Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Remedial

    Uploaded by

    RamlahGayakSolaiman
    4 views9 pages

    Original Title

    remedial.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    4 views9 pages

    Remedial

    Uploaded by

    RamlahGayakSolaiman

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 9
    GENERAL PRINCIPLES Bar by Prior Judgment vs. Conclusiveness of Judgment ‘Bares, subject mames and cause of action. (in 478) ‘eer Ra #5 47 of ce Ra 7 Continivenets of judgment peecindes the relinpstion, of a parienlar inmue a aucther action hemmeen the same pasties on a diffeceat cance of netion. (Se 49 (of over Rak 39; me 47 foe Re 39, Cause of actions. Action (1897) ‘Distageish Cxase of action from action ‘SUGGESTED ANSWER: A CAUSE OF ACTION is an att or omistion of ome (pany ia Tiolton of the legal ght o aghts of dhe ther (Muse Spar Cemical m. Bucaiot, 72 Fu 605; See. Potacw Sule 23 canting damage to another, Ag ACTION it an ondinary sit in 2 coun of Jersce ‘by mbich coe pany proverute: another dor the sofurcement cc protecting of a ght, or ke Even oc ces x rng ff ak Cin Actions ws. Special Proceedings (1986) ‘Distingnish sind arson: fiom ipecil pooceeding. Bay SUGGESTED ANSWER: A CIVIL ACTION is cae by which a pany mez amothe: for the enforcement or protection of a night, ot the prevention or sedies: of a wroue. tie. J, Ral 1. 1957 Rates of Ciet Pramdan) while a SPECIAL PROCEEDING is a remedy by which pany cack. ‘to establish a status, x dight of a particular fact (lie SIC] Rake 1.4977 Rak of Ct Pee) Conciliation Proceedings, Katarungang Pambarangay ‘vs. Pre-Trial Conference (1999) ‘What i the Gfference, if aus, between the coucliation proceeding: under the Kaamaguec ‘Pambanagey Law and the negotiation: for an smicthie verdemest dueng che pretoal comfeceoce “under the Rnle: of Court? (295) SUOGESTED ANSWER: ‘The diffeceace kermesa the conciition proceeding: ‘under the Katamaging Fambeangsy Lex and the ‘oegotittionr for az amicable cetlement duang the ‘portal conference under the Bales of Cou is that ‘as the former, Inrper: are proibived from spewing foc the pasties. Packer must appear in person oy except minor: oc incompetent: who may be avsted ‘bp thels next of bin who are not lawyer, FertSie % PD. Na $508; Sc $95, Lac Goer! Cade of 1997, RA rig) No tach probibitoa exit: ia the prewcal, ‘nepotinion: under the Rade: of Const. Family Courts Act (2001) a) How should the srconis of child and thal exes in the Family Comm: or RTC desigusted by the ‘Sageeme Cout to beadie Family Const case: be ‘teeated and deal with? (3%) ‘b) Under what consitions may the ideatty of partie: in chiA and famiyeazes be divalged (2%) SUOGESTED ANSWER: 42) The secorde of cbld and family exces in the Family ‘Code to handle Family Court cases shall be deat with, ‘ummost confidential. (la: 12, Famih Cart Af 1997) 1b) The identity of pasties in child and family exes sia not be divulged wales: neseriry. and with seni of the age.) \ntertocutory Order (2006) ‘What a snteslovntary onde? (2°) UQDESTED ANEWER: Am wtedseumry ome sefers to an onder med. ‘bermecn the commencement and the end of the «mt ‘hich & aot » Sin decision of the whole eontroven saad Jere: comedhing mace to be dou on i ments (Galland 4 ak, Pope, GH. No. HIS, Apes 24, 2005; Teveskuenss Jae. 1 Comet of Appeal Gk. Nix 51035, Janey 27, 1ST sited fa Dease: Phil, v. (AG, GR. Na "75008, Feb. 27, BST Judgment vs. Opiion of the Court (2008) ‘Whar is she ditference berveea a jadoment and an ‘opinion of the cor? (2.5%) SUO0EITED ANEWER- ‘The jndement or filo i the Saal disposition of the ‘Count which i: selected in the di:postive portion of the decktion. A decision iz dizerty perpued by a judge and sigued by him, containing ces and -desinctly a satement of the fict: peoved and