Answer in not more than 4 sentences.

1. Lita filed with the MTC of Manila an action for specific performance against Lila, a resident of
Quezon City, to compel the latter to execute a deed of conveyance covering a parcel of land
situated in Quezon City having an assessed value of P100,000.00. Lila received the summons and
a copy of the Complaint on 02 September 2023. On 10 September 2023, Lila filed an Answer
praying the dismissal of the Complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction contending that the
subject matter of the suit was incapable of pecuniary estimation. The court denied the prayer for
dismissal. In due time, Lila filed with the RTC a Petition for Certiorari praying that the said
Order be set aside because the MTC had no jurisdiction over the case. On 13 October 2023, Lita
filed with the MTC a motion to declare Lila in default. The motion was opposed by Lila on the
ground that his Petition for Certiorari was still pending.

a) Was the denial of the dismissal of the Complaint correct? (5 points)

b) Resolve the Motion to Declare the Defendant in Default. (5 points)

2. An amicable settlement was signed before a Lupon Tagapamayapa on January 3, 2023. On July 6,
2023, the prevailing party asked the Lupon to execute the amicable settlement because of the
non-compliance by the other party of the terms of the agreement. The Lupon concerned refused
to execute the settlement/agreement.

a) Is the Lupon correct in refusing to execute the settlement/agreement? (5 points)

b) What should be the course of action of the prevailing party in such a case? (5 points)

3. Cherri is a resident of Manila, while Cherry and Cherryl are residents of Batangas City. They are
the co-owners of a parcel of residential land located in Pasay City with an assessed value of
P500,000.00. Cherri borrowed P500,000.00 from Cherry which she promised to pay on or before
October 1, 2023. However, Cherri failed to pay her loan. Cherri also rejected Cherry and Cherryl's
proposal to partition the property. Cherry filed a complaint against Cherri and Cherryl in the RTC
of Pasay City for the partition of the property. She also incorporated in her complaint her action
against Cherri for the collection of the latter's P500,000.00 loan, plus interests and attorney's
fees.

State with reasons whether it was proper for Cherry to join her causes of action in her complaint
for partition against Cherri and Cherryl in the RTC of Pasay City. (10 points)

4. Lea, a warehouseman, filed a complaint against Marie Corporation, Ann Corporation and Sibal
Corporation to compel them to interplead. She alleged therein that the three corporations
claimed title and right of possession over the goods deposited in her warehouse and that she
was uncertain which of them was entitled to the goods. After due proceedings, judgment was
rendered by the court declaring that Marie Corporation was entitled to the goods. The decision
became final and executory.

Lea filed a complaint against Marie Corporation for the payment of P100,000.00 for storage
charges and other advances for the goods. Marie Corporation filed her answer stating ground of
res judicata for dismissal of the complaint. Marie Corporation alleged that Lea should have
incorporated in her complaint for interpleader her claim for storage fees and advances and that
for her failure she was barred from interposing his claim. Lea replied that he could not have
 claimed storage fees and other advances in her complaint for interpleader because she was not
yet certain as to who was liable therefor. Resolve the motion with reasons. (10 points)

5. During trial, Ronan the plaintiff was able to present, without objection on the part of Rhonan the
defendant in an ejectment case, evidence showing that plaintiff served on defendant a written
demand to vacate the subject property before the commencement of the suit, a matter not
alleged or otherwise set forth in the pleadings on file. May the corresponding pleading still be
amended to conform to the evidence? Explain. (5 points)

6. In his complaint for foreclosure of mortgage to which was duly attached a copy of the mortgage
deed, plaintiff Mike alleged inter alia as follows: (1) that defendant Michael duly executed the
mortgage deed, copy of which is Annex "A" of the complaint and made an integral part thereof;
and (2) that to prosecute his complaint, plaintiff contracted a lawyer, Mhike, for a fee of P50.000.
In his answer, defendant alleged, inter alia, that he had no knowledge of the mortgage deed, and
he also denied any liability for plaintiffs contracting with a lawyer for a fee. Does defendant's
answer as to plaintiff’s allegation no. 1 as well as no. 2 sufficiently raise an issue of fact? Reason
briefly. (10 points)

