No, the motion for the reception of specified evidence for the purpose of clarifying facts already in the

record will not prosper.

The Supreme Court has held that the reception of evidence by the Court of Appeals on appeal will be
granted only when a motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence is granted.

No, a suit for injunction can not be aptly filed with the Supreme Court to stop the President of the
Philippines from entering into a peace agreement with the National Democratic Front.

Under the Law on Civil Procedure, an action for injunction is one incapable of pecuniary estimation, the
exclusive jurisdiction of which being vested with the Regional Trial Court.

No, the Regional Trial Court does not have jurisdiction over the complaint.

Under the Law on Civil Procedure, Regional Trial court does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter
if the claim for sum of money does not exceed 300,000 pesos.

Here, the plaintiff’s principal relief sought is to enforce the recovery of 280,000 pesos of damages as an
incidence and consequences of the breach of contract of which the Regional Trial Court does not have
jurisdiction.

Hence, the Regional Trial Court does not have jurisdiction over the complaint.

The motion to dismiss the action on the ground that the case should have been brought to the Regional
Trial Court should be denied.

Under the law on Civil Procedure, the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the case if the assessed
value of a real property exceeds 20,000 pesos.

Here, the action for partition is a real action, the jurisdiction of which depends on the assessed value of
the real property. Since the real property located in Tagaytay has an assessed value of 20,000 pesos, the
Regional Trial Court does not have jurisdiction to try the case.

No, the proper docket fees were not paid.

Under the Law on Civil Procedure, an action for the assignment of shares of stocks is an action for
recovery of personal property, an action capable of pecuniary estimation and docket fees should be paid
based on the value of the shares of stocks.

Here, the docket fees were paid for actions incapable of pecuniary estimation.

Hence, the dockets fees were not properly paid.

No, the motion to dismiss filed by the NSC should not be granted.

The Supreme Court has held that failure to raise the defense of non-payment of proper docket fees in an
answer is considered waived. Pg. 93

Yes, Harvest is correct.

The Supreme Court has held that an action to compel an annual stockholders meeting is an action
incapable of pecuniary estimation. Pg. 95

No, the dismissal was not proper.

The Supreme Court has held that non-payment of proper docket fee of a money claim against the estate
is not a ground for its dismissal.

Yes, judgment may be set aside for lack of jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court has held that a court will acquire jurisdiction only upon payment of correct docket
fees based on the principal action sought by the party.

Here, the principal action sought by the Manila Bank is payment of the promissory note plus payment of
interests and penalties which are not merely incidental to the principal action. Hence, payment of
correct docket fees must be computed not only with respect to the payment of the promissory note, but
with the payment for the interests and penalties as well.

Hence, judgment by the RTC be set aside due to non-payment of the correct filing fees.

Yes, the joinder of parties is proper.

Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, all persons in whom or against whom any right to relief in respect to
or arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions may be joined as parties.

Here, the action arises out of the same transaction which is the occupancy of a parcel of land by the
defendants of Peter’s land.

Hence, the joinder of parties is proper.

Yes, there is a proper joinder of causes of action.

Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, if the causes of action are between the same parties but the causes
of actions pertain to different venues or jurisdiction, the joinder may be allowed in the RTC provided one
of the causes of action falls within its jurisdiction and venue lies therein.
Here, the causes of action are between P and D and the sum of money falls within the jurisdiction of
Manila RTC and venue lies therein.

Hence, there is a proper joinder of causes of action.

No, the joinder of causes of action should not be allowed.

Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, there is joinder of causes of action if the causes of action are
between same parties but the causes of action pertain to different venue or jurisdiction, the joinder may
be allowed in the RTC provided that one of the causes of action falls within its jurisdiction and venue lies
therein.

Here, while MTC has jurisdiction over the cause of action involving recovery, it has no jurisdiction over
the cause of action involving recission which is incapable of pecuniary estimation. The joinder of causes
of action may be allowed only in RTC provided that the jurisdiction and venue lies therein.

Hence, the joinder of causes of action filed by P should not be allowed.

No, the filing of the class suit is not proper.

Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a class suit is not proper when the controversy is not of common or
general interest to the members of the group.

Here, the sugarcane planters have a separate and distinct reputation in the community and not of
common or general interest.

Hence, the filing of the class suit is not proper.

The class suit is not proper.

Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, class is proper when the subject of the controversy is one of
common or general interest.

Here, the subject matter is not of common or general interest since each plaintiff has a separate and
distinct claim for damages.

Hence, the filing of class suit is not proper.

No, the defendant’s contention that the Motion for Consideration on the failure of the plaintiff to
appear during the preliminary conference is a prohibited pleading is not correct.

