1.1. Mr. A can raise a proper defense as a representative capacity.

Under the Article 88 of the New Civil Code, the absolute community of property
between spouses shall commence at the precise moment of marriage is
celebrated. In relation to this, Section 89 of the New civil code also provides that
there should be no waiver of rights, interests, shares and effects of the absolute
community of property during the marriage can be made except in case of
Judicial separation of property. In addition, according to section 3 of Rule 3 of
the Rules of Court, a representative may be an administrator.

In this case, Spouses A contracted their marriage without any marriage

settlement on what kind of property relation will govern their property during
marriage. By express mandate of the Civil code, upon entering into a marriage
their property ipso jure governed by an absolute community. Thus, the waiver
that was made by Mr. A over a parcel of land in favor of his wife is null and void
for being contrary to the provision of section 89 of the Civil code. Therefore, He is
still a co-administrator of the said and may raise a proper defense as a
representative capacity pursuant to section 3 of rule 3 of the Rules of Court.

1.2. Mr A cannot be a party in interest over the case.

Under article 1431 of the Civil code, through estoppel an admission or

representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be
denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon. In addition,
"Registration", defined as the entry made in the registry which records solemnly and
permanently the right of ownership and other real rights.

In the case at bar, Mr. A waived his right and interest over the parcel of land in favor of
his wife, he admits such fact by executing documents before a notary public and by
recording and annotating it in the Office of Local Civil registrar. Therefore, he is
estopped from claiming that his prior waiver over the subject land in favor of his wife is
void or invalid for XYZ corp. relied on that fact.

1.3. In other suits, a Judge, the court, a quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation,
board, officer or person may stand as pro forma parties because according to the
case of Samaniego v. Aguila, a nominal or pro forma party is one who is joined as
a plaintiff or defendant, not because such party has any real interest in the
subject matter or because any relief is demanded, but merely because the
technical rules of pleadings require the presence of such party on the record.

2. The defenses raised by 123 Realty corp. in its answer can be classified as negative
pregnant.
 According to the case of Valdez v. Dabon, Jr., Negative pregnant is a form of
negative expression which carries with it an affirmation or at least an implication of
some kind favorable to the adverse party.

In this case, it can be seen that although the allegations made by 123 Realty corp is
in the form of negative expression, we cannot deny that it also admits certain facts
that is favorable to Mr. C.

3.1. The pieces of evidence that the plaintiff and the defendants attached to their
complaints and answer are documentary evidence.
Under section 2 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, Documents as evidence consist of
writings, recordings, photographs or any material containing letters, words, sounds,
numbers, figures, symbols, or their equivalent, or other modes of written expression
offered as proof of their contents. Photographs include still pictures, drawings, stored
images, x-ray fi lms, motion pictures or videos.
In this case, the receipt of payment attached by the defendant and the copy of the
Resolution passed by Sangguniang Panglungsod is a kind of documentary evidence.

3.2. I disagree with the ruling of the lower court rendering judgement in favor of the
City.
Under Section 2 of Rule 70 of the rules of Civil Procedure, action by the lesser shall be
commenced only after demand to pay or comply with the conditions of the lease and to
vacate is made upon the lessee, or by serving written notice of such demand upon the
person found on the premises if no person be found thereon, and the lessee fails to
comply therewith after fifteen (15) days in the case of land or five (5) days in the case of
buildings.
In this case, the lower court takes cognizance of the case without considering that a prior
demand was not made by the City. Mere non-payment of rentals is not the only
elements in order to proceed with the unlawful detainer action. The rules of court
expressly provide that there should be a need to demand and to vacate before an
unlawful detainer action can be filed.

4.1. Prior to the filing of the second case, I will advise Ms. Juan to not pursue her
decision to file a new case involving the same issue because it is now barred by res
judicata.

