FINAL EXAMINATION IN CIVIL

PROCEDURE (GLS) - 04 JULY 2021

INSTRUCTIONS (PLEASE READ CAREFULLY):

(a) You are given two (2) hours to answer all the questions. Your answers shall be
typewritten using the Google Classroom platform.

(b) The on-line digital examination will start at 5:30 o’clock in the evening and strictly end at
7:30 o’clock in the evening. The on-line digital examination shall close and end at 7:35
o’clock in the evening.

(c) Answers submitted after 7:35 o’clock in the evening shall no longer be accepted, and the
student concerned shall be given a mark of “INC”.

(d) If you have or anticipate any connectivity problems, take a screenshot or picture of each
of your answer every time you finish answering each question. Thereafter, send your
screenshots/pictures of your answers at the end of the examination to my e-mail address
"josephranditorregosa@yahoo.com", not later than 7:45 o'clock in the evening.

(e) Always justify your answer. A mere “Yes” or “No” answer shall be given no credit.

(f) Cheating is strictly prohibited. Anyone caught cheating in any shape or form will
automatically be disqualified from further taking the examination, without prejudice to the
imposition of appropriate disciplinary sanction after due proceedings.

* Required

Email *

ronoel1996@gmail.com

FULL NAME: *

Ronoel C Bacarisas

ROOM NO: *

Civil Procedure
QUESTION NO. 1: Lorenza sold to Harlem a piece of land for which 10 points

Harlem issued in favor of Lorenza a postdated check in the amount of

Php2,000,000.00. After the execution of the Deed of Sale, Harlem
immediately took possession of the property. When the check was
deposited with the drawee bank upon maturity, however, the same was
dishonored for the reason “Account Closed”. Since Harlem ignored
Lorenza’s demands, Lorenza filed a complaint for specific performance
praying therein that Harlem be compelled to pay him the agreed
purchase price. Despite service of summons upon him, Harlem failed to
file his answer within the reglementary period. Upon motion of Lorenza,
the court declared Harlem in default and directed Lorenza to present her
evidence ex parte. During the reception of Lorenza’s evidence in chief,
Lorenza testified that Harlem is already financially broke and that there is
no way by which Harlem can pay the purchase price. The court then
rendered a Judgment by Default against Harlem, rescinding the contract
of sale between Lorenza and Harlem and directing Harlem to re-convey
the possession and ownership of the subject land to Lorenza. Was the
trial court correct? (10%) *

Yes, the Trial Court is correct in its judgment.

Under the Rules of Court, when, after service of summons directing the respondent to file
an answer within the time fixed by the rules, the plaintiff will take judgment by default if the
respondent so failed to answer and the plaintiff may be granted the relief applied for.

In the case at bar, service of summons was delivered to Harlem but he failed to file his
answer within the reglementary period in which Lorenza later on filed a motion to declare
the respondent in default.

Therefore, there was no error in the Trial Court's judgment rescinding the contract of sale
between Lorenza and Harlem.
QUESTION NO. 2: Cecelia sold a piece of land to Marlo for Five Hundred 10 points
Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00) payable within three (3) years in
thirty-six (36) equal monthly installments. As Marlo experienced some
financial difficulties due to Enhanced Community Quarantine (ECQ)
implemented by the government to slow down the transmission of the
COVID-19 virus, he failed to pay the remaining installments in the total
amount of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php300,000.00). As Marlo
failed to pay the balance despite repeated demands, Cecelia filed a
complaint with the Regional Trial Court for the collection of the balance
of the purchase price in the amount of Php300,000.00. Suppose after
summons was served but before Marlo could file his Answer, Cecelia
realized that her monetary claim falls below the jurisdictional amount of
the Regional Trial Court. Cecelia then filed a Motion for Leave to Amend
and Admit her Amended Complaint to alter her cause of action from
collection of sums of money to rescission of contract with damages to
bring her complaint within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court it
being one incapable of pecuniary estimation. Rule on Cecelia’s motion.
(10%) *

The motion of Cecilia shall be granted.

Under the Rules of Court, amendment with leave of court is allowed after serving the
summon if the respondent has yet to file his answer on the pleadings.

In this case, a summon was served but Marlo has yet to file his answer when Cecelia filed
her motion for leave to amend and admit an amended complaint to alter her cause of action.

Thus, the motion should be granted.

