L B (MT) O I (MT)

16. The Motion of Defendant to first 16. The defendants motion should not 16 (Did not send)
resolve the issue of whether the be denied. When the defendant
plaintiff is the proper remedy should interposed an affirmative defense, he
be granted. The defendant’s motion is may move that a preliminary hearing
not barred by the filing of an answer. be conducted to resolve the issue
In fact, the defendant has raised it as raised as his defense. The hearing will
an affirmative defense in the answer. be conducted as if a motion to dismiss
Under the Rules of Court, when a was filed. In the case at bar, trial had
motion to dismiss is not availed of already ensued. So as to not burden
before the filing of the responsive the parties with litigating issues that
pleading, it may still be raised as an will be rendered moot by resolving the
affirmative defense in the answer. issue raised, the motion to first resolve
(5PTS) should be granted and heard (5 PTS)

21. In this case, the court will
dismiss the case by virtue of
Jack’s notice of dismissal
since it is a matter of right.
According to the Rules,
dismissal through the
plaintiff’s notice is generally
without prejudice, unless
otherwise provided. As such,
the dismissal is without
prejudice. (3pts)
17. Yes, the court is correct. The
dismissal of a case based on
prescription is a dismissal with
prejudice because such ground is a
non-waivable defense, which is
adjudication on the merits and
disposes of the case entirely. (5pts)
17. The court is incorrect. A’s filing of
a notice of dismissal effectively
dismissed the case. There was no
more case when the court hear d the
motion to dismiss. What the court
should have done was to confirm the
dismissal (5 Points)
17. Yes, the court is correct in ruling
that prescription had set in and
ordering a dismissal with prejudice.
Under the Rules on Civil Procedure,
the rules on motion to dismiss provide
that cases dismissed by the court on
the grounds of res judicata,
prescription, extinguishment of
obligation and unenforceable under
the statute of frauds, shall be
dismissed with predjudice because it
amounts to an adjudication upon the
merits, being a bar to re-filling of the
same action in court. The remedy in
case of dismissal under this four
grounds would be to appeal after final
judgement.
 In the case at bar, the court is correct
in dismissing the case with prejudice
for being dismissed due to
prescription. A dismissal due to
prescription, being a bar for refilling
the case must be ordered to be with
predjudice
22. It depends on the nature of
the action involved. If the
case involves action in
personam, the judgment
would be rendered void
because the court did not
acquire jurisdiction over the
defendants. On the other
hand, if the case involves
either action in rem or quasi
in rem, the judgement would
be valid. (No pts)

23. It depends on the nature of

the action involved. If the
case involves action in
personam, the judgment
would be rendered void
because the court did not
acquire jurisdiction over the
defendants. On the other
hand, if the case involves
either action in rem or quasi
in rem, the judgement would
be valid. (No pts)
18. With respect to C, No. C filed a 18. The genuiness and due execution 18. Yes it is deemed admitted as for
responsive pleading and denied under of the document is still being admitted. B. However it is not deemed admitted
oath the document. Under the rules of C’s denial under oath had no effect on for C.
court, in controverting an actionable the admission of the same because it
document, it is the necessary that the is not shown that he is a party to the Under the rules of civil procedure,
other party specifically deny under contract. The denial under oath had under the rules as to the manner of
oath the document. Hence with no effect on the admission of the filing pleadings, motions or
respect to C, there is a denial of the same because it is not shown that he documents. An actionable document
genuiness and due execution of the is a party to the contract. The denial must be set forth in the pleading in
document. However, with respect to under oath contemplated by law is terms of substance and a copy of the
B, he is deemed to have admitted the supposed to be done by a person who contract must be attached to the
genuineness and due execution of is a party to the contract. (5 PTS) complaint as an exhibit. In a case,
the document because of lack of
verification. (4PTS)
19. Yes, the court is correct.
Defendant’s motion to file
amended answer will
prejudice the plaintiff who
has already presented his
evidence. Under the Rules of
Court, Amendment which is
substantial shall be within the
discretion of the court taking
into consideration the
prejudicial effect of such
document. (No points)
decided by the supreme court, it was
held that an actionable document will
be deemed admitted as to its
genuiness unless the respondent
makes a specific denial in his
responsive pleading, specifically
pointing out what is true and what is
not.
In this case, B failed to make specific
denials in his responsive pleading as
to the genuiness of the actionable
document, thus It is deemed admitted
by the court. As for C, given that he
was able to make specific denials in
his responsive pleading, the
actionable document is not deemed
admitted and must still be proven with
evidence. (3 PTS)
24. No. the court should have 19. The court is correct. Although a 19. The court is correct in denying the
proceeded with the hearing party is allowed to amend his answer, substantial amendment after
of the defendant’s the same is subject to the discretion of responsive pleading.
counterclaim. The Rules the court. If the court deems that the
provide that dismissal due to filing of an amended answer would Under the rules of civil procedure, an
the plaintiff’s inaction refer prejudice the plaintiff or was merely amendment of pleading is available
only to the complaint and filed to delay the proceedings, it may once as a matter of right before a
should prejudice the deny the motion to amend as in this responsive pleading is filed or before
defendant’s counterclaim. case. (NO PTS) summary judgment. Under this rule,
Moreover, plaintiff’s appeal formal and substantial amendments
should be considered may be done even to the extent of
premature since it should be changing the cause of action provided
filed after judgment has been that it is done within the above
rendered. (5PTS) mentioned period. However after such
period a party may only make formal
amendments unless with leave of
court is permitted to make substantial
amendments.
In this case, when B filed a motion to
amend his answer, it was already after
it presented his evidence, thus such
amendment may only be done with
leave of court based on their
discretion as to allow the substantial
amendment or not. The court may

