EMMMANUEL P.

FERNANDEZ
ASYNCHRONOUS ACTIVITY NO. 4
CIVIL PROCEDURE

1. A is the owner of a land occupied by B. B leased this land for 20 years and for the past 10 years
had continually paid A the rent. Sometime thereafter C claimed to be the owner of the land
and demanded from B payment of the rent. What is the remedy of B?

The remedy of B is to file an interpleader under rule 62 of the Rules of Court.

Pursuant to this rule, whenever conflicting claims upon the same subject matter are or may be made
against a person who claims no interest whatever in the subject matter, or an interest which in whole or in
part is not disputed by the claimants, he may bring an action against the conflicting claimants to compel
them to interplead and litigate their several claims among themselves.

2. What is the proper remedy to assail the validity of an executive order?

The proper remedy to assail the validity of an executive order is the filing of a declaratory relief.

Under Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, any person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written
instrument, or whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other
governmental regulation may, before breach or violation thereof bring an action in the appropriate
Regional Trial Court to determine any question of construction or validity arising, and for a declaration of
his rights or duties, thereunder.

3. A obtained an adverse judgment and made a timely appeal. However, the RTC denied his
notice of appeal. A filed a petition for certiorari against the order of the RTC. Is the remedy
proper?

No, the remedy is not proper.

Settled if the rule that the disallowance of the notice of appeal signifies the disallowance of the appeal itself,
in such cases of the appropriate remedy is motion for reconsideration. However, if the RTC still denies
motion for reconsideration then there is no other no other speedy, adequate, remedy available in the
ordinary course of law. the aggrieved party can elevate the matter through a special civil action under Rule
65.

The Rules of Court specifically provides under Rule 65, When any tribunal, board or officer exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess its or his jurisdiction, or with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy,
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition
in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or
modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and
justice may require
4. A filed a complaint for forcible entry. B filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the action
is barred by res judicata. Rule on the motion.

Under jurisprudence, to bar by prior judgment by reason of res judicata, the following requisites must
concur, viz: (a) finality of the former judgment; (b) the court which rendered it had jurisdiction over the
subject matter and the parties; (c) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (d) there must be, between the
first and second actions, identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action.

In an action for forcible entry and detainer, the only issue is possession in fact, or physical possession of
real property, independently of any claim of ownership that either party may put forth in his pleading. If
plaintiff can prove prior physical possession in himself, he may recover such possession even from the
owner, but, on the other hand, if he cannot prove such prior physical possession, he has no right of action
for forcible entry and detainer even if he should be the owner of the property.

5. An expropriation proceeding undergoes two phases. What are these two phases?

Under Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, the proceedings for expropriation consist of two (2) stages: (a) the
condemnation of the property after it is determined that its acquisition will be for a public purpose or
public use; and, (b) the determination of just compensation to be paid for the taking of private property to
be made by the court with the assistance of not more than three commissioners.

6. Can you appeal an order of condemnation by the court?

Yes, the order of condemnation by the court can be appealed.

Settled is the rule that there are the phases for an expropriation proceeding if the outcome of the first phase
of expropriation proceedings, which is either an order of expropriation or an order of dismissal, is final
since it finally disposes of the case.
On the other hand, the second phase ends with an order fixing the amount of just compensation. Both
orders, being final, are appealable.

An order of condemnation or dismissal is final, resolving the question of whether or not the plaintiff has
properly and legally exercised its power of eminent domain. Once the first order becomes final and no
appeal thereto is taken, the authority to expropriate and its public use can no longer be questioned.

7. In 2015 Chief Justice M was appointed to his position. Sometime in 2018 the Solicitor General
filed a petition for quo warranto questioning her eligibility to hold such office. The Chief
Justice argued that the period to file a quo warranto petition must be within 1 year from the
date she was appointed. Is her argument with merit?

No, her argument is without merit.

Provided in the case of in the case of Republic vs Sereno June 19, 2018 G.R. No. 237428, as a general
rule, the one-year prescriptive period under Section 11, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court still stands.
However, for reasons explained above and in the main Decision, this Court made distinctions as to when
such prescriptive period applies, to wit: (1) when filed by the State at its own instance, through the
Solicitor General, prescriptions shall not apply. (2) when filed by the Solicitor General or public prosecutor
at the request and upon relation of another person, with leave of court, prescription shall apply except
when established jurisprudential exceptions represent; and (3) when filed by an individual in his or her
own name, prescription shall apply, except when established jurisprudential exceptions are present.

Assuming that action for quo warranto is brought by the State at its own instance, the action for quo
warranto is imprescriptible.