Remedial Law Review I

Midterm Examination
November 21, 2021

Part I (2 pts each)

1. Where purchaser of property at foreclosure sale is able to register the certificate of sale, and
upon application, is awarded writ of possession prior to consolidation, which of the following
is/are available as remedy of defaulting mortgagor?
a. Action to enjoin consolidation
b. Petition for cancellation of writ of possession
c. Action to annul certificate of sale
d. None of the above
e. All of the above
2. Which of the following need not be alleged in a complaint for unlawful detainer?
a. Plaintiff is the owner of the property entitled to possession
b. Initially, possession of defendant was by contract or tolerance
c. Possession turned unlawful by termination of right to possess
d. Defendant remained in possession
e. All of the above need to be alleged
3. What is the basis for redemption price in case of judicial foreclosure?
a. Mortgage obligation only
b. Judgment debt, with interest and costs adjudged by the court
c. Purchase price
d. Mortgage obligation plus all other amounts owed by the debtor
e. Whichever of the above amounts is higher
4. While partition proceedings are underway in court, the State files for expropriation of the same
property. In light of the pendency of the 2 proceedings, what should the courts do, given that
both proceedings involve the same property?
a. Stay the action for partition and resolve the expropriation first
b. Stay the expropriation proceeding and resolve the partition first
c. Consolidate the 2 proceedings in the partition court and resolve both at the same time
d. None of the above is correct
e. All of the above are possible
5. When does writ of possession issue in case of judicial foreclosure?
a. Any time after foreclosure sale
b. Upon confirmation of sale
c. Even before confirmation of sale, upon posting of bond by the purchaser
d. During the 90-120 days period provided after entry of judgment of debt
6. Under what situation below is the earliest the purchaser can move for possession in case of
extrajudicial foreclosure?
a. Any time after registration of certificate of sale, even without bond if before
consolidation
b. Any time before consolidation, without need of bond
c. Only after consolidation
d. Any time after registration of certificate of sale, with bond, even before consolidation
7. A mortgaged his property to B to secure the debt of C. Upon default of C, B extrajudicially
foreclosed on the mortgage. At the same time, A filed an action to nullify the mortgage on the
 ground of fraud. D, the purchaser of the property at the foreclosure sale, filed an ex parte
petition for writ of possession. Will the petition for writ of possession prosper?
a. No, because the validity of the mortgage is still in issue
b. Yes, because possession is not in issue in the action for nullification of mortgage
c. No, because while possession is not in issue, it is predicated on validity of mortgage
d. Yes, because writ of possession is ministerial
8. Under the new rules, the following are accepted as substituted service, except:
a. Leaving copy of the summons at defendant’s residence with a competent person (18 y/o)
found thereat
b. Leaving copy of the summons with the concierge at the condominium residence of the
defendant
c. Leaving copy of the summons at the defendant’s office (secretary of the defendant)
d. Leaving copy of the summons with the Village Manager (who is an officer of the home
owners association) of the community where the defendant has his residence
e. All of the above are allowed under the new rules
9. Which of the following is not an exception to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction?
a. When there is estoppel on the party invoking the doctrine
b. When the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, resulting in lack of jurisdiction
c. Where the question is legal and will ultimately be resolved by the courts
d. All of the above
e. None of the above
10. Which of the following is good cause to disallow deposition?
a. The court and adverse parties are deprived of opportunity to observe demeanor of
deponent
b. Deposition is oppressive because it would need to incur costs to attend
c. The intended deponent is excused from testifying in court even if not unable to come to
court
d. None of the above
11. When property not belonging to the judgment debtor is levied upon and scheduled for auction
sale on execution, which of the following is the most expedient remedy of the owner?
a. File an urgent motion in the court that rendered judgment to stop the sale
b. File an action for injunction in court to stop the sale
c. Serve an affidavit on the sheriff to stop the sale
d. Redemption
12. Non-exhaustion of administrative remedies may be asserted as an affirmative defense based on
what ground?
a. That the claim is unenforceable
b. Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter
c. Failure to state cause of action
d. None of the above
13. Which of the following is incorrect when applying the principle of res judicata?
a. There is res judicata only when there is identity of parties and causes of action between
the first and second cases
b. There is res judicata even if there is no identity of parties as long as the principal parties
are the same and there is identity of causes of action in the first and second cases
c. Res judicata refers not only to all that has actually been adjudicated by the first case but
also any other matter which could have been adjudged therein
d. All of the above are correct
14. Which of the following is incorrect?
a. The jurisdiction of the court is determined not by the value of the transaction out of
which the demand arose but of the value of the demand
b. The jurisdiction of the court is determined not by the relief demanded as stated in the
prayer portion, but by the allegations in the body of the complaint
c. The jurisdiction of a court vests as long as one of the several causes of action in a
complaint is within its jurisdiction
d. None of the above is incorrect
e. All are incorrect
15. If a judgment is for a sum of money and the judgment obligor dies, which of the following will be
correct?
a. If death of obligor is after entry of judgment but before levy, the judgment can be
executed by first levying on any property of the obligor
b. If death of obligor is after entry but before levy, the judgment cannot be executed but
must be presented as a claim against the estate
c. If death of obligor is after entry and after levy, the judgment can be executed by
execution sale of the property levied upon
d. None of the above is correct

Part II

16. Joe borrowed 1M from ABC Bank. As security, Joe mortgaged his property. The mortgage
contract stipulated that it will secure all obligations of Joe, present and future. Joe borrowed a
second time from ABC for another 1M. When Joe defaulted on the loans, ABC foreclosed. In its
petition, ABC sought satisfaction solely of the first loan although the second loan had also
become due. At public auction, ABC offered the winning bid of 1.2 M only, which did not include
the second loan. John exercised right of redemption as successor in interest and tendered the
amount of 1.3 M, representing all amounts payable for redemption. ABC objected to the
redemption on the ground that the tendered redemption price did not include the second loan.
Resolve.
17. Joe, a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale, filed an application for writ of possession
within the redemption period. He did not furnish the property owner (mortgagor) of the said
application. The court granted the application and issued writ of possession in favor of Joe. To
prevent his being evicted from the premises, the property owner files an action in court to
nullify the writ of possession, contending that in not being notified of the application of Joe, he
was deprived of his day in court. Will the action prosper?
18. A, B, C and D are registered co-owners of a certain parcel of land. D initiated partition
proceedings and impleaded A, B and C as defendants. During the proceeding, H filed a motion to
intervene, claiming to be the real owner of the property. (Assume H is the real owner). Should H
be allowed to intervene? If your answer is yes, explain your answer. If your answer is no, state if
there is a remedy H can avail.
19. A complaint relating to possession of real property was filed at the RTC with the following
relevant allegations: Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the subject realty; he has been long in
possession of said property; he has been “deprived” of possession of the said property by the
defendant. On the basis of these allegations, the plaintiff now prays to be declared the owner
and also for repossession of the property. Defendant counters by saying that the complaint is
 dismissible because it is the MTC which has exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving
dispossession of real property. Resolve.
20. Joe filed a case for sum of money against John (borrower) and Jill (surety). John filed his answer,
Jill did not. Jill was declared in default upon proper motion filed by Joe. In his answer, John
alleges that the obligation has been extinguished. At trial, Joe presented his evidence and so did
John. Jill did not move to lift her default standing and thus did not present evidence. How should
the court rule against Jill who was declared in default?
21. In a complaint to recover possession of property in the possession of John, Joe alleged that he
(Joe) inherited the property in dispute from his parent by way of self-adjudication. The relevant
allegations are: a) Joe is the only heir of the previous owner of the property; b) John is a mere
occupant by tolerance of the previous owner of the property and therefore has no right to
retain the property; c) Joe has served demand on John to vacate the property; d) John refused
to vacate. John in his answer put up the affirmative defense that the complaint failed to state a
cause of action since it did not state when Joe inherited the property from the previous owner.
Finding merit in the affirmative defense, the court dismissed the case. Is the court correct in
holding that the complaint failed to state a cause of action?
22. A filed complaint for reconveyance of property against B. It is alleged in the complaint that A is
the grandchild of C; that C is the owner of the property subject of the action; that C died
sometime in 1992; that sometime in 1997, an impostor represented himself as C and sold the
property to B; that because the sale to B allegedly took place in 1997 or way after C died in
1992, B could not have acquired a valid title to the property. In his Answer, B did not deny the
material allegations of the complaint. However, as affirmative defense, B maintains that A is not
a real party in interest for being merely the grandchild of B. The court agreed with B and
dismissed the complaint. A filed a motion for reconsideration assailing the ruling on the ground
that since B did not deny the allegations of the complaint, he is deemed to have admitted that
he bought the property from an impostor. A thus claims that based on this admission, it is clear
that B has no right to the property and should be ordered to reconvey the property. Resolve the
motion.
23. Joe was extended a loan by BPI which loan was secured by a real estate mortgage executed by
Joe. When Joe defaulted, BPI foreclosed on the mortgage. Eventually a certificate of sale was
issued in the name of BPI as lowest bidder. Joe then filed a complaint for annulment of the
foreclosure sale on the ground that the properties were offered at the auction at a price much
lower than the appraised value. This complaint was dismissed and Joe elevated the dismissal on
