You are on page 1of 3

REM UP finals question:

1. Criminal case, 30 counts against one accused. During pre trial, they were
consolidated. During pre trial, parties agreed that only 3 will proceed to trial. They
agreed that remaining 27 will be used as evidence in the trial to prove modus.

See People v. Cahilig G.R. No. 199208, July 30, 2014

Yes, it is proper. The Court decided in People vs. Cahilig for 30 cases be consolidated
and jointly heard. Upon agreement of the parties, only three of the 30 cases went thru
trial. The remaining 27 cases were the subject of a written stipulation of facts, on the
basis of which these were submitted for resolution. The Court allowed this for purposes
of efficient and speedy administration.

2. Criminal case regarding securities. MTQ granted. Prosec filed certiorari on

dismissal. Accused contends that SEC Chairman should sign the CNFS. proper?

See Wee v. Galvez, G.R. No. 173637, April 21, 2009

Yes, if the SEC Chairman is a party or is authorized to sign for a party. In BA

Savings Bank vs. Sia, where the parties in an action are natural persons, the party
himself is required to sign the certification, and where a representative is allowed in
case of artificial persons, he must be specifically authorized to execute and sign the

3. Summary procedure. MTQ Denied. Denial subject of certiorari to RTC. denied.

Certiorari again to CA. Denied. Is CA denial proper?

Yes, because it is the wrong remedy. In Enrile vs. Manalastas, it had been decided that
the remedy against the denial of a motion to quash is for the movant accused to enter a
plea, go to trial, and should the decision be adverse, reiterate on appeal from the final
judgment and assign as error the denial of the motion to quash. The denial, being an
interlocutory order, is not appealable, and may not be the subject of a petition
for certiorari because of the availability of other remedies in the ordinary course of law.

4. Lessor filed ejectment. Ground: his son will use the property. MTC dismissed
case for being premature. After some time when lease lapsed, lessor filed
ejectment case again. Ground: lease expires. Res judicata?

No. Res judicata applies in the concept of "bar by prior judgment" if the following
requisites concur: (1) the former judgment or order must be final; (2) the judgment or
order must be on the merits; (3) the decision must have been rendered by a court
having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; and (4) there must be,
between the first and the second action, identity of parties, of subject matter and of
causes of action. Here, the existence of and compliance with the first three elements is
undisputed. Likewise, there is no issue as to the identity of the parties in the two actions
for ejectment. However, in Agustin vs. Mariano, a judgment in a previous case of
ejectment could not serve as a bar to a subsequent one if the latter is predicated on a
new factual and juridical situation

5. (The facts in this case is the Lacson case on provisional dismissal). Prosec filed
motion to revive. Granted. Accused requested for judicial determination of probable
cause. Judge dismissed case because prosec's findings in conflict with omb's findings.

People v. Yadao, G.R. Nos. 162144-54, November 13, 2012

6. Can the court take judicial notice that a piece of land is a commercial land?

Yes, it can. However, if the matter is decisive to any material issue in a case, it must
only be after hearing. The Court decided in Landbank vs. Honeycomb Farmers that
while the lower court is not precluded from taking judicial notice of certain facts, it must
exercise this right within the clear boundary provided by Section 3, Rule 129 of the
Rules of Court, which provides that a court may take judicial notice of any matter and
allow the parties to be heard thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in
the case. If the classification of the land is obviously essential to the valuation of the
subject property, the parties should thus have been given the opportunity to present
evidence on the nature of the property before the lower court took judicial notice of the
commercial nature of a portion of the subject landholdings.

7. Girl filed petition for declaration of illegit filiation. She and her "father" entered
into compromise agreement that "she waives all claims for P2M." Court approved
agreement. She files another claim. Res judicata?

- Status of persons, future inheritance are not subjects of compromise per Civil Code.
Judgment is a nullity. Cannot be the source of rights. No res judicata because first
element (valid judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction) is absent.

Uy v. Jose Chua

8. There was affidavit of self adjudication by one heir. Other heirs filed ordinary
action to have self adjudication annuled. Heir said that they should have filed
special proceedings. Proper?

(See Rebusquillo v. Sps. Domingo, G.R. No. 204029, June 4, 2014)

No. In Resbusquillo vs. Spouses Domingo,it has been decided that such special
proceeding is only a superfluity because of the fact that the parties to the civil case -
subject of the present case, could and had already in fact presented evidence before
the trial court which assumed jurisdiction over the case upon the issues it defined during
A determination of petitioners status as heirs could be achieved in the civil case filed
by petitioners.

9. One party alleges that there was no deed of sale. Other party that there is a
deed of sale but it got lost. Register of deeds said it had no copy of deed of sale.
Can court accept secondary evidence?

Yes. In Margarita Prodon vs. Heirs of Maximo Alvarex, it was held that the Best
Evidence Rule applies only when the terms of a written document are the subject of the
inquiry. In an action for quieting of title based on the inexistence of a deed of sale with
right to repurchase that purportedly cast a cloud on the title of a property, therefore, the
Best Evidence Rule does not apply, and the defendant is not precluded from presenting
evidence other than the original document.

10. Person died due to medical negligence in chemo process. Evidence presented was
a medicolegal report. A doctor who made the medico legal report, who is not an
oncologist, was presented. Can his testimony be considered as expert testimony on the
medico legal report and chemo process?

No. In Li vs. Spouses Soliman, the Court has recognized that medical negligence cases
are best proved by opinions of expert witnesses belonging in the same general
neighborhood and in the same general line of practice as defendant physician or
surgeon. The deference of courts to the expert opinion of qualified physicians stems
from the formers realization that the latter possess unusual technical skills which
laymen in most instances are incapable of intelligently evaluating, hence the
indispensability of expert testimonies. In this case, the medico-legal, not being an
oncologist or cancer specialist, is not qualified to give expert opinion as to whether
petitioners lack of skill, knowledge and professional competence in failing to observe the
standard of care in her line of practice was the proximate cause of the patients death.

(See Li v. Sps. Soliman, G.R. No. 165279, June 7, 2011)