Rem Suggested Answers (1997-2006), Cracked, Word

7/26/2019 Rem Suggested Answers (1997-2006), Cracked, Word

1/387

ANSWERS TO BARRemedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006)by: [email protected] Page 1 of 66

EXAMINATION QUESTIONS

IN

REMEDIAL LAWARRANGED BY TOPIC(1997 2006)

Edited and Arranged by:

version 1987-2003Silliman UniversityCollege of Law Batch2005

UPDATED BY:

Dondee

The RE-Take 2007

From he A!"#ER" T$ BAR E%A&'!AT'$!

(UE"T'$!" )* he UP +A# ,$&P+E% Phi.i//ine +a"hoo.s Assoiaion 200

4.* 225 2007


2/387


3/387

Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006


4/387

)


5/387

by


6/387

: [email protected]


7/387

Page


8/387

2


9/387

of


10/387

66


11/387

F$R#ARD

This work is not intended for sale or commerce. This work isfreeware. It may be freely copied and distributed. It is primarily

intended for all those who desire to have a deeper understanding ofthe issues touched by the Philippine Bar Eaminations and its trend.It is specially intended for law students from the provinces who!very often! are recipients of deliberately distorted notes from otherunscrupulous law schools and students. "hare to others this workand you will be richly rewarded by #od in heaven. It is also verygood karma.

$e would like to seek the indulgence of the reader for some Bar%uestions which are improperly classified under a topic and forsome topics which are improperly or ignorantly phrased! for theauthors are &ust Bar 'eviewees who have prepared this work while

reviewing for the Bar Eams under time constraints and within theirlimited knowledge of the law. $e would like to seek the reader(sindulgence for a lot of typographical errors in this work.

The Authors)uly *+! *,,-

pdated by /ondee)uly **! *,,0


12/387


13/387



14/387

)


15/387

by


16/387

: [email protected]


17/387

Page


18/387

3


19/387

of


20/387

66


21/387

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GENERAL PRINCIPLES........................................................................................................................................ 8

Bar by Prior Judgment vs. Conclusiveness of Judgment (1997) .............................................................................. 8Cause of action vs. Action (1997) ............................................................................................................................ 8Civil Actions vs. Secial Proceedings (199!) ........................................................................................................... 8Conciliation Proceedings" #atarungang Pambarangay vs. Pre$%rial Conference (1999) ........................................... 8

&amily Courts Act ('1) ......................................................................................................................................... 8nterlocutory *rder ('+) ....................................................................................................................................... 8Judgment vs. *inion of t,e Court ('+)................................................................................................................ 8Judicial Autonomy - martiality (') .................................................................................................................. 8#atarungang Pambarangay" *b/ective (1999) .......................................................................................................... 90iberal Construction" ules of Court (199!)............................................................................................................. 9emedial 0a2 in P,il. System of 3ov4t ('+) .......................................................................................................... 9emedial 0a2 vs. Substantive 0a2 ('+) ............................................................................................................... 9emedial 0a2" Concet ('+) ................................................................................................................................ 9ig,ts of t,e Accused" 5alidity" 65 %est (') ...................................................................................................... 9

JURISDICTION....................................................................................................................................................... 10

Jurisdiction (1997)................................................................................................................................................. 10

Jurisdiction vs. 5enue ('+)................................................................................................................................. 10Jurisdiction" C%A 8ivision vs. C%A n Banc ('+) ............................................................................................... 10Jurisdiction" ncaable of Pecuniary stimation (').......................................................................................... 10Jurisdiction" ncaable of Pecuniary stimation (') .......................................................................................... 11Jurisdiction" ncaable of Pecuniary stimation (') .......................................................................................... 11Jurisdiction" :%C ('')........................................................................................................................................ 11Jurisdiction" *ffice of t,e Solicitor 3eneral ('+)................................................................................................. 11Jurisdiction" *mbudsman Case 8ecisions ('+).................................................................................................. 12Jurisdiction" Probate ('1)................................................................................................................................... 12Jurisdiction" %C ('') ........................................................................................................................................ 12Jurisdiction" Subdivision 6omeo2ner ('+)......................................................................................................... 12#atarungang Pambarangay" 0uon" ;tent of Aut,ority" ('1)............................................................................ 13

CIVIL PROCEDURE .............................................................................................................................................. 13

Actions" Cause of Action vs. Action (1999) ............................................................................................................ 13Actions" Cause of Action" Joinder - Slitting (199!)............................................................................................. 13Actions" Cause of Action" Joinder of Action (1999)................................................................................................ 13Actions" Cause of Action" Joinder of Action (')................................................................................................ 13Actions" Cause of Action" Slitting (1999) ............................................................................................................. 14Actions" Cause of Action" Slitting (') ............................................................................................................. 14Actions" Cause of Actions" :otion to 8ismiss" bar by rior /udgment ('') .........................................................14Actions" Counterclaim ('') ................................................................................................................................14Actions" Counterclaim vs. Crossclaim (1999).........................................................................................................15Actions" Cross$Claims" %,ird Party Claims (1997) .................................................................................................15Actions" 8erivative Suit vs. Class Suit (').........................................................................................................16Actions" &iling" Civil Actions - Criminal Action (')...........................................................................................

16Actions" ntervention" e


22/387


23/387



24/387

)


25/387

by


26/387

: [email protected]


27/387

Page


28/387

4


29/387

of


30/387

66


31/387

8efault" emedies" Party 8eclared in 8efault ('+) .............................................................................................. 198efault" emedies" Substantial Comliance (')................................................................................................ 208emurrer to vidence ('1) ................................................................................................................................. 208emurrer to vidence" Civil Case vs. Criminal Case (').................................................................................... 208iscovery" :odes of 8iscovery (')................................................................................................................... 208iscovery" :odes" Suboena 8uces %ecum (1997) ............................................................................................... 218iscovery" Production and nsection of 8ocuments ('').................................................................................. 218ismissal" :otion to 8ismiss" es Judicata (')................................................................................................ 21vidence" Admissibility" P,otocoies (') ......................................................................................................... 22&orum S,oing" 8efinition ('+) ........................................................................................................................ 22&orum S,oing" ffects" 0ac> of Certification ('+) ...........................................................................................223en. Princiles" ?uestions of 0a2 vs. ?uestions of &act ('=) ............................................................................ 22Judgment" Annulment of Judgment" 3rounds (199!)............................................................................................. 22Judgment" nforcement" $year eriod (1997) ....................................................................................................... 22Judgment" nforcement" &oreign Judgment (') ............................................................................................... 22Judgment" ;ecution ending Aeal ('')......................................................................................................... 23Judgment" nterlocutory *rder" Partial Summary Judgments ('=) ......................................................................23Judgment" Judgment on t,e Pleadings (1999) ....................................................................................................... 23Judgment" Judgment on t,e Pleadings (') ....................................................................................................... 24Judgment" :andamus vs. ?uo @arranto ('1)..................................................................................................... 24Judgment" Soundness" Attac,ment ('') ............................................................................................................ 24Judgments" nforcement" ;amination of 8efendant ('').................................................................................. 24

