BAR QUESTIONS 2005- REMEDIAL LAW

[grifter]

BAR EXAMINATIONS 2005
REMEDIAL LAW
REMEDIAL LAW
Page 1of 10
25 September 2005
8 A.M. -- 12 Noon

INSTRUCTIONS

This questionnaire consists of eighteen (18) numbers contained in ten (10) pages. Read each question very carefully. Answer legibly, clearly and concisely. Start each number on a separate page; an answer to a sub-question under the same number may be written continuously on the same and immediately succeeding
pages until completed. Do not repeat the question.
HAND IN YOUR NOTEBOOK WITH THIS QUESTIONNAIRE
GOOD LUCK!!! PLEASE CHECK THE NUMBER OF PAGES IN THIS SET WARNING: NOT FOR SALE OR UNAUTHORIZED USE

- I -

a) Under Article 1144 of the New Civil Code, an action upon a judgment must be brought within 10 years from the time the right of action accrues.

Is this provision applicable to an action filed in the Philippines to enforce a foreign judgment? Explain.

b) May the aggrieved party file a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure instead of filing a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 thereof for the nullification of a decision of the Court of Appeals in the exercise either of its original or appellate jurisdiction? Explain.

c) May a private document be offered and admitted in evidence both as documentary evidence and as object evidence? Explain.

d) Distinguish a derivative suit from a class suit.

e) When may the trial court order that the testimony of a child be taken by live-link television? Explain. (10%)

- II -

(1.) While Marietta was in her place of work in Makati City, her estranged husband Carlo barged into her house in Parañaque City, abducted their six-year old son, Percival, and brought the child to his hometown in Baguio City. Despite Marietta's pleas, Carlo refused to return their child. Marietta, through counsel, filed a petition for habeas corpus against Carlo in the Court of Appeals in Manila to compel him to produce their son before the court and for her to regain custody. She alleged in the petition that despite her efforts, she could no longer locate her son.

In his comment, Carlo alleged that the petition was erroneously filed in the Court of Appeals as the same should have been filed in the Family Court in Baguio City which, under Republic Act No. 8369, has exclusive jurisdiction over the petition. Marietta replied that under Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, as amended, the petition may be filed in the Court of Appeals and if granted, the writ of habeascorpus shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.

Whose contention is correct? Explain. (5%)

(2.) Under Republic Act No. 8353, one may be charged with and found guilty of qualified rape if he knew on or before the commission of the crime that he is afflicted with Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus (HIV)/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or any other sexually transmissible disease and the virus or disease is transmitted to the victim.

Under Section 17(a) of Republic Act No. 8504 the court may compel the accused to submit himself to a blood test where blood samples would be extracted from his veins to determine whether he has HIV.

a) Are the rights of the accused to be presumed innocent of the crime charged, to privacy, and against self-incrimination violated by such compulsory testing? Explain.

b) If the result of such test shows that he is HIV positive, and the prosecution offers such result in evidence to prove the qualifying circumstance under the Information for qualified rape, should the court reject such result on the ground that it is the fruit of a poisonous tree? Explain. (8%)

- III -

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
Regional Trial Court 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 Regional Trial Court of Pasay City. (5%)

- IV -

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 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. (4%)

- V -

(1.) After Lulu's death, her heirs brought her last will to a lawyer to obtain their respective shares in the estate. The lawyer prepared a deed of partition distributing Lulu's estate in accordance with the terms of her will.

Is the act of the lawyer correct? Why? (2%)

(2.) Nestor died intestate in 2003, leaving no debts. How may his estate be settled by his heirs who are of legal age and have legal capacity? Explain. (2%)

(3.) State the rule on venue in judicial settlement of estate of deceased persons. (2%)

- VI -

While cruising on a highway, a taxicab driven by Mans hit an electric post. As a result thereof, its passenger, Jovy, suffered serious injuries. Mans was subsequently charged before the Municipal Trial Court with reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries.

Thereafter, Jovy filed a civil action against Lourdes, the owner of the taxicab, for breach of contract, and Mans forquasi-delict.

Lourdes and Mans filed a motion to dismiss the civil action on the ground of litis pendentia, that is, the pendency of the civil action impliedly instituted in the criminal action for reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries.

