2020 BAR EXAMINATIONS TRIAL

REMEDIAL LAW
(PART 1)

LEGAL EDGE BAR REVIEW CENTER

legaledge8@gmail.com
0942-949-9176 / 0917-894-5356

B.18

Senator Lina was charged in the Regional Trial Court with Violation of Section 5, in relation to Section
3 (jj), Section 26 (b) and Section 28 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The Information alleged that she did so “with the use of her power,
position, and authority.” Senator Lina assailed the jurisdiction of the RTC and claimed that it is the
Sandiganbayan which has jurisdiction over her case.

If you are the RTC Judge, will you sustain Senator Lina’s argument? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

If I were the RTC Judge, I will not sustain Senator’s Lina’s argument.

Under Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the RTC is
conferred with jurisdiction over drug cases. This conclusion is confirmed by the ruling of the Supreme
Court in De Lima vs. Guerrero, (G.R. No. 229781, October 10, 2017). The Supreme Court in De Lima
ruled a a plain reading of RA 9165 will reveal that jurisdiction over drug-related cases is exclusively
vested with the Regional Trial Court and no other. The Supreme Court is even more categorical when
it said that:

The exclusive original jurisdiction over violations of RA 9165 is not transferred to the
Sandiganbayan whenever the accused occupies a position classified as Grade 27 or
higher, regardless of whether the violation is alleged as committed in relation to office.
The power of the Sandiganbayan to sit in judgment of high-ranking government officials
is not omnipotent (De Lima vs. Guerrero).

In the problem, while it is true the one who committed the violation of RA 9165 is a Senator and he
committed it in relation to the office, still it is the RTC which has jurisdiction by specific provision of the
law.

Thus, the RTC Judge should not sustain the jurisdictional challenge of Senator Lina.

B.19

Alvin, Bobby and Carlo were charged with the crime of robbery with homicide. The charge against Alvin
and Bobby was established by their own confessions made before the police officer, wherein they
incriminated Carlo in such a way as to make it appear that Carlo had consented to take part in the
perpetration of the crime.

Page 1 of 11
2020 BAR EXAMINATIONS TRIAL REMEDIAL LAW
LEGAL EDGE BAR REVIEW CENTER (PART 2)

Are such confessions admissible against Carlo? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes. Such confession is admission against Carlo.

Section 27, Rule 130 provides that the act, declaration or omission of a party as to relevant fact may
be given in evidence against him or her.

Here, what Carlos told Dodie is an admission which is prejudicial to Carlo.

Thus, such admission of Carlo is admissible against him.

B.20

Juana is a Filipina who was divorced by her Japanese husband in Japan in 2012. Upon returning to
the Philippines in 2013 and after having an affair with Pedro, she filed a Petition for Recognition of
Foreign Divorce before the Regional Trial Court of Manila to be able to marry Pedro. To prove the
existence of the Decision issued by a Japanese court, she presented the Consul who authenticated a
copy of the said Decision. However, she failed to present someone who could testify on the law of
Japan under which the divorce was granted. As a consequence, the petition was denied.

On appeal, Juana argued that there is no need to present proof of Japanese law as it is within the
judicial notice of the Judge.

Rule on Juana’s argument. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The argument of Juana is misplaced.

Under Section 1, Rule 129, the Court can only take judicial notice of official acts of the legislative,
executive and judicial department of the Government of the Philippines. It is well-settled in our
jurisdiction that our courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws (Republic v. Manalo, G.R. No.
221029, April 24, 2018).

Thus, the arguments of Juana should be disregarded.

B.21

Andrew received from Bobby P3,000.00 and in consideration thereof, he agreed with Bobby to deliver
to the latter 600 piculs of sugar under the following conditions: That he would make the delivery within
three (3) months beginning January 1, 2013, and that if he failed to make such delivery within the time
specified, he would return the sum so received and pay, in addition, P1,200.00 as indemnity. When

Page 2 of 11
2020 BAR EXAMINATIONS TRIAL REMEDIAL LAW
LEGAL EDGE BAR REVIEW CENTER (PART 2)

Andrew failed to make the delivery, he contended that there was a condition not mentioned in the
writing, i.e., that he would procure the sugar from such crop as he could raise on his plantation.

May Andrew offer parol evidence to that effect? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. Andrew cannot introduce parol evidence to prove such condition.

Under Section 10, Rule 130, When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is
considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their
successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement.

In this case, Andrew is trying to present evidence which is already outside of the written agreement or
something not contained in the written agreement. He is not permitted to do that without violating the
parol evidence rule embodied in Section 10, Rule 130.

