University of San Agustin

College of Law
Remedial Law Review 1
Final Examination
January 29, 2021
Judge Globert J. Justalero

Q1. In an action for recovery of a sum of money, the plaintiff averred in the complaint
that “on January 15, 1990, the defendant obtained a loan from the plaintiff in the sum of
P100, 000. 00 which he promised to pay on or before July 15, 1990 plus interest
thereon at the rate of 18% per annum from January 15 1990 until fully paid” and that
“the aforesaid loan has long been overdue but, despite repeated demands, the
defendant failed and refused, and still fails and refuses to pay to the plaintiff the
aforesaid sum of P100, 000. 00 and the accrued interest.”
Answering the complaint, the defendant denied the aforeqouted averments and
gave the reason for the denial his lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of said averments.
What is the effect of such denial? With such form of denial, what course of action
may be availed of by the plaintiff? Explain.

The denial amounts to an admission. In an action for foreclosure of mortgage,

when the facts and the actionable document incontrovertibly show that the defendant
executed the document, the denial thereof is a denial in bad faith and consequently,
considered under the rules to be an admission.

Since there is an admission on the material averments, there will be no triable

issue and the admission is considered as answer of the defendant, the plaintiff may
henceforth move for the judgment on the pleadings.

Q2. Cuartana filed an action against Perana for the recovery of P30, 000. 00. Cuartana
annexed to the complaint Perana’s promissory note acknowledging the indebtedness
and alleged that the indebtedness remains unpaid. For failure of Perana to deny under
oath the promissory note, Cuartana moved for summary judgment. Perana opposed the
motion on the ground that non-payment of an indebtedness is a negative allegation of
the right upon which the cause of action is based; that it must, therefore be proved; and
that presentation of evidence is essential. Rule on the motion giving your reasons.

The motion must be granted. The rules do not require that every negative
allegation of a right upon which the cause of action is based must always be presented
with evidence. What the rules require is that a specific denial of a material allegation in
the complaint must be made under oath if it is based on actional document.

A Promissory Note is an actionable document that a specific denial as to the

genuineness and due execution thereof needs to be made under oath.

Q3. Juan Santos appeals the decision against him (in an ejectment case) to the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) which affirmed in toto the lower court’s decision. Juan
Santos then filed a motion for reconsideration. Maria Cruz (plaintiff) moves to strike out
the motion for reconsideration as it is a prohibited pleading under the Rule on Summary
Procedure. Is this tenable? Decide with reasons.

The Regional Trial Court in taking cognizance of an appeal from the First Level
Court, although not in full-blown trial, is not governed by the Rules on Summary
Procedure. It is the First Level Court that is governed by said rules wherein Motion for
Reconsideration is a prohibited pleading. Such prohibition does not apply to the
decisions of the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
Q4. A decision of the RTC adverse to Delia was received by her counsel on 13 January
1994. As Delia was leaving for Canada, she forthwith instructed her counsel to appeal
because according to her she was prevented from fully presenting her case in court
through fraudulent acts of the prevailing party. When Delia returned from abroad on 1
August 1994, she discovered that her case was not appealed as her counsel had died a
day after she left. Moreover, the other party has filed a motion for issuance of a writ of
execution which remains pending in court.
As new counsel of Delia, what course or courses of action will you pursue to
protect her interest?

As new counsel of Delia, I will file an Opposition to the Motion for Issuance of
Writ of Execution in the interest of due process and substantial justice. It may be true
that the period to appeal has prescribed and that notice to counsel is considered as
notice to party, however, the instant case is exceptional in character wherein the party
has instructed her counsel to appeal the decision but due to the death of the latter, sans
her knowledge, appeal was not made. Granting the motion for execution will deprive
Delia her substantial rights.

Q5. “A” obtained a judgment against “B” for the payment of money. For failure to
appeal, the judgment became final on July 5, 1975. The writ of execution was returned
unsatisfied, for the sheriff was unable to find property of “B” subject to execution. On
June 30, 1984, “A” located some property of “B.” Whereupon, “A” immediately filed in
July 1984 a motion for the issuance of an alias writ of execution. If you were the judge,
would you grant the writ? Why?

Yes, the Motion for Issuance of Alias Writ of Execution should be granted. A
decision may be executed by Motion within 5 years from the date of its finality or by an
Action within 10 years from finality. The issuance of a writ of execution, although
returned unsatisfied, has toll the 5-year prescriptive period within which to execute the
judgment.

Thank You So Much

FRANCISCO, CYRIL C.
JD 4C