PRACTICE COURT I (Monday, 6:30-9:30 P.M.

WRITING ASSIGNMENT NO. 4

Miguel Ramonkito Mendoza filed a civil case for breach of contract against Abigail Sol
Idmilao Mendoza (Mendoza siblings). The Mendoza siblings executed a notarized contract of
sale wherein Abigail was supposed to sell to Miguel her collection of Hello Kitty and Keroppi
Japanese collector’s items amounting to approximately PhP 250,000.00. Upon execution of
the contract, Miguel gave Abigail a down payment in the amount of PhP 100,000.00.
However, 2 days before the agreed delivery time, Abigail had a sudden change of heart and
decided to tell Miguel that she is not interested in selling the items anymore. Miguel resented
Abigail’s decision since the former executed another contract to sell the subject items in favor
of Monico Aggabao, Jr. Thus, prompting Miguel to file the instant case before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Makati (Branch 1). The case was docketed as “Miguel Ramonkito
Mendoza V. Abigail Sol Mendoza (Civil Case No. 4455 For: Breach of Contract)”.

Miguel hired the services of Atty. Jezza Ynna Daludado on this particular case. In turn,
Abigail’s lawyer filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to comply a condition precedent, i.e.,
barangay conciliation proceedings and/or earnest efforts to comprise. Upon reading the
ratiocination of Abigail’s lawyer (Atty. Rosemarie Arnaiz) on their Motion to Dismiss, Miguel
immediately asked Atty. Daludado to withdraw from the case since he already has found her
efforts to win the case futile. Atty. Daludado acquiesced.

Miguel then asked you to represent him in the instant RTC case. Primarily, file a
Manifestation before the Court and state that you are now the new counsel of Miguel.

IMPORTANT REMINDER:

CONSIDER ALL THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THE RULES OF COURT OF

THE PHILIPPINES, AS AMENDED, AND OTHER SUPREME COURT
ISSUANCES/ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS IN PREPARING YOUR COMMENT.
OTHERWISE, YOUR PAPER WILL BE DISREGARDED.
 PRACTICE COURT I (Monday, 6:30-9:30 P.M.)

WRITING ASSIGNMENT NO. 5

On the 10th of August 2019, the Court of Appeals of Manila (Fifth Division) issued a Notice
of Judgment containing the following disposition:

“JUAN MIGUEL ESTERAS MONTORO,

Petitioner,

-Versus- C.A.- G.R. SP No. 9876

JOAN MEL THERESE NATIAL,

Respondent.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that on August 9, 2019, a DECISION, copy hereto attached,
was rendered by the FIFTH DIVISION of the Court of Appeals in the above-entitled case,
the original of which is on file in this office.

You are hereby required to inform this Court within five (5) days from receipt
hereof of the date when you received this notice and copy of the Decision.

Very truly yours,

DOMINIQUE LYNE PAYUMO

Division Clerk of Court

Copy furnished:

MAGAGALING LAW OFFICES

Counsel for Petitoner
69th Floor, City Land Tower
1234 Marcelo H. del Pilar
Cor. Dr. Quintos St., Malate
1004 Manila

Atty. ________________
Counsel for Respondents
Rm. 666, 6th floor
ABC Bldg., Penaranda St.
1004 Ermita, Manila City

Regional Trial Court of Manila

(Civil Case No. 5432)”
Suppose that you are the counsel for the respondents and that you have received the Notice
on the 10th of August 2019. Prepare the required “Compliance” and serve copies of the
same to the parties-in-interest PERSONALLY.

IMPORTANT REMINDER:

CONSIDER ALL THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THE RULES OF COURT OF

THE PHILIPPINES, AS AMENDED, AND OTHER SUPREME COURT
ISSUANCES/ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS IN PREPARING YOUR COMMENT.
OTHERWISE, YOUR PAPER WILL BE DISREGARDED.
 PRACTICE COURT I (Monday, 6:30-9:30 P.M.)

WRITING ASSIGNMENT NO. 6

Herein petitioner Jann Danae Aoalin Aninag de Asis is the daughter of Audrin
Agapito Gayamos de Asis, the registered owner of a parcel of land located in Barrio Magay,
Municipality of Compostela, Province of Cebu. The latter derived his title over the property
from a successful grant of a Free Patent covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No.
OP-37324.

On March 15, 1999, Lois Nisnisan Dybongco (respondent) instituted an action for
reconveyance and damages against Jann Danae alleging that, for twelve and a half years,
she has been the lawful owner and possessor of the subject lot. She alleged that she
purchased the same from a certain Mariel Joyce Portillo on August 4, 1986 for a sum of
₱200,000.00. According to her, since her acquisition, she has been religiously paying real
property taxes thereon as evidenced by Tax Declaration No. 16408A, which was issued
under her name.

According to the respondent, the issuance of the Free Patent in favor of the
petitioner's father was "due to gross error or any other cause." In support thereof, the
respondent alleged that "there is no tax declaration in the name of patentee Audrin Agapito
Gayamos de Asis" and that this "goes to show that Eddie Foronda is not the owner of lot
1280 and neither has payment of real estate taxes been made by him when he was still alive
or by his heirs."

On November 24, 2006, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaue City rendered
a Decision in favor of the respondent. The Register of Deeds of Cebu was ordered to cancel
OCT No. OP-37324, and to issue, in lieu thereof, a new one under the name of the
respondent. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment in favor of the plaintiff

and against the defendants:

1) Declaring the issuance of Original Certificate of Title No. OP-37324 in

the name of Audrin Agapito Gayamos de Asis a grave error since he is not
the owner of Lot 1280, and therefore null and void;

2) Ordering the Register of Deeds of Cebu to cancel Original Certificate of

Title No. OP-37324 and to issue, in lieu thereof, a new one in the name of
Lois Nisnisan Dybongco of 1234 Brgy. Magay, Compostela, Cebu. No
pronouncement as to damages and costs of the suit.

SO ORDERED.”

Aggrieved, petitioner herein elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA), which
in turn has rendered on March 12, 2015 a Decision affirming the RTC decision in toto.
The fallo of CA decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The

Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 55, Mandaue City dated November
24, 2006 in Civil Case No. MAN-3498, is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.”
 Petitioner Jann Danae timely filed her Motion for Reconsideration of the above-
quoted CA Decision on the 17th of March, 2015. Since that time, the CA has not yet acted
upon Jann Danae’s Motion.

Assume that you are the counsel for the respondent. Compose the necessary legal
paper in order for the court to immediately resolve/dispose of Jann Danae’s motion.

IMPORTANT REMINDER:

CONSIDER ALL THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THE RULES OF COURT OF

THE PHILIPPINES, AS AMENDED, AND OTHER SUPREME COURT
ISSUANCES/ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS IN PREPARING YOUR COMMENT.
OTHERWISE, YOUR PAPER WILL BE DISREGARDED.