University of San Agustin

College of Law
Midterm Examination
In Remedial Law Review 1
December 4, 2020

Q1. Is there a need for the man to be joined as a party in a suit filed by the wife if they
are living separately? Explain your answer?
No, the wife need not necessarily be joined as party. Although the rule requires that
husband and wife must sue or be sued jointly, this rule however does not apply in the
following instances, to wit:
1. Spouses are judicially separated;
2. When spouses are in fact separated for more than a year;
3. When there is separation of properties between parties agreed upon marriage
settlements;
4. When administration of all properties has been transferred to one spouse;
5. When the litigation is between the husband and the wife;
6. If the suit concerns a paraphernal property;
7. If the action is upon a civil liability arising from a criminal offense;
8. If the litigation is incidental to a profession, business or occupation in which
one spouse is engaged; and
9. In actions upon quasi-delicts.

Q2. During the pendency of an action for recovery of possession of a real property, the
plaintiff died survived by several heirs. There was a notice of death filed with the court
but the latter did not issue an order requiring the appearance of the representatives. It
merely issued an order admitting the motion for substitution. Trial was conducted and a
judgment was rendered. Some of the heirs contended that the judgment is not binding
upon them as they were not notified of the purported substitution, hence, the entire
proceedings are void for lack of jurisdiction over their persons. Is the contention correct?
Why?
Yes, the contention that the proceedings are void for lack of jurisdiction over the
persons of some heirs are correct. As provided for under Section 16, Rule 3 of the
Amended Rules of Court, the court, upon due notice of death of a party in an action
before it that survives, is bound to order the legal representative(s) to appear and be
substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice. Without the appearance and
proper substitution of the legal representative(s), the proceeding and judgment thereof
is null and void. The court has no jurisdiction of over the said legal representative(s) and
at the same time, deprive the latter of due process.

Q3. May the Municipal Trial Court trying an ejectment suit be restrained by the RTC
from trying the case just because of the pendency of an annulment case? Why?
No, The Municipal Trial Court trying an ejectment case cannot be restrained by the RTC
by reason of the pendency of annulment case. The very issue involve in an ejectment
suit is right of possession of the property. On the other hand, annulment case
establishes rightful ownership of the property which is not the subject matter in an
ejectment case even if the two cases involve the same parties. As ruled by the Supreme
Court, a defendant cannot defeat the summary nature of an action against him/her by
simply filing an action questioning the ownership of the plaintiff who is trying to eject
them.
Q4. Briefly explain the totality rules in civil cases.
Under the totality rule in civil procedure, if several claims or causes of action are
embodied in the same complaint, the amount of all the demands shall be the basis in
computation of the amount involved, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose
out of the same or different transactions.

Q5. In case the complaint is amended, is there a need to issue new summons upon the
defendant? Explain your answer. Thank You
I qualify. If the Court has already acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant,
new summons is not required in the amendment of complaint, otherwise, the court must
issue new summons to acquire jurisdiction of the person of the defendant. A court’s
jurisdiction once acquired continues until the case is finally terminated. But when
defendant has not yet appeared in court, new summons on the amended complaint
must be served on him/her. It is not the change of a cause of action that gives rise to
the need to serve another summons for the amended complaint rather the acquisition of
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.

FRANCISCO, CYRIL CLEOPE