ANSWERS TO CIVIL PROCEDURE PRELIM:

1. No, the action was not properly instituted in Ormoc City.

Rule 4, Section 1, 2nd paragraph

Section 1. Venue of real actions. – Actions affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein, shall
be commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property
involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.
Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced and tried in the municipal trial court of the municipality
or city wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.

Here, the proper venue should be the MTC in Baybay City because the case is for unlawful detainer and it is where
the property is situated.

2. No, I will not grant the motion to dismiss.

Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the
complaint which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action.

While the payment of the prescribed docket fee is a jurisdictional requirement, even its non-payment at the time of
filing does not automatically cause the dismissal of the case. The court may allow payment of the fee within a
reasonable time, but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.

Here, Dalton. and David merely relied on the assessment made by the clerk of court. If incorrect, the clerk of court
has the responsibility of reassessing how much they must pay within the prescriptive period.

3. Yes, the RTC of Manila may consider the PN and the surety agreement in rendering its decision.

Rule 8, Section 8
Section 8. How to contest such documents. – When an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument, or
attached to the corresponding pleading as provided in the preceding section, the genuineness and due execution
of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath specifically denies them, and
sets forth what he or she claims to be the facts; but the requirement of an oath does not apply when the adverse
party does not appear to be a party to the instrument or when compliance with an order for an inspection of the
original instrument is refused.

Here, ABC Enterprises Inc, Daniel, and Debbie are parties to the PN and the surety agreement. Since the PN and
surety agreement are attached to the complaint, ABC Enterprises Inc, Daniel, and Debbie are deemed to have
admitted the genuineness and due execution thereof for their failure to: (a) deny the genuineness and due execution
of these documents under oath; and (b) to set for what they claim to be facts.

4. No, the motion to dismiss of ABC Bank should not be granted.

As regards restrictive stipulations on venue, jurisprudence instructs that it must be shown that such stipulation is
exclusive. In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, such as “exclusively,” “waiving for this purpose any other
venue,” “shall only” preceding the designation of venue, “to the exclusion of the other courts,” or words of similar
import, the stipulation should be deemed as merely an agreement on an additional forum, not as limiting venue to
the specified place.

In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court held that a party is not bound by a venue stipulation where he
directly assails on the ground of forgery the validity of the contracts containing the venue stipulation. The reason is
that such a party cannot be expected to comply with the venue stipulation since his compliance there with would
mean an implicit recognition of the validity of the contracts he assails
5. Yes, the trial court has a reason to deny the motion to dismiss.

Rule 3. Section 11
Section 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. – Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is ground for
dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or on its
own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just. Any claim against a misjoined party may be
severed and proceeded with separately.

Here, Leica and Agatha are indispensable parties but were not impleaded, hence non-joinder. But it will still not be a
ground for dismissal. The court may order them to be added even on its own initiative.

6. Yes, there is splitting of a single cause of action.

Rule 2, Section 3 and 4

Section 3. One suit for a single cause of action. – A party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of
action. (3a)
Section 4. Splitting a single cause of action; effect of. – If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same
cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for the
dismissal of the others.

Here, the cause of action is the non-payment of loan. The foreclosure of the real estate mortgage and the recovery
of the principal sum arose from the same cause of action. Hence, there is splitting of the cause of action and a
ground for dismissal on one of them is available.

7. Ramon may validly object to the proposed testimony of an NBI handwriting expert to prove forgery.

Rule 8., Section 8

Section 8. How to contest such documents. – When an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument, or
attached to the corresponding pleading as provided in the preceding section, the genuineness and due execution
of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath specifically denies them, and
sets forth what he or she claims to be the facts; but the requirement of an oath does not apply when the adverse
party does not appear to be a party to the instrument or when compliance with an order for an inspection of the
original instrument is refused.

Here, the genuineness and due execution of the promissory note, which is an actionable document, was impliedly
admitted by Harold when he failed to deny the same under oath, his answer being unverified. Hence Harold is
precluded from setting up the defense of forgery and thus Ramon may object to the proposed testimony seeking to
prove forgery.

8. Deny the affirmative defense raised by Ricardo.

Rule 2, Section 6
Section 6. Misjoinder of causes of action. – Misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for dismissal of an
action. A misjoined cause of action may, on motion of a party or on the initiative of the court, be severed and
proceeded with separately.

Here, there is a misjoined cause of action which is the failure to vacate the rented apartment since it is under the
jurisdiction of the MTC. But it shall not be a ground for the dismissal of the action. It may be severed and proceeded
with separately.