20 The judgment will not bind C
and D as there was improper
service of summons,
resulting in the court’s lack of
jurisdiction over their
persons. Service of
summons in a manner of
acquiring jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant/s
and under the Rules, the
same should be strictly
complied with. The
judgement will only be
binding in the persons of A
and B as their filing of
responsive pleading
constituted voluntary
appearance resulting in
submission to the court’s
jurisdiction. (2pts)
21. There are two cases which A
may file against B. First, is
the first and the second claim
and second, the return of the
condo unit which B refused
to vacate. In the first case,
the aggregate amount of
such claims shall be the test
of jurisdiction. The total
amount of P540,000 is within
the jurisdiction of the RTC.
Hence it shall file the first
case in the RTC where A or
B resides at the option of A.
In the second case, a
summary proceeding may be
instituted by B on the ground
deny the substantial amendment after
a responsive pleading if it so believes
that the rights of the plaintiff will be
predjudiced. Here in, the plaintiff had
already presented his evidence , thus
a substantial amendment after such
may predjudice him (No PTS)
20 The judgement will remain 20 The judgement remains to have
valid but it is not binding on C force and effect.
and D. Because summons
was served improperly and In a case decided by the supreme
there is now showing that C court with regard to jurisdiction over a
and D voluntarily submitted person, it was held that jurisdiction
themselves the court’s over a person unlike jurisdiction over
jurisdiction, the court never subject matter, must be seasonably
acquired jurisdiction over raised, that is a period in which a
their person, which is prudent and diligent man would have
required to bind the done.
judgement on them. (5
Points) In this case, C and D moved to annyl
the judgement to due to improver
service of summons. As jurisprudence
so holds, this is not allowed uynder
the rules because the issues of
improver service of summons involves
jurisdiction over persons which may
be seasonably raised ( NO PTS)
25. A will not able to file and
enjoin the given cause of
action since the rules
prohibits the joinder of
causes of action covered by
special actions or Rules. As
such, A should proceed as
follows: A and B) A may file
recovery of amount for the
loan amounting to P500,000
in the RTC and recovery of
amount for the loan
amounting to P40,000 in the
MTC. A may, however,
enjoin this into one complaint
and file in the RTC since the
action both involve recovery
 of unlawful detainer. It shall
be filed in the MTC where the
condo unit is situated (4 Pts)
22. If A were to proceed against B, the
action is an action in personam
because an action for the collection of
sum of money is enforced against the
personal liability of A. The appropriate
mode of service of summons is
through publication because B is a
resident temporarily outside the
Philippines (5 Pts)
23. . If A were to proceed against C,
the action is Quasi in Rem because
the respondent will be named as a
defendant for the purpose of
subjecting his interest in a lien
burdening the property. A real estate
mortgage is a Quasi in Rem Action.
There must be an extraterritorial
service of summons upon C because
C is a non-resident and not found in
the Philippines; He may be served
with summons through personal
service of summons or through
publication in a newspaper of general
circulation. The extra territorial service
must be with leave of court (5Pts)
24. No. A cannot proceed against the
mortgagor and the principal debtor at
the same time in the same case
because the nature of the cases are
different. Foreclosure will follow the
procedure in special civil action and
will result to a judgment quasi in rem
on the res which is binding upon third
of sum of money; C) An
unlawful detainer to be filed
with the MTC for the return of
the condominium unit; and D)
Complaint to return the Rolex
watch or damages for the
amount of the Rolex watch to
be filed with RTC since
pecuniary value cannot be
estimated. (4pts)
26 A) If A were to proceed
against B separately, the
action would be for the
payment of the loan, which is
considered as an action in
personam. Since B is a
resident temporarily out of
the country, extraterritorial
service of summons should
be done. Extraterritorial
service may be done through
any of the following: 1. With
leave of court, personal
service outside the country;
2. with leave of court, service
by publication outside the
country with copies of the
complaint and summons sent
to the last known address
through registered mail; or 3.
any other manner as
provided by the court. (5pts)
B) If A were to proceed
against C separately, the
action would be for the
foreclosure of the real estate
mortgage, which is
considered as an action
quasi in rem. Since C is a
non-resident found in the
Philippines, extraterritorial
service of summons should
be done. (5pts)
21 The action is an in personam
action. This being so, the
summons to B, a resident
temporarily outside the
country may served either by
substituted service or
extraterritorial service
through personal service,
publication and mailing of the
summons at B’s last known
address or any other mode
ordered by the court (5 PTS)
22. A could proceed against
C separately for foreclosure
of the Real Estate Mortgage.
The foreclosure is a quasi in
rem action. The proper mode
of service is extra territorial
service of summons since C
is a non-resident not found in
the Philippines. (3 PTS)
23. A cannot proceed against
both B and C in the same
case. A’s causes of action
against the two cannot `be
joined since one is a special
civil action cannot be joined
under the rules on joinder of
causes of action. (5 PTS)
20. This is an action in personam
because it involves a
personal action in the form of
a loan.
Given that B is a resident
who is abroad, the mode of
service to be resorted to is
extraterritorial service. Under
the rule of civil procedure,
the rules on summons
provide that extraterritorial
service may be resorted to
wiuth leave of court in case
the defendant is a resident
who is temporarily abroad.
This mode of service is done
through personal service or
publication in a newspaper of
general circulation where
defendant is found. This
must be accompanied by
delivery through registered
mail of the summons on his
last known address.
In this case, given that B is a
resident temporarily abroad
having a 2 year contract,
summons may be served
personally or through
publication accompanied by
delivery through registered
mail to last known address
parties while collection is an ordinary
civil action in personam which is only
binding upon the person of the
defendant. (5pts)
25 A cannot join an action for unlawful
detainer and collection suit even if
both cases are cognizable by MTC
because the former is a special civil
action. Even if the amount of loan is
raised to P450, 000, it still cannot be
joined because the rule on joinder of
causes of action explicitly states that
no joinder can be had if one of the
C) Yes, A can proceed
against both B and C at the
same time in the same
cause. There is only one
cause of action involved here
which the verification of the
loan is. However, there are
two reliefs that may be
availed of alternatively i.e., 1.
Payment of loan; and 2.
Foreclosure of mortgage.
The Rules provide that
splitting of the cause of
action is not allowed. A
cannot avail both reliefs. A
may only file one case. It
may be against B only or C
only or both B and C. Filing
two cases will bar one over
the other. (No pts)
27 A cannot join the case for
unlawful detainer and the
case to recover the amount
of P100K. According to the
rules, joinder of actions is not
allowed if it includes special
actions. Although both cases
fall under the jurisdiction of
the MTC, the actions cannot
24. A cannot join the actions. A case
for unlawful detainer is a special civil
action. Since the rule on joinder of
causes of action prohibits the joinder
of an ordinary civil action and a
special civil action.
There will not be any difference if the
indebtedness was P 450,00 (5 PTS)
22. Yes. A may proceed against C.
Under the rules on civil procedure, the
nature of the action is quasi in rem. In
a case decided by the supreme court.
An action quasi in rem involves a
defendant which is named as a party
having an interest or lien on the
subject property. In such case, it was
held that in actions quasi in rem, the
court need not acquire jurisdiction
over the named defendant, what is
vital is jurisdiction over the res or
thing. Moreover, the rule in terms of
service of summons to a non-resident
found in the Philippines depends if it is
personal,in rem or quasi in rem. In
actions quasi in rem, the summons
may be served to a non-resident not
in the Philippines through
extraterritorial service of summons
with leave of court.
In this case, C is a non-resident not
found in the Philippines, thus
summons may be served through
extra territorial service by personal
service or publication accompanied by
delivery through registered mail to last
known address. However it must be
noted that the action herein is one in
the nature of a quasi in rem,. Thus
jurisdiction may be acquired through
the institution of a legal proceeding or
other means provided by law (5 PTS)
23. DID NOT SEND
24 A cannot join the action for
unlawful detainer and the collection for
a sum of money In once case.
Under the rules of joinder and
misjoinder of actions, joinder of
causes of action is allowed provided
that such follows the rules on proper
joinder of parties, that the action do
cases is a special civil action. The
reason is, there is a separate
proceeding applied for unlawful
detainer different from the procedures
in ordinary civil action like collection.
(5pts)
26 I will institute one case for the
collection of the 10 PNs. The rule on
the joinder of cause of action is
applicable in this case. Under the
rules of court, the plaintiff may assert
in one pleading as many cause of
action as he may have against the
other party provided that the rules of
joinder of parties have been complied
with. In this case, there may be a
series of transactions but it involves
the same parties. (No Points)
be joined. The answer would
still be the same even if the
indebtedness was P450K.
(5pts)
28 If I were the lawyer of A, I will file at
least 3 cases. First is for the 5PNs
drawn by B and C totaling the amount
of P750K. This should be filed under
the RTC in the residence of A, B, or C
at the option of A or depending on
their agreement. Second is for the
2PNs drawn by B totaling the amount
of P300K. This should be filed under
the MTC in the residence of A, B or C
at the option of A or depending on
their agreement. Third is for the
P450K which should be filed under the
RTC with the same rules as above
stated. (5PTS)
25 I will file three cases.
The first for the 5 PN drawn by B and
C amounting to P 750,000 filed before
the RTC where A, B or C resides at
A’s election
The second case will be for the 2 Pn’s
drawn by B amounting to P300K to be
filed before the MTC where either A or
B resides at A’s election
The third case is for the 3 PN’s drawn
by C amounting to P450K to be filed
before the RTC where either A or C
resides at A’s election. (5 PTS)
not involve special civil actions or
actions governed by special rules and
that RTC can take cognizance of case
so long as one of the causes of action
falls within its jurisdiction and in
money claims the aggregate amount
is the basis for jurisdiction.
In this case, the action for unlawful
detainer is a special civil action wich
may not be joined with anaction for a
sum of money which is a personal
action. Thus A must file the unlawful
detainer case in the MTC having
exclusive jurisdiction of such cases.
The amount of P100K may recovered
by filing a case for collection of sum
of money with the MTC having a
jurisdiction value of below P100k (In
Metro Manila) If the indebtedness is
P450 K the case must be filed with the
RTC having a jurisdictional value of
400 K and above in Metro Manila
while 300K above for provinces.
25 I will file 3 Cases namely against B
and C together as co-defendants,
another against B and a 3rd case
against C.
The basis of filing 3 different cases is
because the 3 cases each arose from
PN’s, however each transactions is
based on a different cause of action
depending on who drew the notes.
The action for collection of the value
of the notes is a personal action, thus
one’s personal liability is only based
on the PN’s which he has signed. One
cannot be made liable for acts not
committed by him.
In this case, 5/10 PN’s drawn by B
and C shall be the subject of one
case, 2/10 drawn by B shall be the
subject of the 2 case and 3/10 drawn

