You are on page 1of 2

Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.

com Page 1 of 66

ANSWERS TO BAR

EXAMINATION QUESTIONS
IN
Remedial Law Bar Bar Examination
Examination Q QQ&& &AAA (1997-2006
(1997-2006
(1997-2006 )))by:
)by:
by:sirdondee@gmail.com
sirdondee@gmail.com
sirdondee@gmail.com
by: sirdondee@gmail.com
sirdondee@gmail.com
sirdondee@gmail.com
sirdondee@gmail.com
sirdondee@gmail.com PagePage4
Page 326Page
7Page
Page5of
Page
Page
of
Page
Page
ofof66
6666
8914
10
11
13
16 19
66
151820
of12
of17
of 66
of
of66
66
of 6666
of
of
Jurisdiction;
Witness; of 66Raphael
66
66
affairs.
Provisional 66
defense
case.
was Was
Examinationallow
Finality
DemurrerThis
Remedies;Is
issued
filed
the
ofthe ais
of
(Sec. a
to
Katarungang
4.
TROwas
Judgment
Witnesses
under
In
billion.
It
The
law, to
c.
1 Default;
vs.
contribution
rendering
in PRODUCTION
Status
plaintiff (2002)
(2005)
Certiorari
the accordance
the He
Whenthe
not Remedies;
Pambarangay;
Quo
Supreme
announced
result proper
in Order ofOR
jurisdiction
a
sued respect
under Party
decision, (2006)
with Lupon;
Court
the
for
the Declared
INSPECTION
Rule
to
to
Sec.
Ricky Extent
defendant
the
should
of
testinghis
from
65. inbe
7(b) Default
OFof
opponent's
public
the
to the Authority;
cannot DOCUMENTS
Rule
a
join (2006)
RTCs.
in
court
Court
that his
the
39 FRESH
distinguished
municipal
a
stand
againstcomplaint
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
may a (e) of1
estimation
prejudice A
.......................................................................................
party Evidence;
3[b], Rule PERIOD
C,
Civil EE
9); circuit
who
andIndustries
against
petition
Case from
to if
being
and,
vs. the of
ittrial is
for
Criminal 15
REMEDIAL
X
therefore,
rights
33
6047 days
denied,
B'ssustainable?
court
the
CaseCorporation
sole
be..............................................................................................
Provisional
Witness;
Parties; he
probate
of(2003)
eachcorrect
heir,
within
the Compare
may
LAW
Utilized
Remedies;
Prosecution Explain.
acquired
ofmove
necessary
action for
whichorwhich
as inTRO;
a the
19
State its
ofto
will
was to
considered
(2001)
CA THINGS.
Offenses
Witness;
OR
take
the
causes
RTC
claim.
(Russell
(See
GENERAL
and
Default;
Justice
(1997
ofVRIS
into
for
can
Procedure
Appeals,
Talsan
(Sec.of
v. to
Upon
damages
default?
Demurrer be
be
Remedies;
consideration
project
Rules
11action
Vestil, the
motion
Enterprises,
offered
to
of fruit
Substantial
Sandiganbayan
304 has allegedly
PRINCIPLES
Rule
(2%)
Evidence
of
against
inthe
6)been
SCRA FORWARD
TABLE
of
the OF CONTENTS
of
Civil
evidence
(2001)
Inc. a
any
set poisonous
Compliance
possible
caused
Perry
738,[1999]). v.party
aside.
Procedure)
toPerry
and
Baliwag
declared
prove
in showing
effect
by Two tree
(2000).................................................................................................................
Dept. (2006).............................................................................................
(2006) the
his
the
the
the
Transit,
in
............................................................................................
prescribes
ruling?
payment
[2%]
reconsider,
effects
file P
the.D. of
property.
within
involving
party. 2No.
Why? of
notice
Legal
So1508;
a(Sec.
the
and
denial
theP100,000.00
(5%)
Did
anof
interest
Sec.
9method
if 60
jurisdiction
of
situated estate
Rule33415,
reconsideration
the
of
appeal demurrer
of
3)
.................................................................................................................................
against
(2000)................................................................................................
Provisional
Plea
47failure Local
infor
valued
as
No
of
enforcing
the
of
such
Guilty;
both;
Remedies;
Government
tostorage
of to counsel
RTC,
RTC.
at
be is to
evidence acharges
denied,
rights
counted
200.000.00
(Russel
adversely
prohibition
X20or
Lesser
TRO;
Code
20for
in
he
tov.
An
Duration
Offense
G.R.
Inc.,
good
of amicable
45.
Commissioners
complaint
latters
its
against
RTC No.
cause
2Demurrer (2002)
(2006)
verdict 126258,
encroachment
Whatunder for settlement
therefore,
the partition
upon
Rule
executor
sided
is the effect
July a
with
on was
court
against8,Chairman
political
or
the signed
may
administrator
plaintiffs
of information order
stability before
..............................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
Go,
and lot.
an Order of Copioso,affectedany obtaining
and
inform
may
a
from civil offile 1991,
other
case
the
receipt
falls
Vestil,
SUGGESTED the redressR.A.
court
with
special
within
304 advances
of the
ANSWER: 7160.)
those
of
SCRA for B's
civil
order
the
by149243, 33
their
of
738 47
death
action
for
aCircuita Reglementary
Prejudicial
denial
invasion
dismissing
Jurisdictionconstitute
the
[1999];
distribution of certiorari
of goods.
a Question
demurrer
Copioso
(Bustos Period;
direct
motion
of
or28,2002;
other Xv.
the
v.
SPECIAL
GENERAL
qualifying
Actions;
However,
1999)
Bar
a by
Supplemental
Lupon Prior PROCEEDINGS
Derivative the Suit
action
to Evidence;
Judgment
Pleadings
Tagapamayapa vs.
vs. Class
(2000) for
Civil
Conclusiveness ..................................................................................................................................
Suit
Case (2005)
annulmentvs. Criminal
of Judgment is
Case a3, Yes,
Actions; the A
CauseMunicipal
COUNTERCLAIM
PRINCIPLES........................................................................................................................................
circumstance under the ofcriminal
Action; Joinder
(2003)....................................................................................
(1999).................................................................................................................................... a)
exists
...........................................................................................
on January in G.R.
the No.
pre-trial 33 47 Remedies; Trial is
ofreconsideration.
Action
October
Prejudicial
negotiations any
AppealCourt
(1999)Question
to
under 61
claim
was
20
SC;8
party
and
but
Marvin.
In 1
his
or to
economic
the The produce
answer,
successor
Default?The
majority
first welfare
causes
the
can
(2%) and voted
in
be permit
defendant
ofof interest
filedthe action
to the
nation?
only upholddenied
on inspection
may
of 4%
the the
the
the
be
grounds Corporation
contempt?
grave
to
Lucero,
for evidence
a abuse
new
Metropolitan
G.R. No.(2%)
in
trial of
filed
a
disposition ordiscretion
L-2068, a
motion
Trial motion case.
Courts
Octoberfortantamount
or toproperty to
4%
in dismiss
Metro
20, to
in Manilalack
the
the
Default;
for
Distinguish
(1997)
personal Remedies;
qualified
Discovery; action arapeSubstantial
derivative
Modes under
of Discovery
and theCompliance
R.A.
suit No.
from (2000)
8353. awas class The [Neypes Cabutihan
correct
which
a) a
Whatin v. is
defending Landcenter
proceeding the party
(2000)...................................................................................................................
venue rule Construction,
may
hear on have the
joinder against
case. 383
ofX It
Appeals
2001.
SUGGESTED
and
contract.
between
plaintiffs On
Cancellation
copying
deceased. of (2002)
July
ANSWER:
claim
the
lack or6,
or or
sameand2001,
Correction;
excess the
photographing
alleged
parties, Entries
of prevailing
that Civil
jurisdiction Ricky itdepends
(2000)....................................................................................................................................
to CA .....................................................................................................
Registry of party
and the
or anygrave the
1948).
ADDITIONAL
SUGGESTED
(Sec. Rules
et. al.
19[4] the of
ANSWER:
ANSWER:
No.the Court.
oflower
vs. BP 33
ground
141524, 129, Remedies;
47as
court's Prejudicial
(2005)........................................................................................
complaint
or excess
CA, G.R.of on of
September Appeal;
jurisdiction.
res
amended). RTCQuestion;
judicata.14, 20
to (Sec.
CA
61
This
fruit,
For
No, 3
Distinguish
suit.
SUGGESTED
on the
Appeals;
Meanwhile,
asked
designated
Perry,
plaintiff
Barof
failure
because
Escheat
Cause
work
by
For
Discovery;
the
the
with
abusewho
Prior
failure
of
ANSWER:
residence
Period poisonous
of
Lupon
ofProceedings
aK.J.
Modes;
Bar is
Judgment
Appeal;
Fotokina
documents,
respect
actionin
of court
fact
to
by
of to
discretion
vs.
not
Subpoena
vs.
seasonably
tree
file
either
Fresh
had
Action
is
prior
filed
execute
(2002)
to
an intended
Conclusiveness
Period
the
doctrine
required
Duces
etc. A
encroached
(1997)
answer
judgment file
Tecum to
of
his
refers
within
(1997)
(1999).....................................................................................................................
Suspension of Criminal Action (1999) with or
Rule
loan
tantamount orB.
the (2003)
the Hence,
amicable
order
but RTC
on
for
Judgment
takeAnswer
from
not
to his
to
anya1,
lack
sale
(1997)
Corporation
Rule
SCRA
No.
(b)
Remedial
Family
has
an
causes or
ALTERNATIVE It 353
An
opposing is
..................................................................................
or2005]
SUGGESTED
65) or of commerce.
[2002]).
not
Law;
Courts
exclusive ANSWER:
application
action?
ANSWER: direct
Concept
Act 33 (2001)
party.
jurisdiction
Remedies; (2%)contempt
(2006) This
..............................................................................
custody of the court for in
...............................................................................................
48
(Sec.
..................................................................................................................................
alleged that title Pre-Trial
Appeal;
Raphael
............................................................................................................................ 6, Rule
or of
under
a
all
Agreement
Rule 6) work
an
45
should writ
matters vs.officer
Sec.
(2004)21
Rule
have61
8is
8
of
1of
A
that
the DERIVATIVE
ruledespite
reglementary of due SUIT
evidence notice,
period, is that the A
aadverse
suit was
excludes
Court, ofin declared
equity
upon any in If
In the
aHow civilaction
thereof.
case, affects
the defendant to or has possession
the right
freeware.
into
65
it (1999)
with
Discovery;
(defendants)
evidence
that
motion
(2004)
Case
and
consideration
Civil
is respect
excess
Dismissal;
(1997)
the
Actions
default
filed
of which
LM,
evidence by It
Production
of
vs.
Motion
to may
land.
Special
may
indeclared
acontract.
a(1993)
to
only
the
jurisdiction,
case
minority
and
have
Dismiss;
admitted
be
Inspection
the
Accordingly,
Proceedings
KJ
partition
been
instituted
Res
freely
legal
while
shareholder
inin
(1998)
Documents
derived
default.
Judicata the
the copied
issues
....................................................................................................................................
conclusiveness
should
Defendant
petition
settlement
party to.......................................................................................................
for
Extra-judicial be
permit X of
brought
received
mandamus
because Settlement judgment
entry of in
an
compel
of the
upon the
Estate theRTC
(2005)
non-compliance
designated of
Decision
COMELEC which
against case.
thetheland
second
in
In or isand
What
b)
Certiorari;
a)
probate, distributed.
is
A 34 the
Modesecured
should of
Remedies;
both concept
Certiorari
48
testate the two
Pre-Trial;
Void ofIt
(2002)..................................................................................
of
preliminary
Rule 71, injunction
but it is may
indirect
loans
(2006)
records
Decision;
and
..............................................................................................................
incorporated in his complaint
...........................................................................................................
him within of
b)
to
a
(2%)
for
real
3value
file
Municipal 34A property
Intervention
aeach
the
P500,000.00 counterclaim
demurrer
purview
Court
then will
Provisional
in to
(2000)................................................................................................
Explain Special mode Civil of Action;
of
and an
it
Secnotis
is is
Criminal
for
evidence
certiorari:
action
the
be
remedial
a
ofprimarily
Ejectment
Dismissal
3 of
granted
from
Proper
intestate, Case
real
unduly
contempt
child
interpleader
distinguished
of Rule
other
law?