9.
a. No, there is no need for Sebastian to file a Reply.
 Rule 6, Section 10, 1st paragraph, last sentence
Section 10. Reply. – All new matters alleged in the answer are deemed controverted. If the plaintiff wishes
to interpose any claims arising out of the new matters so alleged, such claims shall be set forth in an
amended or supplemental complaint. However, the plaintiff may file a reply only if the defending party
attaches an actionable document to his or her answer.

Here, no actionable document was attached to the answer of Flor and so Sebastian may not file a Reply.

b. Yes, there is a need for Flor to pay the docket fees. Her counterclaim is permissive which did not arise from
the same transaction.

Rule 6, Section 7
Section 7. Compulsory counterclaim. – A compulsory counterclaim is one which, being cognizable by the
regular courts of justice, arises out of or is connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting the
subject matter of the opposing party’s claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third
parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. Such a counterclaim must be within the jurisdiction
of the court both as to the amount and the nature thereof, except that in an original action before the
Regional Trial Court, the counterclaim may be considered compulsory regardless of the amount. A
compulsory counterclaim not raised in the same action is barred, unless otherwise allowed by these Rules.

Here, the counterclaim of Flor is not compulsory since it did not arise on the same transaction constituting
the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim, hence permissive. Being a permissive counterclaim, she is
required to pay the docket fees.

10. No, the contention of Raul is correct.

The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case; otherwise,
those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to the case. Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances,
however, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action
or defense, the signature of only one of them in the certification against forum shopping substantially complies
with the Rule.

Here, the failure of Roy and Roel to sign the certification against forum shopping cannot be a ground on the dismissal
of the case. Since there was a justifiable circumstance on why they were not able to sign which is being out of the
country when the complaint was filed and that they share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action,
the signature of Rex is sufficient and that they will still be included in the action.

11. There is no effect of Carlos’ failure to specifically deny the claim of Artemio for damages.

Rule 8, Section 11
Section 11. Allegations not specifically denied deemed admitted. – Material averments in a pleading asserting a
claim or claims, other than those as to the amount of unliquidated damages, shall be deemed admitted when not
specifically denied.

Here, the damages claimed by Artemio are unliquidated damages for the fact that it was still alleged. It is immaterial
if it was not specifically denied and shall not be deemed admitted.

12.
Rule 9, Section 3, B
Relief from order of default. – A party declared in default may at any time after notice thereof and before
judgment, file a motion under oath to set aside the order of default upon proper showing that his or her failure to
answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence and that he or she has a meritorious defense.
In such case, the order of default may be set aside on such terms and conditions as the judge may impose in the
interest of justice.

13. No, the judge is not correct.

Rule 10, Section 2

Amendments as a matter of right. – A party may amend his [or her] pleading once as a matter of right at any time
before a responsive pleading is served or, in the case of a reply, at any time within ten (10) calendar days after it is
served. (2a)

Here, there was no responsive pleading filed by Roberto yet. Since the amendment is a matter of right, it is
immaterial if such amendment is substantial.

14. File a supplemental complaint

Rule 10, Section 6

Section 6. Supplemental pleadings. – Upon motion of a party[,] the court may, upon reasonable notice and upon
such terms as are just, permit him or her to serve a supplemental pleading setting forth transactions, occurrences
or events which have happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented. The adverse party may
plead thereto within ten (10) calendar days from notice of the order admitting the supplemental pleading.

Here, the failure to pay the rents from July 2022 up to the present are transactions or occurrences which existed
only after the filing of the original complaint. They may be added through a supplemental complaint.

15. Yes, he will still be allowed.

Rule 11, Section 10

Section 10. Omitted counterclaim or cross-claim. – When a pleader fails to set up a counterclaim or a cross-claim
through oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when justice requires, he or she may, by leave of court,
set up the counterclaim or cross-claim by amendment before judgment.

The reason for the failure of the counterclaim or crossclaim must be through oversight, inadvertence or excusable
neglect or when justice requires it. It may be set up by amendment before judgment but must be by leave of court.

16. No, the lawyer cannot request for an extension.

Rule 11, Section 11

Section 11. Extension of time to file an answer. – A defendant may, for meritorious reasons, be granted an
additional period of not more than thirty (30) calendar days to file an answer. A defendant is only allowed to file
one (1) motion for extension of time to file an answer. A motion for extension to file any pleading, other than an
answer, is prohibited and considered a mere scrap of paper. The court, however, may allow any other pleading to
be filed after the time fixed by these Rules.

Here, the request was for the extension of time to file was not for an Answer but for a Reply which is a pleading that
is prohibited and considered a mere scrap of paper.