Jurisdiction" 6abeas Corus" Custody of :inors (') ........................................................................................ 25Jurisdiction" 0ac> of Jurisdiction" Proer Action of t,e Court ('=) .....................................................................25Parties" 8eat, of a Party" ffect (199!) .................................................................................................................. 25Parties" 8eat, of a Party" ffect (1999) .................................................................................................................. 25Parties" 8eat, of a Party" ffect (1999) .................................................................................................................. 26Parties" %,ird Party Claim (') ........................................................................................................................... 26Parties" %,ird$Party Claim (') ........................................................................................................................... 26Petition for Certiorari (') .................................................................................................................................. 26Petition for elief - Action for Annulment ('')................................................................................................... 27Petition for elief" n/unction ('')....................................................................................................................... 27Pleadings" Amendment of Comlaint" By 0eave of Court (') ............................................................................ 27Pleadings" Amendment of Comlaint" By 0eave of Court" Prescritive Period (')............................................. 27Pleadings" Amendment of Comlaint" :atter of ig,t (') ................................................................................. 28

Pleadings" Amendment of Comlaint" %o Conform 2 vidence ('=) .................................................................. 28Pleadings" Ans2er" 8efense" Secific 8enial ('=) .............................................................................................. 28Pleadings" Certification Against &orum S,oing (') ....................................................................................... 29Pleadings" Counterclaim against t,e Counsel of t,e Plaintiff ('=) ...................................................................... 29Pleadings" :otions" Bill of Particulars (')......................................................................................................... 29Pleadings" ely" ffect of on$&iling of ely (') ........................................................................................... 29Pre/udicial ?uestion" /ectment vs. Secific Performance (') .......................................................................... 30Pre$%rial" e


32/387


33/387



34/387

)


35/387

by


36/387

: [email protected]


37/387

Page


38/387

5


39/387

of


40/387

66


41/387

Provisional emedies" %* vs. Status ?uo *rder ('+)


42/387

....................................................................................... 33


43/387

Provisional emedies" %*" CA Justice 8et. ('+)


44/387

............................................................................................. 33


45/387

Provisional emedies" %*" 8uration ('+)


46/387

......................................................................................................... 33


47/387

eglementary Period" Sulemental Pleadings (')


48/387

........................................................................................... 33


49/387

emedies" Aeal to SC" Aeals to CA ('')


50/387

..................................................................................................... 33


51/387

emedies" Aeal" %C to CA (1999)


52/387

..................................................................................................................... 33


53/387

emedies" Aeal" ule = vs. ule + (1999)


54/387

....................................................................................................... 34


55/387

emedies" 5oid 8ecision" Proer emedy ('=)


56/387

.................................................................................................. 34


57/387

Secial Civil Action" /ectment (1997)


58/387

................................................................................................................... 35


59/387

Secial Civil Action" /ectment (199!)


60/387

................................................................................................................... 35


61/387

Secial Civil Action" &oreclosure (')


62/387

................................................................................................................ 35


63/387

Secial Civil Action" Petition for Certiorari ('')


64/387

.................................................................................................. 35


65/387

Secial Civil Action" ?uo @arranto ('1)


66/387

............................................................................................................. 36


67/387

Secial Civil Actions" :andamus ('+)


68/387

................................................................................................................ 36


69/387

Summons


70/387

.............................................................................................................................................................. 36


71/387

Summons (1999)


72/387

................................................................................................................................................... 37


73/387

Summons" Substituted Service ('=)


74/387

................................................................................................................... 37


75/387

Summons" 5alidity of Service" ffects ('+)


76/387

......................................................................................................... 37


77/387

5enue" mroer 5enue" Comulsory Counterclaim (199!)


78/387

.................................................................................... 38


79/387

5enue" Personal Actions (1997)


80/387

............................................................................................................................. 38


81/387

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.................................................................................................................................... 38

Ac


82/387


83/387



84/387

)


85/387

by


86/387

: [email protected]


87/387

Page


88/387

6


89/387

of


90/387

66


91/387

Jurisdiction" &inality of a Judgment (')


92/387

............................................................................................................ 47


93/387

Parties" Prosecution of *ffenses (')


94/387

................................................................................................................. 47


95/387

Plea of 3uilty" to a 0esser *ffense ('')


96/387

.............................................................................................................. 47


97/387

Pre/udicial ?uestion (1999)


98/387

.................................................................................................................................... 47


99/387

Pre/udicial ?uestion (')


100/387

.................................................................................................................................... 47


101/387

Pre/udicial ?uestion" Susension of Criminal Action (1999)


102/387

.................................................................................. 48


103/387

Pre$%rial Agreement ('=)


104/387

.................................................................................................................................... 48


105/387

Pre$%rial" Criminal Case vs. Civil Case (1997)


106/387

........................................................................................................ 48


107/387

Provisional 8ismissal ('')


108/387

................................................................................................................................. 48


109/387

emedies" 5oid Judgment ('=)


110/387

.......................................................................................................................... 48


111/387

Searc, @arrant" :otion to ?uas, (')


112/387

............................................................................................................... 49


113/387

%rial" %rial in Absentia" Automatic evie2 of Conviction (199!)


114/387

............................................................................. 49


115/387

5enue (1997)


116/387

......................................................................................................................................................... 49


117/387

EVIDENCE ................................................................................................................................................................ 50

Admissibility (199!)............................................................................................................................................... 50Admissibility ('')............................................................................................................................................... 50Admissibility ('=)............................................................................................................................................... 50Admissibility" Admission of 3uilt" e %5 (') ......................................................................... 60@itness" ;amination of @itnesses (1997) ............................................................................................................ 60Version 1997-2006 !dated "# Dondee


118/387


119/387



120/387

)


121/387

by


122/387

: [email protected]


123/387

Page


124/387

7


125/387

of


126/387

66


127/387

@itness" ;amination of @itnesses ('')


128/387

............................................................................................................ 60


129/387

@itness" Dtilied as State @itness" Procedure ('+)


130/387

............................................................................................ 60


131/387

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS .................................................................................................................................. 61

Cancellation or Correction" ntries Civil egistry (')........................................................................................ 61sc,eat Proceedings ('') .................................................................................................................................. 61;tra$/udicial Settlement of state (') .............................................................................................................. 616abeas Corus (199) ........................................................................................................................................... 61

6abeas Corus (199!) ........................................................................................................................................... 616abeas Corus (') ........................................................................................................................................... 62ntestate Proceedings ('') ................................................................................................................................. 62ntestate Proceedings" 8ebts of t,e state ('').................................................................................................. 62Judicial Settlement of state (')....................................................................................................................... 62Probate of 0ost @ills (1999)................................................................................................................................... 62Probate of @ill (') ............................................................................................................................................ 63Probate of @ill (') ............................................................................................................................................ 63Probate of @ill ('+) ............................................................................................................................................ 63Probate of @ill" :andatory ature ('') ............................................................................................................... 63Settlement of state ('1).................................................................................................................................... 64Settlement of state" Administrator (199!)............................................................................................................. 645enue" Secial Proceedings (1997)........................................................................................................................ 64

SUMMARY PROCEDURE................................................................................................................................... 65

Pro,ibited Pleadings ('=)................................................................................................................................... 65

MISCELLANEOUS................................................................................................................................................. 65

Administrative Proceedings (') ........................................................................................................................ 65Congress" 0a2 ;roriating Proerty ('+) ....................................................................................................... 65A 19" :andatory Susension ('1) ................................................................................................................ 66


132/387


133/387



134/387

)


135/387

GENERAL PRINCIPLESBar by Prior Judgment vs. Conclusiveness of Judgment(1997)

Distinguish Bar by prior judgment fromconclusiveness of judgmentSUGGESTED ANSWER:

Bar by prior-judgment is the doctrine ofres judicata, which bars a second actionwhen there is identity of parties, subjectmatter and cause of action. (Sec. 49[b] offormer Rule 39; Sec, 47 [b] of newRule 39).

