferee of the [a] Is the RTC correct in issuing the writ of mandamus?
purchaser or winning bidder may file an ex parte motion Explain. (2.5%)
for the issuance of a writ of possession. The reason is that [b] What is the writ of continuing mandamus? (2.5%)
the transferee steps into the shoes of the purchaser and
acquires whatever rights the transferor had. (Laureno v. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Bormaheco, 404 Phil. 80). (a)
Yes, the RTC is correct. In MMDA v. Concerned
Residents of Manila Bay, 18 December 2008, the SC held
X that the cleaning or rehabilitation of Manila Bay can be
compelled by mandamus. The ruling in MMDA may be
Hannibal, Donna, Florence and Joel, concerned residents applied by analogy to the clean up of the Laguna de Bay.
of Laguna de Bay, filed a complaint for mandamus While the term issued by the RTC of Laguna is
against the Laguna Lake Development Authority, the a permanent writ of mandamus, this should be
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the considered only as a semantic error and that what the
Department of Public Work and Highways, Department RTC really intended to issue is a writ
of Interior and Local Government, Department of of continuing mandamus. There is no such thing as a
Agriculture, Department of Budget, and Philippine permanent writ of mandamus since the writ shall cease to
National Police before the RTC of Laguna alleging that be effective once the judgment is fully satisfied.
the case. The order is simply an interlocutory order
(b) which may be reconsidered by the trial court at any time
The writ of continuing mandamus is a writ issued by a during the pendency of the case. [See Rasdas v. Estenor,
court in an environmental case directing any agency or 13 Dec 2005]. It should also be noted that Miguel did
instrumentality of the government or officer thereof to not file a motion to declare Jose in default.
perform an act or series of acts decreed by final judgment
which shall remain effective until judgment is fully
satisfied. XII

Tailors Toto, Nelson and Yenyen filed a special civil

XI action for certiorari under Rule 65 from an adverse
decision of the National Labor Relations Commission
Miguel filed a Complaint for damages against Jose, who (NLRC) on the complaint for illegal dismissal against
denied liability and filed a Motion to Dismiss on the Empire Textile Corporation. They were terminated on the
ground of failure to state a cause of action. In an Order ground that they failed to meet the prescribed production
received by Jose on January 5, 2015, the trial court quota at least four (4) times. The NLRC decision was
denied the Motion to Dismiss. On February 4, 2015, Jose assailed in a special civil action under Rule 65 before the
sought reconsideration of that Order through a Motion Court of Appeals (CA). In the verification and
for Reconsideration. Miguel opposed the Motion for certification against forum shopping, only Toto signed
Reconsideration on the ground that it was filed out of the verification and certification, while Atty. Arman
time. Jose countered that the 15-day rule under Section 1 signed for Nelson. Empire filed a motion to dismiss on
of Rule 52 does not apply where the Order sought to be the ground of defective verification and certification.
reconsidered is an interlocutory order that does not attain Decide with reasons. (5%)
finality. Is Jose correct? Explain. (5%)
The motion to dismiss on the ground of defective
Yes, Jose is correct. verification should be denied. The Supreme Court has
The 15-day period to file a motion for reconsideration held that a lawyer may verify a pleading in behalf of the
under Section 1 of Rule 52 refers to a motion for client. Moreover a verification is merely a formal and not
reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution or a jurisdictional requirement. The court should not
order. dismiss the case but merely require the party concerned
Here what is involved is an order denying a motion to to rectify the defect.
dismiss, which is not a final order as it does not terminate
The motion to dismiss on the ground of defective SUGGESTED ANSWER:
certification against forum-shopping should likewise be
denied. Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances, as I will recommend the filing of a Petition for the issuance
when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common of a Writ of Kalikasan. The following are the advantages
interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, of such a petition over a civil complaint for damages.
the signature of only one of them in the certification Firstly there will be no issue regarding the legal standing
against forum shopping substantially complies with the or legal capacity of the Ang Kapaligiran ay Alagaan
Rule. (Jacinto v. Gumaru, 2 June 2014). Inc.” (AKAI)to file the action. Section 1, Rule 7 of the
Here the Petitioners have a common interest and invoke Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (RPEC)
a common cause of action, that is, their illegal dismissal provides that the writ of Kalikasan is available to a
by Empire Textile Corporation for failure to meet people’s organization, non-governmental organization, or
production quotas. any public interest group. On the other hand, the legal
capacity of AKAI to file an action for damages in behalf of
its members may be questioned since a corporation has a
XIII personality separate from that of its members.