QUESTION NO. 3: Adrianne filed a complaint for recovery of possession 10 points
of a diamond ring against Sunshine which the former sold to the latter,
alleging that Sunshine failed to pay the agreed purchase price therefor.
After service of summons but before Sunshine could file her Answer to
the complaint, Adrianne went to Sunshine and offered to withdraw the
complaint provided Sunshine would pay him the agreed purchase price
within two (2) months, to which the latter agreed. Adrianne then filed a
Notice of Dismissal of the complaint and the court issued an order
confirming the dismissal. However, since Sunshine failed to pay despite
the lapse of the agreed grace period, Adrianne was constrained to re-file
the same complaint against Sunshine, who then filed her Answer to the
Complaint. After service of the Answer, and before the case could be set
for pre-trial conference, Sunshine again promised to pay in full her
obligation to Adrianne in a month’s time. Adrianne then filed a Motion to
Dismiss the complaint on the ground of the pendency of an amicable
settlement between the parties which was granted by the trial court.
One month thereafter, Sunshine still failed to make good her promise,
which prompted Adrianne to re-file the same complaint against Sunshine
for the third time. Invoking the “Two Dismissal Rule,” Sunshine filed a
Motion to Dismiss the complaint on the ground of res judicata. For his
part, Adrianne argued that the “Two Dismissal Rule” does not apply and,
therefore, the two previous dismissals are not a bar to the re-filing of the
same complaint against Sunshine the third time around. Rule on
Sunshine’s Motion to Dismiss. (10 %) *

Sunshine's motion to dismiss shall be granted.

Under the the Two Dismissal Rule, when plaintiff has previously dismissed the same case
in a court of competent jurisdiction based based on or including the same claim. Under this
rule, the second notice of dismissal will bar the re filing of the action because it will operate
as an adjudication of the claim upon the merits.

In this case, Adrianne has previously filed a notice to dismiss the case without prejudice
in refiling of the same case however since his filing of same complaint is dismissed again
through a second notice of dismissal, that second notice of dismissal is deemed one to be
with prejudice.

Thus, the motion is correct and shall be granted.

QUESTION NO. 4: Angeline filed a suit for collection of sums of money 10 points
against Amihan in the amount of One Million Pesos. After trial, the court
rendered a decision in favor of Angeline and against Amihan. In order
that Angeline would not be able to receive a copy of the decision,
Angeline connived with the court Sheriff to serve the copy of the
decision at a wrong address. The court sheriff then submitted a report to
the court falsely stating that Amihan personally received a copy of the
decision through personal service. On the basis of the sheriff’s false
return of service, the court issued a Certificate of Finality, attesting to
the fact that the decision became final and executory on 14 February
2015. Amihan eventually learned about the adverse decision on 14 August
2015. On 10 October 2015, Amihan filed a petition for relief from
judgment on the ground that extrinsic fraud prevented her from taking a
timely appeal. Angeline then filed a motion to dismiss the petition for
relief for having been filed out of time. Rule on Angeline’s motion. (10 %) *

Angeline's motion shall be denied.

Under the Rules of Court, a petition for relief may be granted when a judgment or order is
entered, or any other proceeding is thereafter taken against a party through fraud.

In this case, Angeline has connived with the sheriff so that Amihan will not receive a copy
of the decision. When Amihan finally learned about the final and executory decision, she has
filed a petition for relief from judgment on the ground that extrinsic fraud prevented her from
taking a timely appeal.

Thus, the motion to dismiss filed by Angeline shall be denied since the petition filed by
Amihan is within the reglementary period provided for the the rule.
QUESTION NO. 5: Fritz filed a multi-million peso damage suit against Ike 10 points

for alienation of affection, alleging that Ike, through trickery and

seduction, caused Angelica – who is Fritz’s girlfriend of so many years
and his soon to be bride – to alienate Fritz from her affection and fall
insanely in love with Ike instead. The case was filed with the Municipal
Trial Court of Cebu City. Upon receipt of the summons, Ike filed a Motion
to Dismiss, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction as the total amount of
Fritz’s claim is within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. The
Municipal Trial Court granted Ike’s motion and dismissed Fritz’s complaint
for lack of jurisdiction. Within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the order
dismissing the complaint, Fritz filed a Notice of Appeal, appealing the
decision of the Municipal Trial Court to the Regional Trial Court. If you
were the judge of the Municipal Trial Court, would you give due course to
Fritz’s Notice of Appeal? (10 %) *

No, I will not give due course to Fritz's Notice of Appeal.

Under the Rules of Court, an order dismissing an action without prejudice is not
appeallable.

In this case, the dismissal of the case filed by Fritz in MTC is without prejudice and is
subject for refiling of the same cause of action.

Thus, the Notice of Appeal shall be denied since it is a wrong action by Fritz.

