| i ATENEO DE MANILA UNIVERSITY | School of Law Criminal Procedure - Final Examination | Justice MF-D. Singh Answer the questions legibly, clearly, and concisely. Start each number on 4 separate page. An answe; 0 a sub-question under the same nimber may be written continously on the| same page and the immediately succeeding pages until completed. Return Hhis questionnaire to the proctor after taking the examination, Examination goklets with an unreturned questionnaire will not be checked. | | L Nico Roberto dela Rama Martin went to the police station. He informed the Duty Desk Officer that he has just arrived from Strasbourg and was informed by his household help that the police had been to his home to serve a warrant for the arrest of “Nico Rodolfo dela Rama Martin” who was his brother. Nico Roberto showed his Passpgrt and his and his brother's birth certificates to the Duty Desk Officer to proye that he was not the “Nico Rodolfo dela Rama Martin” subject of the warrant of arrest. The police told Nico Roberto to wait. After 2 hours, Nico Roberto was booked and placed behind bars. What remedy/ies will you resort to as counsel for Nico Roberto? (20 points) 1. Karl was charged with Malicious Mischief for etching his initials on the hood of his best friend Carlo's brand new car with a knifetip. Because Karl apologized and promised to pay for the damage to Carlo's car in installments, Carlo and Karl executed an amicable jsettlement of the civil aspect of the case before the Philippine Mediation Center Unit as part of pre-trial proceedings in the case, For this reason, Carlo agreed [not to testify against Karl anymore. Upon Karl's counsel's motion, the trial fourt dismissed the case on June 25, 2017, but only provisionally subject to Karl's full compliance with the settlement terms. On October 8, 2018, Carlo’s cobinsel, with the conformity of the Public Prosecutor, filed a Motion to Revive the case due to the non-payment by Karl of the balance of the installments for the dainaged car. ule onthe Motion to Revive, conaldering that he cse has both a criminal an ctv open gpa | | | | aL. Candice, Beth, Juls, Idel, and Grace were fed up with their officemate, unanimous in their sentiment that Marivic should not last any longer in their office. In their social media) posts, the 5 girls, without naming Marivic, and referring to her only as "the she devil” recounted every litle story depicting Marivic as “evil,” “despicable,” “corrupt,” “walanghiya,” “social climber,” and “doble cara.” They also posted a photograph of a woman digitally altered to cloak her in all black and with he1 face in shadow, with the caption "Who is the she devil?” under. They then invited readers to guege the identity of the woman in lotzthe photograph. Many commented on the posts of the 5 girls, some guessed at the identity of the woman in the photograph, others recounted similar stories, but the majority expressed sympathy for the 5 girls and outrage at the conduct of Marivic. There were many who angrily threatened Marivic and called for her resignation. Marivic brought cases against the 5 girls for violations of the Cybercrime Law, specifically for Cyber Bullying and Cyber Libel. Conspiracy was alleged against the 5 girls. ‘The prosecution filed a Motion to Discharge Icel as State Witness, alleging that Idel was the least guilty since she never posted anything but was merely tagged by the 4 other girls in the subject posts. Marivic opposed the motion on. the ground that there was no necessity for the discharge as the commission of both offenses were directly evidenced by the social media posts which were available publicly. Moreover, Idel has already been previously convicted for Violation of BP Blg. 22. (@) Rule on the motion. (10 points) (b) Assume that the trial court granted the motion and discharged Idel as a state witness, what is the prosecution’s remedy to question the trial court's, action, and on what ground/s? (10 points) (©) Assume that the reviewing court found that the trial court did exx in granting the Motion to Discharge Idel as State Witness! May Idel still be prosecuted as a co-conspirator of the 4 other girls? (10 points) WV. Ding, Zaldy and Jeff got into a fistfight over the Ateneo-UP basketball championship game. Becausé Ding and Zaldy ganged up on Jeff, Jeff sustained a blackeye and a bruised jaw. Jeff charged Ding and Zaldy with Slight Physical Injuries and the 2 were convicted, (a) What are the options available to Ding and Zaldy at this point? (10 points) (b) Assume that only Ding opted to appeal his conviction, but the reviewing court affirmed his conviction. What are the remedies of Ding to seek a reversal of his conviction? (10 points) (© Assume further that Ding was acquitted on further review. What would be the effect of such acquittal on Zaldy? (10 points) 2 ofe 20Year & Sec,__™ Professor__2vtie Gryos Nia woul Ale a kof Yate Bicay wets fre Curt. A wed” of dbedy Corps S avch lable. 1A ans P50 __ whore \ige, \eod Qnty is th dang oar bik Nhaw? by any of __ oe Ck a adtnantes, M's oceck was \ iscueh agai. Nicd “Rolol fy” wok Vico “Rpbecto™ fy “clint, ico Raber, Moh wor heh mer et be cave fhe is A warrant € favceet steould ageint the Sette os eatvert utes! arg geigwGy an) awe, b fe defn € Yabo Corps choo)Swailar ty he A take deci 6 ch. \a_thak cag, 4 “darcagh ot [0 issuext Sos deny ‘The moon 4» revive. foc the criminal cate vf Malietov Ns obi 1 Carlo. Te Wes _o wh pide Trak in \ Gravis tonal din (lyre (ceo eof Cris ——wlaidh__ane_{ puns yale (movi of lex: G tal “qutomal all shat 6 af | C1) yeu, — et fom [ime fate fof | mae Xe bout} a ‘i Tre Cae was Agioually | Xs Wesce 2 5 wip. Theretwe, Carlo on vab | 1 25, 70 fh _teoyen Han Le co NE ih fled he i a Carlo only [re-opened om Detober Gre, te lenge is bvipwphcclly lerminehed. ——Vuase, ‘Me _feogeni pe thovld e 7 cg Su “er SeQuine C) Rewetee | Tha! Sestimon} of ocevced fhe| wwoblates ab ifs Malural [points S) Keak) Tivos! geil previfushy — convicked OF imal infolvag Mora!‘ wl am Atusel iC Sere ogg gre ss abxe pt diserction whl 1 very 4ey Ta. alec The Rules Cow Freescale Be Aegl —— fom __enitniny tabi lt: on tre lond = Te oc vt Jeno vr Ww Stee. 6 Rr cre} Aueneh state we camrot be dtc hawel pe Ws calvin Ackbi ly | sie pe 9 dfon impoted/ thy tre] Ste ir as / bi Theat he Nog 4 we eats TNS cet —ws 21, or ay Appeal under: Bie ah hl for reine dscabon available yes wh War dont chichion Sede Be te! A Se Oe T_T Ltowviction, eresay Wo Vie tS Gur ai The dection of tw _poiewing vouch | ne Ding may 2 i dieing Thal review Sout les _totince “Genie | Peoag oF Ye of” 0 xe “s vivbaXon, “Dhy | Wy? Waa dune. at __ wou \} | eave. tart he 1 may file a Kohon ain ——2<_retvial - ties Aye vet will only mrecper if 1 Jif evi dent whatcha wk_auydlaple Aig We —___yevious al whith/ od '| with a - Terie : outro le als sec a ie iy Ad ibe Matera! a odabncnife sol toe ecisfon dune ——Wis_weny Di be __ abso ie ing “oppose via mara ea ome Sf ng_shall ie gure hak | hy ban stions relafi : Nee fw atte ac rv S death wens fF Lye LE tle ie fe wit, Gv.Frode Xhat Ww e_Wqore. ——te_lali [fro] J ote akadtbt wa = ‘ e. Ntshovt be gegen Td] Lats” clould alse es ie \) Kvles ide - boenelt frm [Me decicita 0 acquthng 2Criminal Procedure ~ Final Examinations Ateneo Law School Justice MED. Singh (1* Sem, AY. 17-18) Instructions: Answer the questions directly and succinctly. Write legibly.Total 100 points. Return this questionnaire to the proctor after the examinations. L Nico was charged with Homicide. His counsel, Atty. Dirty Harry, filed a Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause with the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, where the Information was filed. To avoid arrest, Nico went to the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan, his place of residence, and posted bail. Q.1. As the Makati Court, act on the Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause. (10 points) Q.2. As the Bulacan Court, should you approve the bail of Nico? (10 points) Q.3. Assume that the Bulacan Court did not approve the bail of Nico, as Atty. Dirty Harry, what should your next step be towards securing the temporary liberty of Nico during the pendency of the case? (10 points) Arraignment was set by the Makati Court. Atty. Dirty Harry filed an Omnibus Motion (for Suspension of Arraignment and to Quash Information) on the grounds' of the pendency of Nico's Petition for Review with the Department of Justice and double jeopardy. Atty. Dirty Harry argues that since the DOJ has yet to resolve the Petition for Review, the arraignment should be deferred in order not to render the review moot. Additionally, he claims that Nico has been previously charged for the very same offense before the Bulacan Court, but the case was dismissed because the situs criminis is in Makati City. Q.4. Should suspension of arraignment be