The officers of "Ang Kapaligiran ay Alagaan, Secondly, the petitioner in a petition for writ of kalikasan
Inc." engaged your services to file an action against ABC is exempt from the payment of docket fees unlike in a
Mining Corporation which is engaged in mining civil complaint for damages.
operations in Sta. Cruz, Marinduque. ABC used highly
toxic chemicals in extracting gold. ABC's toxic mine Thirdly in a petition for writ of kalikasan, the petitioners
tailings were accidentally released from its storage dams may avail of the precautionary principle in environmental
and were discharged into the rivers of said town. The cases which provides that when human activities may
mine tailings found their way to Calancan Bay and lead to threats of serious and irreversible damage to the
allegedly to the waters of nearby Romblon and Quezon. environment that is scientifically plausible but uncertain,
The damage to the crops and loss of earnings were action shall be taken to avoid or diminish that threat. In
estimated at P1 Billion. Damage to the environment is effect, the precautionary principle shifts the burden of
estimated at P1 Billion. As lawyer for the organization, evidence of harm away from those likely to suffer harm
you are requested to explain the advantages derived from and onto those desiring to change the status quo. In a
a petition for writ of kalikasan before the Supreme Court civil complaint for damages, the burden of proof to show
over a complaint for damages before the RTC of damages is on the plaintiff.
Marinduque or vice-versa. What action will you
recommend? Explain. (5%)
Finally, the judgment is a writ of kalikasan case is settlement of Gringo’s estate. Once the administrator is
immediately executory unlike in a civil complaint for appointed, I will move that the administrator be
damages. substituted as the defendant. I will also file my claim
against Gringo as a contingent claim in the probate
The advantage of the civil complaint for damages is that proceedings pursuant to Rule 86 of the Rules of Court.
the court may award damages to the Petitioners for the
injury suffered which is not the case in a petition for writ
of kalikasan. At any rate a person who avails of the Writ
of Kalikasan may also file a separate suit for the recovery XIX
of damages.
Tristan filed a suit with the RTC of Pasay against Arthur
King and/or Estate of Arthur King for reconveyance of a
lot declared in the name of Arthur King under TCT No.
XV 1234. The complaint alleged that "on account Arthur
King's residence abroad up to the present and the
Chika sued Gringo, a Venezuelan, for a sum of money. uncertainty of whether he is still alive or dead, he or his
The Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila (MeTC) rendered estate may be served with summons by publication."
a decision ordering Gringo to pay Chika P50,000.00 plus Summons was published and nobody filed any responsive
legal interest. During its pendency of the appeal before pleading within sixty (60) days therefrom. Upon motion,
the RTC, Gringo died of acute hemorrhagic pancreatitis. defendants were declared in default and judgment was
Atty. Perfecto, counsel of Gringo, filed a manifestation rendered declaring Tristan as legal owner and ordering
attaching the death certificate of Gringo and informing defendants to reconvey said lot to Tristan.
the RTC that he cannot substitute the heirs since Gringo
did not disclose any information on his family. As counsel Jojo, the court-designated administrator of Arthur King's
for Chika, what remedy can you recommend to your estate, filed a petition for annulment of judgment before
client so the case can move forward and she can the CA praying that the decision in favor of Tristan be
eventually recover her money? Explain. (5%) declared null and void for lack of jurisdiction. He claims
that the action filed by Tristan is an action in
SUGGESTED ANSWER: personam and that the court did not acquire jurisdiction
over defendants Arthur King and/or his estate. On the
The remedy I can recommend to my client Chika is to file other hand, Tristan claims that the suit is an action in
a petition for settlement of the estate of Gringo and for rem or at least an action quasi in rem. Is the RTC judge
the appointment of an administrator. Chika as a creditor correct in ordering service of summons by publication?
is an interested person who can file the petition for Explain. (5%)
on February 14, 2015 for Ervin and Jude (defendants) to
SUGGESTED ANSWER: pay, but the latter failed to pay. Royal prayed that
defendants Ervin and Jude be ordered to pay the amount
Yes, the RTC judge is correct in ordering service of of P1 Million plus interests.
summons by publication.
In their answer, Ervin admitted that he obtained the loan
Under S15 R14, extraterritorial service, which from Royal and signed the PN. Jude also admitted that
includes service by publication, may be availed of in she signed the Surety Agreement. Defendants pointed out
actions the subject of which is property within the that the PN did not provide the due date for payment,
Philippines in which the defendant has or claims a lien or and that the loan has not yet matured as the maturity
interest or in which the relief demanded consists in date was left blank to be agreed upon by the parties at a
excluding the defendant from any interest therein. later date. Defendants filed a Motion for a Judgment on
Here the action for reconveyance has for its subject the Pleadings on the ground that there is no genuine issue
a real property in the Philippines in the defendant’s name presented by the parties' submissions. Royal opposed the
and in which the relief sought is to annul the defendant’s motion on the ground that the PN' s maturity is an issue
title and vest it in the plaintiff. that must be threshed out during trial.
While Jojo is correct is saying that the action for
reconveyance is in personam (Republic v. CA, 315 SCRA [a] Resolve the motion with reasons. (2.5%)
600, 606), the test of whether an action is covered by S15 [b] Distinguish "Summary Judgment" and "Judgment on
R14 is not its technical characterization as in the Pleadings." (2.5%)
rem or quasi in rem but whether it is among those
mentioned in S15 R14. (See Baltazar v. Court of Appeals, SUGGESTED ANSWER:
168 SCRA 354, 363).
The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings should be
XX denied.
Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion for
Royal Bank (Royal) filed a complaint for a sum of money judgment on the pleadings may be filed only by the
against Ervin and Jude before the RTC of Manila. The plaintiff or the claimant.
initiatory pleading averred that on February 14, 2010, Here it was the Defendants, not the Plaintiff Royal Bank,
Ervin obtained a loan from Royal in the amount of Pl which filed a motion for judgment on the
Million, as evidenced by Promissory Note No. 007 (PN) pleadings. Hence the motion should be denied.
signed by Ervin. Jude signed a Surety Agreement binding
herself as surety for the loan. Royal made a final demand (b)
A summary judgment is distinguished from a judgment
on the pleadings as follows:
1. A summary judgment is proper even if there is a
remaining issue as to the amount of damages, while a
judgment on the pleadings is proper if it appears that
there is no genuine issue between the parties.
2. A summary judgment is based not only on the
pleadings but also upon affidavits, depositions, and
admissions showing that, except as to the amount of
damages, there is no genuine issue, while a judgment on
the pleadings is based exclusively upon the pleadings
without the presentation of any evidence.
3. A motion for summary judgment requires 10-day
notice (S3 R35), while a motion for judgment on the
pleadings is subject to a 3-day notice rule (S4 R15). 2015
4. A summary judgment may be prayed for by a
defending party (S2 R35), while a judgment on the I.
pleadings may be prayed for only by a plaintiff or Lender extended to Borrower a P100,000.00 loan
claimant. covered by a promissory note. Later, Borrower obtained
another P100,000.00 loan again covered by a promissory
note. Still later, Borrower obtained a P300,000.00 loan
secured by a real estate mortgage on his land valued at
P500,000.00. Borrower defaulted on his payments when
the loans matured. Despite demand to pay the
P500,000.00 loan,
Borrower refused to pay. Lender, applying the totality
rule, filed against Borrower with the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Manila, a collection suit for P500,000.00.

a.) Did Lender correctly apply the totality rule and

the rule on joinder of
causes of action? (2%)
At the trial, Borrower's lawyer, while cross-
examining Lender, successfully elicited an admission b) No, the court should not dismiss the case.
from the latter that the two promissory notes have been The Supreme Court has held that subject-matter
paid. Thereafter, Borrower's lawyer filed a motion to jurisdiction is determined by the amount of the claim
dismiss the case on the ground that as proven only alleged in the complaint and not the amount
P300,000.00 was the amount due to Lender and which substantiated during the trial. (Dionisio v Sioson Puerto,
claim is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the 31 October 1974).
Metropolitan Trial Court. He further argued that lack of Here the amount claimed was P500,000. Even if
jurisdiction over the subject matter can be raised at any the claim substantiated during the trial was only
stage of the proceedings. P300,000 that is not determinative of subject-matter
b.) Should the court dismiss the case? (3%) Hence the argument that lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction can be raised at any time is misplaced since
ANSWERS: in the first place the RTC has jurisdiction.

a) Yes Lender correctly applied the totality rule

and the rule on joinder of causes of action. II.
Under the rule on joinder of causes of action, a Circe filed with the RTC a complaint for the
party may in one pleading assert as many causes of action foreclosure of real estate mortgage against siblings Scylla
as he may have against an opposing party. Under the and Charybdis, co-owners of the property and
totality rule, where the claims in all the causes of action cosignatories to the mortgage deed. The siblings
are principally for recovery of money, the aggregate permanently reside in Athens, Greece. Circe tipped off
amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction. Sheriff Pluto that Scylla is on a balikbayan trip and is
Here the causes of action by Lender are all against billeted at the Century Plaza Hotel in Pasay City. Sheriff
borrower and all the claims are principally for recovery of Pluto went to the hotel
money. and personally served Scylla the summons, but the latter
Hence the aggregate amount claimed, which is refused to receive summons for Charybdis as she was not
P500,000 shall be the test of jurisdiction and thus it is authorized to do so. Sheriff Pluto requested Scylla for the
the RTC of Manila which has jurisdiction. email address and fax number of Charybdis which the
Although the rules on joinder of causes of action latter readily gave. Sheriff Pluto, in his return of the
state that the joinder shall not include special civil summons, stated that "Summons for Scylla was served
actions, the remedy resorted to with respect to the third personally as shown by her signature on the receiving
loan was not foreclosure but collection. Hence joinder of copy of the summons. Summons on Charybdis was served
causes of action would still be proper. pursuant to
the amendment of Rule 14 by facsimile transmittal of the
summons and complaint on defendant's fax number as b) The effect of Scylla’s answer to the complaint is
evidenced by transmission verification report that the court shall try the case against both Scylla and
automatically generated by the fax machine indicating Charybdis upon the answer filed by Scylla.
that it was received by the fax number to which it was Under Section 3(c) of Rule 9, when a pleading
sent on the date and time indicated therein." asserting a claim states a common cause of action against
Circe, sixty (60) days after her receipt of Sheriff several defending parties, some of whom answer and the
Pluto's return, filed a Motion to Declare Charybdis in others fail to do so, the court shall try the case against all
default as Charybdis did not file any responsive pleading. upon the answers thus filed and render judgment upon
a.) Should the court declare Charybdis in default? (2%) the evidence presented.
Scylla seasonably filed her answer setting forth Here there was a common cause of action against
therein as a defense that Charybdis had paid the Scylla and Charybdis since both were co-signatories to
mortgage debt. the mortgage deed.
b.) On the premise that Charybdis was properly Hence the court should not render judgment by
declared in default, what is the effect of Scylla's answer to default against Charybdis but should proceed to try the
the complaint? (2%) case upon the answer filed and the evidence presented by

a) No, the court should not declare Charybdis in III.

