JUSTICE MARIANO C.

DEL CASTILLO
Chairperson
2018 Bar Examinations

Danielle, a Filipino citizen and permanent resident of Milan, Italy, filed with the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Davao City, where she owns a rest house, a complaint for ejectment against Dan, a
resident of Barangay Daliao, Davao City. Danielle's property, which is located in Digos City, Davao
del Sur, has an assessed value of PhP 25,000. Appended to the complaint was Danielle's
certification on non-forum shopping executed in Davao City duly notarized by Atty. Dane Danoza, a
notary public.

(a) Was there a need to refer the case to the Lupong Tagapamayapa for

prior barangay conciliation before the court can take cognizance of the case? (2.5%)

No. Since Danielle is not an actual resident of Brgy. Daliao, or a barangay adjacent
thereto, this case is not subject to the Karatarungang Pambarangay Law. Hence, prior
referral to the Lupon ng Tagapamayapa is not a pre-condition to the filing of this in court.
(Pascual vs Pascual, GR No. 157830, November 17, 2005

(b) Was the action properly instituted before the RTC of Davao City? (2.5%)

No. BP 129 vests the MTC with the exclusive jurisdiction over unlawful detainer cases,
regardless of the assessed value of the property. Hence, the action was wrongfully
instituted with the RTC.

© Should the complaint be verified or is the certification sufficient? (2.5%)

Yes. Considering that the action is for unlawful detainer, the Rules on Summary
Procedure will apply. Rule II, Section 3(B) of the Rules on Summary Procedure require
that all pleadings submitted to the court be verified. Hence, a mere certification is
insufficient.

II

Dendenees Inc. and David, both stockholders owning collectively 25% of Darwinkle Inc., filed an
action before the RTC of Makati to compel its Board of Directors (BOD) to hold the annual
stockholders' meeting (ASM) on June 21, 2017, as required by Darwinkle Inc. 's By-Laws, with
prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction to use as record date April 30, 2017. The complaint
alleged, among others, that the refusal to call the ASM on June 21, 2017 was rooted in the plan of
the BOD to allow Databank Inc. (which would have owned 50% of Darwinkle Inc. after July 15, 2017)
to participate in the ASM to effectively dilute the complainants' shareholdings and ease them out of
the BOD. Dendenees Inc. and David paid the amount of PhP 7 ,565 as filing fees based on the
assessment of the Clerk of Court. The BOD filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction. They averred that the filing fees should have been based on the actual value of the
shares of Dendenees Inc. and David, which were collectively worth PhP 450 million.

If you were the Judge, will you grant the motion to dismiss? (5%)
No. Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and determined by the
allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the
plaintiff’s cause of action.

In this case, the allegations in the complaint shows that the cause of action is to compel the
Dawinkle Inc’s BOD to hold the annual stockholders’ meeting on June 21, 2017. This is a cause of
action incapable of pecuniary estimation, such that the filing therefor under Rule 141 of the Rules of
Court does not pertain to the “actual value of the shares of Dendees Inc. and David”, as alleged in
the motion to dismiss. Hence, the motion should be denied.

Alternative Answer: The party filing the case will be required to pay the deficiency, but jurisdiction is
not automatically lost

Second Alternative Answer: Since the case is an intra-corporate suit, The BOD’s motion to dismiss
on the ground of deficient filing fees must be denied for being a prohibited pleading.

III

On February 3, 2018, Danny Delucia, Sheriff of the RTC of Makati, served the Order granting the ex-
parte application for preliminary attachment of Dinggoy against Dodong. The Order, together with
the writ, was duly received by Dodong. On March 1, 2018, the Sheriff served upon Dodong the
complaint and summons in connection with the same case. The counsel of Dodong filed a motion to
dissolve the writ.

(a) Can the preliminary attachment issued by the Court in favor of Dinggoy be dissolved?
What ground/s can Dodong's counsel invoke? (2.5%)

Yes, the preliminary attachment issued by the court in favor of Dinggoy can be dissolved
because the enforcement thereof was improper.

