Questionnaire

Remedial Law Review 1 August 25, 2018
10-point Questions
1. What trial court outside Metro Manila has exclusive original jurisdiction over an action filed on
November 13, 2017 to recover the possession of an apartment unit being occupied by the defendant by mere
tolerance of the plaintiff, after the former ignored the last demand to vacate that was duly served upon and
received by him on July 6, 2017?
2. What trial court outside Metro Manila has exclusive original jurisdiction over a complaint in which the
principal relief sought (prayer) is the enforcement of a seller’s contractual right to repurchase a lot with an
assessed value of Php22,000.00?
3. What is the doctrine of hierarchy of courts?
4. What is the Harmless Error Rule in relation to appeals?
5. Distinguish error of jurisdiction versus error of judgment.
6. An amicable settlement was signed before a Lupon Tagapamayapa on January 3, 2001. On July 6, 2001, the
prevailing party asked the Lupon to execute the amicable settlement because of the non-compliance by the
other party of the terms of the agreement. The Lupon concerned refused to execute the settlement/ agreement.
Is the Lupon correct in refusing to execute the settlement/agreement?
7. P sued A in the RTC Manila to recover the following sums: (1) 200,000.00 on an overdue promissory note,
(2) P80,000.00 on the purchase price of a computer, (3) P150,000.00 for damages to his car and (4)
P100,000.00 for attorney’s fees and litigation expenses. Can A move to dismiss the case on the ground that
the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter? Explain.
8. Amorsolo, a Filipino citizen permanently residing in New York City, filed with the RTC of Lipa City a
complaint for Rescission of Contract of Sale of Land against Brigido, a resident of Barangay San Miguel, Sto.
Tomas, Batangas. The subject property, located in Barangay Talisay, Lipa City has an assessed value of
19,700. Appended to the complaint is Amorsolo’s verification and certification of non-forum shopping
executed in New York City, duly notarized by Mr. Joseph Brown, Esq., a notary public in the State of New
York. Brigod filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the RTC does not have jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the action involving the real property with an assessed value of P19,700; exclusive
and original jurisdiction is with the Municipal Trial Court. Resolve the motion.
9. Josefa filed in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Alicia and Mabili, a petition for the probate of the will of
her husband, Martin, who died in the Municipality of Alicia, the residence of the spouses. The probable value
of the estate which consisted mainly of a house and lot was placed at P195,000.00 and in the petition for the
allowance of the will, attorney’s fees in the amount of P10,000.00, litigation expenses in the amount of
P5,000.00 and costs were included. Pedro, the next of kin of Martin, filed an opposition to the probate of the
will on the ground that the total amount included in the relief of the petition is more than P200,000.00, the
maximum jurisdiction amount for municipal circuit trial courts. The court overruled the opposition and
proceeded to hear the case. Was the municipal circuit trial court correct in its ruling?
10. Agatha filed a complaint against Yana in the RTC in Makati City to collect Php350,000.00, an amount
representing the unpaid balance on the price of the car Yana had bought from Agatha. Realizing a
jurisdictional error in filing the complaint in the RTC, Agatha filed a notice of dismissal before she was served
with the answer of Yana. The RTC issued an order confirming the dismissal.
Three months later, Agatha filed another complaint against Yana based on the same cause of action this time
in the MeTC of Makati City. However, for reasons personal to her, Agatha decided to have the complaint
dismissed without prejudice by filing a notice of dismissal prior to the service of the answer of Yana. Hence,
the case was dismissed by the MeTC.
A month later, Agatha refiled the complaint against Yana in the same MeTC. May Yana successfully invoke
the Two-Dismissal Rule to bar Agatha’s third complaint? Explain your answer.
10-point Questions
Answer: Exclusive original jurisdiction is vested in the MTCC/ MTC / MCTC. The instant case is an unlawful
detainer case, because it is one for recovery of possession of real property, the possession by the defendant is
by mere tolerance, and the case was filed within one year from notice on July 6, 2017.
NOTE: In the original question, the date the demand was received was July 6, 2016. The answer:
It would be either the MTC or the RTC depending upon the assessed value of the apartment unit.
Under B.P Blg. 129, jurisdiction over real actions is vested in the MTC if the assessed value of the
real property involved does not exceed P20,000 and in the RTC if such assessed value exceeds P20,000. The
action to recover possession can no longer be one for unlawful detainer since it was brought beyond one year
from the last demand to vacate.
Answer: RTC. Because the assessed value is more than P20,000.00.
NOTE: In the original question, the assessed value is P15,000.00. The answer:
Exclusive original jurisdiction is vested in the MTC.
The Supreme Court has held that where the ultimate relief sought by an action is the assertion of
title to property, the action is a real one and not one incapable of pecuniary estimation. Here, the ultimate
relief sought by the complaint is the assertion of title since the seller seeks to exercise his right to repurchase.
Hence, the action is a real one and jurisdiction is vested in the MTC since the assessed value does not exceed
P20,000.00.
3. What is the doctrine of hierarchy of courts?

Answer: The doctrine of hierarchy of courts provides that where there is a concurrence of jurisdiction by courts
over an action or proceeding, there is an ordained sequence of recourse to such courts beginning from the
lowest to the highest. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction should be allowed only
when there are special and important reasons therefor. (Montes vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143797)

Answer: The harmless error rule in relation to appeals provides that the appellate court should not reverse a
judgment as a result of any error or defect which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties (S6, R51)

Answer: An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction. Such an
error does not deprive the court of jurisdiction and is correctible only by appeal; whereas an error of jurisdiction
is one which the court acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction. Such an error renders an order of judgment
void or voidable and is correctible by the special civil action of certiorari. (Dela Cruz vs. Moi, 36 Phil 213;
Cochingyan vs. Claribel, 76 SCRA 361; Fortich vs. Corona, April 24, 1998, 289 SCRA 624)
other party of the terms of the agreement. The Lupon concerned refused to execute the settlement/
agreement. Is the Lupon correct in refusing to execute the settlement/agreement?
Answer: Yes. The Lupon is correct in refusing to execute the settlement/ agreement because the execution
sought is already beyond the period of six months from the date of the settlement within which the Lupon is
authorized to execute. (Sec. 417, Local Government Code of 1991)
After the six-month period, the prevailing party should move to execute the settlement/agreement in the
appropriate city or municipal trial court.
Answer: Yes, A can move to dismiss the case on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter. Under Section 5(c), Rule 2, the joinder shall not include actions governed by special rules. Here, the
action for collection of P200,000.00 is governed by a special rule, i.e. the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims
Cases. Hence, the joinder of causes of action is not proper and consequently the totality rule cannot come into
play. The RTC Manila would not have jurisdiction since the claim in each cause of action falls below the
jurisdictional amount of P400,000.00.
Previous answer, before small claims. No. Because the RTC-Manila has jurisdiction over the subject matter.
P may sue A in one complaint asserting as many causes of action as he may have and since all the claims are
principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction. (Rule 2, Sec.
5[d]). The aggregate amount claimed is P450,000.00, exclusive of the amount of P100,000.00 for attorney’s
fees and expenses for litigation. Hence, the RTC- Manila has jurisdiction.
York. Brigod filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the following grounds:
(a) The court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person of Amorsolo because he is not a resident of the
Philippine.
(b) The RTC does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action involving the real property with
an assessed value of P19,700; exclusive and original jurisdiction is with the Municipal Trial Court.
Assume you’re the judge, resolve the motion.
Answer: The first ground raised lacks merit because jurisdiction over the person of a plaintiff is acquired by
the court upon the filing of plaintiff’s complaint therewith. Residency or citizenship is not a requirement for
filing a complaint, because plaintiff thereby submits to the jurisdiction of the court.
The second ground raised is also without merit because the subject of the litigation, Rescission of Contract,
is incapable of pecuniary estimation the exclusive original jurisdiction to which is vested by law in the
Regional Trial Courts. The nature of the action renders the assessed value of the land involved irrelevant.
Answer: Yes. The MCTC was correct in proceeding to hear the case. It has exclusive jurisdiction in all matters
of probate, both testate and intestate, where the value of the estate does not exceed P100,000.00 (now
P200,000.00). The value in this case is P195,000.00 is within its jurisdiction. In determining the jurisdictional
amount, excluded are attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs; these are considered only for determining
the filing fees.
A month later, Agatha refiled the complaint against Yana in the same MeTC.
May Yana successfully invoke the Two-Dismissal Rule to bar Agatha’s third complaint? Explain your answer.
Answer: No, Yana may not successfully invoke the Two-Dismissal Rule to bar Agatha’s third complaint.
Under the Two-Dismissal Rule, the notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits
provided it is filed by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in a competent court an action based on or including
the same claim. (S1, R17)
Here the first dismissal by the plaintiff was not in a competent court as the RTC in Makati City did not
have subject-matter jurisdiction over an action seeking to recover P350,000. Hence Agatha’s third complaint
is not barred by the Two-Dismissal Rule.
Part I. 2-point Questions
Answer: Exclusive original jurisdiction is vested in the MTCC/ MTC / MCTC. The instant case is an unlawful
detainer case, because it is one for recovery of possession of real property, the possession by the defendant is
by mere tolerance, and the case was filed within one year from notice on July 6, 2017.
NOTE: In the original question, the date the demand was received was July 6, 2016. The answer:
It would be either the MTC or the RTC depending upon the assessed value of the apartment unit.
Under B.P Blg. 129, jurisdiction over real actions is vested in the MTC if the assessed value of the
real property involved does not exceed P20,000 and in the RTC if such assessed value exceeds P20,000. The
action to recover possession can no longer be one for unlawful detainer since it was brought beyond one year
from the last demand to vacate.
Answer: RTC. Because the assessed value is more than P20,000.00.
NOTE: In the original question, the assessed value is P15,000.00. The answer:
Exclusive original jurisdiction is vested in the MTC.
The Supreme Court has held that where the ultimate relief sought by an action is the assertion of
title to property, the action is a real one and not one incapable of pecuniary estimation. Here, the ultimate
relief sought by the complaint is the assertion of title since the seller seeks to exercise his right to repurchase.
Hence, the action is a real one and jurisdiction is vested in the MTC since the assessed value does not exceed
P20,000.00.
13. What court in Metro Manila has jurisdiction over an action for specific performance or, in the alternative, for
damages in the amount of P180,000.00?
Answer: MeTC in Metro Manila. Although an action for specific performance is not capable of pecuniary
estimation, since the alternative demand for damages is capable of pecuniary estimation, it is within the
jurisdiction of MeTC in Metro Manila. (Section 33 of BP 129 as amended by R.A. No. 7691.)
14. What court outside Metro Manila has jurisdiction over an action for a writ of injunction?
Answer: RTC. An action for injunction is not capable of pecuniary estimation and hence falls within the
jurisdiction of the RTCs.
15. What court in Metro Manila has jurisdiction over an action for replevin of a motorcycle valued at
P150,000.00?
Answer: MeTC in Metro Manila. An action for replevin of a motorcycle valued at 150,000.00 falls within
the jurisdiction of the MeTCs in Metro Manila.
16. What court in Metro Manila has jurisdiction over an action for interpleader to determine who between the
defendants is entitled to receive the amount of P190,000.00 from the plaintiff?
Answer: MeTC. (Makati Dev Corp vs. Tanjuatco 27 SCRA 401) Interpleader is a special civil action. MTC
– if the subject matter of the action is personal property, valued at not more than P300,000 outside Metro
Manila, and in Metro Manila, at not more than P400,000.00. RTC – if the subject matter is real property with
an assessed value at not more than P20,000 outside Metro Manila, and in Metro Manila, at not more than
P50,000.
17. What court outside Metro Manila has jurisdiction over a petition for the probate of a will involving an estate
valued at P200,000.00?
Answer: RTC. The amount is P200,000.00, thus RTC. If in Metro Manila, the jurisdictional amount for MeTC
is up to P200,000.00.
18. What is an interlocutory order?
Answer: An interlocutory order refers to an order issued between the commencement and the end of the suit
which is not a final decision of the whole controversy and leaves something more to be done on its merits.
(Gallardo et al vs. People, G.R. No. 142030, April 21, 2005)
19. How should the records of child and family cases in the Family Courts or RTC designated by the Supreme
Court to handle Family Court cases be treated and dealt with?
Answer: The records of child and family cases in the Family Courts or RTC designated by the Supreme Court
to handle Family Court cases shall be dealt with utmost confidentiality. (Sec. 12, Family Courts Act of 1997)
20. How shall the Rules of Court be construed?