default. Juliet invoking the provisions of the Rule on
Under the Rules of Court, the amendment of Rule Violence Against Women and their Children filed with the
14 allowing service of summons by facsimile transmittal RTC designated as a Family Court a petition for issuance
refers only to service of summons upon a foreign private of a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) against her
juridical entity under Section 12 of Rule 14, not to a non- husband, Romeo. The Family Court issued a 30-day TPO
resident defendant under Section 15 of Rule 14. Service against Romeo. A day before the expiration of the TPO,
of summons by facsimile cannot be effected under Juliet filed a motion for extension. Romeo in his
Section 15 unless leave of court was obtained specifically opposition
permitting service by facsimile transmittal. raised, among others, the constitutionality of R.A. No.
Here the defendant is not a foreign private 9262 (The VAWC Law) arguing that the law authorizing
juridical entity but a non-resident defendant and no leave the issuance of a TPO violates the equal protection and
of court was obtained to serve summons by facsimile. due process clauses of the 1987 Constitution. The Family
Hence there was no valid service of summons and Court judge, in granting the motion for extension of the
thus the court could not declare Charybdis in default. TPO, declined to rule on the constitutionality of R.A. No.
9262. The Family Court judge reasoned that Family a) No, the complaint should not be dismissed.
Courts are without jurisdiction to pass upon The Supreme Court has held that non-joinder of an
constitutional issues, being a special indispensable party is not a ground of a motion to
court of limited jurisdiction and R.A. No. 8369, the law dismiss. (Vesagas v. CA, 371 SCRA 508).
creating the Family Courts, does not provide for such Here although Grieg, the registered mortgagee, is
jurisdiction. Is the Family Court judge correct when he an indispensable party (Metrobank v. Alejo, 364 SCRA
declined to resolve the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9262? 813 [2001]), his non-joinder does not warrant the
(3%) dismissal of the complaint.

ANSWER: b) The remedy of Grieg is to file a motion for leave

No, the Family Court judge was not correct when to intervene.
he declined to resolve the constitutionality of R.A. No. Under Rule 19, a person who has a legal interest in
9262. the matter in litigation may intervene in the action.
The Supreme Court has held that despite its Here Grieg is a mortgagee and such fact was
designation as a Family Court, a Regional Trial Court annotated in the title.
remains possessed of authority as a court of general Hence he has a legal interest in the title subject-
jurisdiction to resolve the constitutionality of a matter of the litigation and may thus intervene in the
statute. (Garcia v. Drilon, 25 June 2013) case.

IV. V.
Strauss filed a complaint against Wagner for Ernie filed a petition for guardianship over the
cancellation of title. Wagner moved to dismiss the person and properties of his father, Ernesto. Upon receipt
complaint because Grieg, to whom he mortgaged the of the notice of hearing, Ernesto filed an opposition to the
property as duly annotated in the TCT, was not petition. Ernie, before the hearing of the petition, filed a
impleaded as defendant. motion to order Ernesto to submit himself for mental and
a.) Should the complaint be dismissed? (3%) physical examination which the court
b.) If the case should proceed to trial without Grieg granted.
being impleaded as a After Ernie's lawyer completed the presentation of
party to the case, what is his remedy to protect his evidence in support of the petition and the court's ruling
interest? (2%) on the formal offer of evidence, Ernesto's lawyer filed a
demurrer to evidence.
Ernie's lawyer objected on the ground that a VI.
demurrer to evidence is not proper in a special A law was passed declaring Mt. Karbungko as a
proceeding. protected area since it was a major watershed. The
a.) Was Ernie's counsel's objection proper? (2%) protected area covered a portion located in Municipality
b.) If Ernesto defies the court's order directing him A of the Province I and a portion located in the City of Z
to submit to physical and mental examinations, can the of Province II. Maingat is the leader of Samahan ng
court order his arrest? (2%) Tagapag-ingat ng Karbungko (STK), a people's
organization. He learned that a portion of the mountain
ANSWERS: located in the City of Z of Province II was extremely
damaged when it was bulldozed and leveled to the
a) No, Ernie’s counsel’s objection was not proper. ground, and several trees and plants were cut down and
Under the Rule on Special Proceedings, in the burned by workers of World Pleasure Resorts, Inc.
absence of special provisions, the rules provided for in (WPRI) for the construction of a hotel and golf course.
ordinary actions, shall be, as far as practicable, applicable Upon inquiry with the project site engineer if they had a
in special proceedings. permit for the
Here there are no special provisions on demurrer project, Maingat was shown a copy of the Environmental
to evidence in the rules on guardianship. Hence the Compliance Certificate (ECC) issued by the DENR-EMB,
provisions on demurrer to evidence in ordinary actions Regional Director (RD-DENR-EMB). Immediately,
are applicable to special proceedings. Such application is Maingat and STK filed a petition for the issuance of a writ
practicable since it would be a waste of time to continue of continuing mandamus against RD-DENR-EMB and
hearing the case if upon the facts and the law, WPRI with the RTC of Province I, a designated
guardianship would not be proper. environmental court, as the RD-DENR-EMB negligently
issued the ECC to WPRI.
b) No, the court cannot order Ernesto’s arrest. On scrutiny of the petition, the court determined
Under Section 3(d) of Rule 29, a court cannot that the area where the alleged actionable neglect or
direct the arrest of a party for disobeying an order to omission subject of the petition took place in the City of Z
submit to a physical or mental examination. The court of Province II, and therefore cognizable by the RTC of
may impose other penalties such as rendering judgment Province II. Thus, the
by default or issuing an order that the physical or mental court dismissed outright the petition for lack of
condition of the disobedient party shall be taken as jurisdiction.
established in accordance with the claim of the party a.) Was the court correct in motu proprio dismissing the
obtaining the order. petition? (3%)
Assuming that the court did not dismiss the petition,
the RD-DENR-EMB in his Comment moved to
dismiss the petition on the ground that petitioners Plaintiff sued defendant for collection of P1 million
failed to appeal the issuance of the ECC and to based on the latter's promissory note. The complaint
exhaust administrative remedies provided in the alleges, among others:
DENR Rules and Regulations. 1) Defendant borrowed P1 million from plaintiff as
b.) Should the court dismiss the petition? (3%) evidenced by a duly
executed promissory note;
ANSWERS: 2) The promissory note reads:

a) No, the court was not correct in motu proprio "Makati, Philippines
dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Dec. 30, 2014
In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme
Court held that the requirement that the petition be filed For value received from plaintiff, defendant
in the area where the actionable neglect or omission took promises to pay
place relates to venue and not to subject-matter plaintiff P1 million, twelve (12) months from the
jurisdiction. Since what is involved is improper venue above indicated
and not subject-matter jurisdiction, it was wrong for the date without necessity of demand.
court to dismiss outright the petition since venue may be
waived. (Dolot v. Paje, 27 August 2013). Signed
b) No, the court should not dismiss the petition.
The Supreme Court has held that in environmental A copy of the promissory note is attached as Annex
cases, the defense of failure to exhaust administrative "A."
remedies by appealing the ECC issuance would apply only
if the defect in the issuance of the ECC does not have any Defendant, in his verified answer, alleged among
causal relation to the environmental damage. others:
Here the issuance of the ECC has a direct causal
relation to the environmental damage since it permitted 1) Defendant specifically denies the
the bulldozing of a portion of the mountain and the allegation in paragraphs 1
cutting down and buring of several trees and and 2 of the complaint, the truth being defendant
plants. (See Paje v. Casiño, 3 February 2015). did not
execute any promissory note in favor of plaintiff,
VII. 2) Defendant has paid the P1 million
claimed in the promissory
note (Annex "A" of the Complaint) as evidenced by Hence Plaintiff’s contention that defendant’s
an answer failed to tender an issue as his defenses are sham
"Acknowledgment Receipt" duly executed by for being inconsistent is without merit.
plaintiff on
January 30, 2015 in Manila with his spouse b) Yes, the court should grant Defendant’s motion
signing as for summary judgment.
witness. Under Section 2 of Rule 35, a defendant may at any
A copy of the "Acknowledgment Receipt" is time, move with supporting admissions for a summary
attached as Annex "1" hereof. judgment in his favor.
Here the Plaintiff had impliedly admitted the
Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the genuineness and due execution of the acknowledgment
pleadings on the ground that defendant's answer failed to receipt, which was the basis of Defendant’s defense, by
tender an issue as the allegations therein on his defenses failing to specifically deny it under oath.
are sham for being inconsistent; hence, no defense at all. Hence the Defendant may move for a summary
Defendant filed an opposition claiming his answer judgment on the basis that Plaintiff had admitted that
tendered an issue. Defendant had already paid the P1 million obligation.
a.) Is judgment on the pleadings proper? (3%)
Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on
the ground that there are no longer any triable VIII.
genuine issues of facts. Aldrin entered into a contract to sell with Neil over
b.) Should the court grant defendant's motion for a parcel of land. The contract stipulated a P500,000.00
summary judgment? down payment upon signing and the balance payable in
(3%) twelve (12) monthly installments of P100,000.00. Aldrin
paid the down payment and had paid three (3) monthly
ANSWERS: installments when he found out that Neil
had sold the same property to Yuri for P1.5 million paid
a) No, judgment on the pleadings is not proper. in cash. Aldrin sued Neil for specific performance with
Under Section 2 of Rule 8, a party may set forth damages with the RTC. Yuri, with leave of court,
two or more statements of a defense alternatively or filed an answer-in-intervention as he had already
hypothetically. The Supreme Court has held that obtained a TCT in his name. After trial, the court
inconsistent defenses may be pleaded alternatively or rendered judgment ordering Aldrin to pay all the
hypothetically provided that each defense is consistent installments due, the cancellation of Yuri's title, and Neil
with itself. (Baclayon v. Court of Appeals, 26 February to execute a deed of sale in favor of Aldrin. When the
1990). judgment became final and executory, Aldrin paid Neil all
the installments but the latter refused to execute the deed party fails to comply, the court may direct the act to be
of sale in favor of the former. done at the disobedient party’s cost by some other person
Aldrin filed a "Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of appointed by the court or the court may by an order
Execution" with proper notice of hearing. The petition divest the title of the party and vest it in the movant or
alleged, among others, that the decision had become final other person.
and executory and he is entitled to the issuance of the
writ of execution as a matter of right. Neil filed a motion
to dismiss the petition on the ground that it lacked the
required certification against forum shopping. IX
a.) Should the court grant Neil's Motion to Dismiss? (3%) Hades, an American citizen, through a dating website, got
Despite the issuance of the writ of execution directing acquainted with Persephone, a Filipina. Hades came to
Neil to execute the deed of sale in favor of Aldrin, the the Philippines and proceeded to Baguio City where
former obstinately refused to execute the deed. Persephone resides. Hades and Persephone contracted
b.) What is Aldrin's remedy? (2%) marriage, solemnized by the Metropolitan Trial Court
judge of Makati City. After the wedding, Hades flew back
ANSWERS: to California, United States of America, to wind up his
business affairs. On his return to the Philippines, Hades
a) No, the court should not grant Neil’s Motion to discovered that Persephone had an illicit affair with
Dismiss. Phanes. Immediately, Hades returned to the United
Under Section 5 of Rule 7, a certification against States and was able to obtain a valid divorce decree from
forum shopping is required only for initiatory pleadings the Superior Court of the County of San Mateo,
or petitions. California, a court of competent jurisdiction
Here the “Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of against Persephone. Hades desires to marry Hestia, also a
Execution,” although erroneously denominated as a Filipina, whom he met at Baccus Grill in Pasay City.
petition is actually a motion for issuance of a writ of a.) As Hades' lawyer, what petition should you file
execution under Rule 39. in order that your client
Hence the motion to dismiss on the ground of lack can avoid prosecution for bigamy if he desires to marry
of a certification against forum shopping should be Hestia? (2%)
denied. b.) In what court should you file the petition? (1
b) Aldrin’s remedy is to file a motion for judgment c.) What is the essential requisite that you must
for specific act under Section 10(a) of Rule 39. comply with for the purpose of establishing jurisdictional
Under Section 10(a) of Rule 39, if a judgment facts before the court can hear the petition? (3%)
directs a party to execute a conveyance of land and the
ANSWERS: provincial officials except for the treasurer who was
granted immunity when he agreed to cooperate
a) As Hade’s lawyer, I would file a petition for with the Ombudsman in the prosecution of the case.
cancellation of entry of marriage under Rule 108 with Immediately, the governor filed with the Sandiganbayan
prayer for recognition of foreign divorce judgment. a petition for certiorari against the Ombudsman claiming
In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme there was grave abuse of discretion in excluding the
Court held that a foreign divorce decree must first be treasurer from the
recognized before it can be given effect. The Supreme Information.
Court stated that the recognition may be prayed for in the a.) Was the remedy taken by the governor correct?
petition for cancellation of the marriage entry under Rule (2%)
108. (Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, 628 SCRA 266). b.) Will the writ of mandamus lie to compel the
Ombudsman to include the treasurer in the Information?
b) I would file the petition in the regional trial (3%)
court of Makati City, where the corresponding civil c.) Can the Special Prosecutor move for the
registry is located. (Section 1 of Rule 108). discharge of the budget officer to corroborate the
testimony of the treasurer in the course of presenting its
c) For the Rule 108 petition, the jurisdictional evidence? (2%)
facts are the following:
1. Joinder of the local civil registrar and all
persons who have or claim any interest which a) No, the remedy taken by the governor was not
would be affected by petition. correct.
2. Notice of the order of hearing to the persons The SC has held that the proper remedy from the
named in the petition. Ombudsman’s orders or resolutions in criminal cases is a
3. Publication of the order of hearing in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed with the
newspaper of general circulation in the Supreme Court. (Quarto v OMB, 5 Oct 2011; Cortes v.
province. OMB, 10 June 2013).
Here the petition for certiorari was filed not with
the Supreme Court but the Sandiganbayan.
XI. Hence the remedy taken was not correct.
The Ombudsman found probable cause to charge
with plunder the provincial governor, vice governor, b) No, the writ of mandamus will not lie to compel
treasurer, budget officer, and accountant. An Information the Ombudsman to include the Treasurer in the
for plunder was filed with the Sandiganbayan against the information.
The Supreme Court has held that mandamus will stole Juan's cellphone. At the trial, Pedro's lawyer
lie only if the exclusion of a person from the information objected to the prosecution's use of judicial affidavits of
was arbitrary. her witnesses considering the imposable penalty on the
Here the exclusion was not arbitrary but based on offense with which his client was charged.
Sec. 17 of RA 6770 which empowers the Ombudsman to a.) Is Pedro's lawyer correct in objecting to the
grant immunity to witnesses. (Id.). judicial affidavit of Mario?
c) No, the Special Prosecutor cannot move for the b.) Is Pedro's lawyer correct in objecting to the
discharge of the budget officer to corroborate the judicial affidavit of Juan?
testimony of the treasurer. (2%)
Under Section 17 of Rule 119, a requirement for At the conclusion of the prosecution's presentation
discharge is that there is no other direct evidence of evidence, Prosecutor Marilag orally offered the receipt
available for the prosecution of the offense and that there attached to Juan's judicial affidavit, which the court
is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused admitted over the objection of Pedro's lawyer. After
whose discharge is requested. Pedro's presentation of his evidence, the court rendered
Here since the budget officer’s testimony is merely judgment finding him guilty as charged and holding him
corroborative, there is no absolute necessity for civilly liable for P20,000.00.
it. Necessity is not there when the testimony would Pedro's lawyer seasonably filed a motion for
simply corroborate or otherwise strengthen the reconsideration of the decision asserting that the court
prosecution’s evidence. (Jimenez v People, 17 September erred in awarding the civil liability on the basis of Juan's
2014). judicial affidavit, a documentary evidence which
Hence the Special Prosecutor cannot move for the Prosecutor Marilag failed to orally offer.
discharge of the budget officer. c.) Is the motion for reconsideration meritorious?