Under the Rules on Summary Procedure, the motion for consideration prohibited is that which seeks
reconsideration of a judgment rendered by the court after trial on the merits.
Here, what the plaintiff seeks for reconsideration is not a judgment rendered by the court but his failure
to appear during the preliminary conference.

Hence, the defendant’s contention is not correct.

Yes, P may move for the execution of the judgment as a matter of right.

Under the Rules on Summary Procedure, the decision in civil cases shall be immediately executory,
without prejudice to a further appeal that may be taken therefrom.

No, the filing of a counterclaim against Solicitor General Chavez is not proper.

Under the Rules on Civil Procedure, a counterclaim is any claim which a defending party may have
against the opposing party.

Here, Solicitor General Chavez was not the opposing party but merely the counsel of the opposing party.
Enrile should file a separate suit if he wants to claim damages against Chavez.

Hence, the filing of counterclaim against Chavez is not proper.

No, the Company cannot file a third-party complaint against the erring officers.

Under the Rules of Court, a third-party complaint is available only if the defendant has a right to demand
contribution, indemnification, subrogation or other relief from the supposed third-party defendants in
respect to the plaintiff’s claim.

Here, the officers had nothing to do with the loan of defendant corporation with the bank since the
claim of the company against the erring officers was not in respect of the Bank’s claim against the
Company.

Hence, the officers cannot be made parties defendants in a third-party complaint.

No, D’s assignment of error is not meritorious.

Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, an actionable document must be specifically denied under oath as to
its genuineness and due execution. Otherwise, the actionable document will be deemed admitted.

Here, D merely filed an unsworn answer specifically denying that he signed the promissory note. Thus,
the promissory note is deemed admitted as to its genuineness and due execution.

Hence, D’s assignment of error is not meritorious.

Yes, the Judge’s ruling sustaining the objection was correct.

Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, an actionable document must be specifically denied under oath as to
its genuineness and due execution. Otherwise, the actionable document will be deemed admitted.
Here, the defendant’s unverified answer to the complaint denying liability and alleging that the
signatory Jesus Lim had no authority is barred by the implied admission.

Therefore, the Judge’s ruling sustaining plaintiff’s objection that the document is deemed admitted for
failure to specifically deny under oath the promissory note is correct.

No, Pedro is not allowed to prove over the relevant objection that his father’s signature to the deed of
sale was a forgery.

Under the Rules of Court, although the requirement of under oath does not apply when the adverse
party is not party to the instrument, the adverse party should still specifically deny the actionable
document and set forth what he claims to be the facts.

Here, Pedro although not a party to the instrument failed to specifically deny the deed of sale. Pedro is
deemed to have admitted the genuineness and due execution of the deed of sale and he is thus
precluded from proving that his father’s signature thereon was forged.

Hence, Pedro should not be allowed to prove over the relevant objection that his father’s signature to
the deed of sale was a forgery since the same instrument is impliedly admitted.

Objection Overruled.

Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the requirement of under oath does not apply when the adverse
party does not appear to be a party to the instrument.

Here, the defendants B and C were clearly not parties to the Bill of Sale. Thus, the answer need not be
under oath.

No, Total Distribution did not deem to have admitted the genuineness of the Letter.

Under the Rules of Court, a document is actionable when the action or defense is grounded upon such
written document or instrument.

Here, the letter is not an actionable document but an evidentiary document showing the value of the
stocks of unsold lubricant.

Hence, Total Distribution’s failure to specifically deny under oath the letter will not amount to an
implied admission.
No, the court should not grant the motion for leave to admit the amended complaint.

Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion for leave to admit the amended complaint should not be
admitted if it appears to the court that the motion was made with the intent to confer jurisdiction.

Here, P filed an action for recovery of possession of land in the RTC of Manila. However, the complaint
did not state the assessed value of the property. An action for recovery of land is a real action,
jurisdiction of the court is determined by the assessed value of the property.

Hence, the court should not grant the motion for leave to admit the amended complaint. \

No, the court should not grant the motion to dismiss.

Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint may be amended as a matter of right before a
responsive pleading is served.

Here, a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is not a responsive
pleading.

Hence, P may be allowed to file an amended complaint as a matter of right.

No, there was no valid service of summons.

Under Rules of Civil Procedure, a substituted service of summon may be effected only when defendant
was not personally served with the summons on three attempts on two separate dates.

Here, the Sheriff immediately resorted to substituted service of summon on his first attempt.

Hence, there was no valid service of summons made by the Sheriff.

No, the Summons was not validly served to BPI.

Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, if the defendant is private domestic corporation organized under the
Philippine Law with juridical personality, service of summons may be made to the President, managing
partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer or in-house counsel or in their absence to the
secretaries.

Here, the summon was served upon the branch manager of BPI who is not among the persons listed in
the rule. Therefore, service is void and ineffectual.

Hence, service of summons was not valid.

The dismissal of the second complaint was without prejudice.

Under the Two-dismissal Rule, the notice of dismissal would operate as an adjudication on the merits if
the plaintiff had once dismissed in a competent court an action based on or including the same claim.

Here, the first dismissal was not based on or including the same claim in the second action.

Hence, the notice of dismissal on the second action is without prejudice.

No, the RTC cannot grant leave to Maria to intervene.

Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, an intervention is allowed only when a third person has a legal
interest in the success of either parties or interest against both parties.

Here, Maria has no legal interest in the marriage nullity since she is not the legal wife of Ruben.

If I were the lawyer for the defendant, I would file a motion for summary judgment.

Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion for summary judgment is available when there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and the defendant is entitled to a judgment in his favor as a matter
of law.

Here, the plaintiff is deemed to have admitted the genuineness and due execution of the receipt
evidencing payment when he failed to file a reply specifically denying under oath its genuineness and
due execution. Thus, there is no genuine material issue as to payment.

No, it was not proper for the trial court to grant the motion for execution.

Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a partial summary judgment is an interlocutory order. A partial
summary judgment rendered in favor of a plaintiff cannot be executed while the main case is still
pending. Here, the applicable provision is S4 Rule 35 and not S5 Rule 36 which pertains to judgments in
general.

Here, the plaintiff sought for the execution of a partial summary judgment which was granted by the
trial court, and being interlocutory, it was an error on the part of the trial court rely upon S5 Rule 36.

Hence, it was not proper for the trial court to grant the motion for execution.

No, P cannot file a motion for the issuance of an alias writ of execution.

Under the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, an alias writ of execution has already been deleted. A
judgment must be enforced by motion and by levy on execution within 5- year period. After said period,
it may no longer be enforced.

No, the motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue should not be granted.
Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, if the action for revival of judgment affects title to or possession of
real property or interest therein, then it is a real action that must be filed with the court having
jurisdiction over the place where the real property is situated.

Here, the judgment sought to be revived was a real action since it affects title to or possession of real
property or interest therein.

Hence, the venue was properly laid in the RTC of Muntinlupa City which had jurisdiction over the place
where the property was situated.

A should file an action for revival of judgment. This is because the judgment can no longer be enforced
by a motion since it is already more than five years from the entry of judgment.

The action for revival of judgment, being an action incapable of pecuniary estimation must be filed with
the RTC. Since the action affects title to or possession of real property or interest therein, venue is in
Manila where the venue of the ejection suit lies.

No, A cannot file a motion for execution of judgment.

Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion for execution may only be enforced within 5 years from the
entry of judgment.

Here, more than 5 years has elapsed from the entry of judgment.

Hence, A cannot file a motion for execution but only by an independent action.

Yes, the motion to dismiss should be granted.

Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, enforcement of a judgment must be made within 10 years from the
entry of judgment in a collection case.

Here, the action to revive judgment was made more than 10 years from the entry of judgment.

Hence, the motion to dismiss should be granted.

I would grant the motion to lift attachment.

Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the enforcement of preliminary attachment must be made prior to
or contemporaneously with the service of summons together with a copy of the complaint, the
application for attachment, the affidavit and the bond, the order of attachment and the writ of
preliminary attachment.

Here, the summons was not yet served at the time of the attachment. The subsequent service of
summons will not cure the irregularities that attended the enforcement of the writ.
No, the Temporary restraining order is not valid.

Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, when the writ of preliminary injunction is included in the initiatory
pleading, the case, if filed in a multi- sala court, shall be raffled only after notice and in the presence of
the adverse party or to the person to be enjoined.

Here, the raffle to branch 4 was made without notice and in the presence of the adverse party or the
person sought to be enjoined.

Hence, the raffle to branch 4 was invalid and the TRO issued by the judge was not valid.

Yes, there was a defect in the TRO issued.

Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the issuance of an ex parte TRO valid for 72 hours by the executive
judge of multi- sala court shall be included in the 20 days TRO issued by the judge to whom the case is
raffled.

Here, the TRO issued by the RTC is for 20 days, the TRO issued herein can be valid only for 17 days.

No, the contention of Cars Co. is not correct.

Yes, the contention of Cars Co. is correct.

Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Regional Trial Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over
petition for Quo Warranto exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area where the respondent resides.