27 No, B is not correct. The court can
Motu Propio dismiss the case
because litis pendentia is a non-
waivable ground for dismissal. To
avoid multiplicity of suits and the
situation where different courts render
different judgments, the court can
dismiss even in the absence of a
motion from the defendant.
Nevertheless, in the case of litis
pendentia, there should be a
determination of which of the courts is
a more proper forum to ventilate the
rights of the parties so that the ends of
justice is better attained. (5pts)
28 Yes, Jack may interpose the PN as
a counterclaim against Joe even if it is
in excess of the jurisdiction of the
MTC. Under the Rules of Compulsory
counterclaims, when the compulsory
counterclaim exceeds the amount of
jurisdiction of the main case (MTC),
the compulsory counterclaim shall be
converted as a permissive
counterclaim and the excess of the
amount of jurisdiction in the MTC shall
be deemed waived (5Pts)
29 Yes. Although it is correct that litis
pendentia is a ground for dismissal,
the court, however, cannot dismiss the
case motu propio. A motion to dismiss
must be filed and the court must which
care must continue or survive that will
better serve justice. It is not
necessarily the latter that as filed that
should be dismissed. (5PTS)
30 Yes. The counterclaim is
permissive and may proceed
separately since it is no longer under
the jurisdiction of the MTC. (5PTS)
---- NOTHING FOLLOWS---
26 B is correct. A dismissal on the
ground of litis pendentia should be
done upon motion of the defendant
and a hearing on the same should be
conducted to ascertain which of the
two courts is the better forum to try the
case (5 PTS)
27 DID NOT SEND
by C for the third case. (5 PTS)
26. DID NOT SEND
27 Yes. The rules of court provides
that personal actions may be filed in
the court where the plaintiff resides or
where the defendant resides at the
plaintiff’s election.
In this case,Jose stole money. Thus,
he obtains personal liability for such
act. Given that his act of stealing gave
the law firm a cause to institute a
personal action against Jose. Being a
personal action and applying the
rules, the law firm can institute a case
in the Philippines in order to be