B.22

While Police Officer Biden was on duty, Lito, a resident of Brgy. Sinco, came to the police station and
reported a stabbing incident that happened in their barangay. According to Lito, he saw Mario stabbed
Juan on his chest. Biden recorded the reported incident in the Police Blotter. In the prosecution for a
crime of murder against Lito, the prosecution called Donald, the custodian of the police blotter to testify
on the content of the police blotter and to prove that Mario stabbed Juan. The defense objected on the
ground of hearsay. The prosecution countered that, entries in official records are exception hearsay.

If you were the judge, how would you rule on the objection? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

I would sustain the objection.

The following requisites must be complied with in order for the exception in Section 46, Rule 130, which
entries in official records, to apply:

1) The entry was made by a public officer or by another person specifically enjoined by law to do
so.
2) It was made by the public officer, or by such other person in the performance of a duty specifically
enjoined by law
3) The public officer had sufficient knowledge of the facts he stated which must have been acquired
by the public officer personally or through official information (Alvarez v. PICOP Resources,
G.R. Nos. 162243, 164516 & 171875, December 3, 2009, 606 SCRA 444, 525; citing Africa
v. Caltex, 123 Phil. 272, 277 (1966).

Page 3 of 11
2020 BAR EXAMINATIONS TRIAL REMEDIAL LAW
LEGAL EDGE BAR REVIEW CENTER (PART 2)

In this case, the officer who entered the incident into the police blotter does not have personal
knowledge of what he entered therein. It just came from Mario and not from the Police Officer Biden.
Thus, it cannot serve as an exception to hearsay rule.

I would, therefore, sustain the objection.

B.23

Rody is suing Lenny for sum of money in the amount of Php25M on the basis of a promissory note she
executed in his favor. Lenny filed an unverified Answer, contending that she could not be compelled to
pay Rody the amount of Php25M on the basis of the promissory note because her signature therein
was forged.

During the defendant’s presentation of evidence, Lenny presented an NBI handwriting examiner to
prove that her signature in the promissory note is a forgery. Rody objected on the ground of violation
of parol evidence rule as the evidence which Lenny is presenting would alter the import of the
promissory note. Lenny countered that she puts as an issue the validity of the promissory note in her
Answer.

If you are the Judge, will you subscribe to the argument of Lenny. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

If I were the Judge, I will not sustain the argument of Lenny.

One of the exception to parol evidence is that when the adverse party questions the validity of the
written agreement. (Section 10(c), Rule 130). However, before one is allowed to present parol evidence,
he or she must put such issue in a verified pleading.

In this case, Lenny failed to put the issue of validity of the promissory containing her alleged forged
signature, in a verified pleading. Thus, for her failure to put such issued a verified pleading, she is not
permitted to present parol evidence. Besides, she is deemed to have admitted the genuineness and
due execution of the promissory note pursuant to Section 8, Rule 8 by her failure to specifically deny
the due execution and genuineness of the actionable document.

Hence, the argument of Lenny should not be sustained.

B.24

Aida, Lorna and Fe were partners. They call their partnership, APO partnership. The APO partnership
received a notice of assessment from the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). Aida, the managing partner
went to the Regional District Office (RDO) of BIR regarding the assessment their partnership received
from BIR. Aida was able to talk to Atty. Javier who informed her that the BIR was already preparing a
criminal case for tax evasion against the three (3) partners of APO Partnership. Aida asked Atty. Javier
on how she would be spared from the case that would be filed by BIR against them. Atty. Javier told
Aida that if she would execute an affidavit implicating Lorna and Fe, then she would not be included in
Page 4 of 11
2020 BAR EXAMINATIONS TRIAL REMEDIAL LAW
LEGAL EDGE BAR REVIEW CENTER (PART 2)

the case. Aida agreed. She executed an affidavit detailing how APO partnership was able to evade
paying taxes through the maneuverings of Lorna and Fe. Atty. Javier testified for the prosecution and
used the affidavit executed by Aida against Lorna and Fe.

The counsel for Lorna and Fe objected on the ground of res inter alios acta. The BIR, however,
contended that the act or declaration of a partner may be used as evidence against his or her partner
and that the same is an exception to res inter alios acta rule.

Rule on the objection of Lorna and Fe. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

I will sustain the objection.

To fall under the exception under admission by a co-partner or agent, the following requisites must
concur:

1) The declaration or act of the partner or agent must have been made or done within the scope of
his authority or when the agent is authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the
subject;
2) The declaration or act must have been done during the existence of the partnership or agency;
3) The existence of partnership or agency is proven by evidence other than the declaration or act
of the partner or agent.

In this case, there is no showing that the declaration or act was done during the existence of the
partnership. Likewise, there is no showing in the problem that an a priori evidence was presented to
prove the existence of the partnership other the declaration of Aida.

Thus, the affidavit of Aida may not be admitted as evidence against Lorna and Fe.

B.25

Carlota was crossing the street of Claro M. Recto when she was run over by a speeding Taxi owned,
operated and driven by Jorge. Because of the accident, Jorge suffered heart attack. He was brought to
the hospital but was declared dead on arrival. Similarly, because of the accident, Carlota’s two legs
were amputated. Consequently, Carlota filed a case for damages against the estate of Jorge which
was represented by Lito, its administrator. Lito filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction. He contended that Carlota’s claim should have been filed in the settlement of estate
proceedings of Jorge and that it could not be the subject of an independent suit.

If you are the Judge, how will you rule on Lito’s motion to dismiss. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

If I were the Judge, I will deny the Motion to Dismiss.

Page 5 of 11
2020 BAR EXAMINATIONS TRIAL REMEDIAL LAW
LEGAL EDGE BAR REVIEW CENTER (PART 2)

There are cases which may be brought against the estate of the deceased. These are: 1) actions to
recover real or personal property, or an interest therein or enforce a lien thereon; 2) action to recover
damages for an injury to person or property, real or personal (Section 1, Rule 87).

In the case at bar, the action that was brought by Carlota is an action arising from an injury to her
person. Thus, it can be brought against the estate Jorge as represented by Lito.

Consequently, the Motion to Dismiss should be denied.

B.26

Karla filed a collection suit for sum of money against Arvin to collect the amount of Php1,000,000.00.
Karla attached to the complaint the promissory note evidencing Arvin’s loan. Arvin filed an Answer with
Affirmative Defenses, specifically denying under oath the allegations in the complaint. Arvin alleged in
his Affirmative Defenses that he already paid Karla. He attached a copy of the acknowledgement receipt
allegedly executed by Karla. In truth, however, the signature of Karla on the said acknowledgement is
forged. During trial, Karla presented a handwriting expert from the National Bureau of Investigation
(NBI) to prove that her signature on the acknowledgment receipt is forged. Arvin objected to the
presentation of the handwriting expert from the NBI on the ground that Karla did not file a Reply and
thus failed to specifically deny under oath the due execution and authenticity of the receipt. Karla argued
that the filing of the Reply is not mandatory because all the matters alleged in the answer are deemed
controverted.

If you are the Judge, how will you rule on the objection of Arvin? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

If I were the Judge, I will sustain the objection of Arvin.

Under Section 2, Rule 6 of the Amended Rules of Court, an Answer may be responded to only if the
defending party attached an actionable document to the answer. Under Section 10 of the same Rule,
it is provided that all new matters alleged in the Answer are deemed controverted. However, the plaintiff
may file a Reply if the defendant attaches an actionable document to the Answer.

Considering that, in the case at bar, Karla attached in her an actionable document which was the basis
of her defense, Karla should have filed a Reply to deny under oath the due execution and genuineness
of the supposed receipt. Because she did not file a Reply, she was not able to deny under oath the due
execution and genuineness of the receipt; she, therefore, is deemed to have deemed impliedly admitted
the due execution and genuineness of the receipt. Because of her implied admission, she cannot
anymore present evidence contrary of her implied admission.

Thus, the objection of Arvin is sustainable.

Page 6 of 11
2020 BAR EXAMINATIONS TRIAL REMEDIAL LAW
LEGAL EDGE BAR REVIEW CENTER (PART 2)

B.27

John secured a certificate of no marriage with the Philippine Statistics Authority. To his surprise, he
discovered that per record, he was married to Juana. However, in truth, he was not married to Juana
and he has no idea why he has that record of marriage. Juana was the classmate of John in College
who was madly in love with him. John filed a Petition for Cancellation of Entry of Marriage with the
proper Regional Trial Court. He impleaded Juana as party respondent. The Office of Solicitor General
(OSG) entered its appearance for the State and opposed the petition on the ground that the proper
remedy is Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. The trial proceeded where all the parties
presented their respective pieces of evidence. The RTC rendered judgment in favor of John. An appeal
was interposed by the OSG.

If you are the Court of Appeals, how will you rule on the appeal of the OSG? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

I will deny the appeal of OSG.

The cancellation of the marriage non-existent marriage can be done through a Petition under Rule 108.
As held in the case of Republic vs. Olaybar (G.R. No. 189538, February 10, 2014):

Rule 108 of the Rules of Court provides the procedure for cancellation or correction of
entries in the civil registry. The proceedings may either be summary or adversary. If the
correction is clerical, then the procedure to be adopted is summary. If the rectification
affects the civil status, citizenship or nationality of a party, it is deemed substantial, and
the procedure to be adopted is adversary. Since the promulgation of Republic v. Valencia
in 1986, the Court has repeatedly ruled that "even substantial errors in a civil registry may
be corrected through a petition filed under Rule 108, with the true facts established and
the parties aggrieved by the error availing themselves of the appropriate adversarial
proceeding."

The subject matter of the petition at bar is the error in entries in the civil registry of John wherein it
appears that he is married but in truth and in fact, he is not. Thus, it can be corrected under Rule 108.
A Petition for declaration of nullity of marriage is not the correct remedy inasmuch as there is really no
marriage to declared void.

Thus, the appeal of the OSG should be denied.

B.28

A sued B for collection of a sum of money. Alleging fraud in contracting the loan, A applied for a
preliminary writ of attachment with the Court. The Court issued the preliminary attachment after A
had filed a bond. While summons on B was yet unserved, the sheriff attached B’s properties.
Afterwards, summons was duly served on B. B moved to lift the attachment. Rule on the motion. (3%)

Page 7 of 11
2020 BAR EXAMINATIONS TRIAL REMEDIAL LAW
LEGAL EDGE BAR REVIEW CENTER (PART 2)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The petition will not prosper.

Under Section 2, Rule 102, if it appears that the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the
custody of an officer under process issued by a court or judge or by virtue of a judgment or order of a
court of record, and that the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the process, render the judgment,
or make the order, the writ shall not be allowed.

In the case at bar, the confinement of Marcelo is virtue of a legal process, which is the filing of an
Information for murder against him.

Thus, the Petition will not prosper.

B.29

Owen, the fourteen-year-old child of Mariz and Mario, is set to receive a donation from his great
grandparents in the amount of Php5,000,000.00. The deed of donation provides that the said amount
shall be used for Owen’s tertiary education. Your advice is sought by Mariz and Mario on how Owen
would be able to accept the donation.

What would be your advice? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

I will advise Mariz and Mario to post a bond.

Under the Rules, the parent of the minor is not required to file a petition for guardianship inasmuch as
a parents, they are the legal guardian of the person and property of their minor children. However, if
the property of the minor child exceeds Php50,000.00, they should file a bond in Court.

Thus, Mariz and Mario should be advised to just post a bond.

B.30

An Information for Robbery with Homicide was filed against Doy before the Regional Trial Court of
Pampanga. Prior to arraignment, the prosecutor filed a notice of filing of an Amended Information. The
information for Robbery with Homicide was amended to Homicide. The private complainant objected
on the ground that he was not notified. The prosecutor contended that the amended to information is a
matter of right prior to arraignment.

If you are the judge, how will you rule on the objection of the private complainant? (2.5%)

Page 8 of 11
2020 BAR EXAMINATIONS TRIAL REMEDIAL LAW
LEGAL EDGE BAR REVIEW CENTER (PART 2)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

I will sustain the objection of the private complainant.

Under Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, it is provided that “a complaint or
information may be amended, in form or in substance, without leave of court, at any time before the
accused enters his plea. After the plea and during the trial, a formal amendment may only be made
with leave of court and when it can be done without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused.
However, any amendment before plea, which downgrades the nature of the offense charged in or
excludes any accused from the complaint or information, can be made only upon motion by the
prosecutor, with notice to the offended party and with leave of court. The court shall state its reasons
in resolving the motion and copies of its order shall be furnished all parties, especially the offended
party.

In this case, while it is true that the amendment is done before arraignment, the purpose of the
amendment is to down grade the offense. Thus, the offended party must be notified and it must be with
leave of court, which requirements are not complied with in the given problem.

Thus, the Court should sustain the objection of private complainant.

B.31

Mario, resident of Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro, went to Batangas City to attend to the letter sent by
ABC Recruitment agency. Mario was asked to report to ABC’s office for a possible employment abroad.
When Mario arrived at the office of ABC, he was interviewed by Boy, the general manager of ABC. Boy
demanded the amount of Php50,000.00 from Mario as placement fee. Mario readily complied. Boy told
Mario to come back after three (3) days. Mario came back as instructed. To his surprise, the office of
ABC was closed. He could not find any personnel therein, not even Boy. Mario went to the Philippine
Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) to check whether ABC is a registered recruitment agency. He
discovered that it was not. Mario filed an illegal recruitment under R.A. 8042, as amended, against Boy
in the City Prosecutor of Calapan City.

