Professional Documents
Culture Documents
20 MCQ (Villasis)
20 MCQ (Villasis)
Extraterritorial Service
Substituted Service
Personal Service
Service by Publication
c. Receivership
d. Notice of Lis Pendens (Rule 13, Section 14)
5. A filed a complaint against ABC Corporation. The service of
summons was served to both the corporate Vice President and
the corporate Secretary. Is there a valid service of summons?
a. Yes, summons was served with the corporate
secretary. Hence, it is sufficient to confer jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant.
b. No, the summons was served with the Vice-president making
the service of summons invalid.
c. No, it is necessary that the service of summons to
corporations must only be served with the persons authorized
under Sec. 11, Rule 14.
d. Yes, there is a valid service of summons because it was made
with the Vice-President.
6. In an action for accounting with partition against B, an American
citizen who is a resident of Paris, what can A, the petitioner, do in
order to confer the court jurisdiction over the complaint?
a. Apply for Preliminary Attachment in order to acquire
jurisdiction over the res.
b. Resort to Extra-territorial Service of Summons in order to
acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
c. Resort to Substituted service of summons in order to acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
d. Apply for preliminary injunction to enjoin the defendant from
alienating his properties.
7. A filed a complaint for sum of money against B. B filed a motion
to dismiss on the ground of improper venue. The motion to
dismiss was denied by the court. B, then filed his answer raising
the affirmative defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter. Can the court dismiss the case?
a. Yes, the court may dismiss the case considering that a
motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is not deemed
waive despite that fact that it is not raised as ground
in a motion to dismiss.
b. No, under the Omnibus Motion Rule, grounds not included in a
motion to dismiss are deemed waived.
c. No, when a motion to dismiss is filed the grounds not raised
therein cannot anymore be raised as an affirmative defense in
an answer.
File an answer.
File a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 65.
File motion for reconsideration.
File an answer and raise the ground of lack of cause of action
as an affirmative defense.
10.
A filed an action for specific performance against B based
on the oral agreement of a sale of a parcel of land between A
(vendee) and B (vendor). B filed a motion to dismiss. The court
granted the motion. A re-filed the case. B, again filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground of res judicata. Is the motion to dismiss on
the ground of res judicata proper?
a. No, the dismissal of the original case filed by A is a dismissal
without prejudice. Hence, it may be re-filed.
b. No, the dismissal of the original case is not adjudication upon
the merits. Res judicata is not proper.
c. Yes, the dismissal is with prejudice. Hence, it cannot
anymore be re-filed as it is considered an adjudication
upon the merits. Hence, barred by res judicata.
d. Yes, the dismissal is proper. A case, once dismissed, cannot
anymore be re-filed.
11.
A served a written interrogatory against B. B, however, did
not file an answer thereto within 15 days from service of the
12.
After issues have been joined, B (petitioner) served C
(defendant) request for admission to admit that on March 20,
2016, they entered into an oral contract of a donation of a box of
chocolates. Upon the lapse of the 15-day period, C failed to file
an answer. B filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Is the
motion proper?
a. No, judgment on the pleadings is not one of the
remedies available when there is a failure to file an
answer to the request for admission.
b. Yes, failure to file an answer in a request for admission results
in the admission of the material allegations in the complaint.
c. No, the proper remedy is to strike out any pleading filed by C.
d. Yes, judgment on the pleadings may be availed of only by the
petitioner.
13.
In problem no. 12, is it proper if B filed a motion for
summary judgment?
a. No, a motion for summary judgment may only be availed of
when there is no genuine issue, or when the issue sham or
fictitious.
b. Yes, summary judgment may be availed of because
failure to file an answer to a request for admission is
an implied admission of the matters requested to be
admitted.
c. No, the proper remedy is to cite the C in contempt.
d. No, the proper remedy is to strike out any pleadings of C.
14.
A filed a complaint for specific performance against B.
Within 15 days from the service of the complaint, B filed an
answer. B, in his answer, admitted all the material allegations in
the pleading but interposed the defense of prescription. A then
served B with a request for admission asking B to admit that they
entered into a contract sometime in March 21, 2016. B did not
answer the request. Will the failure of B in answering have an
adverse effect on his defense?
action
action
action
action
for
for
for
for
partition.
injunction.
unlawful detainer.
forcible entry.
20.
A petition for certiorari cannot lie in the following cases,
except:
a. Writ of Amparo
b. Forcible Entry
c. Writ of Habeas Corpus
d. Expropriation