29)The court is correct in joining the
two causes of action to expedite the
trial of the case. Had the causes of
action been split, the same could
result forum shopping and froum
shopping is not allowed by the ROC.
Assuming the requisites for proper
joinder of causes of actions was
made; the court correctly took
cognizance of the case. (5pts)
28 The answer would depend on the
nature of the case being filed. If the
case is either in rem or quasi in rem
involving the non-residents property
located in the Philippines, he can be
sued. Jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant is not required so long
as the court acquired jurisdiction over
the res. On the other hand, if the case
is an in personam action, the non-
resident may not be sued as
summons cannot be served
extraterritorially to obtain jurisdiction
over the non-resident’s person.
The answer is different if the non-
resident is found in the Philippines.
The situation will now cover in
personam actions since summons
may be served. (5 PTS)
29)Yes. The court is correct in taking
cognizance of the 2 causes of action
based on the implied consent given by
the defendants from their failure to
object to the joinder of the two causes
of action. Objections not raised in the
responsive pleading are deemed
waived under the omnibus motion
rule.
Moreover, such joinder of causes of
action will not cause predjudice to the
defendants as evidence that pertains
to any of the two causes of action will
be admitted by the court before
rendering a decision. (5 PTS)
accorded relief from Jose’s liability.
The law firm may choose to institute
the case in Dubai but is will be easier
to file a case against the defendant in
the place where he resides which is in
the Philippines. (5 PTS)
28 A non-resident not found in the
Philippines cannot be sued for actions
in personam but an exception was
applied in the case of Gemperle v.
Schenker where a non-resident not
found in the Philippines was sued.
On the other hand, if the actions
involve actions in rem or quasi in rem,
a non-resident not found in the
Philippines may be sued because in
such cases, jurisdiction over the res is
needed and not jurisdiction over
person
A non-resident found in the
Philippines may be served with
summons personally and thus he may
validly be sued. This is provided for in
the rules of court regarding summons.
29)The rules on joinder provide that a
joinder of cause of action is allowed
provided that it follows that rules on
proper joinder parties. That the
actions do not involve special civil
actions or actions governed by special
laws and that the RTC may take
cognizance of the case so long as any
one of the causes of action fall within
its jurisdiction and for money claims
the aggregate amount shall be the
basis of jurisdiction.
In this case, the action for partition of
properties is a special civil action thus
it cannot be properly joined with the
2nd cause of action. This is because
 the rules on joinder provides that
special civil actions may not be joined.
Thus, the courts should have dropped
one of the 2 cases.

