Baltik Sample Exams Reviewercopy Civil Procedure

7/25/2019 Baltik Sample Exams Reviewercopy Civil Procedure

1/42

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW

Past exams Civil Procedure

Prof. Antonio R. Bautista

II. JURISDICTION

Introductory/general concepts

Q. Up to what stage of a c!l acton "ay the ssue of #ursdcton $e rased% &'() *+,,- dter"s IIIa

A. In case of jurisdiction over the subject matter, the question may be invoked at any stage of the proceedings(even on appeal), but the issue of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant must be raised either in the motionto dismiss or by way of an affirmative defense in the answer. (Amigo v A, !"# $%A #&!).

Q0 1 sues D n RTC2anla to reco!er 1+334333.33 and a parcel of land located n anla. 1 s a anlaresdent whle D s a resdent of Que5on Cty. D "o!es to ds"ss on the ground of lac6 of #ursdcton7hat rulng% &'()

A' otion denied. he claim for *+,. may be properly joined with the claim for recovery of real propertyand % has jurisdiction over such money claim since it has jurisdiction over the claim for recovery of real

property. (%ule !, $ec. "-c)

Q0 Suppose you are the counsel for D who s sued n the TC for unlawful detaner and on a 1'34333.33pro"ssory note &not related to the lease su$#ect of the acton)4 what would $e your proper and effect!eprocedural recourse% &'()

A' I will move for severance of one cause of action because of misjoinder of the two causes of action, one / to witthe unlawful detainer action / being a special civil action. (%ule !, $ecs. " -b and 0)

Q0 8ast 9e$ruary +,,34 T ded n Que5on Cty4 hs place of resdence4 lea!ng a wll. ay the RTC of:ulacan ta6e cogn5ance of the petton for the pro$ate of hs wll e!en f he left no property n :ulacan%&'()

A' 1es, deceased2s residence or location of his estate is not an element of jurisdiction of the probate court but ismerely one of venue. $o, %/3ulacan may take cogni4ance of the petition for probate if there is no objection tothe venue.

Jursdcton &su$#ect "atter) of the dfferent le!els of courts n c!l cases

Q. 14 a anla resdent4 fled a collecton acton aganst C and D n RTC anla4 allegng a total cla" of1;


2/42

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW



A.


3/42

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW



A. otion to dismiss denied. Although the payment of the proper docket fees is a jurisdictional requirementthe may allow the plaintiff in an action to pay these fees within a reasonable time before the e6piry of theapplicable prescriptive or reglementary period. 3ut if the plaintiff fails to comply with this requirement, defendan

should timely rise the issue of jurisdiction or else he would be considered in estoppel. Bere, 7 filed an answerand participated in the proceedings before the . It was only after judgment was rendered against him that heraised the issue of jurisdiction. Chile the lack of jurisdiction ... may be raised at any stage of an action, the partyraising such question may be estopped if he has actively taken part in the very proceedings which he questionsand he only objects to the court2s jurisdiction because the judgment or decision subsequently rendered is adverseto him. (s contenton correct%&'()

A. If the action filed is for forcible entry wherein the issue is only possession de facto, 3, as the lessee, has aright of action against to recover the same. 3 is a party in interest in the sense that he has a presentsubstantial interest in the land, the possession of which he had been deprived.

apacity to sue and be sued

Q. E Co"pany4 a corporaton ncorporated under the laws of chgan4 US4 entered nto aFrepresentat!e agree"entF wth G Co"pany4 a do"estc corporaton4 for the sale n the 1hlppnes of ECo"pany>s electroncs products n consderaton for a stpulated co""sson. fter the agree"ent wasn force for a year4 E Co"pany ter"nated t and then $rought an acton n the RTC2a6at to en#on G

Co"pany fro" dealng n s"lar products as those of E>s. G Co"pany "o!ed to ds"ss the acton onthe ground that E Co"pany4 $eng a foregn corporaton not lcensed to do $usness n the 1hlppneshas no capacty to sue. Rule on the "oton to ds"ss. &+3() *+,,- dter"s I

A. D ompany may well be said to be doing business in the *hilippines because of the e6tensiveness andregularity of the sales of its products in this country whereby it made 1 ompany its mere agent in pursuit of itsbusiness. Bowever, 1 ompany is estopped to challenge the personality of D after it has acknowledged the sameby entering into a contract with it. his result is dictated by fair play. A person contracting with a foreigncorporation cannot take advantage of the latter2s non/compliance with the licensing requirement where such

Kung nag-si-strip recitation tayo, hubad na kayong lahat. - Prof. Bautista

3


4/42

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW



person has received the benefits of the contract. (ommunication aterials and 7esign Inc v A, @% +!!!#, !!August +;;0)

5oinder of parties

Q. D purchased a car fro" 14 a car dealer4 on nstall"ents and secured the purchase prce $alance&co!ered $y a pro"ssory note) wth a chattel "ortgage on the car. 7hle the purchase prce was not yetfully pad and the "ortgage on the car stll eAstng4 D sold the car to @. 7th D ha!ng defaulted on thepay"ents4 14 see6ng to foreclose the chattel "ortgage4 sued out a wrt of reple!n aganst D and @4 $utsnce D could no longer $e ser!ed wth su""ons4 1 "o!ed to drop D as defendant. Rule on 1>s "otonto drop D. &+3() *+,,? dter"s III

A. he motion to drop 7 as defendant cannot be granted without dismissing the complaint because 7 is anindispensable party. he replevin suit is anchored on *2s alleged right to possess the car and which right in turn isfounded on the alleged default of 7. If the case against 7 is dismissed, there would be no remaining cause ofaction against =. *2s right to possess the car is conditioned on 72s actual default and this default cannot beestablished in 72s absence. ($ervicewide $pecialists Inc. v A, @% s propertes. Is the le!y !ald% &+3() *+,,- dter"s IB

A. he levy is void because the judgment is void and without any legal effect. he judgment is void because therewas no substitution, pursuant to %ule +&, $ection #, of defendant mayor and the filing of a supplemental pleadingshowing that defendant mayor2s successor had adopted or continued the defendant mayor2s policy to deny the

cockpit license. (@alve4 v A, @% ++;+;#, !; arch +;;0.)

additional parties' impleader

Q. 7hat s the effect!e recourse of the defendant where the plantff dd not "plead an ndspensa$leparty% &+,,< dter" @Aa" II$)

A. 7efendant should move for an order directing the plaintiff to amend its complaint by impleading theindispensable party. Epon plaintiff2s failure or refusal to obey this order, the action should be dismissed. (%ule +:$ec. #F s la$lty. Judg"ent was renderedorderng D to pay 1 and E to nde"nfy D for ths pay"ent. E t"ely appealed the #udg"ent to the C4 $utdd not appeal and so 1 sued out a wrt of eAecuton aganst h" after the lapse of the +'2day perod for Dto appeal. Is the wrt of eAecuton !ald% &'() *+,,, dter" E

A. 1es. he third/party complaint is independent of and distinct from the complaint, but is allowed in the originaand principal case to avoid circuitry of action and unnecessary proliferation of lawsuits and to disposee6peditiously in one litigation the entire subject matter arising from one particular set of facts. An appeal by anyparty from such judgment does not inure to the benefit of the other party who has not appealed nor can it bedeemed to be an appeal of such other party from the judgment against him. (8irestone ire G %ubber o. of the*hils. vs. empongko, !:$%A 9+& -+;0;)


4


5/42

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW



additional parties' intervention

Q. 1 sues your clent D4 to reco!er possesson of a parcel of land. D tells you that hs wfe acHured thsparcel of land fro" ts for"er owner4 E. Is there a way $y whch D "ay cause E to $e "pleaded% &+,,?dter" @Aa" Ia)

A. 1es. 7 should have his wife intervene in the case and once admitted as intervenor, the wife should move to beallowed to a file a third/party complaint against D. 7 himself cannot file this third/party complaint against Dbecause he has no privity with D. (orada v. aluag, " $%A ++!& -+;0!)

Q 1 sued 4 :4 C and D to reco!er fro" each of the" dfferent peces of #ewelry whch were allegedlydel!ered to each of the" as a co""sson agent of the plantff. The #ewelres were del!ered ondfferent dates. If you were counsel for all the defendants4 what would $e your proper recourse%

A. I would ask that all but one defendant be dropped from the complaint because the defendants are mis/

joined. he plaintiff2s claim against each of the defendants did not arise from the same transaction or series oftransactions. (%ule #, sec 0). =ach claim therefore is a separate cause of action. (@acula v artine4, && *hi+9!)

