Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.

com Page6564of of
sirdondee@gmail.com Page 66 66
composed
appointed
of
by an American Court, is the RTC of the investigators from
administrator of said theestate.
OfficeS,ofthe thesurviving
Special
place where his property or part thereof spouse, opposed
Prosecutor and from the the Office
petition of the andDeputyA's
is situated. (Sec. 1. Rule 92). application tofor
Ombudsman bethe
appointed
Military the to conduct
administrator
a joint
(c) The venue of a petition for the on the ground of
investigation thatthe
he criminal
was not the case childandof her
the
adoption of a minor residing in deceased husband
administrative case. The
D. The teamcourt,
of investigators
however,
Pampanga is the RTC of the place in appointed A as
recommended to the
the Ombudsman
administrator thatofAGsaid be
which the petitioner resides. (Sec. 1. Rule estate. Subsequently,
preventively suspended S, claiming
for a toperiod be the solenot
99) heir of six
exceeding D, months
executed on itsanfinding Affidavit
that the of
SUMMARY PROCEDURE Adjudication,
evidence of guilt
entire estate
issued
adjudicating
the saidoforder
is strong. unto
her deceased
The Ombudsman
as recommended
herself the
husbandbyD.the S
then sold the entire estate to X. Was the
investigators.
Prohibited Pleadings (2004) AG movedoftoAreconsider the orderproper?on the
appointment as administrator
Charged with the offense of slight physical following grounds: (a) the Office of the
the
[2%] Was the action of S in adjudicating
injuries under an information duly filed Special Prosecutor had exclusive authority
entire estate ANSWER:
of her late husband to herself
with the MeTC in Manila which in the SUGGESTED
to [3%]
conduct a preliminary investigation of
legal?
1. Yes, unless it is(b)shown
meantime had duly issued an order the criminal case; the that
orderthefor court
his
declaring that the case shall be governed gravely-abused its discretion in appointing
preventive suspension was premature
by the Revised Rule on Summary the illegitimate child as administrator,
because he had yet to file his answer to
Procedure, the accused filed with said instead of the spouse. While the spouse
the administrative
enjoys preference, complaint
it appearsand thatsubmit
the
court a motion to quash on the sole countervailing evidence; and (c) he wasofa
spouse has neglected to apply for letters
ground that the officer who filed the career executive service officer
administration within thirty (30) anddaysunder
from
information had no authority to do so. The Presidential
the death Decree No. 807 (Civil Service
Gaspay, Jr. of
vs.the decedent.
Court of Appeals.(Sec. 2386, Rule
SCRA 78,
MeTC denied the motion on the ground Law),
Rules his
of
ALTERNATIVE
163.) preventive suspension shall be
Court;
ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
that it is a prohibited motion under the S, the surviving spouse,
for
The a motion
maximum shouldperiod beshould
of three
denied have been
months.
for the
said Rule. The accused thereupon filed appointed
Resolve administratrix
with reasons of
thethe estate,
motion inof
following reasons:
with the RTC in Manila a petition for as much
respondent as she
AG. enjoys
(5%) first preference in
certiorari in sum assailing and seeking the (Sec.
1 6(a)
TheofOffice
Rule 78,
of the Special
Rules
Prosecutor
of rules.
such appointment
does not have under the
exclusive authority to
nullification of the MeTC's denial of his Court.)
conduct
SUGGESTED ANSWER: a preliminary investigation
motion to quash. The RTC in due time
2. No. of the criminal
An affidavit case but is
of self-adjudication it
issued an order denying due course to the
allowedparticipated in theis the
only if the affiant investigation
sole heir
certiorari petition on the ground that it is
of the.together
deceased. (Sec.with 1, Rule
the74, Rules
Deputy
of
not allowed by the said Rule. The accused
Court). Ombudsman
In this case, Afor the
also Military
claims to bewho
an
forthwith filed with said RTC a motion for
can handleitcases
heir. Moreover, is notof civilians and is
legal because
reconsideration of its said order. The RTC
there notis limited
alreadyto the military. juridical
a pending
in time denied said motion for
proceeding
2 The order for ofthepreventive
settlement of the
suspension
reconsideration
SUGGESTED ANSWER: on the ground that the Venue; Special Proceedings (1997)
The RTC's orders denying due course to the estate. need not wait for the answer to the
same is also a prohibited motion under the Give the proper venuecomplaint
for the following
petition for certiorari as well as
said Rule. Were the RTC's orders denying denying the administrative and the
specialsubmission
proceedings: ofa) Acountervailing
petition to
motion
due course for reconsideration
to the petitionareasboth well notas declareevidence.
as escheated a parcel of land
correct. The petition for
denying the motion for reconsiderationcertiorari is a (Garcia v. Mojica, G.R. No.
owned by a resident
13903, September 10,
of the Philippines
prohibited
correct? Reason.pleading under Section 19(g) of
(5%) who died intestate and without heirs
the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure
and the motion for reconsideration, while it
or persons entitled to the property.
b) A petition for the appointment of an
is not
31, prohibited
2000, citing motion
Joven v.(Lucas
Courtv.of Fabros, AM
Appeals, administrator over the land and building
once
No.
212 a week
MTJ-99-1226,
SCRA 700,for three consecutive
January
707-708 (1992), should weeksbe left by an American citizen residing in
in a newspaper
denied because the of general
petition forcirculation
certiorari in
California, who had been declared an
the
is province, and
a prohibited after such other notice
pleading. incompetent by an American court.
to interested persons as the court may
MISCELLANEOUS
direct, the court may proceed summarily,
c) A petition for the adoption of a
minor residing in Pampanga.
without the appointment of an executor or SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Administrative Proceedings (2005)
administrator, to settle the estate. (Sec. 2 (a) The venue of the escheat proceedings
Regional
of Rule 74,
Director AG of the Department
of a parcel of land in this case is the
of Public
Rules of Court)Works and Highways was
place where the deceased last resided.
charged with violation of Section 3(e) of
(Sec. 1. Rule 91, Rules of Court).
Settlement
RepublicofAct Estate;
No.Administrator
3019 in the (1998)Office of the
(b) The venue for the appointment of an
A, claiming to An
Ombudsman. be an illegitimate child
administrative charge of
administrator over land and building of an
the gross
for deceased D, instituted
misconduct arising an from
Intestate
the American citizen residing in California,
proceeding tosubject
transaction settle thematterestateof of said
the
declared Incompetent
latter. Hecase
criminal also was
prayed
filedthat he behim in the
against
same office. The Ombudsman assigned a
team