In Torres, et. Al v. Satsatin, et.al., the Supreme Court ruled that once the implementation
of a writ of preliminary attachment commences, the court must have acquired jurisdiction
over the defendant, for without such jurisdiction, the court has no power and authority to
act in any manner against the defendant. Consequently, any order issued from the Court
will not bind the defendant. Thus, it is indispensable not only for the acquisition of
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, but also upon consideration of fairness, to
apprise the defendant of the complaint against him and the issuance of a writ of
preliminary attachment and the grounds therefor that prior or contemporaneously to the
serving of the writ of attachment, service of summons, together with a copy of the
complaint, the application for attachment, the applicants affidavit and bond, and the order
must be served upon him.

In this case, since copies of the complaint and summons were served after the writ of
preliminary attachment was served upon Dodong, the writ of preliminary attachment may
be dissolved.

(b) If Dodong posts a counter bond, is he deemed to have waived any of his claims for
damages arising from the issuance of the Order and writ of attachment? (2.5%)
 No, the posting of a counter bond does not amount to a waiver of his claim for damages
arising from the issuance of the Order and the writ of attachment. The counter-bond and
a claim for damages pertain to two(2) different aspects in the issuance and
implementation of writ of preliminary attachment.

A counterbond posted by the person against whom the writ of preliminary attachment
was issued, does not answer for damages on account of the lifting of the attachment, but
for the payment of the amount due under the judgment that may be recovered by an
attaching creditor. The counter-bond stands in place of the properties so released.

Considering that the Rules of Court provided different purposes for filing of a counter-
bond and the filing of claim for damages, Dodong’s posting of a counterbond cannot be
deemed a waiver of his claim for damages.

IV

Dick Dixson had sons with different women - (i) Dexter with longtime partner Delia and (ii) Dongdong
and Dingdong with his housemaid Divina. When Dick fell ill in 2014, he entrusted all his property
titles and shares of stock in various companies to Delia who, in turn, handed them to Dexter for
safekeeping. After the death of Dick, Dexter induced Dongdong and Dingdong to sign an agreement
and waiver of their right to Dick's estate in consideration of PhP 45 million. As Dexter reneged on his
promise to pay, Dongdong and Dingdong filed a complaint with the RTC of Manila for annulment of
the agreement and waiver. The summons and complaint were received by Dalia, the housemaid of
Dexter, on the day it was first served. Dexter filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over his person. RTC Manila granted the motion to dismiss.

Dongdong and Dingdong thereafter filed a new complaint against Dexter for annulment of the
agreement and waiver. Before Dexter could file his answer, Dongdong and Dingdong filed a motion
to withdraw their complaint praying that it be dismissed without prejudice. An Order was issued
granting the motion to withdraw without prejudice on the basis that the summons had not yet been
served on Dexter. Dexter filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal. He argued that
the dismissal should have been with prejudice under the "two-dismissal rule" of Rule 17, Section 1 of
the Rules of Court, in view of the previous dismissal of the first case.

Will the two-dismissal rule apply making the second dismissal with prejudice? (5%)

The two-dismissal rule will not apply because the first dismissal was at the instance of the
defendant.

The requirements for the application of the two-dismissal rule under Rule 17, Section 1 of the Rules
of Court are: (a) there was a previous case that was dismissed by a competent court; (b) both cases
were based on or include the same claim; (c) Both notices for dismissal were filed by the plaintiff; (d)
when the motion to dismiss filed by the plaintiff was consented to by the defendant on the ground
that the latter paid and satisfied all the claims of the former.

In this case, the third requisite is absent because the first dismissal was upon the motion to dismiss
filed by Dexter. Hence, the two-dismissal rule will not apply.

V
Dorton Inc. (Dorton) sued Debra Commodities Inc. (Debra), Daniel, and Debbie in the RTC of Manila
for recovery of sum of money. The complaint alleged that, on October 14, 2017, Debra obtained a
loan from Dorton in the amount of PhP 10 million with interest of 9% per annum. The loan was
evidenced by a promissory note (PN) payable on demand signed by Daniel and Debbie, the principal
stockholders of Debra, who also executed a surety agreement binding themselves as sureties.
Copies of both the PN and the surety agreement were attached to the complaint. Dorton further
alleged that it made a final demand on March 1, 2018 for Debra and the sureties to pay, but the
demand was not heeded.

Debra, Daniel, and Debbie filed their answer, and raised the affirmative defense that, while the PN
and the surety agreement appeared to exist, Daniel and Debbie were uncertain whether the
signatures on the documents were theirs. The PN and the surety agreement were pre-marked during
pre-trial, identified but not authenticated during trial, and formally offered.