Q. 7hat s defendant>s recourse aganst a co"plant whch fals to nclude an ndspensa$le party%

A. Be should move for an order directing the plaintiff to amend his complaint to include the indispensableparty, and if plaintiff fails or refuses to obey this order, or the indispensable party cannot be sued, then defendantshould move to dismiss the complaint under %ule +:, sec #. ($ee ore4 v Avila, ++ *hgil !" -+;":)

B. SUONS

Q0 cton n RTC2 anla aganst d to collect a su" of "oney. D s a 9lpno now per"anently resdng nthe Unted States $ut co"es to the 1hlppnes durng the Chrst"as holdays. ow "ay the su""ons nths acton $e ser!ed on h"% &'()

A' nly personally, when he is in the *hilippines even temporarily only. =6traterritorial service is not permissiblesince the action is inpersonam (%ule +9, +") and 7 is not a *hilippine %esident (Id. $ec. +0)

Q0 cton n RTC2 anla aganst d to collect a su" of "oney. D s a 9lpno now per"anently resdng nthe Unted States $ut co"es to the 1hlppnes durng the Chrst"as holdays. ow "ay the su""ons nths acton $e ser!ed on h"% &'()

A' nly personally, when he is in the *hilippines even temporarily only. =6traterritorial service is not permissible

since the action is inpersonam (%ule +9, +") and 7 is not a *hilippine %esident (Id. $ec. +0)

$ervice of summons

Q. D $orrowed US +34333 fro" the Kua" :ranch of a 1hlppne $an6 and eAecuted therefore n gana4Kua" a pro"ssory note. Upon D>s default on the note4 "ay the 1hlppne $an6 sue h" n then1hlppnes to collect on ths note% &+,,? dter" @Aa" IB$)


5


6/42

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW



A. 1es. 72s suability before our courts depends on the latter2s ability to acquire jurisdiction over his person or hisproperty. In this case, the bank may file a simple collection case before a *hilippine court and have the summonsserved on 7 should he be found in the *hilippinesF but here the filing of the suit should be timed to coincide withthe time that 7 is e6pected in this country, also the complaint may be dismissed for non/prosecutions if the

summons is not served seasonably enough. 3ut the better alternative would be to have the plaintiff file anapplication for preliminary attachment on the real property of 7 in the *hilippines, because in such case, 72s non/residence will be a sufficient and independent ground for the issuance of an attachment (%ule ":, $ec. +-f) andthe court may then acquire jurisdiction over his person by service of summons by publication (%ule +9, $ec. +:).

BI. 18@DINKS

A


7/42

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW



A. Chile causes of action may be joined against a common opposing party whether of the same nature orcharacter or whether they arise out of the same contract or relation or whether they are for sums of money, yetnone of the causes of action must be a special civil action or action governed by special rules otherwise therewould be a misjoinder of causes of action. Bere, the cause of action for mortgage foreclosure is misjoined

because it is a special civil action. (%ule !, $ec. ")

Q. Can the court award the plantff da"ages prayed for n hs co"plant to $e n an Fa"ount as wll $epro!ed at the tralF% &+3() *+,,? dter"s II

A. @enerally, no. It is required for purposes of computation of the docketing fees payable, that the complaintspecify the amount of damages being prayed for not only in its body but also in its prayer. he court does notacquire jurisdiction over an unspecified claim for damages, e6cept in respect to damages arising after the filing ofthe complaint or similar pleading the amount of which damages need not be specified but to which the additionafiling fee shall be a lien on the judgment. (riginal 7ev2t. G onst. orp. v A, !! $%A :"#).

he answer

Q. ay lac6 of #ursdcton o!er the person $e pleaded as an affr"at!e defense and a prel"nary hearng

had thereon% &+3() *+,,? dter"s BIII

A. 1es. Any ground for dismissal under %ule +0, e6cept improper venue, may be pleaded as an affirmativedefense and a preliminary hearing had thereon. A defendant is allowed to put up his own defenses alternativelyor even hypothetically. 7efenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or an answer, e6cepfor the failure to state a cause of action, are deemed waived. herefore, the defendant is enjoined to set upalong with his objections to the court2s jurisdiction over his person, all other possible defenses. (?a s co"plant on the ground that t s $arred $y the #udg"ent n the frst acton. Resol!e the"oton to ds"ss. &+,, dter" @Aa" IE)

A. otion to dismiss granted. he scone motion is barred by the Hcompulsory counterclaim ruleH (%ule (, $ection9) because the complaint for damages is necessarily connected with the transaction subject matter of the firstaction. Bad the same been annulled in the first action then would have no right to collect rents from theoccupants of the lot and house, while if the court sustained the validity of the same (as it did) then would havehad such right. he addition of A and 3 as additional defendants does not detract form the res judicata effect ofthe judgment in the first case because these parties should have been impleaded by on his compulsorycounterclaim in the first auction. $ee arpena v. analo, + $A% +0 (+;&+) and my annotation in # *BI?A5E%"&& at 0+/0! (+;:&).

Q. In an acton n the RTC $y the lessee aganst the lessor to fA a perod for hs lease4 "ay the RTCentertan the defendant lessor>s countercla" for the e#ect"ent of plantff lessee on the ground of theeApry of the stpulated ter" n the lease contract% &'() *+,,, dter" EI

A.


8/42

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW



nsurer that the loss was caused $y the wllful act of conn!ance of the plantff nsured. ay the thrdparty defendant re2nsurer countercla" aganst the plantff% *+,,, U1 :arops III

A. 1es, provided that the counterclaim be in respect to the plaintiff2s claim against the third/party plaintiff. (%ule 0

sec. +#)

Q. The TC ds"ssed4 on defendant>s "oton4 a co"plant for unlawful detaner grounded on ter"natonof a "onth2to2"onth lease4 for lac6 of #ursdcton o!er the su$#ect "atter due to lac6 of pror de"and to!acate4 and awarded n fa!or of the defendant the a"ount of 1 '4333.33 as attorney>s fees. Is ths TCdecson !ulnera$le to attac6 on certorar% &+3() *+,,? dter"s BII

A. 1es. $ince the had no jurisdiction over the principal action for unlawful detainer, then it had no jurisdictionover the compulsory counterclaim for attorney2s fees either. 7efendant2s claim for attorney2s fees is in the natureof a compulsory counterclaim, and a compulsory counterclaim cannot remain pending for independentadjudication by the court. A compulsory counterclaim is merely au6iliary to the proceeding in the original suit andderives its jurisdictional support from this original suit. 3esides, it was defendant himself who caused thedismissal of his counterclaim by moving for the dismissal of the complaint. (7alisay v arasigan, @%


9/42

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW



A. 1es, unless the dismissal order states that it is with prejudice. (%ule :, $ec ", !nd par)

7etail in pleading

Q. 1 co"pany4 a foregn nsurance co"pany4 sued n the RTC2anla and alleged that t s duly author5edto do $usness n the 1hlppnes4 $ut defendant n hs answer dened ths allegaton as to 1>s capacty tosue for lac6 of 6nowledge or nfor"aton. 7hat s the effect of defendant>s denal% *+,,, U1 :arops E

A. s "oton. *+,,, U1:arops BI

A. otion granted. Ender $ec. ++, %ule +# of the +;;: %ules of ivil *rocedure, personal service and filing is thegeneral rule, and resort to other modes of service and filing, the e6ception. herefore, whenever personal serviceor filing is practicable, in light of the circumstances of time, place and person, personal service or filing ismandatory. nly when personal service or filing is not practicable may resort to other modes be had, which mustthen be accompanied by a written e6planation as to why personal service was not practicable. he absence ofsuch e6planation is a violation of the rule and may be cause to consider the paper as not filed. ($olar eam=ntertainment, Inc. vs. %icafort, @.%. wrt of eAecuton and order of de"olton. Dd theRTC alolos act correctly% &+3()

A. s pleadngs% &'()

A. $ee %;$#.

Q In an acton n the RTC $y the lessee aganst the lessor to fA a perod for hs lease4 "ay the RTCentertan the defendant lessor>s countercla" for the e#ect"ent of plantff lessee on the ground of theeApry of the stpulated ter" n the lease contract.

A.