Despite this rule, if the parties have

agreed, the court will have discretion
based on failure to object the joinder.
FINALS
B T
11. 11.

A. Yes, it is procedurally proper. A. Resort to written

Interrogatories to an adverse interrogatories as a mode of
party may elicit information discovery was proper in this
from a person any matter so case but was procedurally
long as it is relevant and not wrong.
privileged. Furthermore Raj
correctly served it directly to Written interrogatories may
Gop and not to his counsel be resorted to to elicit
because it is Gop who should information in the possession
answer the written of the adverse party. It is
interrogatory. (No pts) directly served to the adverse
party so he can answer it
B. The court should allow the himself. In this case
amended complaint by the however, while the written
petitioners. They filed a interrogatories were directly
motion to amend before a served on him, no leave of
responsive pleading has court was acquired by Raj.
been filed by the defendant. Leave of court is necessary
Gop’s motion to dismiss does in case defendants has not
not count as a responsive filed an answer yet. Since
pleading. As a rule, when no what Gop filed was a motion
responsive pleading has to dismiss, there was no
been filed by the defendant responsive pleading filed yet.
amendments to the Thus, leave of court should
complaint should be allowed have beeb obtained by Raj in
as a matter of right. Clearly, order to limit the questions
the court should allow the only to those that are
amendment. (5pts) relevant (5 PTS)