Answer: The Rules of Court shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a
just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. (Sec. 6, Rule 1, 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure)
Part II. 3-point Questions
1. What is the concept of remedial law?

Answer: The concept of remedial law lies at the very core of procedural due process, which means a law
which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial, and
contemplates an opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered. (Albert vs. University Publishing, G.R.
No. L-19118, January 30, 1965)
2. Distinguish between substantive law and remedial law.

Answer: Substantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines and regulates rights concerning life,
liberty, or property, or the powers of agencies or instrumentalities for the administration of public affairs. This
is distinguished from remedial law which prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their
invasion. (Bustos vs. Lucero, G.R. No. L-2068, October 20, 1948)
2. What is the objective of the Katarungang Pambarangay Law?

Answer: The objective of the Katarungang Pambarangay Law is to effect an amicable settlement of disputes
among family and barangay members at the barangay level without judicial recourse and consequently help
relieve the courts of docket congestion. (Preamble of P.D. No. 1508, the former and the first Katarungang
Pambarangay Law)
4. In rendering a decision, should a court take into consideration the possible effect of its verdict upon the
political stability and economic welfare of the nation?
Answer: No. Because a court is required to take into consideration only the legal issues and the evidence
admitted in the case. The political stability and economic welfare of the nation are extraneous to the case.
They can have persuasive influence but they are not the main factors that should be considered in deciding a
case. A decision should be based on the law, rules of procedure, justice and equity. However, in exceptional
cases the Court may consider the political stability and economic welfare of the nation when these are
capable of being taken into judicial notice of and are relevant to the case.
5. What is the difference between a judgment and an opinion of the court?

Answer: The judgment or fallo is the final disposition of the Court which is reflected in the dispositive portion
of the decision. A decision is directly prepared by a judge and signed by him, containing clearly and distinctly a
statement of the facts proved and the law upon which the judgment is based. (Etoya vs. Abraham Singson,
Adm. Matter No. RTJ-91-758, September 26, 1994)
An opinion of the court is the informal expression of the views of the court and cannot prevail against its final
order. The opinion of the court is contained in the body of the decision that serves as a guide or enlightenment
to determine the ratio decidendi of the decision. The opinion forms no part of the judgment even if combined in
one instrument, but may be referred to for the purpose of construing the judgment. (Contreras vs. Felix, G.R.
No. L0477, June 30, 1947)
6. Under what conditions may the identity of parties in child and family cases be divulged?
Answer: The identity of parties in child and family cases shall not be divulged unless necessary and with
authority of the judge.
7.What is the doctrine of hierarchy of courts?

Answer: The doctrine of hierarchy of courts provides that where there is a concurrence of jurisdiction by courts
over an action or proceeding, there is an ordained sequence of recourse to such courts beginning from the
lowest to the highest. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction should be allowed only
when there are special and important reasons therefor. (Montes vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143797, May 4,
2006)

Answer: The harmless error rule in relation to appeals provides that the appellate court should not reverse a
judgment as a result of any error or defect which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties (S6, R51)
9. Distinguish jurisdiction from venue?

Answer: Jurisdiction treats of the power of the Court to decide a case on the merits, while venue refers to the
place where the suit may be filed. In criminal actions, however, venue is jurisdictional. Jurisdiction is a matter
of substantive law; venue, of procedural law. Jurisdiction may not be conferred by consent through waiver upon
a court, but venue may be waived, except in criminal cases. (Nocus et al vs. Tan, G.R. No. 145022, September
23, 2005; Santos III vs. Northwest Airlines, G.R. No. 101538, June 23, 1992)
10.Distinguish error of jurisdiction versus error of judgment.

