Remedial Law Essay-Type Question CIVIL PROCEDURE:

1. The trial court rendered judgment against the defendant. The defendant received a copy of the judgment on July 16, 2001. On July 24, 2001, he filed a motion for reconsideration of the judgment. Appended to his motion is the following: The Clerk of Court Regional Trial Court Branch 6 Baguio City Greetings: Please submit the foregoing motion immediately upon receipt hereof for the reconsideration of the Honorable Court. (Sgd.) Atty. ABD Counsel for Defendant Did defendants motion toll the reglementary period for appeal?

Suggested Answer: No. Defendants motion for reconsideration did not toll the reglementary period for appeal because it did not contain a notice of hearing. The request to the clerk of court to please submit the foregoing motion immediately upon receipt hereof for the consideration of the Honorable Court is not sufficient because such request is not the notice of hearing contemplated by the rules. The notice of hearing must be addressed to the parties concerned and must state the time and date of the hearing. In Cledera v. Sarmiento, G.R. Nos. L-32450-51, June 10, 1971 ( 39 SCRA 553), it was held that the mere filing of the motion for reconsideration without the requisite notice of hearing does not toll the running of the period for appeal.

2.

Do Municipal Trial Courts have jurisdiction over cadastral and land registration cases?

Suggested Answer: Yes, Municipal Trial Courts have delegated jurisdiction over cadastral and land registration cases involving uncontested lots and contested lots the value of which does not exceed P100,000 as may be ascertained by affidavits of the claimants, or by their agreement, or from the corresponding tax declarations. (B.P. Blg. 129, Sec. 34 as amended by R.A. No. 7691; Adm Circ. 6-93-A, dated Nov. 15, 1995.)

3. P filed a petition for habeas corpus involving his minor child in the Family Court in Makati City, but the Family Court dismissed the petition because of the allegation therein that the child was in Basilan. P then filed his petition with the Court of Appeals, but the Court of Appeals also dismissed the petition because, according to it, it is the Family Court that has exclusive jurisdiction over petitions for habeas corpus in relation to custody of children. The Court of Appeals ruled that R.A. 8369 (The Family Court Act of 1997) gives family court exclusive jurisdiction over petitions for habeas corpus in relation to the custody of children, thereby repealing R.A. 7902 (An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals) and B.P. 129 (The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980). A. Is the Family Court correct in dismissing the petition? B. Is the Court of Appeals correct in dismissing the petition? Suggested Answer: A. Yes, the Family Court is correct in dismissing the petition because its writs are enforceable only within its territorial jurisdiction (or, within the judicial region to which the Family Court belongs). Obviously, Basilan is not within the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court of Quezon City. B. No, the Court of Appeals is not correct in dismissing the petition. The ruling of the Court of Appeals that R.A. 8369 (The Family Courts Act of 1997) has repealed R.A. 7902 (An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals) and BP 129 (The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980) is wrong. The Court of Appeals should take cognizance of the petition because there is nothing in RA 8369 that revoked its jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus involving the custody if minors. The reasoning of the Court of Appeals will result in an iniquitous situation, leaving individuals, like P in the problem presented, without legal recourse in obtaining custody of their children. Individuals who do not know the whereabouts of minors they are looking for would be helpless since they cannot seek redress from family courts whose writs are enforceable only in their respective territorial jurisdiction. Thus, if a minor is being transferred from one place to another, the petitioner in a habeas corpus will be left without legal remedy. The Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to the Custody of Minors (A.M. 03-04-04-SC, May 15, 2003) provides that a petition for habeas corpus may be filed in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or with any of its members and, if so granted, the writ shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines. (Thornton v. Thornton, G.R. No. 154598, Aug. 16, 2004).