No, the action for Quo Warranto will not prosper.

Under the Rules on Civil Procedure, a person filing for quo warrant must show that he has a clear right
to office.

Here, the judges’ appointment was merely an expectancy and not a clear right to office.

Hence, the petition for Quo Warrant will not prosper.

No, the private individuals can not be allowed to intervene.

Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a petition for Quo Warrant may be filed by an individual who has a
clear right or is entitled to the office.

Here, the private individuals do not possess the legal standing to intervene since they are not entitled to
claim a right to the office.

Hence, the private individuals are not allowed to intervene.

No, Jovito’s motion to dismiss will not prosper.

Under the Rules on Civil Procedure, in an expropriation proceeding, a motion to dismiss is prohibited.
Any objection should be raised in the answer.

I would deny the motion to dismiss.

Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, Metropolitan Trial Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over real
actions over land with an assessed value of not more than 20,000 pesos.

Here, an act for partition is a real action since it involved a parcel of land in Tagaytay city.

Hence, MTC has jurisdiction since the assessed value does not exceed 20,000 pesos.

The motion to dismiss is not meritorious.

Under the law on Partition, the estate of a deceased person may be divided since a co-ownership has
arisen among the deceased’s heirs provided that the deceased died intestate and left no debts.

No, X’s contention is not correct.

Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, in an action for unlawful detainer the cause of action is not one of
ownership but on the right of possession.

No, the court shall not grant a leave of court to amend the complaint so as to allege prior physical
possession.

Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, an amendment is not allowed where the court has no jurisdiction
over the original complaint and the purpose of such amendment is to confer jurisdiction upon the court.

Here, the MTC has no jurisdiction to allow the amendment to allege prior physical possession since it did
not have jurisdiction over the main complaint.

Hence, the court shall not grant him a leave of court to ament the complaint.

Ben is not correct.

Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, prior physical possession is not necessary in an action for unlawful
detainer.

Here, Del has right to possess the land after the expiration of the right to repurchase the land within one
year and prior physical possession is not necessary to bring an action for unlawful detainer.

Hence, Ben’s contention that Del had no prior physical possession is not correct.
The court is not correct in admitting the tapes in evidence.

Under the law on Evidence, evidence may be excluded if it is not competent.

Here, the recording of the conversation between B and her lover without their consent violates the
Republic Act 4200 or otherwise known as the anti-wiretapping law, rendering the cassete tapes
inadmissible due to its incompetency.

Hence, the court is not correct in admitting the cassete tapes because the evidence is incompetent.

The photocopy is object evidence.

Under the Law on Evidence, when a document is offered not as a proof of its contents, the document is
considered as object or real evidence.

Here, the photocopy of the marked bills used in the buy-bust operation offered not as a proof of its
contents but payment evidencing the transaction.

Hence, the photocopy of the marked 100.00 pesos bills is an object or real evidence.

No, the trial judge should not sustain the objection of the defense counsel.

Under the Rule on Evidence, when a document is offered not to prove the facts of their contents
therein, the original document rule does not apply.

Here, the photocopies offered by the prosecution is not offered to prove the facts of their contents but
was offed to prove that Mr. Duggie had engaged in the illegal selling of dangerous drugs.

Hence, the trial judge should not sustain the objection of the defense counsel that the photocopies
violated the original document rule since the photocopies are considered object or real evidence.

I will object the objection on the ground of marital disqualification.

Under the Marital disqualification rule, a spouse cannot testify against the other spouse during their
marriage.

Here, Allan and Narita were already annulled when her testimony was offered against Allan.

Hence, Allan cannot avail of the marital disqualification rule.

Yes, leticia can testify over the objection of her husband on the ground of marital privilege.

Under the Marital Disqualification Rule, a spouse can testify against the other spouse for a crime
committed by the latter to the former.
No, Atty. Chloe is not ethically bound to reveal the admission of Pedro Tigas to the police investigator
what Pedro Tigas had stated to her at the Jollibee Restaurant.

Under the Law on Evidence, Attorney-client privilege covers communications made by the client
regarding past crime.

Here, what Pedro communicated with Atty. Chloe was regarding the assassination that he had
committed.

Hence, the killing is a past crime covered by the privilege.

Yes, the subject statement can be considered as a dying declaration.

Under the Law on Evidence, a dying declaration by a person made under the consciousness of an
impending death is an exception to the hearsay rule.

Here, the victim suffered was stabbed several times sustaining multiple stab wounds and thus it may be
inferred that he had consciousness of his impending death.

Hence, the statement made by the declarant is a dying declaration, an exception to the hearsay rule.