XIV. a) No, Pedro’s lawyer is not correct in objecting to

Pedro was charged with theft for stealing Juan's the judicial affidavit of Mario.
cellphone worth P10,000.00. Prosecutor Marilag at the The Judicial Affidavit Rule applies to criminal
pre-trial submitted the judicial affidavit of Juan attaching actions where the maximum of the imposable penalty
the receipt for the purchase of the cellphone to prove civil does not exceed six years.
liability. She also submitted the judicial affidavit of Here the penalty for theft of property not
Mario, an eyewitness who narrated therein how Pedro exceeding P12,000 does not exceed 6 years.
Hence the Judicial Affidavit Rule applies. Powers, Inc. ordering Water Builders to pay the former P
10 million, the full amount of the down payment paid,
b) No, Pedro's lawyer is not correct in objecting to and P2 million by way of liquidated damages. Dissatisfied
the judicial affidavit of Juan. with the CIAC's judgment, Water Builders,
The Judicial Affidavit Rule applies with respect to pursuant to the Special Rules of Court on Alternative
the civil aspect of the criminal actions, whatever the Dispute Resolution (ADR Rules) filed with the RTC of
penalties involved are. Pasay City a petition to vacate the arbitral award. Super
Here the purpose of introducing the judicial Powers, Inc., in its opposition, moved to dismiss the
affidavit of Juan was to prove his civil liability. petition, invoking the ADR Rules, on the ground of
improper venue as neither of the parties were doing
c) No, the motion for reconsideration is not business in Pasay City.
meritorious. Should Water Builders' petition be dismissed?
A judicial affidavit is not a documentary evidence (3%)
but is testimonial evidence. It is simply a witness’s
testimony reduced to writing in affidavit form. This is ANSWER:
shown by Section 6 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule which
states that the offer of testimony in judicial affidavit shall Yes Water Builders’ petition should be dismissed.
be made at the start of the presentation of the witness. Under Rule 11.3 of the Special ADR Rules, the
Hence the motion for reconsideration on the petition for vacation of a domestic arbitral award may be
ground that Juan’s judicial affidavit was a documentary filed with the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction
evidence which was not orally offered is without merit. over the place in which one of the parties is doing
business, where any of the parties reside or where
arbitration proceedings were conducted.
XV. Here neither of the parties were doing business in
Water Builders, a construction company based in Makati Pasay City nor was there a showing that arbitration
City, entered into a construction agreement with Super proceedings were conducted in Pasay City.
Powers, Inc., an energy company based in Manila, for the
construction of a mini hydro electric plant. Water
Builders failed to complete the project within the XVI.
stipulated duration. Super Powers cancelled the contract. AA, a twelve-year-old girl, while walking alone
Water Builders filed a request for arbitration with the met BB, a teenage boy who befriended her. Later, BB
Construction brought AA to a nearby shanty where he raped her. The
Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC). After due Information for rape filed against BB states:
proceedings, CIAC rendered judgment in favor of Super
"On or about October 30, 2015, in the City of S.P.
and within a) No, BB’s counsel is not correct.
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, a Under the Rules on Examination of a Child
minor, fifteen Witness, there is no requirement that a competency
(15) years old with lewd design and by means of force, examination of the child witness be conducted before
violence and leading questions may be asked of her. A competency
intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and examination may be conducted by the court (not the
feloniously prosecutor) only if substantial doubt exists as to the
had sexual intercourse with AA, a minor, twelve (12) child’s competency to testify. (Section 6, RECW).
years old Here there is no showing of any substantial doubt
against the latter's will and consent." as to the competency of AA to testify. Hence BB’s counsel
At the trial, the prosecutor called to the witness is not correct.
stand AA as his first witness and manifested that he be
allowed to ask leading questions in conducting his direct b) No, the action taken by the judge was improper.
examination pursuant to the Rule on the Examination of Under the Rules on Examination of a Child
a Child Witness. BB's counsel objected on the ground that Witness, a competency examination may be conducted by
the prosecutor has not conducted a competency the court only if substantial doubt exists as to the child’s
examination on the witness, a requirement before the competency to testify. (Section 6, RECW).
rule cited can be applied in the case. Here the judge’s voir dire is in effect a competency
a.) Is BB's counsel correct? (3%) examination. However there is no showing of any
In order to obviate the counsel's argument on the substantial doubt as to the competency of AA to
competency of AA as testify. Hence the judge’s action was improper.
prosecution witness, the judge motu proprio conducted
his voir dire examination on AA. c) No the court may not grant the demurrer.
b.) Was the action taken by the judge proper? Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, a
(2%) demurrer to evidence may be granted on the ground of
After the prosecution had rested its case, BB' s insufficiency of evidence.
counsel filed with leave a demurrer to evidence, seeking Here even assuming that minority was not proved,
the dismissal of the case on the ground that the BB may still be convicted of rape since minority is not an
prosecutor failed to present any evidence on BB' s element of rape.
minority as alleged in the Information.
c.) Should the court grant the demurrer? (3%)
Hercules was walking near a police station when a b) I will raise the defense that the warrantless
police officer signaled for him to approach. As soon as search was authorized as a “stop and frisk.”
Hercules came near, the police officer frisked him but the “Stop and frisk” is the right of a police officer to
latter found no contraband. The police officer told stop a citizen on the street, interrogate him and pat him
Hercules to get inside the police station. Inside the police for weapons and contraband whenever he observes
station, Hercules asked the police officer, "Sir, unusual conduct which leads him to conclude that
may problema po ba?" Instead of replying, the police criminal activity may be afoot. (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S.
officer locked up Hercules inside the police station jail. 1).
a.) What is the remedy available to Hercules to
secure his immediate release from detention? (2%) c) Yes Hercules will have a cause of action.
b.) If Hercules filed with the Ombudsman a Under Article 32(4) of the Civil Code, any public
complaint for warrantless search, as counsel for the officer who violates the right of a person to freedom from
police officer, what defense will you raise for the arbitrary or illegal detention shall be liable to the latter
dismissal of the complaint? (3%) for damages. The action to recover damages is an
c.) If Hercules opts to file a civil action against the independent civil action.
police officer, will he have a cause of action? (3%) Here Hercules was illegally detained as there was
no probable cause to arrest him without warrant.

a) The remedy available to Hercules to secure his XVIII.

immediate release from detention is a petition for writ of The residents of Mt. Ahohoy, headed by
habeas corpus. Masigasig, formed a nongovernmental organization -
Under Rule 102, the writ of habeas corpus is Alyansa Laban sa Minahan sa Ahohoy (ALMA) to protest
available in cases of illegal detention. Section 5 of Rule the mining operations of Oro Negro Mining in the
102 provides that a court or judge authorized to grant the mountain. ALMA members picketed daily at the entrance
writ must, when the petition therefor is presented and it of the mining site blocking the ingress and egress of
appears that the writ ought to issue, grant the same trucks and equipment of Oro Negro, hampering its
forthwith, and immediately thereupon the clerk of court operations. Masigasig had an altercation with Mapusok
shall issue the writ or in case of emergency, the judge may arising from the complaint of the mining engineer
issue the writ under his own hand and may depute any of Oro Negro that one of their trucks was destroyed by
officer or person to serve it. The court or judge before ALMA members.
whom the writ is returned must immediately proceed to Mapusok is the leader of the Association of Peace
hear and examine the return. (Section 12, Rule 102). Keepers of Ahohoy (APKA), a civilian volunteer
organization serving as auxiliary force of the local police
to maintain peace and order in the area. Subsequently, ANSWERS:
Masigasig disappeared. Mayumi, the wife of Masigasig,
and the members of ALMA searched for Masigasig, but a) No, the defense of Mapusok and APKA that they
all their efforts proved futile. Mapagmatyag, a member of are not agents of the State and hence cannot be
ALMA, impleaded as respondents in an amparo petition is not
learned from Maingay, a member of APKA, during their tenable.
binge drinking that Masigasig was abducted by other The writ of amparo is available in cases where the
members of APKA, on order of Mapusok. enforced or involuntary disappearance of a persons is
Mayumi and ALMA sought the assistance of the local with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the
police to search for Masigasig, but they refused to extend State. (See Sec. 3[g] of R.A. No. 9851 and Navia v.
their cooperation. Pardico, 19 June 2012, e.b.).
Immediately, Mayumi filed with the RTC, a Here Mapusok and APKA may be considered as
petition for the issuance of the writ of amparo against acting with the support or at least the acquiescence of the
Mapusok and APKA. ALMA also filed a petition for the State since APKA serves as an auxiliary force of the police
issuance of the writ of amparo with the Court of Appeals and the police refused to assist in the search for
against Mapusok and APKA. Respondents Mapusok and Masigasig.
APKA, in their Return filed with the RTC, b) Yes respondents are correct in raising their
raised among their defenses that they are not agents of defense.
the State; hence, cannot be impleaded as respondents in Under Section 2(c) of the Rule on the Writ of
an amparo petition. Amparo, the filing of a petition by an authorized party on
a.) Is their defense tenable? (3%) behalf of the aggrieved party suspends the right of all
Respondents Mapusok and APKA, in their Return others, observing the order in Section 2 of the Rule on the
filed with the Court of Appeals, raised as their defense Writ of Amparo.
that the petition should be dismissed on the ground that Here the petition for writ of amparo had earlier
ALMA cannot file the petition because of the earlier been filed by the spouse of the aggrieved party
petition filed by Mayumi with the RTC. Masigasig. Thus it suspends the right of all others,
b.) Are respondents correct in raising their including ALMA, to file the petition.
defense? (3%) c) The amparo petition shall be consolidated with
c.) Mayumi later filed separate criminal and civil the criminal action. (Section 23, Rule on the Writ of
actions against Mapusok. Amparo).