QUESTION NO. 6: Marryl filed a complaint for sum of money against 10 points
Angelica in the amount of Php200,000.00 with the Municipal Trial Court.
After trial, the Municipal Trial Court rendered judgment in favor of Marryl
and against Angelica, ordering Angelica to pay Marryl the amount of
Php200,000.00. On 23 December 2011, the judgment became final. On
23 December 2012, the Municipal Trial Court, upon motion of Marryl,
issued a writ of execution, which was, however, returned unserved as the
court Sheriff failed to find any property belonging to Angelica. Suppose
Marryl learns today that Angelica just won Php10,000,000.00 in the
lottery, and Marryl comes to you for your legal services, what remedy
should you take in order to enforce the judgment obtained by Marryl
against Angelica and which court should you file it? (10 %) *

Under the Rules of Court, Marryl should ask the Court Sheriff for the writ of execution of
the judgment rendered by the court if it is still within the period of 5 years provided by the
rule. If it is beyond the period, Marryl may file for the revival of judgment to re-open the issue
affecting the issue of the first judgment.
QUESTION NO. 7: Mark obtained a loan from Yves, for which Mark issued 10 points
a promissory note. To guaranty the payment of the loan, Mark executed a
real estate mortgage over his piece of land in favor of Yves. For non-
payment of the loan, Yves filed a civil action for collection of sums of
money against Mark. Upon service of summons, Mark filed his Answer to
the complaint where he interposed the affirmative defense of forgery.
Before the scheduled pre-trial conference, Mark took the deposition of
Daisy who appears to have notarized both the questioned promissory
note and the real estate mortgage. During the deposition taking duly
attended by Yves and her counsel, Daisy categorically denied having
notarized the subject promissory note and real estate mortgage and
declared under oath that her purported signatures found therein are
forgeries. May Mark offer in evidence the deposition of Daisy to
substantiate his claim that indeed the subject promissory note and real
estate mortgage are falsified without presenting Daisy as witness during
the trial? (10 %) *

Yes, Mark cannot offer as evidence the deposition of Daisy to substantiate his claim.

Under the Rules of Court, a deposition of a deponent who is not a party to the case
cannot be used as an evidence but only used for impeaching or contradicting testimonies.

In this case, Daisy is not a party to the case since Daisy is the only notary signing the
document and that her deposition can only be used for impeaching or contradicting
testimonies.

Thus, the deposition of Daisy cannot be used as evidence.

QUESTION NO. 8: Khenny filed an action against Richard for damages 10 points
arising from breach of promise to marry. After the trial, the court
rendered a decision in favor of Khenny and against Richard adjudging
Richard liable to Khenny in the amount of One Million Pesos in damages.
Richard received a copy of the adverse decision on 1 February 2021.
Dissatisfied with the decision, Richard filed a motion for reconsideration
on 14 February 2021, which was denied by the court. Richard received a
copy of the order denying his motion for reconsideration on 1 March
2021. On 5 March 2021, Richard filed a Notice of Appeal on both
questions of fact and law. If you were the Judge, would you give due
course to Richard’s Notice of Appeal? (10%) *

Yes, the Notice of appeal shall given due course.

Under the Rules of Court, when motion for reconsideration is denied the petitioner is not
barred from appealing to the higher court.

In this case, Richard can file a notice of appeal on both questions of fact and law.

Thus, Richard's Notice of Appeal shall be given due course.

 QUESTION NO. 9: Gail sued Emelita for Unlawful Detainer. The Municipal 10 points
Trial Court ruled in favor of Gail. Dissatisfied, Emelita appealed the
decision of the Municipal Trial Court to the Regional Trial Court. The
Regional Trial Court dismissed Emelita’s appeal and affirmed the decision
of the Municipal Trial Court. Suppose Emelita intends to question the
decision of the Regional Trial Court and raise a pure question of law, what
proper mode of appeal should Emelita take, and within what period and
before which court should she file it? (10%) *

Under the Rules of Court, Emilita should file a petition for review under Rule 42 raising
questions of law from the judgment of the Regional Trial Court in its appellate jurisdiction.

The appeal must be made within fifteen days from notice of the decision sought to be
retrieved.

QUESTION NO. 10: Rhoda filed a complaint for breach of contract against 10 points
Razen. Upon service of summons, Razen filed his Answer to the
complaint. A pre-trial conference was conducted and terminated. Both
mediation and judicial dispute resolution failed. Trial on the merits
ensued. Without serving written interrogatories
interr upon Razen, may Rhoda
call Razen as her adverse party witness over the objection of Razen?
(10%) *

No, Rhoda cannot call Razen as her adverse party witness.

Under the Rules of Court, a party not served with written interrogatories may not be
compelled by the adverse party to give testimony in open court.

In this case, there was no written interrogatory served by Rhoda to Razen to call him as
her adverse party witness.

Thus, Rhoda cannot call Razen as her adverse witness.

Submit

Never submit passwords through Google Forms.

This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google. Report Abuse - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy

 Forms