Answer: An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction. Such an
error does not deprive the court of jurisdiction and is correctible only by appeal; whereas an error of jurisdiction
is one which the court acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction. Such an error renders an order of judgment
void or voidable and is correctible by the special civil action of certiorari. (Dela Cruz vs. Moi, 36 Phil 213;
Cochingyan vs. Claribel, 76 SCRA 361; Fortich vs. Corona, April 24, 1998, 289 SCRA 624)
Part III. 5-point Questions
21. Santa filed against Era in the RTC of Quezon City an action for specific performance praying for the delivery
of a parcel of land subject of their contract of sale. Unknown to the parties, the case was inadvertently raffled
to an RTC designated as a special commercial court. Later, the RTC rendered judgment adverse to Era, who,
upon realizing that the trial court was not a regular RTC, approaches you and wants you to file a petition to
have the judgment annulled for lack of jurisdiction. What advice would you give to Era? Explain your answer.
Answer: The advice I would give to Era is that the petition for annulment of judgment on lack of jurisdiction
will not prosper.
The Supreme Court has held that a special commercial court is still a court of general jurisdiction and can
hear and try a non-commercial case. (Concorde Condominium Inc. vs. Baculi, 17 Feb 2016)
Answer: Yes. The Lupon is correct in refusing to execute the settlement/ agreement because the execution
sought is already beyond the period of six months from the date of the settlement within which the Lupon is
authorized to execute. (Sec. 417, Local Government Code of 1991)
After the six-month period, the prevailing party should move to execute the settlement/agreement in the
appropriate city or municipal trial court.
23. A brings an action in the MTC of Manila against B for the annulment of an extrajudicial foreclosure sale of
real property with an assessed value of P50,000.00 located in Laguna. The complaint alleged prematurity of
the sale for the reason that the mortgage was not yet due. B timely moved to dismiss the case on the ground
that the action should have been brought in the RTC of Laguna. Decide with reason.
Answer: The motion should be granted. The MTC of Manila has no jurisdiction because the action for the
annulment of the extrajudicial foreclosure is not capable of pecuniary estimation and is therefore under the
jurisdiction of the RTCs. (Russel vs. Vestil, 304 SCRA 738 [1999])
However, the action for annulment is a personal action and the venue depends on the residence of either A or
B. Hence, it should be brought in the RTC of the place where either of the parties resides.
24. A files an action in the Municipal Trial Court against B, the natural son of A’s father, for the partition of a
parcel of land located in Taytay, Rizal with an assessed value of Php20,000.00. B moves to dismiss the action
the ground that the case should have been brought in the RTC because the action is one that is not capable of
pecuniary estimation as it involves primarily a determination of hereditary rights and not merely the bare right
to real property. Resolve the motion.
Answer: The motion should be granted. The action for partition depends on a determination of the hereditary
rights of A and B, which is not capable of pecuniary estimation. Hence, even though the assessed value of the
land is P20,000, the Municipal Trial Court has no jurisdiction. (Russel vs. Vestil)
Answer: No. Because the RTC-Manila has jurisdiction over the subject matter. P may sue A in one complaint
asserting as many causes of action as he may have and since all the claims are principally for recovery of
money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction. (Rule 2, Sec. 5[d]). The aggregate
amount claimed is P450,000.00, exclusive of the amount of P100,000.00 for attorney’s fees and expenses for
litigation. Hence, the RTC- Manila has jurisdiction.
What about the rule that it must not be governed by a special rules. Joinder of action.
26. A filed with the MTC of Manila an action for specific performance against B, a resident of Quezon City, to
compel the latter to execute a deed of conveyance covering a parcel of land situated in Quezon City having
an assessed value of P19,000.00. B received the summons and a copy of the Complaint on 02 January 2003.
On 10 January 2003, B filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
contending that the subject matter of the suit was incapable of pecuniary estimation. The court denied the
motion. Was the denial of the Motion to Dismiss the Complaint correct?
Answer: The denial of the Motion to Dismiss the Complaint was not correct. Although the assessed value of
the parcel of land involved was P19,000.00, within the jurisdiction of the MTC of Manila, the action filed by
A for Specific Performance against B to compel the latter to execute a Deed of Conveyance of said parcel of
land was not capable of pecuniary estimation, and therefore the action was within the jurisdiction of RTC.
(Russel vs. Vestil; Copioso vs. Copioso, G.R. No. 149243, October 28, 2002; Cabutihan vs. Land Center
Construction, 383 SCRA 353[2002]).
Alternative answer: If the action affects title to or possession of real property then it is a real action and
jurisdiction is determined by the assessed value of the property. It is within the jurisdiction therefore of the
Metropolitan Trial Court.
27. P sued A and B in one complaint in the RTC Manila, the cause of action against A being on an overdue
promissory note for P300,000.00 and that against B being on an alleged balance of P300,000.00 on the
purchase price of good sold on credit. Does the RTC-Manila have jurisdiction over the case? Explain.
Answer: No. The RTC-Manila has no jurisdiction over the case. A and B could not be joined as defendants in
one complaint because the right to relief against both defendants do not arise out of the same transaction or
series of transactions and there is no common question of law or fact common to both. (Rule 3, Sec. 6). Hence,
separate complaints will have to be filed and they would fall under the jurisdiction of the MeTC.
(c) The court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person of Amorsolo because he is not a resident of the
Philippine.
(d) The RTC does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action involving the real property with
Answer: The first ground raised lacks merit because jurisdiction over the person of a plaintiff is acquired by
the court upon the filing of plaintiff’s complaint therewith. Residency or citizenship is not a requirement for
filing a complaint, because plaintiff thereby submits to the jurisdiction of the court.
The second ground raised is also without merit because the subject of the litigation, Rescission of Contract,
is incapable of pecuniary estimation the exclusive original jurisdiction to which is vested by law in the
Regional Trial Courts. The nature of the action renders the assessed value of the land involved irrelevant.
Answer: Yes. The MCTC was correct in proceeding to hear the case. It has exclusive jurisdiction in all matters
of probate, both testate and intestate, where the value of the estate does not exceed P100,000.00 (now
P200,000.00). The value in this case is P195,000.00 is within its jurisdiction. In determining the jurisdictional
amount, excluded are attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs; these are considered only for determining
the filing fees.
Answer: No, Yana may not successfully invoke the Two-Dismissal Rule to bar Agatha’s third complaint.
Under the Two-Dismissal Rule, the notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits
provided it is filed by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in a competent court an action based on or including
the same claim. (S1, R17)
Here the first dismissal by the plaintiff was not in a competent court as the RTC in Makati City did not
have subject-matter jurisdiction over an action seeking to recover P350,000. Hence Agatha’s third complaint
is not barred by the Two-Dismissal Rule.
Remedial Law Review 1 Quiz No. 1 August 22, 2018
Explain briefly your answer.

Part I. 2-point Questions
1. What trial court outside Metro Manila has exclusive original jurisdiction over an action filed on November
13, 2017 to recover the possession of an apartment unit being occupied by the defendant by mere tolerance of
the plaintiff, after the former ignored the last demand to vacate that was duly served upon and received by
him on July 6, 2017?
principal relief sought is the enforcement of a seller’s contractual right to repurchase a lot with an assessed
value of Php22,000.00?
3. What court in Metro Manila has jurisdiction over an action for specific performance or, in the alternative, for
damages in the amount of P180,000.00?
4. What court outside Metro Manila has jurisdiction over an action for a writ of injunction?
5. What court in Metro Manila has jurisdiction over an action for replevin of a motorcycle valued at
P150,000.00?
6. What court in Metro Manila has jurisdiction over an action for interpleader to determine who between the
defendants is entitled to receive the amount of P190,000.00 from the plaintiff?
7. What court outside Metro Manila has jurisdiction over a petition for the probate of a will involving an estate
valued at P200,000.00?
8. What is an interlocutory order?
9. How should the records of child and family cases in the Family Courts or RTC designated by the Supreme
Court to handle Family Court cases be treated and dealt with?
10. How shall the Rules of Court be construed?
Part II. 3-point Questions
1. What is the concept of remedial law?

2. Distinguish between substantive law and remedial law.
3. What is the objective of the Katarungang Pambarangay Law?
4. In rendering a decision, should a court take into consideration the possible effect of its verdict upon the
political stability and economic welfare of the nation?
5. What is the difference between a judgment and an opinion of the court?
6. Under what conditions may the identity of parties in child and family cases be divulged?
9. Distinguish jurisdiction from venue?
Part III. 5-point Questions
1. Santa filed against Era in the RTC of Quezon City an action for specific performance praying for the delivery
of a parcel of land subject of their contract of sale. Unknown to the parties, the case was inadvertently raffled
to an RTC designated as a special commercial court. Later, the RTC rendered judgment adverse to Era, who,
upon realizing that the trial court was not a regular RTC, approaches you and wants you to file a petition to
have the judgment annulled for lack of jurisdiction. What advice would you give to Era? Explain your answer.
3. A brings an action in the MTC of Manila against B for the annulment of an extrajudicial foreclosure sale of
real property with an assessed value of P50,000.00 located in Laguna. The complaint alleged prematurity of
the sale for the reason that the mortgage was not yet due. B timely moved to dismiss the case on the ground
that the action should have been brought in the RTC of Laguna. Decide with reason.
4. A files an action in the Municipal Trial Court against B, the natural son of A’s father, for the partition of a
parcel of land located in Taytay, Rizal with an assessed value of Php20,000.00. B moves to dismiss the action
the ground that the case should have been brought in the RTC because the action is one that is not capable of
pecuniary estimation as it involves primarily a determination of hereditary rights and not merely the bare right
to real property. Resolve the motion.
6. A filed with the MTC of Manila an action for specific performance against B, a resident of Quezon City, to
compel the latter to execute a deed of conveyance covering a parcel of land situated in Quezon City having
an assessed value of P19,000.00. B received the summons and a copy of the Complaint on 02 January 2003.
On 10 January 2003, B filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
contending that the subject matter of the suit was incapable of pecuniary estimation. The court denied the
motion. Was the denial of the Motion to Dismiss the Complaint correct?
7. P sued A and B in one complaint in the RTC Manila, the cause of action against A being on an overdue
promissory note for P300,000.00 and that against B being on an alleged balance of P300,000.00 on the
purchase price of good sold on credit. Does the RTC-Manila have jurisdiction over the case? Explain.
(e) The court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person of Amorsolo because he is not a resident of the
Philippine.
(f) The RTC does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action involving the real property with
-end-
Jurisdiction: Republic Ac No. 7691 and Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (Section 19…)
1. What is the concept of remedial law? (2006)

2. Distinguish between substantive law and remedial law. (2006)
3. How shall the Rules of Court be construed? (1998)
4. How are remedial laws implemented in our system of government? (2006)
5. What is the objective of the Katarungang Pambarangay Law? (1999)
6. In rendering a decision, should a court take into consideration the possible effect
of its verdict upon the political stability and economic welfare of the nation?
(2003)
7. What is the difference between a judgment and an opinion of the court? (2006)
8. What is an interlocutory order? (2006)
9. How should the records of child and family cases in the Family Courts or RTC
designated by the Supreme Court to handle Family Court cases be treated and dealt
with? (2001)
10. Under what conditions may the identity of parties in child and family cases be
divulged? (2001)
13. What is the mode of appeal applicable to the following cases, and what issues
may be raised before the reviewing court/tribunal?
(a) The decision or final order of the National Labor Relations Commission
(b) The judgment or final order of the RTC in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
I.
What trial court outside Metro Manila has exclusive original jurisdiction over the
following cases? Explain briefly your answers.
(a) An action filed on November 13, 2017 to recover the possession of

an apartment unit being occupied by the defendant by mere
tolerance of the plaintiff, after the former ignored the last demand
to vacate that was duly served upon and received by him on July 6,
2017.
(b) A complaint in which the principal relief sought is the enforcement
of a seller’s contractual right to repurchase a lot with an assessed
value of Php22,000.00.
II.
What courts have jurisdiction over the following cases filed in Metro Manila?
(1997)
a)An action for specific performance or, in the alternative, for damages in the
amount of P180,000.00
b)An action for a writ of injunction
c)An action for replevin of a motorcycle valued at P150,000.00
d)An action for interpleader to determine who between the defendants is entitled to
receive the amount of P190,000.00 from the plaintiff.
e) A petition for the probate of a will involving an estate valued at P200,000.00.
III.
Santa filed against Era in the RTC of Quezon City an action for specific performance
praying for the delivery of a parcel of land subject of their contract of sale. Unknown
to the parties, the case was inadvertently raffled to an RTC designated as a special
commercial court. Later, the RTC rendered judgment adverse to Era, who, upon
realizing that the trial court was not a regular RTC, approaches you and wants you
to file a petition to have the judgment annulled for lack of jurisdiction. What advice
would you give to Era? Explain your answer.
IV.
2. Distinguish jurisdiction from venue? (2006)