the Lew ‘upon which the judgment is bused tioya v. Atvatame ‘Singeon, Adin Masser No RTPSE7%, Sepocmber 25, es Au opinina of dhe conse isthe infoemeal expressing of ‘Gee sews of the comm and canst peevall against Goal onder. The opinion of the cout is coutnised i ‘he body of the decision thas serve: a: 2 guide oc vealighenmest 10 devenmine the sone detent of the dastine, The opinion fmm: a par of the judgment even @ combined im oat istimmest, but aay be iafeced to for the pupore of comtming the judgment (Comwerar Fel, GA Na 147% Jue J, ana Jucicial Autonomy & impartiality (2003), ‘a cendecing » decision, shosld 2 cout tabe ato comidenton the porble effeer of i: veadiet moon ‘the poltisal wabiliy and economic elf of she sexioa? 4, No, became 2 coun i ceqnied to tbe isto coutidention oaly the legal iemes and the evideace sdmined i che cue The political smbliy aed esenomis welive of the aatios are emeasecus #9 the came, They can kave pecraasive infnense but they ace ‘aot the cus fictart ar ions be scandaced it Gecsling 2 cise A decision sbonld be bared on the Jaw, mle: of procednen, juice and equisy. Homeses, |g exceptoaal case: che cout may consider the ‘poltied smblity and economic welfare of the mation ‘when these ue capable of being taken into jacical -actice of and ace relevant tothe gate. atarungang Pambarangay; Objective (1905) Wer ome object of te | Kamamae “Pamabecaagey Lew? (2°5) SUGGESTED ANEWER: ‘Thee object of the Kerumagang Pumbacaager Law iz ‘tp affect a amicable verdemeut of alsgute: amour facaly aad buangey members at che bacaagey level without uid mecoune and ccavequntr be -tliewe the cours of docket congestion. Pane PD: i 705m thy So Katrwnpny Parag a) Liberal Construction: Rules of Court (rome) “How shall the Rale: of Conrt be constmed? 2°] ‘The Rale: of Comm shoud be Lieraly cowrmed ix onde: to promote thex objectre of secunng a fort ipeedy and imexpeative deposition of every astioa bd proceeding (Sie 6 ak! 1997 Rata Ci Pree) “ADDITIONAL ANSWER: Homerer, iiict obveraace of the mle: i az Gmpenive aecertiy whee chey ue coussdeced indispensable 10 che peeventon of mesdler: deb: aed to the ondedy and speedy Geparch of Judeal ‘tunes, ¢Alveen vm ee de a Reta, 76 Pi 405) Remedial Law in Phil. Systam of Gov't (2006) ‘Howare remedial Inv: implemented in owt syrtem of (gevemmea® 2*%) SUOGESTED ANSWER: ‘Remedal Lew: art implemened i oer srtem of (govemmeat dhrongh the pllars of the odin sytem, ‘imehading the poowermecy cervice, ou coum of jsice and quasi mal ageocies Remestal Law vs. Substantive Law (2006) Distagu:h berwees substantive law and cemedal aw.) UOGERTED ANEWER: SUBSTANTIVE LAW ic that par of the lar which cctates, Gene: abd segulate: aght: conceaning Lie, ‘Ubeny, or peopenry, or the power: of agencies a Gemmmestaitie: for the adeuaitesioe of pubs Remedial Law; Conpept (2006) ‘What isthe concept of remedial lex? (234) AUOOERTED ANSWER: ‘The concept of Remedial Law Lins at the very cote of procedural due prosest, Thich meus: 2 ln which bear: befoce it condeme:, which proceeds upoa iaqucy and senders jndgment only afer teal, and contempt: an oppocmaity to be beard before jndgment is seadered (Aitert. Univenity Pubibing, GA. No, Lot Jammary 30, 1969). ‘Remedial Lar i that beanch of law which peesecber the metbod of enforng the ght or obtining cedcers foe their imrasion (Metue v. Lace, GA Nix £2068, Cowher M0 BAS: Fiat Lepanto Cerwanis, lac = (CA, Gk, Na. 57S, Mae 0, 298 Rights ofthe Accused; Valiiny: HV Test (2008) Under Republic Act No. 6555, one may be charged ‘with and fonnd gully of qualified ape @ be kaew 02 (br befoce the comumisusn of the conse shat be it Miieed wth Haman Imamao-Deiseasy Vier (Hivy/Acquied Imeomne Defcieney Syudrome (AIDS) ec asp other cemaly tammisable diese ed the tims oc deeice ic maneminted to the