10/42

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW



A. Chile causes of action may be joined against a common opposing party whether of the same nature orcharacter or whether they arise out of the same contact or relation or whether they are for sums of money, yetnone of the causes of action must be a special civil action or action governed by speciai rules otherwise, there

would be a misjoinder of causes of action. Bere, the cause of action for mortgage foreclosure is misjoinedbecause it is a special civil action. (%ule !, sec ").

BII. OTIONS

BIII. O:J@CTIONS TO 18@DINKS

J. * sued 7 and = for reconveyance, with damages, of a parcel of land. After filing his answer, = served on *written interrogatories. 7espite the lapse of +>! years, the written interrogatories remained unanswered. $o on=Ks 7, the court issued an order directing * to answer the written interrogatories within + days from receipt ofthe order. his order having gone unheeded, the court issued another order dismissing the complaint against =.

After the order of dismissal had become final, * filed a motion for admission of amended complaint in which = is

again impleaded as a defendant on the same cause of action alleged in the original complain, plus and additionacause of action impugning the order of dismissal as being null and void for allegedly having been obtainedthrough fraud. = moves to dismiss amended complaint on the ground of res judicata. %ule on =Ks 7. (+L)

A. 7 granted. 7ismissal was in effect for failure to prosecute and therefore has the effect of anadjudication on the merits under %+:$#. Also, it is arguable that the dismissal is under %!;$" and therefore anadjudication on the merits. he added cause of action in the amended complaint is improper because such analleged cause of action can be raised only in a motion for new trial or in a %#& petition for relief. -$ee Arellano v.8I of $orsogonF 0" $%A 90 (+;:")

otion to dismiss' want of jurisdiction

Q. 1 sued D n the RTC to reco!er the su" of 1;34333.33 plus nterest. D answered allegng pay"ent $yset2off. fter pre2tral $ut $efore the case could actually $e tred4 D fled a "oton to ds"ss on theground that the RTC has no #ursdcton o!er the case. Instead of flng an opposton to D>s "oton tods"ss4 1 fled a "oton for lea!e to a"end hs co"plant $y ncludng an allegaton of a cause of actonfor 1'4333.33 attorney>s fees. If you were the #udge4 how would you resol!e D>s "oton to ds"ss and 1>s"oton for ad"sson of hs a"ended co"plant% &+,,< dter" @Aa" I)

A. I would grant 72s motion to dismiss and deny *2s motion to admit amended complaint. (a) A motion to dismisson the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be filed at any stage of the action. ($ee %ule ;,$ec. !)F (b) 7 already having answered, * must have to ask for leave of court to amend his complaint (%ule +,$ecs. ! and #). Chile *2s proposed amendment may not alter his cause of action, still the amendment is notallowable because it would have the effect of conferring jurisdiction upon the court. $ince the amount alleged inthe original complaint does not e6ceed *!,. e6cluding interest, the % did not acquire jurisdiction overthe case, and so the % has neither the power nor the jurisdiction to act on the motion for the admission of theamended complaint, much less to allow such amendment, since the court must first acquire jurisdiction over the

case in order to act thereon. (see %osario v. arangdang, ;0 *hil. &9" -+;"").

*** ta#e note of the change in jurisdictional amounts

Q0 cton $y 1 aganst D n the RTC for da"ages allegedly suffered $y 1 whle a payng passenger n a!ehcle owned and dr!en $y D. Durng the pre2tral4 the partes entered nto such a co"prehens!estpulaton of facts that the #udge was "o!ed to decde the case on su""ary #udg"ent. 1roper% &'()


10


11/42

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW



A' s e#ect"ent fro" the pre"ses on the ground of eApry of the ter" of the leasecontract. The lessee "o!ed to ds"ss the unlawful detaner co"plant on the ground of lts pendentaRule on the "oton. *+,,? 9nals II

A. otion to dismiss denied. 3oth cases involve the common issue of the lessee2s right to possession of thepremises, and this issue is better resolved in an unlawful detainer action. Chat, then, ought to be dismissed isthe % action and not the unlawful detainer case. he fact that the unlawful detainer action was filed later thathe % action is of no moment, because section +(e) of %ule +0 requires only another pending action / not aprior pending action. (eodoro vs. irasol, ;; *hil. +" -+;"0).

Q. 1 fled a co"plant n the RTC2Isa$ela aganst D for the reco!ery of an alleged o!erpay"ent for a rcethresher. 8ater4 $ut $efore the su""ons n the Isa$ela case could $e ser!ed on D4 D fled n RTC2anlaan acton aganst 1 for collecton of the alleged $alance on the purchase prce of the sa"e rce thresher.1 "o!ed to ds"ss the anla case on the ground of lts pendenta. Rule on the "oton. *+,,? 9nals III

A. otion to dismiss granted. All the requisites for litis pendentia are present. he Isabela action was already apending action at the time of the filing of the anila action even though the summons had not yet been served.%eason' A civil action is commenced by the mere filing of a complaint. (%ule !, sec. 0F $alacup vs. addela, 5r.;+ $%A !:" -+;:+).


11


12/42

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW



otion to dismiss' res judicata

Q. Dscreet :an6 eAtra#udcally foreclosed 1>s real estate "ortgage and tself purchased the property at

the foreclosure sale. fter the eApraton of the one2year rede"pton perod wthout any rede"pton$eng effected4 Dscreet :an6 fled wth the Regstry of Deeds an affda!t of consoldaton of ownershpand4 conseHuently4 was ssued a new TCT. Thereafter4 Dscreet :an6 fled a petton for the ssuance of awrt of possesson wth the RTC and ths petton4 doc6eted n the land regstraton case4 was opposed $y1 and4 after a full2dress hearng4 the RTC granted the petton and ordered the ssuance of a wrt ofpossesson. fter the decson n ths case $eca"e fnal4 1 fled a co"plant aganst Dscreet :an6 to setasde the sale of the "ortgaged property and cancel the wrt of possesson4 1 reteratng the groundsrased n the opposton to the petton for the ssuance of wrt of possesson. Dscreet :an6 "o!ed tods"ss ths caser on the ground of res #udcata4 $ut ths "oton was opposed $y 1 on the ground that thedecson n the wrt2of2possesson case cannot consttute res #udcata $ecause 1 could not present hso$#ectons n that proceedng4 the ssuance of a wrt of possesson $eng purely "nsteral wth the courtand the present acton $eng the correct one to attac6 the foreclosure sale. The court ds"ssed thssecond case4 not on the ground of res #udcata $ut for lac6 of #ursdcton4 the court reasonng that 1>s

attac6 at the foreclosure sale tanta"ounts to an attac6 at a fnal order of the RTC and therefore s wthnthe eAclus!e #ursdcton of the C. Se!eral "onths later4 1 fled another co"plant aganst Dscreet:an6 for the annul"ent of the foreclosure sale and recon!eyance of the "ortgaged property. s $eforeDscreet :an6 "o!ed to ds"ss on the ground of res #udcata4 argung that the ssues rased n ths newcase had $een resol!ed n the wrt2of2possesson case and n the second case foe the annul"ent of theforeclosure sale4 $ut ths "oton was opposed $y 1 on the ground that the ds"ssal of the second casewas not an ad#udcaton on the "erts4 the ds"ssal $eng for lac6 of #ursdcton and therefore cannotconsttute res #udcata.

&a) 7as the rulng on the frst "oton to ds"ss correct% &+,,< dter" @Aa" IIIa)

A. Chile the hearing in the writ/of/possession case was supposed to be summary , a full/dress hearing wasactually conducted and * submitted himself to it. * cannot now therefore be heard to challenge the jurisdiction o

the court and to escape or repudiate the effects of its judgment. $o, the order in the writ/of/possession case barsthe second case on res judicata grounds.

&$) Rule on the "oton to ds"ss the thrd case. &+,,< dter" @Aa" III$)

A. In dismissing the second case for lack of jurisdiction, the court recogni4ed the order of dismissal in the writ/of/possession case as a final one which it could not annul, since the authority to annul such orders pertains to theA only. his was, by itself, an adjudication on the merits of *2s claim because it declared him no longer entitledto the right upon which his claim is based. A judgment is deemed to be rendered upon the merits when it amountsto a declaration of the law as to the respective rights and duties of the parties, based upon the ultimate facts orstate of facts disclosed by the pleadings and evidence, and upon which the right of recovery depends, irrespectiveof formal, technical or dilatory objections or contentions. (7e %amos v. A, !+# $%A !: -+;;!)