3. Distinguish error of jurisdiction versus error of judgment. (2012)
4. Amorsolo, a Filipino citizen permanently residing in New York City, filed with
the RTC of Lipa City a complaint for Rescission of Contract of Sale of Land
against Brigido, a resident of Barangay San Miguel, Sto. Tomas, Batangas. The
subject property, located in Barangay Talisay, Lipa City has an assessed value of
19,700. Appended to the complaint is Amorsolo’s verification and certification of
non-forum shopping executed in New York City, duly notarized by Mr. Joseph
Brown, Esq., a notary public in the State of New York. Brigod filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint on the following grounds:
(g) The court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person of Amorsolo because
he is not a resident of the Philippine.
(h) The RTC does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action
involving the real property with an assessed value of P19,700; exclusive
and original jurisdiction is with the Municipal Trial Court.
Assume you’re the judge, resolve the motion. (2009)
5. Mariano, through his attorney-in-fact Marcos, filed with the RTC of Baguio City
a complaint for annulment of sale against Henry. Marcos and Henry both reside in
Asin Road, Baguio City, while Mariano resides in Davao City. Henry filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of prematurity for failure to comply
with the mandatory barangay conciliation. Resolve the motion with reasons.
3. Mark filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue a complaint for refund of taxes
paid, but it was not acted upon. So, he filed a similar complaint with the Court of
Tax Appeals raffled to one of its Divisions. Mark’s complaint was dismissed.
Thus, he filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
Does the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction over Mark’s petition? (2006)
4. A brings an action in the MTC of Manila against B for the annulment of an

extrajudicial foreclosure sale of real property with an assessed value of P50,000.00
located in Laguna. The complaint alleged prematurity of the sale for the reason that
the mortgage was not yet due. B timely moved to dismiss the case on the ground
that the action should have been brought in the RTC of Laguna. Decide with
reason. (2000)
5. A files an action in the Municipal Trial Court against B, the natural son of A’s
father, for the partition of a parcel of land located in Taytay, Rizal with an assessed
value of Php20,000.00. B moves to dismiss the action the ground that the case
should have been brought in the RTC because the action is one that is not capable
of pecuniary estimation as it involves primarily a determination of hereditary rights
and not merely the bare right to real property. Resolve the motion. (2000)
6. P sued A and B in one complaint in the RTC Manila, the cause of action against
A being on an overdue promissory note for P300,000.00 and that against B being
on an alleged balance of P300,000.00 on the purchase price of good sold on credit.
Does the RTC-Manila have jurisdiction over the case? Explain. (2002)
7. A filed with the MTC of Manila an action for specific performance against B, a
resident of Quezon City, to compel the latter to execute a deed of conveyance
covering a parcel of land situated in Quezon City having an assessed value of
P19,000.00. B received the summons and a copy of the Complaint on 02 January
2003. On 10 January 2003, B filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction contending that the subject matter of the suit was
incapable of pecuniary estimation. The court denied the motion. Was the denial of
the Motion to Dismiss the Complaint correct? (2003)
8. Does the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction to review the Decisions in criminal
and administrative cases of the Ombudsman? (2006)
9. Josefa filed in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Alicia and Mabili, a petition
for the probate of the will of her husband, Martin, who died in the Municipality of
Alicia, the residence of the spouses. The probable value of the estate which
consisted mainly of a house and lot was placed at P195,000.00 and in the petition
for the allowance of the will, attorney’s fees in the amount of P10,000.00, litigation
expenses in the amount of P5,000.00 and costs were included. Pedro, the next of
kin of Martin, filed an opposition to the probate of the will on the ground that the
total amount included in the relief of the petition is more than P200,000.00, the
maximum jurisdiction amount for municipal circuit trial courts. The court
overruled the opposition and proceeded to hear the case. Was the municipal circuit
trial court correct in its ruling? Why?(2001)
10. P sued A in the RTC Manila to recover the following sums: (1) 200,000.00 on
an overdue promissory note, (2) P80,000.00 on the purchase price of a computer,
(3) P150,000.00 for damages to his car and (4) P100,000.00 for attorney’s fees and
litigation expenses. Can A move to dismiss the case on tehg round that the court
has no jurisdiction over the subject matter? Explain. (2002) (Small claims. RTC
has no jurisdiction.)
11. What court has jurisdiction over an action for specific performance filed by a
subdivision homeowner against a subdivision developer? (2006)
12. An amicable settlement was signed before a Lupon Tagapamayapa on January

3, 2001. On July 6, 2001, the prevailing party asked the Lupon to execute the
amicable settlement because of the non-compliance by the other party of the terms
of the agreement. The Lupon concerned refused to execute the settlement/
agreement.
a) Is the Lupon correct in refusing to execute the settlement/agreement?
b) What should be the course of action of the prevailing party in such a case?
(2001)
13. Agatha filed a complaint against Yana in the RTC in Makati City to collect
Php350,000.00, an amount representing the unpaid balance on the price of the car
Yana had bought from Agatha. Realizing a jurisdictional error in filing the
complaint in the RTC, Agatha filed a notice of dismissal before she was served
Three months later, Agatha filed another complaint against Yana based on the
same cause of action this time in the MeTC of Makati City. However, for reasons
personal to her, Agatha decided to have the complaint dismissed without prejudice
by filing a notice of dismissal prior to the service of the answer of Yana. Hence,
May Yana successfully invoke the Two-Dismissla Rule to bar Agatha’s third
complaint? Explain your answer.
Jurisdiction: Republic Ac No. 7691 and Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (Section 19…)
Republic of the Philippines
Congress of the Philippines
Metro Manila
Ninth Congress
Republic Act No. 7691 March 25, 1994
AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS,

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, AMENDING FOR THE
PURPOSE BATAS PAMBANSA, BLG. 129, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "JUDICIARY
REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1980"
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress

assembled::
Section 1. Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as the "Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980", is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original
jurisdiction.
"(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary
estimation;
"(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any
interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty
thousand pesos (P20,000,00) or, for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value
exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and
unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred
upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts;
"(3) In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or claim
exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila, where
such demand or claim exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00);
"(4) In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of the
estate exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in probate matters in
Metro Manila, where such gross value exceeds Two Hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000.00);
"(5) In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations;
"(6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or
body exercising jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial
or quasi-judicial functions;
"(7) In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the Court of Agrarian
Relations as now provided by law; and
"(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the
property in controversy exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in
such other cases in Metro Manila, where the demand exclusive of the
abovementioned items exceeds Two Hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00)."
Section 2. Section 32 of the same law is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts in Criminal Cases. – Except in cases falling within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
"(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or municipal ordinances
committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction; and
"(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment not
exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of fine, and regardless of other
imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability arising from such
offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value or amount thereof:
Provided, however, That in offenses involving damage to property through criminal
negligence, they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction thereof."
"Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. – Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
"(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings, testate
and intestate, including the grant of provisional remedies in proper cases, where the
value of the personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed
One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila where such
personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed Two hundred
thousand pesos (P200,000.00), exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the amount of which must be
specifically alleged: Provided, That interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's
fees, litigation expenses, and costs shall be included in the determination of the filing
fees: Provided, further, That where there are several claims or causes of actions
between the same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount
of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of action,
irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different
transactions;
"(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer:
Provided, That when, in such cases, the defendant raises the questions of ownership
in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding
the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine
the issue of possession; and
"(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the
property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or,
in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty
thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That in cases of land not
declared for taxation purposes, the value of such property shall be determined by the
assessed value of the adjacent lots."
"Sec. 34. Delegated Jurisdiction in Cadastral and Land Registration Cases. – Metropolitan
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts may be assigned by
the Supreme Court to hear and determine cadastral or land registration cases covering lots
where there is no controversy or opposition, or contested lots where the value of which does
not exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00), such value to be ascertained by
the affidavit of the claimant or by agreement of the respective claimants if there are more
than one, or from the corresponding tax declaration of the real property. Their decisions in
these cases shall be appealable in the same manner as decisions of the Regional Trial
Courts."
Section 5. After five (5) years from the effectivity of this Act, the jurisdictional amounts mentioned in
Sec. 19(3), (4), and (8); and Sec. 33(1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by this Act, shall
be adjusted to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00). Five (5) years thereafter, such
jurisdictional amounts shall be adjusted further to Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00):
Provided, however, That in the case of Metro Manila, the abovementioned jurisdictional amounts
shall be adjusted after five (5) years from the effectivity of this Act to Four hundred thousand pesos
(P400,000.00).
Section 6. All laws, decrees, and orders inconsistent with the provisions of this Act shall be
considered amended or modified accordingly.
Section 7. The provisions of this Act shall apply to all civil cases that have not yet reached the pre-
trial stage. However, by agreement of all the parties, civil cases cognizable by municipal and
metropolitan courts by the provisions of this Act may be transferred from the Regional Trial Courts to
the latter. The executive judge of the appropriate Regional Trial Courts shall define the
administrative procedure of transferring the cases affected by the redefinition of jurisdiction to the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
Section 8. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days following its publication in the Official Gazette
or in two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.
Approved: March 25, 1994
.
AN ACTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF SHOULD BE FILED BY A PERSON
INTERESTED UNDER A DEED, A WILL, A CONTRACT OR OTHER WRITTEN
INSTRUMENT, AND WHOSE RIGHTS ARE AFFECTED BY A STATUTE, AN EXECUTIVE
ORDER, A REGULATION OR AN ORDINANCE. The relief sought under this remedy
includes the interpretation and determination of the validity of the written instrument and the
judicial declaration of the parties’ rights or duties thereunder. The Court correctly made a
distinction between the first and the second paragraphs of Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of
Court. The first paragraph of Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, describes the general
circumstances in which a person may file a petition for declaratory relief, x x x may be brought
before the appropriate RTC.
The second paragraph of Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court specifically refers to (1)
an action for the reformation of an instrument, recognized under Articles 1359 to 1369 of the
Civil Code; (2) an action to quiet title, authorized by Articles 476 to 481 of the Civil Code; and
(3) an action to consolidate ownership required by Article 1607 of the Civil Code in a sale with
a right to repurchase. These three remedies are considered similar to declaratory relief
because they also result in the adjudication of the legal rights of the litigants, often without
the need of execution to carry the judgment into effect. x x x It is important to note that Section
1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court does not categorically require that an action to quiet title be
filed before the RTC. It repeatedly uses the word “may” – that an action for quieting of title
“may be brought under [the] Rule” on petitions for declaratory relief, and a person desiring to
file a petition for declaratory relief “may x x x bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial
Court.” The use of the word “may” in a statute denotes that the provision is merely permissive
and indicates a mere possibility, an opportunity or an option.
In contrast, the mandatory provision of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as
amended, uses the word “shall” and explicitly requires the MTC to exercise exclusive original
jurisdiction over all civil actions which involve title to or possession of real property where the
assessed value does not exceed P20,000.00. As found by the RTC, the assessed value of
the subject property as stated in Tax Declaration No. 02-48386 is only P410.00; therefore,
petitioners’ Complaint involving title to and possession of the said property is within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the MTC, not the RTC. (MALANA vs. TAPPA [2009]).
Remedial Law Review 1
Assignment – August 25, 2018 (to be submitted on August 29, 2018)
Explain briefly your answer.
After working for 25 years in the Middle East, Evan returned to the Philippines to retire in
Manila, the place of his birth and childhood. Ten years before his retirement, he bought for cash
in his name a house and lot in Malate, Manila. Six months after his return, he learned that his house
and lot were the subject of foreclosure proceedings commenced by ABC Bank on the basis of a
promissory note and a deed of real estate mortgage he had allegedly executed in favor of ABC
Bank five years earlier.
Knowing that he was not in the country at the time the promissory note and deed of mortgage
were supposedly executed, Evan forthwith initiated a complaint in the RTC of Manila praying that
the subject documents be declared null and void.
ABC Bank filed.a motion to dismiss Evan's complaint on the ground of improper venue on
the basis of a stipulation in both documents designating Quezon City as the exclusive venue in the
event of litigation between the parties arising out of the loan and mortgage.
Should the motion to dismiss of ABC Bank be granted? Explain your answer.
II
Hanna, a resident of Manila, filed a complaint for the partition of a large tract of land
located in Oriental Mindoro. She impleaded her two brothers John and Adrian as defendants but
did not implead Leica and Agatha, her two sisters who were permanent residents of Australia.
Arguing that there could be no final determination of the case without impleading all
indispensable parties, John and Adrian moved to dismiss the complaint.
Does the trial court have a reason to deny the motion? Explain your answer.
III
Elise obtained a loan of P3 Million from Merchant Bank. Aside from executing a promissory
note in favor of Merchant Bank, she executed a deed of real estate mortgage over her house and
lot as security for her obligation. The loan fell due but remained unpaid; hence, Merchant Bank
filed an action against Elise to foreclose the real estate mortgage. A month after, and while the
foreclosure suit was pending, Merchant Bank also filed an action to recover the principal sum of
P3 Million against Elise based on the same promissory note previously executed by the latter.
In opposing the motion of Elise to dismiss the second action on the ground of splitting of
a single cause of action, Merchant Bank argued that the ground relied upon by Elise was devoid
of any legal basis considering that the two actions were based on separate contracts, namely, the
contract of loan evidenced by the promissory note, and the deed of real estate mortgage.
Is there a splitting of a single cause of action? Explain your answer.
IV
Eduardo, a resident of the City of Manila, filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Manila a complaint for the annulment of a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage he signed in favor of
Galaxy Bank (Galaxy), and the consequent· foreclosure and auction sale of his mortgaged Makati
property. Galaxy filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of improper venue alleging that the
complaint should be filed with the RTC of Makati since the complaint involves the ownership and
possession of Eduardo's lot. Resolve the motion with reasons. (5%)
V
Lender extended to Borrower a P100,000.00 loan covered by a promissory note. Later,
Borrower obtained another P100,000.00 loan again covered by a promissory note. Still later,
Borrower obtained a P300,000.00 loan secured by a real estate mortgage on his land valued at
P500,000.00. Borrower defaulted on his payments when the loans matured. Despite demand to pay
the P500,000.00 loan, Borrower refused to pay. Lender, applying the totality rule, filed against
Borrower with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, a collection suit for P500,000.00.
(A) Did Lender correctly apply the totality rule and the rule on joinder of causes of
action?
At the trial, Borrower's lawyer, while cross-examining Lender, successfully elicited an

admission from the latter that the two promissory notes have been paid. Thereafter, Borrower's
lawyer filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground that as proven only P300,000.00 was the
amount due to Lender and which claim is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the
Metropolitan Trial Court. He further argued that lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter can be
raised at any stage of the proceedings.
(B) Should the court dismiss the case?
VI
Juliet invoking the provisions of the Rule on Violence Against Women and their Children
filed with the RTC designated as a Family Court a petition for issuance of a Temporary Protection
Order (TPO) against her husband, Romeo. The Family Court issued a 30-day TPO against Romeo.
A day before the expiration of the TPO, Juliet filed a motion for extension. Romeo in his opposition
raised, among others, the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9262 (The VAWC Law) arguing that the
law authorizing the issuance of a TPO violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the
1987 Constitution. The Family Court judge, in granting the motion for extension of the TPO,
declined to rule on the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9262. The Family Court judge reasoned that
Family Courts are without jurisdiction to pass upon constitutional issues, being a special court of
limited jurisdiction and R.A. No. 8369, the law creating the Family Courts, does not provide for
such jurisdiction. Is the Family Court judge correct when he declined to resolve the
constitutionality of R.A. No. 9262?
VII
Strauss filed a complaint against Wagner for cancellation of title. Wagner moved to dismiss
the complaint because Grieg, to whom he mortgaged the property as duly annotated in the TCT,
was not impleaded as defendant.
(A) Should the complaint be dismissed?
(B) If the case should proceed to trial without Grieg being impleaded as a party to the
case, what is his remedy to protect his interest?
VIII
A law was passed declaring Mt. Karbungko as a protected area since it was a major
watershed. The protected area covered a portion located in Municipality A of the Province I and a
portion located in the City of Z of Province II. Maingat is the leader of Samahan ng Tagapag-ingat
ng Karbungko (STK), a people's organization. He learned that a portion of the mountain located
in the City of Z of Province II was extremely damaged when it was bulldozed and leveled to the
ground, and several trees and plants were cut down and burned by workers of World Pleasure
Resorts, Inc. (WPRI) for the construction of a hotel and golf course. Upon inquiry with the project
site engineer if they had a permit for the project, Maingat was shown a copy of the Environmental
Compliance Certificate (ECC) issued by the DENR-EMB, Regional Director (RD-DENR-EMB).
Immediately, Maingat and STK filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of continuing mandamus
against RD-DENR-EMB and WPRI with the RTC of Province I, a designated environmental court,
as the RD-DENR-EMB negligently issued the ECC to WPRI.
On scrutiny of the petition, the court determined that the area where the alleged actionable
neglect or omission subject of the petition took place in the City of Z of Province II, and therefore
cognizable by the RTC of Province II. Thus, the court dismissed outright the petition for lack of
jurisdiction.
(A) Was the court correct in motu proprio dismissing the petition?
Assuming that the court did not dismiss the petition, the RD-DENR-EMB in his Comment
moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that petitioners failed to appeal the issuance of the
ECC and to exhaust administrative remedies provided in the DENR Rules and Regulations.
(B) Should the court dismiss the petition?
IX
Landlord, a resident of Quezon City, entered into a lease contract with Tenant, a resident
of Marikina City, over a residential house in Las Piñas City. The lease contract provided, among
others, for a monthly rental of P25,000.00, plus ten percent (10%) interest rate in case of non-
payment on its due date. Subsequently, Landlord migrated to the United States of America (USA)
but granted in favor of his sister Maria, a special power of attorney to manage the property and
file and defend suits over the property rented out to Tenant. Tenant failed to pay the rentals due
for five (5) months. Maria asks your legal advice on how she can expeditiously collect
from Tenant the unpaid rentals plus interests due.
(A) What judicial remedy would you recommend to Maria?

