2011

Bar Examination Questionnaire for Remedial Law Set A

(1) Anna filed a petition for appointment as regular administratrix of her fathers' estate. Her sister Sophia moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the parties (A) Yes since such earnest effort is jurisdictional in all estate cases. since such earnest effort is not required in special proceedings. since such earnest effort is required prior to the filing of the case. since such earnest effort toward a compromise is not required in summary proceedings.

have not exerted earnest effort toward a compromise prior to the filing of the petition. Should the petition be dismissed?

(B) No

(C) Yes

(D) No

(2) A pending criminal case, dismissed provisionally, shall be deemed permanently dismissed if not revived after 2 years with respect to offenses punishable by imprisonment

(A) of more than 12 years.

(B) not exceeding 6 years or a fine not exceeding P1,000.00.

(C) of more than 6 years or a fine in excess of P1,000.00.

(D) of more than 6 years.

(3) Angie was convicted of false testimony and served sentence. Five years later, she was convicted of homicide. On appeal, she applied for bail. May the Court of Appeals deny her application for bail on ground of habitual delinquency?

(A) Yes, the felonies are both punishable under the Revised Penal Code.

(B) Yes, her twin convictions indicated her criminal inclinations.

(C) No, the felonies fall under different titles in the Revised Penal Code.

(D) No, the charges are both bailable.

(4) Which of the following is NOT CONSISTENT with the rules governing expropriation proceedings?

(A) The court shall declare the defendant who fails to answer the complaint in default and render judgment against him.

(B) The court shall refer the case to the Board of Commissioners to determine the amount of just compensation.

(C) The plaintiff shall make the required deposit and forthwith take immediate possession of the property sought to be expropriated.

(D) The plaintiff may appropriate the property for public use after judgment and payment of the compensation fixed in it, despite defendant’s appeal.

(5) Which of the following is a correct statement of the rule on amendment of the information in a criminal proceeding?

(A) An amendment that downgrades the offense requires leave of court even before the accused pleads.

(B) Substantial amendments are allowed with leave of court before the accused pleads.

(C) Only formal amendments are permissible before the accused pleads.

(D) After the plea, a formal amendment may be made without leave of court.

(6) Gary who lived in Taguig borrowed P1 million from Rey who lived in Makati under a contract of loan that fixed Makati as the venue of any action arising from the contract. Gary had already paid the loan but Rey kept on sending him letters of demand for some balance. Where is the venue of the action for harassment that Gary wants to file against Rey?

(A) In Makati since the intent of the party is to make it the venue of any action between them whether based on the contract or not.

(B) In Taguig or Makati at the option of Gary since it is a personal injury action.

(C) In Taguig since Rey received the letters of demand there.

(C) Divide the residual money in his hands among the persons legally entitled to the same. (D) Motion to declare defendant in default is allowed. (B) The court shall render its decision within 3 days after hearing. (B) Compromise a claim. Is their claim correct? .(D) In Makati since it is the venue fixed in their contract. (7) Which of the following is NOT within the power of a judicial receiver to perform? (A) Bring an action in his name. (9) The Metropolitan Trial Court convicted Virgilio and Dina of concubinage. claiming they are entitled to it as a matter of right. (8) Which of the following precepts forms part of the rules governing small claims? (A) Permissive counterclaim is not allowed. they applied for bail. (C) Joinder of separate claims is not allowed. (D) Invest the funds in his hands without court approval. Pending appeal.

(B) Yes. (B) When the trial of an issue of fact requires the examination of a long account. (D) Upon motion of a party on reasonable grounds. bail is a matter of right in all cases not involving moral turpitude. (11) Which of the following is in accord with the applicable rules on receivership? (A) The court may appoint the plaintiff as receiver of the property in litigation over the defendant’s objection. bail is not a matter of right after conviction. bail is a matter of right in the Metropolitan Trial Court before and after conviction. bail is dependent on the risk of flight. (10) As a rule. In which of the following circumstances may the court delegate the reception of evidence to the clerk of court? (A) When a question of fact arises upon a motion. (C) In default or ex-parte hearings. (D) Yes. .(A) No. the judge shall receive the evidence personally. (C) No. (B) A receiver may be appointed after judgment if the judgment obligor refuses to apply his property to satisfy the judgment.

showing payment of a loan. (C) No. since Ramon has a valid reason for not testifying. Can the court punish him for contempt? (A) No. since no person can be compelled to be a witness against another. (13) Ramon witnessed the commission of a crime but he refuses to testify for fear of his life despite a subpoena being served on him. (D) Unblemished receipt dated December 20. (B) Yes. (C) Documents acknowledged before a Notary Public in Hong Kong. . since litigants need help in presenting their cases. (D) Yes. 1985 signed by the promisee. (B) Official record of the Philippine Embassy in Singapore certified by the Vice.Consul with official seal. since public interest in justice requires his testimony. found among the well-kept file of the promissor. (12) Bearing in mind the distinction between private and public document.(C) The trial court cannot appoint a receiver when the case is on appeal. (D) The filing of bond on appointment of a receiver is mainly optional. which of the following is admissible in evidence without further proof of due execution or genuineness? (A) Baptismal certificates.

(C) the intervenor fails to put up a bond for the protection of the other parties. (C) Unenforceability under the Statutes of Fraud. (16) When may a co-owner NOT demand the partition of the thing owned in common? (A) When the creditor of one of the co-owners has attached the property. . (D) the intervenor has a stake in the property subject of the suit. (D) Prescription.(14) The right to intervene is not absolute. (15) Which of the following grounds for dismissal invoked by the court will NOT PRECLUDE the plaintiff from refiling his action? (A) Res judicata. (B) Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. (B) it would enlarge the issues and expand the scope of the remedies. (B) When the property is essentially indivisible. In general. it CANNOT be allowed where (A) the intervenor has a common interest with any of the parties.

At the same time Soledad filed a civil action to annul the second sale before the RTC of Quezon City. a criminal action for estafa against her sister. (C) The applicant has a contingent claim over the property object of the writ. (17) The city prosecutor of Manila filed. (D) Yes. (18) Which of the following conforms to the applicable rule on replevin? (A) The applicant must file a bond executed to the adverse party in an amount equal to the value of the property as determined by the court. (D) When a co-owner uses the property as his residence. . the accused must file a motion to suspend the action based on prejudicial question. (C) Yes. (B) No. Wella. if it finds from the record that such prejudicial question exists.(C) When related co-owners agreed to keep the property within the family. before the RTC of Manila for selling to Victor a land that she previously sold to Soledad. upon Soledad’s complaint. May the Manila RTC motu proprio suspend the criminal action on ground of prejudicial question? (A) Yes. (B) The property has been wrongfully detained by the adverse party. if it may be clearly inferred that complainant will not object to the suspension of the criminal case. if it is convinced that due process and fair trial will be better served if the criminal case is suspended.

(D) The plaintiff may apply for the writ at any time before judgment. filed an answer. under the rules. its bus driver. (20) Which of the following has NO PLACE in an application for a replevin order? A statement (A) that the property is wrongfully detained by the adverse party. (D) Yes. On Gerry’s motion and over the objection of XYZ Bus Co. the court declared Rico. render judgment against the defendant declared in default. only XYZ Bus Co. since. the court should have dropped Rico as defendant since the moneyed defendant is the bus company.000 in damages to Gerry. (B) No. (C) Yes. for injuries Gerry suffered when their bus ran off the road and hit him.. Of the two defendants. (B) that the property has not been distrained for a tax assessment or placed under custodia legis. (C) of the assessed value of the property. in default and rendered judgment ordering him to pay P50. the bus driver. the court can. Did the court act correctly? (A) No. . (19) Gerry sued XYZ Bus Co. causing the bus to swerve without the driver’s fault. and Rico. Someone had stolen the manhole cover and the road gave no warning of the danger it posed. Rico may be deemed to have admitted the allegations in the complaint. alleging that its bus ran off the road because one of its wheels got caught in an open manhole. in failing to answer. since the court should have tried the case against both defendants upon the bus company’s answer.

. (D) The judgment shall be void. substantial evidence. (B) to satisfy the burden of proof in civil cases. (D) to rebut the presumptive validity of a notarial document. (C) The promulgation of the judgment shall be suspended until he is brought to the jurisdiction of the court. preponderance of evidence. What is the consequence of his absence? (A) Counsel may appeal the judgment in the absence of the accused. (C) to overcome a disputable presumption. (21) 008-997-0001 In which of the following instances is the quantum of evidence ERRONEOUSLY applied? (A) in Writ of Amparo cases. substantial evidence. (22) The accused jumps bail and fails to appear on promulgation of judgment where he is found guilty.(D) that the applicant owns or has a right to the possession of the property. (B) The judgment shall be promulgated in his absence and he loses his right of appeal. clear and convincing evidence.

survived by his son.(23) What should the court sheriff do if a third party serves on him an affidavit of claim covering the property he had levied? (A) Ask the judgment obligee to file a court-approved indemnity bond in favor of the third-party claimant or the sheriff will release the levied property. (C) Immediately lift the levy and release the levied property. (B) Registered mail receipt. (B) Ask the judgment obligee to file a court-approved bond for the sheriff’s protection in case he proceeds with the execution. place and manner of service. No substitution of party defendant was made. Pending trial. B died. (C) Written admission of the party served. C. Upon finality of the judgment against B. (25) A sued B for ejectment. (D) Affidavit of the server with a statement of the date. may the same be enforced against C? . (D) Ask the third-party claimant to support his claim with an indemnity bond in favor of the judgment obligee and release the levied property if such bond is filed. (24) Which of the following is NOT REGARDED as a sufficient proof of personal service of pleadings? (A) Official return of the server.