Q. 8e!y of eAecuton of "oney #udg"ent n C!l Case No. +;


13/42

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW



against the identity of parties between the two cases because the mother represents the same interest as 7.($antos v. A, !!0 $%A 0# M#rd 7iv., +;;#N)

Q. 1 sued D n the TC for e#ect"ent on the ground of non2pay"ent of rentals. fter tral on the "erts4

#udg"ent was rendered ds"ssng the co"plant upon the fndng that D has $een payng hs rentals ont"e. Thereafter4 1 de"anded an ncrease n D>s rentals4 and upon D>s falure to pay the ncreased rentals1 pro"ptly fled a co"plant aganst D n the RTC prayng for hs e!cton and for da"agesL the RTCds"ssed ths co"plant for lac6 of #ursdcton. 7th the RTC ds"ssal4 1 fled an acton for unlawfudetaner aganst D n the TGC $ased on the sa"e allegatons as hs co"plant n the RTC. D now "o!esto ds"ss ths second unlawful detaner co"plant on the ground that t s $arred $y pror #udg"ent.Rule on the "oton to ds"ss. &+,, dter" @Aa" BIII$)

A. otion to dismiss denied. he second ejectment action is not barred by the decision in the first ejectmencaseF no identity of causes of action because the ground for ejectment in the second action is for non/payment ofdifferent rentals. s cla" aganst E n the e!ent that : s not a$le to reco!erthereon aganst E. Defendants "o!ed to ds"ss the reple!n co"plant on the ground of the pendencyof the nterpleader acton. Rule on the "oton to ds"ss. &'() *+,,, dter" IE

A. otion to dismiss granted. here is identity of parties between the interpleader case and replevin case. In theinterpleader case, the plaintiff is D and the defendants are 1, A and 3, whereas in the replevin case, the plaintiff is3 and the defendants are D and 1. In both cases therefore, 3, D and 1 are parties with the addition of A, but thisaddition does not retract from the requisite identity. In both cases, the rights spring from the deeds of assignmene6ecuted by 1 in favor of A and 3, covering the same debts of D owing to 1. he identity in both cases is suchthat any judgment that may be rendered in the interpleader case would amount to res judicata in the replevincaseF if judgment in the interpleader case is that the assignment to A would prevail over the assignment to 3, such

judgment would be binding on the replevin case and undercut 32s cause of action in the replevin case. ($anpiro8inance orp. vs. IA, !! $%AOOO -#rd 7iv., +;;#)

Q. In the $elef that the decedent ded ntestate4 E4 G and M4 hs nephews4 ntated n the RTC an ntestateproceedng wheren they o$taned an order appro!ng ther eAtra#udcal partton of the estate. :ut laterE fled a "oton to annul the order of appro!al on the ground that a wll of the decedent had $eendsco!ered and theren sought ts pro$ate. The pro$ate court dened E>s "oton on ts fndng that thealleged wll had $een destroyed and re!o6ed $y the decedent. Two "onths later4 E fled a petton nanother RTC for pro$ate of the alleged wll4 $ut G and M "o!ed to ds"ss the petton on the ground that


13


14/42

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW



t s $arred $y the #udg"ent of the ntestate court fndng the alleged wll to ha!e $een destroyed andre!o6ed. Rule on the "oton to ds"ss. &+3() *+,,' 9nals I

A. otion to dismiss denied. he intestate court had no jurisdiction to entertain the probate of the alleged will in

the intestate proceeding and therefore it could not have made a finding that the alleged will had been destroyedand revoked (asiano v aloto, :; $%A). $o, the intestate court not having jurisdiction to make this finding, thepetition for probate of the alleged will cannot possibly be barred by res judicata.

Q. @nu"erate all the ways $y whch a c!l case n our courts "ay $e ter"nated4 wth $ndng and res#udcata effect4 wthout a full2dress e!dentary tral where the partes are ena$led to present therrespect!e test"onal and other e!dence. &+3() *+,,- dter"s E

A.+. judgment on the pleadings!. summary judgment#. dismissal on motion of the defendant

9. voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff". dismissal for plaintiff2s failure to prosecute0. judgment by default:. judgment on confession or on compromise&. judgment on a complete stipulation of facts.

Q. 1 sued and : to reco!er a parcel of land. Judg"ent went for and :. Then4 sued : to reco!er thesa"e parcel. Is ths second acton $arred $y res #udcata% &'() *+,,- dter"s BIIIa

A. It depends. If A2s claim against 3 was already e6isting at the time of the first action and was a compulsorycounterclaim in that case, then the second action is barred under %ule ;, $ec. 9. therwise, there is no estoppebecause A and 3 were no adverse parties in the first case and their relative rights and liabilities as co/defendantsinter/se were not brought in issue. (alde4 v endo4a, &; *hil. )

otion to dismiss' improper venue

Q. 14 a resdent of anla4 sued D4 also a resdent of anla4 n the RTC2QC to collect 1'334333 $ased on apro"ssory note. The RTC2QC ds"ssed the acton "otu propro on the ground that the partes4 $eng$oth resdents of anla4 t has no #ursdcton o!er the case. Is the ds"ssal correct% &'() *+,,,dter" EB

A.


15/42

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW



otion to dismiss' want of jurisdiction

Q. cton $y 1 aganst D n the RTC for a su" of "oney was sought to $e ds"ssed $y D on the groundof prescrpton. The "oton to ds"ss was dened and D $rought a specal c!l acton for certorar n the

C aganst the order of denal of hs "oton to ds"ss. The C ds"ssed the petton. Then4 D fled hsanswer4 after whch tral was held and #udg"ent rendered aganst D. On appeal fro" ths #udg"ent to theC4 D fled a oton to Ds"ss the co"plant on the ground of lac6 of #ursdcton4 allegng that 1 had notpad the approprate doc6et fees n the tral court. Rule on the "oton to ds"ss. &'() *+,,, dter" B

A. otion to dismiss denied. Although the payment of the proper docket fees is a jurisdictional requirement, the may allow the plaintiff in an action to pay these fees within a reasonable time before the e6piry of theapplicable prescriptive or reglementary period. 3ut if the plaintiff fails to comply with this requirement, defendanshould timely raise the issue of jurisdiction or else he would be considered in estoppel. Bere, 7 filed an answeand participated in the proceedings before the . It was only after judgment was rendered against him that heraised the issue on jurisdiction. Chile the lack of jurisdiction OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOmay be raised at any stageof an action, the party raising such question may be estopped if he has actively taken part in the very proceedingswhich he questions and he only objects to the court2s jurisdiction because the judgment or decision consequently

rendered is adverse to him. (


16/42

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW



Q. 7hat s plantff>s $est procedural recourse aganst an answer whch pleads no "ore than negat!epregnants% &'() *+,,- dter"s IEa

A. ove for judgment on the pleadings.

Q. 1 sued D to Huet ttle to a parcel of land cla"ng to $e the owner of the land and to ha!e nherted tfro" hs father. On the other hand4 D answered $y assertng ownershp o!er the sa"e land n h"self $ycla"ng to ha!e nherted t fro" hs own father4 the alleged owner. 1 fled a reply to whch was attacheda docu"ent enttled Fc6nowledg"ent of OwnershpF duly sgned $y D>s father and concedng ownershpof the land to 1>s father. fter pre2tral4 the court rendered su""ary #udg"ent n 1>s fa!or on the groundthat the genuneness and due eAecuton of the docu"ent anneAed to 1>s reply was not dened $y D underoath. Is the su""ary #udg"ent correct% &+,,? dter" @Aa" BIII)

A. s fees. If you were the #udge4 how would you resol!e D>s "oton to ds"ss and 1>s"oton for ad"sson of hs a"ended co"plant% &+,,< dter" @Aa" I)

A. I would grant 72s motion to dismiss and deny *2s motion to admit amended complaint. (a) A motion to dismiss

on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be filed at any stage of the action. ($ee %ule ;,$ec. !)F (b) 7 already having answered, * must have to ask for leave of court to amend his complaint (%ule +,$ecs. ! and #). Chile *2s proposed amendment may not alter his cause of action, still the amendment is notallowable because it would have the effect of conferring jurisdiction upon the court. $ince the amount alleged inthe original complaint does not e6ceed *!,. e6cluding interest, the % did not acquire jurisdiction overthe case, and so the % has neither the power nor the jurisdiction to act on the motion for the admission of theamended complaint, much less to allow such amendment, since the court must first acquire jurisdiction over thecase in order to act thereon. (see %osario v. arangdang, ;0 *hil. &9" -+;"").