(B) Where is the proper venue of the judicial remedy which you recommended?
(C) If Maria insists on filing an ejectment suit against Tenant, when do you reckon the one
(1)-year period within which to file the action?
Prince Chong entered into a lease contract with King Kong over a commercial building
where the former conducted his hardware business. The lease contract stipulated, among others, a
monthly rental of P50,000.00 for a four (4)-year period commencing on January 1, 2010. On
January 1, 2013, Prince Chong died. Kin Il Chong was appointed administrator of the estate
of Prince Chong, but the former failed to pay the rentals for the months of January to June 2013
despite King Kong’s written demands.
Thus, on July 1, 2013, King Kong filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) an action for
rescission of contract with damages and payment of accrued rentals as of June 30, 2013.
(A) Can Kin Il Chong move to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the RTC is without
jurisdiction since the amount claimed is only P300,000.00?
(B) If the rentals accrued during the lifetime of Prince Chong, and King Kong also filed
the complaint for sum of money during that time, will the action be dismissible upon Prince
Chong’s death during the pendency of the case?
XI
While leisurely walking along the street near her house in Marikina, Patty unknowingly
stepped on a garden tool left behind by CCC, a construction company based in Makati. She lost
her balance as a consequence and fell into an open manhole. Fortunately, Patty suffered no major
injuries except for contusions, bruises and scratches that did not require any hospitalization.
However, she lost self-esteem, suffered embarrassment and ridicule, and had bouts of anxiety and
bad dreams about the accident. She wants vindication for her uncalled for experience and hires
you to act as counsel for her and to do whatever is necessary to recover at least Php100,000.00 for
what she suffered.
What action or actions may Patty pursue, against who, where (court and venue), and under
what legal basis?
XII
A bought a Volvo Sedan from ABC Cars for P5.0M. ABC Cars, before delivering to A,
had the car rust proofed and tinted by XYZ Detailing. When delivered to A, the car’s upholstery
was found to be damaged. ABC Cars and XYZ Detailing both deny any liability. Who can A sue
and on what cause(s) of action? Explain.
XIII
(A) Distinguish action from cause of action.

(B) Distinguish venue from jurisdiction.
XIV
Give the effects of the following:

(A) Splitting a single cause of action; and
(B) Non-joinder of a necessary party.
XV
(A) What is the rule on joinder of causes of action?

(B) A secured two loans from B, one for P500,000.00 and the other for P1,000,000.00,
payable on different dates. Both have fallen due. Is B obliged to file only one complaint
against A for the recovery of both loans? Explain.
XVI
Perry is a resident of Manila, while Ricky and Marvin are residents of Batangas City. They
are the co-owners of a parcel of residential land located in Pasay City with an assessed value of
P100,000.00. Perry borrowed P100,000.00 from Ricky which he promised to pay on or before
December 1, 2004. However, Perry failed to pay his loan. Perry also rejected Ricky and Marvin’s
proposal to partition the property. Ricky filed a complaint against Perry and Marvin in the RTC of
Pasay City for the partition of the property. He also incorporated in his complaint his action against
Perry for the collection of the latter’s P100,000.00 loan, plus interests and attorney’s fees.
State with reasons whether it was proper for Ricky to join his causes of action in his
complaint for partition against Perry and Marvin in the RTC of Pasay City.
XVII
(A) What is the rule against splitting a cause of action and its effect on the respective rights of
the parties for failure to comply with the same?
(B) A purchased a lot from B for P1,500,000.00. He gave a down payment of P500,000, signed
a promissory note payable thirty days after date, and as a security for the settlement of the
obligation, mortgaged the same lot to B. When the note fell due and A failed to pay, B
commenced suit to recover from A the balance of P1,000,000.00. After securing a
favorable judgment on his claim, B brought another action against A before the same court
to foreclose the mortgage. A now files a motion to dismiss the second action on the ground
of bar by prior judgment. Rule on the motion.
XVIII
Raphael, a warehouseman, filed a complaint against V Corporation, X Corporation and Y

Corporation to compel them to interplead. He alleged therein that the three corporations claimed
title and right of possession over the goods deposited in his warehouse and that he was uncertain
which of them was entitled to the goods. After due proceedings, judgment was rendered by the
court declaring that X Corporation was entitled to the goods. The decision became final and
executory
Raphael filed a complaint against X Corporation for the payment of P100,000.00 for
storage charges and other advances for the goods. X Corporation filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint on the ground of res judicata. X Corporation alleged that Raphael should have
incorporated in his complaint for interpleader his claim for storage of fees and advances and that
for his failure he was barred from interposing his claim. Raphael replied that he could not have
claimed storage fees and other advances in his complaint for interpleader because he was not yet
certain as to who was liable therefor. Resolve the motion with reasons.
XIX
Rolando filed a petition for declaration of the nullity of his marriage to Carmela because
of the alleged psychological incapacity of the latter.
After trial, the court rendered judgment dismissing the petition on the ground that Rolando
failed to prove the psychological incapacity of his wife. The judgment having become final,
Rolando filed another petition, this time on the ground that his marriage to Carmela had been
celebrated without a license. Is the second action barred by the judgment in the first? Why?
XX
In an action for unlawful detainer in the MTC, defendant X raised in his answer the defense
that plaintiff A is not the real owner of the house subject of the suit. X filed a counterclaim against
A for the collection of a debt of P80,000.00 plus accrued interest of P15,000.00 and attorney’s fees
of P20,000.00. Does the MTC have jurisdiction over the counterclaim?
-end-
I
After working for 25 years in the Middle East, Evan returned to the Philippines to retire in
Manila, the place of his birth and childhood. Ten years before his retirement, he bought for cash
in his name a house and lot in Malate, Manila. Six months after his return, he learned that his house
and lot were the subject of foreclosure proceedings commenced by ABC Bank on the basis of a
promissory note and a deed of real estate mortgage he had allegedly executed in favor of ABC
Bank five years earlier.
Knowing that he was not in the country at the time the promissory note and deed of mortgage
were supposedly executed, Evan forthwith initiated a complaint in the RTC of Manila praying that
the subject documents be declared null and void.
ABC Bank filed.a motion to dismiss Evan's complaint on the ground of improper venue on
the basis of a stipulation in both documents designating Quezon City as the exclusive venue in the
event of litigation between the parties arising out of the loan and mortgage.
Should the motion to dismiss of ABC Bank be granted? Explain your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the motion to dismiss of ABC Bank should not be granted.
In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court held that a party is not bound by a
venue stipulation where he directly assails on the ground of forgery the validity of the contracts
containing the venue stipulation. The reason is that such a party cannot be expected to comply with
the venue stipulation since his compliance therewith would mean an implicit recognition of the
validity of the contracts he assails. [Briones v. Cash Asia Credit Corp., 14 January 2015, Perlas-
Bernabe, J.]
II
Hanna, a resident of Manila, filed a complaint for the partition of a large tract of land
located in Oriental Mindoro. She impleaded her two brothers John and Adrian as defendants but
did not implead Leica and Agatha, her two sisters who were permanent residents of Australia.
Arguing that there could be no final determination of the case without impleading all
indispensable parties, John and Adrian moved to dismiss the complaint.
Does the trial court have a reason to deny the motion? Explain your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the trial court has a reason to deny the motion to dismiss.
Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, non-joinder of parties, even indispensable ones, is not
a ground of a motion to dismiss. [S11 R3; Vesagas v. CA, 371 SCRA 508 (2001)]
III
Elise obtained a loan of P3 Million from Merchant Bank. Aside from executing a promissory
note in favor of Merchant Bank, she executed a deed of real estate mortgage over her house and
lot as security for her obligation. The loan fell due but remained unpaid; hence, Merchant Bank
filed an action against Elise to foreclose the real estate mortgage. A month after, and while the
foreclosure suit was pending, Merchant Bank also filed an action to recover the principal sum of
P3 Million against Elise based on the same promissory note previously executed by the latter.
In opposing the motion of Elise to dismiss the second action on the ground of splitting of
a single cause of action, Merchant Bank argued that the ground relied upon by Elise was devoid
of any legal basis considering that the two actions were based on separate contracts, namely, the
contract of loan evidenced by the promissory note, and the deed of real estate mortgage.
Is there a splitting of a single cause of action? Explain your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, there is a splitting of a single cause of action.
Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, there is a splitting of a single cause of action if two or
more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action. [S4 R2]. A cause of action is
the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. [S2 R2].
Here, both suits, the foreclosure and the collection suit, arose from the same cause of action,
that is, the non-payment by Elise of her P3 million loan from Merchant Bank. The fact that the
two actions were based on separate contracts is irrelevant, what matters is that both actions arose
from the same cause of action.
IV
Eduardo, a resident of the City of Manila, filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila
a complaint for the annulment of a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage he signed in favor of Galaxy
Bank (Galaxy), and the consequent· foreclosure and auction sale of his mortgaged Makati
property. Galaxy filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of improper venue alleging that the
complaint should be filed with the RTC of Makati since the complaint involves the ownership
and possession of Eduardo's lot. Resolve the motion with reasons. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue should be granted.
Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the venue of real actions shall be with the proper court
having jurisdiction over the area where the real property involved is situated. An action for
annulment of mortgage is a real action if there has already been a foreclosure sale. (See Chua v.
Total Office Products and Services, 30 September 2005).
Here there was already a foreclosure sale. Hence the action for annulment of mortgage is a real
action which should have been filed in Makati where the real property is situated.
V
Lender extended to Borrower a P100,000.00 loan covered by a promissory note. Later,
Borrower obtained another P100,000.00 loan again covered by a promissory note. Still later,
Borrower obtained a P300,000.00 loan secured by a real estate mortgage on his land valued at
P500,000.00. Borrower defaulted on his payments when the loans matured. Despite demand to pay
the P500,000.00 loan, Borrower refused to pay. Lender, applying the totality rule, filed against
Borrower with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, a collection suit for P500,000.00.
a.) Did Lender correctly apply the totality rule and the rule on joinder of causes of action?
(2%)
At the trial, Borrower's lawyer, while cross-examining Lender, successfully elicited an
admission from the latter that the two promissory notes have been paid. Thereafter, Borrower's
lawyer filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground that as proven only P300,000.00 was the
amount due to Lender and which claim is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the
Metropolitan Trial Court. He further argued that lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter can
be raised at any stage of the proceedings.
b.) Should the court dismiss the case? (3%)
ANSWERS:
a) Yes Lender correctly applied the totality rule and the rule on joinder of causes of
action.
Under the rule on joinder of causes of action, a party may in one pleading assert as many
causes of action as he may have against an opposing party. Under the totality rule, where the
claims in all the causes of action are principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount
claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.
Here the causes of action by Lender are all against borrower and all the claims are
principally for recovery of money.
Hence the aggregate amount claimed, which is P500,000 shall be the test of jurisdiction
and thus it is the RTC of Manila which has jurisdiction.
Although the rules on joinder of causes of action state that the joinder shall not include
special civil actions, the remedy resorted to with respect to the third loan was not foreclosure but
collection. Hence joinder of causes of action would still be proper.
b) No, the court should not dismiss the case.