(C) Yes. (B) Ensure the wise and profitable investment of the ward’s financial resources. because the action did not survive B’s death. (27) Which of the following is a duty enjoined on the guardian and covered by his bond? (A) Provide for the proper care. (B) No. (C) Collect compensation for his services to the ward. and education of the ward. because the negligence of B’s counsel in failing to ask for substitution. custody.(A) Yes. (26) What is the proper remedy to secure relief from the final resolutions of the Commission On Audit? (A) Petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. (D) No. (D) Appeal to the Court of Appeals. because C was denied due process. (B) Special civil action of certiorari with the Court of Appeals. because the case survived B’s death and the effect of final judgment in an ejectment case binds his successors in-interest. (C) Special civil action of certiorari with the Supreme Court. . should not prejudice A.

(28) Berto was charged with and convicted of violating a city ordinance against littering in public places punishable by imprisonment of one month or a fine of P1. (C) No.00.000. one charged with the violation of a city ordinance is not required to post bail. (D) Claims for funeral expenses. But the city mayor pardoned him. (D) No. notwithstanding a previous pardon. because he is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. A year later. his previous conviction requires posting of bail for the present charge. since he may be deemed to have violated the terms of his pardon. with death occurring before levy on execution of the property. . (C) Claims for damages arising from quasi-delict.(D) Raise the ward to become a responsible member of society. (B) Yes. (29) Which of the following claims survive the death of the defendant and need not be presented as a claim against the estate? (A) Contingent money claims arising from contract. (B) Unenforced money judgment against the decedent. Need Berto post bail for such offense? (A) Yes. he was charged with violating a city ordinance against jaywalking which carried the same penalty.

Terence died due to severe infection of his stab wounds. (C) No. (D) Yes. since it asks for his legal opinion. A few days later. since hypothetical questions may be asked of an expert witness. (D) No. there is double jeopardy since serious physical injuries is necessarily included in the charge of homicide. "Assuming that the assailant was behind the deceased before he attacked him. would you say that treachery attended the killing?" Is this hypothetical question permissible? (A) No. Can the prosecution file another information against Ben for homicide? (A) Yes.(30) In a case. . He was tried and convicted as charged. but conditionally. since Terence’s death shows irregularity in the filing of the earlier charge against him. the prosecutor asked the medical expert the question. since supervening event altered the kind of crime the accused committed. subject to subsequent proof that the assailant was indeed behind the deceased at that time. double jeopardy is present since Ben had already been convicted of the first offense. (C) Yes. (31) The city prosecutor charged Ben with serious physical injuries for stabbing Terence. (B) No. since the medical expert has no personal knowledge of the fact. (B) Yes.

unable to take pictures of the items. Will this deficiency destroy the chain of custody rule in the drug case? (A) No.00. (C) Yes. (33) A sued B in the RTC of Quezon City. compliance with the chain of custody rule in drug cases is the only way to prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They were. The police officers confiscated the drugs and the money and brought them to the police station where they prepared the inventory duly signed by police officer Oscar Moreno. since causes (1) actions to recover real and personal property from the estate of action pertaining to different venues may not be joined in one action May the case be dismissed for improper . however.000. a breach of the chain of custody rule in drug cases. (D) Yes. a breach of the chain of custody rule may be offset by presentation in court of the drugs. (B) No. will not negate conviction. AMONG ALL THE What actions survive the death of the decedent? PARTIES IN INTEREST (A) Yes. if satisfactorily explained.(32) Arvin was caught in flagrante delicto selling drugs for P200. joining two causes of action: for partition of real property and breach of contract with damagea partition property of real + Both parties reside in Quezon City but the real property is in Manila breach of contract with damagea DISCHARGE OF THE PARTIES LIABLE UPON THE ORIGINAL LEASE. chain of custody in drug cases must be strictly observed at all times to preserve the integrity of the confiscated items.

but extends to other wrongs by which personal estate is injured or diminished In probate proceedings. 11. since causes of action pertaining to different venues may be joined in the RTC if one of the causes of action falls within its jurisdiction Powers and Duties of Probate Court (1) (a) the estate of the (3) actions to recover damages for an injury to person or property (no personal interaction) "injury to property" is not limited to injuries to specific property. the court: (d) Hears and approves claims against deceased (Sec. Exception=Torts (3) "all claims for money against the decedent. If it is a personal personal oblig’n extnguished obligations at death of Testator other than 2. ACTIONS THAT Actions to Actions to enforce lien SURVIVE DEATH recover real (incidental and personal contracts/obligations.would (no personal you have entered into the interaction) contract just the same even without the attached security?) (no personal interaction) ACTIONS Under Rule (2) judgments for money EXTINGUISHED.WALA 87. arising from contract express or implied What are these?Enumerate . the actions that are abated by death are: (1) claims for funeral expenses and those for the last sickness of the decedent (C) Yes. because What are these? Enumerate special civil action may not be joined with an ordinary civil action "to include all GEN RuLE purely 1. section 5... NA..venue? (B) No. Rule 86).

since plaintiff may unqualifiedly join in one complaint as many causes of action as he has against opposing party (34) What is the doctrine of judicial stability or non interference? (A) Once jurisdiction has attached to a court. it can not be deprived of it by subsequent happenings or events. (C) No court has the authority to interfere by injunction with the judgment of another court of coordinate jurisdiction. (D) A higher court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress sought cannot be obtained from the appropriate court. (35) Which of the following admissions made by a party in the course of judicial proceedings is a judicial admission? (A) Admissions made in a pleading signed by the party and his counsel intended to be filed. . (B) Courts will not hear and decide cases involving issues that come within the jurisdiction of administrative tribunals.those which have their source in delict or tort. (B) An admission made in a pleading in another case between the same parties." (NOT) (D) No.

(B) None. Cindy presented Ric and Pat. to prove. the circumstantial evidence is enough to support a conviction for bigamy. (36) What defenses may be raised in a suit to enforce a foreign judgment? (A) That the judgment is contrary to Philippine procedural rules. that they established a reputation as husband and wife. that George and Teresa cohabited there and. neighbors of George and Teresa in Cebu City.(C) Admission made by counsel in open court. . first. with bigamy for a prior subsisting marriage with Teresa. second. (D) That extrinsic fraud afflicted the judgment. Can Cindy prove the bigamy by such evidence? (A) Yes. the circumstantial evidence is not enough to support a conviction for bigamy. (B) No. (37) Cindy charged her husband. (C) That the foreign court erred in the appreciation of the evidence. at least one direct evidence and two circumstantial evidence are required to support a conviction for bigamy. the judgment being entitled to full faith and credit as a matter of general comity among nations. George. (D) Admissions made in a complaint superseded by an amended complaint. (C) No.

a resident foreigner sold his car to Bren. (B) No. (D) A mental retardate. the circumstantial evidence cannot overcome the lack of direct evidence in any criminal case. since Bong’s testimony of what Ambo said and did is hearsay. Is Bong’s testimony admissible in evidence? (A) Yes. subject of Bong’s testimony. since Ambo’s statement and action. Arthur replaced its original sound system with an inferior one.(D) No. (C) A deaf and dumb. (C) No. (40) Arthur. as the latter was handing over money to Tessie. After being paid but before delivering the car. (B) A person convicted of perjury who will testify as an attesting witness to a will. (38) To prove payment of a debt. since what Ambo said and did is an independently relevant statement. Bong testified that he heard Ambo say. (39) Considering the qualifications required of a would-be witness. rejected the . (D) Yes. that it was in payment of debt. since what Ambo said and did was not in response to a startling occurrence. Bren discovered the change. who among the following is INCOMPETENT to testify? (A) A person under the influence of drugs when the event he is asked to testify on took place. constitutes a verbal act.

(B) Yes. and demanded the return of his money. plaintiff offered evidence that appeared irrelevant at that time but he said he was eventually going to relate to the issue in the case by some future evidence. Bren filed a civil action against Arthur for contractual fraud and damages. (b) he departed from the Philippines. his company reassigned Arthur to Singapore. (D) Appeal the orders of denial. Arthur did not comply. and (c) he was guilty of fraud in contracting with Bren. (D) No. Arthur committed fraud in changing the sound system and its components before delivering the car bought from him. since it was not shown that Arthur left the country with intent to defraud Bren.car. the court issued a writ of preliminary attachment on the grounds that (a) Arthur is a foreigner. Meantime. Upon his application. (C) Yes the timing of his departure is presumptive evidence of intent to defraud. Arthur is a foreigner living abroad. (B) File an administrative action for gross ignorance of the law against the trial judge. he is outside the court’s jurisdiction. (C) File a special civil action of certiorari on ground of grave abuse of discretion. The defendant objected. Is the writ of preliminary attachment proper? (A) No. (42) During trial. Should the trial court reject the evidence in question on ground of irrelevance? . (41) What is the movant’s remedy if the trial court incorrectly denies his motion to dismiss and related motion for reconsideration? (A) Answer the complaint.

since the plaintiff could anyway subsequently present the evidence anew.(A) No. as evidence of a pattern of criminal behavior proving his guilt of the present offense. (D) No. (C) Yes. charged with robbery. has committed bag-snatching three times on the same street in the last six months. (B) The proceeding in an Amparo petition is criminal in nature. as evidence of his past propensity for committing robbery. (43) Ben testified that Jaime. Can the court admit this testimony as evidence against Jaime? (A) No. (C) Yes. since there is no showing that Ben witnessed the past three robberies. the latter shall be dismissed. since irrelevant evidence is not admissible. it should admit it conditionally until its relevance is shown. (44) What is the right correlation between a criminal action and a petition for Writ of Amparo both arising from the same set of facts? (A) When the criminal action is filed after the Amparo petition. it should reserve its ruling until the relevance is shown. since evidence of guilt of a past crime is not evidence of guilt of a present crime. (B) Yes. (D) No. . (B) Yes.