Conclusiveness of judgment precludesthe relitigation of a particular issue inanother action between the same partieson a dierent cause of action. (Sec. 49 [c]of former Rule 39; sec. 47 [c] of new Rule 39).Cause of action vs. Action (1997)

Distinguish Cause of action fromactionSUGGESTED ANSWER:

A CA!" #$ AC%' is an act or

omission of one party in violation of thelegal right or rights of the other (MaaoSugar Central vs. Barrios, 79 Phil. 606; Sec.

2 of new ule 2!, causing damage toanother.An AC%' is an ordinary suit in a courtof (ustice by which one party prosecutesanother for the enforcement or protectionof a right, or the prevention or redress ofa wrong.(Section 1 of former Rule2).

Civil Actions vs. Secial Proceedings (199!)

Distinguish civil actions from specialproceedings. )*+

SUGGESTED ANSWER:A C&& AC%' is one by which a partysues another for the enforcement orprotection of a right, or the prevention orredress of a wrong. (See. 3[a], Rule 1, 1997Rules of i!il "roce#ure), while a !/"C&A/0#C""D&'1 is a remedy by which aparty see2s to establish a status, a rightor a particular fact. (Sec.

3[]. Rule 1,1997 Rules of i!il"roce#ure.)

Conciliation Proceedings" #atarungang Pambarangay vs.Pre$%rial Conference (1999)

3hat is the dierence, if any, between theconciliation proceedings under the4atarungang /ambarangay aw and thenegotiations for an amicable settlementduring the pre-trial conference under the0ules of Court5 67+8SUGGESTED ANSWER:%he dierence between the conciliationproceedings under the 4atarungang/ambarangay aw and the negotiationsfor an amicable settlement during thepre-trial conference under the 0ules ofCourt is that in the former, lawyers areprohibited from appearing for the parties./arties must appear in person only e9ceptminors or incompetents who may be

assisted by their ne9t of 2in who are notlawyers. ($ormerl% Sec. 9,

by: [email protected] Page 8 of 66

".&. 'o. 1*; Sec. 41, +ocal o!ernment o#e

of 1991, R.-. 71.) 'o such prohibitione9ists in the pre-trial negotiations underthe 0ules of Court.&amily Courts Act ('1)

a8 :ow should the records of child andfamily cases in the $amily Courts or 0%C

designated by the !upreme Court tohandle $amily Court cases be treated anddealt with5 6*+8 b8 nder whatconditions may the identity of parties inchild and family cases be divulged 67+8SUGGESTED ANSWER:a8 %he records of child and family casesin the $amily Code to handle $amilyCourt cases shall be dealt with utmostcon;dentiality. (Sec. 12, $amil% ourts -ct of1997)b8 %he identity of parties in child andfamily cases shall not be divulged unlessnecessary and with authority of the judge.(/#.)nterlocutory *rder ('+)

3hat is an interlocutory order567+8SUGGESTED ANSWER:

An interlocutory order refers to an orderissued between the commencement andthe end of the suit which is not a ;naldecision of the whole controversy andleaves something more to be done on itsmerits

("allar#o et al. v. Peo$le, ".. %o. &'200,)$ril 2&, 200*; +nvestents +nc. v. Court of)$$eals, ".. %o. 6006, -anuar 27, &9/7cite# in enso Phils, v. 1)C, ".. %o. 7*000,e3. 27, &9/7!.Judgment vs. *inion of t,e Court ('+)

3hat is the dierence between a

judgment and an opinion of the court567.


136/387


137/387



138/387

)


139/387

&n rendering a decision, should a courtta2e into consideration the possible eectof its verdict upon the political stabilityand economic welfare of the nation5 >+SUGGESTED ANSWER:

'o, because a court is re?uired to ta2einto consideration only the legal issuesand the evidence admitted in the case.

%he political stability and economicwelfare of the nation are e9traneous tothe case. %hey can have persuasivein=uence but they are not the mainfactors that should be considered indeciding a case. A decision should bebased on the law, rules of procedure,

justice and e?uity. :owever, ine9ceptional cases the court may considerthe political stability and economicwelfare of the nation when these arecapable of being ta2en into judicial noticeof and are relevant to the case.

#atarungang Pambarangay" *b/ective (1999)

3hat is the object of the4atarungang /ambarangay aw5 67+8SUGGESTED ANSWER:

%he object of the 4atarungang/ambarangay aw is to eect an amicablesettlement of disputes among family andbarangay members at the barangay levelwithout judicial recourse andconse?uently help relieve the courts ofdoc2et congestion. ("reamble of ".&.

'o. 1*, t0e former an# t0e rst atarunan"ambarana% +aw.)

0iberal Construction" ules of Court (199!)

:ow shall the 0ules of Court be construed5 )7+SUGGESTED ANSWER:

%he 0ules of Court should be liberallyconstrued in order to promote theirobjective of securing a just, speedy and

ine9pensive disposition of every actionand proceeding. (Sec. , Rule 1 1997 Rules ofi!il "roce#ure.)

ADDITIONAL ANSWER:

:owever, strict observance of the rules isan imperative necessity when they areconsidered indispensable to theprevention of needless delays and to theorderly and speedy dispatch of (udicialbusiness. ()lvero vs. -u#ge #e la osa, 76Phil. '2/!emedial 0a2 in P,il. System of 3ov4t ('+)

:ow are remedial laws implemented inour system of government5 67+8SUGGESTED ANSWER:

0emedial laws are implemented in our

system of government through the pillarsof the judicial system, including theprosecutory service, our courts of justiceand ?uasi judicial agencies.emedial 0a2 vs. Substantive 0a2 ('+)

Distinguish between substantive law andremedial law. 67+8SUGGESTED ANSWER:

!B!%A'%&" A3 is that part of thelaw which creates, de;nes and regulatesrights concerning life, liberty, or property,or the powers of agencies orinstrumentalities for the administration of

public

by: [email protected] Page 9 of 66 aairs. %his isdistinguished from 0"@"D&A A3 whichprescribes the method of enforcing rights orobtaining redress for their invasion (Bustos v.8ucero,".. %o. 8206/, cto3er 20,

&9'/!.emedial 0a2" Concet ('+)

3hat is the concept of remedial law567+8SUGGESTED ANSWER:%he concept of 0emedial aw lies at the

very core of procedural due process, whichmeans a law which hears before itcondemns, which proceeds upon in?uiryand renders judgment only after trial, andcontemplates an opportunity to be heardbefore judgment is rendered ()l3ert v.:niversit Pu3lishing,".. %o. 8&9&&/, -anuar 0,&96*!.0emedial aw is that branch of law whichprescribes the method of enforcing therights or obtaining redress for theirinvasion (Bustos v. 8ucero, ".. %o.8206/, cto3er 20, &9'/; irst 8e$antoCeraics, +nc. v. C), ".. %o. &&0*7&,March &0, &99'!.

ig,ts of t,e Accused" 5alidity" 65 %est (')nder 0epublic Act 'o. *


140/387


141/387



142/387

)


143/387

law, the result of the testing cannot beconsidered to be the fruit of a poisonous treeand can be oered in evidence to prove the?ualifying circumstance under the informationfor ?uali;ed rape under 0.A. 'o. *< of the HHE 0ules of Civil/rocedure.