granted due to.the pendency of the Petition for Review with the DOJ? (10 points) Q.5. Should the Information be quashed on ground of double jeopardy? (10 points) Q.6. If the ground invoked in a motion to quash is that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, what is the proper court action? (10 points) Q.7. Will the quashal of an Information act as a bar to another prosecution for the same offense? (10 points) lo f. 2Before the scheduled date of arraignment, Prosecutor Gadoink filed a Motion to Amend Information to change the charge to Murder, having received additional evidence pointing to a premeditated plan to kill the victim, Serena, and to implead 2 additional accused, Pico and Jico. Atty. Dirty Harry vehemently opposed the motion, citing the substantive change which will result in exposing his client to the possibility of being meted a higher penalty. Q.8. Rule on the motion to amend. (10 points) The Prosecutor accompanied the motion to amend with a Motion to Discharge Jico as a State Witness. Q.9. What conditions should be satisfied in order to justify the grant of the motion to discharge Jico as a State witness? (10 points) ‘Assume that Jio was discharged)as a State witness. He executed an Affidavit narrating in detail the plan to commit the killing of Serena and its actual execution. Unfortunately, Jico was unable to testify in court because he received numerous death threats which caused him to fear for his life and go into hiding. The Prosecutor was forced to rest the State's case without Jico's open court testimony. Q.10. What will be the legal effect of Jico's failure to testify in court? (10 points) zZ of 2 eekName [ina t. Gilazar Subject___Crizau a ecbyav Year &Sec__2 _O3?%f Professor —dluhee Gahaccel fh Makosi btmal_ bau! ty Lette 2G Gal, Oow 7 a eeQ:4: The” detaisamed! canted be sutptacted. Hoo (ae case aE aust O days. Sect of luk J tpbach_pro ge ales igtatl, to tne offer p pezilin a Ofice of th Quantecl, Aontstee 2[a te ae ae ag Wa ZAN/ Ww “at cbactel © atquatd ao fede gaits hit ln massed yithenl bis! eget inseat. Ta this @ A.C. The paytts 0 We Amantes poled fatal rs The On fudpightl ditmsst Teta nin “bijachHagges Signin biel it bs ab mbclly af the charges a, Ta Mois cag, the_pranteutar_seasonaably Oanmtag/the_in forall Avdishnintnd of the sell FB EPCriminal Procedure 4% Sem, SY 2016-2017 Final Examination (2-B) Justice M.F.D. Singh Instructions: Answer each question clearly, succinctly, and completely. Write legibly. Return this questionnaire to the proctor with your bluebook after taking the exam. (10 points per number, total of 100 points) I Georgie Porgie was charged with Plunder before the Office of the Ombudsman by Miss Muffet. The Ombudsman furnished Georgie Porgie with a copy of Miss Muffet's Complaint-Affidavit and its annexes, as well as the Affidavits of her two witnesses, Georgie's own twin sister Georgia and their mother Georgina. Georgie Porgie's counsel Atty. Aesop filed an Omnibus Motion with the Ombudsman requesting for first, copies of the counter-affidavits of Georgie Porgie's co-respondents in the Plunder complaint, Tweedledee and Tweedledum; second, for the examination and photocopying of the two volumes of the Stock and Transfer book of the Mother Goose Company, Inc.; and, third, for the setting of a clarificatory hearing. The Ombudsman denied all prayers in the Omnibus Motion. Q.1 Was the Ombudsman's denial of the Omnibus Motion correct: A. On the first prayer for copies of Tweedledee's and Tweedledum's counter-affidavits? (10 points) B. On the second prayer for the examination and photocopying of the Stock and Transfer Book? (10 points) C. On the third prayer to set a clarificatory hearing? (10 points) The Ombudsman denied the motion for reconsideration of its Order of denial. Georgie Porgie filed a Notice of Appeal from the Order denying his motion for reconsideration. Q.2. Was the remedy availed of by Georgie Porgie correct? (10 points) / of 3M Peter Piper was standing at a street comer. Along came Little Boy Blue on a motorcycle who stopped where Peter Piper stood and started talking to the latter. When Little Boy Blue drew something from his right front pants' pocket and extended his hand in the act of giving what he had taken from his pocket to Peter Piper, police officers suddenly ‘swarmed around the two. The police officers introduced themselves and asked the two if they would agree to join the police in going to the police station for a conversation. Peter Piper and Little Boy Blue agreed to go. Col. Mustard, the lead police officer, also asked Little Boy Blue and Peter Piper to empty their pockets. The police confiscated from Little Boy Blue two small sachets of white crystalline. substance (later tested and confirmed to be shabu), while the pockets of Peter Piper yielded a tooter and 200 pesos. The police then advised the two of their Miranda rights. On the same day, Little Boy Blue and Peter Piper were brought to the Office of the City Prosecutor for inquest proceedings. The following morning, Little Boy Blue was charged with Illegal Sale of shabu, while Peter Piper was charged with Illegal Possession of drug paraphernalia, both under Republic Act No. 9165. Little Boy Blue's counsel filed a Motion |to Quash the Information against him on ground of illegality of his arrest and the subsequent seizure of his personal possessions. The public prosecutor opposed the motion on the following grounds: (a) illegality of arrest was not.one of the grounds for a motion to quash; (b) the arrest of Little Boy Blue was a valid warrantless arrest because he was caught in flagrante delicto in the act of selling shabu; and, (c) the arrest was done in "hot pursuit”. @.3. Rule on each argument of the prosecution. (10 points each = 30 points) For his part, Peter Piper filed a Motion for Preliminary Investigation with Motion to Defer “Arraignment. The judge denied Peter Piper's motions for being baseless. Q.4. (a) Was the judge correct in denying Peter Piper's motion for a preliminary investigation? (10 points) (b) Was the judge correct in denying Peter Piper's motion to defer zof3arraignment? (10 points) On motion for reconsideration, the judge granted Peter Piper's motion for preliminary investigation. The judge also suspended the proceedings in both the cases against Peter Piper and Little Boy Blue. It was only 10 months later that the Office of the City Prosecutor came out with a Resolution affirming the finding of probable cause against Peter Piper. The public prosecutor thus filed a Motion to Set the Cases for Arraignment. Little Boy Blue opposed the motion and moved instead for the dismissal of the case against him on ground of violation of his right to speedy trial, Q.5. Should the judge grant or deny Little Boy Blue's motion to dismiss? (10 points) got>Nome RACE, AQAlENe WEE b. _____. sucject CRNA PRIME 4 year & sec. #8 professor YMmee FiLomenn sine Date AumanIepuest capicd of the ether aupparting evitence ‘which the complainant het wubinitled i the ivestigating pertecutrr. Tt it pnlu rte the idence of he Camplainant, ret she evidence er oeunite-afpidavitt ee hit 04” re¢pondeak ome over bhich he faethe eee - END 1) be furnished @ copy of the complaint and athér afidavis or goer ubited Gy the domphinant; yb given a ped within ch Tuner er fle « coke “phd nuk; perc (8 [0 day’ fron reept Ke mtpocnn fateed ‘oy fyge—taweatgating prrweatir; aad at rauest eapylion of te ther biden adduced ty He cenpiasnage, and th phetrenny or repadute them at hit wat eaplnte, Tale he dnt have the ght te requchCoplel if hic coraccused’e eeunier- affidadh rm the prouuater, The Agpreme Cont} nevertheless held that be ray doo ey Dini by vegring sath dewrcats Airey from the, wacuse3.1.8. # ea He Omibadiman corretly denied” the tcmd prger f Geargie Berge th request an aminatin aed Pha cgrging Yee Sitch and Tok nithir bree Company, (nc. fgdin, tinder Rly (2, aad wt Stade De porligy,The prricaster Invaiggiing Ke cate tas rhe opti fy seta clanficatrry 7] he hat devlfs at B the presence of ptbable cause daring ech cacanld iekerninatin of prable cause He may, whe within Id daye from a tan oace TP Gemgie ‘Pore, he ay fin Fie ight 2 2 oly a afonted | 2 open thie cilene ond Hm | ‘hattgaing erect: in ting 2 aa five jk Te in Whit cate. TAD) the_horuyatog prmesthere ita We ch a clarify The _Ombudsnan denial if Georgie Pope!adgment, carder tf the Cowl? whith tied the caic. Ht is ‘not alaclable for tntertcwtrrg triers tinh ai what jc pracot ia it et aelabie er Tifermvrieny_enders_twch of nat jt rato 8 A POE EN Tete cae of Aries, it was ick Rap AD peta for cernivat, cand prinibilin ware nt emrack remedies. op Tho serctney of dushee oad panel oP MUR prawattnrs art tat Sxorvling quasi Puditid! pore ped Weir inky fly wceriing oFUhar fare tt_priakte casi TD vif winded vn nafvre, hud verhornrt fe Mh & piper Piney. Thay