*** ta#e note of the change in jurisdictional amounts

Q0 cton $y 1 aganst D n the RTC for da"ages allegedly suffered $y 1 whle a payng passenger n a!ehcle owned and dr!en $y D. Durng the pre2tral4 the partes entered nto such a co"prehens!estpulaton of facts that the #udge was "o!ed to decde the case on su""ary #udg"ent. 1roper% &'()

A' s propertes. Soon after4 tral co""enced4 D ded4 and so hs hers "o!ed forthe ds"ssal of the case. Rule on the ds"ssal "oton. &'()


16


17/42

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW



A. 7ismissal motion granted. he principal action to which the attachment is merely ancillary, is a moneyclaim and the attachment cannot survive the dismissal of this principal action. P%egala v. A, + $%A ";"(+;;)

Q. cton $y 1 aganst D n the RTC for the collecton of su"s of "oney co!ered $y two pro"ssorynotes whch were attached to the co"plant. There were allegatons n the co"plant of partal pay"entsof outstandng $alance. D duly fled an answer denyng all the "ateral allegatons of the co"plant$ecause F he does not ha!e 6nowledge suffcent to consttute a $elef as to the truth of the allegatonscontaned theren.F 7ould 1 $e enttled to #udg"ent on the pleadngs% &+3()

Q. E :us Co. purchased +3 $uses fro" G otor Co. co!ered wth pro"ssory notes and deeds ofchattel "ortgage. Then4 G assgned these notes and deeds of chattel "ortgage to :an6 and thensu$seHuently assgned the sa"e notes and chattel "ortgage to : 9nance Co. Then4 when E defaulted onthe notes4 G4 and : de"anded pay"ent. In !ew of ther conflctng cla"s aganst t4 E fled n the RTCan nterpleader acton aganst G4 and : prayng that the court deter"ne whch a"ong the" s enttled topay"ent on the notes. Three days later4 : fled an acton for reple!n wth da"ages aganst E and Gprayng that G $e declared la$le to pay :>s cla" aganst E n the e!ent that : s not a$le to reco!er

thereon aganst E. Defendants "o!ed to ds"ss the reple!n co"plant on the ground of the pendencyof the nterpleader acton. Rule on the "oton to ds"ss.

A. otion to dismiss granted. here is identity of parties between the interpleader case an the replevincase. In the interpleader case, the plaintiff is D and the defendants are 1, A and 3. In the replevin case, theplaintiff is 3 and the defendants are D and 1. In both cases, therefore, 3, D and 1 are parties with the addition of

A, but this addition dos not detract from the requisite identity. In both cases, the rights spring from the deeds ofassignment e6ecuted by 1 in favor of A and 3, covering the very same debts of D owing to 1. he identity in bothcases is such that any judgment that may be rendered in the interpleader case would amount to res judicata in thereplevin caseF if judgment in the interpleader case is that the assignment to A would prevail over the assignmento 3, such judgment would be binding on the replevin case and undercut 32s cause of action in the replevin case.($anpiro 8inance orp. v IA, !! $%A ... -#rd 7iv., +;;#)

Q. 14 a resdent of anla4 sued D4 also a resdent of anla4 n the RTC2QC to collect 1'334333.33

$ased on a pro"ssory note. The RTC2QC ds"ssed the acton "otu propro on the ground that thepartes4 $eng $oth resdents of anla4 t has no #ursdcton o!er the case. Is the ds"ssal correct%

A.


18/42

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW



A. s n!ocaton of res #udcata.

A. %es judicata properly applies. he judgment in the ejectment action is final and not open to attackcollaterally, but subject to impeachment only through some form of direct attack. he appellate court was limitedto a review of the interpleader decree. (%eed v Allen, !0 E.$. +;+, "! $. t. "#!, :0 ?. =d., +"9 -+;#!)

Q. Dstngush Flaw of the caseF fro" res #udcata

Q. Defendant "o!ed to ds"ss the co"plant on the ground that ts allegatons are Fnot suffcent towarrant the relef prayed for.F Rule on the "oton to ds"ss.

A. +otion to dismiss denied. his is not a ground for a motion to dismiss, and the prayer is part of thecomplaint and, save in case of default, is of no importance. (amponanes v 3artolomen, #& *hil 0&).

Q. 14 a resdent of anla4 fled a co"plant aganst D4 a resdent of Ilolo4 n the RTC2anla. Thsco"plant contans ; causes of acton4 one for "oney4 and the other for ttle to real property n :aguo$oth causes of acton arsng out of the sa"e transacton $etween the partes. Is there anythngprocedurally wrong wth the co"plant%

A. here is misjoinder of causes of action, and therefore the court should order their separation so that eachcause of action may proceed independently of the other. Chile joinder of causes of action is allowed, the causeof action for title to property in 3aguio...mislaid. (%ule !, secs " -c and 0)

IE. DISISS8S ND D@9U8TS

Q0 In hs effort to unclog hs doc6et and co"ng across the record of Specal 1roceedngs No. =3+4 aguardanshp case n!ol!ng a "nor wth propertes worth "ore than a "llon pesos4 and fndng the sadcase to ha!e $een pendng snce way $ac6 n +,=


19/42

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW



A' 3ased on +;&" 3ar =6am. s "oton carry wth t the ds"ssal of defendant>s

co"pulsory countercla"% &'()

A'


20/42

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW



A. otion to dismiss granted. he dismissal of the first case was with prejudice pursuant to $ection #, %ule +:herefore, all requisites for res judicata are present. (=nrique4 v. 3oyles, !!0 $%A 000 #rd 7iv., +;;#)

Q. ay a court ds"ss an acton for falure of plantff>s lawyer to appear at the tral despte due notce%

&'()

A.


21/42

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW



A. s garage. Then4 T4 a $rother of D4 fledwth the sherff a thrd party cla"4 T swearng n hs affda!t of thrd party cla" that hs rght to thepossesson of the ercedes :en5 car s der!ed fro" the fact that D purchased ths car wth funds$orrowed fro" h". 7hat acton4 f any4 should the sherff ta6e on T>s thrd party cla"% &'()

A. he sheriff should just ignore 2s third/party claim. he affidavit is insufficient under %":$+9 to cause

discharge of the attachment because the claimant alleged that he was a mere creditor of the attachment debtor. does not claim to have a title to or a lien on, the attached property which would entitle him to its possession.-$ee Ceadcock v. filadaF &9 *hil OOO (+;9;)

Q0 Can a te"porary restranng order $e ssued eA2parte% &'()

A' 1es, but effective for :! hours only and this is to be issued by the e6ecutive judge of a multiple/sala court or thepresiding judge of a single/sala court and only if the mater is of e6treme urgency and the applicant will suffergrave injustice and irreparable injury. (%ule "&, $ec. ", !nd par.)

Q0 In an acton for a su" of "oney4 1 o$taned a wrt of attach"ent and le!ed t on D>s propertes. D fledan answer4 n whch he asserted prescrpton of 1>s alleged cause of acton as one of hs affr"at!edefenses and on whch he sought a prel"nary hearng. D also pleaded a countercla" where he prayed

for da"ages arsng fro" the attach"ent whch he cla"ed was "alcously o$taned and "ple"ented.fter the hearng on D>s affr"at!e defense of prescrpton the court found that 1>s cause of acton hadalready prescr$ed and therefore ordered the ds"ssal of the co"plant as well as D>s countercla"whch t sad could not re"an for ndependent ad#udcaton. 7th the ds"ssal of the countercla"4 canD stll reco!er da"ages aganst the attach"ent $ond for llegal attach"ent% &+3()

*reliminary Injunction

Q. 1 $ought a house and lot fro" E4 wth a $alance re"anng on the purchase prce $ut whch $alancewas secured $y a "ortgage on the pre"ses. Then4 1 sued D4 an occupant4 n the RTC to reco!erpossesson of the house and lot. fter due tral4 the RTC rendered #udg"ent for 1 and ordered D to!acate and del!er the pre"ses to 1. wrt of eAecuton was4 n due course4 ssued for ths #udg"ent.owe!er4 $efore the wrt of eAecuton could $e carred out4 D4 cla"ng to $e an assgnee of E>s "ortgage4

fled n another RTC a sut for foreclosure of the "ortgage4 wth prayer for prel"nary n#uncton. ShouldD $e granted a prel"nary n#uncton to en#on hs e!cton under the #udg"ent n the frst case% &+,,dter" @Aa" B)

A.


