1981 BAR EXAMS Question No. 14 VX and her son, Mario, are plaintiffs in a case against WX for support.

A month after the filing of the complaint, plaintiffs ask the Court for support pendente lite. WX opposes the petition on the ground that Mario is not his son but the issue of VX as a result of an adulterous relationship. WX asks that he be given an opportunity to prove his defense. The Court ruling that this defense is a matter or the main case denies WX the opportunity to prove his defense at the stage of the case and grants support pendente lite. Is granting of such support pendente lite correct or not? Give your reasons. Answer No. The Court should have given WX the opportunity justice may require. This provisional determination is withhearing of the application for support pendente lite. An application for support pendente lite may not be granted without a hearing, after which the court shall determine provisionally the pertinent facts and shall issue such order as equity and injustice may require. This provisional determination is without prejudice to the trial on the merits after which a final determination may be made on the right to support.

Question No. 15 Y is a stockholder of a local corporation. Y owns 20% of the shares of said corporation. Y defaults on a manufacturing contract with Z. Z sues for specific performance and damages and, on the ground that Y is fleeing from the country to avoid creditors, seeks to attach 20% of a parcel of land that belongs to the corporation. Can Z secure such an attachment granting that the averments of petition are sufficient? Reasons. Answer No. Z may not attach property which does not belong to the defendant Y. The parcel of land sought to be attached belongs to a corporation which is a distinct entity separate and apart from its stockholders. Y owns only 20% of the shares of the corporation and there is no showing that the case is an exception al one where the corporate fiction may be disregarded. Additional Answer Attachment is not proper in a suit where plaintiff claims damages which are contingent or unliquidated.

Question No. 20 The City Fiscal of Manila received a criminal complaint against DD and EE for violation of the Corporation Law for engaging in activities not within the purpose clause of the corporation of which they are principal officers. While the complaint was under preliminary investigation, a minority stockholder of said corporation filed a minority suit before the CFI of Rizal in relation to the same activities of the corporation. One of the allegations in the CFI was the validity of the transaction subject matter of the criminal complaint before the City Fiscal of Manila. DD and EE intervened in the Rizal case and asked that the criminal investigation in Manila be enjoined since the civil case in Rizal involved a prejudicial civil question. Does the CFI of Rizal have jurisdiction to issue a Writ of Injunction to enjoin the City Fiscal of Manila as prayed for by DD and EE? Explain. Answer No. The CFI of Rizal may not issue a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain or enjoin acts being done or about to be done outside its territorial boundaries. (This is the first alternative answer and the one that relates to provisional remedies)

1982 BAR EXAMS Question No. 3 Branch XXV of the CFI of Manila rendered a decision against Mrs. Reyes, ordering her to pay damages to Mr. Cruz. After the decision became final, personal properties of Mrs. Reyes in Bulacan were levied on execution by the sheriff. Mrs. Santos filed an action for injunction before the CFI of Bulacan to enjoin provincial sheriff of Bulacan from proceeding with the sale, alleging that she was the owner of the properties. Mr. Cruz filed a motion to dismiss the action alleging that the Bulacan court could not interfere with the action taken by the Manila Court. The CFI of Bulacan, however, denied the motion to dismiss and granted the preliminary injunction. Mr. Cruz filed a petition for certiorari, alleging that the CFI of Bulacan did not have jurisdiction to enjoin the sale because (1) said act constituted an interference with an order issued by a court with concurrent jurisdiction; and (2) Mrs. Santos did not file a third-party claim with the provincial sheriff before filing the action. If you were the judge, how would you rule on the contentions of Mr. Cruz? Give your reasons. Answer I would dismiss the petition for certiorari.

The first contention of Mr. Cruz is not tenable. Mrs. Santos a third-party claimant, may vindicate her claim by action. Obviously a judgment rendered in her favor declaring her to be the owner of the property would not constitute interference with the powers or processes of the court which rendered the judgment to enforce which the execution was levied. If that be so, then an interlocutory order, such as a preliminary injunction upon a claim and prima facie showing of ownership, cannot be considered as such interference either. Moreover, the court which rendered the judgment did not direct the sheriff to levy upon the particular property in dispute. The order was for him to levy upon properties of the judgment debtor without specifying them, not upon properties of a third party. The second contention is also not tenable. The Rules of Court provide that nothing therein contained shall prevent a third-party claimant from vindicating his claim to the property by any proper action. Hence, the filing of a third-party claim is not a pre-requisite to the filing of the action for injunction.

Question No. 15 Edward filed a complaint against Liza for accounting of the money received by her as administratrix of Edwards hacienda. In his complaint, Edward prayed for preliminary attachment, alleging that Liza was about to depart from the Philippines. Attached to the complaint was an affidavit executed by Marilyn to the effect that Liza told her that she, Liza, was planning to leave for Singapore in a few days. If you were the judge, would you grant the prayer for preliminary attachment? Why? Answer No, because the mere fact that Liza was about to depart from the Philippines is not a ground for granting preliminary attachment. Facts and circumstance should have been stated in the affidavit to show intent to defraud her creditors in order to justify such grant.