University of Santo Tomas

Faculty of Civil Law

Remedial Law
Questions Asked
More Than Once
(QuAMTO 2016)

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as

suggested by UPLC and other distinct luminaries in the academe,
and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016
Bar Exams.

*Bar questions are arranged per topic and were selected based on
their occurrence on past bar examinations from 1990 to 2015.
 ACADEMICS COMMITTEE
KATRINA GRACE C. ONGOCO MANAGING EDITOR

REUBEN BERNARD M. SORIANO

ERINN MARIEL C. PEREZ EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
MA. NINNA ROEM A. BONSOL

REUBEN BERNARD M. SORIANO

JUAN PAOLO MAURINO R. OLLERO LAYOUT AND DESIGN
JOHN REE E. DOCTOR

QUAMTO COMMITTEE MEMBERS

CALOS LEANDRO L. ARRIERO

ELISE MARIE B. BERTOS
GABRIELA LOUISE O.J. CANDELARIA
WARREN RODANTE D. GUZMAN
MARY GRACE D. LUNA
LEAN JEFF M. MAGSOMBOL
JUAN PAOLO MAURINO R. OLLERO
ANN CAIRA C. SURIO
MARY JANE D. VILARAY

ATTY. AL CONRAD B. ESPALDON

ADVISER
QUAMTO FOR REMEDIAL LAW (1997-2015)
 GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Concept of Remedial Law
Q: How shall the Rules of Court be construed? (1998)
A: The Rules of Court should be liberally constructed
in order to promote their objective of securing a Just,
speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action
and proceeding (Sec. 6, Rule 1).
Q: What is the concept of Remedial Law? Distinguish
between substantive law and remedial law. (2006)
A: The concept of Remedial Law is that it is a branch of
public law which prescribes the procedural rules to be
observed in litigations, whether civil, criminal, or
administrative, and in special proceedings, as well as the
remedies or reliefs available in each case.
Substantive law is that part of the law which creates,
defines and regulates rights and obligations, the
violation of which gives rise to a cause of action. On the
other hand, remedial law prescribes the method of
enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their invasion
(cf. Bustos v. Lucero, 81 Phil. 540, 650 [1948]).
Q: How are remedial laws implemented in our
system of government? (2006)
A: Remedial Laws are implemented in our system of
government through the judicial system, including the
prosecutory service, our courts and quasi-judicial
agencies.
Doctrine of non-interference or doctrine of judicial
stability
Q: In rendering a decision, should a court take into
consideration the possible effect of its verdict upon
the political stability and economic welfare of the
nation? (2003)
A: NO, because a court is required to take into
consideration only the legal issues and the evidence
admitted in the case. The political stability and
economic welfare of the nation are extraneous to the
case. They can have persuasive influence but they are
not the main factors that should be considered in
deciding a case. A decision should be based on the law,
rules of procedure, justice and equity. However, in
exceptional cases the court may consider the political
stability and economic welfare of the nation when these
are capable of being taken into judicial notice of and are
relevant to the case.
JURISDICTION
How jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired
Q: Lani filed an action for partition and accounting in
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila against her
sister Mary Rose, who is a resident of Singapore and
is not found in the Philippines. Upon motion, the
court ordered the publication of the summons for
three weeks in a local tabloid, Bulgar. Linda, an OFW
vacationing in the Philippines, saw the summons in
Bulgar and brought a copy of the tabloid when she
returned to Singapore. Linda showed the tabloid and
the page containing the summons to Mary Rose, who
said, "Yes I know, my kumare Anita scanned and e-
mailed that page of Bulgar to me!" Did the court
acquire jurisdiction over Mary Rose? (2008)
A: NO. The court did not acquire jurisdiction over Mary
Rose, the defendant. While serving summons by
publication is allowed in this case under Section 15, Rule
14 of the Rules of Court, the required sending of the
copy of the summons and the order of the Court by
registered mail to the last known address of the same
defendant has not been followed; service of summons by
publication under said Rule has not been complied with;
thus, there is no valid service.
Jurisdiction of courts
Supreme Court
Q: Distinguish Questions of Law from Questions of
Fact. (2004)
A: A question of law is when the doubt or difference
arises as to what the law is on a certain set of facts,
while a question of fact is when the doubt or difference
arises as to the truth or falsehood of alleged facts
(Ramos v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of the Phil., G.R. No. L-
22533, February 9, 1967).