22/42

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW



Q. In a petton for relef n the RTC aganst an RTC "oney #udg"ent &already fnal and eAecutory)4 theRTC ssued a prel"nary n#uncton en#onng the eAecuton of the decson. fter due hearng4 the RTCds"ssed the petton for relef4 and pettoner appealed the ds"ssal order to the C. 7hle the appeas pendng4 "ay the #udg"ent sought to $e set asde on the petton for relef $e eAecuted% &'() *+,,-

dter"s BIIa

A.


23/42

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW



A. otion to lift denied. An injunction to restrain acts committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of theissuing court is valid where the principal business addresses of the parties and the decisions on the acts to berestrained are located and originated within the court2s jurisdiction. (=mbassy 8arms, Inc. v A, +&& $%A

-+;;, !nd 7iv.)

EI. DISCOB@RG

Q0 Fwor6 product ruleF

A' he rule which immuni4es from discovery the notes, impressionss and other work product of the lawyergathered or obtained in preparation for litigation.

7epositions

Q. &a) Can a party ta6e the deposton of a person wthout any showng that the deponent wll $e

una!ala$le as a wtness at the tral% &$) If so4 can such deposton $e used n e!dence% &+,, dter"@Aa" IBa$)

A. (a) 1es. Availability of the deponent as a witness at the trial will affect the party2s right to use the deposition /not his right to take it. $ee 7asmarinas @arments, Inc. v. %eyes, !!" $%A &!!-!nd 7iv., +;;#). (b) 1es, underthe conditions and for the limited purposes stated in $ection 9, %ule !9.Q. Suppose 1 had ntroduced n e!dence a pre2tral deposton of D>s general "anager whch contaned astate"ent that the co"pany had no $udget for the current year for repar of ther !ehcles4 "ay 1thereafter &.e.4 after the general "anager had testfed for D) ntroduce e!dence that the genera"anager>s reputaton for truth and !eracty s $ad% *+,,, U1 :arops I

A. 1es, by using the deposition as substantive evidence, * had not thereby made the general manager his ownwitness (%ule !9, $ec. &). Bence, the impeachment of 72s witness by reputation evidence is still open to *oreover, by presenting the general manager2s deposition, * in effect made this general manager an adverse/party witness under %ule +#!, $ec. +! and so he may be impeached by * as if he was called by 7.

Q. Snce a deposton offcer cannot rule on o$#ectons to e!dence4 what would $e the pont of rasngany o$#ecton to e!dence at the deposton2ta6ng% &'() *+,,- dter"s BII$

A. $ee %ule !9, $ec. !; (e).

%equest for admission

Q. 7here the defendant fals to answer a reHuest for ad"sson ser!ed on h" $y plantff as6ng forad"sson of all the "ateral allegatons of the co"plant4 what s the plantff>s $est procedural recourse%&'() *+,,, dter" BI

A. Be should file a motion for summary judgment because the materialallegations of the complaint are not disputed. ($ee Allied OOOOOOO3usiness 7evelopment o., OOOOOOvs. A, @%


24/42

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW



Q. Does a party ltgant en#oy any dsco!ery rghts after the pro"ulgaton of fnal and eAecutory#udg"ent% &'()

A. 1es. $ee %#; $ecs. #&/9.

Q. 7here the defendant fals to answer a reHuest for ad"sson ser!ed on h" $y plantff as6ng forad"sson of all the "ateral allegatons of the co"plant4 what s plantff>s $est procedural recourse%

A. Be should file a motion for summary judgment because the material allegations of the complaint are notdisputed. ($ee Allied... 3usiness 7evelopment o. v A, @%


25/42

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW



A.


26/42

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW



A. s alleged falure to "a6e so"e of the pay"ent reHured under the co"pro"se

#udg"ent4 1 fled an acton n the sa"e RTC to co"pel D to "a6e these pay"ents. In answerng theco"plant4 D ad"tted the pro"ulgaton of the co"pro"se #udg"ent $ut alleged that t was entered nto$y ts then 1resdent wthout the reHuste authorty of the stoc6holders and that t was therefore ultra!res. Can ths defense stll $e entertaned% &+,,? dter" @Aa" BIa)

A.


27/42

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW



EB. R@BI@7 ND CORR@CTION O9 TRI8 COURT @RRORS

Q. cton for $reach of contract $y 1 aganst D n the RTC. On D>s "oton4 the ntal tral was

postponed ' t"es. On the ?th resettng of the case for tral4 nether defendant nor hs lawyer appearedalthough a "essenger of defendant>s lawyer fled then and there a "oton for postpone"ent $y D>slawyer on the ground that he has another hearng on the sa"e date and t"e n an out2of2town court. Thecourt dened the "oton for postpone"ent and allowed 1 to present hs e!dence eA2parte and consderedD to ha!e wa!ed hs rght to present e!dence. Thereafter4 the court consdered the case su$"tted fordecson. $out two "onths later4 the court rendered a decson n fa!or of 1 and aganst D. D then fleda petton for certorar wth the Court of ppeals cla"ng that the RTC had acted wth gra!e a$use ofdscreton n denyng hs "oton for postpone"ent and declarng h" as ha!ng wa!ed hs rght topresent e!dence. 7hle ths petton was pendng n the C4 defendant perfected hs appeal fro" theRTC>s decson to the C also. 14 appearng now as pr!ate respondent on the certorar petton4 "o!edn the C for the ds"ssal of the petton on the ground that D had lost hs rght to a!al of the re"edy ofcertorar when he perfected an appeal fro" the RTC decson. Resol!e 1>s "oton to ds"ss thecertorar petton. &+3()

Q. 7hen s a oton for Reconsderaton of an RTC #udg"ent consdered pro for"a4 and what s the rs6to the "o!ant n flng such a "oton% &'()

A. If based on %#:$+(c), a motion for reconsideration is pro/forma if it does not point out specifically the findingsof conclusions in the judgment which are not supported by evidence or which are contrary to law, making e6pressreference to the pertinent evidence or legal provisions. -Alvero v. 7ela %osaF :0 *hil 9!&, 9#"

If a second % where it is not based on a ground not e6isting or not available where +st % was made (%#:$9Fity of ebu v. endo4a 0! $%A 99 (+;:")

It is also pro/forma when it has no notice of hearing or a defective notice of hearing. A pro/forma % will notinterrupt period of appeal.=6traordinary remedies (prerogative writs' certiorari, prohibition and mandamus) as modes of review)

Also *%I$I


28/42

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW



Q. Suppose the "an case s ds"ssed $y #udg"ent after tral and ths #udg"ent s appealed4 whathappens pendng appeal to a wrt of prel"nary n#uncton ssued $y the tral court whle the case waspendng wth t% &+3()

A. he preliminary injunction is not ipso facto dissolved if the judgment of dismissal is silent on the matter asotherwise, the case will become moot despite the appeal. $o, the preliminary injunction is dissolved only if thecourt e6pressly says so. -7imaunahan v. AranasF :9 *hil 9"", 90 (+;9#). he rule is different in case of apermanent injunction, in which case %#;, $9 e6pressly providing that the judgment granting, dissolving, ordenying the injunction is immediately operative.

Q0 :y sheer concdence4 tty. 8ope5 was on the sa"e day4


29/42

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW



*rocedure, $ec. +; -c). $o, the filing of this motion did not suspend or toll the running of the period for finality ofthe ejectment decision which thus became final on +0 5une !.

Q0 Does an appeal fro" a fnal #udg"ent of the RTC stay the enforce"ent of ths #udg"ent% &'()

A' 1es, unless it is an appeal from a judgment of the % in the e6ercise of its appellate jurisdiction over a civilcase governed by the %evised %ule on $ummary *rocedure. (+;;+ %evised %ule on $ummary *rocedure, $ec!+F %ule :, $ec. !+)

Q0 F"ateral data ruleF

A' %ule 9+, $ec. 0.