Can the RTC of Manila consider the PN and the surety agreement in rendering its decision? (5%)

Yes, the RTC of Manila may consider the PN and the surety agreement in rendering its decision.

The PN and the surety agreement are actionable documents, defined under Rule 8, Section 7 of the
Rules of Court as a written instrument upon which an action is founded upon. Moreover, Rule 8,
Section 8 provides that when an action is founded upon a written instrument, or attached to the
corresponding pleading, the genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed
admitted unless the adverse party, under oath specifically denies them, and sets forth what he
claims to be the facts.

In this case, Debra, Daniel and Debbie are parties to the PN and the surety agreement. Since the
PN and surety agreement are attached to the complaint, DDD are deemed to have admitted the
genuineness and due execution thereof for their failure to (a) deny the same under oath and (b) to
set forth what they claim to be the facts.

VI

Daribell Inc. (Daribell) filed a complaint for sum of money and damages against spouses Dake and
Donna Demapilis for unpaid purchases of construction materials in the sum of PhP 250,000. In their
answer, spouses Demapilis admitted the purchases from Daribell, but alleged that they could not
remember the exact amount since no copies of the documents were attached to the complaint. They
nevertheless claimed that they made previous payments in the amounts of PhP 110,000 and PhP
20,000 and that they were willing to pay the balance of their indebtedness after account verification.
In a written manifestation, spouses Demapilis stated that, in order to buy peace, they were willing to
pay the sum of PhP 250,000, but without interests and costs. Subsequently, Daribell filed a motion
for partial summary judgment. Thereafter, Daribell filed an amended complaint, alleging that the total
purchases of construction materials were PhP 280,000 and only PhP 20,000 had been paid. Daribell
also served upon the spouses Demapilis a request for admission asking them to admit to the
genuineness of the statement of accounts, delivery receipts and invoices, as well as to the value of
the principal obligation and the amount paid as stated in the amended complaint.

Daribell thereafter amended the complaint anew. The amendment modified the period covered and
confirmed the partial payment of PhP 110,000 but alleged that this payment was applied to the
spouses' other existing obligations. Daribell however reiterated that the principal amount remained
unchanged.
 (a) Is the request for admission deemed abandoned or withdrawn by the filing of the second
amended complaint? (2.5%)

No. The second amended complaint merely supersedes the first amended complaint
merely supersedes the complaint it amends and nothing more, pursuant to Rule 10,
Section 8 of the Rules of Court. Thus, the request for admission is not deemed
abandoned or withdrawn by the filing of the second amended complaint.

(b) Can the amendment of the complaint be allowed if it substantially alters the cause of
action? (2.5%)

No. Amendments are not proper and should be denied when, among others, they (a)
would result in a change of cause of action or theory of the case ; or (b) would be
inconsistent with the allegations in the original complaint, absent any showing that such
amendments shall serve the higher interest of substantial justice, and prevent delay iand
equally promote the laudable objective of the rules which is to secure a just, speedy, and
inexpensive disposition of every action or proceeding.

(c) Can the facts subject of an unanswered request for admission be the basis of a summary
judgment? (2.5%)

Yes. Summary judgment is a procedural device resorted to in order to avoid a long

drawn out litigations, and useless delays. Such judgment is generally based on the facts
proven summarily by affidavits, depositions, pleadings, or admissions of the parties.

In this case, the facts subject of an unanswered request for admission are deemed
admissions by the adverse party (Rule 26, Section2 of the Rules of Court). Thus, these
facts may be the basis of a summary judgment.

VII

Dory Enterprises Inc. (Dory) leased to Digna Corporation (Digna) a parcel of land located in Diliman,
Quezon City. During the term of the lease, Digna was informed by DBS Banking Corporation (DBS)
that it had acquired the leased property from the former owner Dory, and required Digna to pay the
rentals directly to it. Digna promptly informed Dory of DBS' claim of ownership. In response, Dory
insisted on its right to collect rent on the leased property.

Due to conflicting claims of Dory and DBS over the rental payments, Digna filed a complaint for
interpleader in the RTC of Manila. Digna prayed that it be allowed to consign in court the succeeding
monthly rentals, and that Dory and DBS be required to litigate their conflicting claims. It later
appeared that an action for nullification of a dacion en pago was filed by Dory against DBS in the
RTC of Quezon City. In said case, Dory raised the issue as to which of the two (2) corporations had
a better right to the rental payments. Dory argued that, to avoid conflicting decisions, the interpleader
case must be dismissed.