B?
Remedy
vs. Civil
where
action
delay
without
(1997)
(2002)
forcible
61
21
71.
by
one
and
21
8
..................................................................................................
........................................................................................................ family cases in48 the Family Courts or RTC 8for
SUGGESTED
to
place
of implement
the where
Habeas RTC ANSWER:in
Corpus the
either
an of
ordinary the The
parties
civil Office
caseresides. onof the
02 SUGGESTED
the (b) ANSWER:
he of the
may
...........................................................................................................................................estatefile does
a not
petition exceed for
61
by
or
includes
defendantthe
property
Conciliation
basedother
Marvin. party
for
Proceedings;
counterclaimed
on The
the of
inspecting,
joinder
errors the
Katarungang terms
is
ofday, against measuring,
Pambarangay
between
law of of the the
the his
vs.
a lowerThe claim
Pre-Trial for
Conference storage (1999) fees and advances
........................................... and
intended
acquired
Bar
behalf
due
Solicitor
January
agreement.
surveying,
partition
plaintiff
Such
by
time,
Jurisdiction;
The Habeas
Family
by
of
Evidence;
political
from
prior-judgment
a
2003.
court.
evidence
B.
KJ for
General
Corpus
Courts
for or
and The
The
corporation
Admissibility;
Incapable filedHe
Act
all
a tainted
of
(1998)
aLupon
photographing
damages is
anfollowing
Pecuniary
filed
(2001)sum
those
(OSG),
inadmissible
is
toorthe
Photocopies
unverified
aconcernedredress
Notice
resulting
of
who
polluted
the
doctrine
(2000)
motion A's
representing
money, forof desire
property
from
source.
wrongs
...................................................................................................................Appeal of
mistress to have
and
from
P1,000,000.00,
Day
designated
1.
P100,000.00 a or
and
vs.Asa
certiorari deeper
jurisdiction
concept prejudice
CROSSCLAIM
unlawful
RTC
a of
can
by
mode payable
(now
if ofofthealso
...........................................................................................................................................
refused
having butthe or (Acenas II failure
v. Court he
.........................................................................................................................................
that for his
understanding
isthe
Remedial determined
in
.........................................................................................................
to
.................................................................................................................................
stability Estimation
and (2000)
economic leave
The
entry of35
lawyer court.
Special 48 If his
Remedies;
Civil demurrer
Action;
detainer.
he of be
Zamboanga,
has Void
on
Supreme
appeal
of P200,000.00).
Appeals,
was
Law
adjudication
that the a
Ejectment
Judgment
different
been barred
lies
is
subject
(Sec.33 from
247
by
cross-claim
191
Court at
of
denied,
(1998)
(2004)the
the
the
22
dates.
of
illegally
SCRA
from61 of
of
8to
the
The
BP
res
committed
A
lift judicata,
filesForum
the who an is
Shopping;
order which
action working
against bars
Definition
of in it,
theas
default a afor
(2006) second
clerk
Municipal which in action
................................................................................................................... the
..........................................................................................................................
without Trialthe sala of assessed
very
is any corerights
claim value
of procedural
orby original
one
........................................................................................................................
an SCRA610.
he has 35 the Special
48 Search
right Civil to the
Warrant;
Action; due
party
present property.
parties; process,
against
Foreclosure
Motion evidence.to It
which
a
Quash
(2003)22co-is
If
the
welfare
Chairman
on
to
any
PARTITION
alleged
emanated
when 2
directors
(2005)
10 issues
Habeas
execute
Forum The
there
the
of
January
Interlocutory
designated Go, the
Corpus
the
encroachment
from is
first
is
Shopping;
Judge
refuse
touched
Order
a nation
opposed
(2003)
2003.
relevant
special
spurious
should
identityto
(2006)
Effects;
before
sue,
are
be
of by
the
Lack
the filed
parties,
whom the
extraneous
petition
ofreal withinPhilippine
subject
Certificationhis
party
................................................................................................................
Court
affidavit
ground
on
sixty
...............................................................................................................
against
settlement/agreement? that of merit B,
mandamus the attached
natural does
(3%) son
to not
b) it.
of lie
What
to
the
case
As
KJ (2006)
in to (60)
is Bar
disciplinary
129;
Both
handle
Regional
value
773
within
means
Jurisdiction
his
Civil
Appeals 4
Examinations
have
35
demurrer
Family
inhis
[1995];
the
a
this
vs.
Trial
Special
Procedure.)to 49
Intervenors
action.
fallen
Sec.caseCourt
jurisdiction
law
Venue
the Trial;
isCivil
due.
Court
1,
...........................................................................................................................................
settlement/agreement. On the other hand,a) Isinterposing declared in default,
which
(2006)
granted
Supreme
Rule
(Sec.
.......................................................................................................................................
object
civil
on
origins. his
action
The or lot.operation
under
doctrine, The claim. Raphael
Action;
Trial
rights
cases
of P95,000.00Is
in
and
or
19,
16, B
e.g.be
therefore
hears
the
1997
Rule
replied
...........................................................................................
party
Default arising
(2000) out of the Petition
its
obliged
treated
transaction
Absentia;
andmay
Court. on for
not
3)
during istrend.
Court
Rules
before that
of
Automatic
to
Certiorari
appeal
(2.5%)be
and
within 62
the
the
fully
file
of
8of
heor
by it
the
the
however,
thereon.
Rule 27,
plaintiff
plaintiff case.
Intestate
Judgment
Lupon69, 1997
A
doesfiled
which They
Proceedings
vs.Rule
received
correct
not Opinion
an apply can
27
cannot in
ex (2002)
the
oftoRules
the have
same
refusing
the
parteCourt
be results persuasive
Decision
joined to
motion execute
obtained with onorder
for could only
dealtnot one
have with? complaint
claimed of(3%)
.................................................................................................................................
its jurisdiction. Inmotion
of(2006)................................................................................................................
Civil pendency his storage against
b)determining Under
to
fees Aand
dismiss forother
what62the
the
or
8
It
former
matter
(2002)
Review
interest
father,
however
enforce
should
06
pursuant
the
other
is39).
Gen.
22 specially
days
Rule
Intestate
Procedure.)
influence
January
extension
Rule Judicial and
be
causes
of(Sec.
pending, from
39;
Principles;
cause
attached
contractual
tothe
1,
Proceedings;
but
2003
Autonomy
Sec. of course
Rule
Sec,
Conviction
of1,they
notice
Questions
of
and,
Rule
action.
time
intended
47action.
&informedto [b]
obligations.
Debts
of are
on
Impartiality
28,
of
ofthe
(1998)
action
to 19
of
Law
of
1997
(See.
the
the newvs. him
motion
Estate
of
January
(2003) Rules
answer
5[b],
for
judgment,
Questions
..................................................................................................
forbeing the the
partition corporation of anot(Sec.
parcel itself
49[b]
During
the
the of
Rule
law
of of
land
(Lint
main
of2003, hisof
the
the
Fact
2,) (Sec.
students
the
advances
Metropolitan
condemns,
Distinguish
(2004)
Actions;
Defendant
SUGGESTED
the
SUGGESTED
recovery
conditions
SUGGESTED
Certiorari
35 Real
plaintiff,
jurisdictional
beforein
from
Special which
Actions
was
ANSWER:
.............................................................................
occurrence protected
ANSWER:
of
(Matute
his both
may
ANSWER:the
as
Trial
jurisdiction
Civil
that
the
complaint
the
&the
declared
vs.
Court.
proceeds
Personal
Action;
is Court
appellate in provinces
the
(2002)..................................................................................................
loans?
amount,
expiration identity 49Quo
..................................................................................................................
Civil a by mode
from
Actions
............................................................................
insubject
Explain.
for of
upon
adefault
Warranto
Venue
court
of
of
excluded
venue?
(2006)
Appeals,
the who,
inquiry
by
(2001)
(1997)
matter
separate
reverses
(2%)
parties
interpleader
appeal time
22
the
62
arein
826
to is
v. Lim-Yu,
proceedings,
Discovery; or
Judgment; resolution
declaration
Modes; G.IL Annulment
the No.
Subpoena of sought
of Judgment;
default.
138343,
majority Duces to
Tecum On be
Grounds
.............................................................................................................
February
Commissioners the
(1997) assailed same 19, day, and
a.
(2%)
(B.P
RTC
either
SUGGESTED renders
.Blg. The
(RTC).
of 129, rule
the
ANSWER:
proceedings. judgment
Sec. on
Plaintiff
original JOINDER
33, only
(1998).............................................................................................
What
SUGGESTED
......................................................................................................................................................... 36 do you
ANSWER:
Special mean Civil Actions; a) 49real
wasas
actionafter
Mandamus OF
actions;
allowedtrial,
CAUSES
or of and
and
(2006)22 to a
located
answer
very
factors prevailing
Procedure,
filed Judicial under
Katarungang
a in
often, that
Motion asTaytay,
Settlement
it oath,
party
are
should
Pambarangay;
does
for Rizal
of stating
not in
Estate
recipientsbe such
with
contemplate
Reconsideration in an
said
considered
Objective a case?
assessed
(1999) answer
a search
of in the
child
attorneys
(b) order
The and and
family
Court fees, renders
(2005).......................................................................................................................
of deliberately distorted
SCRA 768;
cases
could notes
litigation be judgment
declare from
Acosta-Ofalia
divulged
..........................................................................................................
the JURISDICTIONanswer. treats of the expenses
B
power in for
other
(2%)
of the
62vs.
and
default 9
the
Also,
defendants
Conclusiveness
2001)
filed a the
Judgment;
4.
A Rule causes
presented
manifestation counterclaim,
Enforcement;
65) of, of
while
a judgment action
5-year
motion
that the but
period
Chairman under pertain
second the
precludes
(1997)
................................................................................................................
, while a CLASS SUIT is oath
Go court
should to
was to because
set be governed
contemplates
a)
OF
presentThe
counterclaim he
ACTION was
recordsby not
Rule
an
is
action?
evidence therein.yet
ofthat 45 certain
opportunity
child
(2%) of
ina the
and
party
.......................................................................................................
filed amended)
b) personal A support as
Rules toto
family
may
counterclaim bewho
of ofin was
Court
heard
cases one
22
36
his is
In
value
his an
deciding
within (2%)
Montilla,
Decision. admiralty
Probate
of
reasons
the moaning
Liberal a
On of
P20,000.00.
G.R. Lost
for
case.
Construction;
13 No. case
Wills his
ofAthe
January Rules filed
B moves
failure
decision
123872, law. by
of Court
2003, (People A toto against
should dismiss
file an Y
beit plaintiff,
SUGGESTED
because Sundiam,
(1999)...................................................................................................................................
the
ANSWER:
B did defendant 85 not SCRA
(1998).............................................................................................................
January
defendant v. X costs; these are consideredobtain412.)
loses his a only right
writ 62 to
9 v.of
for
EVIDENCE
different
denied the venuesmotion andaon the
jurisdictions.
ground that The liable Court to
therefor. decide Resolve
................................................................................................................................................................ aCode case on the the merits,
motion while
with
50
unscrupulous
the
regarding
not
Shipping
City.
the
answer
30,1998)
based
May
filed
case
should
another
relitigation
Judgment;
Probate
(Sec.
action filed
aside
authorized
Remedial
athe
for onon of
5,Lines
Motion
havea
action
OSGa
RuleEnforcement;
within
the
time,
on
Law
the
sum been
in2,)
the
of
controversy
Will by order
(2003) the
(whose
as
Phil.
law,
represent
withdrawing
of
between
law
fifteen
set
money
of
COMELEC schools
particular
Foreign (15)
ofof
default Judgmentdays
common on
En issue and
the(2005)
from
Banc in
orto
ground students.
notice before
which
Jurisdiction;
In
G.R.