Jurisdiction" ncaable of Pecuniary stimation (')

A brings an action in the @%C of @anilaagainst B for the annulment of an

e9trajudicial foreclosure sale of realproperty with an assessed value of/


144/387


145/387



146/387

)


147/387

under the jurisdiction of the 0%Cs.(ussell v. =estil, 0' SC) 7/,F&999D!.

:owever, the action for annulment is apersonal action and the venue dependson the residence of either A or B. :ence,it should be brought in the 0%C of theplace where either of the parties resides.Jurisdiction" ncaable of Pecuniary stimation (')

A ;les an action in the @unicipal %rialCourt against B, the natural son of ALsfather, for the partition of a parcel of landlocated in %aytay, 0iGal with an assessed

value of /7F,FFF.FF. B moves to dismissthe action on the ground that the caseshould have been brought in the 0%Cbecause the action is one that is notcapable of pecuniary estimation as itinvolves primarily a determination ofhereditary rights and not merely the bareright to real property. 0esolve the motion.

67+8

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

%he motion should be granted. %he actionfor partition depends on a determinationof the hereditary rights of A and B, whichis not capable of pecuniary estimation.:ence, even though the assessed value ofthe land is /7F,FFF.FF, the @unicipal %rialCourt has no jurisdiction. (ussell v.=estil, su$ra!

Jurisdiction" ncaable of Pecuniary stimation (')

A ;led with the @%C of @anila an actionfor speci;c performance against B, aresident of MueGon City, to compel thelatter to e9ecute a deed of conveyancecovering a parcel of land situated inMueGon City having an assessed value ofpH,FFF.FF. B received the summons anda copy of the Complaint on F7 (anuary7FF*. #n F (anuary 7FF*, B ;led a@otion to Dismiss the Complaint on theground of lac2 of jurisdiction contendingthat the subject matter of the suit wasincapable of pecuniary estimation. %hecourt denied the motion. &n due time, B;led with the 0%C a /etition forCertiorari praying that the said #rder beset aside because the @%C had no

jurisdiction over the case. K+ #n *

$ebruary 7FF*, A ;led with the @%C amotion to declare B in default. %hemotion was opposed by B on the groundthat his /etition for Certiorari was stillpending.

6a8 3as the denial of the @otion toDismiss the Complaint correct56b8 0esolve the @otion to Declare theDefendant in Default.SUGGESTED ANSWER:

6a8 %he denial of the @otion to Dismissthe Complaint was not correct. Althoughthe assessed value of the parcel of landinvolved was /H,FFF.FF, within the

jurisdiction of the @%C of @anila, theaction ;led by A for !peci;c /erformanceagainst B to compel the latter to e9ecute aDeed of Conveyance of said parcel of landwas not capable of pecuniary

by: [email protected] Page 11 of 66estimation and, therefore, the action waswithin the jurisdiction of 0%C. (ussel v.

=estil, 0' SC) 7/ F&999D; Co$ioso v.Co$ioso, ".. %o. &'92', cto3er 2/,2002;Ca3utihan v. 8an#center Construction, /SC) * F2002D!.ALTERNATIE ANSWER:

&f the action aects title to or possessionof real property then it is a real actionand jurisdiction is determined by the

assessed value of the property. &t iswithin the jurisdiction therefore of the@etropolitan %rial Court.SUGGESTED ANSWER:

6b8 %he Court could declare B in defaultbecause B did not obtain a writ ofpreliminary injunction or a temporaryrestraining order from the 0%C prohibitingthe judge from proceeding in the case duringthe pendency of the petition for certiorari.(Sec. 7 of ule 6*; ia v. ia, & SC) 02F2002D.ALTERNATIE ANSWER:%he Court should not declare B in defaultinasmuch as the jurisdiction of @%C was

put in issue in the /etition $or Certiorari;led with the 0%C. %he @%C should deferfurther proceedings pending the result ofsuch petition. (4ternal "ar#ens MeorialParE

Cor$oration v. Court of )$$eals, &6' SC) '2&F&9//D!.Jurisdiction" :%C ('')

/ sued A and B in one complaint in the0%C-@anila, the cause of action against Abeing on an overdue promissory note for/*FF,FFF.FF and that against B being onan alleged balance of /*FF,FFF.FF on thepurchase price of goods sold on credit.Does the 0%C-@anila have jurisdiction

over the case5 "9plain. 6*+8SUGGESTED ANSWER:

'o, the 0%C-@anila has no jurisdictionover the case. A and B could not be joinedas defendants in one complaint becausethe right to relief against both defendantsdo not arise out of the same transaction orseries of transactions and there is nocommon ?uestion of law or fact commonto both. (Rule 3, sec. ). :ence, separatecomplaints will have to be ;les and theywould fall under the jurisdiction of the@etropolitan %rial Court. Flores v.MallarePhili$$s,

&'' SC) 77 (&9/6!D.

Jurisdiction" *ffice of t,e Solicitor 3eneral ('+)

&n HHK, Congress passed 0epublic Act

'o. H, otherwise 2nown as the oterJs0egistration Act of HHK, providing forcomputeriGation of elections. /ursuantthereto, the C#@""C approved the

oterJs 0egistration and &denti;cation!ystem 60&!8 /roject. &t issuedinvitations to pre-?ualify and bid for theproject. After the public bidding, $oto2inawas declared the winning bidder with abid of /K billion and was issued a 'oticeof Award. But C#@""C Chairman 1ener1o objected to the award on the groundthat under the Appropriations Act, thebudget for the C#@""CJs moderniGationis only /


148/387


149/387



150/387

)


151/387

billion. :e announced to the public thatthe 0&! project has been set aside. %woCommissioners sided with Chairman 1o,but the majority voted to uphold thecontract.@eanwhile, $oto2ina ;led with the 0%C apetition for mandamus compel the C#@""Cto implement the contract. %he #ice of the

!olicitor 1eneral 6#!18, representingChairman 1o, opposed the petition on theground that mandamus does not lie toenforce contractual obligations. During theproceedings, the majority Commissioners;led a manifestation that Chairman 1o wasnot authoriGed by the C#@""C "n Banc tooppose the petition.Ma the S" re$resent Chairan "o3efore the 5C notwithstan#ing that his$osition is contrar to that of theaAorit (*H!SUGGESTED ANSWER:Nes, the #!1 may represent the C#@""CChairman before the 0%C notwithstandingthat his position is contrary to that of amajority of the Commission members in theC#@""C because the #!1 is anindependent oiceI itJs hands are notshac2led to the cause of its client agency.%he primordial concern of the #!1 is to seeto it that the best interest of the governmentis upheld (CM484C

v. IuanoPa#illa, Se$te3er &/,2002!.Jurisdiction" *mbudsman Case 8ecisions ('+)

