SAMPLEX PRIMER

REMREV BOOKLET - 2017

11. No. The court was incorrect. The prohibition in the Rules of Court against a motion to dismiss
in summary proceedings is qualified. A party may still move for the dismissal of the action based
on the grounds raised by the defendant in the present case. The proper action for the court
should have been to hear the motion and dismiss or grant the same based on the propriety of
the grounds raised. WRONG.

12. No. The court is incorrect in dropping Metrobank. While Elise may not have a cause of action
against Metrobank, it does not justify the dropping of Metrobank. Metrobank and BPI both files
cross-claims against each other as well as other defendants. As a consequence it must be
resolved. 5PTS.

13. The proper remedy for the plaintiff is a Rule 45 petition to the SC. The existence of Forum-
Shopping is a question of law as it calls for a determination of the applicable law with respect to
a given set of facts. Thus, a Rule 45 petition is proper, as the SC, not being a trier of facts, will
only entertain pure questions of law. 5PTS.

14. No. The court is incorrect. There is no reason to deny the motion as the same was not
dilatory nor violative of the rules of procedure. Further, the oppositions raised by the plaintiffs
are immaterial. The amended answer supplants the original, thus there is no waiver. That the
affirmative defenses are inconsistent with the original is also immaterial as the defendant may
invoke any and all defenses available to him. Lastly, the motion was filed before pre-trial. As the
right of the plaintiff to due process is not prejudiced, the motion shall be granted. 5PTS.

15. No. The motion to admit amended answer would be denied. As the plaintiff has already
presented his evidence, admitting the amended answer would only violate the principles of
equity and fair play. Further, as new defenses waived are inconsistent wit those originally
stated, there would be need to present further evidence, resulting to further delay. WRONG.

16. No. The complaint is not sufficiently pleaded. A(l) claims that the mortgage has prescribed.
However, Al fails to state when the loan obligation has become due. While A had alleged when
the loan was constituted, he did not state when the obligation had matured. With no reckoning
point, the claim of prescription is not available to A. Consequently, A’s action will not prosper.
5PTS.

17. No. There is no Litis Pendentia. The causes of action in the interpleader case and dacion case
are not the same, nor a decision in one establish Res Judicata in the other. The interpleader case
shall determine who shall be entitled to the rent, while the other case determines validity of the
dacion. While the subject property was one of those in the dacion, it is not subject of the
annulment case. Consequently, there is no Litis Pendentia. 5PTS.

18. The court was incorrect. What was filed and subsequently denied was a motion to intervene.
With respect to Joe, the denial of his motion to intervene was a final order of said court, which
may be appealed. Thus, it was improper for the court to deny Joe’s notice of appeal as the order
sought to be appealed was not interlocutory. 5PTS.
19. No. There is no prejudicial question. The court where the partition was filed had the
authority to make a determination on the existence of co-ownership between Jill and the
Children As the partition case was filed first, the same should have continued. The same court
could also pass upon the validity of the divorce. As a consequence, suspension of the partition
was incorrect. 5PTS.

20. MISSING. CHECK OTHERS.

21. Yes. As the sale was as an execution sale and not a foreclosure sale, C became the owner of
the properties herein. As owner, he is entitled to the fruits of the properties bought, such fruits
being rentals and dividends. 3PTS

22. No. The CA was incorrect. B brought the current action specifically assailing the validity of
the subject contracts, relying on the ground of forgery. Thus, it would be inconsistent with his
claims if B abided by the terms he purportedly did not want to be bound by. Further, it would be
against the interest of justice to bind B to the terms of the contract that he may not even have
executed. The complaint should be dismissed. 5PTS

23. No. B’s complaint is one for right of repurchase. The properties are only incidental to the
exercise of such right. The right to repurchase is incapable of pecuniary estimation. As such, the
same is explicitly within the jurisdiction granted to the RTC. Thus, it was improper for the RTC to
dismiss the complaint. 5PTS.

24. Maria’s motion to dismiss should be denied. The defendant heirs in this case all represent
the same interests. As a consequence, it is not necessary that all the heirs be impleaded herein.
The other heirs need not be impleaded as a decision against those impleaded in their capacity as
heirs shall be binding upon the other heirs. The defendants in this case were not impleaded as
individuals but as persons who share a common interest as heirs of F. 4PTS

25. No. The earlier dismissal of the first partition case was on the ground of failure to prosecute.
The same is without prejudice. As such, the same can be brought up as a counterclaim, thus
making the appeal improper. WRONG.

