MACABANDO, RAISA S.

1. a.) Bea’s contention that the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person
of Andrea has no merit. Andrea, a non-resident of the Philippines, may file an
action for rescission of contract of sale before the court where the subject prop-
erty is located. In the case at hand, since the property is located in Lipa City,
Andrea correctly filed the case in the RTC of Lipa City. Therefore, the court
acquired jurisdiction over the person of Andrea.

b.) No, Bea is incorrect. The law expressly provides that RTC has exclusive
original jurisdiction over case which is incapable of pecuniary estimation. In the
case at bar, since the complaint is an action for rescission of contract of sale, there
is no need to determine the assessed value because such action is incapable of pe-
cuniary estimation. Thus, Andrea correctly filed it before the RTC.

c.) Yes, the verification and certification of non-forum shopping are fatally defec-
tive. The law provides that a document notarized abroad must be accompanied by a
certification issued by the Philippine Consulate indicating that the person who no-
tarized the document is authorized by their country to act as notary public. Hence,
the case may be dismissed without prejudice.

No, the writ of execution may not be enforced against Edmar. The Rules of
Court provide that it is the duty of the counsel to notify the court of the death of his
client within 30 days from the fact of death. Failure to notify the court is a ground
for an administrative case against the counsel. In the case at bar, there can be no
valid judgment without impleading the indispensable party, the legal representative
of Denker. Hence, the judgment of the court which became final is null and void.
The writ of execution may not be enforced.

a. Yes, RTC has a duty to resolve the motion to dismiss. Under the 2019
Amendments to Rules of Court, there are only 4 grounds for a motion to dismiss,
to wit: the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, res judicata, litis pen-
dentia and prescription. In the case at hand, the ground for motion to dismiss is
prescription. Hence, RTC may resolve it.
b. Yes. The ground of prescription can be raised as an affirmative defense. The
RTC has a duty to resolve it and may dismiss the case outright based on such
ground.

The court should grant the motion to dismiss. The Rules of Court provide that a
compulsory counterclaim not set up in the original case shall be barred forever. In
this case, since Dmitri did not file a compulsory counterclaim or did not raise the
refund as an affirmative defense in the answer, he cannot file a separate action for
the refund of the downpayment.

No, the court should not grant Danding’s motion. The rules of court provide that
the defendant should file an answer raising therein his affirmative defenses and to
attach his documentary and object evidence if any. Thus, the court should not grant
the motion.

May 12 is the last day for the defendant to file his answer. Hence, he cannot file for
answer anymore. However, he may file for an extension of 30 days to file an an-
swer. This extension, as provided in the rules of court, can be availed of only once.
Thus, he can file an answer until June 12. Defendant has 12 days left to file his an-
swer.

a. Marco can stay the execution of judgment by filing a notice of appeal to the
RTC.

b. No, the CA is not correct. The law provides that the execution of MTC judg-
ment cannot be enforced if there is a pending appeal before the RTC. Because the
appeal to the RTC will stay the judgment of MTC.
8

a. No, the RTC cannot issue an order granting the application for preliminary at-
tachment without notice and hearing. Rule 57 of the rules of court provides
that a preliminary attachment can only be issued when: 1) The defendant is
 about to abscond; 2) the defendant is feared to be bankrupt; 3) a non resident
of the Philippines who will depart the country anytime soon; 4) embezzled the
money of the government. In this case, there is no allegations in the complaint
that may allow the issuance of preliminary attachment as enumerated above.

b. No, the RTC may not grant Derick’s motion to discharge the attachment.
Whether or not the money was delivered to him by way of loan and not for safe-
keeping will not discharge the writ of attachment. Derick is still liable to Ponty.
Thus, Derick should pay the amount of 1Million to Ponty for the attachment to be
discharged.

a. Yes, the argument is correct. The Rules of Court provide that a general denial
constitutes an admission. In this case, since petitioner failed to specifically
deny the genuineness and due execution of the birth certificates, they are
deemed admitted.
b. The court should rule against the petitioner. The private respondents in this
case are real parties in interest because they are siblings of the decedent and
they were able to prove it by presenting their birth certificates. Hence, the ar-
gument of petitioner that the complaint states no cause of action must fail.