7. Jeffrey filed with filed the Regional Trial Court of Binan, Laguna, a complaint for sum of money
amounting to P1 Million against Rudy. The complaint alleges, among others, that Rudy borrowed
from Jeffrey the said amount as evidenced by a promissory note signed by Rudy and his wife,
jointly and severally. Rudy was served with summons which was received by Lea, his secretary.
However, Rudy failed to file an answer to the complaint within the reglementary period. Hence,
Jeffrey filed with the court a motion to declare Rudy in default and to allow him to present
evidence ex parte. Five days thereafter, Rudy filed his verified answer to the complaint, denying
under oath the genuineness and due execution of the promissory note and contending that he
has fully paid his loan with interest.

a. Was the summons validly served on Rudy? (5 points)

b. If you were the judge, will you grant Jeffrey’s motion to declare Rudy in default? (5
points)

8. Angel, a resident of Angeles City, borrowed P300,000.00 from Angela, a resident of Pasay City. In
the loan agreement, the parties stipulated that "the parties agree to sue and be sued in the City
of Manila."

a) In case of non- payment of the loan, can Angel file his complaint to collect the loan from
Angela in Angeles City? (5 points)
b) Suppose the parties did not stipulate in the loan agreement as to the venue, where can Angel
file his complaint against Angela? (5 points)
c) Suppose the parties stipulated in their loan agreement that "venue for all suits arising from
this contract shall be the courts in Quezon City," can Angel file his complaint against Angela in
Pasay City? (5 points)

9. Ishi filed a suit with the RTC of Pasay against Oishi and/or Estate of Oishi for reconveyance of a
lot declared in the name of Oishi under TCT No. 1234. The complaint alleged that‚ on account of
Oishi’s residence abroad up to the present and the uncertainty of whether he is still alive or
dead, he or his estate may be served with summons by publication.‛ Summons was published
 and nobody filed any responsive pleading within sixty (60) days therefrom. Upon motion,
defendants were declared in default and judgment was rendered declaring Ishi as legal owner
and ordering defendants to reconvey said lot to Ishi.

Desiree, the court-designated administrator of Oishi’s estate, filed a petition for annulment of
judgment before the CA praying that the decision in favor of Ishi be declared null and void for
lack of jurisdiction. He claims that the action filed by Ishi is an action in personam and that the
court did not acquire jurisdiction over defendants Oishi and/or his estate. On the other hand,
Ishi claims that the suit is an action in rem or at least an action quasi in rem. Is the RTC judge
correct in ordering service of summons by publication? Explain. (10 points)

10. A law was passed declaring Mt. Karbungko as a protected area since it was a major watershed.
The protected area covered a portion located in the Municipality of Province I and a portion
located in the City of Z of Province II. Maingat is the leader of Samahang Tagapag-ingat ng
Karbungko (STK), a people’s organization. He learned that a portion of the mountain located in
the City of Z of Province II was extremely damaged when it was bulldozed and leveled to the
ground and several trees and plants were cut down and burned by workers of World Pleasure
Resorts Inc (WPRI) for the construction of a hotel and golf course. Upon inquiry with the project
site engineer if they had a permit for the project, Maingat was shown a copy of the
Environmental Compliance (ECC) issued by the DENR – EMB, Regional Director (RD-DENREMB).
Immediately, Maingat and STK filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus against RD-
DENR-EMB and WPRI with the RTC of Province I, a designated environment court, as the RD-
DENR-EMB negligently issued the ECC to WPRI.

On scrutiny of the Petition, the Court determined that the area where the alleged actionable or
omission subject of the petition took place in the City of Z of Province II, and therefore
cognizable by the RTC of Province II. Thus, the Court dismissed outright the petition for lack of
jurisdiction. a. Was the court correct in motu proprio dismissing the petition? b. Assuming that
the court did not dismiss the petition, the RD-DENR-EMB in his Comment, moved to dismiss the
petition on the ground that petitioners failed to appeal the issuance of the ECC and to exhaust
administrative remedies provided in the DENR Rules and Regulations. Should the Court dismiss
the petition? (10 points)

ANSWER:
1. (a)

We need to know first if the action is capable of pecuniary estimation. So, when is it capable of
pecuniary estimation?

If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary
estimation, and if yes now the question is whether the jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in
the courts of first instance and that would depend on the amount of the claim.