C. Gop is not correct. The B. Gop is not correct, the

application for the injunction preliminary injunction should
should be heard before the be issued first. It is a
 motion to dismiss. Injunction,
a s a provisional remedy is
allowed by the court in order
to protect the rights of the
applicant from suffering
grave irreparable injury. The
basis of injunction does not
involve jurisdiction but a clear
legal right under imminent
danger of being damaged.
Clearly, the court can hear
the application for injunction
first before the motion to
dismiss. Should the court
order the case’s dismissal,
the injunction can be easily
vacated. (5pts)
D. No. the court cannot enjoin
the demolition instituted by
Yap. Since Yap is not a party
in the current action between
the siblings, the court has no
jurisdiction to issue and
execute an injunctive writ
against yap who is a non-
party in the case. Thus, the
demolition cannot be
enjoined. (5pts)
12.
A. The court should stay the
judgment rendered while B’s
notice of appeal is acted
upon by the MTC and C’s
Motion for New Trial is heard
by the court. As a general
rule, when these remedies
are availed upon it stays the
execution of the judgment
insofar as against the party
who instituted the remedy.
Thus, A cannot collect from
either B or C as long as their
remedies are being acted
provisional remedy that has
the purpose of restricting or
mandating acts against an
adverse party, if such acts
would bring about an
imminent danger to a clear
legal right; the same is also
not based on jurisdiction. For
the protection fo the
appellant’s right against
imminent danger, it must be
hear first before the motion to
dismiss (5 PTS)
12.
A. The court should deny the
execution in light of the
remedies applied for by B
and C. Under the law, a
notice of appeal or a motion
for new trial, if filed within the
proper period will stay the
execution of a judgement to
which it was interposed.
B. No, A cannot move for
execution against D in light of
his failure to take any
remedial action. Since in this
 upon by the court. (5pts)
B. Yes, A may move for
execution. He can demand
from D the entire 500k
obligation because he is
liable solidarily. Should A
demand from D, D gains the
right of reimbursement
against his fellow solidary
debtors. Clearly, A can
collect from D. (No pts)
C. Yes, D can file for annulment
of judgment provided that the
judgment has become final
and executory and through
no fault of the plaintiff under
the Rules. It can be annulled
on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over the subject
matter because the amount
of 500k is clearly out of the
jurisdiction of the MTC. (3pts)
13. The court is incorrect.
Defendant’s failure to file a
responsive pleading does not
automatically declare him in
default. Plaintiff should have
moved to declare defendant in
default. Sans the motion, the
court motu propio declare him in
default. Thus, he still has
standing in court and can readily
case, the obligation was
solidary, several judgements
cannot be made against B,C
and D. Several judgements is
proper when the liability of
each is clearly identifiable
such that judgement against
one would not affect the
others since the obligation
was solidary, judgement
would affect each and every
defendant. Thus, A cannot
move for execution against D
pending the notice of appeal
and motion for new trial filed
by B and C. The judgement
not being final and executory
cannot be executed against
B,C or D (5 PTS)
C. Yes. D may file for
annulment of judgement on
the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over the subject
matter as 500k is outside the
jurisdiction of the MTC. As
such, provided that the
judgement is final and
executory and that there is
no more adequate and
speedy remedy for D ,
without his fault, he may opt
to filed for an annulment of
judgement of the MTC (No
PTS)
avail for demurrer to evidence.
(5pts)

