State at least five (5) civil cases that fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional

Trial
Courts (RTCs). (5%)

Civil cases that are exclusively cognizable by the Regional Trial Courts are the following to wit;

a. Actions where the subject matter is not capable of pecuniary estimation

b. Actions involving title to or interest in real property where the assessed value thereof
exceeds 50,000 in Metro Manila or 20,000 in
c. Admiralty and maritime claims where the demand exceeds 400,000 in Metro Manila or
300,000 e
d. Matters of probate, testate or intestate where the gross value of the estate exceeds
200,000 for Metro Manila courts or 100,000 in elsewhere
e. Cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, body, person or quasi-
judicial agency

II

[a] Briefly explain the procedure on "Interrogatories to Parties" under Rule 25 and state the
effect of failure to serve written interrogatories. (2.5%)

Under the Rules, Interrogatories to parties may be served on the

[b] Briefly explain the procedure on "Admission by Adverse Party" under Rule 26 and the
effect of failure to file and serve the request. (2.5%)

III

What are the contents of a judicial affidavit? (5%)

IV

Eduardo, a resident of the City of Manila, filed before the Regional Trial Court (R TC) of Manila a
complaint for the annulment of a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage he signed in favor of Galaxy Bank
(Galaxy), and the consequent· foreclosure and auction sale of his mortgaged Makati property.
Galaxy filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of improper venue alleging that the complaint should
be filed with the RTC ofMakati since the complaint involves the ownership and possession of
Eduardo's lot. Resolve the motion with reasons. (5%)

The motion to dismiss should be allowed. In a case decided by the high court, it was held
that an action for annulment of real estate mortgage is a real action notwithstanding its nature as an
action in personam enforceable against the defendant since the underlying cause of action involves
interest or title to a real property. Thus, as Eduardo’s complaint involves property located in Makati,
the venue of the action should have been the RTC of Makati necessitating the allowance of the
motion to dismiss.

[a] What is the "most important witness" rule pursuant to the 2004 Guidelines of Pretrial and
Use of Deposition..;Discovery Measures? Explain. (2.5%)
 The most important witness rule provided in the 2004 Guidelines on Pretrial states
that whenever trial is to be held, the most important witness shall be first presented. It also
limits the number of witnesses to only those whose testimony is material for the resolution of
the case.

[b] What is the "one day examination of witness" rule pursuant to the said 2004 Guidelines?
Explain. (2.5%)

The one day examination of witness rule provided by the mentioned guideline states
that witnesses shall be fully examined in one day only extendible only when justifiable
circumstances are present.

VI

Pedro and Juan are residents of Barangay Ifurug, Municipality of Dupac, Mountain Province. Pedro
owes Juan the amount of P50,000.00. Due to nonpayment, Juan brought his complaint to the
Council of Elders of said barangay which implements the bodong justice system. Both appeared
before the council where they verbally agreed that Pedro will pay in installments on specific due
dates. Pedro reneged on his promise. Juan filed a complaint for sum of money before the Municipal
Trial Court (MTC). Pedro filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the case did not pass through
the barangay conciliation under R.A. No. 7160 and that the RTC, not the MTC, has jurisdiction. In his
opposition, Juan argued that the intervention of the Council of Elders is substantial compliance with
the requirement ofR.A. No. 7160 and the claim of P50,000.00 is clearly within the jurisdiction of the
MTC. As MTC judge, rule on the motion and explain. (5%)

The motion to dismiss of Pedro should be denied as MTC has jurisdiction both on the
amount and the subject matter of the suit. The Law provides that in cases where most of the
residents of an indigenous tribe or communities, local systems of settling disputes shall be
recognized, thus giving credence to Pedro’s claim of substantial compliance with the
requirements of law. Moreover, with the amount of claim falling under the small claims
jurisdiction of MTC, the motion to dismiss filed against it, being a prohibited pleading, must
be dismissed.

VII

Spouses Marlon and Edith have three (3) children ages 15, 12 and 7, who are studying at public
schools. They have a combined gross monthly income of P30,000.00 and they stay in an apartment
in Manila with a monthly rent of P5,000.00. The monthly minimum wage per employee in Metro
Manila does not exceed P13,000.00. They do not own any real property. The spouses want to
collect a loan of P25,000.00 from Jojo but do not have the money to pay the filing fees.

[a] Would the spouses qualify as indigent litigants under Section 19, Rule 141 on Legal
Fees? (2.5%)

NO, Marlon and Edith cannot be considered as pauper-litigants to be allowed exemption

from payment of filing fees. The law is explicit that indigent litigants are those whose income,
including that of his immediate family does not exceed twice the monthly minimum wage of
an employee. On this score alone, Marlon and edith are not qualified to be indigent litigants
since their combined gross income is in excess of the determinant amount and thus must still
pay the filing fees.
 [b] If the spouses do not qualify under Rule 141, what other remedy can they avail of under
the rules to exempt them from paying the filing fees? (2.5%)

For failing to qualify as indigent litigants, the spouses may under the rules, move for
a hearing to enable the applicant to prove that the applicant has no money or property
sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic necessities for himself and his family.

VIII

Juan sued Roberto for specific performance. Roberto knew that Juan was going to file the case so
he went out of town and temporarily stayed in another city to avoid service of summons. Juan
engaged the services of Sheriff Matinik to serve the summons but when the latter went to the
residence of Roberto, he was told by the caretaker thereof that his employer no longer resides at the
house. The caretaker is a high school graduate and is the godson of Roberto. Believing the
caretaker's story to be true, Sheriff Matinik left a copy of the summons and complaint with the
caretaker. Was there a valid substituted service of summons? Discuss the requirements for a valid
service of summons. (5%)

No, there was no valid substituted service of summons as the requirement of the law that
there must be a showing that earnest efforts were conducted by the sheriff to personally serve the
defendant was not complied with. Additionally, there was no showing that the person who received it
is of suitable age and discretion as required by law.

A summons, to be valid, must be personally served to and received by the defendant or tendered to
him, or in his absence, and only upon showing that despite genuine efforts to locate him he cannot
be located, be served on a person in his residence who is of suitable age and discretion or if in his
workplace, a competent person in charge thereof.

IX

[a] Is the buyer in the auction sale arising from an extra-judicial foreclosure entitled to a writ
of possession even before the expiration of the redemption period? If so, what is the action
to be taken? (1 %)

Yes, a buyer in an auction sale may be issued a writ of either within the one-year
redemption period upon the filing of a bond, or after the lapse of the redemption period,
without need of a bond

[b] After the period of redemption has lapsed and the title to the lot is consolidated in the
name of the auction buyer, is he entitled to the writ of possession as a matter of right? If so,
what is the action to be taken? (2%)

Yes, the law is explicit that A writ of possession may also be issued after
consolidation of ownership of the property in the name of the purchaser. It is settled that the
buyer in a foreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner of the property purchased if it is not
redeemed during the period of one year after the registration of sale. Hence, he is entitled to
the possession of the property and can demand it at any time following the consolidation of
ownership in his name and the issuance to him of a new transfer certificate of title.

[c] Suppose that after the title to the lot has been consolidated in the name of the auction
buyer, said buyer sold the lot to a third party without first getting a writ of possession. Can
 the transferee exercise the right of the auction buyer and claim that it is a ministerial duty of
the court to issue a writ of possession in his favor? Briefly explain. (2%)

Yes, after the period to redeem has expired and without the mortgagor redeeming it
title to the foreclosed property becomes consolidated on the buyer and as such he is entitled
to the issuance of the writ of possession as a matter of right. Consequently this right is also
transferred to the third party after the sale if the latter was entered into in good faith.