How will the cases affect the amparo petition she earlier
filed? (1 %)

An order of the court requiring a retroactive re-dating of

an order, judgment or document filing be entered or
recorded in a judgment is: (1%)
(A) pro hac vice
(B) non pro tunc
(C) confession relicta verificatione
(D) nolle prosequi


(B) (Note: Should be “nunc pro tunc.”).


Landlord, a resident of Quezon City, entered into a lease

contract with Tenant, a resident of Marikina City, over a
residential house in Las Piñas City. The lease contract
provided, among others, for a monthly rental of
P25,000.00, plus ten percent (10%) interest rate in case
of non-payment on its due date.
Subsequently, Landlord migrated to the United States of
America (USA) but granted in favor of his sister Maria, a
special power of attorney to manage the property and file
and defend suits over the property rented out
to Tenant. Tenant failed to pay the rentals due for five (5)
months. Maria asks your legal advice on how she can
expeditiously collect from Tenant the unpaid rentals plus
2014 interests due. (6%)
(A) What judicial remedy would you recommend If Maria insists on filing an ejectment suit against
to Maria? Tenant, the one-year period within which to file the
(B) Where is the proper venue of the judicial remedy action shall be reckoned from the expiration of 5-days
which you recommended? from notice of the last demand to pay and vacate. (Cruz
(C) If Maria insists on filing an ejectment suit v. Atencio, 28 February 1959; Sy Oh v. Garcia, 30 June
against Tenant, when do you reckon the one (1)-year 1969).
period within which to file the action?


(A) As a rule, courts may not grant an application for

provisional remedy without complying with the
The judicial remedy that I would recommend to requirements of notice and hearing. These requirements,
Maria is to file a collection suit for the P125,000 rentals however, may be dispensed with in an application
in arrears and the P12,500 interest due. The remedy for: (1%)
would be expeditious since it would be governed by the
Rules on Summary Procedure as the amount of the (A) writ of preliminary injunction
demand, excluding interest, does not exceed P200,000. (B) writ for preliminary attachment
(C) an order granting support pendente lite
(B) (D) a writ of replevin

The proper venue of the collection suit would be in ANSWER:

Marikina City, where Tenant resides.
Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, venue in
personal actions is with the residence of either the
plaintiff or the defendant, at the plaintiff’s election. VII.

Since the Plaintiff does not reside in the Co Batong, a Taipan, filed a civil action for damages with
Philippines, venue may be laid only in Marikina City the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City
where the defendant Tenant resides. against Jose Penduko, a news reporter of the Philippine
Times, a newspaper of general circulation printed and
(C) published in Parañaque City. The complaint alleged,
among others, that Jose Penduko wrote malicious and
defamatory imputations against Co Batong; that Co over such action; hence the Totality Rule is
Batong’s business address is in Makati City; and that the inapplicable.
libelous article was first printed and published in 2.
Parañaque City. The complaint prayed that Jose The ground that the complaint mentioned the
Penduko be held liable to pay P200,000.00, as moral complainant’s office address rather than his residence is
damages; P150,000.00, as exemplary damages; and of no moment since the complaint also stated that the
P50,000.00, as attorney’s fees. libelous article was printed and first published in
Paranaque City. Under Article 360 of the Revised Penal
Jose Penduko filed a Motion to Dismiss on the following Code, venue in a civil action for libel also lies in the place
grounds: where the libelous article was printed and first
1. The RTC is without jurisdiction because under the
Totality Rule, the claim for damages in the amount of
P350,000.00 fall within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of IX.
Parañaque City.
2. The venue is improperly laid because what the Bayani, an overseas worker based in Dubai, issued in
complaint alleged is Co Batong’s business address and favor of Agente, a special power of attorney to sell his
not his residence address. house and lot. Agente was able to sell the property but
failed to remit the proceeds to Bayani, as agreed upon.
Are the grounds invoked in the Motion to Dismiss On his return to the Philippines, Bayani, by way of a
proper? (4%) demand letter duly received by Agente, sought to recover
the amount due him. Agente failed to return the amount
ANSWER: as he had used it for the construction of his own house.
Thus, Bayani filed an action against Agente for sum of
No, the grounds invoked in the motion to dismiss money with damages. Bayani subsequently filed an ex-
improper. parte motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
1. attachment duly supported by an affidavit. The court
The invocation of the Totality Rule is granted the ex-parte motion and issued a writ of
misplaced. Under Art. 360 of the Revised Penal Code, preliminary attachment upon Bayani’s posting of the
jurisdiction over a civil action for damages in case of libel required bond. Bayani prayed that the court’s sheriff be
is with the Court of First Instance, now the Regional Trial deputized to serve and implement the writ of attachment.
Court. (Nocum v. Tan, 23 September 2005). The said On November 19, 2013, the Sheriff served
provision does not mention any jurisdictional amount upon Agente the writ of attachment and levied on the
latter’s house and lot. On November 20, 2013, the Sheriff Here the sheriff levied upon the house and lot prior to the
served on Agente summons and a copy of the complaint. service of the summons and the complaint upon
On November 22, 2013, Agente filed an Answer with Agente. Hence the writ of preliminary attachment was
Motion to Discharge the Writ of Attachment alleging that not properly executed. The subsequent service of
at the time the writ of preliminary attachment was issued, summons and the complaint did not cure the irregularity
he has not been served with summons and, therefore, it in the enforcement of the writ.
was improperly issued. (4%)
(A) Is Agente correct?
(B) Was the writ of preliminary attachment properly X.
Prince Chong entered into a lease contract with King
ANSWERS: Kong over a commercial building where the former
conducted his hardware business. The lease contract
(A) stipulated, among others, a monthly rental of P50,000.00
for a four (4)-year period commencing on January 1,
No, Agente is not correct. 2010. On January 1, 2013, Prince Chong died. Kin Il
Chong was appointed administrator of the estate
Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a writ of attachment of Prince Chong, but the former failed to pay the rentals
may issue even before service of summons upon the for the months of January to June 2013 despite King
defendant. (S2 R57). Kong’s written demands.
Thus, on July 1, 2013, King Kong filed with the Regional
(B) Trial Court (RTC) an action for rescission of contract with
damages and payment of accrued rentals as of June 30,
No, the writ of preliminary attachment not 2013. (4%)
properly executed. (A) Can Kin Il Chong move to dismiss the complaint on
the ground that the RTC is without jurisdiction since the
Under S5 R57, no levy on preliminary attachment shall be amount claimed is only P300,000.00?
enforced unless there is prior or simultaneous service of (B) If the rentals accrued during the lifetime of Prince
the summons and the accompanying papers. (S5 R The Chong, and King Kong also filed the complaint for sum of
Supreme Court has held that subsequent service of money during that time, will the action be dismissible
summons will not cure the irregularity that attended the upon Prince Chong’s death during the pendency of the
enforcement of the writ (Onate v. Abrogar, 23 February case?
(A) XII.