Resolve the motion with reasons. (4%)

- VII -

Katy filed an action against Tyrone for collection of the sum of P1 Million in the Regional Trial Court, with an ex-parte application for a writ of preliminary attachment. Upon posting of an attachment bond, the court granted the application and issued a writ of preliminary attachment.

Apprehensive that Tyrone might withdraw his savings deposit with the bank, the sheriff immediately served a notice of garnishment on the bank to implement the writ of preliminary attachment. The following day, the sheriff proceeded to Tyrone's house and served him the summons, with copies of the complaint containing the application for writ of preliminary attachment, Katy's affidavit, order of attachment, writ of preliminary attachment and attachment bond.

Within fifteen (15) days from service of the summons, Tyrone filed a motion to dismiss and to dissolve the writ of preliminary attachment on the following grounds: (i) the court did not acquire jurisdiction over his person because the writ was served ahead of the summons; (ii) the writ was improperly implemented; and (iii) said writ was improvidently issued because the obligation in question was already fully paid.

Resolve the motion with reasons. (4%)

- VIII -

In a complaint for recovery of real property, the plaintiff averred, among others, that he is the owner of the said property by virtue of a deed of sale executed by the defendant in his favor. Copy of the deed of sale was appended to the complaint as Annex "A" thereof.

In his unverified answer, the defendant denied the allegation concerning the sale of the property in question, as well as the appended deed of sale, for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof.

Is it proper for the court to render judgment without trial? Explain. (4%)

- IX -

On May 12, 2005, the plaintiff filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City for the collection of P250,000.00. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction over the action since the claimed amount of P250,000.00 is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City.

Before the court could resolve the motion, the plaintiff, without leave of court, amended his complaint to allege a new cause of action consisting in the inclusion of an additional amount of P200,000.00,thereby increasing his total claim to P450,000.00. The plaintiff thereafter filed his opposition to the motion to dismiss, claiming that the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction over his action.

Rule on the motion of the defendant with reasons. (4%)

- X -

A obtained a money judgment against B. After the finality of the decision, the court issued a writ of execution for the enforcement thereof. Conformably with the said writ, the sheriff levied upon certain properties under B's name. C filed a third-party claim over said properties claiming that B had already transferred the same to him.

A moved to deny the third-party claim and to hold B and C jointly and severally liable to him for the money judgment alleging that B had transferred said properties to C to defraud him (A).

After due hearing, the court denied the third-party claim and rendered an amended decision declaring B and C jointly and severally liable to A for the money judgment.

Is the ruling of the court correct? Explain. (4%)

- XI -

Helen is the daughter of Eliza, a Filipina, and Tony, a Chinese, who is married to another woman living in China. Her birth certificate indicates that Helen is the legitimate child of Tony and Eliza and that she is a Chinese citizen.

Helen wants her birth certificate corrected by changing her filiation from "legitimate" to "illegitimate" and her citizenship from "Chinese" to "Filipino" because her parents were not married.

What petition should Helen file and what procedural
requirements must be observed? Explain. (5%)

- XII -

Mariano was convicted by the Regional Trial Court for raping Victoria and meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua. While serving sentence at the National Penitentiary, Mariano and Victoria were married. Mariano filed a motion in said court for his release from the penitentiary on his claim that under Republic Act No. 8353, his marriage to Victoria extinguished the criminal action against him for rape, as well as the penalty imposed on him. However, the court denied the motion on the ground that it had lost jurisdiction over the case after its decision had become final and executory.

a) Is the ruling of the court correct? Explain.

b) What remedy/remedies should the counsel of Mariano take to secure his proper and most expeditious release from the National Penitentiary? Explain. (7%)

- XIII -

Rodolfo is charged with possession of unlicensed firearms in an Information filed in the Regional Trial Court. It was alleged therein that Rodolfo was in possession of two unlicensed firearms: a .45 caliber and a .32 caliber.

Under Republic Act No. 8294, possession of an unlicensed .45 caliber gun is punishable by prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine of P30,000.00, while possession of an unlicensed .32 caliber gun is punishable by prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine of not less than P15,000.00.

As counsel of the accused, you intend to file a motion to quash the Information. What ground or grounds should you invoke? Explain. (4%)

- XIV -

Police operatives of the Western Police District, Philippine National Police, applied for a search warrant in the Regional Trial Court for the search of the house of Juan Santos and the seizure of an undetermined amount of shabu. The team arrived at the house of Santos but failed to find him there. Instead, the team found Roberto Co.