According to the case of Navarro v. Director of Lands, The essential requisites for the
existence of res judicata are: (1) the former judgment must be final; (2) it must have
been rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties; (3) it
must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be, between the first and second
actions (a) identity of parties (b) identity of subject matter and (e) identity of cause of
action.
In this case, it is not disputed that the second case is now barred by res judicata for the
former judgement is now final for failure of Ms. Juan to file an appeal within
reglementary period, that the former judgement is rendered by the court who has
jurisdiction, the former judgement also is a judgement on the merits, there is also an
identity of parties, identity of subject matter and identity of cause of action. Instead, I
will advise Ms. Juan to file a petition for relief from judgement under Rule 38 or
annulment of judgement under Rule 47.
4.2. I will dismiss the case based on the doctrine of litis pendentia.
One of the requisite of res judicata is the finality of judgement. Jurisprudence settled
that, where former judgement has not attained finality, the proper ground for the
dismissal of the action is litis pendentia.
In this case, we cannot dispute the fact that although the dismissal made by the court is
tantamount to adjudication on merits, there is still lacking on the requirement of finality
of judgement in order for the doctrine of re judicata to apply. Thus, because of this
wanting on the requirement of finality of judgement. The case is dismissible based on
litis pendentia.
5.1. In order to adjudge Mr. Cruz guilty, the Labor arbiter may adjudge him summarily
of direct contempt.
Section 225 of the Labor Code has granted the Labor Arbiter a power to hold a person in
contempt and when the person is guilty of misbehavior in the presence or so near any
member of NLRC or Labor arbiter, he may be summarily adjudge in direct contempt.
In this case, the act of Mr. Cruz consists of direct contempt because he has done the act
so near the labor arbiter as to obstruct or interrupt the conciliation-mediation before it.
Therefore, there is no need for the Labor arbiter to file a petition before the Regional
Trial Court. He himself has the power to summarily adjudge him and punished Mr. Cruz
for direct contempt.
6.1. According to Rule 40 or 41 of the Rules of Court, depending on the court that
rendered the judgement, the mortgagor, may appeal by filing a notice of appeal within
15 days upon receipt of the judgement or within 30 days if a record of appeal is required.
He may opt, to file a Motion for new trial under Rule 37 within the period of perfecting
an appeal, if he believes that there is Fraud, Mistake, Accident or Excusable negligence
committed that will impair his right or there is a newly discovered evidence. He may
also opt to file a motion for reconsideration under Rule 37 of the Rules of Court, if he
believes that the evidence presented by the mortgagee is insufficient or the decision
rendered by the court is contrary to law
 7.1. Upon amendment of sec4. Rule 58, the temporary restraining order was elevated to
the same level as preliminary injunction because from the very wording of the said
provision we can infer that they have now the same requirements. That it can be granted
only when the application in the action or proceeding is verified, and shows facts
entitling the applicant to the relief demanded; and a bond executed to the party or
person enjoined, in an amount to be fixed by the court and When an application for a
writ of preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order is included in a
complaint or any initiatory pleading, the case, if filed in a multiple-sala court, shall be
raffled only after notice to and in the presence of the adverse party or the person to be
enjoined.

7.2 Provisional remedies are temporary, auxillary and ancillary remedies available to the
litigant while the main action is pedning or until a final disposition of the matter in
litigation is pending or until a final disposition of the matter in litigation is made.
Ancillary remedies are remedies which are merely incidental and are dependent upon
the result of the main action.
8. Under Section 4 of Rule 47, the contents of my pleading in seeking annulment of the
judgement of the Regional Trial Court are:
1. The facts and the law relied upon
2. those supporting the petitioners good and substantial cause of action or defense.
3. material date rule
4. sufficient copies corresponding to the number of respondents.
5. Affidavits of witness or documents supporting cause of action
6. Certificate of non-forum shoping

9. I will advise the proper party to move for a leave of court to file a motion to permit
them to serve a supplemental pleading under section 6 of Rule 10 of the Rules of Court
upon reasonable notice and upon such terms as are just. The proper party should state
in their supplemental pleading the occurrence of a fire that raged the area and
completely damaged the buildings and this happened since the date of the pleading
sought to be supplemented. In this supplemental pleading, I will advise also that they
raise the new cause of action which is damages arising from the fire that raged the
property.