No, Kin II Chong cannot move to dismiss the Mary Jane met Shiela May at the recruitment agency
complaint on the ground that the RTC is without where they both applied for overseas employment. They
jurisdiction since the amount claimed is only P300,000. exchanged pleasantries, including details of their
personal circumstances. Fortunately, Mary Jane was
Under B.P. Blg. 129, the RTC has original and exclusive deployed to work as front desk receptionist at a hotel in
jurisdiction over actions incapable of pecuniary Abu Dhabi where she met Sultan Ahmed who proposed
estimation. marriage, to which she readily accepted. Unfortunately
for Shiela May, she was not deployed to work abroad,
Here the action is for rescission which is incapable of and this made her envious of Mary Jane.
pecuniary estimation. The P300,000 accrued rentals is Mary Jane returned to the Philippines to prepare for her
only incidental to the main purpose of the action which is wedding. She secured from the National Statistics Office
to rescind the lease contract. (NSO) a Certificate of No Marriage. It turned out from the
NSO records that Mary Jane had previously contracted
(B) marriage with John Starr, a British citizen, which she
never did. The purported marriage between Mary
No, the action will not be dismissible upon Prince Jane and John Starr contained all the required pertinent
Chong’s death during the pendency of the case. details on Mary Jane. Mary Jane later on learned
that Shiela May is the best friend of John Starr.
Under S20 R3, when the action is on a contractual money As a lawyer, Mary Jane seeks your advice on her
claim and the defendant dies before entry of final predicament. What legal remedy will you avail to
judgment, the action shall not be dismissed but shall enable Mary Jane to contract marriage with Sultan
instead be allowed to continue until entry of final Ahmed? (4%)
Here the action is on a contractual money claim, that is, a
claim for rentals based on a lease contract. Hence it shall The legal remedy I would avail to enable Mary
be allowed to continue until final judgment. (S20 R3, S5 Jane to contract marriage with Sultan Ahmed is to file a
R86). petition under Rule 108 to cancel entries in the marriage
contract between John Starr and Mary Jane, particularly
the portion and entries thereon relating to the wife.
Rule 108 may be availed of to cancel erroneous or private individual, for violating Section 3(e) of Republic
invalid entries in the Civil Registry. Here the entry of Act (RA) No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Mary Jane as the wife of John Starr is clearly erroneous Act, as amended).
and invalid as she never contracted marriage with Before the information could be filed with the
anybody, much less John Starr. There is no need to file a Sandiganbayan, Gov. Matigas was killed in an ambush.
petition for declaration of nullity of marriage since there This, notwithstanding, an information was filed
was no marriage to speak of in the first place, the against Gov. Matigas and Carpintero.
marriage contract being a sham contract. (Republic v. At the Sandiganbayan, Carpintero through counsel, filed
Olaybar, 10 February 2014, Peralta, J.). a Motion to Quash the Information, on the ground of lack
of jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, arguing that with
the death of Gov. Matigas, there is no public officer
charged in the information.
XIV. Is the motion to quash legally tenable? (4%)

When a Municipal Trial Court (MTC), pursuant to its ANSWER:

delegated jurisdiction, renders an adverse judgment in an
application for land registration, the aggrieved party’s No, the motion to quash is not legally tenable.
remedy is: (1%)
(A) ordinary appeal to the Regional Trial Court In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court held
(B) petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme that the death of the public officer did not mean that the
Court allegation of conspiracy between the public officer and
(C) ordinary appeal to the Court of Appeals the private person can no longer be proved or that their
(D) petition for review to the Court of Appeals alleged conspiracy is already expunged. The only thing
extinguished by the death of the public officer was his
ANSWER: criminal liability. His death did not extinguish the crime
nor did it remove the basis of the charge of conspiracy
(C) (See Sec. 34, B.P. Blg. 129) between him and the private person. Hence the
Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the offense
charged. (People v. Go, 25 March 2014, Peralta, J.)

The Ombudsman, after conducting the requisite XVI.

preliminary investigation, found probable cause to
charge Gov. Matigas in conspiracy with Carpintero, a
Plaintiff filed a complaint denominated as accion declared in default and Tom Wallis presented
publiciana, against defendant. In his evidence ex-parte. The RTC rendered judgment declaring
answer, defendant alleged that he had no interest over the marriage null and void on the ground of psychological
the land in question, except as lessee incapacity of Debi Wallis. Three (3) years after the RTC
of Z. Plaintiff subsequently filed an affidavit of Z, the judgment was rendered, Debi Wallis got hold of a copy
lessor of defendant, stating that Z had sold to plaintiff all thereof and wanted to have the RTC judgment reversed
his rights and interests in the property as shown by a and set aside.
deed of transfer attached to the affidavit. If you are the lawyer of Debi Wallis, what judicial remedy
Thus, plaintiff may ask the court to render: (1%) or remedies will you take? Discuss and specify the ground
(A) summary judgment or grounds for said remedy or remedies. (5%)
(B) judgment on the pleadings
(C) partial judgment ANSWER:
(D) judgment by default
If I were the lawyer of Debi Wallis, the judicial remedy I
ANSWER: would take is to file with the Court of Appeals an action
for annulment of the RTC judgment under Rule 47. An
(A) (S1 & 3, R35) action for annulment of judgment may be resorted to
since the remedies of appeal and petition for relief are no
longer available through no fault of Debi Wallis. (S1
XX. R47).

Tom Wallis filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a The ground for annulment of judgment would be
Petition for Declaration of Nullity of his marriage lack of jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction also covers lack
with Debi Wallis on the ground of psychological of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant since the
incapacity of the latter. Before filing the petition, Tom judgment would be void. (1 FLORENZ D. REGALADO,
Wallis had told Debi Wallis that he wanted the REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM 558 [7th rev. ed.,
annulment of their marriage because he was already fed 3rd printing]).
up with her irrational and eccentric behaviour. However,
in the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, the Here the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the
correct residential address of Debi Wallis was person of Debi since there was no valid substituted
deliberately not alleged and instead, the residential service of summons. Substituted service of summons
address of their married son was stated. Summons was should have been made at Debi’s residence. (S7
served by substituted service at the address stated in the R14). Hence the judgment of the RTC was void. Since
petition. For failure to file an answer, Debi Wallis was
the judgment is void, the petition for annulment thereof authorized by Goodfeather Corporation to file the
is imprescriptible. (S3 R47). complaint. Whose position is correct? Explain. (4%)

Furthermore, default judgments are not allowed in ANSWER:

declaration of nullity of marriage. (S3[e] R9). Hence the
trial court’s rendition of a default judgment was made Robert White’s position is correct. In a case
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of involving similar facts, the Supreme Court held that the
jurisdiction. issue of whether or not the trial court erred in dismissing
the complaint on the ground that the person who filed the
complaint in behalf of the plaintiff corporation was not
XXI. authorized to do so is a legal issue, reviewable only by the
Supreme Court in a petition for review on certiorari
Goodfeather Corporation, through its President, Al under Rule 45. (Tamondong v. Court of Appeals, 26
Pakino, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a November 2004).
complaint for specific performance against Robert White.
Instead of filing an answer to the complaint, Robert (Note: An alternative answer would be that the
White filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the appeal raises a factual question of whether or not Al
ground of lack of the appropriate board resolution from Pakino was indeed authorized to file the complaint in
the Board of Directors of Goodfeather Corporation to behalf of Goodfeather Corporation. A reading
show the authority of Al Pakino to represent the of Tamondong would show that the appellant only raised
corporation a legal question of whether it was proper to dismiss the
and file the complaint in its behalf. The RTC granted the complaint for failure to state a cause of action but did not
motion to dismiss and, accordingly, it ordered the raise a factual issue as to whether the filer was in fact
dismissal of the complaint. Al Pakino filed a motion for authorized by the corporation.).
reconsideration which the RTC denied. As nothing more
could be done by Al Pakino before the RTC, he filed an
appeal before the Court of Appeals (CA). Robert XXII.
White moved for dismissal of the appeal on the ground
that the same involved purely a question of law and Which of the following decisions may be appealed directly
should have been filed with the Supreme Court (SC). to the Supreme Court (SC)? (Assume that the issues to be
However, Al Pakino claimed that the appeal involved raised on appeal involve purely questions of law) (1%)
mixed questions of fact and law because there must be a (A) Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered
factual determination if, indeed, Al Pakino was duly in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
(B) Decision of the RTC rendered in the exercise of its No, there is no violation of the rule against forum
original jurisdiction. shopping.
(C) Decision of the Civil Service Commission.
(D) Decision of the Office of the President. Forum shopping applies where two or more initiatory
pleadings were filed by the same party. This is
ANSWER: discernible from the use of the phrase “commenced any
action or filed any claim” in S5 R7.
(B) Note: In an appeal from RTC judgment in the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, the appeal should be Here the first case involves the filing by Ms. Dumpty of a
to the CA even if the questions are only legal. Hence A notice of appeal which is not an initiatory
should be excluded. (S2[c] R42). pleading. Hence there is no forum shopping.