The denial of the prayer to Dismiss the Complaint was not correct. Although the assessed value
of the parcel of land involved was P100,000.00, within the jurisdiction of the MTC of Manila, the
 action filed by Lita for Specific Performance against Lila to compel the latter to execute a Deed of
Conveyance of said parcel of land was not capable of pecuniary estimation and, therefore, the
action was within the jurisdiction of RTC. (Russel v. Vestil, 304 SCRA 738 [1999]; Copioso v.
Copioso, G.R. No. 149243, October 28,2002; Cabutihan v. Landcenter Construction, 383 SCRA
353 [2002]).

Regardless of the amount of the property involved, as long as it is only for a specific performance
– pinapaexecute mo lang eh

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: BUT TAKE NOTE If the action affects title to or possession of real
property then it is a real action and jurisdiction is determined by the assessed value of the
property. It is within the jurisdiction therefore of the Metropolitan Trial Court.

In this case it is an action for specific performance to compel the latter to execute a deed of
conveyance covering a parcel of of land.

What is a deed of conveyance?

The sale deed can transfer the legal property title from one person to the next. On the other
hand, a conveyance deed can transfer property ownership to another in case of a mortgage,
lease, exchange, gift or other circumstance.

SO IS IS THIS CAPABLE OF PECUNIARY ESTIMATION?

In this case hindi naman to case over the ownership of the property, there is no question over
the title or ownership of the property INSTEAD ang problema nila is yun deed - pinapagawa mo
lang sa kanya ano yun dapat niya gawin which is to execute a deed of conveyance.

(b) NO

DECLARE IN DEFAULT: The Court could declare Lila in default because Lila did not obtain a writ of
preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order from the RTC prohibiting the judge from
proceeding in the case during the pendency of the petition for certiorari. (Sec. 7 of Rule 65; Diaz
v. Diaz, 331 SCRA 302 [2002]).

CANNOT DECLARE IN DEFAULT: The Court should not declare Lila in default inasmuch as the
jurisdiction of MTC was put in issue in the Petition For Certiorari filed with the RTC. The MTC
should defer further proceedings pending the result of such petition. (Eternal Gardens Memorial
Park Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 164 SCRA 421 [1988]).

Depends on how you play your argument. But as long as walang writ of PI or TRO from RTC
magproproceed ako as a judge. Should still answer and raise it as one of your defenses.

"Sec. 3. Default; declaration of. — If the defending party fails to answer within the time
allowed therefor, the court shall, upon motion of the claiming party with notice to the
defending party, and proof of such failure, declare the defending party in default. Thereupon,
the court shall proceed to render judgment granting the claimant such relief as his pleading
may warrant, unless the court in its discretion requires the claimant to submit evidence.
Such reception of evidence may be delegated to the clerk of court.

"(a) Effect of order of default. — A party in default shall be entitled to notice of subsequent
proceedings but not to take part in the trial.

"(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 failure to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
negligence and that he 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.

2. a) Yes, the Lupon is correct in refusing to execute the settlement/agreement because the
execution sought is already beyond the period of six months from the date of the settlement
within which the Lupon is authorized to execute. (Sec. 417, Local Government Code of 1991).

b) After the six-month period, the prevailing party should move to execute the
settlement/agreement in the appropriate city or municipal trial court. (Id.) Where to file case
after this?

Certificate to file action only if no settlement but execution lang kasi may settlement na nga
kayo, ayaw lang tumupad ng isa. So court na magpapaexecute.
If may settlement and was not executed within Barangay level go to appropriate court for its
execution depending on the jurisdiction under the law if MTC.

Student Answer: The course of action of the prevailing party is to first obtain from the Barangay a
Certificate to File an Action. Then the prevailing party may then file an action before the RTC and compel
the other party for specific performance as agreed upon in the amicable settlement.

Student Answer:The course of action of the prevailing party in such case is to repudiate the amicable
settlement and ask the barangay to issue a certificate to file action. The prevailing party may file the
complaint in the proper court.

TAKE NOTE of the grounds for repudiation. What we are taking about here is the execution of the
settlement.

3. No, It was not proper for Cherry to join his causes of action against Cherri in his complaint for
partition against Cherri and Cherryl. The causes of action may be between the same parties,
Cherry and Cherri, with respect to the loan but not with respect to the partition which includes
Cherryl. The joinder is between a partition and a sum of money, but PARTITION is a special civil
action under Rule 69, which cannot be joined with other causes of action. (See. 5[b], Rule 2).
Also, the causes of action pertain to different venues and jurisdictions.
Again TAKE NOTE in joining causes of action there must be same parties, arising from same
transactions or if not it should be of same venue and jurisdiction. In this problem of the 3
Cherries, one is a Special Civil Action while the other is an Ordinary Cvil Action so they have
DIFFERENT JURISDICTION and also they have different venues, as the partition case involves a
real property so it should be filed where the property is situated.
 The case for a sum of money pertains to the municipal court and cannot be filed in Pasay City
because the plaintiff is from Manila while Cherry and Cherryl are from Batangas City.(Sec. 5, Rule
2)

4. The prayer for dismissal should be granted. Lea should have incorporated in her complaint for
interpleader his claim for storage fees and advances, the amounts of which were obviously
determinable at the time of the filing of the complaint. They are part of Lea’s cause of action
which she may not split.

Hence, when the warehouseman asks the court to ascertain who among the defendants are
entitled to the goods, she also has the right to ask who should pay for the storage fees and other
related expenses. The filing of the interpleader is available as a ground for dismissal of the
second case. (Sec. 4, Rule 2). It is akin to a compulsory counterclaim which, if not set up, shall be
barred. (Sec. 2, Rule 9, ;Arreza v. Diaz, G.R. No. 133113, August 30, 2001).

5. WHEN IS AMENDMENT TO CONFORM TO EVIDENCE ALLOWED?

When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or implied consent of the parties,
they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings.

Yes. The corresponding pleading may still be amended to conform to the evidence, because the
written demand to vacate, made prior to the commencement of the ejectment suit, was
presented by the plaintiff in evidence without objection on the part of the defendant. Even if the
demand to vacate was jurisdictional, still, the amendment proposed was to conform to the
evidence that was already in the record and not to confer jurisdiction on the court, which is not
allowed. Failure to amend, however, does not affect the result of the trial on these issues. (Sec. 5
of Rule 10).

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: It depends. In forcible entry, the motion may be allowed at the
discretion of the court, the demand having been presented at the trial without objection on the
part of the defendant. In unlawful detainer, however, the demand to vacate is jurisdictional and
since the court did not acquire jurisdiction from the very beginning, the motion to conform to
the evidence cannot be entertained. The amendment cannot be allowed because it will in effect
confer jurisdiction when there is otherwise no jurisdiction.

Avoid it depends answer. Answer lang kung ano yun tinatanong – don’t go beyond the question.
Do not complicate things.

6. SUGGESTED ANSWER: As to plaintiffs allegation no. 1, defendant does not sufficiently raise an
issue of fact, because he cannot allege lack of knowledge of the mortgage deed since he should
have personal knowledge as to whether he signed it or not and because he did not deny under
oath the genuineness and due execution of the mortgage deed, which is an actionable
document. As to plaintiff’s allegation no. 2, defendant did not properly deny liability as to
plaintiff’s contracting with a lawyer for a fee. He did not even deny for lack of knowledge. (Sec.
10 of Rule 8).

7. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a.
It depends.

If it is shown that there was failure of personal service to the defendant after
unsuccessful attempts, substituted service of summons may be done (Rule 14 Section4
and 6)
1. By leaving copies at def’s residence to a person at least 18 years of age and of
sufficient age and discretion residing therein;
2. Def’s office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge
thereof which is not limited to one who customarily receives correspondence for the
def; and
3. If refused entry upon making his or her authority and purpose known, with any of
the home owners’ association or condominium corporation, or its chief security
officer in charge.

The summons was not validly served on Rudy because it was served on his secretary and
the requirements for substituted service have not been followed, such as a showing that
efforts have been exerted to serve the same on Rudy and such attempt has failed
despite due diligence (Manotoc v. CA, G.R. No. 130974, August 16, 2006; AngPing v. CA,
G.R. No. 126947, July 15, 1999).

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Service of Summons on Rudy was validly served upon him if the
Return will show that it was done through Substituted Service because the defendant
can not be served personally within a reasonable time despite diligent efforts made to
serve the summons personally. Lea, the secretary of defendant Rudy, must likewise be
shown to be a competent person in charge of defendant's office where summons was
served (Sec. 7, Rule 14).

b.