SUGGESTED
The
against a
complaint. Share
judgment
allows
criminal
No.
motion an RTC
L-19118,
ANSWER: to appeal
(2002)
Photocopies
opposing case, to
dismiss
............................................................................................................................................
ground
well
System
rules
for
principal
the
as that
his
Govt
of
Chairman
hearing.
pertains
samehis defenses.
the
(2006)
procedure,
noticeoffices
On
to
parties
case Go
the
the of reasons.
present
preliminary
determining
VENUE
a.
order REAL
University (4%) of
evidence.
refers
ACTIONS injunction
the
Publishing,
resolutionto
inothers
is
(Rule
filing
the are
therendered
from
...............................................................................................
in the
Summons..............................................................................................................................................................
pleading Familyassert, January to
the
party should
fees.
placeof
of
33).
or
.......................................................................................................... handle
accused
official
actions
while
where
the
this
judgment,
30,
a be(Albert
alternative work
Family
has
temporary
affecting
Court
final
granted.
receipts
athe 22
cross-36
63
suit
or
9to
of
Summons
SUGGESTED
general
oppose Judgment;
Probateof (1999)
the
ANSWER:
interest
Admissibility
the Execution
petition.
of Will judgment
inequity. pending
behalf ofAppeal
or many final persons order or 2.
(2002).........................................................................................................
P
1965). AFTER
sued
otherwise
Raphael
obtain A
isleaveJUDGMENT
in join
should the
...................................................................................................................................................
Court cases shall
ofas
(1998)...............................................................................................................................................
(2005) and original RTC-Manila
court BUT
many
have be BEFORE
toofdealt
causes
incorporated to
fileaffidavitsITS
with FINALITY,
recover utmost
of8,prohibiting
a demurrer action in the
23
37
50 he
as
his
9to
Incopies Rulewere
are in that
Manila) his in failure
the ............................................................................................................................................
RTC, to answer
Davao City,was the due to claim against acriminal
co-party. 63
JURISDICTION
and
should you have will been be richly
brought in rewarded
the RTC by God in heaven. It is also very
Will
SUGGESTED
before
justice the
Remedial themotion Law
ANSWER:
andRTC vs.to lift
Substantive
notwithstanding the order
Law
However, (2006) of default
that his inJudgments restraining order from the
............................................................................................................... (Sec.
RTC 6)
appeal
Yes,
municipal
defendants
on
Summons;a there
Judgment; in
different isordersubstantial
court
Substituted
resolution motion,
Interlocutory
cause toand file
Service
appealed of a (2004)
compliance
therefore,
cannot
Order;
action. Motion
from,Partial be the for
with
filed
Summary New
court thein Remedial
may
title
c) (2004)
Appeals,
may
following
complaint be
to No,
file or Law
filed. because
possession is that if12, branch
no of actions,
motion
real of
......................................................................
aSandiganbayan,
sums:
for motion (1)
interpleader for
...................................................................................................................
(Sec.or of49 the [c] denial confidentiality. new
P200,000.00 the
his triallaw
to
property RTC
claim which
however,
dismiss
on
on or
the
37an
for
No,
so
Actions;
court
because
prosper?
position
exceptionalthe
ProbateCause
fraud
Remedial plaintiff
Admissibility
numerous issued of of Will
Law;
Explain.
the
is casesand that
Action;
a
action
contrary was
(2006)
he
subpoena
Concept (3%)
the it
Splitting
has not
is
(2006)
is[c]
court a one
to validly
impracticable
(1999)
meritorious
duces declaredtecum to
defense. he
evidence.
the may
judge have
If
from he against
(2002)............................................................................................................................................... obtains
(Sec.
............................................................................................................................................
presented in court,
proceeding an
leave
Family
identified
................................................................................................................................
that
may that of is
consider not
the inopposing
theof bycourt
Courts
case party,
Act
plaintiffand
50
63
during of
9
Trial
rule. which
Although
Judgment;
23 he the
Judgment attached.
motion on the On
isdefault
Pleadingsunverified, 20 (1999) January the venue
prescribes
has
an been
interest isfees jurisdictional.
the
filed,
therein method
any of Jurisdiction
of
.......................................................................................................the enforcing
grounds byisand the
23 for a
good
Pasay
declared
Summons;
of
in
a)
join former
default.
SUGGESTED
directing
majority?
capable
the
Cause
2003,
answer
Probate
all
Rights
of
ofkarma.
City
Admissibility
What as the
Validity
Rule
the
Thereafter,
political
action
Judgment;the of
ofY, Athe
of
(5%)
attached
because
39;
is
parties,
ANSWER:
vs.the
court
plaintiff
ofsec.
petitioner's
motion
Will; the
Accused;
pecuniary
Action
Judgment
Service;
Mandatory
president
stability
to he
47
rule
(1997)
denied
the
on
the
afor in
number
went
Validity;
the motion
plaintiff
Effects
of
motion
extension
against
Nature of
new
HIV
estimation
and
As
Pleadings
abroad.
the Test for
splitting
which
Motion
is
is
of on
(2005)
shipping
economic
(2005)
new
as
verified.
from
time the
the
After a
it
for
trial (Fortune
storage
grounds
overdue
hisorOctober
1997)
provided
his
on
the
(Sec.
matter
rights
which
demurrer
the
pendency
7wereof
or
Motors,
of
promissory
that
witness
of
16, Rule
and
of fraud,
(2004)...............................................................................................................................................
obtaining
1989;
obviously
to
65;
substantivethe
Inc.
the advances,
evidence
(2002)...............................................................................................................
stand
v.
(2006).........................................................................................................
Rule 39). b)
other The courtsidentity whenever of note,
petition
Diaz
Rule
CA,
parties
accident,
rule
4, v. and
......................................................................................................
redress
determinable
G.
authorized
Diaz,
law;
Sec.
the
(2)
on
for
R.
isin
1).
No.
amounts
child
joinder
denied,
marked
certiorari.
331
venue,
for
76431,
mistake,
P80,000.00
SCRA
at petition
the
37
law
50
their9he
63 of
of
as
be302
of
Venue;
Manila
counterclaim.
Yes, the
Jurisdiction
Katarungang
to
cause
court file Improper
while
OSG
Admissibility;
Settlement
findsan
of (1997)
Pambarangay;
reconsideration
answer
action Venue;
Ricky
ofmay Was
Admission
Estate
sufficiently andmay Compulsory
and
represent the
Objectivefiled
of
its Marvin
Guilt;
be plaintiff
representative the
(1999)
filed
effectin Counterclaim
Requirements are
COMELEC
dueex onvalidly .......................................................................................................
from
time
parte the
who (2006) after dismissal
family
to
has 1.]
the
excusable
on thethe cases
Supreme
purchase
isright provided
the
complied shall
tojoinder
negligence, Court not
price in by
with;
present the
(1998)....................................................................................
beshall
of a
........................................................................................
(2001)....................................................................................................................................
parties Rules
divulged
orverified a not
motion
computer,
evidence mayin time
unless
include 24
38for
(3)
51
64
his

REMEDIAL LAW
company,
involves
welfare
Distinguish
Reconsideration
The answer return
Judgment; of to
primarily
the a
appear
Cause
contains
Mandamus
week
nationand and aof
what
vs.
later,
Quotestify
determination
when
action
Xs
the with
Warranto at these
Motion
motion the
the
from to case
trial
are of
lift to still exhibits.
ALTERNATIVE
[2002].
procedural
invasion
L-2068,
of the filing Said
ANSWER:
October law.
of documents
the Jurisdiction
20,
complaint. 1948;
(2001).....................................................................................................
(Bustos v.for Lucero,
were
G.R.may
First
They No.
offered
be
are not
Lepanto
part 24
by
be of
Venue;
Chairman
What Personal
courts
Admissibility; before
is Actions
have the
Document;(1997).............................................................................................................................
the Why? RTC
jurisdictionNot notwithstanding
object
raised inover
of the the (4)
pleaded
P150,000.00P100,000.00
JURISDICTION.......................................................................................................................................................
Batangas
declared in default? (5%) necessary
for review
special
reconsideration as and an
raising
civil
for affirmative
with on
damages only attorneys
authority
actions defense
questions
the to hisofor the
ground
car 38actions
fees in 10
judge.
of
and and
the
law of
and
respective
[Amante
SUGGESTED
(a)
may
and On
hereditary
capable
action
SUGGESTED
the
Settlement
need
tosue
order
notice
what not
vs.
undecided,
bring
of rights
ANSWER:
or rights
being
ANSWER:
of
of
of
be
with Estate;
Sunga,
valid
defend the
default
setof ground
him
and
taken
Administrator
judgment.
for
the
he 64 hearing.
parties
the
several
not
and into
SCRA
can
received
merely
the benefit(Sec.
Y for
documents.
judicial
192
refuse
the
affidavit ofPleading
2,
failure
the Rule
bare
notice toorder
all. of
45) (2004) The
defense.
plaintiff
b.
conferred
Ceramics,
Raphael's AllCourt Ifby
and
other should
Inc.
cause
hisadmitted
consent
ofactions
v.
not
demurrerCA,
action
declare
...................................................................................
(1998)............................................................................................................. in
through are
G.R.
which
to
evidence B in
evidence
PERSONAL
waiver
No.
he may
default
by
110571, upon
not
64
the is
be
Withdraw
Actions;
The
that
ALTERNATIVE
following
Katarungang
(1975)]. Judgment;
motion
51his
Venue; Filing; Notice
position Soundness;
Civil
should
ANSWER:
Admissibility;
Special
cases Actions
Pambarangay is of
be
Electronic
Proceedings
filed &
contrary
in Appeal.
Attachment
Criminal
granted.
Evidence
Metro Law? Action
to Plaintiff
(2002)
The that
(2003)
Manila? (2005)
(2%) actionof a) aA
............................................................................................................
2.
answer
litigation
(Id.)
distinctly
excessive
inasmuch governed As a
set special
which
expenses.
damages,
as forth.
by
the civil
special may Can action
..............................................................................................................
(1997)........................................................................................................................ insufficient
jurisdiction rules, A include
of and from
move
but
evidence
MTC 24
the
may
64
was to a
to
comply
(Sec.
A
right
of
merit
The 3Jurisdiction
comply
CAUSE
CRIMINAL
and 12,
to Thewith
declaring
are
should
general
Judgments; Rule
real with the
first
OF 3) the
property.
relevant
contain,
rule
subpoena
It
cannot
him
ACTION
Enforcement;
same?
is
isto worth
inResolve
the
which
that
(2%)
default.duces
generallyis
case.
a
Examination arenoting an
the
the
counterclaim
tecum?
The
of be
act that
motion.
reasons
Defendant availed
motion or granted,
toofG.R.
court
ACTIONS
March
a court,
split. on
PROCEDURE....................................................................................................................................
10,
Hence, but he
the
(1997).................................................................................................................................................
1994).
venue
(Rulewhen isthe
basis
4, may acquitted
a (2002)..................................................................................
Section of
beor
warehouseman which
waived,
I) which the include
except
asks the
RTC
3810
24 in
the
received
While
majority
for
An actionpartition
51 of the
cruising the
Admissibility;
for Order on
Commission
depends
specific Object denying
a highway,
on
or Real
performancea his
members
determination
Evidence Motion
a taxicab
in
Bor, for
thein Regional
Interlocutory
dismiss
counterclaim.
or include
the No. the 145022,
Trial
Order case
causes
decision (2006)
This Court
on is
of
or September
the
what
(1994)........................................................................................................
If the accused does not
action
final groundA
obtainthe did 23,
Court
pertaining
order that
by
leave 2005;
filing
the
ofof
to
of being
b)
SUGGESTED
(b) How A of purchased
ANSWER:
can A take a
the lot testimony from of for YB put inof issue in the Petition For Certiorari
derivative
SUGGESTED
omission
(2%) as
set
Jurisdiction aaside
suit
ANSWER: substitute
onevs. isdefault
party
Venue aCorpus; representative
for
in was aten
violation lost
opposed appeal
of suit,
by
the under prosecution
Rights
rendered
on Appeals the Accused;cannot
judgment
(2006).................................................................................................................................
those
criminal
court arising
to cases
ascertain from
(Nocum who appeal.
Validity;
privity HIV
in
among
et al. Test
ofv.favor (2005)
contract.
the
Tan, defendants the
10
SUMMARY
of
must
The
1.
the
movants
Jurisdiction;
Reconsideration
COMELEC
driven
of the be object
by
hereditary
Acquittal;
51
Pl,500,000.00. A PROCEDURE...................................................................................................................................
Mans
Admissibility;
alternative, party failure
answered
EffectHabeas
becausefor
may He of
on
hit
(2002) to
rights
Objections 03
an
damages
be
gave
answer
within theFebruary
the
electric
of
declared a
Custody
A
(1997) in
down
as
and the well
Katarungang
OSG inof2003
(10)
post. B, isas
Minors
amount
default
payment days
As
which his
(2005)
and
an Santos
What III
is toan v.
the Northwest
Supreme
interlocutory
..........................................................................................................................................
an
court
contrary
filed Answer
has
differentand
with no
to
the his alleging
jurisdiction
law
RTC. demurrer
venues The the
............................................................................................................................ Airlines,
a of ........................................................................................