(D) For both.(C) No separate criminal action may be instituted after an Amparo petition is filed. for Melba. Melba countered that she had nothing to do with Toni's disappearance and that she took steps to ascertain Toni's whereabouts. substantial evidence. (B) For Alex. probable cause. days before Toni disappeared. who. (C) For Alex. for Melba. preponderance of evidence. Alex said that Melba was Toni's employer. the latter shall be consolidated with the first. . for Melba. ordinary diligence. (D) When the criminal action is filed after the Amparo petition. (45) Alex filed a petition for writ of amparo against Melba relative to his daughter Toni's involuntary disappearance. (C) Declaration of a former co-partner after the partnership has been dissolved. substantial evidence. threatened to get rid of her at all costs. On the other hand. What is the quantum of evidence required to establish the parties' respective claims? (A) For Alex. (46) In which of the following situations is the declaration of a deceased person against his interest NOT ADMISSIBLE against him or his successors and against third persons? (A) Declaration of a joint debtor while the debt subsisted. proof beyond reasonable doubt. substantial evidence. (B) Declaration of a joint owner in the course of ownership.

(D) Declaration of an agent within the scope of his authority.

(47) Defendant Dante said in his answer: "1. Plaintiff Perla claims that defendant Dante owes her P4,000 on the mobile phone that she sold him; 2. But Perla owes Dante P6,000 for the dent on his car that she borrowed." How should the court treat the second statement?

(A) A cross claim

(B) A compulsory counterclaim

(C) A third party complaint

(D) A permissive counterclaim

(48) How will the court sheriff enforce the demolition of improvements?

(A) He will give a 5-day notice to the judgment obligor and, if the latter does not comply, the sheriff will have the improvements forcibly demolished.

(B) He will report to the court the judgment obligor’s refusal to comply and have the latter cited in contempt of court.

(C) He will demolish the improvements on special order of the court, obtained at the judgment obligee’s motion.

(D) He will inform the court of the judgment obligor’s noncompliance and proceed to demolish the improvements.

(49) When may the bail of the accused be cancelled at the instance of the bondsman?

(A) When the accused jumps bail.

(B) When the bondsman surrenders the accused to the court.

(C) When the accused fails to pay his annual premium on the bail bond.

(D) When the accused changes his address without notice to the bondsman.

(50) Which of the following MISSTATES a requisite for the issuance of a search warrant?

(A) The warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized.

(B) Presence of probable cause.

(C) The warrant issues in connection with one specific offense.

(D) Judge determines probable cause upon the affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses.

(51) Ranger Motors filed a replevin suit against Bart to recover possession of a car that he mortgaged to it. Bart disputed the claim. Meantime, the court allowed, with no opposition from the parties, Midway Repair Shop to intervene with its claim against Bart for unpaid repair bills. On subsequent motion of Ranger Motors and Bart, the court dismissed the complaint as well as Midway Repair Shop’s intervention. Did the court act correctly?

(A) No, since the dismissal of the intervention bars the right of Bart to file a separate action.

(B) Yes, intervention is merely collateral to the principal action and not an independent proceeding.

(C) Yes, the right of the intervenor is merely in aid of the right of the original party, which in this case had ceased to exist.

(D) No, since having been allowed to intervene, the intervenor became a party to the action, entitled to have the issue it raised tried and decided.

(52) The accused was convicted for estafa thru falsification of public document filed by one of two offended parties. Can the other offended party charge him again with the same crime?

(A) Yes, since the wrong done the second offended party is a separate crime.

(B) No, since the offense refers to the same series of act, prompted by one criminal intent.

(C) Yes, since the second offended party is entitled to the vindication of the wrong done him as well.

(D) No, since the second offended party is in estoppel, not having joined the first criminal action.

(53) Henry testified that a month after the robbery Asiong, one of the accused, told him that Carlos was one of those who committed the crime with him. Is Henry’s testimony regarding what Asiong told him admissible in evidence against Carlos?

(A) No, since it is hearsay.

since it part of the res gestae. The court granted the petition and required Roy to turn over Jeff to his mother. (55) Angel Kubeta filed a petition to change his first name "Angel. Is the dismissal with prejudice correct? (A) Yes. to get from him custody of their 5 year old son.(B) No. the court issued an order. (B) No. The court confirmed the dismissal without prejudice. since he filed it more than 2 days after receipt of the decision granting the petition. Did he file a timely notice of appeal? (A) No. (54) Dorothy filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus against her husband. since it constitutes admission against a co-conspirator. since Asiong did not make the statement during the conspiracy. he filed a notice of dismissal. since he filed it within 15 days from receipt of the denial of his motion for reconsideration. Five days later. this time to change his surname "Kubeta. Angel filed a notice of dismissal after the publication. however. (C) Yes. since he filed it more than 2 days after receipt of the order denying his motion for reconsideration. (D) Yes. Roy. Jeff. since such dismissal with prejudice is mandatory. ." Again. confirming the dismissal of the case with prejudice. (C) Yes." After the required publication but before any opposition could be received. since he filed it within 7 days from receipt of the denial of his motion for reconsideration. He filed a notice of appeal five days from receipt of the order denying his motion for reconsideration. Roy sought reconsideration but the court denied it. (D) Yes. he filed another petition. This time.

. since change of name does not involve public interest and the rules should be liberally construed. (B) lacks a jurisdictional requirement. (C) is a sham pleading.(B) No. (B) petition for review on certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals under Rule 42. (D) is considered not filed and should be expunged. since the rule on dismissal of action upon the plaintiff’s notice does not apply to special proceedings. (C) appeal to the Supreme Court under Rule 54. (D) Yes. (56) A complaint without the required "verification" (A) shall be treated as unsigned. since the rule on dismissal of action upon the plaintiff’s notice applies and the two cases involve a change in name. (57) The decisions of the Commission on Elections or the Commission on Audit may be challenged by (A) petition for review on certiorari filed with the Supreme Court under Rule 45. (C) No.

not in a separate civil case. . carries the burden of showing that the prosecution’s evidence of his guilt is not strong. (D) The prosecution must have full opportunity to prove the guilt of the accused. for reconveyance of title to a piece of land. Betty filed an action against her sister. Is Sigma correct? (A) Yes. Betty claimed that Sigma forged the signatures of their late parents to make it appear that they sold the land to her when they did not. (58) Which of the following states a correct guideline in hearing applications for bail in capital offenses? (A) The hearing for bail in capital offenses is summary.(D) special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 filed with the Supreme Court. Sigma moved to dismiss the action on the ground that the dispute should be resolved in the estate proceedings. questions of collation should be resolved in the estate proceedings. the court does not sit to try the merits of the case. (B) The prosecution’s conformity to the accused’s motion for bail is proof that its evidence of his guilt is not strong. Sigma. the filing of the separate action is proper. (C) Yes. (B) No. in the sense that Betty needs to wait until the estate case has been terminated. (C) The accused. but the estate proceeding must be suspended meantime. thus prejudicing Betty’s legitime. (59) Apart from the case for the settlement of her parents' estate. as applicant for bail. (D) No. since questions of ownership of property cannot be resolved in the estate proceedings.

(D) The trial court shall expunge his answer from the record. (D) Appeal the order denying the motion for preliminary investigation. (B) None since such order is final and executory. if denied. . (B) The trial court shall immediately render judgment against him. (C) Ask for reconsideration. (62) Which of the following renders a complaint for unlawful detainer deficient? (A) The defendant claims that he owns the subject property. (C) The trial court shall allow the plaintiff to present evidence ex-parte. on appeal from it. file petition for certiorari and prohibition. (61) What is the remedy of the accused if the trial court erroneously denies his motion for preliminary investigation of the charge against him? (A) Wait for judgment and.(60) What is the consequence of the unjustified absence of the defendant at the pre-trial? (A) The trial court shall declare him as in default. assign such denial as error.

the mortgagee submits his claim in the estate proceeding. (B) if upon the mortgagor’s death during the proceeding.(B) The plaintiff has tolerated defendant’s possession for 2 years before demanding that he vacate it. (D) The lessor institutes the action against a lessee who has not paid the stipulated rents. (C) The plaintiff’s demand is for the lessee to pay back rentals or vacate. under which of the following instances is the court NOT ALLOWED to render deficiency judgment for the plaintiff? (A) If the mortgagee is a banking institution. suing for partition (B) An agent acting in his own name suing for the benefit of a disclosed principal (C) Assignee of the lessor in an action for unlawful detainer . (D) If the mortgagor is a non-resident person and cannot be found in the Philippines. (C) If the mortgagor is a third party who is not solidarily liable with the debtor. (64) In which of the following cases is the plaintiff the real party in interest? (A) A creditor of one of the co-owners of a parcel of land. (63) In a judicial foreclosure proceeding.

after hearing. In his answer. (C) Yes. the court denied the motion. (66) What is the effect of the failure of the accused to file a motion to quash an information that charges two offenses? (A) He may be convicted only of the more serious offense. . (D) He may be convicted only of the lesser offense. May the court. because of the rule on Omnibus Motion. (B) No. dismiss the action on ground of prescription? (A) Yes. (B) He may in general be convicted of both offenses. citing the date alleged in the complaint when the cause of action accrued. (C) The trial shall be void. After hearing. (D) No.(D) An administrator suing for damages arising from the death of the decedent (65) The defendant in an action for sum of money filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of improper venue. because affirmative defenses are barred by the earlier motion to dismiss. because the defense of prescription of action can be raised at anytime before the finality of judgment. because prescription is an exception to the rule on Omnibus Motion. the defendant claimed prescription of action as affirmative defense.