Hannibal, Donna, Florence and Joel, concerned residents of Laguna de Bay, filed a complaint for
mandamus against the Laguna Lake Development Authority, the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, the Department of Public Work and Highways, Department of Interior and Local
Government, Department of Agriculture, Department of Budget, and Philippine National Police
before the R TC of Laguna alleging that the continued neglect of defendants in performing their
duties has resulted in serious deterioration of the water quality of the lake and the degradation of the
marine life in the lake. The plaintiffs prayed that said government agencies be ordered to clean up
Laguna de Bay and restore its water quality to Class C waters as prescribed by Presidential Decree
No. 1152, otherwise known as the Philippine Environment Code. Defendants raise the defense that
the cleanup of the lake is not a ministerial function and they cannot be compelled by mandamus to
perform the same. The RTC of Laguna rendered a decision declaring that it is the duty of the
agencies to clean up Laguna de Bay and issued a permanent writ of mandamus ordering said
agencies to perform their duties prescribed by law relating to the cleanup of Laguna de Bay.

[a] Is the RTC correct in issuing the writ of mandamus? Explain. (2.5%)

Yes. A writ of mandamus is the proper writ to enforce the ministerial duty of these
agencies to see to it and to secure that the Bay be from pollution as stated in the law, even in
the charters creating these agencies. The law does not envision that mandamus be issued
only in specific pollution cases, since their duty is specifically delineated and defined as of
general application . Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguire debemus.

[b] What is the writ of continuing mandamus? (2.5%)

A writ of continuing mandamus is a writ issued in pursuance of the Courts

decision where the court issues directives to see to it that its decision is not rendered naught
by the inaction of the respondent. In environmental cases, the writ requires respondent to
perform an act or series of acts until the judgment is fully satisfied and to grant such other
reliefs as may be warranted resulting from the wrongful or illegal acts of the respondent.

XI

Miguel filed a Complaint for damages against Jose, who denied liability and filed a Motion to Dismiss
on the ground of failure to state a cause of action. In an Order received by Jose on January 5, 2015,
the trial court denied the Motion to Dismiss. On February 4, 2015, Jose sought reconsideration of
that Order through a Motion for Reconsideration. Miguel opposed the Motion for Reconsideration on
the ground that it was filed out of time. Jose countered that the 15-day rule under Section 1 of Rule
52 does not apply where the Order sought to be reconsidered is an interlocutory order that does not
attain finality. Is Jose correct? Explain. (5%)
 XII

Tailors Toto, Nelson and Yenyen filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 from an
adverse decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on the complaint for illegal
dismissal against Empire Textile Corporation. They were terminated on the ground that they failed to
meet the prescribed production quota at least four (4) times. The NLRC decision was assailed in a
special civil action under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA). In the verification and
certification against forum shopping, only Toto signed the verification and certification, while Atty.
Arman signed for Nelson. Empire filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of defective verification and
certification. Decide with reasons. (5%)

The motion to dismissed should be denied. While it is true that the law prescribes that the
verification and certification against forum shopping be personally signed by the plaintiff or the
petitioners, still the Court has, in a litany of cases, allowed substantial compliance with this
requirement especially in reasonable or justifiable cases as when all the plaintiff share a common
interest and invoke common cause of action, the signature of only one of them in the certification
substantially complies with the Rule. Therefore, the motion to dismiss shall be denied.

XIII

The officers of "Ang Kapaligiran ay Alagaan, Inc." engaged your services to file an action against
ABC Mining Corporation which is engaged in mining operations in Sta. Cruz, Marinduque. ABC used
highly toxic chemicals in extracting gold. ABC's toxic mine tailings were accidentally released from
its storage dams and were discharged into the rivers of said town. The mine tailings found their way
to Calancan Bay and allegedly to the waters of nearby Romblon and Quezon. The damage to the
crops and loss of earnings were estimated at Pl Billion. Damage to the environment is estimated at
Pl Billion. As lawyer for the organization, you are requested to explain the advantages derived from a
petition for writ of kalikasan before the Supreme Court over a complaint for damages before the RTC
of Marinduque or vice-versa. What action will you recommend? Explain. (5%)

If I were the lawyer of the organization, I would recommend the filing of writ of kalikasan as
opposed to filing a civil complaint for damages. The writ of kalikasan if granted, will entitle my client
to have the respondent be directed to cease and desist from committing or neglecting to do acts in
prejudice to the environment and to have the respondent be directed to preserve or rehabilitate the
environment without further need of an injunction or restraining order if filed as a civil action.
Moreover, the writ cannot be defeated by prohibited pleadings such as a motion to dismiss normally
available in civil actions.