Mr. Humpty filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a Solomon and Faith got married in 2005. In
complaint against Ms. Dumpty for damages. The RTC, 2010, Solomon contracted a second marriage with Hope.
after due proceedings, rendered a decision granting the When Faith found out about the second marriage
complaint and ordering Ms. Dumpty to pay damages of Solomon and Hope, she filed a criminal case for
to Mr. Humpty. Ms. Dumpty timely filed an appeal bigamy before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila
before the Court of Appeals (CA), questioning the RTC sometime in 2011.
decision. Meanwhile, the RTC granted Mr. Meanwhile, Solomon filed a petition for declaration of
Humpty’s motion for execution pending appeal. Upon nullity of his first marriage with Faith in 2012, while the
receipt of the RTC’s order granting execution pending case for bigamy before the RTC of Manila is ongoing.
appeal, Ms. Dumpty filed with the Subsequently, Solomon filed a motion to suspend the
CA another case, this time a special civil action proceedings in the bigamy case on the ground of
for certiorari assailing said RTC order. Is there a prejudicial question. He asserts that the proceedings in
violation of the rule against forum shopping considering the criminal case should be suspended because if his first
that two (2) actions emanating from the same case with marriage with Faith will be declared null and void, it will
the RTC were filed by Ms. Dumpty with the CA? have the effect of exculpating him from the crime of
Explain. (4%) bigamy. Decide. (4%)

Motion to suspend proceedings denied.
(A) See S8 R40. R47 is not available since appeal is still
Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, a prejudicial available. Not C since a prohibited pleading.
question arises if there has been a previously filed civil
action. Here the civil action was filed after the criminal
action. Hence no prejudicial question will arise.
Moreover the Supreme Court has held that a pending
case for declaration of nullity of marriage does not raise a Mr. Avenger filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a
prejudicial question to a charge of bigamy since a person complaint against Ms. Bright for annulment of deed of
who contracts a second marriage without first awaiting a sale and other documents. Ms. Bright filed a motion to
judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage has dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of cause of
already committed bigamy. (People v. Odtuhan, 17 July action. Mr. Avenger filed an opposition to the motion to
2013, Peralta, J.). dismiss. State and discuss the appropriate
remedy/remedies under each of the following
situations: (6%)
XXV. (A) If the RTC grants Ms. Bright’s motion to dismiss and
dismisses the complaint on the ground of lack of cause of
Mr. Boaz filed an action for ejectment against Mr. action, what will be the remedy/remedies of Mr.
Jachin before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). Mr. Avenger?
Jachin actively participated in every stage of the (B) If the RTC denies Ms. Bright’s motion to dismiss,
proceedings knowing fully well that the MeTC had no what will be her remedy/remedies?
jurisdiction over the action. In his mind, Mr. Jachin was (C) If the RTC denies Ms. Bright’s motion to dismiss and,
thinking that if the MeTC rendered judgment against further proceedings, including trial on the merits, are
him, he could always raise the issue on the jurisdiction of conducted until the RTC renders a decision in favor
the MeTC. After trial, the MeTC rendered judgment of Mr. Avenger, what will be the remedy/remedies of Ms.
against Mr. Jachin. What is the remedy of Mr. Bright?
Jachin? (1%)
(A) File an appeal ANSWERS:
(B) File an action for nullification of judgment
(C) File a motion for reconsideration (A)
(D) File a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
If the RTC grants Ms. Brights’s motion to dismiss,
ANSWER: the remedies of Mr. Avenger are:
(a) File a motion for reconsideration under Rule 37. (e) File an action for annulment of judgment under Rule
(b) Re-file the complaint. The dismissal does not bar the 47 on the ground of extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction.
re-filing of the case (S5 R16).
(c) Appeal from the order of dismissal. The dismissal
order is a final order as it completely disposes of the case;
hence it is appealable.
(d) File an amended complaint as a matter of right curing XXIX.
the defect of lack of cause of action before the dismissal
order becomes final. This is because a motion to dismiss Estrella was the registered owner of a huge parcel of land
is not a responsive pleading; hence Mr. Avenger can located in a remote part of their barrio in Benguet.
amend the complaint as a matter of right. (S2 R10). However, when she visited the property after she took a
long vacation abroad, she was surprised to see that her
(B) childhood friend, John, had established a vacation house
on her property.
If the RTC denies Ms. Bright’s motion to dismiss, Both Estrella and John were residents of the
her remedies are: same barangay. To recover possession, Estrella filed a
(a) File a motion for reconsideration. complaint for ejectment with the Municipal Trial Court
(b) Proceed to trial and if she loses, appeal and assign the (MTC), alleging that she is the true owner of the land as
failure to dismiss as a reversible error. evidenced by her certificate of title and tax declaration
(c) File a special civil action for certiorari and/or which showed the assessed value of the property as
mandamus if the denial of the order to dismiss is made P21,000.00. On the other
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or hand, John refuted Estrella’s claim of ownership and
excess of jurisdiction. submitted in evidence a Deed of Absolute Sale between
him and Estrella. After the filing of John’s answer, the
(C) MTC observed that the real issue was one of ownership
and not of possession. Hence, the MTC dismissed the
If the RTC renders a decision in favor of Mr. complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
Avenger, Ms. Bright’s remedies are: On appeal by Estrella to the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
(a) File a motion for reconsideration or new trial under a full-blown trial was conducted as if the case was
Rule 37. originally filed with it. The RTC reasoned that based on
(b) File an appeal to the Court of Appeals under Rule 41. the assessed value of the property, it was the court of
(c) File an appeal to the Supreme Court under Rule 45 if proper jurisdiction. Eventually, the RTC rendered a
the appeal will raise only questions of law. judgment declaring John as the owner of the land and,
(d) File a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38. hence, entitled to the possession thereof. (4%)
(A) Was the MTC correct in dismissing the complaint for the case on the merits as if the case was originally filed
lack of jurisdiction? Why or why not? with it.
(B) Was the RTC correct in ruling that based on the
assessed value of the property, the case was within its Here the RTC did not have jurisdiction over the
original jurisdiction and, hence, it may conduct a full- case since it is an ejectment suit cognizable exclusively by
blown trial of the appealed case as if it was originally filed the MTC. The assessed value of the land is irrelevant for
with it? Why or why not? the purpose of determining jurisdiction in ejectment suits
and would not oust the MTC of jurisdiction in the same
ANSWERS: manner as allegations of ownership would not oust the
(A) MTC of jurisdiction.

No, the MTC was not correct in dismissing the case The RTC should have reversed the dismissal order
for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has held that and remanded the case to the MTC for further
an allegation of ownership as a defense in the answer will proceedings. (S8 R40).
not oust the MTC of jurisdiction in an ejectment case.
(Subano v. Vallecer, 24 March 1959). What determines Note: Utmost liberality should be given to the
subject-matter jurisdiction is the allegations in the examinee on this question as it does not appear to be
complaint and not those in the answer. Furthermore, the within the coverage of the remedial law examination per
MTC is empowered under S16 R70 to resolve the issue of the bar examination syllabus given by the Supreme
ownership, albeit for the purpose only of resolving the Court.
issue of possession.


No the RTC was not correct in ruling that the case

was within its original jurisdiction and that hence it may
conduct a full-blown trial of the appealed case as if it were
originally filed with it.

Under S8 R40, if an appeal is taken from an MTC

order dismissing a case for lack of jurisdiction without a
trial on the merits, the RTC on appeal may affirm the
dismissal order and if it has jurisdiction thereover, try