Q: Goodfeather Corporation, through its President,
Al Pakino, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a
complaint for specific performance against Robert
White. Instead of filing an answer to the complaint,
Robert White filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint on the ground of lack of the appropriate
board resolution from the Board of Directors of
Good feather Corporation to show the authority of Al
Pakino to represent the corporation and file the
complaint in its behalf. The RTC granted the motion
to dismiss and, accordingly it ordered the dismissal
of the complaint. Al Pakino filed a motion for
reconsideration which the RTC denied. As nothing
more could be done by Al Pakino before the RTC, he
file an appeal before the Court of Appeals (CA).
Robert White moved for dismissal of the appeal in
the ground that the same involved purely a question
of law and should have been filed with the Supreme
Court (SC). However, Al Pakino claimed that the
appeal involved mixed questions of fact and law
because there must be a factual determination if,
indeed, Al Pakino was duly authorized by
Goodfeather Corporation to file the complaint.
Whose position is correct? Explain. (2014)
A: Al Pakino is correct in claiming that the appeal
involved mixed questions of fact and law. There is a
question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to
what the law is on a certain state of facts. On the other
hand, there is a question of fact, when the doubt or
difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of alleged
facts. (Mirant Philippines Corporation v. Sario, G.R. No.
197598, November 21, 2012) . Since the complaint was
dismissed due to the alleged lack of appropriate board
resolution from the Board of Directors of Goodfeather
Corporation, the appeal will necessarily involve a factual
determination of the authority to file the Complaint for
the said Corporation. Hence, the appeal before the Court
of Appeals is correct.
1
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS TEAM BAROPS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016
QuAMTO for REMEDIAL LAW (1997-2015)
Court of Appeals
Q: Give at least three instances where the Court of
Appeals may act as a trial court. (2008)
A:
a. In annulment of judgment under Secs. 5 and 6, Rule
47. Should the Court o£ Appeals find prima facie
merit in the petition, the same shall be given due
course and summons shall be served on the
respondent, after which trial will follow, where the
procedure in ordinary civil cases shall be observed.
b. When a motion for new trial is granted by the Court
of Appeals, the procedure in the new trial shall be
the same as that granted by a Regional Trial Court
(Sec. 4, Rule 53).
c. A petition for habeas corpus shall be set for hearing
(Sec. 12, Rule 102).
d. In a petition for the writs of amparo and habeas
data, a hearing can be conducted.
e. Under Section 12, Rule 124 of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure, the Court of Appeals has the power to try
cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and
perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual
issues cases which fall within its original and
appellate jurisdiction.
f. The Court of Appeals can grant a new trial based on
the ground of newly discovered evidence (Sec. 14,
Rule 124).
g. The Court of Appeals, under Section 6, Rule 46,
whenever necessary to resolve factual issues, may
conduct hearing thereon or delegate the reception of
the evidence of such issues to any of its members or
to an appropriate agency or office.
NOTE: It is suggested that an answer with any three (3)
of the enumerated instances should be considered as
correct.
Q: Does the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction to
review the Decisions in criminal and administrative
cases of the Ombudsman? (2006)
A: The Supreme Court has exclusive appellate
jurisdiction over decisions of the Ombudsman in
criminal cases (Sec. 14, RA 6770) . In administrative and
disciplinary cases, appeals from the Ombudsman must
be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 (Lanting
v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 141426, May 6, 2005; Fabian v.
Desierto, G.R. No. 129742, September 16, 1998; Sec. 14, RA
6770).
Court of Tax Appeals
Q: Mark filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue a
complaint for refund of taxes paid, but it was not
acted upon. So, he filed a similar complaint with the
Court of Tax Appeals raffled to one of its Divisions.
Mark’s complaint was dismissed. Thus, he filed with
the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65. Does the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction
over Mark’s petition? (2006)
A: NO. The procedure is governed by Sec. 11 of R.A.
9282. Decisions of a division of the Court of Tax Appeals