appeal. While the first case was on appeal, Joe filed a second complaint against BPI. In the
second complaint, Joe alleged that he had a buyer for the mortgaged property but that this
buyer backed out because BPI made it appear that said property had already been sold. In its
Answer, BPI raised the affirmative defense of forum shopping. The trial court ruled that there
was no forum shopping because the first case was purposed on annulment of the foreclosure
while the second case was intended to recover damages as a result of Joe’s buyer backing out.
Moreover, the resolution of the first case will not affect the resolution of the second case, hence
no forum shopping. Is the court correct?
24. Joe organized ABC corporation. Shares of stock in ABC were placed in his name and Jack’s
pursuant to a trust agreement, with Jill as beneficiary. At some time, Jill asked for the
conveyance of the shares in ABC but Joe and Jack refused. Joe, Jack and Jill reside in Manila,
Quezon City, and Makati, respectively. ABC corporation is domiciled in Pasig but operates in
Pampanga where its assets are located. Jill filed the complaint in Pasig since her complaint is for
recovery of shares of stock in ABC, which is domiciled in Pasig. Is venue properly laid? If your
answer is yes, explain why so. If your answer is not, explain where action should have been filed.
25. After service of summons on him, defendant Joe filed a motion to dismiss based on failure to
state cause of action and improper venue. Opposition was filed by plaintiff on the ground that
motions to dismiss are prohibited under the new rules. After hearing, the court issued a ruling
granting the motion to dismiss. The plaintiff then filed a motion for reconsideration of the said
dismissal order, contending that venue was properly laid and that the complaint had sufficiently
pleaded a cause of action. While the motion for reconsideration was pending, plaintiff filed
amended complaint. The court disallowed the amended complaint on the ground that the
motion for reconsideration filed by the plaintiff was still unresolved. Is the ruling disallowing the
amended complaint correct?
26. Under the new rules, affirmative defenses may be resolved by the court motu propio within 30
days from filing of the answer OR only after having conducted a summary hearing within 15 days
from filing of the answer. Why is there a need for a hearing if the court can motu propio resolve
the affirmative defense?
27. Upon filing of the complaint and payment of docket fees, the court evaluated the complaint to
determine whether it is dismissible before issuance of summons in accordance with the
requirement of Section 1 of Rule 14. Upon examination, the court determined that the
complaint failed to state a cause of action. Consequently, it dismissed the complaint. Is the court
correct?
28. Joe filed with the MTC an unlawful detainer case against Tony. In his complaint, Joe alleged, in
addition to the averment of an expired contract of lease, that he owns the property, courtesy of
a donation inter vivos from his girlfriend. In his Answer, Tony refuted Joe’s claim of ownership,
claiming instead that the donation is void since the donor is prohibited by law from making a
donation. (Assume the donor is prohibited from making a donation in favor of Joe). The court
decided to consider the allegation of a void donation as stated in the answer and received
evidence on the validity of the donation. It then concluded (correctly) that the same is void, and
on that basis dismissed the complaint of Joe. Is the dismissal correct?
29. Joe filed an action for specific performance against John. Summons was issued to process server
Mike. Mike went to the designated address of John but did not find him there. He tried a couple
more times on 2 more separate dates but was unsuccessful. Always, nobody was home at John’s
residence. Mike tried the office of John but found it closed indefinitely because of the pandemic.
Posted at the door of the office was a notice saying: OFFICE CLOSED DUE TO PANDEMIC. FOR
URGENT AND OFFICIAL CONCERNS, EMAIL MAY BE SENT AT JOHN.COM.PH”. Mike had a
lightbulb moment upon reading the notice. He knows that pursuant to the amendment of the
rules on service of summons, substituted service may now be done by sending electronic mail to
defendant’s electronic mail address. He sends an email to the email address of John. He then
makes a return of summons, stating: “DULY SERVED BY ELECTRONIC MAIL TO ELECTRONIC
EMAIL ADDRESS OF DEFENDANT”. Is the service valid?
30. Joe was sued by his employee John for violation of the minimum wage law and the case was
docketed as criminal case no. 1. Thereafter, John filed a civil case for collection of termination
pay, differential pay, and overtime pay. The case was docketed as civil case no. 2. The civil
complaint alleged that John was an employee of Joe for a long time and during his employment,
he was not paid the right wages as prescribed by law nor was he paid overtime, differential, and
termination pay. Upon motion, the court where the 2 cases were raffled to ordered the
consolidation of the 2 cases. Is the court correct?