Does the Court of Appeals havejurisdiction to review the Decisions incriminal and administrative cases of the#mbudsman5 67.*(8anting v. 3u#san, ".. %o. &'&'26,Ma 6, 200*; a3ian v. esierto, ".. %o.&297'2, Se$te3er &6, &99/; Sec. &', ).6770!.Jurisdiction" Probate ('1)

(osefa ;led in the @unicipal Circuit %rialCourt of Alicia and @abini, a petition forthe probate of the will of her husband,@artin, who died in the @unicipality of

Alicia, the residence of the spouses. %he

probable value of the estate whichconsisted mainly of a house and lot wasplaced at /H


152/387


153/387



154/387

)


155/387

#atarungang Pambarangay" 0uon" ;tent of Aut,ority"('1)

An amicable settlement was signed beforea upon %agapamayapa on (anuary *,7FF. #n (uly K, 7FF, the prevailing partyas2ed the upon to e9ecute the amicablesettlement because of the non-complianceby the other party of the terms of the

agreement. %he upon concerned refusedto e9ecute the settlementagreement. a8 &sthe upon correct in refusing to e9ecutethe

settlementagreement5 6*+8 b8 3hatshould be the course of action of the

prevailing party in such a case567+8SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a8 Nes, the upon is correct in refusing toe9ecute the settlementagreementbecause the e9ecution sought is alreadybeyond the period of si9 months from thedate of the settlement within which theupon is authoriGed to e9ecute. (Sec. 417,+ocal o!ernment o#e of

1991)

b8 After the si9-month period, theprevailing party should move to e9ecutethe settlementagreement in theappropriate city or municipal trial court.6&d.8CIVIL PROCEDURE

Actions" Cause of Action vs. Action (1999)

Distinguish action from cause of action.67+8SUGGESTED ANSWER:

An AC%' is one by which a party suesanother for the enforcement orprotection of a right, or the prevention orredress of a wrong. (Sec. 3(-), Rule )

A CA!" #$ AC%' is the act oromission by which a party violates a rightof another. (Sec. 2, Rule 2 of t0e 1997 Rules)

)n action ust 3e 3ase# on a cause ofaction. (Sec. 1, Rule 2 of t0e 1997 Rules)Actions" Cause of Action" Joinder - Slitting (199!)

1ive the eects of the followingO1 !plitting a single cause of actionO and

6*+Q

2 'on-joinder of a necessary party. )7+SUGGESTED ANSWER:

. %he eect of splitting a single cause ofaction is found in the rule as followsO &ftwo or more suits are instituted on the

basis of the same cause of action, the;ling of one or a judgment on the meritsin any one is available as a ground for thedismissal of the others. (Sec. 4 of Rule 2)7. %he eect of the non-joinder of anecessary party may be stated as followsO%he court may order the inclusion of anomitted necessary party if jurisdictionover his person may be obtained. %hefailure to comply with the order for hisinclusion without justi;able cause to awaiver of the claim against such party.%he court may proceed with the actionbut the judgment rendered shall bewithout

by: [email protected] Page 13 of 66prejudice to the rights of each necessaryparty. (Sec. 9 of Rule 3)

Actions" Cause of Action" Joinder of Action (1999)

a8 3hat is the rule on joinder ofcauses of action5 67+8b8 A secured two loans from B5 onefor /


156/387


157/387



158/387

)


159/387

&t was not proper for 0ic2y to join hiscauses of action against /erry in hiscomplaint for partition against /erry and@arvin. %he causes of action may bebetween the same parties, 0ic2y and/erry, with respect to the loan but notwith respect to the partition whichincludes @arvin. %he joinder is between a

partition and a sum of money, but/A0%&%' is a special civil action under0ule KH, which cannot be joined withother causes of action. (See. [b], Rule 2,)

Also, the causes of action pertain todierent venues and jurisdictions. %hecase for a sum of money pertains to themunicipal court and cannot be ;led in/asay City because the plainti is from@anila while 0ic2y and @arvin are fromBatangas

it%. (Sec. , Rule 2,)

Actions" Cause of Action" Slitting (1999)

a8 3hat is the rule against splitting acause of action and its eect on therespective rights of the parties for failureto comply with the same5 67+8

b8 A purchased a lot from B for/l,


160/387


161/387



162/387

)


163/387

%he plainti sued the defendant in the0%C for damages allegedly caused by thelatterLs encroachment on the plaintiLs lot.&n his answer, the defendant denied theplaintiLs claim and alleged that it was theplainti who in fact had encroached on his6defendantLs8 land. Accordingly, thedefendant counterclaimed against the

plainti for damages resulting from thealleged encroachment on his lot. %heplainti ;led an e9 parte motion fore9tension of time to answer thedefendantLs counterclaim, but the courtdenied the motion on the ground that itshould have been set for hearing. #n thedefendantLs motion, therefore, the courtdeclared the plainti in default on thecounterclaim. 3as the plainti validlydeclared in default5 3hy5 6FF,FFF.FF from A.%he promissory note was e9ecuted by Band C in a (oint and several capacity. B,who received the money from A, gave C/7FF,FFF.FF. C, in turn, loaned/FF,FFF.FF out of the /7FF,FFF.FF hereceived to D. a8 &n an action ;led by Aagainst B and C with the

0%C of MueGon City, can B ;le a cross-claim against C for the amount of/7FF,FFF.FF5 b8 Can C ;le a third partycomplaint against D for the amount of /FF,FFF.FF5SUGGESTED ANSWER:

6a8 Nes. B can ;le a cross-claim against Cfor the amount of 7FF,FFF.FF given to C.

A cross-claim is a claim ;led by one partyagainst a co-party arising out of thetransaction or occurrence that is thesubject matter of the original action or a

counterclaim therein and may include aclaim that the party against whom it isasserted is or may be liable to the cross-claimant for all or part of a claimasserted against the cross-claimant. (Sec.* Rule )

6b8 'o, C cannot ;le a third-partycomplaint against D because the loan of/FF,FFF has no connection with theopponentJs claim. C could have loanedthe money out of other funds in hispossession.

ALTERNATIE ANSWER:

Nes, C can ;le a third-party complaintagainst D because the loan of FF,FFF.FFwas ta2en out of the /7FF,FFF receivedfrom B and hence the loan see2s


164/387


165/387



166/387

)


167/387

contribution in respect to his opponentJsclaim. (Sec. 11 of Rule )

Actions" 8erivative Suit vs. Class Suit (')

Distinguish a derivative suit from a classsuit.SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A D"0&A%&" !&% is a suit in e?uitythat is ;led by a minority shareholder inbehalf of a corporation to redress wrongscommitted against it, for which thedirectors refuse to sue, the real party ininterest being the corporation itself (8intv. 8iLu, ".+8 %o. &/', e3ruar &9,

200&!, while a CA!! !&% is ;ledregarding a controversy of common orgeneral interest in behalf of many personsso numerous that it is impracticable to

join all as parties, a number which thecourt ;nds suiciently representative whomay sue or defend for the bene;t of all.(Sec. 12, Rule 3) &t is worth noting that a

derivative suit is a representative suit,just li2e a class suit.