If validly served = acquire jurisdiction. Can declare in default.

If Properly served EVEN IF THE OTHER PARTY DID NOT RECEIVE OR REFUSED TO RECEIVE
the summons, he can be declared in default.

If not – NOT acquire jurisdiction. CANNOT declare in default.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: If I were the judge, I will not grant Jeffrey’s motion to declare
Rudy in default because summons was not properly served and anyway, a verified
answer to the complaint had already been filed. Moreover, it is better to decide a case
on the merits rather than on technicality.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Yes. If it was shown that summons was validly served, and that
the motion to declare Rudy in default was duly furnished on Rudy, and after conducting
a hearing on the same motion.
Student answer: b.)If I were the Judge, I will not grant the Motion to declare defendant in default, for the
summons was invalid and the court has not yet acquired jurisdiction over the person. From a decided case,
is a summons was not properly served to the defendant there is no valid or the court has not acquire
jurisdiction over the person. Hence, the Court cannot grant the motion to declare defendant in default for
lack of merit.

8.
Venue may be stipulated by the parties. But TAKE NOTE that it should conform with the
requirements of exclusivity.
1. In writing
2. Words of exclusivity Iike “shall, only, exclusive.. and the like”

So here it depends on your interpretation and bahala kayo magdefend sa answer niyo.

Use ALAC method in all sub questions:

1.Answer: “Yes the complaint may be filed in Pasay City”;
2. Legal Basis: “Under the Rules on Venue”;
3. Argument: “In this case there is an exclusive venue stipulated by the parties etc etc;
4. Conclusion: “Thus, the complaint may be filed in Pasay City”

a) Yes, because the stipulation in the loan agreement that "the parties agree to sue and be sued
in the City of Manila" does not make Manila the "exclusive venue thereof." (Sec, 4 of Rule 4, as
amended by Circular No. 13 95: Sec. 4 of new Rule 4) Hence, A can file his complaint in Angeles
City where he resides, (Sec, 2 of Rule 4). b) If the parties did not stipulate on the venue, A can file
his complaint either in Angeles City where he resides or in Pasay City where X resides, (Id). c) Yes,
because the wording of the stipulation does not make Quezon City the exclusive venue.
(Philbanking v. Tensuan. 230 SCRA 413; Unimasters Conglomeration, Inc. v. CA. CR-119657, Feb.
7, 1997).

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: c) No. If the parties stipulated that the venue "shall be in the courts in
Quezon City," A cannot file his complaint in Pasay City because the use of the word "shall" makes
Quezon City the exclusive venue thereof. (Hoechst Philippines vs. Torres, 83 SCRA 297).

Student Answer: Yes. Under the rule on venue stipulation, parties may agree in writing before the filing of
the action on a different or exclusive venue. However, venue stipulation is not binding if the validity of the
contract is assailed.

9. Yes. The RTC is correct in ordering the service of summons by publication. An action for
declaration of nullity of title and recovery of ownership of real property, or re-conveyance, is a
real action but it is an action in personam, for it binds a particular individual only although it
concerns the right to a tangible thing. Any judgment therein is binding only upon the parties
properly impleaded (Heirs of Eugenio Lopez, Sr. v. Enriquez, cited in Emerita Munoz v. Atty.
Victoriano R. Yabut, Jr. and Samuel Go Chan, G.R. No. 142676, June 6, 2011).

In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court
to validly try and decide the case. Jurisdiction over the person of a resident defendant who does
not voluntarily appear in court can be acquired by personal service of summons as provided
 under Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. If he cannot be personally served with summons
within a reasonable time, substituted service may be made in accordance with Section 8 of said
Rule (Spouses Domingo M. Belen, et. al., v. Hon. Pablo R. Chavez, et al. G.R. No. 175334, March
26, 2008).

If personal and substituted service of summons CANNOT BE MADE = by Publication.

ALSO TAKE NOTE of the difference or a real action and personal action as to action in persom and
in rem.

Regardless of the type of action - whether it is in personam, in rem or quasi in rem - the
preferred mode of service of summons is personal service. To avail themselves of
substituted service, courts must rely on a detailed enumeration of the sheriff's actions and a
showing that the defendant cannot be served despite diligent and reasonable efforts to have
personal or substituted service.

