Question 1

May a defendant who does not reside and is not found in the Philippines be sued in our courts,
and if so, where shall the action be filed?

YES. Depending on whether the action is personal or real.

If personal action and the defendant is a non-resident , the venue is the residence of the plaintiff
or where the non-resident defendant may be found , at the election of the plaintiff.

If real action and the defendant is a non - resident not found in the PH , and such action affects
the personal status of the defendant or any property of the defendant in the PH , the venue shall
be Residence of the PLAINTIFF , or where the property or any part thereof is situated.

Question 2

As a consequence of a vehicular collision involving the car of plaintiff and the passenger bus of
defendant, a criminal case for damage to property thru reckless imprudence was brought against
the defendant’s driver, resulting in his conviction. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a separate civil
action for damages against the defendant based on quasi delict. This was followed by another
civil action based on the subsidiary liability of the defendant as employer of the convicted driver
under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. The defendant raised the defense of litis pendentia
in the 2nd case. Resolve.

Defense will not prosper.

The essential elements for litis pendentia to apply typically include identity of parties, identity of
rights asserted, and identity of reliefs sought. Since the second and third civil actions involve the
same parties but are based on different legal theories and seek different reliefs (damages under
quasi delict and subsidiary liability under the Revised Penal Code), it's unlikely that litis
pendentia would be applicable here.

Therefore, the defendant's defense of litis pendentia in the second civil action would likely fail,
and the court would proceed to adjudicate the merits of the case based on the legal arguments
and evidence presented by both parties.

Question 3

If the answer raise the affirmative defense that the complaint fails to state a cause of action, and
the court finds the allegations of the complaint sufficient but doubts their veracity, (a) is there a
need for the defendant to file a motion to resolve the said affirmative defense, and if so within
what time should the court resolve it?; (b) may the court conduct summary hearing to receive
evidence aliunde so that all doubts on the veracity of the allegations of the complaint be resolved
forthwith to guide it in determining whether or not the case should be dismissed?

A. No need to file a motion to resolve , since the court pursuant to Sec12( c ) of Rule 8 of the
RoC states that the court shall motu proprio resolve the affirmative defense. The court should
resolve it within 30 days from the filing of the answer.

B. If the grounds are : Fraud , estoppel , prescription , payment, illegality, former recovery etc..
(RULE 6 Sec5 (b) )… court will conduct a summary hearing , and then resolve the defense
witinh 15days from termination of summary hearing

Question 4

What is the reason for requiring a party to show proof of service of a motion, and what is the
effect of lack of proof of service of a motion? (b) When may proof of service of a motion be
dispensed with?

A. Based on substantial justice , since generally parties have no knowledge of the rules of
procedure or availment of legal remedies . it is also so that thee court will only have to deal with
one person - the attorney of the party involved , or the party himself if he does not have an
attorney. It is also based on due process , which ensures that all parties have been notified of any
motions filed. Proof of service of motion is required . No written motion shall be acted upon by
the court without proof of service pursuant to Sec7 , Rule 15.

B. Proof of service may be dispensed with in case of a non-litigous motion since the rights of the
adverse party will not be affected.

Question 5

On the basis of an alleged Deed of Sale executed by Samuel in favor of Pedro, the latter filed a
complaint for the delivery of the subject land against Damaso, the heir and son of Samuel, in the
RTC of Angeles City. Copy of the Deed of Sale is attached to the complaint. In an unverified
answer, Damaso specifically denied the genuineness of the Deed of Sale. During the trial,
Damaso sought to offer the testimonies of the following: (a) NBI handwriting expert to prove the
forgery of the seller’s signature; and (b) another witness to prove that the sale was fictitious and
not supported by a consideration. Pedro objected to the proposed testimonies on ground that
since the answer is not under oath, the defendant is deemed to have admitted the genuineness and
due execution of the Deed of Sale. Resolve. (Discuss the admissibility of each of the proposed
testimony.)

The contention of Pedro is valid . The defendant is deemed to have admitted the
genuineness and due execution of the Deed of Sale. Pursuant to the Rules of Court , in contesting
an actionable document it is necessary that there must be a specific denial which is under oath .
The meaning of under oath in this instance is that the denial must be verified. In the case at bar ,
such answer was stated to be unverified meaning it was not a denial under oath. Both of the
testimonies being offered by the defendant are no longer admissible since the genuiness and due
execution has been deemed admitted by the defendant due to failure to specifically deny under
oath.

Question 6

May venue be the subject of agreement, if so, would it be conclusive on the parties such that it
will preclude the filing of the action in the place of the parties’ residence as provided in the Rules
of Court? (b) Can the court dismiss the case motu proprio if on the face of the complaint venue is
improperly laid?
A. Yes venue may be the subject of agreement . However it is not conclusive unless the parties
show that the stipulation is exclusive . In the absence of restrictive words , the sttipulation is only
deemed an additional forum .

B. Generally the court cannot dismiss the case motu proprio. Unless and until the defendant
objects to the venue in a motion to dismiss, the venue cannot be truly said to have been
improperly laid. In cases regarding summary rules, there is a provision that the court may
dismiss the case outright for any of the grounds for the dismissal of an action. One of the
grounds under then R16 is improper venue.

Question 7

After the defendant has filed with the court and served his answer on the plaintiff, the court on
motion issued an order admitting plaintiff’s amended complaint. (a) Is it necessary for defendant
to answer the amended complaint? If yes, within what time should the answer be filed and
served? (b) If defendant is shown to failed to answer within the reglementary period, may he
upon motion and notice be declared in default?

A. Where its filing is not a matter of right, the defendant shall answer the amended complaint
within fifteen (15) calendar days from notice of the order admitting the same. An answer earlier
filed may serve as the answer to the amended complaint if no new answer is filed.

B.Yes . The rules provide that "If the defendant fails to answer within the time allowed therefor,
the court shall, upon motion of the plaintiff, declare the defendant in default."

Question 8
In the answer with counterclaim to the complaint for reconveyance of a real property filed with
the RTC, the defendant specifically controverted plaintiff’s assertion of ownership, and as a
counterclaim he avered that he is the true lawful owner and possessor of the subject property and
it was plaintiff who unlawfully intruded thereon, thus praying for damages in the amount of
Php400,000.00.

(a) Is there a need for plaintiff to answer the counterclaim failing which he may be declared in
default?

(b) May the counterclaim be considered permissive such that it can be the subject of a separate
action since the amount demanded is below the RTC’s jurisdiction?

Question 9

Two causes of action were joined in one complaint filed with the RTC of Quezon City, the 1st is
for recission of sale of shares of stock plus damages, and the 2nd, for recovery of unpaid rentals
of Php500,000.00 arising from a lease contract. The defendant for his part raised the following
counterclaims in his answer, 1st for Php800,000.00 as moral damages because the complaint is
alleged to be malicious and is merely prosecuted to embarrass the defendant, and the 2nd, for
recovery of Php1,300,000.00 for the unpaid balance of the a car purchased by the plaintiff from
the defendant. (a) Is the joinder of the two causes of action in one complaint proper? (b) Does the
court have jurisdiction over the defendant’s counterclaims?

Question 10

Plaintiff ABC Steel Mills, a domestic corporation and defendant XYZ Steel Aggregates, a
corporation established under laws of South Africa, entered into a contract in Singapore for the
latter to supply the former with 1,000 tons of ferrochrome, a raw material to needed produce
steel. It was stipulated that any and all controversies arising from the contract shall be resolved
by arbitration in Singapore. When ABC Steel Mills defaulted in its obligation, XYZ Steel
Aggregates filed an arbitration proceeding and was able to secure a favorable arbitral award
ordering ABC Steel Mills to pay damages. After receipt of the arbitral decision, ABC Steel Mills
commenced suit in the RTC of Makati for injunction and damages against XYZ Steel Aggregates
to void and prevent enforcement of the arbitral judgment. Since defendant corporation is not
doing business and is not found in the Philippines, the trial court on motion allowed that
summons be served by publication once in newspaper of general circulation in Cape Town,
South Africa, where the principal office of defendant is located. Defendant by special appearance
assailed the jurisdiction of the court over its person for invalid service of the summons. In
opposition, plaintiff argued that the present rules allow that if the defendant foreign entity is not
registered in the Philippines or has no resident agent, service of summons may, with leave of
court, be effected outside of the Philippines “by publication once in a newspaper of general
circulation in the country where the defendant may be found.” (a) Resolve the conflicting
positions of the parties; (b) Is there any other way that the court can acquire jurisdiction over the
defendant?

Question 11

Plaintiffs, claiming to be actual occupants of a parcel of land, filed a complaint with the RTC of
Angeles City for the annulment of an Original Torrens Certificate of Title and reversion to title
to the government against the registered owner. The complaint alleged that the subject land had
remained and still is a public land because when the decree of registration was issued in 1960 by
the CFI (now RTC) of Pampanga sitting as a land registration court, the subject land was not yet
an alienable land of the public domain for it was only declared as such in 1985. Hence, it is
argued that the decree of registration is null and void because the court had no jurisdiction over
the res (land) for being an unregistrable land at the time of filing of the petition for land
registration. As counsel for the defendant, on what valid grounds may you seek the dismissal of
the case.
Question 12

Plaintiff’s action for recovery of ownership of a parcel of land is against A, B, C, and D, the
registered co-owners of the land. The Sheriff’s return shows that summons on defendant A was
effected by substituted service on his wife because defendant had died a two months earlier. The
court instead directed the plaintiff to amend his complaint within 30 days from notice to implead
the heir/s or representative/s of the deceased defendant. After the lapse of the period given
without the amended complaint, the court dismissed the case for failure of plaintiff to comply
with the order. Plaintiff in his motion for reconsideration argues the following:

(a) that there was proper substituted service of summons on defendant’s wife and the pre-
condition of 3-attemps-on-2-different-dates to effect personal service has been rendered pointless
since defendant is already deceased; and

(b) that assuming that there was no proper substituted service, he (plaintiff) should not be faulted
because defendants’ counsel failed to give and inform the court of the name/s and residence/s the
heir/s or representative/s of the deceased defendant, and that the procedure under Sec. 16, Rule 3
is not to order the amendment but to require the heir/s or representative/s of the deceased party to
appear within 30 days from notice and be substituted for the deceased. How would you oppose
the motion.