avo exereiteretrmating pre, Kence grin dy tb taniled Of. Dae these pccdurnd defect, he swt may already ‘ima tha appre [natin of the meet END’ _ finalar Acthit case, shee the 4 Geege. Pracaah: UHH ry Blue! pratim 17 Bamsh wat \caatradly led ode oh | wint fled befrro Aa entered i plea Uinddir ule UIP of he poli f lest ta tatty fy kuath, the frlenly are the gr fo an aauied th Mh fr the quashed of the infrrmaty D the fs charged te mit omatike am sfehac; FoR 2) fhe court bas pa jostlictin cree Hy affine charged; El a) the thu haa pa Jewictin rig Phe poten if the nated 1g) the offiter hu cmduectod thy Ores ction has ha auathartty tere, 5) the infrion charges the if tre thar mms riper, Gives han tha lund frida mich A dryle panithend Wy aerial sffenta for Licks ay wrtndey been eatrguaitid 9) Heat the tafermatiph crnfas mvermuati, which, true, nnd fe «lah juapiotin; END i) tat the Let totaly bees trmched, or nagualted (ha foe, athe ase Was Minute er Maroc Sepinard natharst hat emaenk (dealte feaparty The sMgadayf of arrert aarcread by UH Dry Be, 04 Kale it pris eripinte J) tori tined taller the Hi pacnginbh, hare te eo Ket tu Dagfidivtin err the of the aetuned, Til it day Pe whut Jf vale ynwraadlin onratt efethed by the prlie sffitec. once, the proicattort fiat arqansnt 1 flawted Ged rust be denied ._ ee ERThe arrest ries rat deme dh hat purrust. Under Secdin 58)ha_provigin_ 1 Pirvile [25 of tha avited Penal Godt; Wre=prrobio' jcccd_ fifteen (18)jo 1 G46. Yes. The judge it correet in denying Bozr Pert authr fh Afr ara decauie IF cech raf path under the growOG. He Tele thet tang ite bry Glusk mniion # gprs Gased im the vitlation f hl right te speedy Pak Fler Rude Wf Reales ef Court, Pha frteniirg) are Be /paeamnaterr fo Be bed ihe dherraining hpbhar 1h viitehin p Be Tight 1 ipecdy “tne Ha _auuded N 1) the fd ay 2) yee heaitn for the delay 3) He ener Mf rrfpulate fh 05sec? fuk. 9) prejndice Whe aed ey “Fier geting aI" gh if tly 10 A That Hha_reasen_ of the heing Roker Fpert mtn prllimirary Dvithgati, an act rdf due h the acauseds achry Life ery Blac etl’ fuled fh much Feo third requaventaD athe We fled if ied Wit_riyhar Ta speeely triad fe batch Whit tush ipitht when hu rly quittioned 7 ven tee tate 7 already caf fur enralprninl. He Shand dave ofhed the remedig, like tht % proceed prin om Bit sepasfltc carey. Sree be praled th atseer bt night ta tri at, bs he may ME Pehl ihe bash rt. Hn, be Fain tr ditraiss must be denied [> =® CIVIL PROCEDURE MIDTERM EXAMINATION ATENEO LAW SCHOOL SY 2017-2018 Justice M.E.D. Singh INSTRUCTIONS: Answer the questions directly and succinctly. Write legibly. Total 100 points. A, a resident of Manila, and B, a resident of Quezon City, entered into a Lease Agreement, whereby A undertook to lease B's condominium unit at Seatea Land XX in Ortigas Center, Pasig City. The lease period is for 2 years, starting on January 1, 2018, and the rental was set at P60,000.00 per month, covered by post-dated checks. A was prohibited from sub-leasing the premises without the prior written consent of B. The agreement also included a vente stipulation, hence: "Should litigation arise from or in relation to this Lease Agreement, the parties agree that the exclusive venue shall be in the courts of Makati, unless the parties agree otherwise." B discovered that A had entered into a sub-lease with C without his written consent. B wrote A demanding the immediate surrender of the leased premises and payment of back rentals. A replied and denied the sub-lease. A reasoned that C is his cousin who is living with him in the leased premises. As for the rental arrears, A promised to update his account within a week's time. Despite the lapse of one (1) month, however, A still failed to pay. B filed a Complaint for Rescision of the Lease Agreement, Recovery of Possession and Damages against A and C before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Attached to the Complaint were the Lease Agreement and B's demand letter to A. Counsel for A, Atty. X, filed an Entry of Appearance with Motion for Extension of Time to File an Answer or a Motion to Dismiss. C, for his part, filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging lack of cause of action, insisting there is no privity between him and B The RTC granted A a 15-day extension of his period to plead, until March 1, 2018. A submitted a Motion to Dismiss on March 2, 2018, alleging lack of jurisdiction, first, over his person, considering that the Sheriff failed to personally serve summons directly to him, and second, over the subject matter of the action, as the Complaint partakes of the nature of a real action and B failed to allege the assessed value of the subject property. Additionally, A claims that B failed to pay the correct docket fees based on such assessed value. The RTC thus failed to acquire jurisdiction 1of 7over the case. B filed a Motion to Declare A in Default due to the late filing of his Motion to Dismiss. Separately, B opposed the Motion to Dismiss of C, arguing that C is an indispensable party without whom no final determination of the case can be had. Q.1. Which court has jurisdiction over the complaint of B? What is the real nature of the case filed by B? (15 points) Q2. Which court is the proper venue for the complaint of B? Is the venue stipulation in the Lease Agreement exclusive? (10 points) Q3. Should A be declared in default? What are the consequences of and remedies from a default declaration? (15 points) Qu. Rule on A's Motion to Dismiss. Did the RTC acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter and over A's person? (15 points) Qs. Rule on C's Motion to Dismiss. What is the difference between lack of cause of action and failure to state a cause of action? (10 points) Q6. Is C an indispensable party? Assuming that C's impleader is improper, is dismissal the right course of action? (10 points) Q7. Assume that the RTC denied the Motion to Declare A in Default and B files a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court, arguing only a pure question of law, should the Supreme Court give the petition due course? (10 points) Q8. Are the Lease Agreement and demand letter actionable documents? If so, how are they supposed to be addressed by A in his answer? (15 points)Name—Annitio. Kay B. Chan Subject__Civil_ Proaaure Year & Sec. Professor _uends_ Singh PROFESSORvot an = Dn Cox beta Bn pares Z 7 Ale Ro a wound _& /nol ta of shy qrouret zl Aum ed fr Monel tyr Rew faoridnalion * 1) pxron yun _poaeenbon tu heneany fer i] AwhGd of tn. ruohontna afang diar Ma Me puimidy J. The eTe wae cml [oT rag fie iy an a ale ha Action i cot ausieao\ he Ghia” ool be Air oad. os — nyse proper or Clstie=Nome —.Ratehirieny oft b- _ Subject CIVIL _ PROCEDURE £7175 Yeor & Sec, 28 _ Professor JUS FILOMENA SING = Dote Mac a0, 2077 UNL PRALEOURE 28 MARCH WO, 2017 a SUSTILE PILOMENE ING—_—_—_—_—_——— 1 The RTC ic not correct th remgnding the case far re~ assignment. ia ID ‘of Gallega ye. Panday, where Gilleja et. al. frente y usurping the corporate porat of Ponday At, al St. Joha_taspifal, the kTC st also ¢ case) be remanded > the penal cammefeal eytrt atsigned after making a determin tin gach = athoin involves apn tra- corporate Thaversy. _tttwever | the e Crue raled that the > thing validly do 6h Jurisaichon overt the whith dots not Ay in hearing the will result > Vb. Badly. tviag the same factt as Calleya vs Panday, the RIC was invarrect in remdndigd’ the. case. The petition ef Tom, Dick ao trarry_must be drmissed lack_f puntdution Aree’ the subject matter, since _junidiction may be conferred by the partes se the Gault, VAP is fikted by Jan. jarisdichon chal nef _pacced because st lack uf authority papeNo, the Rie will util not have jurisdichon arising fam the wea anced by the parhes relanng to the board of fons of ABC Carperahon, Ae stated mm Republid ye. antique pint Grporation, yarcdichon ic) fexbd by Jan | and may be canfertd by the \parhes. What the jef may unter te the courts the venue aul actions (Noam vs. Tan), Moraver, the foourtt juridichim ic determined fram the lant Rt in fore ak the fine Of tht commencement of yhe complaint , similar te the case of Cela Crofue. Moya whe the [477 wh be applicable tp the case which ammenced «1 mt the subsequent Taw jned ta_(981. Sine ¢ Secures and exchange Commitioa peace, iF is the GEC, aot the RIC, who har junsdictim der the case.PT 4. the RTC should deny Snake and Co. i moto fer dismissal, As prvided by Adminictrative matter No. 8-84-60, the tality ule on damages will only Spply where the Iman Mit) relief bought isthe collection Wf damages; but whee J iF is enly a mere iftidend of the main relief poughy, 1t shall mat be the Joaut if which requires th payment op a bale / Plat rake acer feel be leaf vs. Ca). ‘ate fuggn the jrdgmeat rendered leche ewentually and jt will wen save as 4 likeGn the] damage ind