The Supreme Court has held that subject-matter jurisdiction is determined by the amount
of the claim alleged in the complaint and not the amount substantiated during the trial. (Dionisio
v Sioson Puerto, 31 October 1974).
Here the amount claimed was P500,000. Even if the claim substantiated during the trial
was only P300,000 that is not determinative of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Hence the argument that lack of subject-matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time is
misplaced since in the first place the RTC has jurisdiction.
VI
Juliet invoking the provisions of the Rule on Violence Against Women and their Children
filed with the RTC designated as a Family Court a petition for issuance of a Temporary Protection
Order (TPO) against her husband, Romeo. The Family Court issued a 30-day TPO against Romeo.
A day before the expiration of the TPO, Juliet filed a motion for extension. Romeo in his opposition
raised, among others, the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9262 (The VAWC Law) arguing that the
law authorizing the issuance of a TPO violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the
1987 Constitution. The Family Court judge, in granting the motion for extension of the TPO,
declined to rule on the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9262. The Family Court judge reasoned that
Family Courts are without jurisdiction to pass upon constitutional issues, being a special court of
limited jurisdiction and R.A. No. 8369, the law creating the Family Courts, does not provide for
such jurisdiction. Is the Family Court judge correct when he declined to resolve the
constitutionality of R.A. No. 9262? (3%)
ANSWER:
No, the Family Court judge was not correct when he declined to resolve the
constitutionality of R.A. No. 9262.
The Supreme Court has held that despite its designation as a Family Court, a Regional Trial
Court remains possessed of authority as a court of general jurisdiction to resolve the
constitutionality of a statute. (Garcia v. Drilon, 25 June 2013)
VII
Strauss filed a complaint against Wagner for cancellation of title. Wagner moved to
dismiss the complaint because Grieg, to whom he mortgaged the property as duly annotated in
the TCT, was not impleaded as defendant.
a.) Should the complaint be dismissed? (3%)
b.) If the case should proceed to trial without Grieg being impleaded as a party to the
case, what is his remedy to protect his interest? (2%)
ANSWERS:
a) No, the complaint should not be dismissed.

The Supreme Court has held that non-joinder of an indispensable party is not a ground of
a motion to dismiss. (Vesagas v. CA, 371 SCRA 508).
Here although Grieg, the registered mortgagee, is an indispensable party (Metrobank v.
Alejo, 364 SCRA 813 [2001]), his non-joinder does not warrant the dismissal of the complaint.
b) The remedy of Grieg is to file a motion for leave to intervene.

Under Rule 19, a person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation may intervene
in the action.
Here Grieg is a mortgagee and such fact was annotated in the title.
Hence he has a legal interest in the title subject-matter of the litigation and may thus
intervene in the case.
VIII
A law was passed declaring Mt. Karbungko as a protected area since it was a major
watershed. The protected area covered a portion located in Municipality A of the Province I and a
portion located in the City of Z of Province II. Maingat is the leader of Samahan ng Tagapag-ingat
ng Karbungko (STK), a people's organization. He learned that a portion of the mountain located
in the City of Z of Province II was extremely damaged when it was bulldozed and leveled to the
ground, and several trees and plants were cut down and burned by workers of World Pleasure
Resorts, Inc. (WPRI) for the construction of a hotel and golf course. Upon inquiry with the project
site engineer if they had a permit for the project, Maingat was shown a copy of the Environmental
Compliance Certificate (ECC) issued by the DENR-EMB, Regional Director (RD-DENR-EMB).
Immediately, Maingat and STK filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of continuing mandamus
against RD-DENR-EMB and WPRI with the RTC of Province I, a designated environmental court,
as the RD-DENR-EMB negligently issued the ECC to WPRI.
On scrutiny of the petition, the court determined that the area where the alleged
actionable neglect or omission subject of the petition took place in the City of Z of Province II,
and therefore cognizable by the RTC of Province II. Thus, the court dismissed outright the
petition for lack of jurisdiction.
a.) Was the court correct in motu proprio dismissing the petition? (3%)
Assuming that the court did not dismiss the petition, the RD-DENR-EMB in his Comment
moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that petitioners failed to appeal the issuance of the
ECC and to exhaust administrative remedies provided in the DENR Rules and Regulations.
b.) Should the court dismiss the petition? (3%)
ANSWERS:
a) No, the court was not correct in motu proprio dismissing the petition for lack of
jurisdiction.
In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court held that the requirement that the
petition be filed in the area where the actionable neglect or omission took place relates to venue
and not to subject-matter jurisdiction. Since what is involved is improper venue and not subject-
matter jurisdiction, it was wrong for the court to dismiss outright the petition since venue may be
waived. (Dolot v. Paje, 27 August 2013).
b) No, the court should not dismiss the petition.

The Supreme Court has held that in environmental cases, the defense of failure to exhaust
administrative remedies by appealing the ECC issuance would apply only if the defect in the
issuance of the ECC does not have any causal relation to the environmental damage.
Here the issuance of the ECC has a direct causal relation to the environmental damage
since it permitted the bulldozing of a portion of the mountain and the cutting down and buring of
several trees and plants. (See Paje v. Casiño, 3 February 2015).
IX
Landlord, a resident of Quezon City, entered into a lease contract with Tenant, a resident of
Marikina City, over a residential house in Las Piñas City. The lease contract provided, among
others, for a monthly rental of P25,000.00, plus ten percent (10%) interest rate in case of non-
payment on its due date. Subsequently, Landlord migrated to the United States of America (USA)
but granted in favor of his sister Maria, a special power of attorney to manage the property and
file and defend suits over the property rented out to Tenant. Tenant failed to pay the rentals due
for five (5) months. Maria asks your legal advice on how she can expeditiously collect
from Tenant the unpaid rentals plus interests due. (6%)
(A) What judicial remedy would you recommend to Maria?