CIVPRO BOOKLET – 2018 (ALL ARE CORRECT AND PERFECT ANSWERS UNLESS STATED)

12. A. The execution of the judgment rendered should be stayed upon receipt of the court of B’s
notice of appeal within the reglementary period, and while it is acting on C’s motion for new
trial.

As a general rule, execution of judgment is stayed upon timely filing of the losing party of any
remedies available to him. The court may then grant or deny the motion for new trial. Once
granted, the original judgment will be vacated; hence, no need to act on the notice of appeal.
However, when motion for new trial is denied, notice of appeal will be given due course and
records will be forwarded to the appellate court for review.

B. No. A cannot yet move for execution since the judgment has not yet to attain the status of a
“final and executory” judgment. The other parties in the action had resorted to remedies that
will stay the execution of judgment.
13. A. Consolidation is not proper. In order for consolidation to be proper, the cases must
involve the same question of law and fact. In this case, although there are identities as to parties
and court of origin, the remedies are not the same, as A filed a notice of appeal, while B filed a
petition for annulment.

B. A should avail of the remedy under rule 42 and file a petition for review to the Court of
Appeals, since the decision of the RTC was rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
On the other hand, B should avail of the remedy of ordinary appeal and file a notice of appeal
before the RTC.

14. The motion for execution pending appeal must be denied. A judgment debtor disposing of
his properties is not a valid ground to grant for execution pending appeal. A should instead avail
of the provisional remedy of preliminary attachment to secure the judgment rendered in his
favor.

15. A may avail of the provisional remedy of preliminary attachment with application for
preliminary injunction. The preliminary attachment will secure the judgment rendered in favor
of A; while the grant of the writ of preliminary injunction will maintain the status quo and
restrain B from disposing his properties.

If execution is granted, B may file/post supersedeas bond to stay the execution of the judgment
pending his appeal.

16. The trial court may still rule on the motion for execution pending appeal in the exercise of its
residual jurisdiction. The TC may still rule on motions in order to protect the rights of the parties
while it retains jurisdiction, and while the records are in its possession.

17. MISSING.

18 A. The genuineness and due execution of the document is deemed admitted as to B, but not
as to C.

Sec. 8, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court provides that when the basis of the complaint is a written
instrument or an actionable document, the defendant should specifically deny under oath, the
said document’s genuineness and due execution; otherwise, it shall be deemed admitted as
genuine and duly executed.

In this case, B fails to deny under oath the actionable document; hence its genuineness is
deemed admitted.

On the other hand, C denied such actionable document under oath. As such, its genuineness is
not deemed admitted by C.

19. No. The RTC is not correct in dismissing the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
The jurisdiction in this case should not be determined based on the assessed value of the
property, but on the nature of the complaint, which is for repurchase. The complaint for
repurchase is an action that is incapable of pecuniary estimation. Therefore, the RTC has
jurisdiction.

20. Judgment is valid against A & B, whom the court acquired jurisdiction. The Rules of Court
provides that the trial of a case will proceed notwithstanding the fact that not all defendants
filed their responsive pleading. The court may render judgment based on the evidence
presented by the plaintiff and the defendants who filed their answers to the complaint.

However, the said judgment is null and void as against C&D, because the court did not acquire
jurisdiction over their persons due to improper service of summons.

21. If A were to proceed against B, he may file an action for the collection of sum of money,
which is an action in personam.

Since B is a resident who is temporarily out of the country, Rule 14 of the ROC provides that the
proper mode of service of summon is an extraterritorial service of summons, which may be
effected as follows:

A. With leave of court, by personal service outside the PH

B. With leave of court, by publication in a newspaper of general circulation
C. Any other means which the court may provide.

22. Yes. A Special civil action cannot be joined with an ordinary civil action.

23. MISSING.

24. No. Joinder of causes of action is not allowed when one of the causes of action is a special
civil action covered by special rule. An action for unlawful detainer is an SCA, therefore, it
cannot be joined with an action for collection of Sum of Money, an ordinary civil action.

Even if the amount of indebtedness is 450k and beyond the jurisdiction of the MTC, the joinder
of action is still not allowed on the basis that one of the causes of action is an SCA.