(C) Consolidation of cases pending in different branches or different courts is not permissible. (C) No. (D) Yes since MCM. (68) Summons was served on "MCM Theater." a business entity with no juridical personality. as business entity. (69) Fraud as a ground for new trial must be extrinsic as distinguished from intrinsic. (B) No. is a de facto partnership with juridical personality.(67) Which of the following is a correct application of the rules involved in consolidation of cases? (A) Consolidation of cases pending in different divisions of an appellate court is not allowed. Did the court acquire jurisdiction over MCM Theater’s owners? (A) Yes. through its office manager at its place of business. (D) The consolidation of cases is done only for trial purposes and not for appeal. since the real parties in interest. Which of the following constitutes extrinsic fraud? . because MCM has no juridical personality and cannot be sued. (B) The court in which several cases are pending involving common questions of law and facts may hear initially the principal case and suspend the hearing in the other cases. an unregistered entity like MCM Theater may be served with summons through its office manager. the owners of MCM Theater. have not been served with summons.

since the decision of the Secretary of Justice in criminal matters is binding on courts.(A) Collusive suppression by plaintiff’s counsel of a material evidence vital to his cause of action. (C) The defendant’s fraudulent representation that caused damage to the plaintiff. (D) Use of falsified documents during the trial. (70) Upon review. (71) Unexplained or unjustified non-joinder in the Complaint of a necessary party despite court order results in (A) the dismissal of the Complaint. (C) No. Is the trial court bound to grant the withdrawal? (A) Yes. (B) suspension of proceedings. (B) Use of perjured testimony at the trial. since the court has the power after the case is filed to itself determine probable cause. since the prosecution of an action is a prerogative of the public prosecutor. . the Secretary of Justice ordered the public prosecutor to file a motion to withdraw the information for estafa against Sagun for lack of probable cause. The public prosecutor complied. (B) No. (D) Yes. since the complainant has already acquired a vested right in the information.

(C) That a writing is truly dated. absent for 5 years. (D) The petitioner has a clear legal right to the act demanded. (D) That a young person. (D) waiver of plaintiff’s right against the unpleaded necessary party. (B) There is no other adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. is considered dead for purposes of succession. (72) Which of the following CANNOT be disputably presumed under the rules of evidence? (A) That the thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with things of that nature. (73) 008-464-0001 Which of the following is NOT REQUIRED in a petition for mandamus? (A) The act to be performed is not discretionary. (74) When is the defendant entitled to the return of the property taken under a writ of replevin? .(C) contempt of court. it being unknown whether he still lives. (C) RIGHT ANSWER The respondent neglects to perform a clear duty under a contract. (B) That the law has been obeyed.

(C) in criminal cases. (B) in criminal cases. the accused may prove his good moral character if pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.000. (D) when it is evidence of the good character of a witness even prior to impeachment. the prosecution may prove the bad moral character of the accused to prove his criminal predisposition. Will the new rule apply to his case? (A) No since what applies is the rule in force at the time the cause of action accrued. the bad moral character of the offended party may not be proved. (B) When the defendant posts a redelivery bond equal to the value of the property seized. (C) When the plaintiff takes the property and disposes of it without the sheriff’s approval.000. X filed his action after the rule took effect.00. (D) When a third party claims the property taken yet the applicant does not file a bond in favor of the sheriff. (76) X’s action for sum of money against Y amounting to P80. (75) Character evidence is admissible (A) in criminal cases.00 accrued before the effectivity of the rule providing for shortened procedure in adjudicating claims that do not exceed P100.(A) When the plaintiff’s bond is found insufficient or defective and is not replaced. .

since procedural rules have retroactive effect. (D) its arguments in support of the alleged errors are grossly erroneous. an order of confirmation is necessary to vest all rights in the purchaser. (77) A motion for reconsideration of a decision is pro forma when (A) it does not specify the defects in the judgment. since procedural rules generally apply prospectively to pending cases. (B) In judicial foreclosure. since new procedural rules cover only cases where the issues have already been joined. (C) There is equity of redemption in extra-judicial foreclosure. (B) it is a second motion for reconsideration with an alternative prayer for new trial. .(B) No. (D) Yes. (78) Which of the following correctly states the rule on foreclosure of mortgages? (A) The rule on foreclosure of real estate mortgage is suppletorily applicable to extrajudicial foreclosures. (C) Yes. (C) it reiterates the issues already passed upon but invites a second look at the evidence and the arguments.

(79) The information charges PNP Chief Luis Santos. which court has jurisdiction over the case? (A) Sandiganbayan only (B) Sandiganbayan or Regional Trial Court (C) Sandiganbayan or Court Martial (D) Regional Trial Court only (80) Distinguish between conclusiveness of judgment and bar by prior judgment." Based solely on this allegation. bar by prior judgment precludes another action based on the same issue. .(D) A right of redemption by the judgment obligor exists in judicial foreclosure. (Salary Grade 28). bar by prior judgment allows the filing of such an action. inflicting on the latter mortal wounds which caused his death. (D) Conclusiveness of judgment precludes the filing of an action to annul such judgment. (A) Conclusiveness of judgment bars another action based on the same cause. bar by prior judgment bars both plaintiff and defendant. (B) Conclusiveness of judgment bars only the defendant from questioning it. with "taking advantage of his public position as PNP Head by feloniously shooting JOSE ONA. bar by prior judgment precludes all matters that might have been adjudged. (C) Conclusiveness of judgment bars all matters directly adjudged.

(D) No.(81) Which of the following matters is NOT A PROPER SUBJECT of judicial notice? (A) Persons have killed even without motive. however. Did Branch 2 correctly act in issuing the injunction? (A) Yes. filed a third party claim with the sheriff. the latter scheduled the execution sale. despite which. Branch 1. issued a writ of execution against Rene for P20 million. since it constitutes interference with the judgment of a co-equal court with concurrent jurisdiction. because the proper remedy is to seek relief from the same court which rendered the judgment. . like Branch 1. (B) Municipal ordinances in the municipalities where the MCTC sits. since Branch 2. since the rules allow the filing of the independent suit to check the sheriff’s wrongful act in levying on a third party’s property. Branch 2. Marie then filed a separate action before the RTC of Malolos. (D) British law on succession personally known to the presiding judge. Marie. which issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the sheriff from taking possession and proceeding with the sale of the levied property. (82) The RTC of Malolos. (C) Teleconferencing is now a way of conducting business transactions. (B) Yes. is part of the RTC of Malolos. (C) No. The sheriff levied on a school building that appeared to be owned by Rene.

(B) The inclusion for distribution among the heirs of properties not belonging to the testator. . (85) As a rule. (D) The court shall vacate the judgment as well as the entire proceedings had in the case. What will justify advance distribution as an exception? (A) The estate has sufficient residual assets and the distributees file sufficient bond. shall remain in use. (84) Which of the following is sufficient to disallow a will on the ground of mistake? (A) An error in the description of the land devised in the will. (B) The court shall maintain the part of its judgment that is unaffected and void the rest. if material and competent. (C) The testator intended a donation intervivos but unwittingly executed a will. the estate shall not be distributed prior to the payment of all charges to the estate. (C) The evidence taken upon the former trial.(83) What is the effect and ramification of an order allowing new trial? (A) The court’s decision shall be held in suspension until the defendant could show at the reopening of trial that it has to be abandoned. (D) An error in the name of the person nominated as executor.

since the CSC Chairman and Commissioners have the rank of Justices of the Court of Appeals. (C) The dismissal of an action with prejudice. May the Court of Appeals take cognizance of the petition? (A) Yes.(B) The specific property sought to be distributed might suffer in value. (87) Which of the following is appealable? (A) An order of default against the defendant. provided it raises both questions of facts and law. (86) A party aggrieved by an interlocutory order of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals. since the CSC is a Constitutional Commission. (B) The denial of a motion to dismiss based on improper venue. (B) No. since the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over the petition concurrent with the Supreme Court. (D) Yes. . (D) The conformity of the majority of the creditors to such distribution. (C) An agreement among the heirs regarding such distribution. (C) No.

(D) The disallowance of an appeal. a police officer testified that. since the testimony is hearsay. (C) The declaration relates to a fact against the interest of the declarant. since it is based on his personal knowledge of Andy’s identification of the accused. Andy. (C) No. (B) Yes. pointed a finger at the accused in a police lineup. (89) To prove the identity of the assailant in a crime of homicide. (88) Which of the following is NOT REQUIRED of a declaration against interest as an exception to the hearsay rule? (A) The declarant had no motive to falsify and believed such declaration to be true. (B) The declarant is dead or unable to testify. . (D) No. who did not testify in court. Is the police officer’s testimony regarding Andy's identification of the accused admissible evidence? (A) Yes. since the police had the accused identified without warning him of his rights. (D) At the time he made said declaration he was unaware that the same was contrary to his aforesaid interest. since it constitutes an independently relevant statement.

Amado. (B) Romy will be prosecuted along with Zoilo and Amado. Romy testified. and him. (C) The testimony of an oppositor in a land registration case filed by the decedent’s heirs. the court in which the action is pending may properly . if any. will be mitigated. How will denial affect Romy? (A) His testimony shall remain on record. consistent with the sworn statement that he gave the prosecution.(90) In which of the following cases is the testimony in a case involving a deceased barred by the Survivorship Disqualification Rule or Dead Man Statute? (A) Testimony against the heirs of the deceased defendant who are substituted for the latter. (B) The testimony of a mere witness who is neither a party to the case nor is in privity with the latter. the court denied the motion for his discharge. (C) His liability. (92) In proceedings for the settlement of the estate of deceased persons. After hearing Romy. (D) The court can convict him based on his testimony. (91) The prosecution moved for the discharge of Romy as state witness in a robbery case it filed against Zoilo. (D) The testimony is offered to prove a claim less than what is established under a written document signed by the decedent.