her onlarks granted ty far of Jthe_ pehiener. This case di vs. CA because proudulenty hid because the from manchester Owe ypment rp. 2 prayer fr damages wal nit fh the body vf the cemplaiat , and ain relief 18 ar Specific perfomance , ng Phe priperty ind the cement be Actes yead. ake and C's mi far dimiscal Shall not be panted by the tal court.II. a. No, an amtadment af tho compliant cannot vest antdction. Ae stated in Sante y. Claravall, 14 i the anginal complaint, not the amended one, which vests ee wer the _crarts. for when jurit~ dictin in_ the mginal __cempigint, it is domed at all; ape thul, fhert 1¢ nothing H/ be ded. Luckily , for ppbtoner Kalashian i9 ae e. Oifravfil, uriidichin af already vetted — th the [RIC fe which she filed ariginal Guaplarnt; thus [ore lean pe amend ‘fon cxitting original camplah [tis the came [with _ pent he was able athens intapade already —acqua J Thus, SFiS nat hy the jundichin complaint: nce \Adam in this case. | srece 1 OASIC foe requirtd fer over hit anginal onaplait. amended — vamplant which vested the tral Gut, if rat hit mignal Hewwer, i /may be argued that there is Treat Tt evade the _paymeht Aacket fees when he dueted came of his prafer fer dannages , jst Tike in __ nan chester he ment | Cerporation vi. CA. On the other hand, the _reastessment and payment of _re-assesed docket may be centidered #¢ only At a late payment which 13 allowed in — Stn Insurance ve. Cmu2.I-3. When the camplaint prays far moral an } damages "In the amount hh be dekermined by the tour”, only the basic hng fees wil be pad Yoon the filing ¢ penhin. Thereafter, when ydqment ts Nhe pbegapees. agerpriak les wil be recempykd based fi on thy” ampant [of damages aviary pehfiner, the apprpriak amount /rhall be decreed by amount already paid darng the grling tf the puhnin.| The iy unpaid pwrten of the dscked fees [shall ‘they/ Conshiuk a hien sn the damages arardel by the jodgment. Thee are : acardig Rule 14 of the kul tf Cur? ole chet fees xenp lary his way, the Aucket fees mil be fully paid, and begs the poyment, beng a junsdichonal requirement / will vest juritdichéa and canfirm the wart A the cout te be) valid and Ip ofect. 7 iiThe dismissal order 16 paper, Sechon 3, Rue 2 if the Rules of Court __eguires | ery ach te be of achon. Sechon 1 of the defines cause sf athon at an ad or on the part | the defendant in vislahon 7 or a breach sf opigatn in te ba , absent a cause of goon, an achen based =m a cause same Rule omicsron alone and #€ muy? be olismicsed. Similar fy fhe case if where Luniga- Santas of sale and HHe tf Santeg-éran. cause uf AAA befause the pene only canfained a narration if phos. No avert act WAS presented ion That pstAblBhed the cause sf achiy). Moreover, 4 present oh if Duniga~ Sans vs. Gants eran, _ prays fw bbe annulmen Thus, the Armissal wat paper. Speafiadly, pret dismissal [out fr failure fh Stare a cour F auhon was prgfr.I ll. a. The dismissal was proper on the grrund of failure hak a cante of sof. Afferent Matatlang ys. 2amora, the falure WW state a cause of action 1, the failure the fais and basse upon whith the “petioner Peles in ander te claim her reli; SUK pail] aground fer dikmiscal wader Rule It anf’ fhe remedy 0 th moe fil the cases distagical other hand, lack of Cause @ achin [s the * back the avérments in and documents ; the cnedy As Stated cartior, jal the case dumga- Gants vs. Vanni bran, which fontaine the Same facts as the Coie «fern anh Aphnait, the perfronert inly narratd the facts which ied wp ta their claim, but upon exarniaing Lach packe, they dl nat prove h be Sufpucat Hak petoners’ cause of acten. tn tc other Fand, in leurdis Gifts vs. Bhary, phe case vas diemited ant F lath of cause ee achin be cause Lourdes wuts filed fh meet the threhhold sf prepmdcrane # widence because ft Was Binary whe Was able pre That she was Already billed dite fir the extra change wn hey okt! acanmndanen, Thus, 1 the peaen? portion p Mera, the aimitca] was pry _vathe ground & frie hh vie 4 cause | afin,V. 4. No, Laurel 1s not an indipenseble party. Laure] and Hardy agreed yw pag jantly and severally , mvhich mens Sole beng cohdary debtert, the —_ myht fh chave nho th calleet mjAdy] howe ta callect her credit share Ae ste in Refublic vs. Campos, being « Aiidary] debter of hid fatheg/ 16 also granted the immuarty piven % his fathn/and ms immediak family since the eallection on/dose, Sr. vill necestanly be a collection against his fapher which must nob be Allowed - dose Camprye., Trorefre, ince only ly 8 Sued, he stands be an agent of laurel This makes Laurel mat aa sndispea- Sabie party. fn Indispenfable party. accsrding p Ja.7, Rule 3 tf the Sof Gout, is dry _persoa party in interat/ without whem final desermi nationW. a Assuming Laurel «San indit pencable patty, the ‘nal court may solve the Phan impleader by _ issuing an order, upon ifts oF any party, inittahve er upon motion him & be impleaded. This iS the Rormndence in srdtr to [resi the non implegydaer and tan form wtf the of indrepensa- ble partie yh +, Rule 3 of He Rules it [esurt. | 7 devided differtat ly by jhe Supreme one | was dikmissed que fo the farlure fy imple Desphe fat, the common prachce appears the ssuanad of an oder 16 done by the Jeourt. whorl if if complied with, thin thot 1 Jns priblem, txept mily when such party _farle appear in coul?. On the Other Band, when if if Complicd with, Such falure will warrant Joe ditmittal of the case.WwW. monks noa- jmnpleadcr m the Gofien ay ner 4 grord for_dimusal. fe 7 agreement thus, pyttuant fh the Ins and Contrach, unher fre Guill non-impleadgr 1S MY a qound fer, 7 telitmiseal F the pohtion. wer, ¢ court may require hic pring and require! him /m be impleaded if iF finds st necessary. Therefart , ba m Stotion 9 and I of Rule 3 of the ~ pulis—tf [omurt, non: mpleader| of Mk, am a necessary pay, pe 4 gevind for fra Aiaicl if the cme.Year & Sec. SUBJECTTl alls id | ad ZOD (The 2Csns_—on9e [in_serondlng “tee ment £ Wn 8 Mn p_ttanignetat EA te S cfen when FF nadhntd the cag “Fo on ordinary EI oof gecieh) commended Houck phen jn_the First ola , itftas b DA over ares In this case, ithe ronteded “Hak tho SEC bas no jurk dictley a _te_citpuie, perce, it Ib etter tae ordirary tral cout or / ule He pedal commcio eth BIC Bony 85 admitted fot te 5 plomarclal tb quent t ! teh. fhe « lof frog RIC proveh BT fda no jac deta oko such/, Waits ordus gre a aullily ond ap no (oreo, 1A aca Renday x the. Supreme fourt bold yea proper thy to dlp has ro __jursotetiod is “to allow) dismiss « Aurea ver apposte, uber wrt awtg 2 case ty an anedlnony fact_is_abso ¢. Gunrondy nseree_y- FA Buildird) » enh, RTL Brandy 8 dowd have, dtvnbred the case fot loske op jusksdlickion-the tau. ta ya — Sujet fo" +e between the partig foreoner , 1 Now v- Jan He uct ciyentioed venue and wlisditign Tunis diction i auciorty do deciche, haar, ond dre. cave which eal eed | toy tha _Garsfhutfin_o7 loa @ 1s fre paw op de {re He _ parties. In_this cast, fre tony sous tol she BT low (owe itn TS is iawotrect” ai only He Vwi _yyitn Con enter diction. Ht must 0 vquied YEG ec PIL In Moni). In thd cose, gpd warrenty proipding egalayt 4h? _cyprestioa ia daletuin Wo sould be Abe, ‘Loatal ¢ die oye jufis dicho u iy _venvd_( ex: @ Iswe Ad ty cone ts aa ater, corpores Heme, RIC cant acquire _jurisclicn __wrerent _yode oy the beard ap _direotys~ He maith dismin He _caye pac lack. op —fuctichthibn ~ —_——| omroued Up ing | ee tel sant hte dat! es ews jad In_this cone, tne Pain perfor oF Adon Is got to Snake co pend the \prperhy ard ceed the. aue» (ood. Ah of anajhey orto, be yay dual amoyes) mech, enfeploy doveye verth ai 43 aleneys gees’ In computing rho docket gees, if mush te op the excluslan “danege and when it is_merely 9 lay ito petitioner Hee, Yre docker + |__}e__ vetoed = MoreOnet 1, puduont to Ae culing in Morehaner Devs Comp: v. A ond Mronce Oye Ud- v fsundon, the op tty) toult when Ao docket fees art pold or ea ae aed of nal s a REBDAABLE TNE ray shenisad [hati coe, fre was alta poyret+ Eyen assum __ |_it_was losuspicien, e_oay pay the proper coviet sd within o _paasonable amour res/ ae] San _Inuronee Opie Hanson suf ish_de_ ace i fre payee” A £ OE Mn-pa er £ lasuter [op docket pues, Hol Court mgd lal pat re“ proper mart ca es ft Hepat — fino eowunabie | oitourt/ oy yes her -claln by tre defender, a | “at aa! allyb ana omdurd of aly, _yure row, 3) In case fot tHe aa od wos _equivaler | _consttheles_a Men _Agointt tre a Here, appdng there ules, dhe hiked ule could poly + In te /coie fe words amoyech ture thon ph as alleged, it mutt perosa trot He / ones mutt be, subjert 40 docket ees Wy would 68 ax tien agodnt He quiardhe _divmissot, way ohper- An in pacant element essential pa _cae ts came-Pot ackion. A caw op ooh iy ocontalon taf’ vilates 0 clgnt of gpotter peau - Hs elements ores fre _o! # igh7 re i20 by Town) 2) fai boy) on. _obligadin 