SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF LAW
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
OUTPUT 1

1. Serena ran as candidate for the position of SK Chairman for Barangay

Suprema in Manila City, for the 14 May 2018 elections. In her application, Serena
represented that she was born on 09 May 1996 and submitted a false birth
certificate in its support, when in fact, she was born on 09 May 1973. Serena
subsequently won the elections and was proclaimed as the duly elected SK
Chairman of Barangay Suprema. She took her oath on 29 May 2018. On 29 May
2019, Palacio, Serena’s rival candidate in the 14 May 2018 elections, filed a
complaint before the OSG, alleging that Serena is overaged and not qualified for
the position of SK Chairman. Outraged by finding out what Palacio did, Serena
devised a plan to kill Palacio and disguised herself as Palacio’s maid, and
poisoned Palacio’s food. Palacio died.

A. Should the OSG take cognizance of Palacio’s complaint? (5%)

B. Assuming the OSG files the action in court, can Serena file a motion to
dismiss? If not, why not? If so, on what ground? Explain. (10%)

2. Governor Masalaping Mukhangpera owned Kurakuting Mansion located

in Antipolo City with a fair market value of Php 25 million. Governor
Mukhangpera, wanting to exponentially grow his wealth, decided to lease
Kurakuting Mansion to his friend, Mayor Lakompake Estapadora for Php
100,000.00 per month. Governor Mukhangpera executed a Contract of Lease
between him and Mayor Estapadora, stating among others, that the lease shall be
for a period of 11 months starting January 2018 to November 2018. During the
first few months, Mayor Estapadora paid his rental due on time but starting
April 2018, he was not able to pay his rent. On June 2018, Governor
Mukhangpera sent a Demand Letter to Mayor Estapadora to vacate Kurakuting
Mansion and pay his unpaid rentals but to no avail. Not wanting to lose his
money, Governor Mukhangpera filed a case for Unlawful Detainer at the MTC
Antipolo against Mayor Estapadora on July 2018. On August 2018, MTC decided
the case in favor of Governor Mukhangpera. Mayor Estapadora filed an appeal
and paid supersedeas bond to the proper court, and the court directed the
suspension of the execution of the lower court’s judgment. If you were the
counsel for Governor Mukhangpera, what will you do and what will you
argue to counter the foregoing? (10%)

3. Taghirap Walwal obtained a loan from Mayaman Super in the amount of

P1,000,000.00, payable in 6 months, for the former to pay his monthly
amortizations for the condominium unit he bought from MegaUniverse,
pursuant to a contract to sell. To secure the loan, Taghirap executed an SPA,
authorizing Mayaman to execute a real estate mortgage over the condominium
unit, on behalf of Taghirap, and in favor of Mayaman, who then stayed in the
condominium after Mayaman lent Taghirap the money. Taghirap used the
P1Million he borrowed from Mayaman in a casino and was unable to fully pay
the full purchase price of the condominium. Taghirap cannot pay Mayaman as
he still owed the casino money. However, Taghirap needs the condominium
back as he found a lessee willing to lease the premises as soon as possible.
Taghirap worries that Mayaman will extrajudicially foreclose the mortgage,
1
causing Taghirap to lose the property. If you were the counsel for Taghriap,
what will you tell her to address her concern? (5%)

4. A, B, C, D and E, are residents of Batangas and Manila. They caused the

filing of a petition for writ of kalikasan with prayer for award of damages against
X Corp., who operated pipelines covering the stretch from Batangas to Pandacan
Terminal in Manila, due to the leakage from the pipelines causing the buildings
covered by said pipelines to begin to smell with gas. The leaks later increased
compelling the residents of condominiums and occupants of buildings to leave
the same. Only 5 residents, A, B, C, D and E, signed their acquiescence to the
filing of the petition. Will A, B, C, D, and E be entitled to the damages prayed
for? (5%)