(C) Venue in case of dispute between the parties to this contract shall solely be in the proper courts of Quezon City. Not knowing who was at fault. (93) Which of the following stipulations in a contract will supersede the venue for actions that the rules of civil procedure fix? (A) In case of litigation arising from this contract of sale. . the preferred venue shall be in the proper courts of Makati. (B) Should the real owner succeed in recovering his stolen car from buyer X. (D) rescind a contract of lease entered into by the deceased before death on the ground of contractual breach by the lessee. (94) Allan was riding a passenger jeepney driven by Ben that collided with a car driven by Cesar. (B) pass upon with the consent of all the heirs the issue of ownership of estate asset. causing Allan injury. (C) rule on a claim by one of the heirs that an estate asset was held in trust for him by the deceased. the latter shall have recourse under this contract to seller Y exclusively before the proper Cebu City court. contested by an heir if no third person is affected.(A) pass upon question of ownership of a real property in the name of the deceased but claimed by a stranger. (D) Any dispute arising from this contract of sale may be filed in Makati or Quezon City. what is the best that Allan can do? (A) File a tort action against Cesar.

(C) Sue Ben for breach of contract of carriage. since the surety’s undertaking is not annual but lasts up to judgment. "Sinasaksak daw ni Susan ang asawa niya! (I heard that Susan is stabbing her husband!)" Is Leon's statement as narrated by Rico admissible? (A) No. Rico testified that he heard Leon running down the street.(B) Await a judicial finding regarding who was at fault. since surety companies would fold up otherwise. (D) Sue both Ben and Cesar as alternative defendants. (D) Yes. . (96) To prove that Susan stabbed her husband Elmer. since the surety company technically takes the place of the accused with respect to court attendance. (B) Yes. filed a motion to withdraw as surety on the ground of the accused’s non-payment of the renewal premium. since the startling event had passed. (95) A surety company. since the accused has breached its agreement with the surety company. (B) Yes. which provided the bail bond for the release of the accused. as part of the res gestae. shouting excitedly. (C) No. Can the trial court grant the withdrawal? (A) No.

(C) A higher court will not entertain direct recourse to it if redress can be obtained in the appropriate courts. 2001 and made a promise to pay the loan within six months. (98) Plaintiff Manny said in his complaint: "3." In her answer." Is Letty’s denial sufficient? (A) Yes.(C) No. since it constitutes specific denial of the loan. (B) Yes. (D) The reason for it is the need for higher courts to devote more time to matters within their exclusive jurisdiction. On March 1. 2001 defendant Letty borrowed P1 million from plaintiff Manny and made a promise to pay the loan within six months. (D) Yes. since it constitutes positive denial of the existence of the loan. (97) Which of the following NOT TRUE regarding the doctrine of judicial hierarchy? (A) It derives from a specific and mandatory provision of substantive law. Letty alleged: "Defendant Letty specifically denies the allegations in paragraph 3 of the complaint that she borrowed P1 million from plaintiff Manny on March 1. as an independently relevant statement. since the excited statement is itself hearsay. (B) The Supreme Court may disregard the doctrine in cases of national interest and matters of serious implications. .

(D) No. the court rendered summary judgment on the first two causes of action and tried the third. the court issued a writ of execution to enforce the same. since it fails to set forth the matters defendant relied upon in support of her denial. informs the arresting officers that he is waiving his right to preliminary investigation.(C) No. . assuming the judgment was not appealable. (C) No. in cases of those lawfully arrested without a warrant. (100) In a civil action involving three separate causes of action. (C) When the accused fails to challenge the validity of the warrantless arrest at his arraignment. since she fails to set out in par. (B) When the accused. being partial. the summary judgment is interlocutory and any appeal from it still has to reckon with the final judgment. (D) When the arresting officers take the suspect before the judge who issues a detention order against him. since the rules do not allow a partial summary judgment. while under custodial investigation. (B) Yes since. the defendant should have questioned it by special civil action of certiorari. 2 of her answer her special and affirmative defenses. (99) When may an information be filed in court without the preliminary investigation required in the particular case being first conducted? (A) Following an inquest. Is the writ of execution proper? (A) No. After the period to appeal from the summary judgment expired.

December 2. Manuel J.com/attylaserna (Atty. Laserna on Facebook). laws and jurisprudence. since special reason is required for execution pending rendition of a final decision in the case.blogspot.(D) No.blogspot.facebook. Visit. https://www. when an action survives. Thus: OPPOSITION (In Re: MOTION TO DISMISS) THE PLAINTIFFS. respectfully state: . citing relevant jurisprudence. A law blog on Philippine justice system. by counsel. See also: http://mannylasernajr.com (Law and Justice) and http://attymanueljlasernajr. Philippine Laws and Cases .Atty.com (LCM Law). Laserna Jr. too. For legal research purposes. 2010 Death of a party. Thursday. may I share to my readers two pleadings (opposition and rejoinder) in a pending tort case involving the legal issue of substitution of party by reason of the death of the original defendant under Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.

L-41715. 2007. 3. 2008. as the case may be) of the estate of Tugonon is “her legal heir” (presumably. seeking the substitution of the heir/s of such defendant. et. citing Bonilla vs. the said case held. In his motion to dismiss. al. As a sypnosis. At the outset. dated January 4. at the same time. and directed the respondent court to allow the substitution of the minor children and to appoint a qualified person as guardian ad litem for them. for one cannot seek the “dismissal with prejudice” of a case based on the death of the defendant while. LEON BARCENA. The Supreme Court reversed the respondent court. June 18. xxx “should be substituted as defendant” as “a real party-in-interest” in this case. No. that the legal representative (presumably. In his ad cautelam motion for substitution. The aforecited case of ROSALIO BONILLA. 2. but the trial court dismissed the case and refused to reconsider. 1976 involved a civil action to quiet title over certain parcels of land. . the aforementioned two (2) motions are contradictory to each other.. dated January 11. etc.. the executor or administrator of the xxx Estate. June 18.1. Counsels for plaintiff asked for substitution by her minor children and her husband. the counsel for Tugonon prayed that this case “be DISMISSED with prejudice due to the death” of xxx on the premise that an action for tort/damages does not survive the death of the defendant.R. al. set aside the order of dismissal and the orders denying the motion for reconsideration. G. xxx. thus: that “while it is true that a person who is dead cannot sue in court. In the said case. 2008. L-41715. 4. et. Hence this petition for review. yet he can be substituted by his heirs in pursuing the case up to its completion”. Barcena. that Ms. sole heir and daughter) by the name of Ms. 1976. it was the plaintiff Fortunata Barcena who died and the defendants thereafter moved to dismiss the complaint. vs. both in substance and in intention. the counsel for the defendant xxx stated that xxx had died on November 28..

that “where. Court to order the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff to appear and to be substituted for said deceased. it is grave error for the respondent court to refuse the request for substitution on the ground that the children were still minors and cannot sue. that “in causes of action which survive the wrong complained. that as such. directs the Court to appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor”. the duty of the trial. the injuries to the person being merely incidental. the property and rights of property affected being incidental”.that “where proper substitution of parties had been asked for. 5. that “the death of the plaintiff during the pendency of an action to quiet title of a parcel of land did not extinguish her claim or right to the parcels of land in litigation but was transmitted to her heirs upon her death”. while in the causes of action which do not survive the injury complained of is to the person. “it is therefore. Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. it is grave error for the court to dismiss the complaint on the ground that a dead person has no legal personality to sue”. that “an action to quiet title over a parcel of land affects primarily and principally property and property rights and therefore. Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides. of affects primarily and principally property and property rights. pursuant to Section 17. thus: . because it ought to know that Section 17. counsel has not only asked that the minor children be substituted for her but also suggested that the uncle be appointed as guardian ad litem for them because their father is busy earning a living for the family. Rule 3 of the Rules of Court”. is one that survives even after plaintiff's death”. upon the death of the plaintiff in an action to quiet title. 16. that “the question as to whether an action survives or not defends on the nature of the action and the damage sued for”. Sec.