XIV

Pedro, the principal witness in a criminal case, testified and completed his testimony on direct
examination in 2015. Due to several postponements by the accused, grounded on his recurring
illness, which were all granted by the judge, the cross-examination of Pedro was finally set on
October 15, 2016. Before the said date, Pedro died. The accused moved to expunge Pedro's
testimony on the ground that it violates his right of confrontation and the right to cross-examine the
witness. The prosecution opposed the motion and asked that Pedro's testimony on direct
examination be admitted as evidence. Is the motion meritorious? Explain. (5%)

The motion is devoid of merit. While the constitution has enshrined the accused’s right to
confront his witness, the Court has consistently held that this right may be impliedly waived. where a
party has had the opportunity to cross-examine an opposing witness but failed to avail himself of it,
he necessarily forfeits the right to cross-examine and the testimony given on direct examination of
the witness will be received or allowed to remain in the record. Since the postponements where
clearly sought by the accused, the testimony of pedro may be allowed to remain on record.

XV

Chika sued Gringo, a Venezuelan, for a sum of money. The Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila
(MeTC) rendered a decision ordering Gringo to pay Chika P50,000.00 plus legal interest. During its
pendency of the appeal before the RTC, Gringo died of acute hemorrhagic pancreatitis. Atty.
Perfecto, counsel of Gringo, filed a manifestation attaching the death certificate of Gringo and
informing the RTC that he cannot substitute the heirs since Gringo did not disclose any information
on his family. As counsel for Chika, what remedy can you recommend to your client so the case can
move forward and she can eventually recover her money? Explain. (5%)

If I were chika’s counsel, I would move to court to appoint an executor or administrator of

Gringo’s estate so that my client’s claim on Gringo’s estate may be protected. The rules provide that
in cases where the defendant dies without a legal representative the opposing party shall be allowed
to procure an executor or administrator of the deceased party’s estate.

XVI

Under Section 5, Rule 113 a warrantless arrest is allowed when an offense has just been committed
and the peace officer has probable cause to believe, based on his personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances, that the person to be arrested has committed it. A policeman approaches you for
advice and asks you how he will execute a warrantless arrest against a murderer who escaped after
killing a person. The policeman arrived two (2) hours after the killing and a certain Max was allegedly
the killer per information given by a witness. He asks you to clarify the following:

[a] How long after the commission of the crime can he still execute the warrantless arrest?
(2.5%)

A warrantless arrest executed in accordance with a hot pursuit as in the instant case is
mandated by law to be served immediately after the commission of the crime. Immediacy
shall depend on the circumstances of each case as examined.

[b] What does "personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances that the person to be
arrested committed it" mean? (2.5%)

Personal knowledge as used here means that the police officer serving the warrantless
arrest has close proximity on the scene of the crime and has personally and immediately
apprised the testimony of a witness present when the crime happened.

XVII

The information against Roger Alindogan for the crime of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of
the Revised Penal Code avers:

"That on or about 10:30 o'clock in the evening of February 1, 2010 at Barangay Matalaba,
Imus, Cavite and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
with lewd and unchaste design, through force and intimidation, did then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously commit sexual abuse on his daughter, Rose Domingo, a minor of
 11 years old, either by raping her or committing acts of lasciviousness on her, against her will
and consent to her damage and prejudice.

ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW."

The accused wants to have the case dismissed because he believes that the charge is confusing
and the information is defective. What ground or grounds can he raise in moving for the quashal of
the information? Explain. (5%)

Roger can invoke as a ground for the quashal of the complaint that the facts alleged therein
doesn’t not constitute and offense. Jurisprudence has consistently held that the information shall
clearly and unambiguously state the crime alleged to have been committed so that the accused may
be informed of the accusation against him. Since the information in this case does not clearly allege
the acts constituting the offense or any aggravating or special circumstances attending the same,
then it is void and may thus be subject to quashal.