Court.
or
MTCover
to order?
lack the
evidence
G.R.
(2.5%)
of
jurisdictions
should :
25
65 No.
38
legal
subject and
defer is
and
just present
like Rulesa
Jurisdiction;
theNotice class
ground the
40,CTA suit.
41, documents
Division 42,
that 43
vs.it and
CTA
was Enas 45.Banc
filed exhibits (2006)
before Under
plaintiff, Republic
pursuant Act (Sec.
No. 2,
8353,
to the relief prayed for.
............................................................................................... Rule one 37) may 10 be
legal
defenses.
from
Pambarangay
filed
independent
Procedure;
result
right
Jurisdiction;
service.
his
Actions; (Sec.
thereof,
oroffice;
Cf.
BP22;
Admissibility; Lawrights
Lack
3
(Rule [b]
of
Citibank,
Civil ofis
Offer of
Appeal
11,
its
Action toof
Jurisdiction;
Rule
it's
to
the
effect
sec. N.A.
passenger,
deemed
Marry; 9,
on
hands
4). other
Proper
1997
an
05However,
v.
included
Circumstantial amicable(Maao
Action
Rules
February
are
Court Jovy,not of
of a theACourt
of are
101538,
SUGGESTED
(2%)
entitled
(2004) June to
ANSWER: the
23, 1992). goods,
(2001)..............................................................................................
Evidence
he also has
..................................................................... the right
tov. been(1998)................................................................................ 39of
is not
P180,000.0051 capable b) of
An pecuniary
action for estimation.
athe writ of SUGGESTED
matter?
capacity ANSWER:
Explain.
of EE Industries
(2%) to
when
of
(a)
other P500,000,
4 he
Prohibited
IsJurisdiction;
(Sec. the
than fails
4304 courts
of to
signed
Pleadings
through
Rule
Incapable answer
denial
of 45) the
of aEffect of within
promissory
Pecuniary Xs
subpoena Motion
Estimation time
note
from denied,
further provided
thereafter.
Jurisdiction;
Certiorari he CTA If
proceedings
as waives
one
the
(2004)...................................................................................................................................
charged with and
Division
a motion
found vs.
Specialhis
cause pending
guilty
CTA
(2000)..........................................................................................
to ask who should pay for right
the En of
isCivil of sue
denied,
Banc
storage to(2006)
action
the
qualified because
present
Action appeal
result falls
65
rape is
Sugar
Civil
Appeals,
settlement
2003.
suffered
Hence,
injunction.
received
Central
Under
Parties;
25
counterclaim
shackled The
Actions;
52 even to Death
ofthe
court
BP22;
Admissibility;
serious
c)
vs.
SCRA
thatthe
though
An
of anotice
Barrios,
cause
disputes Party;
denied
Demurrer
Offer
action
first,
679,
raises to
injuries.
the of
to of
79
among
Pay its
due the
[1999];
issues
Evidence
Expenses
assessed
for
his
Phil.
(1998)
client
course
replevin family
Mans (2003)having
606;
lower agency.
(1997)
value to
Sec.
of
court
and
was As isActions;
Upon
An
No, Survives
receipt
interlocutory
because Death
of theof
order
the the
..................................................................................................................
Consul
which are Defendant
judgment,
refers
RTC-Manila
.........................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................
aof 3.
it AFTER
is not aFINALITY
duly OF
registered THE JUDGMENT,corporation
(2000)
to anfees
defendant
there order and
10
has
25
39
are
with
allowed
payable
SUGGESTED
Withdraw
the
2 of RTC? therefor,
Jurisdiction;
new thirty
declared
ANSWER:
Notice
Rule days
Incapable and
of
2), Appealofupon
after
causingPecuniary motion
date,
proper? and
Estimation
damage of asthe to a evidence
if
to
such
Mark
otherhe
Corporation
governed
PJ knew
within
available
engaged
appealsbetween petition.
filed
related and
on
by
to thethe v.
withor
Rule
thethe
Court before
jurisdiction
under
(Eternal
expenses.
Court case
the
65
servicesof of theis
Appeals,
Rules
Bureau decided
commission
Gardens
(2000)..........................................................................................
theThe
ofsubject of
Rules
of
Appealsmatter. 40a
of 164
filing
Atty. RTC on
or
MemorialSCRA
Internal
of of the
of
Court
ST
claiming and
11 the
41,
the
to 421
Consul,
The
barangay
Notice impleaded
Parties;
primordial
Actions;
52 17
of Death
SCRA
Commencement
Admissibility;
members
Appeal ofin667,
concern as
aPrivatedefault,
Party;
on ata671 party
Effect
of
of an
Document
the
the the citing
[1966];
joined
ground respondent
(1999)OSG
Action;
barangay (2005) the
is
by
Double that to rule
level see that(2004)............................................................................
(Sec. 5[1988]).
..................................................................................................................
Tolentino issued
jurisdiction
MISCELLANEOUS.................................................................................................................................................
deemed automatically Jeopardy
he over the the commencement
................................................................................................................. 25
and
39 P
(a) Y
subsequently can refuse charged to comply before with the
the 2.] the aggregate amount claimed 65
the land
motorcycle is P20,000.00,
valued at
ARRANGED BY TOPIC
the Municipal Trial three ways to assail the judgment, which
claiming
Certiorari;
security
(b) Rule
IsJurisdiction;
the party
45isvs.
courts
for Rule
the with
denial 65set (2005)
settlementofnotice due course toof the
the
to crime
a
basis
whichever
Park venue that
counterclaim
ofan the he
alies
to is
evidence afflicted
therein;
isapplicable. for for with
and the Human
damages.prosecution. Immuno- The
An
another.
v.
to
[Gojo it ACTION
Carlos,
allegations
without
period
Vestil, that the
Parties;
of
Actions;
52 v. the motion
66
Death
Rule
Goyala,
Admissibility;
to appealof best
Incapable
an
Phil,
of
65),
Discretionary
the
judicial
ordinary
to
Proof
had 35 1450,
while
ainterest
Party;
Complaint
of
Power
ofAn
already
Pecuniary
Effect
SCRA aside
of
Filiation;
recourse
suit
143-144
under (1999)
the
ofwithFiscal
Estimation
may in
the
government
557
need
Action
lapsed.
a be
not
of
court
[1938],
second,
6% made
and be
Partition at interpleader
the Revenue
when
represent
that
the
may the
end
Jurisdiction;
The sue
court of
A him
judgment
MTC
may
complaint
aggrieved
the
in in
one
(2002)
available
(2003)..........................................................................................
suit ais civil
not for
..................................................................................................................
which
complaint
(1999)........................................................................................................ party as refund
case
valid
(2000).....................................................................................
also dismiss is
amay
the
ground
filed
because
not
asserting ofaby
action
taxes
file 11
26OP
the
final
39
for
onasa
subpoena
P150,000.00.
Municipal
v.
Court
defending
May
As
of
Nasser the
appeal
obligation, supra)
Quyano-Padilla,
(Sec. has 3,
Jurisdiction;
Administrative
Justice v. noduces
Rule
aggrieved Trial
correct?
by
Court mortgaged9)
MTC
which d)
jurisdiction.
party, tecum
Proceedings
of Court
September
party
and one
Appeals, the on
file
proof
(Russell
(2005)
party same
191 a the
action 18,
petition
of ground
reckless
v.
lot such
to for
forB. Deficiency
SUGGESTED
are:
dismissal
dismissalshall
a) be
ofANSWER:
a
of Virus
the
petition
thethe second
(2002)........................................................................................................................................ test (HIV)/Acquired
complaint of
for
........................................................................................................................
prosecutes
SCRA 783 paid, but it was not jurisdiction
case.
acted relief on
(Sec.
upon. under
this4, RuleImmune
where
ground
So, Rule
2,)
11
65he It
(1970)].
is
No. upheld
answered.
2002). Parties;
1508, anytime
lower
Actions;
52 Third
the court
Injunction
Admissibility;
(COMELEC Party
former after
RulesClaim
is not
and
of (2000)notice
imp the
Evidence leaded.
first but
Katarungang before The verified
against
RTC claim petition
him
based which
of its
(1999)...................................................................................................................................... against
was
defendant judgment
...........................................................................................................................
decision
many causes of the
of action whole
(1997).................................................................................................................
P sued
Deficiency A and
Syndrome B in one as
(AIDS) a
docketed
he
complaintdecision,
controversy
may
isor on have
not
any asinmerefinal
Civil
26
and
valid
39
other
consequently
interpleader
that
imprudence
Demurrer
certiorari
failure.
When
SUGGESTED
[1992]). he to resides
Jurisdiction;
the
Congress; Evidence
inthe
note
ANSWER: to
Law help
the determine
resulting
Office more
(2001)
fell relieve
Supreme
of
due
Expropriating than
the andinSolicitorwho
seriousthe
50
Property Court (now
General
failed courts
physical
(2006) to 100)
under of the
is the
akin
38
without ground
to
onclaims
a compulsory
the
prejudice of
in
grounds all insufficiency
the
toathe
(2006).................................................................................................
A...........................................................................................................................
pay, of
.......................................................................................................causes
counterclaimfraud,
prosecution of of action
which,
accident, the
11
65 of if
another
In
We
Rule
B
of
is
A
Does a
Liberal
this
Pambarangay
Thereafter,
docket
(a)
2.
kilometers
injuries.
Carlos
filed
Lourdes,
that
amount
Withdraw
testify,the
Parties;
Jurisdiction;
53
between
No,RA
commenced would
Arrest;The
65
for
case,
judgment.
Best
Jurisdiction;
a compulsory
right,
Petition
Arrest;
53 the
3019;
Construction;
with
the
Burden
of
Third-Party
congestion.
the
filed
the
of
for
Jovythe
Law.)
Incapable
Ombudsman
Warrantless
Evidence
effect
the
courts
from a
Mandatory
or
court the
Warrantless
of thethe
enforcement
like
Ombudsman
Court
P190,000.00
Notice
suit
Certiorari
Proof
owner
Resolve
of
Rule
filed
of
defendants
the
complaint
counterclaim
Rules
MTC
mayof
(1997 2006)
Claim
defendantsan
denial
1997to
Pecuniary
Case
Arrest; (1997)
a
place
(Preamble
Suspension
to
prevention
(2000)
ofBurden
Arrests
vs.
(2005)
Court
of
Appeal
seek
civil
Order
Case
recover
proceed
the
Decisions
of
Manila
&
from the
Rules
or
Estimation
Preliminary Motion.
action
is
where
against Xs
of of
Decisions
(2001)
(1998)
Appeals
Searches
of is
or
P
protection
counterclaim
the
(2006)
.D.
from
which
Evidence
thetaxicab,
not to
Default
entitled
Motion
an
he(2003)
Investigation
against
Pedro
ofaction
(1997)
indulgence
is
(2004)
render
plaintiff.
proper,
(2%)
to
Civil
arises for
is
to
to in receive
filed
order
Case
photocopies
(Gallardo
leaves
since
because
RTC-Manila,
evidence
not
No.
the
board
was
presented
April
Actions;
being
Arreza
2001)
the
set
are
b)
aNo.
oforsimilar
up,
133113,
mistake
resolution
the
et
something
all
counterclaim
Appeals
21,that
executed
123.
the
under
on
principally
is2005;
Cross-Claims;
on
v. Diaz,
prosecution
annulment an
or
has
in
and
al.
the
its
shall
complaint
v.A
reader
claims
the
own
be
August
excusable
raffled
cause
..................................................................................................................................
overdue
G.R. acted
between
court.
Investments
ofThird
the
of
retainership
affidavits
People,
more1997
.....................................................................................................................................
sexually transmissible are
disease
inwithout
(2006)..................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
redress Ahave the of Tax to one
Party
of
initiative
barred.
for to
the
with
tribunal,
for G.R.
(2004)..................................................................................
the
30,
of
be
Rules,
action and
negligence;
IsPJ
......................................................................................................
merits
disease
recovery
of evidence of transmitted
money, is not the
judgment to
promissory
(Sec.
of
Claims
the the
Inc.