25. MISSING.

26. Yes. The court cannot motu proprio dismiss the case on the ground of Litis Pendentia.

A motion to dismiss must be filed by the party for the court to properly determine based on the
nature of the case, and by applying the more appropriate test which case survives and which
case should be dismissed. A later case is not automatically dismissed in favor of an earlier case,
since the nature of the case and other factors such as substantial interest of justice will
determine which case will survive.

27. MISSING.

28. Yes. A non resident not found in the PH can be sued if the action filed against him affects the
personal status of the plaintiff, or if it relates to his ownership, possession, or interest over real
property located in the PH, or if the against him seeks to attach his real property rights located
in the PH. Rule 14 of the ROC provides that he can be properly served, through extraterritorial
service of summons.

If the non-resident is found here, summons can be through personal service.

29. Yes. The court is correct in taking cognizance of the two causes of action based on the
implied consent given by the defendants from their failure to object to the joinder of the two
cause of action. Objections not raised in the responsive pleading are deemed waived under the
omnibus motion rule.
Moreover, such joinder of causes of action will not cause prejudice to the defendants as
evidence that may pertains to any of two causes of action will be admitted by the court before
rendering a decision.

REMREV – 2016

11.) A.) Yes, the result to this Mode of Discovery was proper. The only limitations as to written
interrogatories and Other Modes of Discovery is that it should (1) not be privileged; and (2) not
be irrelevant.

In this case, the Interrogatories were proper because they satisfied the relevancy requirement.
Raj needed answers as to how Gop was able to purchase the 2 properties and hence, the
questions as to source of income were reasonable and relevant.

Furthermore, the questions on income are matters that are not privileged.

Hence, the Written Interrogatories were properly served on GOP. (3 POINTS)

B.) GOP’s contention is without merit.

An Injunctive Relief is a preventive measure to ensure that the subject properties will not be
fraudulently disposed pending the resolution of the case. As such, it can be availed of even
before a resolution on the motion to dismiss. The injunctive relief is used to counter irreparable
injury and hence should be resolved right away notwithstanding a motion to dismiss.

Hence, GOP’s contention is without merit. To appreciation for Injunction must be resolved to
alleviate further injury. (4 POINTS)

12.) A.) The court should first resolve the Motion for New Trial taken by C.

The rules of court provide that no Appeal shall be taken wen there are multiple defendants with
different claims. In this case, the court cannot entertain the notice of appeal of B, when there is
a motion for new trial filed by a co-party.

Hence the court should first resolve the Motion for New Trial before it entertains the Notice of
Appeal. (5 POINTS)

(Sir wrote: V. Good!)

B.) A’s remedy would be a Petition for Review while B’s remedy would be a Notice of Appeal.

As to the remedy of A, a Petition for Review before the court of appeals is the proper remedy
because when the RTC denied the appeal of A, it was exercising its appellate jurisdiction over
the case.

As to the remedy of B, a notice of appeal to the court of appeals is the proper remedy because
when B filed a petition for annulment with the RTC, the RTC was exercising its original
jurisdiction over the case.
Hence, A’s remedy would be a petition for review while B’s remedy would be a notice appeal. (5
POINTS)

UNNUMBERED #1

No. D cannot file for Annulment of Judgment.

According to jurisprudence, an Annulment of Judgment is not a solution or a substitution for a

lost remedy.

In this case, D failed to make use of the other remedies that were available before resorting to
an Annulment of Judgment. He could have either filed for a Motion for New Trial or a Notice for
Appeal but failed to do so.

Hence, D cannot file for an Annulment of judgment because there are other remedies available
to him that he failed to take. (5 POINTS)

13.) A.) No, a Consolidation of the Case would not be proper.

The rules of court allow the consolidation of cases when 2 or more cases involve common
questions of fact and law.

The rationale of this is to minimize dockets and to have a speedy deposition of cases. The case
beforehand, notwithstanding the origin of the two cases and the identity of parties, the
essential element of consolidation which is the common questions of fact and law between the
2 cases is wanting. Furthermore, the remedies resorted to by A and B are different since A filed a
notice of appeal and B filled for an annulment of judgment making consolidation an improper
procedure.

Hence, a consolidation of the case will not be proper. (5 POINTS)

14.) The Motion for Execution Pending Appeal should be denied.

Given that B filed for a Motion for New Trial, the court must first entertain this before Execution
may be had. If B was able to establish that he has a ground for a Motion for New Trial (FAMEN)
then a new trial should be conducted.