XVIII

John filed a petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage to Anne on the ground of psychological
incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. He obtained a copy of the confidential psychiatric
evaluation report on his wife from the secretary of the psychiatrist. Can he testify on the said report
without offending the rule on privileged communication? Explain. (5%)

No, the psychiatrist may not be allowed to testify over the objection of the wife since it is
covered by the privileged communication rule as the testimony will involve matters divulged by the
wife to the psychiatrist in his professional capacity. The rule covers even those in confidence for
being under the employ of the physician.

XIX

Tristan filed a suit with the RTC of Pasay against Arthur King and/or Estate of Arthur King for
reconveyance of a lot declared in the name of Arthur King under TCT No. 1234. The complaint
alleged that "on account Arthur King's residence abroad up to the present and the uncertainty of
whether he is still alive or dead, he or his estate may be served with summons by publication."
Summons was published and nobody filed any responsive pleading within sixty (60) days therefrom.
Upon motion, defendants were declared in default and judgment was rendered declaring Tristan as
legal owner and ordering defendants to reconvey said lot to Tristan.

Jojo, the court-designated administrator of Arthur King's estate, filed a petition for annulment of
judgment before the CA praying that the decision in favor of Tristan be declared null and void for
lack of jurisdiction. He claims that the action filed by Tristan is an action in personam and that the
court did not acquire jurisdiction over defendants Arthur King and/or his estate. On the other hand,
Tristan claims that the suit is an action in rem or at least an action quasi in rem. Is the RTC judge
correct in ordering service of summons by publication? Explain. (5%)

No, the Judge erred in ordering summons by publication. It has been held by the High Court
that an action for reconveyance is an action in personam directed against the defendant’s liability,
binding the latter although it concerns real property. Since the action is in personan, then jurisdiction
over the defendant can be attained through valid summons on him. Since no summon was received
or served on King Arthur, then the court never acquired jurisdiction over the person and the assailed
decision is patently null and void.
 XX

Royal Bank (Royal) filed a complaint for a sum of money against Ervin and Jude before the RTC of
Manila. The initiatory pleading averred that on February 14, 2010, Ervin obtained a loan from Royal
in the amount of Pl Million, as evidenced by Promissory Note No. 007 (PN) signed by Ervin. Jude
signed a Surety Agreement binding herself as surety for the loan. Royal made a final demand on
February 14, 2015 for Ervin and Jude (defendants) to pay, but the latter failed to pay. Royal prayed
that defendants Ervin and Jude be ordered to pay the amount of P1 Million plus interests.

In their answer, Ervin admitted that he obtained the loan from Royal and signed the PN. Jude also
admitted that she signed the Surety Agreement. Defendants pointed out that the PN did not provide
the due date for payment, and that the loan has not yet matured as the maturity date was left blank
to be agreed upon by the parties at a later date. Defendants filed a Motion for a Judgment on the
Pleadings on the ground that there is no genuine issue presented by the parties' submissions. Royal
opposed the motion on the ground that the PN' s maturity is an issue that must be threshed out
during trial.

[a] Resolve the motion with reasons. (2.5%)

The motion should be denied as judgment on the pleading is not available where the answer
does not tender a genuine issue necessitating the submission of evidence. A judgment on the
pleading is only allowed where the answer fails to tender an issue or admits the material allegations
thereof. The proper motion to raise is a summary judgment considering that Ervin’s answer raised an
issue but not calling for the submission of evidence to substantiate the same. The case can be
resolved by plain resort to the stipulations of the contract.

[b] Distinguish "Summary Judgment" and "Judgment on the Pleadings." (2.5%)

The existence or appearance of ostensible issues in the pleadings, on the one hand, and
their sham or fictitious character, on the other, are what distinguish a proper case for summary
judgment from one for a judgment on the pleadings. In a proper case for judgment on the
pleadings, there is no ostensible issue at all because of the failure of the defending partys answer to
raise an issue. On the other hand, in the case a of a summary judgment, issues apparently
existi.e. facts are asserted in the complaint regarding which there is as yet no admission, disavowal
or qualification; or specific denials or affirmative defenses are in truth set out in the answerbut the
issues thus arising from the pleadings are sham, fictitious or not genuine, as shown by affidavits,
depositions, or admissions.