17a) 6. 16. Death of party. Per Justice JOSE Y. RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (Rules 1-71. 1997. The court charges in procuring such appointment. the court may order the opposing party. express or implied and the defendant dies before entry of final judgment in the court in which the action was pending at the time of such death. The legal representative may be the executor or . within a specified time. Failure of counsel to comply with this duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action. New Provisions. 5. 20. Sec. Annotated). Series No. 20 of Rule 3 provides. and the claim is not thereby extinguished. and 14 – 16. it shall be the duty of his counsel to inform the court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact thereof. (16a. if shall not be dismissed but shall instead be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment. or if the one so named shall fail to appear within the specified period.SEC. – When the action is for recovery of money arising from contract. 1997 ed.). A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the manner especially provided in these Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased person. Philippine Legal Studies. the court shall forthwith order said legal representative to appear and be substituted for the deceased within (30) days from notice. The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased. If no legal representative is named by the counsel for the deceased party. may be recovered as costs. without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs. if defrayed by the opposing party. FERIA (Ret. to procure the appointment of an executor or administrator for the estate of the deceased and the latter shall immediately appear for and on behalf of the deceased. Action on contractual money claims. duty of counsel. Effective July 1. page s12-13. thus: SEC. – Whenever a party to a pending action dies. (21a) 7. The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to appear and be substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice. Rules of Court.. and to give the name and address of his legal representative or representatives. 1997.

or. and these words (also used by the Rules in connection with attachments and derived from the . None of these includes that of the plaintiffs-appellants. 20 SCRA 987). (2) judgments for money.. (Rule 88. 47 Am. HERMOGENES LLEMOS. THUS: X x x. Court of Appeals. 1).. 1962. 292). it was held that “actions that survive against a decedent's executor or administrator are: (1) actions to recover real personal property from the sate. 1)”. al. 146 SCRA 173). also 171 A. Llemos. In the case of MARIA G. Rep. 1395)”. Crandall. et. express or implied. G. An action for damages arising from tort or delict may be filed against the executor or administrator (Id.. Kalaw. if none. EN BANC. it is apparent that actions for damages caused by tortuous conduct of defendant (as in the case at bar) survive the death of the latter.L. No. (2) actions to enforce a lien thereon. vs. 90 Phil..R. AGUAS. Plaintiffs argue with considerable cogency that contrasting the correlated provisions of the Rules of Court. sec. those concerning claims that are barred if not filed in the estate settlement proceedings (Rule 87. Araneta. Sec. that “injury to property is not limited to injuries to specific property. 1 of Rule 87). But if the claim does not arise from contract. (Lawas vs. al. 5) and those defining actions that survive and may be prosecuted against the executor or administrator (Rule 88.administrator appointed by the probate court. such as a claim for damages for an injury to person or property.. Boar of Liquidators vs. but it must arise from "contract express or implied". the actions that are abated by death are: (1) claims for funeral expenses and those for the last sickness of the decedent. and that “hence. and (3) "all claims for money against the decedent. et. sec. 126. FELIX GUARDINO. an ordinary action may be filed against the executor or administrator (Id. section 5. Under Rule 87. L-18107. 8. arising from contract express or implied". but extends to other wrongs by which personal estate is injured or diminished (Baker vs. the heirs of the deceased. 5 SCRA 959. citing Sec. for it is not enough that the claim against the deceased party be for money. a suit for damages therefor survives the death of the defendant”. and (3) actions to recover damages for an injury to person or property.R. that “to maliciously cause a party to incur unnecessary expenses is injury to that party's property (Javier vs. citing Aguas vs. August 30.

R. To maliciously cause a party to incur unnecessary expenses. JUDGE RAMON A. 47 Am. THUS : . etc. it was held that “the heirs may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased without requiring the appointment of an administrator or executor”. et. 167321. the case is not a mere action for money nor a claim for money arising from contract. (2) actions to enforce a lien thereon. 182. L. Rules of Court. al. Rules of Court”. is certainly injury to that party's property (Javier vs. Section 1. G. 10. JR. Section 1.. real or personal. but is embraced in suits filed "to recover damages for an injury to person or property. but extends to other wrongs by which personal estate is injured or diminished (Baker vs. 126. also 171 A. section 1. vs. L-18805. August 14. X x x. (as) said heirs may designate one or some of them as their representative before the trial court”. (2) actions to enforce a lien thereon. Rep. enumerates actions that survive against a decedent's executors or administrators. 1967. and (3) actions to recover damages for an injury to person or property. et. July 31. 1395). CRUZ.common law) were construed in Leung Ben vs. EN BANC. No... al. HEIRS OF MAXIMO M. to plaintiff's damage and prejudice. 189-194. Rule 87. L-4269. G. et. The present suit is one for damages under the last class. and (3) actions to recover damages for an injury to person or property”. vs. enumerates actions that survive against a decedent's executors or administrators. 38 Phil. 2006. O'Brien. "to include all purely personal obligations other than those which have their source in delict or tort. al. and they are: (1) actions to recover real and personal property from the estate. Araneta." which survive. KALAW. In the case of THE BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS. it was held that “Rule 87. as charged in this case.R. In the recent case of EPIFANIO SAN JUAN. R. that “where the suit revolves around alleged negligent acts of decedent for having entered into contracts without the prior approval of the Board of Directors. 9. Rule 88. No. Aug." Upon the other hand. and that “a prior appointment of an administrator or executor of the estate of (a party) is not necessary for his heirs to acquire legal capacity to be substituted as representatives of the estate…. and they are: (1) actions to recover real and personal property from the estate. it having been held that "injury to property" is not limited to injuries to specific property. and is against the decedent and other directors for having subsequently approved those contracts in bad faith and/or breach of trust. . Crandall. 31 1953).

even when there is already an administrator appointed by the court. They cannot be interpreted in such a way as to unnecessarily put undue hardships on litigants. we see nothing wrong with the fact that it was the heirs of John D. they stepped into his shoes and acquired his rights as devisee/legatee of the deceased Loreto San Juan. (Emphasis supplied) The heirs of the estate of Oscar Casa do not need to first secure the appointment of an administrator of his estate. yet no administrator has been appointed. is no longer true. These rules are easily applicable to cases in which an administrator has already been appointed. who represented his estate in the case filed before the SEC. The second paragraph of (Sec. The Rules are to be interpreted liberally in order to promote their objective of securing a just. the court may order the opposing counsel. or in cases where the heirs resort to an extrajudicial settlement of the estate that the court may adopt the alternative of allowing the heirs of the deceased to be substituted for the deceased. But no rule categorically addresses the situation in which special proceedings for the settlement of an estate have already been instituted. a prior appointment of an administrator or executor of the estate of Oscar Casa . because from the very moment of his death. 16. while permitting an executor or administrator to represent or to bring suits on behalf of the deceased. if within the specified period a legal representative fails to appear. Court of Appeals (relied upon by petitioner). do not prohibit the heirs from representing the deceased. this Court has in previous instances recognized the heirs as proper representatives of the decedent. Since the Rules do not specifically prohibit them from representing the deceased. that priority is given to the legal representative of the deceased (the executor or administrator) and that it is only in case of unreasonable delay in the appointment of an executor or administrator. When no administrator has been appointed. and in the meantime do nothing while the rights and the properties of the decedent are violated or dissipated. a case of fairly recent vintage. However. within a specified period. as in this case. Rule 3) is plain and explicit: the heirs may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased without requiring the appointment of an administrator or executor. For the protection of the interests of the decedent. In such instances. In Gochan v. and since no administrator had as yet been appointed at the time of the institution of the Complaint with the SEC. Young. speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. the heirs cannot be expected to wait for the appointment of an administrator. The pronouncement of this Court in Lawas v. there is all the more reason to recognize the heirs as the proper representatives of the deceased. the Court ruled as follows: The above-quoted rules. then wait further to see if the administrator appointed would care enough to file a suit to protect the rights and the interests of the deceased. Young. Sr. to process the appointment of an administrator or executor who shall immediately appear for the estate of the deceased.X x x. Thus.

X x x. premises considered. 2008. February 28. WHEREFORE. Said heirs may designate one or some of them as their representative before the trial court. 33640.is not necessary for his heirs to acquire legal capacity to be substituted as representatives of the estate. 1985 Cc: Atty. 1907 IBP PPLM Chapter Roll No. MANUEL J. it is respectfully prayed that the ad cautelam motion for substitution be granted pursuant to Rule 3 and that the motion to dismiss be denied. Xxx . for lack of merit. Las Pinas City IBP Lifetime Member No. JR. LASERNA. 1/04/06. April 27. Las Pinas City. PTR No. 9177856.

Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. citing Sec. If a claim does not arise from contract. it shall be the duty of his counsel to inform the court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact thereof. express or implied. whenever a party to a pending action dies. by counsel. and to give the name and address of his legal representative or representatives. an ordinary action may be filed against the executor or administrator (Id.. such as a claim for damages for an injury to person or property. The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to appear and be substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice. respectfully state: 1. 16. The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased. 2. An action for damages arising from tort or delict (as in the instant case) may be filed . and the claim is not thereby extinguished. 1 of Rule 87).Xxx Law Offices Co-Counsel for Defendant REJOINDER (Re: MOTION TO DISMISS) THE PLAINTIFFS. Under Sec. without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.

HEIRS OF MAXIMO M. An example of an action that survives is an action to recover damages for an injury to person or property (Rule 88. real or personal. CRUZ.. Sec. enumerates actions that survive against a decedent's executors or administrators." which survive. et. but is embraced in suits filed "to recover damages for an injury to person or property. and is against the decedent and other directors for having subsequently approved those contracts in bad faith and/or breach of trust. Rule 87. 2006. vs. The counsel for the defendant has already volunteered the identity of the legal representative of the deceased defendant in his motion for substitution. 4. . Kalaw. and (3) actions to recover damages for an injury to person or property”. is applicable when it held that “Rule 87. (2) actions to enforce a lien thereon. al. The plaintiffs humbly reiterate that the case of THE BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS.R. to plaintiff's damage and prejudice. vs. Araneta. Rules of Court”. Section 1. al. The plaintiffs likewise submit that the recent case of EPIFANIO SAN JUAN. July 31. Section 1. 20 SCRA 987). al. JR. that “where the suit revolves around alleged negligent acts of decedent for having entered into contracts without the prior approval of the Board of Directors. Llemos. No. (as) said heirs may designate one or some of them as their representative before the trial court”. 1)” – which includes the act of “maliciously caus(ing) a party to incur unnecessary expenses is injury to that party's property”. No. etc.. . 167321.. EN BANC. et. the case is not a mere action for money nor a claim for money arising from contract. is applicable when it held that “the heirs may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased without requiring the appointment of an administrator or executor”. KALAW. G. 3. 90 Phil.against the executor or administrator (Aguas vs. 292). Boar of Liquidators vs. Rules of Court. et. and they are: (1) actions to recover real and personal property from the estate. 1967. and that “a prior appointment of an administrator or executor of the estate of (a party) is not necessary for his heirs to acquire legal capacity to be substituted as representatives of the estate…..R. (Javier vs. L-18805. G. 4. JUDGE RAMON A. August 14. 5 SCRA 959.