The team conducted a search in the house of Santos in the presence of Roberto Co and barangay officials and found ten (10) grams of shabu. Roberto Co was charged in court with illegal possession of ten grams of shabu.

Before his arraignment, Roberto Co filed a motion to quash the search warrant on the following grounds: (a) he was not the accused named in the search warrant; and (b) the warrant does not describe the article to be seized with sufficient particularity.

Resolve the motion with reasons. (4%)

- XV -

For the multiple stab wounds sustained by the victim, Noel was charged with frustrated homicide in the Regional Trial Court. Upon arraignment, he entered a plea of guilty to said crime. Neither the court nor the prosecution was aware that the victim had died two days earlier on account of his stab wounds.

Because of his guilty plea, Noel was convicted of frustrated homicide and meted the corresponding penalty. When the prosecution learned of the victim's death, it filed within fifteen (15) days therefrom a motion to amend the Information to upgrade the charge from frustrated homicide to consummated homicide. Noel opposed the motion claiming that the admission of the amended Information would place him in double jeopardy.

Resolve the motion with reasons. (4%)

- XVI -

Dencio barged into the house of Marcela, tied her to a chair and robbed her of assorted pieces of jewelry and money. Dencio then brought Candida, Marcela's maid, to a bedroom where he raped her. Marcela could hear Candida crying and pleading: "Huwag! Maawa ka sa akin!" After raping Candida, Dencio fled from the house with the loot. Candida then untied Marcela and rushed to the police station about a kilometer away and told Police Officer Roberto Maawa that Dencio had barged into the house of Marcela, tied the latter to a chair and robbed her of her jewelry and money. Candida also related to the police officer that despite her pleas, Dencio had raped her. The policeman noticed that Candida was hysterical and on the verge of collapse. Dencio was charged with robbery with rape. During the trial, Candida can no longer be located.

a) If the prosecution presents Police Officer Roberto Maawa to testify on what Candida had told him, would such testimony of the policeman be hearsay? Explain.

b) If the police officer will testify that he noticed Candida to be hysterical and on the verge of collapse, would such testimony be considered as opinion, hence, inadmissible? Explain.
(8%)

- XVII -

Explain briefly whether the Regional Trial Court may, motu proprio, take judicial notice of the following:

a) The street name of methamphetamine hydrochloride is shabu;

b) Ordinances approved by municipalities under its territorial jurisdiction;

c) Foreign laws;

d) Rules and Regulations issued by quasi-judicial bodies
implementing statutes;

e) Rape may be committed even in public places. (5%)

- XVIII -

Regional Director AG of the Department of Public Works and Highways was charged with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 in the Office of the Ombudsman. An administrative charge for gross misconduct arising from the transaction subject matter of said criminal case was filed against him in the same office. The Ombudsman assigned a team composed of investigators from the Office of the Special Prosecutor and from the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military to conduct a joint investigation of the criminal case and the administrative case. The team of investigators recommended to the Ombudsman that AG be preventively suspended for a period not exceeding six (6) months on its finding that the evidence of guilt is strong. The Ombudsman issued the said order as recommended by the investigators.

AG moved to reconsider the order on the following grounds: (a) the Office of the Special Prosecutor had exclusive authority to conduct a preliminary investigation of the criminal case; (b) the order for his preventive suspension was premature because he had yet to file his answer to the administrative complaint and submit countervailing evidence; and (c) he was a career executive service officer and under Presidential Decree No. 807 (Civil Service Law), his preventive suspension shall be for a maximum period of three months.Resolve with reasons the motion of respondent AG.(5%)

NOTHING FOLLOWS.

[pinkalou]

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
REMEDIAL LAW BAR EXAMINATION 2000

I.

a) X files a complaint in the Regional Trial Court for the recovery of a sum of money with damages against Y. Y files his answer denying liability under the contract of sale and praying for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action because the contract of sale was superseded by a contract of lease, executed and signed by X and Y two weeks after the contract of sale was executed. The contract of lease was attached to the answer. X does not file a reply. What is the effect of the non-filing of a reply? Explain. (3%)

b) For failure of KJ to file an answer within the reglementary period, the Court, upon motion of LM, declared KJ in default. In due time, KJ filed an unverified motion to lift the order of default without an affidavit of merit attached to it. KJ however, attached to the motion his answer under oath, stating in said answer his reasons for his failure to file an answer on time, as well as his defenses. Will the motion to lift the order of default prosper? Explain. (3%)

c) PJ engaged the services of Atty. ST to represent him in a civil case filed by OP against him which was docketed as Civil Case No. 123. A retainership agreement was executed between PJ and Atty. ST whereby PJ promised to pay Atty. ST a retainer sum of P24,000.00 a year and to transfer the ownership of a parcel of land to Atty. ST after presentation of PJ’s evidence. PJ did not comply with his undertaking. Atty. ST filed a case against PJ which was docketed as Civil Case No. 456. During the trial of Civil Case No. 456, PJ died.

i) Is the death of PJ a valid ground to dismiss the money claim of Atty. ST in Civil Case No. 456? Explain. (2%)

ii) Will your answer be the same with respect to the real property being claimed by Atty. ST in Civil Case No. 456? Explain. (2%)


SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) A reply is generally optional. If it is not filed, the new matters alleged in the answer are deemed controverted. (Sec. 10 of Rule 6, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure). However, since the contract of lease attached to the answer is he basis of the defense, by not filing a reply denying under oath the genuineness and due execution of said contract, the plaintiff is deemed to have admitted the genuineness and due execution thereof. (Secs. 7 and 8, Rule 8, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; Toribio v. Bidin, 134 SCRA 162 [1985]).

(b) YES, there is substantial compliance with the rule. Although the motion is unverified, the answer attached to the motion is verified. The answer contains what the motion to lift the order of default and the affidavit of merit should contain, which are the reasons for movant’s failure to answer as well as his defenses. (Sec. 3 of Rule 9, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; Cf. Citibank, N.A. v. Court of Appeals, 304 SCRA 679, [1999]; Consul v. Consul, 17 SCRA 667, 671 [1966]; Tolentino v. Carlos, 66 Phil. 140, 143-144 [1938], Nasser v. Court of Appeals, 191 SCRA 783 [1992]).

(c) (i) NO. Under Sec. 20, Rule 3, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, when the action is for recovery of money arising from contract, express or implied, and the defendant dies before entry of final judgment in the court in which the action is pending at the time of such death, it shall not be dismissed but shall instead be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment. A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff shall be enforced in the manner especially provided in the Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased person.

(ii) YES, my answer is the same. An action to recover real property in any event survives the death of the defendant. (Sec. 1, Rule 87, Rule of Court). However, a favorable judgment may be enforced in accordance with Sec. 7(b) Rule 39 (1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) against the executor or administrator or successor in interest of the deceased.


II.

As counsel for A, B, C and D, Atty. XY prepared a complaint for recovery of possession of a parcel of land against Z. Before filing the complaint, XY discovered that his clients were not available to sign the certification of non-forum shopping. To avoid further delays in the filing of the complaint, XY signed the certification and immediately filed the complaint in court. Is XY justified in signing the certification? Why? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

NO, counsel cannot sign the anti-forum shopping certification because it must be executed by the “plaintiff or principal party” himself (Sec. 5, Rule 7, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; Escorpizo v. University of Baguio, 306 SCRA 497, [1999]), since the rule requires personal knowledge by the party executing the certification, unless counsel gives a good reason why he is not able to secure his clients’ signatures and shows that his clients will be deprived of substantial justice (Ortiz c. Court of Appeals, 299 SCRA 708 [1998]) or unless he is authorized to sign it by his clients through a special power of attorney.


III.

The Regional Trial Court rendered judgment against ST, copy of which was received by his counsel on February 28, 2000. On March 10, 2000, ST, through counsel, filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision with notice to the Clerk of Court submitting the motion for the consideration of the court. On March 15, 2000, realizing that the Motion lacked a notice of hearing, ST’s counsel filed a supplemental pleading. Was the Motion for Reconsideration filed within the reglementary period? Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

YES, because the last day of filing a motion for reconsideration was March 15 if February 28 had 28 days or March 16 if February had 29 days. Although the original motion for reconsideration was defective because it lacked a notice of hearing, the defect was cured on time by its filing on March 15 of a supplemental pleading, provided the motion was set for hearing and served on the adverse party at least three (3) days before the date of hearing. (Sec. 4, Rule 15, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure).

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Since the supplemental pleading was not set for hearing, it did not cure the defect of the original motion.


IV.

AB, as mother and in her capacity as legal guardian of her legitimate minor son, CD, brought action for support against EF, as father of CD and AB’s lawfully wedded husband. EF filed his answer denying his paternity with counterclaim for damages. Subsequently, AB filed a manifestation in court that in view of the denial made by EF, it would be futile to pursue the case against EF. AB agreed to move for the dismissal of the complaint, subject to the condition that EF will withdraw his counterclaim for damages. AB and EF filed a joint motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the case with prejudice. Later on, minor son CD, represented by AB, filed another complaint for support against EF. EF filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of res judicata.

(a) Is res judicata a valid ground for dismissal of the second complaint? Explain your answer. (3%)

(b) What are the essential requisites of res judicata? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) NO, res judicata is not a defense in an action for support even if the first case was dismissed with prejudice on a joint motion to dismiss. The plaintiff’s mother agreed to the dismissal of the complaint for support in view of the defendant’s answer denying his paternity with a counterclaim for damages. This was the nature of a compromise of the right of support which is prohibited by law. (Art. 2035, Civil Code; De Asis v. Court of Appeals, 303 SCRA 176 [1999]).

(b) The essential requisites of res judicata are:
(1) the judgment or order must be final;
(2) the court rendering the same must have jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties;
(3) it must be a judgment or order on the merits; and
(4) there must be between the two cases identity of parties, identity of subject matter, and identity of causes of action. (San Diego v. Cardona, 70 Phil. 281 [1940]).


V.

Describe briefly at least five (5) modes of discovery under the Rules of Court.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Five modes of discovery under the Rules of Court are:

(1) Deposition. By leave of court after jurisdiction has been obtained over any defendant or over property which is the subject of the action, or without such leave after an answer has been served, the testimony of any person, whether a party or not, may be taken, at the instance of any party, by deposition upon oral examination or written interrogatories. (Sec. 1, Rule 23, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.)

(2) Interrogatories to parties. Under the same conditions specified in Section 1 of Rule 23, any party shall file and serve upon any adverse party written interrogatories regarding material and relevant facts to be answered by the party served. (Sec. 1, Rule 25, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.)

(3) Admission by adverse party. At any time after issues have been joined, a party may file and serve upon any other party a written request for the admission by the latter of the genuineness of any material and relevant document or of the truth of any material and relevant matter of fact. (Sec. 1, Rule 26, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.)

(4) Production or inspection of documents or things. Upon motion of any party showing good cause therefor, a court may order any party to produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing of any designated documents, etc. or order any party to permit entry upon designated land or property for inspecting, measuring, surveying, or photographing the property or any designated relevant object or operation thereon. (Sec. 1, Rule 27, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.)

(5) Physical and mental examination of persons. In an action in which the mental or physical condition of a party is in controversy, the court in which the action is pending may in its discretion order him to submit to a physical or mental examination by a physician. (Sec. 1, Rule 28, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.)


VI.

What are the requisites for an intervention by a non-party in an action pending in court? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The requisites for intervention are:

(1) Legal interest in the matter in controversy; or
(2) Legal interest in the success of either of the parties; or
(3) Legal interest against both; or
(4) So situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof.
(5) Intervention will not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of original parties;
(6) Intervenor’s rights may not be fully protected in a separate proceeding.
(Acenas II v. Court of Appeals, 247 SCRA 773 [199]; Sec. 1, Rule 19, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.)


VII.

FG was arrested without a warrant by policemen while he was walking in a busy street. After preliminary investigation, he was charged with rape and the corresponding information was filed in the Regional Trial Court. On arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits ensued. The court rendered judgment convicting him. On appeal, FG claims that the judgment is void because he was illegally arrested. If you were the Solicitor General, counsel for the People of the Philippines, how would you refute said claim? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Any objection to the illegality of the arrest of the accused without a warrant is deemed waived when he pleaded not guilty at the arraignment without raising the question. It is too late to complain about a warrantless arrest after trial is commenced and completed and a judgment of conviction rendered against the accused. (People v. Cabiles, 284 SCRA 199, [1999]).