.....................................................................................................
aggregate
required.
opportunity
the
some
same
its
and
persons
No.
done
principally
after
recovery
2,
victim.
under
Court
body
agreement142030,
reception
the
against on
virus
giving
Rule
Divisions.
or(1997)
v. in Atty.
claim
Court action
excess
amount
After
note toRule
26
Barnot
40
12
66
26
40
Under
of
or
its
for
9,
ST
for
be
A
of
of
or
a
;

Questions
the
a
out
How
for
breach
(b)
judgment
e)
because
new
the
RTC
Procedure,
2).
balance
wrong.A
Jurisdiction;
Petition
orshall
specific
jurisdiction
Arrest;
54
ARule is of
(Sec.
of
Character
canof
petition
ownership the
21).
Jurisdiction;
forOzamis
9
to
Warrantless which
of
Probate
instead
P1,000,000.00.
Relief
connected
the
(Section Rules
performance
contract,
take
granting for
period
RTC
former
review
Evidence
of the
City
1 &ofArrests
the
(2002) a
of
Action
of
of
former
andwith are
for
Rule
filing
for
Court
testimony
the
car. the
&Mans
probate
appeal
the 23;
abe
After
Annulment
the
Rule improperly
against
Seizures
claimant
Pedro
recovery
Decisions
of 45
Sec.
petition
of
X
securing
transaction
construed?
(2003)
for
of aY
has
filed
10
B,
quasi- and
such
will
not
of
forof
in
his
classified
because
Section
claimed
Actions;
defendant
money.
P300,000.00
heard. 47
itPJ
17(a)
for shallisunder
ispromised
(Sec. a compulsory
(2001)...................................................................................................................................
of
of16.)
and beRule
Actions;
declared
extrinsic
5, Rule
Republic
(2002)..................................................................................................................................... aor
(2002)...................................................................................................
a [2%] Mark's
Appeals,
of
whereby
defendant
B andits Cause C complaint
G.R.
jurisdiction
valid?
borrowed No. Explain.was
60036, 2
totopic
of
.......................................................................................................
the
that
........................................................................................................................................
(Sec. 6inof (Sec.
Rule 23 of 119)test
Motion
in
against
fraud
Act
the
dismissed.
P400,000.00 January
gravepay
(3%) of or
to
default, No. and
counterclaim.
1997 27,
abuse
BAtty.
Rules)
from
8504
jurisdiction.
Dismiss; the
being
lack
ST
bar for
27
Thus,
198712of
40
court
of
12
the
by
on a
A.
review
a
and favorable
Petition on
occurrence certiorari
for judgment
Relief; under
Injunction
constituting on Rule his the claim, thereof
subject B cited
he
discretion
retainer filed Denso
sumwith
amountingofPhils,
(2002).......................................................................................................................
theP24,000.00 v.
Court /AC,
to lack G.R.
of a or No.
Appeals
year excess 75000,
and 27 a
of
to
some
SUGGESTED
resident
criminal
delict.
present
relief
yet
Civil
answer
for
The
brought
matter
Arrest;
54
estate
involving as
expired.
Actions topics
Lourdes
Jurisdiction;
theRules
Pleadings;
Bail
54 of
(2002)
Facts;
ANSWER:
ofWarrantless
Confession;
and
the
his
anof
vs.
within
nullification
another
the
Quezon
From
Special and
documents
pleading
Subdivision
the
Court
Amendment
plaintiffs
Legislative
which
Affidavit
administrative
valued Arrests;
Mans
January
Proceedings
action Factsof
of
City,
may Homeowner
reglementary
should
of a
Complaint; are
Objection
Recantation
to
filed
as
warrant
against
claim.
vs.
2, be
(1998)
decision
compel
cases
Adjudicative
aBy
2003
It
improperly
exhibits
at motion
A
raises
unless
of
liberally
Leave when
before
Facts the
of
the
to
by Court (2003)
(2004)
b. or............................................................................
court
shall
Discovery;
an
[Rule
Feb.
petition
himself
ignorantly
No.may
2, proceed
alleged
jurisdiction; Modes compel
(2002)
Joinder
sec.balance orThe
of Discovery
5(d)]. is
toof phrased,
the
(2000)........................................................................................................
(1998)...........................................................................................................
of the
the The
prior promissory
judgment note only
(2006).........................................................................................................
period. 27,
jurisdiction,
transfer 1987).
to for
the a certiorari
blood
when
ownership
............................................................................................................................................................. test
there
was accused
(2000)
certiorari
where
of under
is
a
executed
permissive
aggregate
render
c)P300,000.00
no blood
parcel
...........................................................................................
for
to
judgment
Rule
appeal
ifon the
submit
by
since
amount the
samples
of
41
12 B
the
27
65.
land
41 or
latter
SUGGESTED
Ombudsman?
dismiss
taking
the to
P200,000.00.
SUGGESTED
X court
received
DistinguishKatarungang the
hisexecute
ANSWER:
in
ANSWER:
ain (2.5%)
civil
copydeposition
its a
action
discretion
Pambarangay;
civil ofactionsdeed
the on
adverse
Lupon; ofthe
through conveyance
requires
from ground
Extent decision
oftheir
special oral
the of
Authority; and
Rolando
the
claimed
Describe
granting
Judgment
purchase C
loans orin
vs.is
bya
filed
are
briefly
the
Opinion
price Joint
the a petition
separate
P450,000.00,
claimant atthe
of
of and
judicial least
goodsCourtseveral
for
loans
exclusive
five
such(2006)
sold
record.
(2001)............................................................................ (5) capacity.
declaration
which
relief
on modes asmay
of
credit. the
13 of
of
hisB,
authors
After
Court
construed
the
The
same
(a)
covering
litis
same
An
examination
claimant
up
54 the
Pleadings;
Supreme
Bail; of Appeal
Hearsay
issue
action
pendentia,
toPleadings;
proceedings.
SUGGESTED January a
to
are
pre-trial
Appeals
court
ANSWER:
Amendment
offorCourt
(1998)
parcel
or
submit
[3%]13,
to
Evidence
who just
order in
specific
thatwritten
2003
and
the
foreclose
has
of
of
(2002) Bar
encroached
is,
to
evidence
actual
Complaint;
exercise
exclusive Reviewees
promote
the By trial,
Leave
either
mortgage.
on appellate
whose and
ofin of who
Court; have
Prescriptive
would
Does
any
to
judgment
be
other
Atty. theprepared
Period
extracted
ST
to
Court
plain,after
void
................................................................................................................................................ from on
speedy
.......................................................................................................................................
performance
land
the
when situated
pendency
interrogatories.
he Edited
(Id.)
filed
or, and
Thehisin
of Arranged who
the
be
amount
discovery
pleading
What
Does received
nullity
by:
governed
the
vs. ofmay
is of
the
Justices by
P100,000.00
under the
his
warrant,
RTC-Manila thethe money this
marriage
Rules
difference
of
ofhisits
presentation
different
the for
unless
have
veinswork
face
(2000).............................................
Appeals
and
from
of
Court to
attorneys
Court.
toA,
terms
the
betweenof court
jurisdiction while
(Balangcad
determine
adequate
of
gave
Carmela(5%)
27
have
PJs
41
and
fees
Appeals, aC
in
after
its
objective
jurisdiction
A now
land. original
Bail;
54 Hence, Carlos
files ofaAmendment
Application;
Hearsay or
securing
over
motion
Evidence
there has
Venueappellate
was to
vs. of a
decisions completed
Complaint;
just,
dismiss
no need speedy Matter
jurisdiction?
the to of second
answerofand the
Right
the (2005)3. .................................................................................
SUGGESTED
whether
Jurisdiction;
jurisdiction As he ANSWER:
a
has
Subdivision
over mode
HIV.
(2002)..............................................................................................................................
Opinion Evidence (2004) (8%)
Homeowner
Mark's of review
petition? (2006)
.....................................................................................................
remedy
evidence. in the
PJ ordinary
did not course
comply of of
(2.5%)
law.
with 28
the
41
his
reviewing
the
CIVIL
Quezon
To
the
party
SUGGESTED
(Rule alternative,
NULLIFY
withdrawalcivil
presentation
Ombudsman
Explain.
inexpensive
action
of
the
24;PROCEDURE
Pleadings;
Bail; on
54 Hearsay;
180,000.00
counterclaim.
City
in actiondefault
ANSWER:
new
Forms of
the
A
infor
having
Rule
of
of
for
DECISION
appeal
Amendmenthis
criminal
disposition
ground
Bail
Exception;
falls
the
impliedly
cannotdamages
23)
(1999)
within
an and
evidence,
of Bar
He
Dead
assessed
cases
of
of
the
ofExams
Motion
Complaint;
Man
in
instituted
take may
bar
the the
part
Pedro
every also
Toby
(Sec.
Statute
jurisdiction
for
amount
value
Court
version in
Conform in
moved
action
14, under
file
New
prior
the
the of
of
R.A. a 1987-2003
w/ Evidence time
P200,000.00.
because
conditions.
and
SUGGESTED
its
judgment
No.
over
a)
What
No, (2004)
decisionsAreThe constraints
expenses
the G.R.
1discretion of
DEPOSITION.
court
the
The
ANSWER:
and
procedure
case?
has
RTC-Manila
the
No.Explain.an C,
..............................................................................................................................................
two
of
83888.
requires By
jurisdiction and
alleged
loans in
litigation.
opinion
isof leave February
governed
(3%)the within
giveturn,
psychological
of
..................................................................
the rights
of the the
has National
(2001)........................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
of Five
undertaking. modes of Atty.discovery ST filed under accused
aover
no case
rise
Hence,
by12,
claimant
the
court to
anagainst
jurisdiction
the
their
loaned
court?
Sec. 13
two
the
1992,
after
to
Labor
action
Rules 28 11
41he
tobe
a.
A The
criminal
motion
trial
Trial,
3[A])
p19,000.00.
CIVIL
Appeals
ALTERNATIVE but
only rule
for ACTION
the
actionthe
shall
ten B
ANSWER:against
received
aggrieved be
(10) for
productionis onesplitting
reckless
entitled
days the
by
party had or summons
which
to a
should cause
imprudence
Silliman
inspection
elapsed notice a and
party
file
and ofof
of a ALTERNATIVE
P100,000.00
incapacity
separate
RTC-Manila
submit
(2.5%)
SUGGESTED
University
of R. 206
A.
ANSWER:
8CRA
of
causes
evidence,
ANSWER:
9282.
jurisdiction has out
the 171). of
latter.
of action
jurisdiction.
which
Decisionshas thebeenmay P200,000.00
and
of be
a may
obtained be
delegated
division the
over of
limited
for
and
6770)
judgment.
(a)
action
SUGGESTED
a
sues copy
PETITION
resulting
Actions;
Pleadings;
the
ADDITIONAL
Actions; .
Bail;
54
Theanother
Metropolitan In
Counterclaim
proceeding.Matter
Hearsay;
witness
and knowledge
dismissal
ofANSWER:
Cause
Rule
the
FOR
in
Answer;
administrative
ANSWER:
itsof
Trial of
on vs.
Right
Exception;
can
effect
Action
of
(Sec.
Complaint
for
REVIEW
Defense;
Courts the
Crossclaim
the
(1999)
also
the
vs.
motion.
Dying
6,are of
Action
Specific
complaint
and
refuse
ONin (1999)
Declaration
that
on Metro
enforcement the(1999)
(2%)
02
CERTIORARI
Denial
disciplinary
toJanuary
if law.
on
(1998)
comply
Manila.
two
(2004) the
or or WeLaw would
presumed
Relations
The
for
of
The
PJ
After 1
Court
Default;
received
basis
to the
claimIs
specific
judgment
which trial,
of
clerk like
the
case.
are:
Remedies;
two
innocent
was
to ofthe death
D. Ato
Commission
defendant
performance
Party
ordocketed
separate
of a)
court.
and
fallo
court seek
............................................................................................................
of
....................................................................................................................................
Rule 1 1997 Rules of over the of
Declared
In B
isPJ
can the
ais
could the
..............................................................................................
valid
.......................................................................................................
RTC of Quezon City, theas
rendered
an in3, B crime
valid,
Default
final
action
complaints. Civilnot
file readers
and
filedground
be charged,
because
a cross-
(2006)
disposition
Case
judgment
filed by 28
joined
by
13
the
41
No.to
beA
a
However,
documents.
subsequent
he
ground
cases,
a)
Civil
The had
Although
3.
with
Actions;
What
Bail;
motion
55 the
fifteen
Pleadings; that
appeals
Procedure.)Matter
Assumingan
strict
is (Rule
Causeto
Hearsay; of
action
subpoena aserious
proceedings.
(15)
under
from observance
Certification
of
Right 27).
dismiss
that
days
Action;
the
vs.
for the
counterclaim? Against
Matter
Exception;
physical
to
Joinder
facts
Ombudsman
should
specific
duces the
do
(Sec. of
Forum
ofmotion &so. the
College
Splitting
proven
Discretion
tecum be Res
performance
injuries.
rules
Shopping
(2%) must
denied.
to
on (1999) Gestae;
set
the
is
of the
SUGGESTED
theOpinion
subdivision
as
claim
of
Jojie
Court
Batch
court
defendants
the filed
ANSWER:
against
Courtreceived
of
with
of
in
which
the
Tax
Ordinary
homeowner
C onemoney
(Sec.
evidence
for
Regional
Appeals
(1998).............................................................................................
andb)(2000)
be Constitutional any
dismiss defendant Commissions.
the is complaint
the
Rule
orself-incrimination
.......................................................................................
to privacy, and against over
claim
Witness
...............................................................................................
reflected (2.5%)
which
Trial
must
9)
against
amount property
of it
because
Court in
13
29
Atty.
(2005)can
41
theof a
indulgence
more
2003.
(b)
taken
the
No,
protection
in
Resolve
an the
Distinguish
(Lanting
The
is
aside
ground notlaw
Bail;
suits
toOn
imperative
Actions;
Pleadings;the
Supreme
the
the
Matter
capable
of
complies
that
are
10
Court
applicable a for
courts
motion
Cause instituted
January
right,
Counterclaim
ofaRight
the of a
ofdenial
ofCourt
necessity with
Action; lot
or
Appeals
to
counterclaim
vs.pecuniary
with
documentsthe
Matter
2003,
the
under
against
Joinder
...................................................................
action v. Ombudsman,
for breach of G.R.of
on
of
reasons.
when
of
contract
duetypographical
the
prevention
the of
under
case, No.
the
Bcourse
Rule
Counsel
Action
2005
Discretion
basis
(4%)
they
estimation,
are
filed
Rule
Carlos
from
141426,
against
45 of are
(2006)
other
of
43
not
toa Plaintiffviolated
or
of
55 appealed errors
Actions;
456.
dismissing
against
Certiorari Bin
Cause
During and
to asthis
of
the Action;
thethe
isC a the with work.
mode
Court Joinder
trial
petition theof
(1999)................................................................................................
the of of on
of Tax
(2004) ......................................................................
which by such subject
compulsory
Action
ais...............................................................................................
order
subdivision
the
dispositive
Laguna
Perry
456,
that right
P200,000.00? PJHearsay;
ST
in
is aits
a
died.
Rolando in
to Civil
own
developer?
relief
portion
complaint
resident b) Case Exceptions
discretion,
against
Can
failed of of
for C No.
Choose
the
file
Civil
review
both
damages
Manila, to 456?
in
a
the (2005)
which
the
Case
Appeals
ofdecision.
the
defendants
third
while
prove
ground
of
action,
testing?
(1999)
Explain.
No.
the
42en
29
13
case
correct
party
againstRicky
the A
the
Motion
As
redress same
considered appeal
Rules
Pleadings;
Actions; to cause
of Dismiss
aof
Causeiswrong.
Motions; of
not
Court action,
indispensable
of Action; the
Billcorrect
(See.instead
v.of
the
Complaint
3[a],because
Particulars
Joinder filing
ofRuleof to
Action of
on
filing one
the
the
the a decision
SUGGESTED
banc.
Explain. Further,
or ofwithout
ANSWER:thethe NLRC
1,(2005)................................................................................................
1997
(2003).........................................................................................................
CTAsuch is
now elevated
leave hasExceptions;
the
after tosame 29
13 an
not
May
crossclaim.
the entitled
6,the2005;
Bail; Witness to
(2%) Fabianthe
Posting ownership
Bail Desierto,
(1999) of the
G.R. car.
No.
...........................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................... the 1evidence(2%) ofincapacity
the 55
plaintiff Hearsay; must pass 42
the
since
ground
appeal a taxicab
requirements
relevant
or
petition
Rules
prevention
129742, judgment
Pleadings;
Actions;
of of
was alternative
and
for
Civil lack owner
taken
Cause
September of
ofof
there
upon
certiorari
Reply; of
Procedure),
needless
theon
Effect
Action;
cannot
demand
was
16,the
jurisdiction rule,
time.
of no
merits
while
under
Non-Filing
Splitting
delays
1998;
be
for
it(1999)
tender
From Sec.ainbarred
damages
should
contending
of
and any of
Reply
14, UPDATED
January
SPECIAL
Rule to
fees
one by
be65
(2000)
the
RA.
is decision
answer.
doBY:
Court not
complaint
No.
Joe.
and The
psychological The
During
Marvinof is
Explain.
arisecourtagainst
Appeals areHousing
directly
out
the may prepared
ofpretrial,
residentsthe
Dcompel
under for sameand
the
of
Rule
...........................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
rank asanswerthe Court has of Appeals
been
by
the
ofJojie Land
aaccused
transaction
amount
Batangas
his 65,
served,
judge
(sic)
wife.
and as is
Use
ofand
and
City.
The
held
29
14
the
or
P
to
no
c)
The
capable
the
granted.
2)
for RTCone A,
Complaint
Dying
criminal of grantedwho
Although vs.
Declaration
pecuniary
day's Information
action is
the such
attendance engaged
motion
(1999)
estimation,
against(1999)
a motion for the it andisin
dismissal.
may within
taxicab tile
...........................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................
be
the basic
signed
SUGGESTED
series 2
100,000.00?
submit
her
They requirements
(sic) Will
areofby
Regulatory
ANSWER: him,
transactions
himselfyour
counsel
the answer to
failed
coowners of
containing
Board admissibility.
a be
toand the
blood
appear
of 55
clearly
there
a same Hearsay;
test is
despite
parcel with42
and no
toof
is
that
6, available
2003
PROCEEDING the and subject
when as aAis ground
matter
received
a Ejectment
remedy forof a the
the copy
by dismissal
suit
which of wasthe a judgment
in the case having
of St. of become final, Rolando
Dondee
except
orderly
6770).
Carlos
the
Prejudicial
Actions;
Demurrer
Inapplicable
installation appealed
jurisdiction
under
Cause
toQuestion;
speedy ofthe
Evidence;
of
Action;
the
very Splitting
dispatch
Contract
order vs.
of
ofrules.
Metropolitan sued exceptional
Specific
(2005)of
Carriage
dismissal by Performance
Judicial Trial EE
and (2000)
longer
Default testimony Martin's
(2004)................................................................................................
(2003)..................................................................................................................................
business, was (2001) Funeral
..........................................................................
.............................................................................................................
considered aany quasi-judicial
person, whetherHome
55commonagency.
Judicial 42v.a
30
14
driver,
made
kilometrage
3[C].
Jurisdiction;
of the Rule although
after
others. notice
allowed
1,1997
Probate the
(2001) Rulestaxicab
butby thebefore
of owner
Civil judgment can be distinctly
common
determine
notice 2
residential
filed respect
to
The
another a
question
both statement
whether
land to
of
Securities
petition, theof
them.
located he of
law
real
has Upon
in
thisthe
or
property
andHIV
Pasay facts
fact
time under
oral Exchange
City proved
being
motion
on Sec.
with
the
incapable
decision
party Pre-Trial;
Actions;
circumstances.
business seeks
Demurrer up of
(Alvero
.Production
to to
Cause
to pecuniary
(Sec.January
Requirementsestablish
A
Evidence; 4, Rule
long
vs. Judge
w/o 19,
(2001)
line
Leaveestimation.
2003 when The he NLRC, G.R.
of(2005)............................................................................................................................
Actions; Motion
a status, to Dismiss; a right bar by prior(a) judgment B(2002) No. 130866,
..............................................................................................................................
of
de of decisions
la
Court Rosa,
(1998) of
76 It isYes.
SUGGESTED likewise can
ANSWER: September
.........................................................
file
provided awhich
cross-claim
in the said against
law 16,
30
that C
Courts
Cruz
Josefa
(Sec. 1The
Industries
the
Discovery;
b.
held
Procedure.)Notice;
us.
3[B] Splitting
appellateinTan,
filed of
Evidence
Metro
motion
subsidiarily for
87
in
Rule court breach
a
Manila.
Phil.
the 9) and
to single
liable
,motion.
with reversed
627].
Municipal Inspection
dismiss(Sec.of
more cause
in 33contract
thethe ofof
of
should
reason
Circuit orderaction:
Documents
criminal
BP 129 may
Trial
for
be asof and1998 and
to
Singson,
17(a)
of
an
ground the
both.
Jojie,
assessed
.
party law
claimed
of Adm.
R.A.
Joe
Commission
(Rule
Certiorari
that
orupon
No,
was
value
his by
3,
not,
asMatterAtty.
8054.
may
declared
sec.
marriage a of mode ST be
..................................................................................................
Mario was declared in6). defaultthe
Hence,
No.
His
P100,000.00.
to of in
as
taken,but
judgment
Civil
RTJ-91-758,
rights
Carmelain
review
at
Judicial
56separate
before
Case
to
default
the
42
Perry
from
had beis
Remedial
court
filed
or
the a Provisional
14 a Law
Actions;
denied
particular
Supreme Motion in Phil.
RemediesSystem
Counterclaim
the for
fact.
Court, (1999)
of Govt
(2002)
Reconsideration,
too In (2006)due time, B
.................................................................................................................................
numerous only
................................................................................................................................
to 1 30
Phil.
installing
amended
the
(2002)
granted.
case,
it
Court
How
filed be14
428)
Demurrer
Notice;
trial
Conciliation (3%|
if
are
by
filed
of
Provisional the
Alicia
Actions;
with
to
remedial
Evidence;
Evidence;
different
RA
court.
When
Proceedings; No.
driver
after and
Remedies;
7691:
Thereafter,
Counterclaim
the RTC
(Sec.
Bdiscovery isw/o
Foreign
marble
commenced
Katarungang
Mabini,
laws
Leave
insolvent.
Attachment
vs.
Law
implemented
aCrossclaim
of
a The
even
Court
tiles
Pedro
Pambarangay
petition
(1999) suit
On inRE-Take
(2001)
filed
before theits
to
vs.
for
in
a for
the
judgment
based 2007
September
complaints
presumed
and
borrowed
the
been
the
3SCRA
No.
No.
amount
decisions
(Etoya
Commission
celebrated 26,
Under
was
456?
The innocent
Jojie v.
will
was
of
1994).
P100,000.00
of
of
Abrahamrendered,
Explain
have
allowed
Sec.
200,000.00
the
(1997).......................................................................................................
any
on
without of to the
20,
CTA
..................................................................................................
instance party,
(2%)
Audit
(1999).........................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
Regional Trial be
a
he
tocrime
from
Court
Rule
en
by
files
given
present
license.Ricky
(COA)
bane
and
3,
deposition
decidedcharged,Is
to1997
they
her
which
and
the
30
C.
are
43
56 to
twelve
mention,
SUGGESTED
(b)
offices
The
motion
other
receipt 2
Pre-Trial
collect AnDemurrer
Memorandumwith
Conference
on
Non-joinder
hand,
of
Provisional
(12)
holds
asANSWER:
action
plaintiff the
the
toprovided
Evidence;
for
sued
the
the
order
that
(1999)
promissory
Remedies;
days
injunction
RTC of
civilthe
of
w/o
a
certiorari
in Leave
asking
action
default.
Attachment
had
their
defendant
note,
necessary isPetition
of theCourt
not he
(1999)for
elapsed.
is latter
waived
party.
notfor
(2004)
quasi- to
[2%]
a A
144 cross-claim
cognizable
SUGGESTED
would
to
evidence
he privacy
promised
Jurisdiction;
Rules
fall 377 by
ANSWER:
ex
of
under
and
Incapable
istothe
(1996)..............................................................................................................................................
capable
contract. in the (1986)].
parte.
to pay
Civil
a claim
against
of theon
Procedure,
Supreme
Pecuniary or
filed
..................................................................................................
file a uponmotion oral examination
set aside
jurisdiction
Thereafter,
by
theCourt
self-incrimination
before
Estimation
orone
when
order
the
December
party
under
written
of
court
(2000)
43
57the
of
the
the
ourThe
1.