8 tthe” pki ome —oct/or omission _ by ‘pre. tights le be Lefont 0 bal Inti coho, Hero] marely the 50- hectard. papefty vith in_its_complaink- 6 stacla/“d with Uf attua hod to sup ~ vA ond yoidable oa ft_wuld not _povad He toss tyahey ord og unidable a TH lowks _suetlebenay tq_fot oF Option _connet be Under fre Ales, | bo! pane to state o | aution aang la op ome, Ce ohn ove — fee, / ismiese op he _ comptoy L.eh si fston (Adodeol te night of te defendant. action eons fret rare ts_ov LL. i deet alleqodyp of A cause 0 Ata _ Rowan tea wamoloint has | nsupticient pactuall basi to _ support |_it_ Far hen. Is a0 suppictect _ewtolenc is cash for _gailue tu sled a oF ad and (ck oF come of action, ore _vatidl gourds in_dismissing the core. FAC follwre_oF coun oF Ochions Ho Heme is_ 4 Fle a in this case, an “allegation Foor Herr auvedk re pmgerty held (a4 phn 4 | Hewat. In teh op Hela he mye “uid aad _vsioalle 4 Neuhoe_h oc 1 qaneces wore tn wht sah 0 Poo Sauk ge » ae meee jas une gS +edill _h leg a dudiuer is valid» et anh ce tre salldary Hc ytd tA a nc sia A Herein He Reidy oe Xont ALO, feuding to Hb div'l Code, delytor trou, act lof behalf of ald | Jong os _1f ull aur any prejugle Qo og “thy aynia - In_this_ghse wure| and Hh a) * ry dowa/_dersturs or “PIS. Mork ond Mady- Hence, te / aokon fof collector against Hardy Af’. kn _indtspensalee po on eeeindus persalele bee 70n fas n iinpleaole be ordre” and aly “upo ja wn TEI dibmiisod » IN Ute Phil Ino y= a he non -lnpleadic of Latte Pils Inc+_in Ate al oc respondents tm dhe eee pon at ar ae - ist in adietag the __proged my oid tein |y Howe de aophnCIVIL PROCEDURE - Final Examinations Ateneo Law School Justice M.E.D. Singh (2™ Sem, AY. 17-18) Instructions: Answer the questions directly and succinctly. Write legibly. Total 100 points. Return this questionnaire to the proctor after the examinations. Rodrigo sued Lourdes for Collection of a Sum of Money before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila. Because no answer was filed, the MeTC declared Lourdes in default, upon motion of Rodrigo, and rendered judgment by default, awarding the amounts prayed for by Rodrigo in his ‘Complaint. . Armed with a writ of execution of the judgment by default, the MeTC Shetiff waited for Lourdes at her office and then and there seized her motor vehicle: Lourdes was shocked to learn for the very first time that a judgment had already béen rendered against her. Lourdes filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and New Trial. She alleged collusion on the part of Rodrigo and the MéTC Sheriff in giving her address in the Complaint as “123 Matahimik Street,” wien her true address, which is known.to Rodrigo, is “128 Matahimik Street.” Thus, the MeTC failed to acquire jurisdiction over her person and the judgment is void. | Q1. Rule on the Omnibus Motion of Lourdes. (10 poiints) The MeTC issued an Order setting the Omnibus Motion for hearing and required Rodgrigo to file a comment. Rodrigo challenged the Omnibus Motion for being pro forma. He argued) that the Omnibus Motion did not contain the notice of hearing required under Rule 15 because it was addressed to the Branch Clerk of Court, and not to his counsel. Also, no hearing, was set as the notice merely stated “submitted for the immediate) consideration of the Honorable Court.” Q.2. Rule on Rodrigo’s objections to the motion. (10 points) (of 8The MeTC denied Lourdes’ Omnibus Motion. : | She filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order of denial. The .MeTC denied the motion outright for being a second motion for reconsideration. Q.3. Was the MeTC correct? (10 points) * Lourdes filed a Notice of Appeal with the Regional Trial Court, from the judgment by default, simultaneously paying the docket fees. However, Lourdes also filed a Petition for Injunction with appplication for.a writ of preliminary injunction assailing that denial of her motion for, reconsideration. She alleged that it was grave abuse of discretion for the MeTC to deny her motion outright for being a second motion for reconsideration considering «that the Omnibus Motion sought reconsideration of the judgment by default, and so, the subject matter of the two motions are different. « Q4. (@) Rodrigo moved to dismiss the appeal for being time-barred, considering that the judgment has long become final and executory, It was also the incorrect remedy. Should the appeal be dismissed? (15 points) (b) Rodrigo also moved to dismiss the Rule 65 petition on ground of forum shopping, Moreover, he posited that the ‘order of denial of the motion for reconsideration is not the proper subject of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Rule on Rodrigo's motion.(15 points) The RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction and enjoined the execution of the judgment by default. Rodrigo moved to dissolve the writ,of preliminary injunction on the ground that it is already fait accompli, considering that the motor vehicle of Lourdes had already been levied. Moreover, Rodrigo pointed out that the judgment by default has already become immutable and may no longer be altered. QS. Rule on Rodrigo's motion to dissolve writ eee points)The RTC denied Rodrigo's motion to dissolve the writ of preliminary, injunction. The Sheriff thus proceeded with execution. He set the auction sale of Lourdes’ motor vehicle. Preparatory to the auction, the Sheriff required Lourdes to tum over the owner's copies of the OR and CR of the vehicle, as well as its duplicate keys, But Lourdes refused to comply. Rodrigo thus filed a motion with the MeTC to order Lourdes to comply and it was granted. Despite personal service of the order on Lourdes, she still refused to comply. “Rodrigo filed a motion to cite Lourdes in indirect contempt of court with the ‘MeTC. The MeTC granted the motion and cited Lourdes for indirect contempt. It issued a warrant for the arrest of Lourdes. Lourdes moved for reconsideration of the order citing Her in’ indirect, contempt, and prayed for the warrant of arrest to be quashed. Q.6. Rule on Lourdes! motion. (15 points) ‘Assume that the case had gone to trial. Rodrigo moved for the issuance of subpoena ad testificandum against Lourdes to be his adverse witness.» Lourdes opposed the motion. Rodrigo did not resort to any of the modes of discovery prior to trial. Q.7. Rule on Rodrigo's motion. (15 points)Name—Annnitie. Koy 6. Chan Subject__O1Vil Prom rs 8 Year&Sec.__28 04288 __ Professor_usndr Singh ” De eae enor UNIVERSITY LAW SCAOOLpened of D9 sour Marie clog CRaay or jibe elf prThy Met. gy dniprcreorey Accorciing Hum Rui of Burt) 2 secokel Monon4H Led - ics nd waee 2) “Roanigo' monoaiy if ctiens saglod 10 Noe oF fe et Aid QalohOela NY ¢ Rg ree — E FE ‘ F a =: NY H CUTER REE 4 eo hubttein..» Civil Procedure ~ Final Examinations Ateneo Law School Justice M.D. Singh (2 Sem, A.Y. 16-17) Instructions: Answer the questions directly and succinctly. Write legibly.Total 100 points, Return this questionnaire to the proctor after the examinations. I. Mario and Luigi entered into a business venture, with Mario as the capitalist and Luigi as the industrial partner. Since Luigi was the designated Manager, he demanded that he be paid a monthly salary over and above his monthly share in the profits. Mario refused on the ground that Luigi's contribution to the business venture was precisely his work, hence he is not entitled to be paid for it. Because of the impasse, Luigi stopped reporting for work. Mario had to hire a replacement Manager to take over. Mario sued Luigi for breach of contract and damages. He prayed for the rescission of their joint venture agreement. Luigi counterclaimed asking for specific performance, claiming his entitlement to the payment of salaries for the entire period he worked as Manager. 