Hence, the Execution Pending Appeal will only heed if there is no ground for a Motion for New
Trial. Otherwise, the court should first resolve the motion for new trial. (5 POINTS)

15.) If the Execution is denied, A may move for the Attachment of the Properties in order to
disallow the fraudulent disposition of properties.

In this case, since B has been continuously disposing the properties of A; A should file for a
motion for Attachment to Ensure the non-depreciation of the value of the properties. A may
also ask to court to appoint a receiver pending the resolution of the case.

If the execution is granted, B can give a supersedeas bond in order to stay the execution of the
properties pending appeal. In this way, the execution will be put on hold awaiting the final
resolution of the case. (5 POINTS)
16.) The court should continue to hear and try the case since this is an exercise of its Residual
Jurisdiction.

The Trial Court, has jurisdiction over the case and thus, can rule on the matter of the execution.
This is an exercise of its Residual Jurisdiction. Because of this doctrine, the Trial Court may take
cognizance of the Execution Pending Appeal and rule on the matter notwithstanding the prayer
to move the records to the Appellate Court. In the first place, the trial court never lost its
jurisdiction on the execution pending appeal. Jurisdiction continued despite the notice of appeal
filed by B.

Hence the trial court still has residual jurisdiction over the matter. (5 POINTS)

17.) No, C is not correct in claiming entitlement rentals and dividends.

C is not entitled to the rentals and dividends. The rules of court provide that when a property is
sold to satisfy a judgment obligation to pay, the interest and accruals are not to be given to the
judgment obligee.

Notwithstanding C’s purchase of the property, C cannot claim that he is entitled to the accruals,
rent, and income made by the property.

If the property proceeds were insufficient to satisfy the obligation B owes, then the income
proceeds, accrued by the property will be applied to the obligation. The same rule should be
applied to be dividends. (3 POINTS)

18.) No. The CA is not correct.

The Stipulation as to Venue in the contract no longer binds the parties since the Contract where
such venue is stipulated is being assailed and is the subject matter of the controversy.
Jurisprudence provides that when the validity of the contract is being assailed, any stipulation as
to venue stated therein will no longer bind the parties. This being said, he general rules as to
venue stated in the ROC must be applied.

Hence, the CA is not correct. The stipulations as to venue no longer binds the parties and the
general rules as to venue must prevail. (5 POINTS)

19.) No. The RTC is not correct. It has jurisdiction over the case.

Although the assessed value of the subject property is below the threshold cognizable by the
RTC, such is not the issue in the case at bar. It can be gleaned from the facts of the case that the
main issue of the controversy is Bautista’s right to repurchase, which is incapable of pecuniary
estimation. The assessed value of the properties is not the main and principal issue in which the
court is trying to resolve. Although the property is below the jurisdictional ceiling of the RTC, the
assessed value is irrelevant.

Hence, since the complaint for repurchase involves issues to be resolved that are incapable of
pecuniary estimation, the RTC has jurisdiction over the case notwithstanding the assessed value
being below the jurisdictional ceiling of the said court. (5 POINTS)

20.) Yes, the RTC is correct. An Action for Rescission cannot be joined with an Action for Partition
through a mere Supplemental Pleadings.
Supplemental Pleadings are used to supplement the main pleading. In this case, the
supplemental pleading prayed for a rescission of the contract deed of donation. An action to
rescind a contract and an action for partition cannot be joined together because both involved
different causes of action.

The Supplemental Pleading that prayed for another relief together with the principal action was
not the proper action for the supplement pleading involves a completely different matter.

Hence, the RTC is correct. An action for rescission cannot be joined with an action for partition
through a mere supplement pleading. (5 POINTS)