must be appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc.
Further, the CTA now has the same rank as the Court of
Appeals and is no longer considered as a quasi-judicial
agency. It is likewise provided in the said law that the
decisions of the CTA en banc are congnizable by the
Supreme Court under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure.
Sandiganbayan
Q: The Ombudsman, after conducting the requisite
preliminary investigation, found probable cause to
charge Gov. Matigas in conspiracy with Carpinter, a
private individual, for violating Section 3(e) of
Republic Act (RA) No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act, as amended). Before the information
could be filed with the Sandiganbayan, Gov. Matigas
was killed in an ambush. This, notwithstanding, an
information was filed against Gov. Matigas and
Carpintero.
At the Sandiganbayan, Carpintero through counsel,
filed a Motion to Quash the information, on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan,
arguing that with the death of Gov. Matigas, there is
no public officer charged in the information.
Is the Motion to Quash legally tenable? (2014)
A: NO. The Motion to quash is not legally tenable. While
it is true that by reason of the death of Gov. Matigas,
there is no longer any public officer with whom he can
be charge for violation of R.A. 3019, it does not mean,
however, that the allegation of conspiracy between them
can no longer be proved or that their alleged conspiracy
is already expunged. The only thing extinguished by the
death of Gov. Matigas is his criminal liability. His death
did not extinguish the crime nor did it remove the basis
of the charge of conspiracy between him and Carpintero.
The requirement before a private person may be
indicated for violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019,
among others, is that such private person must be
alleged to have acted in conspiracy with a public officer.
The law, however, does not require that such person
must, in all instances, be indicated together with the
public officer. Indeed, it is not necessary to join all
alleged co-conspirators in an indictment for conspiracy
(People of the Philippines v. Henry T. Go, G.R. No. 168539,
March 25, 2014).
Regional Trial Courts
Q: A files an action in the Municipal Trial Court
against B, the natural son of A’s father, for the
partition of a parcel of land located in Taytay, Rizal
with an assessed value of P20,000.00. B moves to
dismiss the action on the ground that the case would
have been brought in the RTC because the action is
one that is not capable of pecuniary estimation as it
involves primarily a determination of hereditary
rights and not merely the bare right to real
property. Resolve the motion. (2000)
A: The motion should be granted. The action for
partition depends on a determination of the hereditary
rights of A and B, which is not capable of pecuniary
estimation. Hence, even though the assessed value of the
land is P20,000.00, the Municipal Trial Court has no
jurisdiction (Russell v. Vestil, G.R. No. 119347. March 17,
1999).
Q: A filed with the MTC of Manila an action for
specific performance against B, a resident of Quezon
City, to compel the latter to execute a deed of
conveyance covering a parcel of land situated in 2
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.
QUAMTO FOR REMEDIAL LAW (1997-2015)
Quezon City having an assessed value of P19,000.00.
B received the summons and a copy of the Complaint
of 02 January 2003. On 10 January 2003, B filed a
Motion to Dismiss the Complaint on the ground that
the subject matter of the suit was incapable of
pecuniary estimation. The court denied the motion.
In due time, B filed with the RTC a Petition for
Certiorari praying that the said Order be set aside
because the MTC has no jurisdiction over the case.
On 13 February 2003, A filed with the MTC a Motion
to declare B in default. The motion was opposed by B
on the ground that his Petition for Certiorari was
still pending. (1997, 2003, 2012)
a. Was the denial of the Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint correct?
A: The denial of the Motion to Dismiss the Complaint
was not correct. Although the assessed value of the
parcel of land involved was P19,000.00, within the
jurisdiction of the MTC Manila, the action filed by A for
Specific Performance against B to compel the latter to
execute a Deed of Conveyance of said parcel of land was
not capable of pecuniary estimation and, therefore, the
action was within the jurisdiction of RTC (Russel v. Vestil,
supra; Copioso v. Copioso, G.R. No. 149243, October 28,
2002; Cabutihan v. Landcenter Construction, G.R. No.
146594, June 10, 2002]).
b. Resolve the Motion to Declare the Defendant in
Default.
A: The Court could declare B in default because B did not