1.) (a) What is the nature of Mario's action and where is the proper venue for it? [10 points] (b) Assume that in Mario's and Luigi's agreement, they stipulated thus: "Any dispute arising from this agreement shall be filed in the courts of Quezon City." Is Mario's choice of venue restricted to Quezon City? [10 points} Mario failed to file a reply to the Answer with Counterclaim of Luigi, Luigi filed a Motion to Declare in Default against Mario praying for judgment on’ the pleadings. Mario opposed the motion alleging that he did not have to file a reply since all the new matters alleged in the Answer are deemed dontroverted. (¢) Should Mario be declared in default? [10 points] (@) If Mario is declared in default, should judgment on the pleadings be granted? [10 points] I, Batman sued Robin for the collection of a sum of money. Summons was issued and the Process Server filed a Return stating that summons was attempted to be served on Robin but he could not be found at his home address so summons was served on the security guard of the subdivision. | ofa(a) Was there a valid substituted service of summons on Robin? [10 points) (b) If Robin cannot be located, how may the court acquire jurisdiction over Robin? [10 points] j | Judgment by default was rendered against Robin after he was declared in default. (c) Enumerate all the remedies, cumulative and alternative, available to Robin to question the judgment.Discuss each remedy stating the grounds on which each may be granted, the period for availment, and the proper court where it may be filed. [40 points] —END— 2eot4 |SENINA YSACELLE M- Gunners’ Nore subject CIVIL PROCEDURE ———._ veorasec,_28 17 316 _the nobue Mario's action for _breach_c conbact a mages is oy Action Tin PeeSONAN achon n_persotam/*f 7 directed fo a specifi SON, AS of tedl_aicbon “which “is aie a ic oe Ih Wis case, Mavio j\s_going_j tai f robservance_OF ins of Contac ae into. Hence | Mario is aski e to d&ide on the specific _lidbili lig’ or Molding Their act yeement di f id oe s wm d_Tiability on he pers Luigi us is erschdl ion Rules Gyft, caily in Rule 4 did down “the ¢ "venies for hi Ochons. H_Was_s} that the “venue: ie | sonal Actions _As__wheie hn of the mt_tesideés cl “Ye election’ lone. Te was dio/enunddtted in the Maigos - __ Araneta _v- Minglasan Wat proper venue | Ks |___ Arai ies zt is_where he plainer or i int _\esides END [Peewee ee ee eee eee eerie| Wing’ cholce “ce _venue ig NOT reshicbed 4 do Quezon City. TEs an Important Feature [ or vil pexetitie|hdt venlle oF actions can bd waved/or at be, albpeck of sty lagion the Aparves J Tbnever,” when’ partes enteral bp_ar/ageémefit on enue Otsing (ein_thk do =o “wit in This case] Maric and Lg eed to reshct | ‘heir choice dr venue tp /Cuexn _t Sheir_skpuldtig” “hd not alin ony Yeshichve woos of phrase that Arould ford chher aus To hear of ty the cae. In Hie case id Bathing V.7Rensuayy, ine Supreme Cou held hat “the Idiot resbicting re choice’ q whe Ww one pide dead oo iin CLEAR dd [| ___Uvewuivocan _Resreicrow tha} would explicit Qe the pression that parties opted “fo Thal specigi” “venue with cut ge el END ince/ Natio and Luigi’s agreement lack s- LdFic/ restriction hat “deput® atling pom thie oonhact shuld be Filed ‘Onty ih Quezon Gh chus | FF will not preclude offer Courts We hear the cise JENcy O_cOmpalior te coutfteclam BHO ss one ue 2 uc an LuigisQun- beiien ene wna and can) Ende aid em be and can resect sewed py / a id aoe Ochon Suis. ne 1s 7inghuchve Yhat although His / important pon Ub “that = Teter“ Fe i ik _f is_onhNo- atio_s_dedared in epault: 5 sudonent on the pleadings soul tot_Ye gia Bet pt on ings / p ke anger pal few ee i te! onsier foils 6 speupally deny eg cis ue tte is 4o_tender [an] Issue, ailses whey here was no answer Filed, red theres ZEilure Ww de acto iCagtayante A vie 1s_negees pre: ‘EN L UZ a + that Mgtio was _declared_in ! [default ‘will not _ayfomatailly result to the giant _¢ ‘ea ofthe pleadings. || le dM DRISA Dat Selared in cepetdi | Ge _consequencty Soil b |NO- “thee was fe did subsiiuked service | summons on Robin. Semice’ oF summons 74 ne OF the vital composition: §F Mdidal pbes beaaule His Through service "oF sumrpZis Sha OF We derepdont. 7 Simmons shéyé be Jeived tal” by by _pecandl sewice_ay/by tendering | __ Sibstrivrte He Elisobush ond Rey vere nel sponses anyribre Ot te fine of Redy duo. E Wer, vill sottea! she rae Ihethe RTE tng L 06 © ent wih genvol jateaiatn Is empewnd ® rate pen mated whch Ow necestony b reseve The [ieee Gemplani oteged. In vhs ease the ashen involves Tar aout of sale Trova os ploiniys WaT but rothas she i apereing apot poten he Mgt | __poctherhip ¢ nectar be oddresnd ir odes 4 rifles LON I Given the foregag , Ie RIC should WeT hove Oisamisted the case.fees ef ketene ee must & mond hor the acher i mi cove chon, be annulment 6 sole and NOT ___a spetlal preceeding ts sweh, | he Rules whith provide thor fhe Seitement Of the esloke o fhe deceated { if he is on inhabitant of the Philippines, mutt be Biled|in he MIC/RIC 0s the base may be, whick hat yuridicin ovr te ple whar| he ducedunh eerie 2h time of ht deat dees Nor opply tn taco it 1i jmmaterial thet Rody resided 1 Bohol ar the Kme hit deer as Yi ease involves Qn ordn achen a The Rule Shick provides joe ihe Vonwe pertonlig to the reSdinca 4 th deseoved of Be tm y Ke deo Opphes only tw spesial pacecdirgs on the Semen edie HY wel eon Sul tx en or Satmd, it must be acted Worl there a obshchen behuite,joindten end wert EU Grtuming fie potlomand vf estore, the ATE wth id ok togdjoné_q ie cate hodipehwtehis wer absest i Cyl Teesaeel sca fal eee 4 Suaschcnon os grantee by low whereas Verve oy [ be face! by the porter. Ih tN Cote, thera i notin LL show wor Ameybee questioned He/ETe based on rmpapervene - Ar such she Woived her agnt te = gucci te Some Given the foregnny , the CA wrong fir afpomirg ttldinmaroi oh ta wie,G+ & Yes me RTE chonis obey Brybrng & mierene Fis submitted! that the Cepmiton a on °inkvested putten* urdlae the ertinary Rilet shall apply Wis Seltlemenr eose 0% the former & procheabie je, ib guid) rah asrup) the late tpeciol prtceding An inteethd potty ti ime Gack whe hos a ago! Fight 4 ‘nlevene , Ve. he stondls be be Drecly Offected by tne prndug ths right must nat he tontinguar or mahooke Gs pavided! under lus Spas omce i beng i aly an tlegihmare ben, oF he Ulam be, he Lan miervene ae iit clear hat he stands A be alindebly Oppected by the |_emenrertare momma pote a emly wequired # be given Yo the kelowal huni ar me tmé qhe patnon. Inmnb core, see, 2 pestioner, Knus] wot Rody had an Tegran fon. AS Such, the towed Nor have pr Given te foregong , Benghong ws Nor enti¥ed 7 nee.Tae filer pavice thot any hair, deve ,legane,sor ny paren Che hes Gay mierh m tha estore th _ the devemsed may fle @ poAnon fr the probare 2.9 wil toa Tye bay Ba Wis ane win tw Wan, As ch to Tor arordog bsg the potine! Wf Cru Given the firegerig the Are fi eomeel fre denyi Korina's eppesitirn anol giving olue eovrse 2. Yes_the Are it Lorect 115 Bettled unde junspmid ence ules wick Provide tar | the Sbrertong wrmesier must teehfy 9 NOT mand Ha also prowdedl thar other otnester moy be preseatcel the Sutsuitng umneties Ore Unatie h kshfy becouse ee re ee ee ee ids Tn th Gain, wh chad tat Warde, we Fubsero Womens uve Urcbb fy ternfy|Dored om vand gras ie. Billon Peter had migrated #1 Yushaha | Antic uns caught 16 @ Uosspird sthib Gringo hedjonad NPA» Tonsprcléne provider at the presentation el ett ry be pet ot —_— of the nit Aets been estabhshed. nthe ease, the nota Den har Reyes Ae Such, it Submihed yar Huh already Supwisnt admit ‘he wit probate « Given tee frreganng , the ATE, ik oorect fer overnilng Korinas objechen a eememmmmeenumenamenalep Send mind, the decedent need Nor how 1 ful Mento! faculnet wshanued ty ony elteare We]she shal be tonsil esd te be og tevnd mond en i hejshe 13 aware gq | GD he note q hs estore GOs pope elyeats ap Ine trusty 8 G) the characke oy ho Kehomentay at ies coHled ts te rule that Yre decedent reed aor Lh Suppictenrt War heres macly aware g hi fhe- Eee In this case, the rere foer Hat Den Mar wes Tene end forgual OF tans g Me sgecu nr Aa Wil ts inSappicitrr te everuome the presumphon ror hel op Seana mind» Merebher the mere feet hak Don Mar did ror knew ‘Re tharacles gna valuey Ai! estore on #05 Somply leo huge Baise insupperent — lmvpugn hs capacity" A mentoned , ihe détedent a Only needs “me neatly Kerrie tte nati, of he estate. | Siren the foregnip, thu RTC u Correct for i denying Korina’s trohon fir "oensidaarion -bovi_Dy Po_u termes jer the Rule ite erate ray he_dene if thw decedent leg! no wail, no detiz Gnd att herd legal Agel, miners eprteted fT by ther legal guarchace porfeipared tern by ekeeunng Q publid Inthwndal and mpisheng Hel Same 1 tha Reguthy Gj Disds Such echapet wsdl Gtveman! shell ro) be binding b Ony troluded hate pre, He Seflemen Chall be veld + Jatic dose, tis clear thet Lovl Dy Pe did nor pocheipand in Ne Seltonvend Agreement fs such fie setener Gyreemunh dt veel ab Ate cue her evelusion [ Given re | levi by Pom f______Givan era fevegersa _y fovi Dy Po mey pray 4 fr me Ric be cecloe At Remep Ogresmnt | veld ob miro On| Extrajudi eval SeMtiementB20. boviidy fo ww Ch thewgh Seftiement agreement ls Wid at inno because She Wer Wor imclucted thee , the Subfeguear fale made by Crain 6 rol hecessonig Void The suoseg u on Sole teetizemmr by Grava ty Chive Duden 1 valid 0s wo Gracie s Shore 1A th estate HH enust bei foled har Grawa's ight or shaw eve the estate refioah fp the hme oy deci - adopete fer share Lime Peper. Gitar te fregong, #4 Subvequen Fale ! ati thy Gracia w Chnee x vand as ¥ Crmio's ge hoe ; ie gubnned jonare had even theagh the = AC needs Ld Le As Sach, Levi Dy Pe may FHM annul the Sa'c! Sale - “th fours, Chnes bought He Pr pety fom a ae As Gluch, there was Shi Or, Onrorahon ia ke wxthuded hevs Arediters 6. whaug Sao 2 tinh tee pending Qnratanon , Chivee