Actions" &iling" Civil Actions - Criminal Action (')

3hile cruising on a highway, a ta9icabdriven by @ans hit an electric post. As aresult thereof, its passenger, (ovy,suered serious injuries. @ans wassubse?uently charged before the@unicipal %rial Court with rec2lessimprudence resulting in serious physicalinjuries.%hereafter, (ovy ;led a civil action againstourdes, the owner of the ta9icab, forbreach of contract, and @ans for ?uasi-delict. ourdes and @ans ;led a motion todismiss the civil action on the ground oflitis pendentia, that is, the pendency of

the civil action impliedly instituted in thecriminal action for rec2less imprudenceresulting in serious physical injuries.0esolve the motion with reasons. 6>+8

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

%he motion to dismiss should be denied.%he action for breach of contract againstthe ta9icab owner cannot be barred bythe criminal action against the ta9icabdriver, although the ta9icab owner can beheld subsidiarily liable in the criminalcase, if the driver is insolvent. #n theother hand, the civil action for ?uasi-delict against the driver is anindependent civil action under Article **

of the Civil Code and !ec. *, 0ule ofthe 0ules of Court, which can be ;ledseparately and can proceedindependently of the criminal action andregardless of the result of the latter.(Sason v. awa, ".. %os. &600*'**, -ul2&,

200'!

Actions" ntervention" e


168/387

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1 'o. nder !ec. 7F, 0ule *, HHE0ules of Civil /rocedure, when theaction is for recovery of moneyarising from contract, e9press orimplied, and the defendant dies

before entry of ;nal judgment inthe court in which the action ispending at the time of such death,it shall not be dismissed but shallinstead be allowed to continue untilentry of ;nal judgment. A favorable

judgment obtained by the plaintishall be enforced in the mannerespecially provided in the 0ules forprosecuting claims against theestate of a deceased person.

2 Nes, my answer is the same. An

action to recover real property inany event survives the death of thedefendant. 6!ec. , 0ule E, 0ulesof Court8. :owever, a favorable

judgment may be enforced


169/387


170/387



171/387

)


172/387

in accordance with !ec. E6b8 0ule *H6HHE 0ules of Civil /rocedure8against the e9ecutor or administratoror successor in interest of thedeceased.

Aeals" Period of Aeal" &res, Period ule (')

Defendant R received an adverse Decisionof the 0%C in an ordinary civil case on F7

(anuary 7FF*. :e ;led a 'otice of Appealon F (anuary 7FF*. #n the other hand,plainti A received the same Decision onFK (anuary 7FF* and, on H (anuary 7FF*,;led a @otion for 0econsideration of theDecision. #n * (anuary 7FF*, defendant R;led a @otion withdrawing his notice ofappeal in order to ;le a @otion for 'ew%rial which he attached. #n 7F (anuary7FF*, the court denied ALs @otion for0econsideration and RLs @otion to3ithdraw 'otice of Appeal. /lainti Areceived the #rder denying his @otion for

0econsideration on F* $ebruary 7FF* and;led his 'otice of Appeal on F< $ebruary7FF*. %he court denied due course to ALs'otice of Appeal on the ground that heperiod to appeal had already lapsed. K+

6a8 &s the courtLs denial of RLs @otion to3ithdraw 'otice of Appeal proper56b8 &s the courtLs denial of due course to

ALs appeal correct5SUGGESTED ANSWER:

6a8 'o, the courtLs denial of RLs @otion to3ithdraw 'otice of Appeal is not proper,because the period of appeal of R has not

yet e9pired. $rom (anuary 7, 7FF* whenR received a copy of the adverse decisionup to (anuary *, 7FF* when he ;led his

withdrawal of appeal and @otion for 'ew%rial, only ten 6F8 days had elapsed andhe had ;fteen 6< of the 0ules of Courtwhich allows appeal from judgment, ;nalorder of resolution of the Court of

Appeals, !andiganbayan, the 0%C orother courts whenever authoriGed by lawto the !upreme Court by veri;ed petitionfor review raising only ?uestions of lawdistinctly set forth.2. )s a s$ecial civil action fro theegional 5rial Court or the Court of

)$$eals to the Su$ree Court. (2.*H!SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Certiorari as a !pecial Civil Action isgoverned by 0ule K< of the 0ules of Courtwhen an aggrieved party may ;le a

veri;ed petition against a decision, ;nalorder or resolution of a tribunal, body orboard that has acted without or in e9cessof its jurisdiction or grave abuse ofdiscretion amounting to lac2 or e9cess of

jurisdiction, when there is no appeal orany other plain, speedy and ade?uateremedy in the ordinary course of law.. )s a o#e of review of the

#ecisions of the %ational 8a3orelations Coission an# theConstitutional Coissions. (2.*H!SUGGESTED ANSWER:Certiorari as a mode of review of thedecision of the '0C is elevated to theCourt of Appeals under 0ule K


173/387


174/387



175/387

)


176/387

to the !upreme Court from the Courtof Appeals, !andiganbayan and the0%C under 0ule>, >7, >* and >< ofthe 0ules of Court instead of ;ling apetition for certiorari under 0ule K. there must be between the twocases identity of parties, identity ofsubject matter, and identity of causesof action. (San iego v.Car#ona, 70 Phil, 2/&

F&9'0D!vidence" Admissibility" P,otocoies (')

&f the photocopies of oicial receipts andphotocopies of aidavits were attached to

the position paper submitted by plainti inan action for unlawful detainer ;led with@unicipal %rial Court on which basis thecourt rendered judgment in favor ofplainti5 "9plain. 67+8SUGGESTED ANSWER:%he claim of defendant is valid, becausealthough summary procedure re?uiresmerely the submission of position papers,the evidence submitted with the positionpaper must be admissible in evidence.(Sec. 9 of t0e Re!ise# Rule on Summar%

"roce#ure)./hotocopies of oicial receiptsand aidavits are not admissible without

proof of loss of the originals.(Sec. 3 of Rule

13)

&orum S,oing" 8efinition ('+)

3hat is forum shopping5 67.ice of the 3u#san, "..%o. &'990, )$ril 27, 2000; Lulienco v. C),".. %o. &&692, -une &0,&999; Che$hil4$ort N +$ort Cor$. v. C), ".. %os.&&2'/9, ece3er &2, &99*!.&orum S,oing" ffects" 0ac@ of Certification ('+)

:oney ;led with the 0egional %rial Court,%aal, Batangas a complaint for speci;c

performance against Bernie. $or lac2 ofcerti;cation against forum shopping, thejudge dismissed the complaint. :oneyJslawyer ;led a motion for reconsideration,attaching thereto an amended complaintwith the certi;cation against forumshopping. &f you were the judge, how will

you resolve the motion5 6> of the 'ew Civil Code,an action upon a judgment must bebrought within F years from the time the

right of action accrues. &s this provisionapplicable to an action ;led in the/hilippines to enforce a foreign judgment5"9plain. 6F+8ALTERNATIE ANSWER:

Article >> of the Civil Code whichre?uires that an action upon a judgment6though without distinction8 must bebrought within F years from the time theright of action accrues, does not apply toan action ;led in the /hilippines toenforce a foreign judgment. 3hile we cansay that where the law does notdistinguish, we should not distinguish,

still the law does not evidentlycontemplate the inclusion of

Version 1997-2006 !dated "# Dondee


196/387


197/387



198/387

)


199/387

foreign judgments. A local judgment maybe enforced by motion within ;ve yearsand by action within the ne9t ;ve years.(Rule 39)%hat is not the case with respectto foreign judgments which cannot beenforced by mere motion.ALTERNATIE ANSWER:

Article >> of the Civil Code re?uiresthat an action upon a judgment 6though

without distinction8 must be broughtwithin F years from the time the right ofaction accrues. %here seems no cogentreason to e9clude foreign judgments fromthe operation of this rule, subject to there?uirements of 0ule *H, !ec. > of the0ules of Court which establishes certainre?uisites for proving the foreign

judgment. /ursuant to these provisions,an action for the enforcement of theforeign judgment may be brought at anytime within F years from the time theright of action accrues.