Does the action for nullification of the dacion en pago bar the filing of the interpleader case? (2.5%)
Yes. The interpleader case should be dismissed in view of the action for nullification of the dacion en
pago.

Under Rule 2, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, if two or more suits are instituted on the bases of the
same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a
ground for dismissal of the others.

In the situation above, the interpleader case filed by Digna seeks to resolve who between Dory and
DBS has the right to receive the rental payments. Similarly, Dory’s action for nullification of dacion
en pago will determine who between Dory and DBS has the right to collect rental payment from
Digna. Considering that the two cases involve the same cause of action, the interpleader should be
dismissed

VIII

Spouses Dondon and Donna Dumdum owned a residential lot in Dapitan City. Doy Dogan bought
said lot and took possession thereof with the promise to pay the purchase price of PhP 2 million
within a period of six (6) months. After receiving only PhP 500,000, spouses Dumdum executed the
deed of absolute sale and transferred the title to Doy Dogan. The balance was not paid at all.
Spouses Dumdum, through counsel, sent a demand letter to Doy Dogan for him to pay the balance
of PhP 1.5 million plus interest of PhP150,000. Doy Dogan responded in a letter by saying that
"while the remaining balance is admitted, the interest charged is excessive." There being no
payment, spouses Dumdum filed with the RTC of Dapitan City a complaint for reconveyance with
damages against Doy Dogan.

In his answer, Doy Dogan raised, by way of affirmative defense, that the purchase price had been
fully paid and for this reason the complaint should have been dismissed. Spouses Dumdum then
filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings which was granted by the RTC of Dapitan City. The
Court awarded PhP1 .5 million actual damages representing the balance of the purchase price, PhP
200,000 as moral damages, PhP 200,000 as exemplary damages, PhP 90,000 as interest, PhP
50,000 as attorney's fees, and PhP 5,000 as cost of suit.

Was it proper for the RTC of Dapitan City to grant the motion for judgment on the pleadings? (2.5%)

No. It was improper for the RTC of Dapitan City to grant the motion for judgment of the pleadings.

Rule 34 of the Rules of Court states that a judgment on the pleadings is proper when an failed to
tender an issue or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings. In this
case, Dogan alleged that he paid the purchase price in full, contrary to Spouses Dumdum’s
allegation that Dogan did not pay the balance of 1.T Million. He tendered an issue in his answer as
WON he has an outstanding unpaid balance with Spuses Dumdum. Hence, a judgment on the
pleadings was improper.

IX

In 2015, Dempsey purchased from Daria a parcel of land located in Dumaguete, Negros Oriental.
The latter executed a deed of absolute sale and handed to Dempsey the owner's duplicate copy of
TCT No. 777 covering the property. Since he was working in Manila and still had to raise funds to
cover taxes, registration and transfer costs, Dempsey kept the TCT in his possession without having
transferred it to his name. A few years thereafter, when he already had the funds to pay for the
transfer costs, Dempsey went to the Register of Deeds of Dumaguete and discovered that, after the
sale, Daria had filed a petition for reconstitution of the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 777 which
the RTC granted. Thus, unknown to Dempsey, Daria was able to secure a new TCT in her name.

What is Dempsey's remedy to have the reconstituted title in the name of Daria nullified? (5%)

Dempsey may file a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.

The Supreme Court had consistently held that when the owner’s duplicate certificate of title has not
been lost, but is in fact in the possession of another person, then the reconsitituted certificate is void,
because the court that rendered the decision had no jurisdiction. As a rule, reconstitution can validly
be made only in case of loss of the original certificate.

Rule 47, Section 2. Grounds of annulment- The annulment may be based only on the grounds of
extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction

In a buy-bust operation, 30 kilos of shabu were seized from Dave and Daryll. They were arrested
and placed on inquest before Prosecutor Danilo Doon who ordered their continued detention.
Thereafter, the information for the sale and distribution of shabu was filed in court. When arraigned,
Dave and Daryll pleaded not guilty to the charge. During pre-trial, counsel for both of the accused
raised, for the first time, the illegality of the arrest. The case proceeded to trial. After trial, the court
scheduled the promulgation of judgment with notice to both the accused and their counsel, Atty.
Dimayuga. During the promulgation, only Dave and Atty. Dimayuga were present. Both the accused
were convicted of the crime charged.

(a) Was the challenge to the validity of the arrest timely raised? (2.5%)

No, the challenge to the validity of the arrest was not timely raised.

As a rule, an accused may question the validity of his arrest through a motion to quash
before he enters his plea. Otherwise, the objection is deemed waived, and an accused is
estopped from questioning the legality of his arrest.

(b) What is the remedy available to Daryll, if any, to be able to file an appeal? (2.5%)

To be able to file an appeal, Darryl should (a) surrender, and (b) file a motion for leave of
court to file an appeal, stating therein the reasons for his absence during the
promulgation, within 15 days from the date of promulgation of judgment.

XI

In 2007, Court of Appeals Justice (CA Justice) Dread Dong (J. Dong) was appointed to the Supreme
Court (Court) as Associate Justice. Immediately after the appointment was announced, several
groups questioned his qualification to the position on the ground that he was not a natural born
Filipino citizen. In the same year, the Court issued an Order enjoining him from accepting the
appointment or assuming the position and discharging the functions of his office until he is able to
successfully complete all the necessary steps to show that he is a natural born citizen of the
Philippines. However, he continued to exercise his functions as CA Justice.
Since the qualification of a natural born citizen applies as well to CA Justices, Atty. Dacio, a
practicing lawyer, asked the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), through a verified request, to
initiate a quo warranto proceeding against J. Dong in the latter's capacity as incumbent CA Justice.
The OSG refused to initiate the action on the ground that the issue of J. Dong's citizenship was still
being litigated in another case.

When the OSG refused to initiate a quo warranto proceeding, Atty. Dacio filed a petition
for certiorari against the OSG and certiorari and prohibition against J. Dong. The petition
for certiorari against the OSG alleged that the OSG committed grave abuse of discretion when it
deferred the filing of a quo warranto proceeding against J. Dong, while the petition for certiorari and
prohibition against J. Dong asked the Court to order him to cease and desist from further exercising
his powers, duties and responsibilities as CA Justice. In both instances, Atty. Dacio relied on the fact
that, at the lime of J. Dong's appointment as CA Justice, his birth certificate indicated that he was a
Chinese citizen and his bar records showed that he was a naturalized Filipino citizen.

(a) May the OSG be compelled, in an action for certiorari, to initiate a quo

warranto proceeding against J. Dong? (2.5%)

No. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65, Section 1 of the Rules of Court is only
applicable against a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions
who/which has acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. Since OSG does not exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions, the petition
for certiorari filed against the OSG is improper.

(b) Does Atty. Dacio have the legal personality to initiate the action for certiorari and
prohibition against J. Dong? (2.5%)

No. Rule 65, Sections 1 and 2 of the Rules of Court state only an aggrieved party may
file petitions for certiorari and prohibition in the appropriate court.

An aggrieved party is one who was a party to the original proceedings that gave rise to
the original action for certiorari under Rule 65.

No. Rule 65, Sections 1 and 2 of the Rules of Court state that only an aggrieved party
may file petitions for certiorari and prohibition in the appropriate court. An aggrieved party
is one who was a party to the original proceedings that gave rise to the original action for
certiorari under Rule 65.

XII

Dodo was knocked unconscious in a fist fight with Dindo. He was rushed to the emergency room of
the Medical City where he was examined and treated by Dr. Datu. As he was being examined, a
plastic sachet appearing to contain shabu fell from Dodo's jacket which was on a chair beside him.
Dodo was thus arrested by the same policemen who assisted him to the hospital. At Dodo's trial, the
public prosecutor called Dr. Datu to the witness stand. When the public prosecutor asked Or. Datu
as to what he saw in the emergency room, Dodo's counsel objected, claiming doctor-patient privilege
rule.

How would you rule on the objection? (2.5%)

The objection should be overruled. The doctor-patient privilege under Rule 130, Section 24 of the
Rules of Court is limited to “any advice or treatment given by him or any information which he may
have acquired in attending such patient in a professional capacity, which information was necessary
to enable him to act in such capacity, and which would blacken the reputation of the patient.

XIII

Denny is on trial for homicide. The prosecution calls Danilo, a police officer, who interviewed the
victim, Drew, shortly after the shooting. Danila's testimony is being offered by the prosecution for
purposes of proving that (i) Drew is now dead; (ii) while in the emergency room, Drew was posting
his medical condition on Facebook and was "liking" the posts of his Facebook friends; (iii) Drew
asked the nurse for water but was refused because he was bleeding, which subsequently angered
Drew; and (iv) that before dying, Drew signed a statement in which he identified Denny as the
shooter.

Is the proposed testimony of Danilo admissible? (2.5%)

i. Danilo’s testimony as to the fact of Drew’s death is admissible because he has personal
knowledge of Drew’s death. Rule 130, section 36 of the Rules of Court states:

36. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay excluded.- A witness can testify
only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which derived from his own
perception, except as otherwise provided in these rules.

ii. Danilo’s testimony as to the fact that Drew was using his facebook at the time he was in the
emergency is inadmissible because it is irrelevant

Rule 128, Section of the RR provides that evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and
is not excluded by the Constitution, the law or these Rules.

ii. Danilo’s testimony as to the fact that Drew was mad after the nurse refused to give him water in
the emergency room is inadmissible because it is irrelevant and immaterial under Rule 128, Section
3 of the RR.

iv. Danilo’s testimony is admissible to prove the fact that Drew signed a document which identified
Denny as the shooter because he has personal knowledge of the same.

XIV

Dave is on trial for sexual assault of Delly, a law student who sidelines as a call center agent. Dave
offers the testimony of Danny, who says that Dave is known in the community as a decent and
discerning person. The prosecution presents a rebuttal witness, Dovie, who testifies that, if Dave
was reputed to be a good person, that reputation was a misperception because Dave had been
previously convicted of homicide.

Is Dovie's testimony admissible as to the character of Dave? (2.5%)

No. Dovie’s testimony is inadmissible because Dave’s prior conviction of homicide is irrelevant
because it is not germane to the moral trait pertaining to the charge of sexual assault.

The character evidence must be pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.

XV

Atty. Dalmacio, the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation, applied for a search warrant
before the Executive Judge of RTC Manila. He alleged in his application that a certain alias Django
was keeping about 10 kilos of shabu in a wooden cabinet located at Dillian's Store in Paseo de Sta.
Rosa, Laguna. The Executive Judge of Manila personally examined Atty. Dalmacio and his
witnesses and thereafter issued the search warrant particularly describing the place to be

searched and the items to be seized.

(a) Can the search warrant issued by the Executive Judge of Manila be enforced in Laguna?
(2.5%)

Yes, the search warrant issued by the Executive Judge of Manila may be enforced in
Laguna.

Administrative No.99-20-09 of the Supreme Court states that all application for search
warrant endorsed by the head of the NBI, among others, with the EJ oand VEJ or the
RTC, Manila and Quezon City, may be served in places outside the territorial jurisdiction
of said courts.

(b) Can the legal concept of "venue is jurisdictional" be validly raised in applications for
search warrants? (2.5%)

No, the legal concept of venue being jurisdictional is not applicable.

The SC in Malaloan v CA states that an application for a search warrant is a special

criminal process, rather than a criminal action.

XVI

Danjo, a stay-in gardener at the Dy family home in Quezon City, applied for overseas employment in
Riyadh as a flower arranger. After he left for abroad, Dino Dy, head of the family, discovered that all
his wristwatches were missing. Dino followed Danjo's lnstagram account and in one instance saw
Danjo wearing his Rolex watch. He filed a complaint for qualified theft against Danjo with the Office
of the Prosecutor (OP), Quezon City. The subpoena with the affidavit-complaint was served on
Denden, Danjo's wife, at their house. No counter-affidavit was filed by Danjo who continued to work
in Riyadh. After conducting a preliminary investigation, the OP found probable cause against Danjo
and subsequently filed the information for qualified theft before the RTC of Quezon City. The court
likewise found probable cause and issued in 2016 a warrant for Danjo's arrest.

Danjo was repatriated to the Philippines in 2018. While Danjo was lurking outside the Dys' house,
which was only about 100 meters away from the police station, SPO1 Dody recognized Danjo.
Realizing that the police station had a copy of Danjo's warrant of arrest, SPO1 Dody immediately
pursued and arrested Danjo.

(a) Was the warrant of arrest issued against Danjo who was not in the Philippines valid?
(2.5%)

Yes, the warrant of arrest issued against Danjo is valid.

Section 6, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure states that within 10
days from the filing of the complaint or information, the judge shall personally evaluate
the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. If he find probable cause, he
shall issue a warrant of arrest or a commitment order if the accused has already been
arrested.

(b) Can the warrant of arrest be served on Danjo upon his return? (2.5%)

Yes. The warrant of arrest may be served on Danjo upon his return to the Philippines. A
warrant of arrest remains valid until arrest is effected or the warrant lifted.

In the case at bar, absence any indication that the warrant of arrest is lifted by the Court,
the warrant of arrest issued for the arrest of Danjo is still valid until it is effected.

XVII

Don Deles, a contractor, was sued together with Mayor Dante Dungo and Congressman Dal Dilim
for malversation of public funds before the Office of the Ombudsman. Danny Din, a material witness
of the complainant Diego Domingo, was hired as an engineer by a construction company in Qatar,
and had to depart in two (2) months. To perpetuate Danny Din's testimony, Diego Domingo applied
for his conditional examination before the Sandiganbayan.

Should the application for conditional examination of Danny Din be granted? (2.5%)

The application for conditional examination of Danny Din should not be granted.

Rule 119, Section 12 of the Rules of Court states that a conditional examination of witness may be
applied for when a person has been held to answer for an offense. In addition to this requirement,
the applicant must show that: (a) the witness is sick or infirm as to afford a reasonable ground for
believing that will not be able to attend the trial; (d) resides more than 100 KM from the place of trial
and has no means to attend the same; or (c) that other similar circumstances exist that would make
him unavailable or prevent him from attending the trial.

XVIII

The Republic of the Philippines (Republic) filed a complaint with the Sandiganbayan in connection
with the sequestered assets and properties of Demo Companies Inc. (Demo) and impleaded its
officers and directors. Since the complaint did not include Demo as defendant, the Sandiganbayan
issued a Resolution where it ordered Demo to be impleaded. Thereafter, the Republic filed an
amended complaint naming Demo as additional defendant, which amendment was later admitted.
Demo filed a motion for bill of particulars for the Republic to clarify certain matters in its amended
complaint. The Sandiganbayan immediately granted the motion. Upon submission of the bill of
particulars by the Republic, Demo filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the answers in the bill of
particulars were indefinite and deficient responses to the question of what the alleged illegally
acquired funds or properties of Demo were. The Sandiganbayan dismissed the case.

(a) Was the Sandiganbayan correct in dismissing the case? (2.5%)

Yes. Under Rule 12, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, the consequence of insufficient
compliance with court’s order for a bill of particulars or a more definite pleading is that
the court may order the striking out of said pleading or the portions thereof.

In striking out said pleading, no complaint existed, and thus, the SB effectively dismissed
the case.

(b) What can the defendant, in a civil case, do in the event that his motion for bill of
particulars is denied? (2.5%)

File an answer and state therein that the pleadings fails to state a cause of action. Motion
to dismiss on the ground that the complainant fails to state a cause of action is now a
prohibited pleading under the Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Court, effective May 1,
2020.

XIX

Drylvik, a German national, married Dara, a Filipina, in Dusseldorf, Germany. When the marriage
collapsed, Dara filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage before the RTC of Manila.
Drylvik, on the other hand, was able to obtain a divorce decree from the German Family Court. The
decree, in essence, states:

The marriage of the Parties contracted on xxx before the Civil Registrar of Dusseldorf is
hereby dissolved. The parental custody of the children Diktor and Daus is granted to the
father.

Drylvik filed a motion to dismiss in the RTC of Manila on the ground that the court no longer had
jurisdiction over the matter as a decree of divorce had already been promulgated dissolving his
marriage to Dara. Dara objected, saying that while she was not challenging the divorce decree, the
case in the RTC still had to proceed for the purpose of determining the issue of the children's
custody. Drylvik counters that the issue had been disposed of in the divorce decree, thus
constituting res judicata.

(a) Should Drylvik's motion to dismiss be granted? (2.5%)

In actions against a person, a foreign judgment merely constitutes prima facie evidence
of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent title.

In such a case, the judgment or final order may be repelled by evidence of a want of
jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fat.
 (b) Is a foreign divorce decree between a foreign spouse and a Filipino spouse, uncontested
by both parties, sufficient by itself to cancel the entry in the civil registry pertaining to the
spouses' marriage? (2.5%)

No. before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our courts, the party pleading
it must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law
allowing it.