Certiorari
substitute probate
15
system
Consequently, Actions;
effect
Dismissal;
Offer of ofFailure
praying
for
Evidence of a the
Cross-Claims;
government?
he splitting
had
lostto
(1997)that will three
appeal.
Prosecute Third
thea ofsingle
(2%)her
Party
said
(3) It dayshusband,
Claims
cause
Order
should (1997)
from of
bebe COMELEC
An
against opinionThe
actiona is elevated
.............................................................................................................
second action barred
Commercial
of
co-partyis the for
(2003)...................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................
Rule 45 of the court
1997 by
arising to
recovery theCourt
is
Rulesthe
.................................................................................................
4 judgment
the
out ofSupreme
ofor
informal
of money 30
the
the
43
57
Civil in
of
Without
RTC
allow
Default;pecuniary
to him filing
collect
Remedies; to estimation
Partyany
on
present a motion
Declared promissory
his inand to
evidence.
Default hence
dismiss,
note,
(1998) Carlos falls
the A No,
default.
SUGGESTED the interrogatories.
second
a) What
ANSWER: actionshould is not
Mario
(Sec. barred
1, state
Rule 23,by
in the
his
1997
The
What
his
delict
Martin,
SUGGESTED
set
action
receipt
noted,
From
within
filed
What
terms
objected
right
Provisional
15
aside is
Dismissal;
Offer
conciliation the
are
its
Authors
isActions;
on
of
the
who todifference,
against
ANSWER:
found
however,
of to
foreclose
Remedies;
Derivative
died
because
February
the
Provisional
Evidence;
jurisdiction
the
Answer
which
the
in res
available
the
in
the
when
were
presentation
proceedings
Suit
3, the
the
of
with
ifthe
Attachmentvs.
rule
2003
ANSWERS
Dismissal
inter
any,
driver
alios
the
Class
Municipality
MTC
the as
remedies
stated of
(2003)
acta
RTCs.
between
mortgage.
(2001)
Suit
follows:
Counterclaim
of
under
the had
Court
is Order
Bof
an
of TO
Metropolitan
are
A
An brings
rendered
1, 2004.
expression not
BAR
action an
Regional violated
its
However,
for
of action
Decision
theTrial
Trial by
in
Perry
EXAMINATION
specific views
(2003)..........................................................................................................
transaction arising or from occurrence Court.
the
in
(2005).........................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
noIf Court
the first?
Jurisdiction; within Why?
Office 30of (2%)the daysSolicitorCourt
contract,
................................................................................................................
in
evidence ofour the
the Procedure.
to justify
judgment
motion Rules
in the inofsetting
order Civil
the aside
Procedure.)
first
such
fromfavorMTC
failed
General
performance
of
because
a(2005)...........................................................................................
noticecompulsory
of
designated
the that
of the they
of Jojie.
to
[Flores
(2006)
court
express Manila
pay
of
is
orderare byJoe
30
the
and
the
43
57 his
by
ofora
v.
split
No.
Remedial
independent16his
Pedros
Provisional cause
Actions; laws motionof
civil
Remedies;
Filing; action.
are action
Civil should
implemented
Attachment
Actions under be
& denied.
(2005)
CriminalArticle inAction He
33 SUGGESTED
Mallare-Philipps, ANSWER:
.............................................................................................................
testing.
against
hired
loan.
judgment, Jose In
Perry B an as for action
decision his
also the in
counsel. annulment
which
rejected
or What the Ricky physical
areof 30an
the
and
Alicia,
July
two
jurisdiction
denying
Appeals
(a)
Actions;
theorizing
party
complaint
by
or26,
Double
Offer
Was
Pedro.
Katarungang
the
more
Cause
declaredof his
the
residence
2005
Jeopardy
Evidence;
imposes ofCode
that
and
Should
suits
over
Motion
denial
Action;
InEE the
a default:
Pambarangay
are
Testimonial
the Splitting
Industries
photocopy
the
of
for
death
of RTC
the
instituted
case. the
(2005)
spouses.
grant
Law
6%
Reconsideration
has Motion
attached no
on
Onlegal
andPedros
The
the13to
the to
In
default?
The
different
1996,
2remediesimplied, Congress
(2002).........................................................................................................................................
& Documentary
penalty, or(1994) subdivision the matter
(3%) Supreme
INTERROGATORIES
causes homeowner
of and
available
b) ofthe In passed
action. Court
the to final
a ...........................................................................................
cannot
subject prevail against its
original
what
TO final Republic
to
defendant
a party
form
PARTIES.
The
order
against
hear
order.
action
first isor
against
should
Under Act
and
44
57
The
dies
for
oraa
QUESTIONS
can
system
of
lesser
(c)
the
ALTERNATIVE
probable
February
basis
within
Raphael,
Dismiss
Since
capacity
the
motion 1An
negotiations
Rules
of the
no
Doubleof
Opinion ofthe
Civil
Provisional
16 which
penalty
action
As
complaintthe
to
Before
longer
Actions;
provide
Provisional
government
ANSWER:
value
2003,
Jeopardy;
Rule
Motion
to
judicial
Remedies;
Intervention;
same
to
for
apresent
Complaint
suefor for
the
Remedies;
A present
and
for
of
because
thatas
an
filedby
cause
Upgrading;
offenses
replevin
warehouseman,
Attachment
his
the the
through
Sec.
Requisites
with
ifcorrect?
Reconsideration
an
rendition
system, amicable
evidence.
itof
3,
of estate
Original
committed
annex.
evidence?
the is
UP
Rule
the
amotion
including
the
vs.
(2000)
action,
not
of
Charges
is
motorcycle MTC
filed
settlement
LAW
pillars
111
Garnishment
which
notice
aBefore
The
the
was
duly
Why?
judgment;
of
on
for
the
a
(2005) a COMPLEX
(1999) Marvin's
resolution
No.
subdivision 8189, proposal
sought
otherwise &
developer
(1994)...............................................................................................................................................
appeal. He filed Philippine
...................................................................................
................................................................................................................
condition
extrajudicial
remedies of
availablea party
foreclosure to tois him?
known in
to be controversy,
is
..........................................................................................
opinion
counterclaim
such
whom
annulment
(Look fordecide
a of
before
motion
the default
citation the
same
of be?"commercial
therein
entry court
marriage
of (2%)
decision
conditions
latest iscase,
ofand on
sale
Explain.
partition
reviewed,
as
cases."
contained
finalismay the
in
the
within
judgment
rendered
of
include
specified
ground Law (5%)
Voter's
in are the
real
44
57the
theas
the
ofa
in
in
the
consisted
filing
motion
of Rules
31
16 Actions;
Extradition
Parol
appeal of one
to of
mainly
Evidence
on Court,
Real
(2004)
or
declare aRule
February Actions
of
judgment aInjunction
Bwhich
&
housePersonal
in
5, on (2001)................................................................................................................
canand
default.
2003, Actions
the be lot
ormerits filed
(2006)...................................................................................................
was
The
only court
property
property.
provided
Registration may with
order
Ricky
for ofAct under
(2001)....................................................................................................................................
jurisdiction the
.................................................................................................................................................. an
the
filedofHousingaccused
assessed
thea complaint
1996, Rule to 64
providing
and value
submit
Land against
of 31
the
44
58 of
to
for
Use
Schools
such
valued
(b)
complaint
2004)
filed
registered
answering,
(5%)
during
dismissal Resolve
prosecutory
separately
placed
motion
in
two
reviewany
16 onoccasion,
[1%]
at
Information
at
the
Provisional
Actions;
Preponderance
(2) onewas
days
or
January Association
150,000.00
the
against
corporation.
the
pre-trial
Remedies;
Survives
isP95,000.00
is granted
service,
(2001)
opposed
ordinary
and
appeal
Motion
vs.the
available
later.
19,
defendant by V
conference
Deathour
Substantial
appeal.by
2003
Injunction
and
as theof
B a
by
falls
to
Corporation,
the
courts
can By
filed
trial
in
Declare
Evidence
ground
onIn
and
Defendant
the 2006
petition
within
cases
away
under
court
of itmotion
petition
(2003)
the
was
(2000)
justice
proceed
for
the
the
but X body
claim
1.
SUGGESTED
as
2004)
psychological
a
Perry
1997
a) physical
P50,000.00
In
of
BEFORE
follows: that
the
and
Rules
order
the
section decision
court
the
ANSWER: the
1
examination.
Marvin
of
to located
Civil
party
incapacity
justify
.................................................................................................................................................
ground
for when the Regulatory
computerization Board.
in
of
in
of
that
which
judgment
the
Procedure.
Sec.
against
Rule
the
serves
inRTC
under
of...................................................................................................
(2003)................................................................................................................ elections.
....................................................................................................
23, the
1 Laguna.
setting
(Sec. of
whom
in
ofsuch
In1,
as
any
Article
Pasay
the
Pthe
a
action
aside
Rule
.D.
Pursuant
guide
default it
party
31
The
case
36
City
45
1344
58
is
of
28,
is
jurisdiction
Defendant
Corporation
SUGGESTED in
ANSWER: of
Default.
and Y Corporation Metropolitan to compel Trial or
asserted
becomes
of
b) enlightenment
the Ifpending
shall is
final
Family
the or file
result may
and at
Code, to
the
andbe
executory:
of determine
time
liable
while
such serve of
the
test to the
upon
second
shows ratio
cross-
death,
any
that is
Updated
denied
counterclaim,
for
Rules
on
and
2.
for
Actions;
dismissal
that
The
the
Courts
BP
them
SUGGESTED
not
Remedial
actual
produce
Contempt;
an
2The
16
appeal
quasi
independently on
Provisional
of
Information;
Privilege
thehis
difference
Court
129.
set to in
Law
Provisional
17
order
Court?
Appeals;
After
for
damages
January
allowance
Intervention;
of
Petition
Metro
as
the
Death
Certiorari;vs.of by
judicial
effect the
Period
the
judgment
ofA
Amendment
Communication Dondee
directing
Remedies;
(2%)
of
Appeals
amended
interplead.
ANSWER: hearing
ofSubstantive
original
Remedies;
a as
Party;
Mode
20,
asked
for
between
Manila
ofof
order
agencies.
the
Requisites
others.
of
the
her
2003,
Injunctions;
Appeal;but
criminal
the
Certiorari
He
with
Effect by
Law
of
of
imposes
(Sec.
(Sec.
Injunctions;
Certiorari
for
the
the
the
Fresh
before
non-joinder
(2001)
(1998)
(2000) RAwill,
alleged
(1998) at
(2006)
business
itdismissal
433 of
was
moral
plaintiff
Ancillary
No.
Period
action
least
note
(2006) of
Issuance was
conciliation
Rule
clearly
its
attorneys
reclusion
Rule
2)of
therein
depleted
so three
and
Remedy
finality;
and
still
that
w/out
to
isa vs. Main
Bond
1997
(b)
Action
complaint
for
of
the
thereto,the
decidendi
claimant
he
for
(2006) is
Rules
the
order
No, 1
(2006)........................................................
(2003).............................................................................................
itCivil
HIV
adverse
declaration Cof
partition
of
the
shall
forof
Motion
Civil
alleged Service
default,
cannot
positive, COMELEC
the
not
all of
Procedure)
ofprematurity
............................................................................................................................
provides that the HLURB
be
or
for the
Mario
nullity file
decision.
and
property.
Commission
dismissed
part
party of
has
should
approved
athe
Reconsideration
the
...........................................................................
Certiorari; Rule 45 vs. Rule 65 (1998)
...................................................................................................................... The
of of the
third-party
abut
prosecution
He
jurisdiction
(CSC),
state
opinion
claim
written
marriage
31
sale
also
45
58
the
shall
31
in
reversed,
regardless
necessary and
Information;
Privilege he
[2%1
partyof shall
the
Amendment;
Communication; may be
result
be deemed
Double
stated
Marital of the
Jeopardy;
Privilege as tofollows:
(1989)have
latter.
Bail (2002) ........................................................................................
for the reason that the mortgage
.................................................................................................
over cases involving specific performance was 45
not
58
fees
July
What
(a)
The
pending.
