University of ________

College of Law
1st Semester School Year 2020-2021

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION

1. True of False

a. True because unlawful detainer and forcible entry are actions for
the recovery of possession of a thing. Thus, when the plaintiff or
the defendant has a clear right over the property in question or
the then the court may easily resolve who among them has better
right over the property.

b. False. Although the defendant agreed to the expropriation of his

property, the court cannot summarily decide the case in favor of
the plaintiff. Accordingly, the court shall determine the just
compensation that is due for the defendant.

This is in accord with the procedure of expropriation provided

under the Rules of Court, since normally, there are two stages of
expropriation. First, the determination of propriety of the
proceeding and second, the determination of just compensation.

c. True. Foreclosure of real estate mortgage presupposes that the

debtor failed to pay his debt despite demand. In judicial
proceedings, the default of the debtor must first be established. If
demand was made and duly received by the defendant and the
latter did not pay, then he is said to be in default and foreclosure
is proper.

d. False. An action for unlawful detainer will always be cognizable

by the MTC. This notwithstanding the expansion of the
 jurisdiction of the first level courts. However, for MTC to acquire
jurisdiction of the case, the plaintiff must allege his prior physical
possession of the property and he was deprived of possession
thereof.

e. True. The contempt case has the similar attribute of criminal

actions with respect to punishment. However, in criminal
contempt the purpose is to vindicate the authority of the court
and protect its dignity while in contempt case in civil case, the
purpose is to provide remedy for an injured suitor.

f. True. Unlawful detainer and forcible entry are two distinct causes
of action. Hence, the election of one does not bar the plaintiff for
the election of the other. In both cases, there is only one issue that
is the same being resolved. And that is who is entitled to physical
or material possession of the premises, that is, to possession de
facto, not possession de jure.

g. False. Any co-owners of an undivided property may demand

partition at anytime because their right to such is imprescriptible.
Partition of the property may be judicial and extra-judicial.

Judicial partition requires the intervention of the court while in

extra-judicial there is none. In both cases, extra-judicial partition
is the most appropriate only when there is concurrence of co-
owners to their respective share in the undivided property.

h. False. Expropriation may also be applied to the properties of the

government which are idle.

i. True. An acquittal in contempt proceedings being penal in nature,

its denial after trial amounts to a virtual acquittal from which an
appeal would not lie.
 j. False because in an action for unlawful detainer, ownership is not
an issue at the inception. Plaintiff is said to be the legal owner of
the property at the inception of the contract. In this action,
possession is only being recovered.

2. I were the lawyer of A, I will file a notice of appeal from the

judgement of the court. Under the rules of court, a person adjudged
in indirect contempt may appeal from the judgment or final order of
the court in the same manner as in criminal cases.
In order for the judgment of indirect contempt against A be
suspended, I will inform him to file a bond.

3.
a. An action of partition is in the nature of an action quasi in rem.
Such action is essentially for the purpose of affecting the
defendant’s interest in a specific property and not to render
judgment against him.

b. One of the issues to be resolved in an action for partition is the

existence of co-ownership. Likewise, in the case of intestate
succession, partition is proper for compulsory heirs to get their
share of legitime.

4.
a. The judicial remedy that I would recommend to Michael is an
action for unlawful detainer.

One instances in unlawful detainer case is that there is a legal

representative or assign of any lessor against whom possession of
any land or building is unlawfully detained. In this case,
possession of real property at the inception of the contract is legal.

Applying the concept of the above cause of action in this case,

Michael is a legal representative of his landlord and the tenant is
illegally occupying the property for its failure to pay the rental.
Hence, the action for unlawful detainer is proper.
 c. The proper venue of judicial remedy of unlawful detainer of
Michael is in Municipal Trial Court.

d. Michael must reckon with from the date of his last demand to pay
and vacate in case of non-payment of rent or non-compliance with
the conditions of the lease agreement, against the tenant.

5. No. It is not valid. Under the Rules of Court, the waiving of

republication for the postponement of foreclosure does not bar the
bank to execute the foreclosure mortgage.

6. If Danny seeks my legal services, I will file an action for a forcible

entry. Clearly, in this case, there is an illegal possession of several
families of informal settlers on the property of Danny. And this
action must be filed within one year from the date Danny visited his
property of which he was deprived of possession.

7. I will file a special Civil Action of Prohibition under Rule 65 to direct

the court who have issued writ of attachment and injunction on the
ground that they acted in excess of their jurisdiction.