14 13.
A. Consolidation is not proper.
Despite the cases having the A. The consolidation is
same origin and identity of improper. As a rule,
parties, it is needed to have consolidation is proper not
common questions of fact or only by the mere common
law. The two cases are question of fact or law, there
entirely separate with must also be a factual
different issues involved. relationship between the two
Furthermore, consolidation cases that would enable the
requires more than a court to rule on the matter
common question of fact or without such vexation.
law; it also needs a factual
relationship which calls for In this case, what is sought
consolidation. Here, one calls to be consolidated is an
for an appeal while the other appeal (question of law) and
raises extrinsic fraud which a petition for annulment on
deprived him of his day in fraud (question of fact). Since
court. Clearly, these are two the two actions are unrelated
different actions which do not based on requisites for
call for consolidation. (5pts) consolidation and answer
different questions, thus
B. The remedy of A is to file for consolidation would be
petition to review under Rule improper (5 PTS)
42. Since the action is in the
RTC, exercising its appellate B. The remedy of A would be to
jurisdiction it should be file for a petition for review
brought up for review under under Rule 42, to the RTC
Rule 42 to the CA. The exercising appellate
remedy of B is to avail Rule jurisdiction.
41 or ordinary appeal by
filing a notice of appeal to the As to B, since an annulment
RTC as a matter of right. of judgement is an
Since it was filed in the RTC independent action, he may
in the exercise of its original file a notice of appeal under
jurisdiction, ordinary appeal Rule 41 to the Court of
via Rule 41 should be Appeals as the RTC
availed. (5pts) exercised its original
jurisdiction (5 PTS)
16. The motion for execution
pending appeal should be
granted. in several cases of the
Supreme Court, it has ruled that
execution pending appeal should
be granted by the court upon
showing of good reasons by the
movant. In this case, the
judgment debtor has already
started disposing of is property.
Furthermore, B filed a motion for
new trial which can be viewed as
dilatory tactics – used to
interpose delay. Thus, execution
pending appeal should be
granted. (No pts)
15. Yes, a preliminary injunction
should be issued. The damage
posed by the operation of Uber
and Grab Car is irreparable –
meaning it cannot be computed
mathematically, since it
irreparable, the court should issue
the injunction in order to preserve
the status quo. What is
irreparable here is not the
diminishing fares but the unduly
competition posed by the two
establishments. Thus, preliminary
injunction is proper. (3pts)
17. If the motion to A is denied,
he may have the properties of B
preliminary attached in order to
seize it, so long as it falls under
one of the grounds under the law.
Furthermore, he may apply for a
receiver who shall be tasked to
preserve the properties until the
danger subsists. If execution is
granted, B may file or post a
supersedeas bond in order to
14. On this matter, the execution
pending appeal will not prosper for
lack of good reason for its issuance.
Rather, a writ of preliminary
attachment is the proper remedy for B
as clearly A seeks for the satisfaction
of the judgement issued in his favor,
less fraud. Preliminary Attachment
may be issued anytime even after
judgement as long as the same is not
final and executory ,as the fraud in
this case, may may manifest itself only
during such time. Thus, the execution
pending appeal will not prosper for
being an improper remedy. (2 PTS)
is
15
A. As discussed, the remedy of
A if execution is denied with
respect to B’s continued
disposition is to file for a writ
of preliminary attachment
over the properties being
disposed as the same may
be considered under one of
the exclusive grounds for its
issuance under the law,
stay those properties targeted for
execution. Also, B may choose to
appeal from the main judgment or
final order and raise the granting
of execution as a ground. (5pts)
18. The trial court may still rule on
the motion for execution pending
appeal. Whenever a notice of
appeal is served , the trial court
retains residual jurisdiction which
allows it to issue orders for the
protection of the rights of the
parties – one of which is
execution pending appeal, so
long as the records have yet to
reach the appellate court, the trial
court may still exercise residual
jurisdiction. (5pts)
19. No, C is not entitled to the
rentals and dividends. Under the
Rules, the satisfaction of the
judgment applies only insofar as
the principal obligation. C cannot
claim the rentals and dividends
which are (except the last
ground) in the nature of fraud
against creditors. Likewise, a
preliminary attachment may
be filed anytime even after
judgement in order to protect
the right of the applicant for
the full satisfaction of the
judgement rendered in his
favor. A may likewise appoint
a receive for the protection of
the property until the danger
disappears
B. If execution is granted, B’s
remedy would be to file for a
supersedeas bond in order to
stay the execution. Likewise,
he may also appeal the
judgement/ final order, citing
the execution as a ground (5
PTS)
16. The trial court should issue the
motion for execution pending appeal
based on its residual jurisdiction. As a
rule on appeals, when anotice of
appeal is filed, the trial court, prior to
the perfection of the appeal, retains
the records of the case that are to be
transmitted to the appellate court.
During such time, the trial court still
has residual jurisdiction to rule on
matters that are immediately
executory for the protection of the
parties, one of which is the execution
pending appeal. As such prior to the
transmission to the appellate court of
the case records and for good
reasons, the trial court may issue such
execution pending appeal (5 PTS)
17. No. C is not correct in claiming
entitlement to the rentals and
dividends. As a rule, upon the
registration of a property acquired by
pirchas in an execution sale, the
original owner has the right to equity
because the debt being already of redemption depending if the
satisfied through the sale, the foreclosure was Extrajudicial or
rentals and dividends shall belong judicial to which he may redeem said
to B. (3pts) properties within the designated
periods under the rules of court. Only
upon the expiration of such periods, if
the original owner did not redeem the
property, can the purchaser be
considered as the owner having full /
exercising full ownership rights over
the property purchased. As such, C
may not in the meantime request for
entitlement to the rentals and
dividends. (2 PTS)
20. No, there is no forum
shopping. Despite the two cases
involve the same parties, the
issues raised are based on two
distinct causes of action, the first
being a challenge to the eligibility
of Poe as senator and the
second, as to her running for
office and her misrepresentations
in her CoC. There are clearly to
distinct issues which can be
raised only in these tribunals
which exercise original exclusive
jurisdiction to the subject matter
involved. Furthermore, the reliefs
prayed for are different - in one, it
is to disqualify her as senator and
in the other, to disqualify her as a
candidate. Thus, there can be no
forum shopping. (5pts)