5. A and B are members of the KaDDS Party List, registered with the
COMELEC. A filed the list of nominees for KaDDS Party List. B, later
submitted also a list of nominees but also alleged that the KaDDS Party
List no longer exists and has been replaced with Very KaDDS Party List.
After elections, it was proclaimed that KaDDS Party List garnered enough
votes for a seat in Congress and A took his oath of office. B filed a petition
for quo warranto against A with the RTC of A’s residence. A counters that
B should have filed the petition with the COMELEC. Is A correct? (5%)

6. Slim Jim Paredospordos (“Jim”) is the owner of a parcel of land in Taguig

City covered by TCT No. 12345, which he, together with his sibling, Notsoslim
Jam Paredospordos (“Jam”) inherited from their father, Padre Damaso
Paredospordos. During his lifetime, Padre Damaso hired Kutong Lupa, as
caretaker of the subject property, with an assessed value of P98,000.00. Kutong
Lupa, Sr. was allowed to stay in the premises together with his family. In 2010,
Kutong Lupa, died, and left behind his only son, Kulangot S. Lupa, married to
Baskilikili. They both lived in the subject property. After Padre Damaso’s and
Kutong Lupa’s death, a demand to vacate was sent by Jim and Jam to Kulangot
and Baskilikili on January 1, 2011. They refused to leave and filed a complaint
with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (“DARAB”),
claiming to be entitled to the subject property as agricultural tenants. On January
1, 2012, an action was filed with the RTC of Taguig City, so that Jam and Jim may
recover the possession of the premises and eject Kulangot and Baskilikili
therefrom. In the interim, the DARAB Case was dismissed and was never
appealed. In their Answer, Kulangot and Baskilikili claimed to have right to
possess over the property by reason of them being agricultural tenants and
alternatively, that the survey they conducted showed that the metes and bounds
of the subject property does not include the portion that they are possessing and
hence not covered by TCT No. 12345. After the Answer was filed, Jim and Jam
sold the property to Taguigarao, Inc., at a discount, in view of the fact that the
property was subject of litigation. TCT No. 12345 was cancelled and TCT No.
12346 was issued over the subject property in favor of Taguigarao. After the sale,
Jim and Jam moved to withdraw the complaint in view of the sale. Pending
resolution on the motion to withdraw, Taguigarao, Inc., filed a motion to
intervene, claiming that Jam and Jim breached the warranty in respect of the sale
covering the subject property by reason of the existence of the illegal settlers and
that Jam and Jim undertook to prosecute the case on behalf of Taguigarao, which
Jam and Jim denied, claiming that the property was in fact sold at a discount in
view of the pendency of the case. The trial court granted the motion to intervene

2
and denied the motion to withdraw the complaint. During the pendency of the
case, Taguigarao entered into a loan with Bwakaw Bank, in the amount of
P20,000.00, supported by a real estate mortgage over the subject property.
Taguigarao then instituted judicial foreclosure proceedings upon default of
Taguigarao in paying the loan when due. Jim, Jam, Kulangot and Baskilikili were
never impleaded nor given notice of the mortgage proceedings. Judgment was
rendered finding that foreclosure of the property was proper. Despite due notice
of the judgment, Taguigarao failed to pay the outstanding obligation. After a
period of 6 years from notice of the decision, an auction was conducted upon
motion of Bwakaw Bank, which also was the highest bidder. During such 6-year
period, expropriation proceedings over the subject property was instituted by the
state for a national infrastructure project, but Bwakaw Bank was never given
notice of the proceedings. During said 6-year period, the State also deposited the
necessary funds for it to be able to enter into the premises. After the certificate of
sale was issued in favor of Bwakaw Bank, a final judgment was rendered in the
expropriation proceedings on the determination of just compensation.
a. If you were the counsel for Jam and Jim, what would you
advise that they do if they wish to no longer prosecute the
recovery of possession case? (10%)

b. Assuming that TCT No. 12345 was still in the name of Padre
Damaso and Jam and Jim had not yet instituted any settlement
proceeding nor had they extrajudicially settled the estate of
Padre Damaso, will the final judgments in the expropriation
proceedings be valid? Why or why not? (5%)