10

Yes. The law provides that in special proceedings, a record of appeal must be filed
within 30 days from notice of judgment. Hence, the Republic still have remaining
15days to file a record of appeal.

11

Yes. The law provides that in order for the qualifying and aggravating circum-
stances to be appreciated by the court, it must be alleged in the information with
particularity. The word “treachery” stated in the information is not sufficient to
make AB liable for murder. There must be statements of facts which shows that
there is indeed a treachery employed by the accused against the victim. Hence, the
conviction of AB for murder may be reduced to one for homicide.

12

a. The court should grant Dong’s motion. The law provides that if the civil action
is instituted before a criminal action, the civil action is deemed suspended until
judgment has been entered in the criminal case.
b. The court should deny Dong’s motion. There is no prejudicial question in this
case to suspend the criminal case. In fact, in a criminal case, the civil action is
deemed instituted.
c. No, the law provides that a party can only recover once in the same cause of ac-
tion. Hence, the award of the criminal court will bar recovery from the civil court.

13

No, the CA did not act correctly. It is axiomatic that a court cannot convict an ac-
cused based solely on his plea of guilty. The prosecution must present witnesses
and its evidence to prove the accused’s guilt and degree of culpability. The CA
should have ruled in favor of the accused and not to remand the case to RTC be-
cause remanding the case constitutes double jeopardy.

14

Yes. The offer of testimony is objectionable. The witness in this case did not see
Andropov robbing the bank based on his personal knowledge. He merely watched
the cctv. Thus, the prosecution should have presented the CCTV Footage as docu-
mentary evidence to the court.

15

No. In a case of writ of habeas corpus of custody of minors, the petitioner should
prove that his son was deprived of his liberty by the respondent and petitioner has
the right of custody over his son. The presentation of witness to testify regarding
respondent punching the child’s mother is irrelevant in this case.

16

If I were the legal counsel of Boris, the legal remedy I would take is to file a peti-
tion for certiorari on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction under rule 65. There is grave abuse of discretion because the
CA erred in ruling that there is waiver of ground of illegal seizure by not raising it
in the trial court. In criminal cases, jurisprudence has it that on appeal, the case is
thrown open which allows the case to be reviewed whether based on questions of
law or fact. The CA may also receive evidence and rule on issues or matters not
raised in the trial court.

17

If I were the lawyer of Les Foo, the legal remedy that I will take is to file a petition
for certiorari on the ground of grave abuse of discretion under rule 65. The CA
erred in its ruling that the appeal should have been taken to sandiganbayan. BP 129
provides that the sandiganbayan has jurisdiction in cases where the amount in-
volved exceeds 1Million pesos. In the case at bar, the amount involved did not ex-
ceed 1million pesos. Hence, the appeal can be filed before the CA.

18

a. No, the affidavit may not be admitted in evidence without the witness being
presented in court. The law provides that the presentation of witness is neces-
sary to be able to cross examine such witness by the accused. Under the rules
on criminal procedure, It is the right of the accused to cross examine the wit-
ness.
b. No, my answer would not be the same. In that case, since Dr No has been pre-
sented in court as a witness to testify against his medical certificate, his testi-
mony may be admitted as evidence.

19

Objections sustained. The character evidence is not admissible in the case of an an-
nulment of a contract based on fraud, for being hearsay and irrelevant. A character
evidence is admissible only if the character of a party is the main issue or subject
matter in the complaint. Like for example, in cases of perjury, it can be proved
through testimonies of witnesses that such person is known to be a liar in the com-
munity.

20
The letter is a hearsay. It has no merit. Since Radley, the one who wrote such let-
ter, already died before he can testify as to the handwritten letter, there is no way
that the letter can be received as evidence to prove the innocence of Pol Guy.