VIII.

Your friend YY, an orphan, 16 years old, seeks your legal advice. She tells you that ZZ, her uncle, subjected her to acts of lasciviousness; that when she told her grandparents, they told her to just keep quiet and not to file charges against ZZ, their son. Feeling very much aggrieved, she asks you how her uncle ZZ can be made to answer for his crime.

(a) What would your advice be? Explain. (3%)

(b) Suppose the crime committed against YY by her uncle ZZ is rape, witnessed by your mutual friend XX. But this time, YY was prevailed upon by her grandparents not to file charges. XX asks you if she can initiate the complaint against ZZ. Would your answer be the same? Explain. (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) I would advise the minor, an orphan of 16 years of age, to file the complaint herself independently of her grandparents, because she is not incompetent or incapable of doing so upon grounds other than her minority. (Section 5, Rule 110, Rules of Criminal Procedure).

(b) Since rape is now classified as a Crime Against Persons under the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (RA 8353), I would advice XX to initiate the complaint against ZZ.


IX.

CX is charged with ESTAFA in court for failure to remit to MM sums of money collected by him (CX) for MM in payment for goods purchased from MM, by depositing the amounts in his (CX’s) personal bank account. CX files a Motion to Suspend Proceedings pending resolution of a civil case earlier filed in court by CX against MM for accounting and damages involving the amounts subject of the criminal case. As the prosecutor in the criminal case, briefly discuss your grounds in support of your opposition to the motion to suspend proceedings. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

As the prosecutor, I will argue that the motion to suspend is not in order for the following reasons :

(a) The civil case filed by CX against MM for accounting and damages does not involve an issue of estafa raised in the criminal action.

(b) The resolution of the issue in the civil case for accounting will not determine whether or not the criminal action of estafa may proceed. (Sec. 5, Rule 111, Rules of Criminal Procedure).

[pinkalou]

X.

BC is charged with illegal possession of firearms under an Information signed by a Provincial Prosecutor. After arraignment but before pre-trial, BC found out that the Provincial Prosecutor had no authority to sign and file the information as it was the City Prosecutor who has such authority. During the pre-trial, BC move that the case against him be dismissed on the ground that the Information is defective because the officer signing it lacked the authority to do so. The Provincial Prosecutor opposes the motion on the ground of estoppel as BC did not move to quash the Information before arraignment. If you are counsel for BC, what is your argument to refute the opposition of the Provincial Prosecutor? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

I would argue that since the Provincial Prosecutor had no authority to file the information, the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused and over the subject matter of the offense charged. (Cudia v. Court of Appeals, 284 SCRA 173 [1999]). Hence, this ground is not waived if not raised in a motion to quash and could be raised at the pre-trial. (Section 8, Rule 117, Rules of Court).


XI.

Vida and Romeo are legally married. Romeo is charged in court with the crime of serious physical injuries committed against Selmo, son of Vida, step-son of Romeo. Vida witnessed the infliction of the injuries on Selmo by Romeo. The public prosecutor called Vida to the witness stand and offered her testimony as an eyewitness. Counsel for Romeo objected on the ground of the marital disqualification rule under the Rules of Court.

(a) Is the objection valid? (3%)

(b) Will your answer be the same if Vida’s testimony is offered in a civil case for recovery of personal property filed by Selmo against Romeo? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) NO. While neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse, one exception is if the testimony of the spouse is in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants. (Sec. 22, Rule 130, Rules of Court). The case falls under this exception because Selmo is the direct descendant of the spouse Vida.

(b) NO. The marital disqualification rule applies this time. The exception provided by the rules is in a civil case by one spouse against the other. The case hare involves a case by Selmo for the recovery of personal property against Vida’s spouse, Romeo.


XII.