Q0 n e#ect"ent co"plant was ds"ssed $y the TC for plantff>s alleged falure to esta$lsh hspleaded cause of acton. On appeal4 the RTC affr"ed n a decson whch reasoned that defendant2tenanthad not defaulted n the pay"ent of rentals and that the lease had a fAed ter". On reconsderaton4 theRTC re!ersed n a decson as follows0 FConsderng the grounds for plantff2appellant>s "oton for

reconsderaton4 the defendant2appellee>s opposton and reply to opposton4 the decson of ths court shere$y reconsdered4 there$y re!ersng the decson of the court a Huo and nstead a decson s nowrendered n fa!or of plantff2appellant and aganst the defendant2appellee as pryaed for n plantff2appellant>s co"plant.F Is the decson !ald% &'()

A'


30/42

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW



A. Arguably not. therwise, a party2s period to appeal from the final judgment may be unduly e6tended whereasthe time during which the motion for reconsideration was pending is supposed to be merely deducted from thetime to appeal, e6cept in the case of a motion for reconsideration of a A decision which under %ule 9"completely tolls the time to appeal.

Q. In an acton $y 1 aganst D4 the RTC rendered #udg"ent whch was ser!ed on 1 on 3+ July +,,' and onD on 3' July +,,'. On ;3 July +,,'4 D fled hs notce of appeal fro" ths #udg"ent to the C4 and on thesa"e date 1 fled a "oton fro reconsderaton of the sa"e #udg"ent. Is 1>s "oton for reconsderatont"ely% &+,,? dter" @Aa" IBa)

A. sfalure to pay the appeal fee wthn the regle"entary perod. Is the ds"ssal correct% &+3() *+,,-dter"s B


30


31/42

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW



A. s t"ely appeal to the RTC4 the latter found that he had $eenunlawfully wthholdng possesson of the pre"ses for "ore than one year pror to the flng of theco"plant and that therefore the proper acton was accon pu$lcana and not unlawful detaner4 and theRTC there$y declared the TC wthout #ursdcton o!er the case and nullfed the proceedngs theren.Now 4 1 fled a Rule ?' petton for certorar wth the C aganst ths RTC decson. ow should the Cresol!e the certorar petton% &+,,? dter" @Aa" IIa)

A. he A should dismiss the certiorari petition. here was on the %2s part no error of jurisdiction but only error

of judgment and appeal was an available and adequate remedy. (8ernand v. asque4, #+ $%A !&& -+;:).

Q. 1 fled an acton n the C for "anda"us aganst D and also prayed for "oral and eAe"plary da"agesDoes the C ha!e #ursdcton o!er the acton% &+,,< dter" @Aa" BIIIa)

A.


32/42

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW



A. 7ismiss the petition. It is barred by res judicata under $ec. 9;(c) of %ule #;. he decision in the ejectment suithad become final because the proper remedy against the % judgment is a petition for review and not anappeal. (1baQe4 v A, !"# $%A "9).

%eview and correction by the trial court of its own proceeding'otion for reconsideration or new trial*etition for relief

Q. Defendant was declared n default $y the RTC for falure to fle a respons!e pleadng and thereafter#udg"ent $y default was rendered aganst h". Ths decson $y default was ser!ed on the defendant on;' July +,,'4 and on 3+ ugust +,,' defendant fled a "oton to ha!e ths decson reconsdered and setasde and for t to $e allowed to fle ts answer on the ground that t had already actually pad theo$lgaton sued upon n the co"plant. The RTC dened the "oton for reconsderaton and a copy of thedenal order was ser!ed on defendant on ;- Octo$er +,,'. On 3 No!e"$er +,,'4 defendant fled wththe RTC a petton for relef fro" #udg"ent. Co""ent on the t"elness and approprateness of thspetton for relef. &+3() *+,,? dter"s BI

A. he petition for relief is improper and premature. 7efendant had until " s "e"orandu" and already consdered and resol!ed $y the tral court n ts decson pro for"a%&+3() *+,,? dter"s B

A.


33/42


34/42

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW



A. 1es. If the right to appeal was lost through no fault or neglect of *. 3ut mandamus to compel the togive due course to the appeal may be the more appropriate remedy because the right to appeal was not reallylost, 7 having an e6tra day, and therefore up to ... 5uly +;;; within which to appeal. (%ule 9+, sec #, par ! in

relation to %ule !!, $ec !)

Q. Suppose that n pro$le" No. II a$o!e4 the RTC denes D>s petton for relef4 what re"edy4 f any4 sa!ala$le to D to challenge the order denyng the petton for relef%

A. nly a %ule 0" petition for certiorari, since an appeal is not available. (%ule 9+, $ec +-b)

Q. 7hat are the ways $y whch a fnal and eAecutory #udg"ent "ay $e attac6ed%

+) 3y petition for relief!) 3y direct action to annul and enjoin the enforcement of the judgment where the alleged defect is not apparenton its face or from the recitals contained in the judgment.#) 3y a special civil action of certiorariF and

9) 3y collateral attack where the challenged judgment is void upon its face or its nullity is apparent from its ownrecitals. ($ee 8ilinvest redit orp. v IA, !: $%A "; -+st 7iv., +;;!)

Q. Can the thrd2party plantff appeal fro" an order ds"ssng hs thrd2party co"plant for falure toprosecute%

A. nly with the court2s permission. (%ule 9+, $ec +-g, $ee also %ule #0, $ec ").

Q. 1 $rought an acton n the RTC to annul a #udg"ent of an TC n what was thought to $e a "ereunlawful detaner acton $ut actually was one for rescsson and therefore not capa$le of pecunaryest"aton. Defendant "o!ed to ds"ss the "oton on the ground that plantff had not eAhausted all theordnary re"edes of new tral4 appeal4 and petton for relef. Rule on the "oton to ds"ss.

A. otion to dismiss denied. he requirement of prior resort to all of the ordinary remedies of new trialappeal and petition for relief is contained in %ule 9:, section + and refers to motions for the annulment in the Aof judgments or final orders of the %. (+;;: %ules of ivil *rocedure, %ule 9:, sec +) 3ut there is norequirement that these ordinary remedies be first e6hausted before an action to annul a judgment or final order ofan may be filed in the %. (%ule 9:, sec +)Q. K!e at least one eAa"ple of a c!l case &not a specal proceedng) wheren "ultple appeals areallowed.

A. @enerally, in cases of several and of separate judgments. (%ule #0, secs 9 G "). $pecifically, in actionsfor recovery of property with accounting and for partition. In these cases the judgment for recovery of property isfinal and appealable without awaiting the accountingF and an order of partition is final and appealable withoutawaiting the actual partition. Bence, the accounting or the partition may continue pending the appeal and asecond appeal may be taken from the judgment on the accounting or the partition. (iranda v A :+ $%A !;"-+;:0F 7e @u4man v A, :9 $%A !!! -+;:0)

J. Bow final judgment may be set asideR

EBI. @N9ORC@@NT O9 JUDK@NTS

Q. Co"plant $y 1 aganst D n the TC for e#ect"ent. The TC>s #udg"ent for D was duly appealedto the RTC whch re!ersed the TC #udg"ent and ordered D to !acate the pre"ses. Ths RTC #udg"entwas rece!ed $y D>s counsel on +? January +,=-. on ;< January +,=-4 D fled wth the RTC a notce ofappeal of ts #udg"ent ndcatng that he would appeal t to the C. ctng on ths notce of appeal4 the


34


35/42

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW



RTC on ? 9e$ruary +,=-4 ordered the records of the case to $e forwarded to the C. On the followng day4howe!er4 and $efore the records were actually ele!ated to the C4 1 fled a "oton n the RTC for theeAecuton of ts #udg"ent. Resol!e the "oton for eAecuton. &+3()

A. otion for e6ecution granted. % judgment became final and e6ecutory and its review by the A couldonly be had by petition for review and not by appeal. -3* +!;, $ec. !!F marino v. A +!9 $%A OOOO (+;)

Q0 7hat s the proper recourse of a party aggre!ed $y an order for eAecuton pendng appeal% &'()

A' %ule 0" certiorari because such an order is not appealable. (%ule 9+, $ec. +, par. ! (f))

Q0 7hat s the perod of rede"pton fro" a real estate "ortgage foreclosure% &+3()

A' It depends. If the foreclosure is judicial, there is only an equity of redemption and this is ; to +! days onlyfrom entry of judgment (%ule 0&, $ec. !) or at the latest until the order of confirmation of the sale (id., $ec. #). Ifforeclosure is e6tra/judicial, it further depends' one year from registration of the sale (Act