Cannot pf - Given the foregeng patttolgh te Sale Hi valid as bh Gacet Shan, @ levi Dy Po have He ‘annulled because b we W aanoranen ciggeese fe Thine When Ohirae prrhored Hef 4 Hee vetrajuabeual cetera A prerely ponder he cluraten op 0 “hen” ove the particular propeher tuGek oy fe SeMttnent- Other Stoked on excluded l hea’ may ch) dam te pecheulee popenes invalved fem itn for the tt 16 te Settlement He ved ie ne [jp —____-t setfemene [tinprdedie CE Tad Kar { on eweluded Miay Clem he Harn cede iy ii et Ht Parrot papers cate yond te 3g See ten I __ He Said propthes an wi he possessor o — pep p "i (OD hen rie who parrupated 1 the i Rakypdiced? Seitlerend [or CB) Subsequent fin eahrapuies) Seth embet 15 vid 06 mio Oni! as suth, an Qchen t Queshon ihe mpreseipatie i Parenprer wuld mly be arena) of h He spupe cause G ache war wil by reused by He plamnge (Ce -g- if based on # years based on rusts, (0 ____ Pr retenveging Me proper mvetvenl Givenite fregong , Grace ond San Po ave 7 woreng for bwokeg _presteiptio bared! en S00. #, Fuk 74Ot Yer As _chseuned i WE preceding number, On Seluded her may srd Haim he parhenlas propened ___Pestorning fh her Shon) Mar mre tnvelred 1c He | Settlement thin 3 yocus Yh Seittornent eee yeas fom th § Lp by te claw g the decedeab . Junsprdence hag dd that on excluded her may claves tee Sid orhowlar pM perhés wy even beyond the d-yeer en” fhe. Setel pr Que tk Hh possession oy he C7) hare Whe perboipoted in Me MG conte justi eee! [_ ; CiMtersed oy > Iubsesbect buyat wi bed |} — sf ee | A dvenssed wa TCO 9, rt 6 submiied hat | three Dadere 1s abrir m bad forth 18 bait ase , Under He facts, Ghiree baugh fhe Subpech —pepichy ion Gracia Leger fom te ear eel Semone AS Sah Hee Was hil On Ganctatren i Hh fie ge sad poperhy steteg He porsile yah date excludes Mies) ecech tert und ar a goer esas popes a Co echryualeenas Settemente Susrpwd ence Las held tak bugier ure ES arhas_uiMk pening anndtonem purchase pop P y ia he HWE thea, Ce Considand brugact in bad faith the Sellen. faust go bey md what oo “is staked i the tile Absent Such pach, Chrven Dhdtars is “eet, NOT buyer im quod’ fam «AS Such Lov Dy Pots aim agaush Chiree Duderd may shill priper even bey mel te Regier hen” ever He propetySpecial Proceedings — Final Examinations Ateneo Law School: Justice M.F.D. Singh ces Sem, A.¥. 17-18) Instructions: Answer the questions directly and succinctly. Write legibly: Total 100 points. Return this questionnaire to the proctor after the examinations. L Juan and Juana are American citizens, but have been residing in the Philippines for more than 30 years. Juan passed away and left a will where he bequeathed his entire estate to Juana, save for a condominium unit in Rockwell, which he devised.to their adopted son, Juanito. Atty. Cruz and Atty. Santos were appointed joint executors. During Juan's lifetime, the two lawyers were his legal.counsel. Juan's will was admitted to probate and Atty. Cruz and Atty. Santos took their oath and commenced with the administration of Juan's estate preparatory to distribution, in accordance with Juan's’ testamentary dispositions. Atty, Cruz, however, passed away. Atty. Reyes, Atty. Cruz's law partner, continued discharging Atty. Cruz’ duties as joint executor. After Juan's estate had been distributed, Atty. Reyes and Atty. Santos moved to be paid: their executors’ fees. Juanito objected He argued that Atty. Santos alone was entitled, as the death of Atty. Cruz ended the commission. In his reply to the opposition, Atty. Reyes countered that since he performed ‘acts which redounded to the benefit of the estate, and benefitted both Juana and Juanito, they cannot deny him, the fees. Moreso, as he was a law partner of Atty. Cruz, it is their law partnership that should be deemed to have been appointed as joint executor of Juan's estate. Rule on the claim of Atty. Reyes. ( 10 points) I. Pedro and Petra owned a cohvenience store. Because they needed additional capital, they borrowed P1M from ABC Bank and constituted a mortgage on their farnily home. Pedro and Petra defaulted on their loan’ and ABC resorted to the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage. ‘A. Pedro and Petra sought to enjoin the auction sale of their family, home, arguing that it is exempt from execution. ABC Bank maintained that since the family home's value exceeded P.5M because of the recent renovations introduced by Pedro and Petra. using the loan, the exemption cannot apply. Is Pedro and Petra's family home exempt from a forced sale? ( 10 points) B. No injunction was issued. Hence, the auction proceeded and the family, home was sold to ABC Bank as the highest bidder for the amount of P.5M. Considering ‘that the loan: is for PIM, ABC Bank brought a case forCollection of Sum of Money against Pedro and Petra to recover the deficiency of R.5M. Petra méved to dismiss the case on the ground that Pedro has, in the ‘meantime, already passed away. Invoking Section 6 of Rule 86, which directs the filing of a claim for sum of money based on a solidary obligation as a claim against the estate in the proceedings for the intestate settlement of the estate of the deceased co-debtor. * ; Is Petra correct?-( 10 points) mw Mario and Maria are childless. Their kasambahay Lolita confessed to them that she was pregnant, but the father had run away/and refused to acknowledge his responsibility. Mario and Maria offered to’ adopt the. child of Lolita in exchange for which, Lolita asked to be given money to.return to her home province and start her own business, to start anew. Upon the birth of the child, they. named him Maridnito and declared him the légitimate child of Mario and Maria in the Certificate of Live Birth. Mario passed away when Marianito was 3 years-old. Maria, after a year of. mourning, married Renato. Thereafter, Maria and Renato had 3 children in succession. 2 Because she loved Marianito and wished to erisure Marianito's status as her legitimate heir, Maria filed a petition for adoption. At that time, Marianito was 15 years old, and her children with Renato were 7,9 and 10 years old. In support of the adoption, Maria submitted the, written consent of Renato and their 10-year old daughter. Lolita’ opposed the petition for adoption. She claimed that Marianito was forcibly taken away from her because Maria had found out that Marianito was really her lovechild with Mario. Maria thus caused her to leave by threathening her with physical harm. | | Maria countered that even assuming that it was true, Lolita has abandoned Marianito. Should the petition be granted? Is it sufficient in form and substance? (15 points) Iv. | Praxedes filed a petition for correction of entries in her Certificate of Live Birth under Rule.108 of the Rules lof Court, impleading her parents and the Civil Registrar. She prayed for the correction of the following entries: 1. Her first name from “Praxedes” to “Filomena” because that is the name she has used since birth and in all her, school and other public:records. Besides, Praxedes is a ®name that she associates with a bad memory from her childhood. 2. Her date of birth from “Tuly 25, 1969” to "June 25, 1969,” this being merely a clerical error. . 3, Her gender from “male” to “female” because she was born and is anatomically female. 4. Her surname from ‘delos Santos,” the surname of her father, to “dela Rosa,” the surname of her mother, because her parents were never married and her father has refused to support her. 5, The Date and Place of Marriage of her parents from “April 1, 1966” to “Not Married,” because her parents were never married. : Adtiress each of the foregoing prayers and nile on whether the petition should be granted on each ground. ( 5 points for each ground; 25 points total) v. Maximo is obsessed with Candida. He’ follows Candida, everywhere, both physically and virtually. Candida is scared. She knows that Maximo is a very powerful warlord in their town and is very well connected to both police and military men. She is also aware that Maximo is facing a kidnapping case filed by the parents of his former mistress, who has gone missing. } Candida received a text message from Maximo stating: “I can no longer wait. ‘Tomorrow, you will be mine.” ‘i A. May Candida file a petition for the issuance of a writ of Amparo against Maximo? ( 10 points) | B. Assume that Candida also filed a criminal case against Maximo for Grave Threats and by virtue of a warrant issued by the court, Maximo was arrested. Maximo filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to secure his liberty alleging that the warrant of arrest was addressed to one “Max Batungbakal” when his real name is “Maximo Batongbacal.”” The tiial court issued a writ of habeas corpus addressed to the Jail Warden. directing him to bring Maximo to court and explain the cause of his detention. On the date set for hearing, the Jail Warden appeared and submitted his return of the writ. The trial court expunged the return and ordered the Jail Warden to file an answer, under pain ‘of contempt. Despite lapse of the period given, the Jail Warden did not file an answer. ‘The trial court ‘rendered a judgment granting the petition and directing the release of Maximo. @1. Did the trial court err in issuing the writ to the Jail Warden, directing him to appear and explain the cause of Maximo's detention? (5 points) 2. Did the trial cour err in requiring an answer and expunging the return? (5 points) 3. Did the trial court ert in rendering the judgment upon non-filitig of the answer? (5 points) . 