Linda and spouses Arnulfo and Regina Ceres were co-owners of a parcel of land. Linda died intestate and without any issue. Ten (10) persons headed by Jocelyn, claiming to be the collateral relatives of the deceased Linda, filed an action for partition with the Regional Trial Court praying for the segregation of Linda’s ½ share, submitting in support of their petition the baptismal certificates of seven of the petitioners, a family bible belonging to Linda in which the names of the petitioners have been entered, a photocopy of the birth certificate of Jocelyn, and a certification of the local civil registrar that its office had been completely razed by fire. The spouses Ceres refused to partition on the following grounds : 1) The baptismal certificates of the parish priest are evidence only the administration of the sacrament of baptism and they do not prove filiation of the alleged collateral relatives of the deceased; 2) entry in the family bible is hearsay; 3) the certification of the registrar on non-availability of the records of birth does not prove filiation; 4) in partition cases where filiation to the deceased is in dispute, prior and separate judicial declaration of heirship in a settlement of estate proceedings is necessary; and 5) there is need for publication as real property is involved. As counsel for Jocelyn and her co-petitioners, argue against the objections of the spouses Ceres so as to convince the court to allow the partition. Discuss each of the five (5) arguments briefly but completely. (10%)


SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(1) The baptismal certificates can show filiation or prove pedigree. It is one of the other means and allowed under the Rules of Court and special laws to show pedigree. (Trinidad v. Court of Appeals, 289 SCRA 188 [1998]; Heirs of Ignacio Conti v. Court of Appeals, 300 SCRA 345 [1998]).

(2) Entries in the family bible may be received as evidence of pedigree. (Sec. 40, Rule 130, Rules of Court).

(3) The certification by the civil registrar of the non-availability of records is needed to justify the presentation of secondary evidence, which is the photocopy of the birth certificate of Jocelyn. (Heirs of Ignacio Conti v. Court of Appeals, supra).

(4) Declaration of heirship in a settlement proceeding is not necessary. It can be made in the ordinary action for partition wherein the heirs are exercising the right pertaining to the decedent, their predecessor-in-interest, to ask for partition as co-owners (Id.).

(5) Even if real property is involved, no publication is necessary, because what is sought is the mere segregation of Linda’s share in the property. (Sec. 1 of Rule 69; Id).


XIII.

Defendant was declared in default by the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Plaintiff was allowed to present evidence in support of his complaint. Photocopies of official receipts and original copies of affidavits were presented in court, identified by plaintiff on the witness stand and marked as exhibits. Said documents were offered by plaintiff and admitted in evidence by the court on the basis of which the RTC rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, pursuant to the relief prayed for. Upon receipt of the judgment, defendant appeals to the Court of Appeals claiming that the judgment is not valid because the RTC based its judgment on mere photocopies and affidavits of persons not presented in court.

(a) Is the claim of defendant valid? Explain (3%)

(b) Will your answer be the same if the photocopies of official receipts and photocopies of affidavits were attached to the position paper submitted by plaintiff in an action for unlawful detainer filed with the Municipal Trial Court on which basis the court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff? Explain. (2%)


SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) The claim of defendant is not valid because under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, reception of evidence is not required. After a defendant is declared in default, the court shall proceed to render judgment granting the claimant such relief as his pleading may warrant, unless the court in its discretion requires the claimant to submit evidence, which may be delegated to the clerk of court. (Sec. 3, Rule 9, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure).

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

The claim of defendant is valid, because the court received evidence which it can order in its own discretion, in which case the evidence of the plaintiff must pass the basic requirements of admissibility.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(b) The claim of defendant is valid, because although summary procedure requires merely the submission of position papers, the evidence submitted with the position paper must be admissible in evidence. (Sec. 9, of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure). Photocopies of official receipts and affidavits are not admissible without prior proof of loss of the originals. (Sec. 3 of Rule 130).


XIV.

BB files a complaint for ejectment in the Metropolitan Trial Court on the ground of non-payment of rentals against JJ. After two days, JJ files in the Regional Trial Court a complaint against BB for specific performance to enforce the option to purchase the parcel of land subject of the ejectment case. What is the effect of JJ’s action on BB’s complaint? Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

There is no effect. The ejectment case involves possession de facto only. The action to enforce the option to purchase will not suspend the action of ejectment for non-payment of rentals. (Wilmon Auto Supply Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 208 SCRA 108 [1992])
XV.