XX

Dominic was appointed special administrator of the Estate of Dakota Dragon. Delton, husband of
Dakota, together with their five (5) children, opposed the appointment of Dominic claiming that he
(Dominic) was just a stepbrother of Dakota. After giving Dominic the chance to comment, the court
issued an Order affirming the appointment of Dominic.

(a) What is the remedy available to the oppositors? (2.5%)

The remedy available to the oppositors of the appointment of Dominic as a special

administrator is to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

The appointment of special administrators, being interlocutory, may be assailed only

through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

(b) If there are no qualified heirs, can the government initiate escheat proceedings over the
assets of the deceased? To whom, in particular, shall the estate of the deceased go and
for whose benefit? (2.5%)

Yes

Section 1. When an by whom petition filed. — When a person dies intestate, seized of real property
in the Philippines, leaving no heir or person by law entitled to the same, the Solicitor General or his
representative in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, may file a petition in the Court of First
Instance of the province where the deceased last resided or in which he had estate, if he resided out
of the Philippines, setting forth the facts, and praying that the estate of the deceased be declared
escheated.

Section 3. Hearing and judgment. — Upon satisfactory proof in open court on the date fixed in the
order that such order has been published as directed and that the person died intestate, seized of
real or personal property in the Philippines, leaving no heir or person entitled to the same, and no
sufficient cause being shown to the contrary, the court shall adjudge that the estate of the estate of
the deceased in the Philippines, after the payment of just debts and charges, shall escheat; and
shall, pursuant to law, assign the personal estate to the municipality or city where he last resided in
the Philippines, and the real estate to the municipalities or cities, respectively, in which the same is
situated. If the deceased never resided in the Philippines, the whole estate may be assigned to the
respective municipalities or cities where the same is located. Shall estate shall be for the benefit of
public schools, and public charitable institutions and centers in said municipalities or cities.

XXI
The municipality of Danao, Cebu was a quiet and peaceful town until a group of miners from
Denmark visited the area and discovered that it was rich in nickel. In partnership with the municipal
mayor, the Danish miners had to flatten 10 hectares of forest land by cutting all the trees before
starting their mining operations. The local DENR, together with the Samahan Laban sa Sumisira sa
Kalikasan, filed a petition for writ of kalikasan against the municipal mayor and the Danish miners in
the RTC of Cebu.

(a) Is the petition within the jurisdiction of the RTC of Cebu? (2.5%)

No. The petition for a writ of kalikasan is not within the jurisdiction of the RTC of Cebu.
Rule 7, Section 3 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental cases provides that a
petition for a writ of kalikasan must be filed with the SC or any of the stations of the CA.

(b) What is the Precautionary Principle? (2.5%)

The precautionary principle states that when human activities may lead to threats of
serious and irreversible damage to the environment that is scientifically plausible but
uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that threat.

XXII

Danica obtained a personal loan of PhP 180,000 from Dinggoy, payable in 18 equal monthly
installments of PhP 10,000 until fully paid. In order to complete her payment at an earlier date,
Danica instead paid PhP 20,000 monthly, and continued doing so until the 15th month, which
payments Dinggoy all accepted. Later on, she realized that she had overpaid Dinggoy by 100% as
she should have already completed payment in nine (9) months. She demanded the return of the
excess payment, but Dinggoy completely ignored her. Thus, Danica availed of the Rules of
Procedure for Small Claims Cases by filing before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) a statement of
claim, together with the required documents.

Should the MTC proceed with the case under the: (i) Revised Rules Summary Procedure; (ii) the
Rules of Procedure for Small Claims; or (iii) the regular procedure for civil cases? (5%)

The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) should try the case under the Revised Rules of Procedure for Small
Claims.

As per latest amendment of said rules, the MTC shall apply the Revised Rules in all actions which
are purely civil in nature where the claim or relief prayed for is solely for payment or reimbursement
of sum of money not exceeding P300,000.00, exclusive of interest and cost.

Having overpaid by one hundred percent (100%) of the amount of the loan, Danica’s cliam for
reimbursement amounts to P180,000, which is within the threshold of the Revised Rules. Thus, the
MTC should proceed to hear the case under the Revised Rules of Procedure for Small Claims.

-NOTHING FOLLOWS-