7. After repairs on a second hand Masserati worth Php25,000,000.00 were

completed, the repair shop owner received conflicting claims from Kulangot S.
Pader and Pamilee Alcohole on its ownership. Both offered to pay for the repair
bill. The repair shop owner immediately commenced an interpleader suit with
the Regional Trial Court of Makati. Irritated by the service of summons,
Kulangot S. Pader filed a complaint for replevin against the repair shop owner
with the Regional Trial Court of Laguna, which issued a warrant of seizure. As
counsel for the repair shop owner, will you advise your client to resist the
seizure, move for the dismissal of the interpleader and surrender the vehicle,
or none of the above? Explain. (10%)

8. The Asin Beh Corporation is a stock corporation. There are two groups
contending to be the legitimate board of directors of Asin Beh Corporation. The
St. Isabel Group and the Argowho Group. Asin Beh Corp. had a bank account
with Bank of the Pamilee Islands. Pursuant to the by-laws of Asin Beh Corp., the
authorized signatories to the bank accounts are the board of directors. The most
recent GIS showed the Argowho Group as the board of directors of Asin Beh
Corp. St. Isabel Group alleged that a subsequent election was conducted where
they were elected as the board and that the previous election proclaiming the
Argowho Group was void for lack of notice and quorum. St. Isabel Group wrote
to the bank, informing it of said circumstances and requesting that the bank
freeze the account as they would file an action in court for the determination of
the true board. After receipt of the letter, withdrawals by the Argowho group
were allowed by the bank. St. Isabel Group thus filed, on behalf of the
corporation, an action for damages against Argowho and the Bank for such
withdrawals. They also prayed for the issuance of TRO to restrain the bank from
allowing withdrawals, which was granted by the court. Five minutes after the

3
court issued the TRO, prior to service on the bank of the same, the Argowho
Group went to the bank to withdraw all funds from the bank account, which the
bank allowed. St. Isabel claims that Argowho knew of the TRO because of the
unusual haste in withdrawing said funds. Should the bank and the Argowho
Group be held liable for contempt of court? Why or why not? (10%)

9. After judicial foreclosure of mortgage was commenced, the mortgagor-

defendant issued 5 checks payable to the order of the mortgagee to liquidate the
indebtedness. The checks were dishonored. Thus, the mortgagee filed criminal
complaints for violation of BP 22. The Regional Trial Court, in the judicial
foreclosure case, promulgated its decision directing the defendant to pay within
a period of not less than 90 days nor more than 120 days from the entry of
judgment. Instead of paying, defendant moved to dismiss, citing the pendency of
said criminal actions. If the mortgagee applies for the issuance of preliminary
attachment, should the court grant the same? Explain. (10%)

10. A civil action involving the enforcement or violation of PD 705, otherwise

known as the Revised Forestry Code, was filed. After service of summons, no
answer was filed. May the court instead motu proprio declare the defendant in
default for failure to file an answer? Why or why not? (5%)

11. Suman and Simon are co-owners of a parcel of land, and a building
constructed thereon. They leased out the building to different entities. To
construct the building, they obtained a loan from Kuracha, ang Creditor na
walang pahinga. The loan was secured by antichresis with respect to the fruits of
the co-owned property. Suman and Simon got tired of leasing out the building,
and decided to partition the same among themselves. They filed the case in court
but failed to notify Kuracha. A judgment was rendered and the partition was
effected and registered in the registry of deeds. Suman and Simon then sold their
respective shares to Buyerina. If you were the counsel of Kuracha, what will
you recommend that he do to recover his outstanding obligations from Suman
and Simon, given that he had no notice of the partition? (5%)

12. Echosdemgeneris and Redendosingularplural entered into a contract

denominated as a contract of absolute sale whereby Echosdemgeneris sold a
parcel of land for Php1Million to Redendosingularplural. Echosdemgeneris
claims that the contract is really a loan or an equitable mortgage. Thus,
Echosdemgeneris brought an action for declaratory relief against
Redendosingularplural for the court to declare the rights of the parties in said
contract. The Court, however, dismissed the case outright. Was the court
correct? Explain your answer. (5%)

NOTHING FOLLOWS