4. Did the trial court err in granting the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus? (5 points) eeName. Come tog A ey Subject _Spetiot_ Precio Year&Sec i Professor visti. Som | Date_Jum tog LAW. SCHOOL 1d SCOREaly Cun ov fn edaduof END 7 etal. END | eio END _| | Ahn aya ead pallu yeh 1000 END 7 Haran. the caas aha pint pene ond die. Beceae Unu Ay. RyAe aubjedtd dn Ahi cant Mauch, 24 cud onyft than 7300.00. th! furud vale phe nalue Aged Areradsient amily hom auutlid PS00,000,___| the_feanily hom ina 2 if Phad 2ole ond“Yo, tia 2 tava jon wit END L Quonding ds fuk yl), aimo agonal the salad concshmny falida bb ans of the decsatnd. hall be L fle in_the sot tA ycingd dsepootd, 00 if th i baler _ i at aiale thd) pf clou pg af tf dk vinditun Yon an Huo pina Pedha and’ Piha du palitory ‘debtors fet fo t ihn dain fas, ape te hubsi ing arn the sal al Howwisn, vptuuithotondiy th ditwosun above. HO fouk prrludyA ram filing a fi fim. Shr option ant malvally vactise Yauch thd! a Aeeoht Lo yey th opbow L hau! the Adoont bth e obitsND Marentn, the pa aylaal attach the Mbiton oy - adkop don didnEND ND gfop te, i 0 yeas eld oh eld SM tg Dimak Biden of headed if 10_yrote_dld do olde YY Liting” with ‘adeps fra Wo ah Aa apouee, o, Liat ty mate Aven f “odnptue, if ony. YW te cpouw ant Wegally apahated ‘vind 0 fuser oad auboteny. itimabe 0h LoitaAcordia umatit tho Kialorraa pons laf’ abonden ousd ib can Bi N Materrun hic PANN) a9ppoeid 2 ul | goal dh ptt oo maf) | Fi Duerding 2b the cone polition. 2 cauit dhawld seu fal. donde oxional aad filo /a The ppidition abeul nat ba gn 0a Mouo eomply Pr Wy pio kdphal and Jr. Aegyikynendh Ld abe 2 fu fis pre fo etdenal hid mun estan “ in Aatita a manionido.change nome abould finet pra filed wilh gohan - Kuao! Mm Muds 103 and fhe 108 sofort L adlowud 2 adoindhaln putch w piled a “a. END tf is Hs fla fea aie bs D ate 0 sido. 190%f ult Acker on 10 ja Dui 0_pyprtute EMD the tew naa rm a in Ae wl it childboed Ond she 10. ll weld umf ion ‘ENB dn Hia com Poon ali ie ah and 0a chal ond fos und eer tN — ool aaa fawn, ghe a petition Jun corbufhion of enbusg ondado thi ease, Praccedor morse)» Jor han Sint clay foo 208 ta gure 26 Ad Ahi Iuing meaty cana. | cid x gO i llourd vida RN IW: dina Plated file 0. puttin auld de diemioed Yo iaabnw Aum soln vad 2 nln ule Jos._auuch Lihaumation Ag mentionda ae oh anguny hel a vein ead cael — ahe filed ale piston unin Ault WO? udh rruet be aw 8B 1? nyhda tn thal on ilps ebalt’ pelidin wy : he fi nda £A 90v%. 0 Auth pation px, lenitd (titirn fh ny OZ0d peat auch/ rat vain END fl ——n_ Hie Anan oa — ples Cs Phofudn gnotdearinb pad a should’ aloo ratty pubbialiia and pobliny tia END See ea — tle aon Bialn deiSnphed. aod ti Bin, 2 (Ok pusemas Cou publica a Aang. END a aiden nual dnoulo=ND ZL td pouyty smphioded bm path ond Zh auld hah ales inplraded | dub patidnal anandoo Y try. fee 10 becouse abs sulie adhe itl mditd 2 nid math artic! changePree me proyld prom ob tauiht ond " Yidhias cakoye Bhauld n Ahaald be attoved, na? by dy 0 Mabion doa bp sQtuocND Ds ba shoensg he yong haul : wth Meant an cay Be ded pd vandlngh of he foil Jue pe d natin END nthe cote. a etunn yuoo p:LedZond tbs eaviry plsld bo nadie seul n-ne jug pro neni sath era on august 10 wd Hk com 4 At Li onayhd thet bya th taust Agni on anew,te the prinvisge ify aratlabls 20 ou whe wor dfuive unlausl Arial count Ahauld Rone deaitnd ad lini ed th pition whe seal Ane at ynoy Aue too ifn yroidond of adrut- END My fun _pudied fir Le QUAL jrubea! iyi we he yuld of car sare _tp_nstSpecial Proceedings Justi cl Ateneo Law School Final Examination Cip6 | 2% Sem, SY 2015-2016 Instructions: Answer each question clearly, succinctly, and completely. Write legibly. Return this questionnaire to the proctor with your bluebook after taking the exam. (10 points per number, total of 100 points) 1 | . Pedro Penduko filed a petition for correction bf entries in his Certificate of Live Birth before the Regional Trial Coutt (RTC) of Quezon City. Named as sole respondent was the Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City. Pedro alleged that he is an illegitimate son of Jose Penduko and Maria Makiling. However, his) birth certificate states that his parents were married in Laguna on December 23, 1989. | His birth certificate also shows that his mother's first name is Mariana|and that his date of birth is April 11, 1991 when his true date of birth) is April 10, 1992. Pedro thus made the following prayer in his petition: (a) for the cancellation of the entry as to the date and place of marriage of his parents, to be replaced by "NA"; (b) for the correction of his mother's first name from "Mariana" to "Maria"; and, (c) for the correctioh of his date of birth from "April 11, 1991" to "April 10, 1992." } | The RTC dismissed the petition for insufficiency in form and substance. Did Pedro avail of the correct remedy in seeking: Q.1. the cancellation of the entry as to the date and place of marriage? | Q.2. the correction of his mother's first name? Q.3. the correction of his date of birth? Jof3 |Lam-ang and Urduja were husband and wife. They obtained a loan from Banco Adarna in the amount of 3Million pesos. They secured this loan with a real estate mortgage on their farm and a chattel mortgage on their tractor. Due to La Nifia, the crops in the spouses' farm were destroyed and they failed to meet their loan amortizations. Worse, their farmhand Juan Tamad recklessly drove their tractor while intoxicated and run over the carabao of their neighbor Bantugan, resulting in the carabao’s untimely demise. Due to stress over these developments, Lam-ang succumbed to a heart attack and was survived by Urduja and their minor twins, Florante and Laura. | Urduja filed a petition for the settlement of the estate of Lam-ang with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City Branch 1. She prayed for the issuance of Letters of Administration in her favor. The estate court appointed Urduja as the administratrix of Lam-ang's estate Prior to Lam-ang's death but before summons could be served, Banco Adarna sued Lam-ang and Urduja for Sum of Money and Replevin with the RTC Branch 2 of Quezon City. It prayed for: (1) the payment of the loan obligation plus interest; and, (2) the recovery of possession of the tractor which was purchased using part of the loan of the spouses. The RTC Branch 2 dismissed the complaint on ground of the death of Lam- ang. It directed Banco Adarna to file the case before the estate court. | On or about the same time, Bantugan sued Lam-ang, as owner of the tractor, and Juan Tamad, as Lam-ang's driver-employee, for damages, in the sum of 1Million pesos, arising from negligence that resulted in the death of Bantugan's carabao. The RTC of Quezon City Branch 3 also Zz aoaal|dismissed the complaint and directed Bantugan to file his claim before the estate court. \ Q.4. Was RTC Branch 2 correct in dismissing the complaint for sum of money and replevin? If your answer is YES, what is Banco Adarna's remedy? \ | Q.2. Was RTC Branch 3 correct in dismissing the complaint for damages? If your answer is YES, what is Bantugan's remedy? Q.3. Assuming that Banco Adarna instead filed a claim against the estate of Lam-ang before Branch y for the outstanding balance of the loan, what are its remedies in case it is unable | to collect the full value of its claim? | Q.1. (a) When is the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus available? | | Q.1. (b) When is the privilege of the writ of amparo available? Q.1. (c) When is the privilege of the writ of habeas data available? | G.2. Discuss the individual's right to informational privacy in rn l. . . | the use of online social networking sites. |Nome — Maka, Moptih papnace thyfind corrtefed-|____Howevie, the altima taute af akon of Relalin Wot t rise. Under Rade £4, Mech, actors Fo le op) proper 4mags. Under stdie, bn an_eéfate » hfe the. \vedtement” Quit ag4 LMM OR _Mcnley ered an Actin based onsi otened | BLY, thon then i sual iso 9 on ot be pit resem of « poten, by a PuaUe or _pRWete Inde al or jin Wie abvence, in tha ft ror, apis myadro wl by fib lg thal OR oR, fl lin oo pasty es Ntmt, — 06 faba dili a0, 1B a