(B) Where is the proper venue of the judicial remedy which you recommended?
(C) If Maria insists on filing an ejectment suit against Tenant, when do you reckon the one (1)-
year period within which to file the action?
ANSWERS:
(A)
The judicial remedy that I would recommend to Maria is to file a collection suit for the
P125,000 rentals in arrears and the P12,500 interest due. The remedy would be expeditious since
it would be governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure as the amount of the demand, excluding
interest, does not exceed P200,000.
(B)
The proper venue of the collection suit would be in Marikina City, where Tenant resides.
Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, venue in personal actions is with the residence of either
the plaintiff or the defendant, at the plaintiff’s election.
Since the Plaintiff does not reside in the Philippines, venue may be laid only in Marikina
City where the defendant Tenant resides.
(C)
If Maria insists on filing an ejectment suit against Tenant, the one-year period within which
to file the action shall be reckoned from the expiration of 5-days from notice of the last demand to
pay and vacate. (Cruz v. Atencio, 28 February 1959; Sy Oh v. Garcia, 30 June 1969).
X.
Prince Chong entered into a lease contract with King Kong over a commercial building where the
former conducted his hardware business. The lease contract stipulated, among others, a monthly
rental of P50,000.00 for a four (4)-year period commencing on January 1, 2010. On January 1,
2013, Prince Chong died. Kin Il Chong was appointed administrator of the estate of Prince Chong,
but the former failed to pay the rentals for the months of January to June 2013 despite King
Kong’s written demands.
Thus, on July 1, 2013, King Kong filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) an action for
rescission of contract with damages and payment of accrued rentals as of June 30, 2013. (4%)
(A) Can Kin Il Chong move to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the RTC is without
jurisdiction since the amount claimed is only P300,000.00?
(B) If the rentals accrued during the lifetime of Prince Chong, and King Kong also filed the
complaint for sum of money during that time, will the action be dismissible upon Prince Chong’s
death during the pendency of the case?
ANSWERS:
(A)
No, Kin II Chong cannot move to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the RTC is
without jurisdiction since the amount claimed is only P300,000.
Under B.P. Blg. 129, the RTC has original and exclusive jurisdiction over actions incapable of
pecuniary estimation.
Here the action is for rescission which is incapable of pecuniary estimation. The P300,000 accrued
rentals is only incidental to the main purpose of the action which is to rescind the lease contract.
(B)
No, the action will not be dismissible upon Prince Chong’s death during the pendency of
the case.
Under S20 R3, when the action is on a contractual money claim and the defendant dies before
entry of final judgment, the action shall not be dismissed but shall instead be allowed to continue
until entry of final judgment.
Here the action is on a contractual money claim, that is, a claim for rentals based on a lease
contract. Hence it shall be allowed to continue until final judgment. (S20 R3, S5 R86).
XI
While leisurely walking along the street near her house in Marikina, Patty unknowingly
stepped on a garden tool left behind by CCC, a construction company based in Makati. She lost
her balance as a consequence and fell into an open manhole. Fortunately, Patty suffered no major
injuries except for contusions, bruises and scratches that did not require any hospitalization.
However, she lost self-esteem, suffered embarrassment and ridicule, and had bouts of anxiety and
bad dreams about the accident. She wants vindication for her uncalled for experience and hires
you to act as counsel for her and to do whatever is necessary to recover at least Php100,000.00 for
what she suffered.
What action or actions may Patty pursue, against who, where (court and venue), and under what
legal basis?
XII
A bought a Volvo Sedan from ABC Cars for P5.0M. ABC Cars, before delivering to A,
had the car rust proofed and tinted by XYZ Detailing. When delivered to A, the car’s upholstery
was found to be damaged. ABC Cars and XYZ Detailing both deny any liability. Who can A sue
and on what cause(s) of action? Explain.
XIII
Distinguish action from cause of action.
XIV
Give the effects of the following:

(C) Splitting a single cause of action; and
(D) Non-joinder of a necessary party.
XV
(C) What is the rule on joinder of causes of action?

(D) A secured two loans from B, one for P500,000.00 and the other for P1,000,000.00,
payable on different dates. Both have fallen due. Is B obliged to file only one complaint
against A for the recovery of both loans? Explain.
XVI
Perry is a resident of Manila, while Ricky and Marvin are residents of Batangas City. They are the
co-owners of a parcel of residential land located in Pasay City with an assessed value of
P100,000.00. Perry borrowed P100,000.00 from Ricky which he promised to pay on or before
December 1, 2004. However, Perry failed to pay his loan. Perry also rejected Ricky and Marvin’s
proposal to partition the property. Ricky filed a complaint against Perry and Marvin in the RTC of
Pasay City for the partition of the property. He also incorporated in his complaint his action against
Perry for the collection of the latter’s P100,000.00 loan, plus interests and attorney’s fees.
State with reasons whether it was proper for Ricky to join his causes of action in his complaint for
partition against Perry and Marvin in the RTC of Pasay City.
XVII
(C) What is the rule against splitting a cause of action and its effect on the respective rights of
the parties for failure to comply with the same?
(D) A purchased a lot from B for P1,500,000.00. He gave a down payment of P500,000, signed
a promissory note payable thirty days after date, and as a security for the settlement of the
obligation, mortgaged the same lot to B. When the note fell due and A failed to pay, B
commenced suit to recover from A the balance of P1,000,000.00. After securing a
favorable judgment on his claim, B brought another action against A before the same court
to foreclose the mortgage. A now files a motion to dismiss the second action on the ground
of bar by prior judgment. Rule on the motion.
XVIII
Raphael, a warehouseman, filed a complaint against V Corporation, X Corporation and Y
Corporation to compel them to interplead. He alleged therein that the three corporations claimed
title and right of possession over the goods deposited in his warehouse and that he was uncertain
which of them was entitled to the goods. After due proceedings, judgment was rendered by the
court declaring that X Corporation was entitled to the goods. The decision became final and
executory
Raphael filed a complaint against X Corporation for the payment of P100,000.00 for storage
charges and other advances for the goods. X Corporation filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
on the ground of res judicata. X Corporation alleged that Raphael should have incorporated in his
complaint for interpleader his claim for storage of fees and advances and that for his failure he was
barred from interposing his claim. Raphael replied that he could not have claimed storage fees and
other advances in his complaint for interpleader because he was not yet certain as to who was liable
therefor. Resolve the motion with reasons.
XIX
Rolando filed a petition for declaration of the nullity of his marriage to Carmela because of the
alleged psychological incapacity of the latter.
After trial, the court rendered judgment dismissing the petition on the ground that Rolando failed
to prove the psychological incapacity of his wife. The judgment having become final, Rolando
filed another petition, this time on the ground that his marriage to Carmela had been celebrated
without a license. Is the second action barred by the judgment in the first? Why?
XX
In an action for unlawful detainer in the MTC, defendant X raised in his answer the defense that
plaintiff A is not the real owner of the house subject of the suit. X filed a counterclaim against A
for the collection of a debt of P80,000.00 plus accrued interest of P15,000.00 and attorney’s fees
of P20,000.00. Does the MTC have jurisdiction over the counterclaim?
Answer: The counterclaim is within the jurisdiction of the MTC which does not exceed
P100,000.00, because the principal demand is P80,000 exclusive of interest and attorney’s fees
(Sec. 33, BP 129, as amended). However, inasmuch as all actions for forcible entry and unlawful
detainer are subject to summary procedure and since the counterclaim is only permissive, it cannot
be entertained by the MTC. (Section 1A[1] and 3A, RSP)

Questionnaire

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Questionnaire

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Remedial Law Review 1 August 25, 2018

3. What is the doctrine of hierarchy of courts?

4. What is the Harmless Error Rule in relation to appeals?

5. Distinguish error of jurisdiction versus error of judgment.

3. What is the doctrine of hierarchy of courts?

4. What is the Harmless Error Rule in relation to appeals?

5. Distinguish error of jurisdiction versus error of judgment.

20. How shall the Rules of Court be construed?

Part II. 3-point Questions

1. What is the concept of remedial law?

2. Distinguish between substantive law and remedial law.

2. What is the objective of the Katarungang Pambarangay Law?

5. What is the difference between a judgment and an opinion of the court?

7.What is the doctrine of hierarchy of courts?

8. What is the Harmless Error Rule in relation to appeals?

9. Distinguish jurisdiction from venue?

10.Distinguish error of jurisdiction versus error of judgment.

Part III. 5-point Questions

Remedial Law Review 1 Quiz No. 1 August 22, 2018

Explain briefly your answer.

Part II. 3-point Questions

1. What is the concept of remedial law?

Part III. 5-point Questions

1. What is the concept of remedial law? (2006)

(a) An action filed on November 13, 2017 to recover the possession of

2. Distinguish jurisdiction from venue? (2006)

4. A brings an action in the MTC of Manila against B for the annulment of an

12. An amicable settlement was signed before a Lupon Tagapamayapa on January

a) Is the Lupon correct in refusing to execute the settlement/agreement?

Republic Act No. 7691 March 25, 1994

AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS,

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress

Section 3. Section 33 of the same law is hereby amended to read as follows:

Section 4. Section 34 of the same law is hereby amended to read as follows:

Approved: March 25, 1994

Explain briefly your answer.

Is there a splitting of a single cause of action? Explain your answer.

At the trial, Borrower's lawyer, while cross-examining Lender, successfully elicited an

(B) Should the court dismiss the case?

(B) Should the court dismiss the petition?

(A) What judicial remedy would you recommend to Maria?

(A) Distinguish action from cause of action.

Give the effects of the following:

(A) What is the rule on joinder of causes of action?

Raphael, a warehouseman, filed a complaint against V Corporation, X Corporation and Y

No, the motion to dismiss of ABC Bank should not be granted.

Is there a splitting of a single cause of action? Explain your answer.

Yes, there is a splitting of a single cause of action.

The motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue should be granted.

b.) Should the court dismiss the case? (3%)

b) No, the court should not dismiss the case.

a) No, the complaint should not be dismissed.

b) The remedy of Grieg is to file a motion for leave to intervene.

b) No, the court should not dismiss the petition.

(A) What judicial remedy would you recommend to Maria?

Distinguish action from cause of action.

Give the effects of the following:

(C) What is the rule on joinder of causes of action?

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen