MCQ

I. When a Municipal Trial Court (MTC), pursuant to its delegated

jurisdiction, renders an adverse judgment in an application for land
registration, the aggrieved party’s remedy is: (1%)
(A) ordinary appeal to the Regional Trial Court
(B) petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court
(C) ordinary appeal to the Court of Appeals
(D) petition for review to the Court of Appeals

ANSWER:
(C) (See Sec. 34, B.P. Blg. 129)

II. Plaintif filed a complaint denominated as accion publiciana, against

defendant. In his answer, defendant alleged that he had no interest over
the land in question, except as lessee of Z. Plaintif subsequently filed an
affidavit of Z, the lessor of defendant, stating that Z had sold to plaintif
all his rights and interests in the property as shown by a deed of transfer
attached to the affidavit. Thus, plaintif may ask the court to render: (1%)
(A) summary judgment
(B) judgment on the pleadings
(C) partial judgment
(D) judgment by default

ANSWER:
(A) (S1 & 3, R35)

III. Which of the following decisions may be appealed directly to the

Supreme Court (SC)? (Assume that the issues to be raised on appeal
involve purely questions of law) (1%)
(A) Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered in the exercise of
its appellate jurisdiction.
(B) Decision of the RTC rendered in the exercise of its original
jurisdiction.
(C) Decision of the Civil Service Commission.
(D) Decision of the Office of the President.

ANSWER:
(B) Note: In an appeal from RTC judgment in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction, the appeal should be to the CA even if the questions are only
legal. Hence A should be excluded. (S2[c] R42).

IV.Mr. Boaz filed an action for ejectment against Mr. Jachin before the
Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). Mr. Jachin actively participated in every
stage of the proceedings knowing fully well that the MeTC had no
jurisdiction over the action. In his mind, Mr. Jachin was thinking that if
the MeTC rendered judgment against him, he could always raise the
issue on the jurisdiction of the MeTC. After trial, the MeTC rendered
judgment against Mr. Jachin. What is the remedy of Mr. Jachin? (1%)
(A) File an appeal
(B) File an action for nullification of judgment
(C) File a motion for reconsideration
(D) File a petition for certiorari under Rule 65

ANSWER:
(A) See S8 R40. R47 is not available since appeal is still available. Not C
since a prohibited pleading.

OTHERS:

I. State at least five (5) civil cases that fall under the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs). (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The following civil cases fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of
the RTCs:

1. Actions where the demand or the value of the property in controversy

exceeds P300,000, or, in Metro Manila, P400,000, exclusive of damages,
attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, interests, and costs.
2. Real actions where the assessed value of the real property involved
exceeds P20,000, or in Metro Manila, P50,000.
3. Actions whose subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
4. Probate cases where the gross value of the estate exceeds P300,000, or
in Metro Manila, P400,000.
5. Actions not falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of any other court,
tribunal, body, or person, exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.

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

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

apartment unit being occupied by the defendant by mere tolerance of the
plaintiff, after the former ignored the last demand to vacate that was duly
served upon and received by him on July 6,2016.
(b) A complaint in which the principal relief sought is the enforcement of
a seller's contractual right to repurchase a lot with an assessed value of
P15,000.00.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) It would be either the MTC or the RTC depending upon the assessed
value of the apartment unit.

Under B.P. Blg. 129, jurisdiction over real actions is vested in the MTC if
the assessed value of the real property involved does not exceed P20,000
and in the RTC if such assessed value exceeds P20,000.

The action to recover possession can no longer be one for unlawful

detainer since it was brought beyond one year from the last demand to
vacate.

(b) Exclusive original jurisdiction is vested in the MTC.

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

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

Alternative Answer:

(b) Exclusive original jurisdiction is vested in the Regional Trial Court.

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

III. Give brief answers to the following:

(a) What is the doctrine of hierarchy of courts?

SUGGESTED ANSWERS

(a) The doctrine of hierarchy of courts provides that where there is a

concurrence of jurisdiction by courts over an action or proceeding, there
is an ordained sequence of recourse to such courts beginning from the
lowest to the highest. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s original
jurisdiction should be allowed only when there are special and important
reasons therefor. [Montes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143797, 4 May
2006]

IV.