36/42

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW



appealed judgment can issue, as a matter of right only from the date of service of the notice provided in $ection++ of %ule #;. (7y v. A, +;" $%A "&" (8irst 7iv., +;;+)

Q. On + arch +,,


37/42

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW



of eAecuton. Upon D>s falure to pay the frst three stpulated nstall"ents4 1 o$taned on hs "oton awrt of eAecuton drectng D to !acate the pre"ses. Is the wrt of eAecuton assala$le on any ground%&'() *+,,' 9nals E$

A. 1es. he writ of e6ecution does not conform to the judgment. 72s obligation under the compromise judgmentis purely monetary but the writ of e6ecution is not for a money judgment as provided in $ec. +", %ule #; andinstead in for delivery or restitution of property under $ec. +#, %ule #; (Abinujar v A, @%


38/42

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW



na"e $ut wth the notce of le!y n 1>s fa!or carred on the $ac6 of ths new certfcate. So4 E $roughtanother acton aganst 14 the sherff and the regster of deeds for the cancellaton of the annotaton of 1>snotce of le!y on the ground that ths le!y was rregular and "proper. Defendng aganst E>s acton4 thedefendants alleged the superorty of the len created $y the pror regstraton of the le!y o!er the

su$seHuent sale n E>s fa!or. Decde the case. &+3()

Q. In an acton for unlawful detaner n the TC4 defendant lessee was ordered to !acate the leasedpre"ses and pay "onthly rentals of 1'34333.33 startng 3+ prl +,,- untl he shall ha!e !acated thepre"ses and surrendered ts possesson to plantff lessor4 and the su" of 1s feesCopy of the decson was ser!ed on defendant lessee on 3+ arch +,,, and4 on the neAt day4 3; arch+,,,4 defendant fled a notce of appeal to the RTC4 so that on 3= arch +,,,4 the TC trans"tted therecords of the case to the RTC. On +- arch +,,,4 plantff lessor "o!ed for eAecuton of the decson nhs fa!or4 allegng that although defendant had fled a notce of appeal he had not fled a supersedeas$ond. Defendant opposed the "oton4 cla"ng that he was pre!ented fro" flng a supersedeas $ond ont"e $ecause the records of the e#ect"ent case were forwarded to the RTC wthout watng for theeApraton of hs perod to appeal and for the further reason that the TC dd not fA the a"ount of ths

$ond. Rule on the "oton for eAecuton.

A. otion for e6ecution granted. 72s failure to file a supersedeas bond is a grund for the immediatee6ecution of the judgment against him. 7 should have filed a supersedeas bond before he perfected his appealthis appeal having been perfected as to him upon his filing of his notice of appeal. (%ule 9+, $ec ;) As to theamount of the bond, the did not have to e6pressly or specifically fi6 the amount of the supersedeas bondbecause this is equivalent to the amount of rentals, damages and costs stated in the judgment and this is therentals of *",. a month from + April +;;: until the date of the judgment. (hua v A, !&0 $%A 9#: -+s7iv., +;;&).

EBII. S1@CI8 CIBI8 CTIONS

Juo warranto

Q0 Relator

A' %ule 00 $ec. #8oreclosure of real estate mortgage

Q. ortgagee eAtra#udcally foreclosed a real estate "ortgage $dded for and purchased the property atthe aucton sale and o$taned a new TCT n hs na"e after the lapse of one year fro" the regstraton ofthe certfcate of sale whch was ssued to h" at the foreclosure sale. ortgagor now $rngs an acton toannul the eAtra#udcal sale and to cancel the "ortgagee>s new TCT on the followng grounds0

a.) hat the notice of sale was not posted at the place where the mortgaged property was locatedF

b.) hat no personal notice of the e6trajudicial foreclosure was furnished the mortgagorF andc.) hat the purchase price was grossly inadequate.

Q. Is the plantff>s co"plant well2grounded% &+3() *+,,, dter" EIE

A.


39/42

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW



for the property owner to effect the redemption or sell his right to redeem and thus recover his loss. ($ee Abrinavs. *


40/42

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW



e!ery day of delay as da"ages untl he fnally !acates the pre"ses plus 1+34333 atty>s fees. Is thedecson o$#ectona$le n any way% &+3()

A. 1es. he award of *" a day for damages cannot properly be made in an unlawful detainer action

where the only damages recoverable are those which are caused by the loss of the use and occupation of theproperty and not such damages as may be recovered only by the plaintiff if he were the owner and he cannot bedeclared as such in an unlawful detainer action. he award of atty2s fees is proper. -$ee %eyes v. AF #& $%A+#& (+;:+)

Q. ay a person not n possesson of the pre"ses $rng an acton for unlawful detaner of thesepre"ses% &'()

A. 1es, as where the action is brought by a vendee or other person against whom the possession isunlawfully withheld after the e6piration of termination of the right to hold possession. -$ee *angilinan v. Aguilar9# $%A +#0 (+;:!)

Q. Can the TC ssue a wrt of prel"nary "andatory n#uncton n an acton of unlawful detaner% &'()

A. s "oton forreconsderaton and the denal order was ser!ed on D on 3+ Septe"$er +,,'. The neAt day4 3; Septe"$e+,,'4 D fled hs notce of appeal to the RTC fro" the TC e#ect"ent decson.

(a) Bow should the % resolve the appealR (+;;0 idterm =6am ID)

A. he % should dismiss the appeal. DDDDD (illegible)


40


41/42

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW



(b) $uppose the had motu proprio and without any hearing, dismissed *2s ejectment complaint for lack ofjurisdiction, and that it was * instead who had timely appealed this dismissal order to the %, how should the% resolve *2s appealR (+;;0 idterm =6am Da)

A. It may upon appellate review of the dismissal order affirm or reverse it but in case of reversal the case shall beremanded for further proceedings (%ule 9, $ec. +).

Q. cton n the TC for unlawful detaner. 1lantff rests hs rght to possesson of the property ndspute upon hs cla" of ownershp4 whch cla" n turn s $ased on a purported contract of sale wthrght to repurchase ad"ttedly eAecuted $y defendant $ut cla"ed $y h" to $e a "ere s"ulaton to cloa6a "ortgage o$lgaton tanted wth usury. If ths contract was really a sale su$#ect to repurchase and therepurchase as4 as alleged $y plantff4 not $een "ade wthn the t"e stpulated4 plantff would already $ethe owner of the property sold and4 as such4 enttled to ts possesson. On the other hand4 f the contractwas4 as defendants cla"4 n realty a "ere "ortgage4 then the defendants would stll $e a the owner ofthe property and could not4 therefore4 $e regarded as "ere lessees. fter tral4 the TC ds"ssed thecase for lac6 of #ursdcton on the ground that the case n!ol!es a Hueston of ownershp. Is theds"ssal correct% &+,,< dter" @Aa" IE)

Q. On 3+ prl +,,,4 1 fled n the TC an acton for forc$le entry aganst D allegng that on +' arch+,,,4 he purchased ths parcel $ut that on ;3 arch +,,, $ut that on ;3 arch +,,, he found out that Dtoo6 possesson of ths parcel under the preteAt that he s the owner thereof and that D refused tosurrender possesson of the land despte de"ands. D fled hs answer denyng the "ateral allegatons ofthe co"plant and4 $y way of specal and affr"at!e defenses4 a!erred that the TC has no #ursdctono!er the su$#ect "atter of the acton $ecause t s not for forc$le entry $ut an accon pu$lcana and thatthe deed of sale under whch 1 cla"s ownershp s a forgery. Does TC ha!e #ursdcton o!er the case%&+3() *+,,, dter" EE

A. s fa!or orderng the defendant to!acate the pre"ses and to pay rentals n arrears. Defendant duly appealed fro" ths #udg"ent to theRTC $ut upon hs falure to depost the reHuste supersedeas $ond wth the TC4 the TC ssued a wrtof eAecuton orderng the eAecuton of the appealed #udg"ent wth respect to the restoraton ofpossesson. 7as the wrt of eAecuton !aldly ssued% *+,,, U1 :arops IE

A.


42/42

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW



A. otion granted. he defendant violated $ection #(b) of %ule :+ when, after being ousted from the property inlitigation and the plaintiff being lawfully placed in possession, he re/enters the property and forcibly took overpossession.

42

Baltik Sample Exams Reviewercopy Civil Procedure

Documents

Transcript of Baltik Sample Exams Reviewercopy Civil Procedure