In actions in personam, the judgment is for or against a person directly.

Jurisdiction over the parties is required in actions in personam because they seek to impose
personal responsibility or liability upon a person.

Courts need not acquire jurisdiction over parties on this basis in in rem and quasi in rem actions.
Actions in remor quasi in remare not directed against the person based on his or her personal
liability.

Actions in rem are actions against the thing itself. They are binding upon the whole world. Quasi in
85

remactions are actions involving the status of a property over which a party has interest. Quasi in
86

rem actions are not binding upon the whole world. They affect only the interests of the particular
parties.

However, to satisfy the requirements of due process, jurisdiction over the parties in in rem
and quasi in rem actions is required.

Under Section 14, Rule 14, Rules of Court, in any action where the defendant is designated as an
unknown owner, or the like, or whenever his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be
ascertained by diligent inquiry, service may, by leave of court, be effected upon him by
publication in a newspaper of general circulation and in such places and for such time as the
court may order. This rule applies to any action, whether in personam, in rem or quasi in rem.
(Pedro T. Santos, Jr. v. PNOC Exploration Corporation, G.R. No. 170943, September 23, 2008).
Clearly, since the action for re-conveyance is an action in personam, the RTC Judge is correct in
ordering service of summons by publication.

Student Answer: Yes, the RTC is correct in ordering the summons by publication. Under the Rules of
Court, the service of summons by publication is allowed for person or individual living in abroad or where
the whereabouts is unknown. Moreover, service of summons for action in rem or quasi in rem is not
required but an indispensable act to satisfy the requirement of due process. In this case, the RTC ordered
the service of summons by publication since Oishi is living abroad is valid. Therefore, the order of the RTC
judge in service of summons by publication is valid.
10. SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
a.

No. The Court was not correct in motu proprio dismissing the petition. While it appears
that the alleged actionable neglect or omission took place in the City of Z of Province II
and therefore cognizable by the RTC of Province II, nonetheless, venue is not
jurisdictional, and it can be waived in a special civil action for continuing mandamus
(Dolot v. Paje, G.R. No. 199199, August 27, 2013). Besides under Section 1, Rule 9 of the
Rules of Court, defenses and objections not pleaded in the Answer are deemed waived.
Hence, the Court cannot motu proprio dismiss the case on the ground of improper
venue.

TAKE NOTE here the difference between jurisdiction and venue. Venue is not
jurisdictional and it can be waived. Whereas jurisdiction OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER is a
non-waivable defense so even not alleged by the party, the court may motu proprio act
on it.

b. Yes, the Court should dismiss the petition because the proper procedure to question a
defect in an ECC is to follow the DENR administrative appeal process in accordance with
the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. (Dolot v. Paje, G.R. No. 199199,
August 27, 2013; Paje v. Casino, G.R. No. 207257, February 3, 2015).

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: No, the Court should not dismiss the petition because the
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies finds no application when the matter
is of extreme urgency that may cause great and irreparable damage to the environment
involving strong public interest. After all, the Court may suspend the rules of procedure
in order to achieve substantial justice, and to address urgent and paramount State
interests vital to the life of our nation (Boracay Foundation Inc. v. Province of Aklan, G.R.
No. 196870, June 26, 2012; Paje v. Casino G.R. No. 207257, February 3, 2015)

Answer in not more than 4 sentences EACH QUESTION!

Use ALAC method in all sub questions:

1.Answer: “Yes the complaint may be filed in Pasay City”;
2. Legal Basis: “Under the Rules on Venue”, “Under the Rules of Court”, or “According to cases
decided by the Supreme Court”;
3. Argument: “In this case there is an exclusive venue stipulated by the parties etc etc;
4. Conclusion: “Thus, the complaint may be filed in Pasay City”

Grammar.

Citing of legal basis – don’t cite general basis like “Under the LAW”. You can cite Under BP 129,
ROC or Rules on Summon, Rules on Jurisdiction, Law on Property, Law on Sales instead of Civil
Code”
Your first sentence must always be a direct answer to the question. “Yes”, “No”, “I will rule in
favor of..” or “I will grant/deny the motion..”