SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO 2017 REMEDIAL LAW BAR

EXAMINATION QUESTIONS
I.

What trial court outside Metro Manila has exclusive original jurisdiction
over the following cases? Explain briefly your answers.

(a) An action filed on November 13, 2017 to recover the possession of an

apartment unit being occupied by the defendant by mere tolerance of the plaintiff,
after the former ignored the last demand to vacate that was duly served upon and
received by him on July 6,2016.

(b) A complaint in which the principal relief sought is the enforcement of a

seller's contractual right to repurchase a lot with an assessed value of P15,000.00.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a)

It would be either the MTC or the RTC depending upon the assessed value
of the apartment unit.

Under B.P. Blg. 129, jurisdiction over real actions is vested in the MTC if
the assessed value of the real property involved does not exceed P20,000 and in the
RTC if such assessed value exceeds P20,000. The action to recover possession can
no longer be one for unlawful detainer since it was brought beyond one year from the
last demand to vacate.

(b)

Exclusive original jurisdiction is vested in the MTC.

 The Supreme Court has held that where the ultimate relief sought by an
action is the assertion of title to real property, the action is a real one and not one
incapable of pecuniary estimation. [Brgy. Piapi v. Talip, 7 Sep 2005]

Here the ultimate relief sought by the complaint is the assertion of title
since the seller seeks to exercise his right to repurchase. Hence the action is a real
one and jurisdiction is vested in the MTC since the assessed value does not exceed
P20,000.

Alternative Answer:

(b)

Exclusive original jurisdiction is vested in the Regional Trial Court.

The Supreme Court has held that an action to enforce the right of
redemption is one which is incapable of pecuniary estimation and thus within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC pursuant to B.P. Blg. 129. [Heirs of
Bautista v. Lindo, 10 March 2014]

II.

Santa filed against Era in the RTC of Quezon City an action for specific
performance praying for the delivery of a parcel of land subject of their contract of
sale. Unknown to the parties, the case was inadvertently raffled to an RTC designated
as a special commercial court. Later, the RTC rendered judgment adverse to Era, who,
upon realizing that the trial court was not a regular RTC, approaches you and wants
you to file a petition to have the judgment annulled for lack of jurisdiction.
 What advice would you give to Era? Explain your answer. (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The advice I would give to Era is that the petition for annulment of
judgment on lack of jurisdiction will not prosper.

The Supreme Court has held that a special commercial court is still a court
of general jurisdiction and can hear and try a non-commercial case. [Concorde
Condominium Inc. v. Baculio, 17 Feb 2016, Peralta, J.].

Hence the special commercial court had jurisdiction to try and decide the
action for specific performance and to render a judgment therein.