Judgment" ;ecution ending Aeal ('')

%he trial court rendered judgment

ordering the defendant to pay the plaintimoral and e9emplary damages. %hejudgment was served on the plainti on#ctober , 7FF and on the defendant on#ctober


200/387


201/387



202/387

)


203/387

alleged in the complaint must always beproved.(Sec. 1 of Rule 34.)

ANOT!ER ANSWER:

c. 'o. %he court shall order the prosecutorto investigate whether or not a collusionbetween the parties e9ists, and if there is nocollusion, to intervene for the !tate in orderto see to it that the evidence submitted isnot fabricated. (Sec. 3[], Rule 9) "vidence

must have to be presented in accordancewith the re?uirements set down by the!upreme Court ine$u3lic vs. Court of )$$eals an# Molina(26/ SC) &9/.!

Judgment" Judgment on t,e Pleadings (')

&n a complaint for recovery of realproperty, the plainti averred, amongothers, that he is the owner of the saidproperty by virtue of a deed of salee9ecuted by the defendant in his favor.Copy of the deed of sale was appended tothe complaint as Anne9 PAP thereof. &n hisunveri;ed answer, the defendant deniedthe allegation concerning the sale of theproperty in ?uestion, as well as theappended deed of sale, for lac2 of2nowledge or information suicient toform a belief as to the truth thereof. &s itproper for the court to render judgmentwithout trial5 "9plain. 6>+8

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Defendant cannot deny the sale of theproperty for lac2 of 2nowledge orinformation suicient to form a belief as tothe truth thereof. %he answer amounts to anadmission. %he defendant must aver or statepositively how it is that he is ignorant of thefacts alleged. (Phil, )#vertising Counselors,+nc. v. evilla,".. %o. 8&/69, )ugust /, &97; Sec. &0, ule /!@oreover, the genuineness and due

e9ecution of the deed of sale can only bedenied by the defendant under oath andfailure to do so is also an admission of thedeed. (Sec. *, Rule *):ence, a judgment onthe pleadings can be rendered by thecourt without need of a trial.Judgment" :andamus vs. uo arranto ('1)

/etitioner $abian was appointed "lection0egistrar of the @unicipality of !evillasupposedly to replace the respondent"lection 0egistrar /ablo who wastransferred to another municipalitywithout his consent and who refused to

accept his aforesaid transfer, much less tovacate his position in Bogo town aselection registrar, as in fact he continuedto occupy his aforesaid position ande9ercise his functions thereto. /etitioner$abian then ;led a petition for mandamusagainst /ablo but the trial court dismissed$abianLs petition contending that ?uowarranto is the proper remedy. &s thecourt correct in its ruling5 3hy5 6


204/387


205/387



206/387

)


207/387

A. After the judgment had become ;nal, awrit of e9ecution was issued by the court.

As the writ was returned unsatis;ed, theplainti ;led a motion for an orderre?uiring the defendant to appear beforeit and to be e9amined regarding hisproperty and income. :ow should thecourt resolve the motion5 67+8

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Jurisdiction" 6abeas Corus" Custody of :inors (')

3hile @arietta was in her place of wor2in @a2ati City, her estranged husbandCarlo barged into her house in /arana?ueCity, abducted their si9-year old son,/ercival, and brought the child to hishometown in Baguio City. Despite@ariettaJs pleas, Carlo refused to returntheir child. @arietta, through counsel,;led a petition for habeas corpus againstCarlo in the Court of Appeals in @anila tocompel him to produce their son, beforethe court and for her to regain custody.

!he alleged in the petition that despiteher eorts, she could no longer locate herson.

&n his comment, Carlo alleged that thepetition was erroneously ;led in the Courtof Appeals as the same should have been;led in the $amily Court in Baguio Citywhich, under 0epublic Act 'o. *KH, hase9clusive jurisdiction, over the petition.@arietta replied that under 0ule F7 ofthe 0ules of Court, as amended, thepetition may be ;led in the Court of

Appeals and if granted, the writ of habeascorpus shall be enforceable anywhere inthe /hilippines. 3hose contention iscorrect5 "9plain. 6


208/387


209/387



210/387

)


211/387

1 3hen the claim is not purely personaland is not thereby e9tinguished, theparty should be substituted by his heirsor his e9ecutor or administrator. (Sec. 1,Rule 3)

2 &f the action is for recovery of moneyarising from contract, e9press or

implied, and the defendant dies beforeentry of ;nal judgment in the court inwhich the action was pending at thetime of such death, it shall not bedismissed but shall instead be allowedto continue until entry of ;nal judgment.

A favorable judgment obtained by theplainti shall be enforced in the mannerprovided in the rules for prosecutingclaims against the estate of a deceasedperson. (Sec. 2,

Rule 3)

Parties" 8eat, of a Party" ffect (1999)

3hen A 6buyer8 failed to pay the remainingbalance of the contract price after it

became due and demandable, B 6seller8sued him for collection before the 0%C.After both parties submitted theirrespective evidence, A perished in a planeaccident. Conse?uently, his heirs broughtan action for the settlement of his estateand moved for the dismissal of thecollection suit.

1 3ill you grant the motion5 "9plain.67+8

2 3ill your answer be the same if A diedwhile the case is already on appeal tothe Court of Appeals5 "9plain. 67+8

3 &n the same case, what is the eect if Bdied before the 0%C has rendered

judgment5 67+8

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1 'o, because the action will not bedismissed but shall instead be allowedto continue until entry of ;nal

judgment. 6&d.8

2 'o. &f A died while the case was alreadyon appeal in the Court of Appeals, thecase will continue because there is noentry yet of ;nal judgment. 6&d.8

3 %he eect is the same. %he action willnot be dismissed but will be allowed tocontinue until entry of ;nal judgment.6&d.8


212/387

Parties" %,ird Party Claim (')

(4Ls real property is being attached by thesheri in a civil action for damagesagainst @. (4 claims that he is not aparty to the caseI that his property is notinvolved in said caseI and that he is thesole registered owner of said property.nder the 0ules of Court, what must (4do to prevent the !heri from attachinghis property5 6


213/387


214/387



215/387

)


216/387


217/387


218/387



219/387

)