rictan Uader Section I7(3) of Republic act No. $504 che sour may compel the accused to mubeut Rimsaif to 2 ‘ood tect where blood :ampie: crowd be extracted ‘om ks vein to detecaine whether ke bar HIV. we 2) dre che sights of dhe accused to be precumed Gnnocent of the crime charged, to paitacy, aad againet elfincrimination vislieed by rach compulsory eexing? Esplin SUOGESTED ANBWER: ‘No. The cont may compel the accused to subet ‘inseelf to a blood test to datecmine whether be kat [HIV under Sec. I7is) of RA No, S054. He aight: ‘be premmmed innoceat of che acme charged, (peraey and appinct refineriminasion are not rislned ‘ep rach compulsory tering, Inan action in which he pirical coaditioa of 2 paay & ip coamovensy, the (Sout may onder the accuced to robait = 2 pirvied examination. (Sic J, Rak 28, 1957 Rake of Ci) Prune) (lank ora f a ae. ND) B) Ifthe result of such test shows that be ie BOT (positing and the prosecution afere euch recut i evidence to prove the qualffing circumstance tinder the Information for Gualiged rape, should che court zeject such rerule an the ground thar it ir the Euitof's poisonous tree? Explain. auo0EETED ANSWER Siece the ght: of the accused ace not silted ‘beomce the compnizosy vesting ic mmbociaed by te Femedal Law Bar Examination 8 A (1357-2005) by. sidandeedigmail com Ja, the serait of the testing cannot be comsidered to ‘be dhe fit ofa poizonont tase and caa be offered in eridense to prove the quilijieg ciscumstance uades che infouastioa for quilfied ape under RA No. S359. Thhe fit of the poizonon: tee doctrine refert fp thar mule of evidence thar axtinde: ay evidence ‘chick muy Lxve been decned or scquised from 2 cunted or pollmed some Such evidence ic deadaitthle fe Lang emumted kom :puoou couse The doctene, however, doer uot appr to she gemltt obtuned parsaat to Sec |, Bale 25, 1997 ‘Eales of Cin Proceduce, 1 it doer act costemgiie 2 seus within che mouting of the Lax. (Frple © Moai, GR. Nn 128672 fans 30,988) JURISDICTION Jurisdiction (1987) ‘Wat cout: bive jusdiction over che flloming case: Eied in Meteo Mania? 2) Az action fx specific pexfoumaace of, in che tecaure, for dumage: is he amoust of Piso,900.00 b) As amin foca wut ofiejuaction, ¢) Az aston for replevia of x motoceyele valued at 150,000.00. @) As mine for interpleader to detemine whe berween the dedendnur, & epttied tp geseive the amount of P190,000.00 fom tee plaintiff ©) A petition for the probate of a will involving an ‘cette valned at P200,000.00. (a) am actos for specie perfoomance of, is the secantive, fox damage: in the amomat of 190,000.00 fil. within the judediction of Mewopolina Teal Cons: ia Metso Mini Aliough an action for specific perfoamunce i aot capable of perumincy evimatios, iace the ahecastive demand foc damage: 4 capable of pecmniury ersimation, it iz withla the jntisdictiog of the Metopaliza: Teal Con: in Meno ‘Manila. (See of AP 12 at acme By RA Ni 76PL: (Co ws. Tay 37 Pl 627] (@) Am aetion for injunction i mot capible of pecuniay ertimution and beace fis wikia the irrisdicton of the RTC:. (@) Aa action for mepleria of x motecapele valued st 150,000.00 fal: wathin che jurisdienon of the ‘Metsopalitan Teal Cons ia Metro Mania (So 3? af (PIB as amended by RA No. 73). (@) Az anion foc interpleader 19 detecine whe bere ake defendaan: i: suutled to ceveive the smoast of F 190,000.00 fille within the padicicson of the Mewopolina Teil Comm in Metro Manda (Mek! Diy Coop. Tanjuatce 27 SCRA 41, ‘Page 10 of 65 (e) A pestioa for the probate of a wal meoining an mie valned at 20000000 Bl: wichin the (Jacedistion of the Metsopolitan Taal Conrts in Mexo ‘Mazda (Soe sf a BP £9, av amended). (b) Aa appioation foc a wit of peeliniaary injunction mir be ganted by 2 Monicip:l Coun i aa action of ‘pusible emnry and wale deminer. (Soc.0F of BP 2M Day re RT Cot uboangs, BISCRAGE, JURISDICTION teat: of the pores of the Court ‘Gecide a case on the ments, while VENUE cefers to the place whem the vai: may be dled. Te ccmiml setion:, bowers, reane i: juatdictoasl Jacsdietoa i a muamer of rmbrmacve lav, venue, of procedunl lam. Jadzdieuon may be aat be conieaed by comzeat sheomgh Taine upSE 2 sou, but Tene muy be, ‘uaived, except is eximizal eazes (Nisam eral »: Tany GR No sUSU22 Sepmamber 2h 2005 Samion Tw ‘NorchvestAikines, GH. Na. 0483S, fume 28, 2992) Juriscicton; CTA Division vs. CTA En Banc (2008) Mack Sled with the Busea of Lote Revemar 2 complaint for efand of taxes paid, bot it oat oot aed pac. So, be Sled a simiar compluine wih the Cour of Tax Appeal: mBled to ome of i Divisions Mai: complaist wa: dismitved Thue, be fled id the Coun of Appeal: a petiios doe eenions ander Bale 65. Doe: the Cour of Appeals uve juiudinion over ‘Masks petoa? (254%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: ‘No. The procedure is govemed by See. I] of RA 9282 Desisions of 2 division of she Court of Tax Appeal: amt be appeed to che Cour of Tax ‘Appel: ea bans, Faber, the CTA now bar the tame, mick a: the Cour of Appeal: and it no longs: cootidered a quisrjadieal sgracy. It is Eiemse provided in he said Law dha che deccioas of the ‘CTA ex bane are copsisable by the Supreme Cour suader Role 45 ofthe 1997 Bale: of Cid Frosedaae. Arisiction; Incapable of Pecuniary Estimation (2000) ‘A bang: an accoa in the MIC of Mani against B ‘foe the anomimect of an exeamical forecloruce se of veal property wish an azesced value of 30,000.00 Jecated in Lagana. The complint aleped premaracty ofthe tale Foe the cenvon that che mortgage we: oot yet due. B timely coved to dum: the cme on he pound tart the actos shoud hive been beought ia the RIC of Lamasa Dende wih sensen. 3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: ‘The motioa should be granted The MTC of Manis ka: ap jucicdicton brome che action for the sasulmcat of the extrxmial foeedorase 1: oot copable of pecuaiy eimuiog and i cherefoce ‘Homever, the sctioa for snaimeat is a pecromal setion and the cease depead: on the vesdence of feces Acc B. Hence, showd be brought = the (RIC of the place where either of the parues center, Jusisciction; Incapable of Pecuniary Estimation (2000) (A Siz: ap actiog in the Masicipal Teal Comm apuinet [By the nrtanl son of A’ father, for the partion of 2 (pistel of land leewed an Tiyey, Rinel with a actevied value of F20000.00. B mores to dismir: he acoa oa the gromad that dhe cave should bare beea ‘brought ia the RTC becamze the action i one deat is -not capable of pecuniary eration az it izvalve: (pammaciy 2 detecmination of heceditary sgt: mad act ‘Gaecely che bave sight to seal propery. Resolve she smote. 285) ‘The motion sbesi te grated The action for parison depends on a detemimaton of the ‘besedizary agit: of A and B, chick is aot capable of peu etimaton Hence, even thon the asrevied valor of the land iz PUOQURO0, she ‘Musici! Teal Coun kas 20 masdiction (usvell ess sepa) Jsisditon: Incapable of Pecuniary Estimation (2000) (A Sled wh the MTC of Mania an sesoa for spastic ‘pecfommunce against B, a ceadeat of Quezea Ci, 0 compel the Inter to exrowie 3 deed of sonceraace covesiig pascel of land simated is Quezon Cisp ‘baring an atzerved vale of pl9000.00.B aeosived ‘dee mumimons and 2 copy of the Comghiat on O2 Jupanry 2003, On 10 Janay 2003, B Sled a Aeotion ‘yo Dismiss dhe Complaint om dhe ground of lack of ‘Ratdicuoe contending that the caject mamec of the tsit wat mcapable af peruainy exmmustca The sont deaiad che iotoe. Ta due sme, B Hed with che RTC 2 Peston for Certosts poriog that the mid Oates ‘be ut aude beomie the AOTC Bn os amssirase ovec te ene. $4 On 13 Febenacy 2003, A Sted with the MTC amocion ‘ts