obtain a writ of preliminary injunction or a temporary
restraining order from the RTC prohibiting the judge
from proceeding in the case during the pendency of the
petition for certiorari (Sec. 7 Rule 65; Diaz v. Diaz, G.R.
No. 135885, April 28, 2000).
Q: Angelina sued Armando before the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Manila to recover the ownership and
possession of two parcels of land; one situated in
Pampanga, and the other in Bulacan. (2009)
a. May the action prosper? Explain.
A: NO, the action may not prosper, because under Rep.
Act No. 7691, exclusive original jurisdiction in civil
actions which involve title to, or possession or real
property or any interest therein is determined on the
basis of the assessed value of the land involved, whether
it should be P20,000 in the rest of the Philippines,
outside of the Manila with courts of the first level or with
the Regional Trial Court. The assessed value of the parcel
of land in Pampanga is different from the assessed value
of the land in Bulacan. What is involved is not merely a
matter of venue, which is waivable, but of a matter of
jurisdiction. However, the action may prosper if
jurisdiction is not in issue, because venue can be waived.
b. Will your answer be the same if the action was
for foreclosure of the mortgage over the two
parcels of land? Why or why not? (2000)
A: NO, the answer would not be the same. The
foreclosure action should be brought in the proper court
of the province where the land or any part thereof is
situated, either in Pampanga or in Bulacan. Only one
foreclosure action need be filed unless each parcel of
land is covered by distinct mortgage contract. In
foreclosure suit, the cause of action is for the violation of
the terms and conditions of the mortgage contract;
hence, one foreclosure suit per mortgage contract
violated is necessary.
Q: On August 13, 2008, A, as shipper and consignee,
loaded on the M/V Atlantis in Legaspi City 100,000
pieces of century eggs. The shipment arrived in
Manila totally damaged on August 14, 2008. A filed
before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of
Manila a complaint against B Super Lines, Inc. (B
Lines), owner of the M/V Atlantis, for recovery of
damages amounting to P167,899. He attached to the
complaint the Bill of Lading. (2010)
a. B Lines filed a Motion to Dismiss upon the
ground that the Regional Trial Court has
exclusive original jurisdiction over "all actions
in admiralty and maritime" claims. In his Reply,
A contended that while the action is indeed
"admiralty and maritime" in nature, it is the
amount of the claim, not the nature of the action,
that governs jurisdiction. Pass on the Motion to
Dismiss.
A: The Motion to Dismiss is without merit and therefore
should be denied. Courts of the first level have
jurisdiction over civil actions where the demand is for
sum of money not exceeding P300,000.00 or in Metro
Manila, P400,000.00, exclusive of interest, damages,
attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs: this
jurisdiction includes admiralty and marine cases. And
where the main cause of action is the claim for damages,
the amount thereof shall be considered in determining
the jurisdiction of the court (Adm. Circular No. 09-94,
June 14, 1994).
b. The MeTC denied the Motion in question A. B
Lines thus filed an Answer raising the defense
that under the Bill of Lading it issued to A, its
liability was limited to P10,000. At the pre-trial
conference, B Lines defined as one of the issues
whether the stipulation limiting its liability to
P10,000 binds A. A countered that this was no
longer in issue as B Lines had failed to deny
under oath the Bill of Lading. Which of the
parties is correct? Explain.
A: The Contention of B is correct; A’s contention is
wrong. It is A who pleaded the Bill of Lading as an
actionable document where the stipulation limits B’s
liability to A to P10,000 only. The issue raised by B does
not go against or impugn the genuineness and due
execution of the Bill of Lading as an actionable
document pleaded by A, but invokes the binding effect of
said stipulation. The oath is not required of B, because
the issue raised by the latter does not impugn the
genuiness and due execution of the Bill of Lading.
c. On July 21, 2009, B Lines served on A a "Notice to
Take Deposition," setting the deposition on July
29, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. at the office of its counsel
in Makati. A failed to appear at the deposition-
taking, despite notice. As counsel for B Lines,
how would you proceed?
A: As counsel for B Lines (which gave notice to take the
deposition), I shall proceed as follows:
3
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS TEAM BAROPS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2016