220/387

Conse?uently, the action of R hasprescribed with respect to the three 6*8legitimate children of N who areindispensable parties.ANOT!ER ALTERNATIE ANSWER:nder Article E< of the $amily Code, theaction must be brought within the lifetimeof R if the action is based on a record ofbirth or an admission of ;liation in a

public document or a private handwritteninstrument signed by N. &n such case, theaction of R has not prescribed.:owever, if the action is based on theopen and continuous possession of thestatus of an illegitimate child, the actionshould have been brought during thelifetime of N. &n such case, the action of Rhas prescribed.Pleadings" Amendment of Comlaint" :atter of ig,t(')

#n @ay 7, 7FF


221/387


222/387



223/387

)


224/387


225/387


226/387



227/387

)


228/387

e9ecuted and signed by R and N twowee2s after the contract of sale wase9ecuted. %he contract of lease wasattached to the answer. R does not ;le areply. 3hat is the eect of the non-;lingof a reply5 "9plain. 6*+8SUGGESTED ANSWER:A reply is generally optional. &f it is not ;led,the new matters alleged in the answer aredeemed controverted. (Sec. 1 of Rule ).:owever, since the contract of leaseattached to the answer is the basis of thedefense, by not ;ling a reply denying underoath the genuineness and due e9ecution ofsaid contract, the plainti is deemed to haveadmitted the genuineness and due e9ecutionthereof. (Secs. 7 an# /ule /; 5ori3io v. Bi#in, &2 SC) &62F&9/*D!.Pre/udicial uestion" /ectment vs. Secific Performance(')

BB ;les a complaint for ejectment in the@%Con the ground of non-payment ofrentals against ((. After two days, (( ;lesin the 0%C a complaint against BB forspeci;c performance to enforce theoption to purchase the parcel of landsubject of the ejectment case. 3hat is theeect of ((Ls action on BBLs complaint5"9plain. 6


229/387


230/387



231/387

)


232/387

dissolve the writ of preliminaryattachment on the following groundsO 6i8the court did not ac?uire jurisdiction overhis person because the writ was servedahead of the summonsI 6ii8 the writ wasimproperly implementedI and 6iii8 saidwrit was improvidently issued because theobligation in ?uestion was already fully

paid. 0esolve the motion with reasons.6>+8

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

%he motion to dismiss and to dissolve thewrit of preliminary attachment should bedenied.68 %he fact that the writ of attachmentwas served ahead of the summons did notaect the jurisdiction of the court over hisperson. &t ma2es the writ, unenforceable.(Sec. , Rule. 7) :owever, all that isneeded to be done is to re-serve the writ.(nate v.

)3rogar, "M. %o. &979, e3ruar 2,&9/*!

678 %he writ was improperly implemented.!erving a notice of garnishment,particularly before summons is served, is

not proper. &t should be a copy of the writof attachment that should be served onthe defendant, and a notice that the ban2deposits are attached pursuant to thewrit. (Sec. 7[#], Rule 7)6*8 %he writ was improvidently issued ifindeed it can be shown that the obligationwas already fully paid. %he writ is onlyancillary to the main action. (Sec. 13, Rule7)%he alleged payment of the accountcannot, serve as a ground for resolvingthe improvident issuance of the writ,because this matter delves into the meritsof the case, and re?uires full-blown trial.

/ayment, however, serves as a ground fora motion to dismiss.Provisional emedies" Attac,ment vs. 3arnis,ment(1999)

Distinguish attachment from garnishment.67+8SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Attachment and garnishment aredistinguished from each other as followsO

A%%AC:@"'% is a provisional remedythat eects a levy on property of a partyas security for the satisfaction of any

judgment that may be recovered, while1A0'&!:@"'% is a levy on debts due the

judgment obligor or defendant and other

credits, including ban2 deposits, royaltiesand other personal property not capableof manual delivery under a writ ofe9ecution or a writ of attachment.Provisional emedies" n/unction ('1)

@ay a writ of preliminary injunction beissued e9-parte5 3hy5 6*+8SUGGESTED ANSWER:

'o, a writ of preliminary injunction maynot be issued e9 parte. As provided in the0ules, no preliminary injunction shall begranted without hearing and prior noticeto the party or person sought to beenjoined. (Sec. of Rule *) %he reason isthat a

by: [email protected] Page 31 of 66 preliminaryinjunction may cause grave and irreparableinjury to the party enjoined.

Provisional emedies" n/unction (')

Can a suit for injunction be aptly ;ledwith the !upreme Court to stop the/resident of the /hilippines from enteringinto a peace agreement with the 'ational

Democratic $ront5 6>+8SUGGESTED ANSWER:

'o, a suit for injunction cannot aptly be;led with the !upreme Court to stop the/resident of the /hilippines from enteringinto a peace agreement with the 'ationalDemocratic $ront, which is a purelypolitical ?uestion. (:a#aran !. Santamaria,37 "0il. 34 [1917]). %he /resident of the/hilippines is immune from suit.Provisional emedies" n/unctions" Ancillary emedy vs.:ain Action ('+)

Distinguish between injunction as anancillary remedy and injunction as a

main action. 67.


233/387

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

b. 3hile a ;nal writ of injunction may berendered by judgment after trial,showing applicant to be entitled to thewrit (Sec. 9, Rule * 1997 Rules of i!il

"roce#ure).


234/387


235/387



236/387

)


237/387

Provisional emedies" eceivers,i ('1)

(oa?uin ;led a complaint against (ose forthe foreclosure of a mortgage of afurniture factory with a large number ofmachinery and e?uipment. During thependency of the foreclosure suit, (oa?uinlearned from reliable sources that (ose

was ?uietly and gradually disposing ofsome of his machinery and e?uipment to abusinessman friend who was also engagedin furniture manufacturing such that fromcon;rmed reports (oa?uin gathered, themachinery and e?uipment left with (osewere no longer suicient to answer for thelatterLs mortgage indebtedness. &n themeantime judgment was rendered by thecourt in favor of (oa?uin but the same isnot yet ;nal.

4nowing what (ose has been doing. &f youwere (oa?uinLs lawyer, what action would

you ta2e to preserve whatever remainingmachinery and e?uipment are left with

(ose5 3hy5 6. Beingurgent in nature, the "9ecutive (udge,who was sitting in Branch , upon the;ling of the aforesaid applicationimmediately raed the case in thepresence of the judges of Branches 7,*and >. %he case was raed to Branch >and judge thereof immediately issued atemporary restraining order. &s thetemporary restraining order valid5 3hy56


238/387


239/387



240/387

)


241/387

Provisional emedies" %* ('+)

De;ne a temporary restraining order 6%0#8.67+8SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A temporary restraining order is an orderissued to restrain the opposite party andto maintain the status ?uo until a hearingfor determining the propriety of grantinga preliminary injunction (Sec. 4[c] an# [#],Rule *,1997 Rules of i!il "roce#ure).Provisional emedies" %* vs. Status uo *rder ('+)Dierentiate a %0# from a status ?uo order.67+8SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A status ?uo order 6!M#8 is more in thenature of a cease and desist order, sinceit does not direct the doing or undoing ofacts, as in the case of prohibitory ormandatory in

Documents

Rem Suggested Answers (1997-2006), Cracked, Word