Does the City Prosecutor of Calapan City have the authority to conduct preliminary investigation? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, the City Prosecutor of Calapan has the authority to conduct preliminary investigation.

RA 8042, as amended, provides two (2) venues for criminal action. First is where the crime is committed
and second is the place of residence of the victim or the private complainant. Since the complaint is
filed before the City Prosecutor of Calapan City, the place where the private complainant is residing,
said office has the authority to conduct preliminary investigation.

Page 9 of 11
2020 BAR EXAMINATIONS TRIAL REMEDIAL LAW
LEGAL EDGE BAR REVIEW CENTER (PART 2)

B.32

John, the adopted son of Maria and Jose, had just graduated from college. He wanted to pursue another
degree. Maria and Jose required John to take up Doctor of Medicine. John did not want it. He wanted
to take up Bachelor of Laws because he had always wanted to become a judge. This resulted to a
conflict between John and spouses Maria and Jose. Consequently, spouses Maria and Jose gave John
a cold treatment. John decided to move out from their house in Ayala Village, Alabang and lived in an
apartment in Sampaloc, Manila. John filed a Petition for Rescission of Adoption before the Regional
Trial Court of Muntinlupa City.

If you were the counsel for spouses Maria and Jose, what will you do to protect the interest of your
client? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

I will file a Motion to Dismiss the Petition for improper venue. The venue for recession of adoption by
the adoptee is the residence of the adoptee (Section 20, Rules on Adoption, A.M. No. 02-6-02-SC).

In this case, the Petition is filed in RTC of Muntinlupa which is not the residence of the petitioner.

Thus, if I were the counsel for the petitioner, I will file a Motion to Dismiss.

B.33

Maria was married to Mario who died three (3) years ago. When Mario died, Maria was seven (7)
months pregnant. Maria met Romeo. Their love blossomed. Consequently, Maria decided to marry
Romeo. They got married after three (3) years of engagement. Romeo decided to adopt the child of
Maria with Mario.

Is the consent of Maria indispensably required? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes. The consent of Maria is required.

Under Section 11 of the Rule on Adoption, it is provided therein that the affidavit of consent of the
spouse of the adopted should be attached to the Petition. Thus, it signifies the idea that the consent
of the spouse of the adopted is required.

Here, Romeo, the husband of Maria, is intending to adopt the legitimate child of Maria.

Thus, Maria’s consent is required.

Page 10 of 11
2020 BAR EXAMINATIONS TRIAL REMEDIAL LAW
LEGAL EDGE BAR REVIEW CENTER (PART 2)

B.34

Marissa was the secretary of Atty. Marquez for ten years. Through constant togetherness, they
unexpectedly found themselves in love with each other. Their love was blessed with a child, Ian. As
Atty. Marquez was just legally separated-in-fact with his wife Liza, Atty. Marquez decided to keep their
relationship secret and so was their child, Ian. In fact, Atty. Marquez did not acknowledge Ian as his
child at the latter’s certificate of live birth. Despite not having been acknowledged in the certificate of
live birth as his child, Atty. Marquez nevertheless indicated in Ian’s baptismal certificate that he is his
child. Later, however, Atty. Marquez, sought the correction of the baptismal certificate of Ian to erase
the fact of his parentage with Ian. When Ian finished college, he filed a petition for judicial approval of
voluntary recognition.

Will the petitioner proper? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The petition will prosper.

Filiation may be proven by any of the following: 1) record of birth; 2) a final judgment; 3) an admission
in a public instrument; and, 4) a private hand written instrument signed by the parent concerned (Article
172, FC). Under these proofs, there is no need for the filing of judicial approval of voluntary recognition
of minor natural children. However, if the proof of recognition is open and continuous possession of the
status of a legitimate child, or any other means allowed by the Rules of Court or Special Laws, then
voluntary recognition of minor natural children under Rules 105 may be filed.

In the case at bar, the petition was filed on account of the voluntary recognition by Atty. Martinez through
other means.

Thus, the petition will prosper.

B.35

An Information for Slight Physical Injuries was filed against Ulysses. On January 25, 2020, he was
arraigned and the pre-trial was also concluded. Ulysses requested the court to refer the case to
mediation. The court denied Ulysess’ request. Is the denial proper? What could have been the basis of
the Judge in denying the request? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The denial is proper.

Under the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial in Criminal Cases, slight physical injuries are not
among those criminal cases which can subject of court annexed mediation. Moreover, the slight
physical injuries are covered by Rule on Summary Procedure. Thus, it can anymore be subject to
mediation.

-NOTHING FOLLOWS-
Page 11 of 11