7691).
that
A
days
as
the 1The
proceedings
perpetua,
Distinguish
fileda the
in
22, are
Should
Provisional
defendant
ALTERNATIVE17
denial
available
athe
notice.
the
three
result 2007
life
complaint
Certiorari;ANSWER: the
the
between
amount
of
under
imprisonment
Therefore,
of
Rule
could
the
remedies
judge
corporations
Remedies; 45
requisites
the
vs. for
Motion
the
Rule
inspect grant
substantive
Injunctions;
of
the
withdrawal
65 of P10,000.00,
claimed to
Katarungang
or thefora
Requisites
recovery
motion
(1998)
it and a
lawDismiss
July partyan
lesser
defendants
title
and
verify 22, incorporated
review
his
Voter's
2007
complaint
forms
asserted
offers
in view
motion such of
noagainst
instead that
under its
Registration
against
part
result
interrogatories
of
inbeof
the
his his
judgments
the
Rule Dthe
allowed
in complaint
failure and
because
evidence
absence37; judgment
cross-claimant.
regarding
(2006)............................................................................................
was of Differentiate certiorari
..................................................................................................................... as
to
to continue is
answer
ofthe his
Identification
to prove
an
through
loan
even
amaterial
action
original
was
until
(Sec.
basic
31 ofof
the if
waived
(Samson
The 3
litigation Information;
Privilege
intervention
(d)
the
declared court
An After
Complaint
v.
in
Daway,
may right
expenses
actionbyAmendment;
Communication;
finality
default order
a
was
G.R. to
of
nonparty
for
are not
Nos.
inthepresent
Supervening
asMarital
judgment? the 160054-55,
in
interpleader
correct.
follows: Privilege
inclusion amount
an evidence.
Events
[2%]
action
Although (2000)
of July
(1997)
anof
to ...........................................................................................
.................................................................................................
contractual
yet
against
petitions
due
System due.to B
Perry
for and
fraud,timely
(VRIS) review statutory
for moved
the
under
accident,
Project. obligations
to
collection
Sec. dismiss
mistake
It 5 of filed
of Rule
issued 45
59
thethe
orby
Pambarangay
penalty,
No,
and
remedial
pro
ownership 17because
right
Provisional appeal
motion
Certiorari;
law. of Lawis
when
for
possession
Remedies;
Rule
(2%) by
45 and
production
vs. notice
the
Receivership
Rule the over
65 of
appellate negotiations
and
(2005) appeal
the
(2001) inspection
goods filed
court of P100,000
qualifying
combined
8 Rule
State
requirement, 6)entry
2
with
and has
in of
reasons one
relevant
Motion final
which no
circumstance connection
instrument,
judgment.
whether
for facts
is New
...........................................................................................................
a marriage
..................................................................................................................... it
to Trial be under
but
A
was with may
favorable
proper
answered
under
license. the
32 the
be
cancellation
his
21,
(Sec.
omitted 1forma
signature
of Rule
Information;
Privilege ofand
necessary 33,by
and
Bailland
Communication; Rules did
(2003)her
the against
of
party not clients
handwritten
Civil
Marital interrupt
B jurisdiction
Procedure)
Privilege
iftrial whoof entries
(2004) was
theirthe action
SUGGESTED fromANSWER: certiorari
......................................................................................................................................... as
.................................................................................................
buyers
case
latter's on ofthe subdivision
ground
P100,000.00 that lots
loan, and
the a mode
condominium
action
plus should
interests 45
59 of
P5,000.00
1.
pending
SUGGESTED
determine
the
for
with
reversed anthe BEFORE
assessed
Provisional
the in
amicable
Court
Contempt; and
the court?
ANSWER:
who THE costs
value
of
order
Remedies;
original Death RENDITION
between (5%) ofof
Appeals. were
settlement
ofof the
Replevin
awhich the
the
the
Party; included.
OF parcelJUDGMENT
defendants
during of
court Pedro,land
the is
itnote? Information43
1947).
referredof
excusable
invitations
opponent's the 1997
to
judgment negligence
to
claim.
for
for Rules
pre-qualify
thequalified
(1999)..................................................................................................................
promissory
Effect (1998) The
for motion
Ricky to should
join his C of
purpose
obtained
be Civil
and
could and
rape,
granted.
causes by Procedure.
thathave
ofof bid
the he
should
construing
The
action has
for
loaned
plaintiff
MTCthe
32 ina
the
deposited
SUGGESTED
represented
period
contracts
of
The the 18 dates
Information;
Privilege of
requisites in
ANSWER:
due and his
by
appeal
to
Motion
Communication; warehouse
her
the
amounts.
for to filingcounsel
Quash Marital
intervention of theand X.
expired case. that
In the
The he
on [ALTERNATIVE
appeal.
SUGGESTED
Arts, 9by |3%]
& the
ANSWER:
35(3),party
37; served.
..............................................................................................................
Rule and
Family
(2000)......................................................................................................................
Privilege (2006) Code].
.................................................................................................
units against the owner, ( Sec.
developer, They
1, Rule are
46
59
dealer, 25,
over
the
entitled
involved
SUBSTANTIVE
pre-trial
should (a) his
next he
have
Provisional
Default
person
to
wasof
may
conference kin
receive
rendered
Remedies;
(2000) file may
P19,000.00,
LAW of
aSupport
under be
Martin,
the
ismotion that
judgment obtained.
the
Pendente amount
under
within
part filed
Rules
in ofcourt
Lite favorThe
oaththe an
of
of have
and
meritorious
Insurance
project.
court
2.
the
Certiorari
(1980) been
attorney's
AFTERreject
money
judgmentand
shallAfter brought
Corp.defense.
such
ANSWER:
as
other the
out
be fees.
the v.
an of
cases].
enforced in
Eddy
public
result
judgment the
[Sec.
other
original
(1999).............................................................................................
(Contreras onNg
v. RTC
bidding,
the
3(b)
in Kok
funds
Felix, in
of ofRule
ground
action
the G.R.Laguna.
Wei,
Fotokina
default
9,].
inPerry
manner
No.G.R.
that
his
and
32 L-
was118
January
course
case
are: was Why?
uncertain of21,
Information;
Remedy; the (2%)
dismissed
Lost which
2003 trial,
Motion
Documents; toor Bof
after
Quash them
died.
fifteen the was
However,
(15)
trial entitled
Evidence days of
his Manila
different complaint
1997
3 has Rules
causes no
........................................................................................................................................................
for of jurisdiction
partition
ofCivil Procedure.)
action
Xin .........................................................................................
(1992) broker
Yes,
b) The C or can Appeal
salesman
motion file under
(2005)......................................................................................................................
Secondary a
should third-party Rule
be against
41.
under because
because complaintoath. the
the
46
60
failure
opposition
P190,000.00
Court to
jurisdiction
law which
To Legal
is to
set thatcomply
to
aside
of interest
the
falls
creates,
standardize in the the
the with
probate
within
MTC
definesorder
former,
the inthe the
ofthe
of order
of
and
appeal the matter
jurisdiction
default
Manila,
lawyers for
will
regulates
periods arehis
on
theon a No.
Decide
SUGGESTED
it
was is
becomes 139791,
possession.
certiorari
477, the
June with
declared ANSWER:
fruit
final
as
30, December
reason.
ofa the
and a mode
(Manila
(3%)
poisonous
winning
executory: 12,
of
Bankers
2003;
appealtree?
bidder Life
Kakilala
Explain.
may with be
v.a
of
NOTE:
to 2the
failed
after
found Carlos.
Provisional
18 toDefault
goods.
Assuming
notice
Information;
Testimony; notify
that ofRemedies;
(2001)
(QuebralEE the
Motion
Independent After
that v.
court
decisionSupport
IndustriesCourt
an
toTanjuatco due
Quash; of
Relevant orderPendente
of
B's
on
Grounds Appeals,
proceedings,
death.
is
Statement forSCRA
January Liteproduction
not
(1998) The
(1999) 6, and
evidence especially
for
ADMISSION in
required the
&the BY provided
(2001).............................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................
252 action 3Marvin RTC annulment
ADVERSE
to of(2003)
prove
aa..............................................................................................in
Pasay
......................................................................................................
Since
Judicial
Faraon, the
Autonomy rights of
Impartiality the accused the
PARTY.
them City.Rules
of
are
are (5%)
At2004; 32
the
any
not
60
notfor
inclusion
the
(Makati
of
action
rightstheground
the controversy;
Dev without
Metropolitan
filed
concerning that
grounds
byCorp. the
Aappearing
for v. or
justifiable
total
Trial
ofSpecific amount
Courts
fraud, cause
27
Performance included
in
accident, Metro to against
(Id.)
Actions;
bid of 1P6 D
G.R. because
Counterclaim
billionNo.
Petition
143233,
(2002)
and the
for wasloanOctober
Relief of
issued 100,000.00
under
18,
a Notice
Rule
prohibited
provided
SCRA
judgment
2003.
court
registered Provisional
46353,
18 Default;
proceeded
and
Witness;Judgment; from
in
1996)was Remedies;
the
Order
inspection
corporation
Competency oflife,
rendered
to
Promulgation Rules ofTRO
Default;hearliberty,
the (2001)
was
and of for
and
Effects
Witnessby
the or
the
issued
therefore
Judgment to
(1999)
the
vs. property,
case parties.
afford
(1997)court
Credibility and
but
has ofthe 1.
the
the Witness
Sec. same.
1, The
time first
after isissues a claims
........................................................................................................................
distinguished
extrajudicial prosecuting as follows: special
................................................................................................................
SUGGESTED ANSWER: foreclosure is not
have
(2004).............................................................
........................................................................................................
P.D. [Pagsisihan
1344). v. Court civil
against
been
ofcapable action
joined,
Appeals, 32
60theof
waiver
401)
in
Manila. 2
the mistake offair
Legal
relief the claim
interest
of
or the the
excusable against
in
petition the such
success
is
negligence more party.
of
than
and either violated
Default;
was
of Award. Order
taken because
of
But Default;
out of
COMELEC the
Effects
the compulsory
(1999)
P200,000
Chairman testing
received
Gener
against
or
Parties
litigants
declaring Provisional
18 the
Witness; B
must
Default;
46 plaintiff to
that
Jurisdiction; compel
Remedies;
powers
appear
Remedies;
opportunity
Xfailed
Examination Corporation
Complex in
ofTRO
Partyof latter
aCrimes(2006)
personDeclared
Child to to
only
appeal
was
(2003)
Witness; inexecute except
Default
entitled
via their (1998)
Live-Link a (Sec. 1, 38;
........................................................................................................................
agencies or under Rule Rule65 of
26, the
1997 Rules
Rules
..............................................................................................
pecuniary
95
TV (2005) SCRA estate
a party
540 of
estimation may a deceased
file andand
..................................................................................................................... is person.
therefore
serve of
of upon Court,
Civil 33
any
rendered
no legal judgment
capacity to against
sue. to comply
However, B. Afterwith it set theit, a how is
from .........................................................................
authorized
Bthe and henceby the 60
The
P100,000.00,
Deed
cases,
to the
Judgment
date
court
that
19 of
instrumentalities
minors for
ofConveyance
the
Witness;
47 or
goods.
should
the
he
the
may
Court parties;
has the
The
Examination
became the
reception
proceed
adeems
incompetents maximum
meritorious
for or said
of
the
decision
of Witnesses
defendant
final,
of
with parcel
itadministration
who
practical
evidence became
a(1997)
the
jurisdictional may
plead
writ
of
to action
onfinal
land be of the while Go Procedure.)
2objected2
Yes,
other second
Annulment
my to
party the isthe
answer aaward
an loan
ofappeal
............................................................................................................
to
of
A's Version 1997-2006 Updated isbyon
seeks
Judgment
written the
therequest
Dondee same. ground
under 60 An
for
but
amount
was
public
assisted notthe for
capable
by judgment
municipal
their of next pecuniary rendered
circuit
of kin whotrialare shall courts. not be that under Rule the 47; Appropriations
and Act, the
and executory.
execution
counterclaim. alleged execution
EE Industries of the note?
opposed (3%) on action
the admissionto recover by the reallatter property of the in
without
The court
lawyers . (Formerly overruled Sec. 9,the opposition and budgetgenuineness for eventthe COMELEC's modernization
the ground that the counterclaim could no any survives of any the death ofand
material the
proceeded to hear the case. is only relevant P1
defendant. (Sec. 1, or Rule
longer be prosecuted in view of the document of 87, the Rules truth
dismissal of the main of any Court). material However, and relevant a favorable matter
judgment
of fact. may be enforced

You might also like