Colegio de San Juan de Letran

COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS AND SCIENCES

151 Muralla Street, Intramuros,
Manila 1002
2nd Semester, AY 2020-2021

Aquino, Maria Elena S. Midterm Exam

LGM-2A March 11, 2021

1. Identify the facts and issues in the given case. (25 points)
FACTS: This petition draws its origin from a complaint for recovery of real property and
annulment of title filed by petitioner, through her younger sister and authorized
Representative, Rosita Micarez (Manalang), before the RTC. Applicant is a Filipino plummet
who turned into a naturalized American resident in the wake of wedding an American
national in 1981. She is currently a permanent resident of the United States of America
(USA). In her complaint, petitioner asserted that the private lot in Panabo City, which she
bought in 1982, was surreptitiously and falsely passed on and fraudulently conveyed by her
parents, respondent spouses Alvaro and Paz Micarez (Spouses Micarez), in favor of her
youngest brother, respondent Dionesio Micarez (Dionesio), to her prejudice and impediment.
She claimed that at some point in 1982, she requested that her parents to search for a
residential lot some place in Poblacion Panabo where the Spouses Micarez would build their
new home. Aware that there would be trouble in registering a real property in her name, she is
being married and bound to an American resident, she orchestrated to follow through to pay
the cost of the private lot and register it, meanwhile, in the names of Spouses Micarez under
an implied trust. The title shall be moved in her name in due time.
Subsequently, on October 20, 1982, a deed of absolute sale was executed between Spouses
Micarez and the proprietor, Abundio Panganiban, for the 328 square meter residential lot
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-25833. Petitioner sent the money which
was utilized for the installment of the lot. TCT No. T-25833 was dropped upon the
enrollment of the deed of sale before the Registry of Deeds of Davao del Norte. In lieu
thereof, TCT No. T-38635 was issued in the names of Spouses Micarez on January 31, 1983.
Sometime in 2005, she learned from Manalang that Spouses Micarez offered the subject lot to
Dionesio on November 22, 2001 and that thus, TCT T-172286 was issued in her brother’s
name on January 21, 2002. That TCT No. T-172286 be cancelled; and that another one be
issued in her Name. Considering that all the respondents are citizen of USA summons was
served upon publication per RTC order date May 17, 2007. Thus, respondents executed two
special powers attorney both dated Augusts 3, 2007 authorizing counsel, Atty. Richard C.
Miguel to file an answer in Civil Case No. 13-2007 and to represent during the pre-trial
conference and all hearings, to enter an agreement. Thereof, Atty. Miguel timely filed his
answer denying the Material allegation in complaint. After parties filed pre-trial briefs, and
issues in the case has been joined, RTC go through the possibility of an amicable settlement
by ordering referral case to the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC). March 1, 2008, Mediator
 Colegio de San Juan de Letran
COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS AND SCIENCES
151 Muralla Street, Intramuros,
Manila 1002
2nd Semester, AY 2020-2021

Esmeraldo O. Padao, he issued a Mediator’s report and Returned Civil Case No. 13-2007 to
RTC allegedly due to the non-appearnce of respondents during the scheduled conference.
RTC issued an order May 29, 2009 allowing petitioner to show her evidence ex parte.
Thus, Padao Clarified, through manifestation dated July 15, 2008 that it was the petitioner
represented by Atty. Benjamin Utulle who did not attend the mediation meeting that was set
on March 1, 2008 and not Atty. Miguel. Padao explained that Atty. Miguel accidentally
affixed his signature for the purpose of attendance to the column provided by plaintiff’s
counsel in the mediator’s report. Thus, RTC issued the assailed order dated July 17, 2008
dismissing Civil Case No. 13-2007 For plaintiff's and her counsel's failure to appear during
the mediation proceeding, this instant case is hereby ordered dismissed.
ISSUES:
2. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED
IN DISMISSING THE CASE SIMPLY ON THE REASON THAT PLAINTIFF FAILED
TO APPEAR DURING THE MEDIATION PROCEEDING, ALTHOUGH PRESENT
FOR TWO (2) TIMES.
3. IS THE EXCUSABLE AND EXPLAINED FAILURE TO ATTEND THE MEDIATION
PROCEEDING FOR TWO (2) TIMES OR SETTINGS, OUT OF THE FOUR (4)
SCHEDULED SETTINGS, BY THE PLAINTIFF A GROUND TO DISMISS THE
CASE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 20-
2002?
2. Identify the parties involved and their role in Alternative Dispute Resolution. (25 points)
- Parties involved in the dispute is petitioner Linda M. Chan Kent the one filing a complaint
for recovery of real property and annulment of title. Petitioner’s younger sister and authorized
representative, Rosita Micarez-Manalang. The owner of 328 square meter residential lot,
Abundio Panganiban. And the respondent Dionesio Micarez (Dionesio), her younger brother
in opposition to the petition or an appeal. And Paz Micarez the spouse of the respondent. As
well as the one authorizing their counsel, Atty. Richard C. Miguel (Atty. Miguel), to file their
answer in Civil Case No. 13-2007 and to represent them during the pre-trial conference and
all subsequent hearings. Mediator Esmeraldo O. Padao, Sr. the one who issued a mediator
report. And the one who represented Atty. Miguel Atty. Benjamin Utulle.
3. Identify the alternative dispute resolution method used in the case and how it was used.
(20 points)
 Colegio de San Juan de Letran
COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS AND SCIENCES
151 Muralla Street, Intramuros,
Manila 1002
2nd Semester, AY 2020-2021

- For the resolution Method, Mediation was used to solve the dispute between the parties.
There was an involvement of mediator for both parties namely, Mediator Esmeraldo O.
Padao, Sr. the one who issue the Mediation Report After parties filed pre-trial briefs, and
issues in the case has been joined, RTC go through the possibility of an amicable settlement
by ordering referral case to the Philippine Mediation Center therefore, Mediation was used as
the method for this dispute.
4. Apply the best ADR method to resolve the issues applicable to the case. (30 points)
- In my own Perspective, when family members, neighbors or business partners have a
dispute, mediation may be the best ADR procedure to use. Mediation is also effective when
emotions may get in the way of a solution. A mediator can help the parties communicate in a
non-threatening and effective manner. In this case, I believe that Mediation may be the option
to solve the dispute. Depending on the dispute I believe that in this case the mediator assesses
the merit of the parties’ claims during separate meetings (or during the trial and hearing after
the claims have been all said) and propose terms of settlement using conference was held.
Preferably, I believe that Mediation was the method that should be use for this Dispute.