MOCK BAR NO.

1 – REMEDIAL LAW
For Bar 2019

1 June 2019
CIVIL PROCEDURE

I.
 
Edgar, a resident of the City of Manila, filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Manila a complaint for the annulment of a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage he signed in
favor of Fabella Bank (Fabella), and the consequent· foreclosure and auction sale of his
mortgaged Makati property. Galaxy filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of
improper venue alleging that the complaint should be filed with the RTC of Makati
since the complaint involves the ownership and possession of Edgar's lot. Resolve the
motion with reasons.

 
II.
Willard entered into a lease contract with Reina over a commercial building where the
former conducted his hardware business. The lease contract stipulated, among others, a
monthly rental of P50,000.00 for a four (4)-year period commencing on January 1, 2010.

On January 1, 2013, Willard died. Kenny was appointed administrator of the estate of
Willard, but the former failed to pay the rentals for the months of January to June 2013
despite Reina’s written demands.

Thus, on July 1, 2013, Reina filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) an action for
rescission of contract with damages and payment of accrued rentals as of June 30, 2013.

(A) Can Kenny move to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the RTC is without
jurisdiction since the amount claimed is only P300,000.00?

(B) If the rentals accrued during the lifetime of Willard, and Reina also filed the
complaint for sum of money during that time, will the action be dismissible upon
Willard’s death during the pendency of the case?

III.
Fabella Bank (Fabella) filed a complaint for a sum of money against Steph and Benedict
before the RTC of Manila. The initiatory pleading averred that on February 14, 2010,
Steph obtained a loan from Fabella in the amount of Pl Million, as evidenced by
Promissory Note No. 007 (PN) signed by Steph. Benedict signed a Surety Agreement
binding himself as surety for the loan. Fabella made a final demand on February 14,
2015 for Steph and Benedict (defendants) to pay, but the latter failed to pay. Royal
prayed that defendants Steph and Benedict be ordered to pay the amount of P1 Million
plus interests.
 
In their answer, Steph admitted that she obtained the loan from Fabella and signed the
PN. Benedict also admitted that he signed the Surety Agreement. Defendants pointed
out that the PN did not provide the due date for payment, and that the loan has not yet
matured as the maturity date was left blank to be agreed upon by the parties at a later
date. Defendants filed a Motion for a Judgment on the Pleadings on the ground that
there is no genuine issue presented by the parties' submissions. Fabella opposed the
motion on the ground that the PN' s maturity is an issue that must be threshed out
during trial.
 
[a] Resolve the motion with reasons.
[b] Distinguish "Summary Judgment" and "Judgment on the Pleadings."
 

IV.
The officers of "Ang Kapaligiran ay Alagaan, Inc."(AKAI) engaged your services to file an
action against CITINICKEL Mining Corporation which is engaged in mining operations
in Narra, Palawan. CITINICKEL used highly toxic chemicals in extracting nickel.
CITINICKEL's toxic mine tailings were accidentally released from its storage dams and
were discharged into the rivers of said town. The mine tailings found their way to the
bay and allegedly to the waters of nearby Rasa Island and Sofronio, Palawan. The
damage to the crops and loss of earnings were estimated at P1 Billion. Damage to the
environment is estimated at P1 Billion. As lawyer for the organization, you are
requested to explain the advantages derived from a petition for writ of kalikasan before
the Supreme Court over a complaint for damages before the RTC of Puerto Princesa or
vice-versa. What action will you recommend? Explain. (5%)