April 27. March 27. PTR No.WHEREFORE. premises considered. 1/04/06. Las Pinas City. 2008. 1907 IBP PPLM Chapter Roll No. 9177856. 33640. MANUEL J. JR. for lack of merit. it is respectfully prayed that the ad cautelam motion for substitution be granted pursuant to Rule 3 and that the motion to dismiss be denied. 1985 MCLE Exemption No. LASERNA. II-000844 Cc: Atty. Xxx Xxx Law Offices Co-Counsel for Defendant EXPLANATION . Las Pinas City IBP Lifetime Member No.

[26] [Emphases supplied] . Rule 3 of the decisive element is the nature of Rules of Court. the decisive element is the nature of the action as enumerated in Section 1 of P. Thank you. It is “precisely ‘when an indispensable party is not before the court (that) an action should be dismissed. For an action to fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the HLURB. we have consistently held that the concerned administrative agency.’ The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act. not only as to the absent parties but even to those present. Indispensable party What is the legal effect of failure to implead an indispensable party? Answer: Under Section 7. “parties in the action as enumerated in interest without whom no final Section 1 of P. 1344.. has jurisdiction over complaints aimed at compelling the subdivision developer to comply with its contractual and statutory obligations. does not automatically vest jurisdiction in the HLURB.” If there is a failure to implead an indispensable party. the National Housing Authority (NHA) before and now the HLURB.D. that of being subdivision owner/developer and subdivision lot buyer. i. On this matter.” The purpose of the rules on joinder of indispensable parties is a complete determination of all issues not only between the parties themselves. 1344 determination can be had of an action shall be joined as plaintiffs or defendants.e. but also as regards other persons who may be affected by the judgment. any judgment rendered would have no effectiveness. The mere relationship between the parties.A copy hereof is served on opposing counsel by registered mail due to the lack of field personnel of undersigned counsel at present and due to the geographical distance of the office of opposing counsel.D. A decision valid on its face cannot attain real finality where there is want of indispensable parties.

171115. August 9. G. 2010 KMU) . KEIHIN PHILIPPINES CORPORATION. No.Source: NAGKAKAISANG LAKAS NG OLALIA MANGGAGAWA SA KEIHIN (NLMK and HELEN VALENZUELA vs.R.

Salvio asked Roscoe to implead Nina. Thereupon. Roscoe Salvio filed an action for the jurisdiction. A writ of execution having been issued. The judgment became final and executory. the Sheriff required Roscoe. or in the alternative. for recovery of money. severally. convey the southern half to annulment him. Upon learning of the amend the complaint to sale. Roscoe sold the his name. the joinder may be succeeded in gaining reconveyance of the southern allowed in the RTC provided one of possession of the parcel of land half against Roscoe only. the aggregate amount claimed shall Right to relief arises out be the test of jurisdiction. After filing the tax declaration thereon in his answer.Compulsory and permissive joinder of parties Requisites of Joinder of Causes of Action: The party joining the causes of (2)Where the claims in all the (3) Requisites of Permissive action shall comply with the rules causes of action are principally Joinder of Parties: on joinder of parties. Half brothers Roscoe refused as he fter trial. whether jointly. Roscoe sold the middle third of the southern northern half to Bono. Where the causes of action are Roscoe and Salvio inherited third of the southern half along between the same parties but from their father a vast tract of the West to Carlo. There is a question of law or fact common to all the plaintiffs and defendants. of the same transaction or series of transactions. Salvio's half to Nina. Salvio did not cousin. the court rendered even sold one judgment ordering Roscoe to reconvey the entire southern half to Salvio. Carlo the in its entirety and transferring was not impleaded. Such joinder is not otherwise proscribed by the provisions of the Rules on jurisdiction and venue. Carlo and Nina to . pertain to different venues or unregistered land. The joinder shall NOT include special civil action or actions governed by special rules.

15 A cause of action may be single although the plaintiff seeks a variety of remedies. 155736. 7 LETTERS HAKU A joinder of causes of action is the uniting of two or more demands or right of action in a complaint.13 In declaring whether more than one cause of action is alleged.vacate the southern half and yield possession thereof to Salvio as the prevailing party. Petitioners. . whether the same evidence would support the other different counts and whether separate actions could be maintained for separate relief. The prayer may be an aid in interpreting the petition and in determining whether or not more than one cause of action is G. SPOUSES PEDRO and VALERIA PIQUERO. contending that they are not bound by the judgment as they are not parties to the case. The question of the joinder of causes of action involves in particular cases a preliminary inquiry as to whether two or more causes of action are alleged. Carlo and Nina refused. the main thrust is whether more than one primary right or subject of controversy is present.R.14 or whether more than one distinct primary right or subject of controversy is alleged for enforcement or adjudication. Respondents. No. March 31. (4%) (C) Admission made by counsel in open court. Other tests are whether recovery on one ground would bar recovery on the other. The mere fact that the plaintiff prays for multiple reliefs does not indicate that he has stated more than one cause of action. Is the contention tenable? Explain fully. 2005 SPOUSES DANILO and CRISTINA DECENA. vs.

as principal. elements of injury. been duly established. and (2) that the presentation of the claim to the Insular Auditor and the disapproval thereof are indispensable requisites for the competent courts to acquire jurisdiction over the Government of the Philippine Islands in actions involving moneyed claims. and although different acts.R. 1969 INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA. No.16 If the allegations of the complaint show one primary right and one wrong. only one cause of action is alleged even though other matters are incidentally involved. there is a joinder of causes of action. 1997. L-22784 March 28. The presence of the Contract of Lease is undisputed. 4. methods. and the action was filed on April 16. the letter of demand was sent on February 3. vs. and received by the petitioner on February 10. plaintiff appellant.K-LINE) Instances of Correct Joinder of Causes and consequent Correct Joining of Parties Reconvenyance plus breach of Requisites 1. well . 1997. and 5 have contract with damages. Lack of Jurisdiction EXPROPRIATION -Gad issue- Misjoinder as a rule not ground for VIS A VIS dismissal except when law itself requires parties to secure approval of a government agency EMINENT DOMAIN (1) That the Insular Government. is the really interested party to an action brought to recover from the Director of Lands interest allegedly charged in excess by said official in the performance of his duties.pleaded. G. OSAKA SHOSEN KAISHA (O. 1997.17 Where two or more primary rights and wrongs appear.S. items of claims or theories of recovery are set forth.

it is also the existence of a question of . The several claims do not seem to arise from the same transaction or series of transactions and there seem to be no questions of law or of fact common to all the defendants as may warrant their joinder under the rules therefore. For our determination is whether the petitioner’s right to possess the subject property may be terminated by virtue of her violation. First cause of action is composed of separate claims against several defendants of different amounts each of which is not more than P2. Commenting on this section of the Rules Chief Justice Moran says: The principle contained in this provision amplifies the old procedure. if new complaints are to be filed in the name of the real party in interest they should be filed in the RTC. Reconvenyance of real property and Annulment of Deeds of Sale One primary right and one One primary right and one wrong wrong and other matters are incidentally involved Joinder of the 25 plaintiffs in Our view is that the joinder of the 25 plaintiffs in one single complaint one single complaint against the defendant is authorized by section 6 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.000 within the one-year period from the letter of demand. it was only community of interest in the same subject which constituted a ground for joinder of parties. Formerly. which reads: SEC.000 and falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC. 6.TOTALITY RULE First cause of action is composed of separate claims against several defendants of different amounts each of which is not more than P2. now. Permissive joinder of parties.

severally. B. they may join in a single complaint. vs. or in the alternative. but any event resulting in wrong. petitioner-appellee. C. For instance. namely. Under the old procedure.. INC. . of four houses destoyed by fire caused by sparks coming from a defective chimney of a passing locomotive owned by the Manila Railroad Company. A. without regard to whether the wrong has been done by violence. neglect or breach of contract. have sustained damages by reason of the diversion of the water from said system by the G. Under the new procedure. the single negligent act of the defendant by which the four ho Again. No. provided the relief sought for or against the several parties arises from the same transaction or series of transactions whether jointly. the term "transaction" means not only a stipulation or agreement. respectively. for a right to relief is alleged to exist in their favor severally arising out of the same cause. each of them being interested in covering the value of his house alone. 1951 INTERNATIONAL COLLEGES.fact or of law.R. And the term "series of transactions" is equivalent to "transactions" connected with the same subject of the action. NIEVES ARGONZA. In this connection. and D are owners. L-3884 November 29. several farmers. the four owners cannot join in a single complaint for damages against the Manila Railroad Company. ET AL. for the reason that they do not have a community of interest in the same subject of the litigation. defending upon a system for the irrigation of their crops.

two causes of action arise: one. But. they having no community of interest in the same subject. for their right to relief arises from the occurence. under the new procedure. If a collision of motor cars. the giving of the bond. and another. the diversion of the water from the aforesaid system. namely. the right to relief having arisen from the same transaction. Under the old . and there is a question of fact or of law common to all of the three defendants. a chauffer sustained personal injuries and damages are caused to the car he was driving. namely. they may join in a single action. which is also a question of fact common to all of them. The state law imposed on each political subdivision a liability for each proportionate share of the bond premium. those several farmers cannot unite in a single action. Held: The surety could join the three parties as defendants in an action to recover the premium although each of them is liable seperately for one third of the premium. in favor of the chauffer for the injuries caused to his person. Under the old procedure. in favor of the owner of the car for the damages caused thereto.defendant company. for each of them is interested in the damages to his own farm and not in those of the others. A collector of taxes for three political subdivisions in the United States gave a single fidelity bond.

under the old procedure it was doubtful whether the four persons could be joined in a single action. they may join. namely. but under the new procedure. JOINDER IS NOT PROPER For instance. the ownership and possession for years of the plaintiff. But under the new procedure. If a person has a title to a real property which he has been possessing for many years. successively deprived him of the property and later partioned it among themselves. because they are not interested in the same subject. because a right of relief exists in their favor arising out of the same transaction or occurence. two parcels of land. the collision. and question of fact common to all of them will arise in the action. it is clear that they may be joined in a single complaint. because a right to relief is alleged to exist against all of them arising out of a series of occurrences. it is doubtful whether the owner and the chauffer may join in a single complaint. the two defendants cannot be joined.procedure. for there is no right or relief against them arising out of the same transaction or . that is. and four persons united by the same purpose. each of them being interested only in the portion he is occupying and not in the portions respectively occupied by the others. one of which had been taken by force Under different circumstances. each of them claiming a different and seperate kind of damages. if the plaintiff has a single title to and has been for many years in possession of. and a question of fact will arise at the trial common to both of them.