desis in detews The motna wat oppoted br B on the grouad that bs Pettion for Certomn was sll pending. (a) War Ge denial of eke Monica to Dismiss the Conplaist cases (h) Reval the Mote to Decinse the Defeadast it ‘Deimit sU0955TED ANOWER: (Tae deal of the Motes i Demis: ee Complaist wat ust ssaee Askough the aivected ‘cals of the parel of Innd involved war 719,000.90, ‘Fikin he facediecea of the MITC of acy, ake ‘ston Sed by A fox Specs Pesfooanasr aguast B ‘compel he Inter to eaeonte 1 Deed of Comvepaace of tad pare of lind wa aot expatie of peeaniney ‘esimmiog aad, thesefoce, che asdon Tar within the jncadiction of RTC. (Russel v. Vest JM SCRA 736 BP, Copions ¥. Copies GB. Na HOE, Dewwber “amt Cateahan we Camdcenans Constmacion, 3) Tenuate awe: TE he sctioa afieas ttle to oc powsession of zeal (pooper then it it a seal artic and puaitdizasa i detecmined by the tuetved value of dhe propenty. Iti ‘witha the juricdiction therefoce of the Metropoliia Teal Conn. 2uOQERTED ANSWER: () The Comm comld. deciase & in defieit besmse B i Sens a sf pinay secon + senmining onder fem the RTC Poobieiag ke jes foam peoceedug im he cate Guang the pendency of the peutioa for certocan (Gee. Fol Rake dS Bar w Diae, 31 SCRA 302 (0027. [ALTERNATIVE ANEWER: ‘Te Cour thald mot desiace B is defen inateasch ae the fucitdicdon of MTC wa: gut ia ieee in the Pectiog Foe Ceriomai fled wich the RTC. The MTC should defer farther proceeding: pendiag the cert of much petiton (Eiemal Ganon Menor! Park \Comparasion Come af Appa, tsk SCR 421 (I). utsticion MTC tna) PrucdA and 3 is our complain the RTC Maal, fhe come of acGoa apumt A being on an oveciae Domisocy note foc F500,00000 aad dw agin B being on an alleged balace of FI00,000.00 02 he pacine pace of goods voll on exit Docs the Ec-Afaols hiv jeeicson over the ewe? Espinn, Fodues eo aeswe: Ne, te RTCAsals bas op fatdinies ores ie cre. A and B could ot be joined a defendants in fue complaint came the Sigh wae wpa both Seeednat do uot anie out of the ume toamaceea fc sedes of tamacions and thew no commen (gestion of lar or fet eocamon to both (abe Hiatt, epee compat wil ne mo be ler wa fey woud Gi under the juindicion of the Mewopolina Tad Cour: (raver © Matte-Pnaippa "Mascita 37 cB) Jurisdiction Office of te Solicitor Cereal (2006) Tn 1996, Congress pasied Repeblic Act No. 8189, cthervise nova 22 the Vous: Registation Act of Project. Itzaed invitetina to por-qualify and bid foe the project. After the poblic bidding, Fotokioa wa: declaced the winning bidder with a Bid of PS blioa sg wat lmed a Nouse of Amu. But COMELEC (Cinimaan Genes Go objected to the rrard on the (poned thir nade: the Appropriation: Act, che badge: fr Ge COMELEC! modemmca & aly Fl REREGS Law Gx Cease Oa A (SST SOO) by aaa ro Page Doro ‘billion. He senouneed ro the public dat che VRIS Was che sonniipal cout mal court comet in itt icjee has been set mide. Tro Commissioner sided | ening? Why? G0) ‘Tih Chainaan Go, tat the majoiy ted to uphold | SUOGENTED AWER: ‘Masami, Fotobina Sled with the RTC a penton for mundane: compel the COMELEC to auplemest che commaet The Ofice of the Solicitor Gener) (OSG), mpceceating Chaimen Go, oppored the [petiiog ca the gromad thir mundane: doe: not lie to enforce contmemal oblgaten:, Dump te pooceediag:, che mijoniy Commisicars dled 2 iuiferusca tat Chalmas Go wat ast miksezed ‘by the COMELEC Ea Banc to oppove the pettioa. May che OSG represent Chaimmnin Go beivce the (ATC novithetndine that Ais position i commary ‘te char ofthe majoniy? (5) SUQQESTED ANEWER: “Yes, the OSG snap sepersent the COMELEC Chai. saz befe che RIC nocidemadiog thir ie caclied to the came of i clest ageacy The (pamordal eoncem ofthe OSG ic to cee i tha the ‘best interest of the govemmeat i upheld (COMELEC 1 Quyano Pada, Seprcasber 021 Jurisdiction; Ombuisman Case Decisions (2006) Doe: the Cont of Appel: kare pacsdiction to ecu the Decidon: i cumin 22d sdminisnive fens of dhe Onsbndzeaan® (2.57%) SUOQERTED ANEWER: ‘The Supreme Cont a: exclave appellate jucediction over decision: of che Ombndsmman i imma eases (ie 14, Re, 670, I aeaieeratie at Seciplinacy cnet, ape: dom the Ombademae ssantt be takes to the Court of appeal: under Rau 42 eaatig +. Onsbtanis, GR No. HE May 6 205, Fabien. Dosions, CR Na. LTE, Septeaiber I, 2, ‘See. 16 BA. 67%). Jurisdiction; Probate (2001) Jouefa Ged in the Muniopal Cirmit Tral Cou of ‘Aisa aad Mabini, 2 petiton for the probate of che veil of ber iochand, Garin, who died in he ‘Municipality of Alea, the ceudeace of che sponses. ‘The probable vale of che exam which consisted saaisly of a howe and lot wa: placed at 79500000 and in the perisoa for the allowance of the wil smamaey'y fees a the amoust 2fF10,000.00, kansise expences in the mount of P5,000.00 and costs wexe incinded Petco, the next of in of Maria, fled an ‘oppotition to the probate of the wil oa the geomnd hr che total amonct mclnded in the celle! of che petition is moce thea F100,00000, the maimam Focediction:! amonst for emmaisigd clzout tal count, The sour ovemied we oppeutisa and (peoceeded to-bear the case “Yer, the Musicpal Ciceait Tal Coust was comect ia peocesding to bess the cme, Te bar sxcnsive [ncediction in al maner: of peckate, both texte and lowes, chase the value of the exams doe: act ‘exceed F100,000.00 (aor 200,000.00). The ralne in the cave of PIS 00000 zp wubia at ucidicson Ta daremmining the junctions amount, excindad ace ‘ntorneyi fer, lingrton expeace: and cozts there ze Jurisdiction, RIC (2002) P rued A in the RTC-Lails o cesover the foloring seas: (1) F200.00000 on aa oveniue promiczocy ote, (2) PS0000.00 om the purckare price of 2 ‘soempute, (3) P130,000.00 foe damages to is exe and (4) F100.900.00 fe anomes': fees and Lhigsion expen: Cam A move to dinmise the ence 28 ie (poued that dhe cont be: op jason over ie sebject maces Eepln 2%) 1a becamce the RIC-Manis has jucedietion oer the mibject matter P may me A iz ose complint aieciag 1 many ome: of sotica x: be may ave fad since a the chim: ace pancipaly foc secocesy of money, dhe aggeezice nmout clsimed shall be the text (of sedictiom (Rake 2, we Sil: The apesegate amonot Gaimed P450,000000, extaure of the amoust of F100,00000 for smomey's fier and expente: of Lnpitiog Hence, the RTC-Manis bas jensciction Jurisdiction; Subision Homeowner (2006) ‘What cons ha: jssdiedon overan action for speci Perfomance Sled bp a cubdmcen Remeoraer aguas 2 mbdimsoa developer? Choove the cocect a i i i IRomecrner aginst a zobiivision developer ix within the judcdieuoa of the Homuog md Lead Use Regulatory Board. See. | of PD. 1344 poovides deat the HLURE ba: juidicton over exe: ivolring Remedial Law Bar Examination 8 A (1997-2008 by: sindondeeaemai.com Ch tes Parosoges: Lepore: Exot oh shor (Aa mmicible cerlemeat wr cigued before a Logon ‘Tegapamayapa on January 5, 2001. On July 6, 2001, ‘he pervading pany ached the Lapoa ro exeoute the amicable vertement beemse of the gon-eomplanse ‘by the ether parry of the tems of the agreement. The Lnpon consered cefsued to exeewe che petlement/ agreement. 3) Te she Lapin coszest in cefusine to exemnse ke settement/ ngreemeat® (2) (b) Whar shoud be the come of ation of the ‘peevaiing parr in mach x e322? (2%) 2UQOESTED ANEWER: 2) Yer, the Lapon i: eocmeetin refusing to execute the cenlement/ agreement because the execution sought {ig soendy bevoad the period of six months froma dhe Gate of he remlemeat within which Be Lupo it aushocized to execute. (ins 7 Lau! Camemnt Catt of 990) (b) Afr the sis-momth peed, the porvaiing pany ‘howd move to exerame he vertament/amreemant ‘he appeopaate

    You might also like