MULTIPLE CHOICE – 2011

1. University of Mindanao executed in favour of BSP a real estate mortgage over

properties in Iligan and Cagayan de Oro. The REM was executed in the Manila office of
BSP. UM has its offices in Davao. Where can it file an action to nullify said REM?
a. Davao, Manila, Iligan or CDO
b. Davao or CDO only
c. Manila Only
d. Davao or Manila only
2. Who of the following is not authorized to receive summons in behalf of a corporation?
a. Director
b. President
c. In-House Counsel
d. General Manager
3. In a case filed with the RTC, the defendant interposed a counterclaim, the amount of
which was within the jurisdiction of the MTC, not the RTC. How should the court
resolve the counterclaim?
a. Consider it permissive since jurisdictional amount is within MTC’s jurisdiction
b. Dismiss the counterclaim and direct its filing with the MTC which has
jurisdiction over it
c. Consider it compulsory without regard for the amount
d. Consider it permissive then require payment of filing fee
4. Non-exhaustion of administrative remedies may be a ground for dismissal based on?
a. Claim unenforceable
b. Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter
c. Failure to state cause of action
d. None
5. Which of the following is correct when comparing the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies with the doctrine of primary jurisdiction?
a. They both state the same principle
b. They both maintain that admin agencies are preferred over courts in the
resolution of certain matter within the competence of the former
c. They are both founded on the premise that a claim is cognizable in the first
instance by the admin agency alone
d. Both are founded on concurrent jurisdiction of the courts and the
administrative agency
6. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction is applicable when:
a. The courts and an admin agency have concurrent jurisdiction
 b. The court has primary jurisdiction but an admin agency has competence over
the subject matter of the claim
c. The admin agency has primary jurisdiction
d. None
7. Which of the following does not constitute Res Judicata
a. Dismissal due to lis pendens
b. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff to comply with an order of the court
c. Judgment based on the pleadings
d. Summary judgment
8. Under which of the following circumstance of dismissal will a counterclaim not survive
a. When the dismissal is made upon a motion of the plaintiff and the motion is
served before counterclaim is pleaded
b. When the dismissal is due to a failure of the defendant to prosecute his case
whether before or after counterclaim is pleaded
c. When the dismissal is due to failure of the defendant to comply with a court
order whether said failure to comply is before or after counterclaim is pleaded
d. None
9. Which of the following is deemed waived unless pleaded either in a motion to dismiss
or in the answer?
a. Lack of Jurisdiction
b. Lack of cause of action
c. Pendentia Litis
d. Bar by prior judgment or by statute of limitations
e. NONE
10. Which of the following is true?
a. Deposition available without leave before jurisdiction over defendant
b. Deposition available with leave before jurisdiction over defendant
c. Deposition is available only with prior leave of court
d. Deposition is available without leave before answer
e. NONE
11. Which of the ff will result from failure to answer written interrogatories
a. Striking out of pleadings
b. Judgment by default
c. Dismissal of action
d. All
12. Which of the FF is true if we compare bar by prior judgment and conclusiveness of
judgment?
a. Both preclude a second action
b. In both, the second case must have the same cause of action
c. Both will result in Res Judicata
d. Only BBP will result in RJ
13. Which of the ff. modes of service of summons is available to acquire jurisdiction over a
non-resident in a personal action
a. Personal service
b. Substituted Service
c. Publication
d. None
14. Which of the ff modes of service of summons is available to acquire jurisdiction over a
resident who is temporarily out of the country in a personal action
a. Substituted Service
b. Publication
c. Personal Service where found
d. All
15. The RP is advised by the DENR that RP is titled in the name of BSP should be reverted
to the public domain because it is inalienable and on this basis, the DENR asked the
Republic to institute reversion proceedings. This property was already consolidated in
the name of BSP after it foreclosed the mortgage executed by the previous owner, OB,
after the latter failed to pay its obligation to BSP. Who should be impleaded as a
defendant?
a. BSP
b. BSP and OB
c. BSP, OB, ROD
d. BSP and RD
16. Which of the following is true?
a. Before responsive pleading, no limitation on extent of amendment except
changing cause of action
b. Before RP, only formal amendments are allowed
c. Before RP, substantial amendment allowed but only with leave of court
d. Before RP, no limitation on extent of amendment, even changing cause of
action.
17. Which dismissal below amounts to an adjudication of the case on the merits?
a. Dismissal due to refusal of plaintiff to obey an order of the court
b. Dismissal upon notice of the plaintiff
c. Dismissal upon motion of the plaintiff
d. None
18. Which of the ff statements is not true?
a. A solidary obligor is not an indispensable party in a suit filled by the creditor
b. In an action to repurchase property sold to a widow and her deceased
husband, the latter’s heirs are not indispensable
c. Where the husband is separated from the wife, he is not an indispensable
party in an action filed by the wife to cancel the mortgage contracted by the
husband on conjugal property
d. ALL are true
19. Which of the ff will cause dismissal of the action with prejudice
a. Failure to appear at pre-trial
b. Failure to appear on date of presentation of evidence in chief
c. Failure to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time
d. NONE
e. ALL
20. Which of the following are available remedies to a party declared in default?
a. Motion to set aside order of default
b. Motion for New Trial
c. Petition for Relief
d. Appeal
e. ALL