. No. 36-40).." of the other plaintiffs to introduce their respective proofs On all fours with the present The point wherein the parties case is that of A. the other parties may value of his house. It is effect argued that plaintiffs . although there is a question of fact common to them. whether the claim of each l950. the court may fix proceedings in which he may another time or date for each have no interest. are not in agreement is Jose. they having no defendant from being interest in the subject matter of embarassed or put to expense the evidence being presented. Claims against a person causing a personal injury and a physician who afterwards negligently treats the patient PERMISSIBLE JOINDERSLiberal One of the owners of the One of the parties is proving his houses burned is proving the claim. the above section provides that "the court may make such orders as may be The others may have nothing to just to prevent any plaintiff or do in court. Soriano y Cia. * G. vs. ed. L-3211 decided May 30. have no interest therein and may remain idle in court. where various employees of plaintiff or the aggregate claims that company who had been of all is the measure of against it in the municipal court jurisdiction to collect a month's salary each in lieu of 30 days' notice. Gonzalo M. 3rd rev. et al. in connection with any In such case. and the other. In this [DUNKIN DONUTS CASE] event. by one of the defendants nine occurence. the acts of years ago. OLD RULES PERMISSIBLE JOINDERS Claims for damages in the alternative against two independent tortfeasors Damages for injury to a house by the owner and the occupier Damages claimed by many persons affected by the same libelous statement. Rules of Court.. which is the plaintiff's ownership and possession of the property.(I Moran. at different times and in a different manner..R. by the dispossessions having been other defendant five years ago done seperately.

and the existence of a class and the number of persons in the alleged class. What it is not… b. it is the adoption of the opposite theory. and 3) the parties bringing the class suit are sufficiently numerous or representative of the class and can fully protect the interests of all concerned. G. No.Annulment of a deed of sale real properties situated in the province of Negros Occidental -vs- Deed of donation inter vivos (Misjoinder of defendants re properties in Cebu) could.R. Pleadings need not allege the existence of the necessary facts. Class suit is designated as such in the pleadings. Several plaintiffs wishing to avoid trial in the justice of the peace court could combine their demands in one complaint so as to put the action beyond the jurisdiction of the inferior court. Donations inter vivos were upheld. to wit. L-10458 4. Former Chief Justice Moran states that there is a misjoinder of causes of action in the present case not only as regards venue but also as regards the defendants. through collision. With regard to the first(venue). the existence of a subject matter of common interest. shift The court jurisdiction if individual demands rather than their aggregate were used as the criterion. as we see it. It is the other way around. in order that the court might be enabled to determine whether the members of the class are so numerous as to make it . it should be noted that the first cause of action stated in the complaint refers to the annulment of a deed of sale real properties situated in the province of Negros Occidental. 2) the parties affected are so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all to court. and of a deed of donation inter vivos (Misjoinder of defendants re properties in Cebu). Class suit (def) 1) the subject matter of controversy is one of common or general interest to many persons. which would open the door to manipulation.

Section 8. 2010 case). It was the Solicitor General. who pointed out that there were about 549 employees in that particular agency (Sayo vs Ermita.ineffective The Officer’s Return stated essentially that the server failed to serve the summons on respondent enterprise because it could not be found at the address alleged in the petition. Ineffective . Petitioners(Corpo. the JURIDICAL PERSONALITIESsyllabus suit against an entity without juridical personality like respondent enterprise may be instituted only by or against its owner. There was no statement as to the number of government (of a particular agency) employees who would be affected by the assailed Executive Order and who were allegedly represented by petitioners. d. SUITS AGAINST ENTITIES WITHOUT def As earlier mentioned. c.) theorize that the voluntary appearance of Agarao (only a foreman in rank) in said hearing was equivalent to service of summons binding upon respondent enterprise. as counsel for respondents (agency itself). No need to contrast the number appearing on the record with the number in the class and to determine whether claimants on record adequately represent the class and the subject matter of general or common interest.impracticable to bring them all before the court. Rule 14 which allows the service of summons on any of the defendants associated to an entity without juridical personality. following by analogy.

by substituted service or by publication. especially when affirmed by the appellate court.. Vargas Construction Co. and any mode of service other than that prescribed by the statute is considered ineffective. must be followed strictly.R. The records show that respondent enterprise. Nature of Action Purpose/definition/elem/parties What is What is not concerned WHO IS A REAL PARTY IN The dissolved Lason INTEREST? Cola was the real party in interestFor purposes of valid summons defendant in the civil case filed by the petitioners not only because it is the registered owner of the truck involved in Tortious conduct but Nature of Action/pinoy henyo Torts (def. Vargas who is the owner of the enterprise.R. is conclusive upon this Court and should not be disturbed because this Court is not a trier of facts.Ineffective This factual finding. faithfully and fully. What is not. Vargas Construction Co. is a sole proprietorship and.) Mass Torts its breach is redressible by an action for unliquidated damages . an entity without juridical personality.” It cannot be overemphasized that the statutory requirements on service of summons. Clearly. Purposes. Thus. M. whether personally. therefore. the petition for injunction should have impleaded him as the party respondent either simply by mention of his name or by denominating him as doing business under the name and style of “M.What is. the real party-in-interest is Marcial R.

in cases of Air France vs Carrascaso. ’96) No pre-existing contractual relation between the parties. nevertheless the act that break the contract may be also be tort.also because when the cause of action accrued. Mass Torts its breach is redressible by an action for unliquidated damages Kind of Tort Quasi Delict def. ’63. ’96) DEFENSES claimant will be a member of a very large and possibly illdefined class . Definition – Quasi Delict or tort refers to acts or omission causes damage to another Elements of Quasi Delict: Damages suffered by the plaintiff Fault or negligence of the defendant Casual connection between the fault or negligence of the defendant’s act and the damages incurred by the plaintiff (Andamo vs IAC./elem/parties Torts in Philippine law is the blending of common-law and civil law system. the supreme court held that even if there is contractual relation. However. 23 SCRA 1117. Singson vs BPI. 191 SCRA 426. Lason Cola still existed as a corporation and was the party involved in the acts violative of the legal right of another. and Fabre Jr vs CA. 18 SCRA 155. 259 SCRA 426.

Crimes and Aquiliana Culpa Distinctions between Culpa Aquiliana: Crimes and Culpa 1. vs CA. Bocobo. Only acts covered by Penal Law are punished (Barredo vs Garcia. Only private Aquiliana: concern. Employer’s liability is solidary (Fabre Jr. 73 Phil 607. No reservation. Repairs the damage by 1. Covers all interest. 1940 : Taxi c lied with Carretela) 4. 3. 6. 5. punishes/ corrects the 4. affected the public 3. No reservation – it’s independent from crime. Guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt. Reservation to file separate civil action. Crimes: 2. Penal faulty or law negligent. Crimes indemnification. acts that are 2. of evidence. J. 259 SCRA 426) . civil action is impliedly instituted 5. criminal Preponderance act.

6. . Employer’s liability is subsidiary.in the criminal action.

The dissolved Lason Cola was the real party in interestdefendant in the civil case filed by the petitioners not only because it is the registered owner of the truck involved in Tortious conduct but also because when the cause of action accrued. Plaintiffs had no knowledge of the legal dissolution and the undertaking assumed by PEPSICO. Jurisdiction over can be acquired only by PEPSICO (old company way of service of summons in literal compliance with Section 14.A real party in interest-plaintiff is one who has a legal right while a real party in interest-defendant is one who has a correlative legal obligation whose act or omission violates the legal rights of the former.54. The following is a necessary consequence of the abovementioned definition except: a. Plaintiffs have brought the case naming Pepsi Cola (new incorporation name b. defendants so that the summons was addressed only to the defendants named therein and not to PEPSICO(old incorporation name . Rule 14. as one of the . Lason Cola still existed as a corporation and was the party involved in the acts violative of the legal right of another.

When an action that might have been instituted against a foreign or domestic corporation while it was a going concern is instituted after its dissolution. have served as a notice to (Plaintiffs Rebollido.(Rebollido vs. creditors who have a claim upon a quasidelict. they are not. d. process in the action may be served upon the same person upon whom the process could be served before the dissolution.c. even if . done in June 1983 or 8 months before the vehicular accident. et al. 1989] . Court of Appeals[GR 91123. The publication of the notice of dissolution and the assumption of liabilities. February 28. as of the time of publication.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful