1) By virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale, X acquired Y’s Pasay City lot occupied by W on

Y’s mere tolerance.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) W’s motion to suspend execution shall not be allowed.

Under the rules of court in case of unlawful detainer cases, the decision is immediately
executory and shall be issued immediately, unless there has been a perfected appeal and a
supersedeas bond that has been posted. Thus, W’s motion to suspend execution shall be
denied.

b) X’s motion for execution shall be granted.

Under the rules of court in unlawful detainer cases if there is a judgment in favor of the
defendant execution shall be immediately issued upon such motion. Unless there is a perfect
appeal and supersedeas bond furnished.

In the case at bar there was neither appeal nor supersedeas bond posted.

Thus, the motion for execution is granted.

c) No, petition for certiorari under rule 65 is not proper.

In the case at bar there is still another remedy available which is to appeal. Rule 65 can be
availed if there is no other speedy and adequate remedy available.

Thus, W may not file a petition for certiorari under rule 65.

d) If MeTC Judge denies X’s motion for execution against the order of denial. X’s remedy would
be to file a MR or motion for reconsideration as provided in Rule 70 of the ROC.

If it is denied then he may file a petition under rule 65

2) Q filed before the RTC plenary action against X for recover of possession over a
residential lot.. Los Banos Laguna
a) Lack of jd over subject matter? Hearing?

RTC denied X’s affirmative defense. Demurrer to evidence

b) TRO?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Yes, it is procedurally allowed notwithstanding the denial of the motion to
dismiss. Under the Rules of Court, the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter is a non-waivable defense and it can be raised at any stage of the
proceedings. There is also no need for a hearing because the Rules also provide
 that the Court may motu proprio dismiss the case if the ground is lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter.
b) X’s application for a TRO should be denied. The Rules of Court as amended
specifically provides that an order denying a motion for demurrer to evidence is
not a proper subject of an appeal or petition for certiorari, prohibition or
mandamus before judgment. In this case, considering that the Certiorari itself is
not proper, the TRO should likewise be denied because it is merely accessory to
the main case which is Certiorari.

3) Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act

a) Rule on motion for leave to amend the information

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The motion for leave should be GRANTED. The Rules of Court provide that once the accused
has entered his plea, only formal amendments are allowed provided that there is leave of court
and the amendment is not prejudicial to the rights of the accused. Here, the amendment is
merely formal as it does not change the nature of the offense charged against the accused, but
merely the serial number of the firearm used. The offense remains to be a violation of the
Firearms Act because of illegal possession thereof. Therefore, the amendment is not prejudicial
to the rights of the accused and thus should be allowed by the court.

4) Accused was charged before the MTC of Pasay City . urinating in public places. Found
shabu.
a) Rule on the motion to dismiss.
b) Prosection wants to challenge the MeTC’s acquittal. Is there a remedy available?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A) The motion to dismiss should be granted as the decision on the illegality of the arrest is
conclusive. Although the Rules of Court provide that the general rule is that courts are not
authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases, an exception to
this rule arises when the present action is closely interwoven, or clearly interdependent to
another case in respect to the matter in controversy. In this case, the action in the METC was
closely interwoven with the criminal case for violation of RA 9165 and thus the decision of the
METC on the illegality of the arrest was conclusive and binding on the RTC because the matter
falls under the above-mentioned exception. Furthermore, the drugs seized should be
considered inadmissible in evidence as it was obtained through an illegal arrest, in line with the
well-established fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.
B) Yes, the prosecution may file an Appeal because Jurisprudence provides that an order
sustaining a motion to quash is a final order and not interlocutory and hence the proper remedy
is an Appeal with the proper appellate court.
 5) While police officers Carta and Cruz were on patrol on board their vehicle. Cinco uttered
“Tisoy and Kano”
Is Officer Carta’s testimony on Cinco’s utterance admissible in evidence against
Tisoy and Kano?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, it is admissible in evidence as an exception to the the Hearsay Rule as part of the Res
Gestae and not part of the Dying Declaration under R130 of the Rules of Court. Under the
principle of dying declaration, for it to be applicable, one of its elements is that such declaration
must be made under the consciousness of an impending death. In the case at bar, there was no
showing that he uttered the names of the perpetrator believing he was nearing his death but
only to identify the perpetrators. The circumstances in this case will not fall under the rule on
dying declaration but may be Res Gestae.

6) Maria dela Cruz filed a petition for correction of entries in her record of birth seeking to
correct her first name from “Mario” to “Maria”
a) Rule on the issue raised by the ODG on appeal.
b) What is the mode of appeal from the RTC’s decision.

SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
a) The OSG is wrong. This is only a correction of entries in the civil registry under
RA 9048 amended by RA 10172. There is no need to comply with the rules of
103 because this doesn't fall under that Rule. Rule 103 corrects substantial
errors, not clerical ones. Assuming MAria is biologically a girl, we assumed so
because the facts do not allege a sex change or something similar, then this is
obviously only a case of mistake on the part of the civil registry which recorded
her birth. Thus, 103 is not applicable.
b) The mode of appeal from the RTC’s final judgment is an ordinary appeal under
Rule 41. The RTC is exercising its original jurisdiction in this case and thus an
appeal to the CA is proper. Issues raised on appeal include questions of law or
fact or both.