18. No. The CA is incorrect because
of B’s cause of action of fraud and
forgery is based on the same
actionable document (Promissory note
and contract which contains the
stipulation to venue)
The rules provide that a party is not
bound by the stipulation on venue if
the same is part of the actionable
18 No. The court of appeals was not
correct. As a rule, venue may be
stipulated upon by the parties for as
long as the venue would not unduly
burden one party. Likewise, any
stipulation on venue must be made by
restrictive language for in the absence
of such, the stipulated venue will only
be an additional venue.
document being questioned. As such
the CA is incorrect in ruling that the
complaint should have been
dismissed on the ground of improper
venue as the same does not apply to
B that a court or courts in Makati may
19. The RTC is incorrect in dismissing
the complaint on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction as the ROC provides that
the jurisdiction of the courts over the
subject matter is based on the
allegations and reliefs prayed for in
the pleading of the complaint and not
on the respondent/defendant
In the case at bar, the basis of
jurisdiction of the RTC is based on the
Public land act or the contention of B
and not on the contention of R. As
such the RTC is incorrect in
dismissing the same
20 I would rule in favor of Spouses M.
This is because their failure to name
all of the heirs of F as a defendant is
of no importance as they are not
indispensable parties. The result of
the action for quieting of title will still
be binding upon all of them as they all
have the same interest in the
outcome-being co-heirs. Hence the
MTD of Maria should be denied
In this case, the stipulation “of the
proper court of makati” is not
restrictive as it does not designate
with certainty what the proper court is,
it only makes a general conjuncture
have jurisdiction over such action.
Thus, the CA improperly ruled for the
dismissal as the venue was merely
additional to those under the rules of
court regarding their litigated matter
(NO PTS)
19. No, the RTC is not correct in its
dismissal. Despite the assessed value
qualification under BP 129, the same
law alsoi prescribes that actions on
land acquired through free-patent laws
fall under the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the RTC. Thus, it may
not feign responsibility over an action
that was properly filed. (NO PTS)
20 No, the motion to dismiss is
misplaced. Since the heirs of F failed
to state during the proceedings who
they actually were they cannot now
claim that they are indispensable
parties and thus file a motion to
dismiss to the prejudice of the heirs of
M. The proper remedy was
amendment.
Moreover, their belated objection (1
month) negates their position for a
motion to dismiss on failure to implead
indispensable parties. Nor did they
move for the amendment of the
complaint to join these “indispensable
parties” that they are claiming

22 RTC was correct in saying
say that that an action for
rescission cannot be joined
with an action for partition
because the joinder of the
two actions are not proper.
Rules in joinder provides that
SCA’s cannot be included or
joined with Ordinary civil
actions. Partition being SCA,
it cannot be joined.
Moreover the supplemental
pleading cannot contain a
different cause of action than
that in the original pleading.
Therefore the action for
partition can be severed and
decided in a separate action.
Thus, for belatedly asserting a
remediable matter and for
improvidently filing a motion to
dismiss, the same must be rejected.
Under the law, the proper remedy for
non-inclusion of indispensable parties
is not a motion to dismiss but rather to
compel the complainants to amend
their complaint in order to include
indispensable parties (3 PTS)
21 No the appeal by petitioners will
not prosper. Their contention that the
action for partition was already barred
by res judicata is misplaced. A motion
to dismiss on Rule 17 does not
operate as an adjudication on the
merits and thus is without prejudice to
a similar action In the future. As such
2nd partition was not barred by res
judicata (1 PT)
22. Yes the RTC’s ruling is correct. In
saying that an action for rescission
cannot be joined cannot be joined with
an action for partition but not because
it was through a mere supplemental
pleading but because joinder of 2
actions is not proper. Rules In joinder
provide that special civil actions
cannot be joined with ordinary civil
actions. Partition being an SCA it
cannot be joined. Moreover
supplemental pleading cannot contain
a different cause of action than that in
the original pleading. Therefore the
action for rescission cannot be
severed and decided in a separate
action(NO PTS)