AB mortgaged his property to CD. AB failed to pay his obligation and CD filed an action for foreclosure of mortgage. After trial, the court issued an Order granting CD’s prayer for foreclosure of mortgage and ordering AB to pay CD the full amount of the mortgage debt including interest and other charges not later than 120 days from date of receipt of the Order. AB received the Order on August 10, 1999. No other proceeding took place thereafter. On December 20, 1999, AB tendered the full amount adjudged by the court to CD but the latter refused to accept it on the ground that the amount was tendered beyond the 120-day period granted by the court. AB filed a motion in the same court praying that CD be directed to receive the amount tendered by him on the ground that the Order does not comply with the provisions of Section 2, Rule 68 of the Rules of Court which gives AB 120 days from entry of judgment, and not from the date of receipt of the Order. The court denied his Motion on the ground that the Order had already become final and can no longer be amended to conform with Section 2, Rule 68. Aggrieved, AB files a petition for certiorari against the Court and CD. Will the petition for certiorari prosper? Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

YES. The court erred in issuing an Order granting CD’s prayer for foreclosure of mortgage and ordering AB to pay CD the full amount of the mortgage debt including interest and other charges not later than 120 days from receipt of the Order. The court should have rendered a judgment which is appealable. Since no appeal was taken, the judgment became final on August 25, 1999, which is the date of entry of judgment. (Sec. 2, Rule 36, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure). Hence, AB had up to December 24, 1999 within which to pay the amount due. (Sec. 2, Rule 68, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure). The court gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying AB’s motion praying that CD be directed to receive the amount tendered.


XVI.

JK’s real property is being attached by the sheriff in a civil action for damages against LM. JK claims that he is not a party to a case; that his property is not involved in said case; and that he is the sole registered owner of said property. Under the Rules of Court, what must JK do to prevent the Sheriff from attaching his property? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

If the real property has been attached, the remedy is to file a third-party claim. The third-party claimant should make an affidavit of his title to the property attached, stating the grounds of his title thereto, and serve such affidavit upon the sheriff while the latter has possession of the attached property, and a copy thereof upon the attaching party. (Sec. 14, Rule 57, Rules of Civil Procedure.) The third-party claimant may also intervene or file a separate action to vindicate his claim to the property involved and secure the necessary reliefs, such a preliminary injunction, which will not be considered as interference with a court of coordinate jurisdiction. (Ong v. Tating, 149 SCRA 265, [1987]).



XVII.

X, an illegitimate child of Y, celebrated her 18th birthday on May 2, 1986. A month before her birthday, Y died. The legitimate family of Y refused to recognize X as an illegitimate child of Y. After countless efforts to convince them, X filed on April 25, 2000 an action for recognition against Z, wife of Y. After Z filed her answer on August 14, 2000, X filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint impleading the three (3) legitimate children of Y. The trial court admitted the amended complaint on August 22, 2000. What is the effect of the admission of the amended complaint? Has the action of X prescribed? Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

NO. The action filed on April 25, 2000 is still within the four-year prescriptive period which started to run on May 2, 1996. The amended complaint impleading the three legitimate children, though admitted on August 22, 2000 beyond the four-year prescriptive period, retroacts to the date of filing of the original complaint. Amendments impleading new defendant retroacts to the date of the filing of the complaint because they do not constitute a new cause of action. (Versoza v. Court of Appeals, 299 SCRA 100 [1998]).

(Note: The four-year prescriptive period is based on Article 285 of the Civil Code.)

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, if an additional defendant is impleaded in a later pleading, the action is commenced with regard to him on the date of the filing of such later pleading, irrespective of whether the motion for its admission, if necessary, is denied by the court. (Sec. 5, Rule 1).

Consequently, the action of X has prescribed with respect to the three (3) legitimate children of Y who are indispensable parties.

ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Under Article 175 of the Family Code, the action must be brought within the lifetime of X if the action is based on a record of birth or an admission of filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument signed by Y. In such case, the action of X has not prescribed.

However, if the action is based on the open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child, the action should have been brought during the lifetime of Y. In such case, the action of X has prescribed.


XVIII.

(a) A brings an action in the Metropolitan Trial Court 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 Regional Trial Court of Laguna. Decide with reasons. (3%)

(b) 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 P20,000.00. B moved to dismiss the action on the ground that the case should have been brought in the Regional Trial Court 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. (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) The motion should be granted. The Metropolitan Trial Court 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 Regional Trial Courts. (Russell v. 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 Regional Trial Court of the place where either of the parties resides.

(b) The motion should be granted. The action for partition depends on the 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 P20,000.00, the Municipal Trial Court has no jurisdiction. (Russell v. Vestil, supra).