ANSWER KEY

(Comprehensive Final Examination: JURISDICTION AY 2019-2020)

Atty. Deanne Mhel C. Clemencia

I.
a. (10 pts.) MTC Quezon City. Under Sec. 33 of B.P. 129, the MTC has original
and exclusive jurisdiction over ejectment cases. In addition, Rule 4 states
that in cases of real actions, the venue should be where the real property is
situated. In the given case, Denver filed an ejectment case and the property
subject of the case is located at Cubao, Quezon City. Their agreement to
“sue and be sued in the courts of Manila” is immaterial because the
stipulation is not of exclusive character as required by the rules and in the
case of Polytrade Corporation v. Blanco. Hence, the court which has
jurisdiction of the case is MTC Quezon City.
b. (10 pts.)MTC Quezon City. In the case of Barrazona v. RTC of Baguio, when
the demand states “pay AND vacate,” the same is an ejectment case and
under Sec. 33 of B.P. 129, ejectment cases are under the original and
exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC. Hence, MTC Quezon City has
jurisdiction over the case.
II.
a. (5pts)MTC. Sec. 34 of B.P. 129 states that the MTC has delegated jurisdiction
over uncontested land registration cases. Rule 4 states that in cases of real
actions, the venue should be where the real property is situated. Here, the
case is a land registration case and the unregistered land is situated in
Silang Cavite. Hence, MTC Cavite has jurisdiction over the case.
b. (5 pts.)MTC. Under Sec. 34 of B.P. 129, the MTC has delegated jurisdiction
over uncontested land registration cases and contested land registration if
the value of the same does not exceed 100,000.00. In the given case, the
subject lot is contested but the value of the same does not exceed 100,000.00.
Hence, MTC Cavite has jurisdiction over the case.
i. (5 pts.)The Court of Appeals. Sec.34 of B.P. 129 states that the
decision rendered by the MTC in its delegated jurisdiction shall
appealable in the same manner as decisions rendered by the RTC.
Hence, the CA shall have the appellate jurisdiction over the case.
III.
a. (5 pts.)RTC Pasay City. According to B.P. 129, MTC has jurisdiction over
criminal cases where the imposable penalty is imprisonment of not
 exceeding six years while the RTC has jurisdiction over criminal cases not
falling under the jurisdiction of any court or tribunal. Furthermore, the
rules provide that venue for criminal cases is where any of the essential
elements were committed. In the case given, the imposable penalty for
Murder is Reclusion Perpetua (20 years and 1 day to 40 years) and the crime
was committed in Pasay City. Hence, the RTC Pasay City has jurisdiction
over the case.
b. (5 pts.)No, I will not change my answer. RA10660 provides that in order for
the Sandiganbayan to have jurisdiction through the first mode, the public
official must be one of those enumerated in paragraphs (1)-(5) and the crime
committed must be: (1)violation of ra 3019 (2) violation of ra 1379 and
(3)ch.2 sec 2, title VII of RPC. In the given case, it is true that GANON falls
under those enumerated public officials but the crime committed was not
one of those crimes enumerated in RA 10660. Hence, the SB has no
jurisdiction and the RTC has jurisdiction.
c. (5 pts.)MTC Pasay City. Section 32 of B.P. 129 provides that the MTC has
original and exclusive jurisdiction over offenses involving damage to
property through criminal negligence.
IV.
a. (10 pts.)No, the dismissal was not proper. In the case of Phil. Migrants
Rights Watch, Inc., vs OWWA, the Supreme Court stated that it is settled in
law and jurisprudence that the RTC has jurisdiction to resolve the
constitutionality of a statute, presidential decree, executive order, or
administrative regulation, as recognized in Section 2(a), Article VIII of the
1987 Constitution.
b. (10 pts.)The contention of OWWA lacks merit. Section 2(c), Rule 41 of the
Rules of Court provides that the mode of appeal in all cases involving only
questions of law shall be by petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme
Court in accordance with Rule 45. Furthermore, in the case of Phil. Migrants
Rights Watch, Inc., vs OWWA, the Supreme Court stated that the issue of
regarding jurisdiction over the subject matter is a question of law that can
directly be appealed to the Supreme Court.
V.
a. (10 pts.)No, the contention of Captain Ri is incorrect. In the case of
Madrinan v. Madrinan, the Supreme Court reiterated that it is settled in law
and jurisprudence that the lower courts, the CA and the SC have original
and concurrent jurisdiction over the issuance of certain writs such as writs
of habeas corpus. In the present case, having similar facts with the case of
Madrinan v. Madrinan, it is only proper that the Court of Appeals issued
the assailed writ of habeas corpus because it was merely exercising its
original and concurrent jurisdiction.
b. (5 pts.)No, I will not change my answer. Our jurisprudence is replete with
cases where exceptions to the Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts are
 recognized. In the case of Madrinan v. Madrinan, which have the same facts
in the present case, the Supreme Court ruled that individuals who do not
know the whereabouts of minors they are looking for would be helpless
since they cannot seek redress from family courts whose writs are
enforceable only in their respective territorial jurisdictions. Thus, if a minor
is being transferred from one place to another, which seems to be the case
here, the petitioner in a habeas corpuscase will be left without legal remedy.
This lack of recourse could not have been the intention of the lawmakers
when they passed [RA 8369].
c. (5 pts.)Family Court. Section 5 of RA 8639 provides that the Family Courts
shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction for Complaints for annulment
of marriage. However, in areas where there are no Family Courts, the RTC
shall have exclusive and original jurisdiction in all actions involving the
contract of marriage and marital relations, as provided in BP 129. Hence,
SERI may file an action for annulment of marriage before the Family Courts
and in the absence of Family Courts, before the RTC.
VI.
a. (5 pts.)It would depend on the location of the estate. BP 129 provides that
the RTC shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction in all matters of
probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of the estate
exceeds 300,000.00 or, in probate matters in Metro Manila, where such gross
value exceeds 400,000.00. In the given case, the facts do not provide for the
location of the estate.
b. (5 pts.)8Elizabeth should file an action for collection of sum of money before
the MTC. BP 129 provides that in determining the jurisdictional amount,
the interest, damages, litigation expenses and costs are not included. In the
given case, the amount of the demand is merely 200,000.00, exclusive of
other expenses, which falls under the jurisdiction of the MTC. Hence, the
MTC has jurisdiction over the case.

How I graded your answers:

Final Exam
For questions worth 5pts:
wrong answer and wrong explanation-2;
correct answer but wrong explanation- 3-4;
correct answer with correct explanation-5

For questions worth 10pts:

wrong answer and wrong explanation-4;
correct answer but wrong explanation- 6-9;
correct answer with correct explanation-10

Quiz
No answer for both questions: 60

Recitation
For those who were called more than once in recit, I only included the highest grade
you got.

Your 40% is the average of your recit, quizzes and digest. So for those who were not
called, your divisor is 3 and for those who were called, your divisor is 4.

Bonus
Only those who submitted their exam last May 13, 2020 will be entitled to your chosen
bonus (until 11:59pm).

Those who submitted ON TIME last May 13, 2020 (until 9:00pm) will be given
additional 3 pts in the final exam and 2 pts in recitation (this is in addition to your
previous choices).