5th Online assessment

I. The case should be filed before the Municipal Trial Court. Under the rules the Municipal
trial court shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil action which involves title to
or possession of real property where the assessed value of twenty thousand pesos. The
ultimate objective of Pedro is to obtain title over the land. The assessed value of the land is
20,000.00. Therefore, The Municipal Trial Court shall have the jurisdiction over the
complaint.

II. Yes. The Regional Trial Court should grant the motion to dismiss. Under the law party who
actually resides in the same city or municipality should bring their controversy first to the
barangay court for possible amicable settlement before filing a complaint to the court. Non-
availment of the barangay conciliation is a ground for dismissal of the action. in the case,
Pedro and Dado are both residents of Iligan City. Pedro should have referred the case for
barangay conciliation before filing the case to Regional Trial Court. Failure to comply to such
requirement, the Regional Trial Court may dismiss the claim on its own or upon motion of
the party on the ground of insufficiency of cause of action and prematurity.

III. No. The court cannot proceed without summons being served to Dado. The rule provides
that, in civil cases, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is acquired by his voluntary
appearance or by service of summons. In the case, the summon for complaint for collection
of sum of money is only served upon Dida and not upon Dado. Hence, the court has no
jurisdiction over Dado and cannot proceed without summons being served to Dado.

IV. No. The second action is not barred by res judicata.

Under the doctrine of Res Judicata, the judgment on the merits of the previous case
rendered by the court of competent jurisdiction would bind the subsequent case, If the first
and the second case, there exist identity of the parties, subject matter and cause of action.

In the problem, the first case involves specific performance and the second case involves
reformation of the contract. Though there exists identity of the parties, the case does not
involve same subject matter and the cause of action, thus, the rule on res judicata does not
apply.

V. No. Dado need not to file a separate action against Pedro.

The rule provides that claim which are necessarily connected with the transaction or
occurrence which is the basis of the plaintiff cause of action should be raise as a compulsory
counter claim.
In the case at hand, the claim for reimbursement of the value of improvement and
payment for damages sustained is a necessary consequence or an occurrence connected
with the complaint for recovery of a tract of land. Therefore, Dado, may filed for
 reimbursement of the value of improvement as counterclaim without the need of filing
a separate action against Pedro

VI. Yes, Dado may file a suit in the Philippines against Pedro. Dado can file an action for
collection of sum of money before the Regional Trial Court where he resides. The rule is
that personal action may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or principal plaintiff
resides or defendant or principal defendant resides. In all other actions where the demand
exclusive of the interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees exceeds Three hundred
thousand pesos, in such other cases in Metro Manila, where the demand exclusive of the
above mentioned items exceeds Four hundred thousand pesos. In the case, the amount
involve is 700,000.00. Thus, Dado may file the action before the Regional Trial Court where
he resides.

VII. Dado Bank need not to execute certification of non-forum shopping with its counterclaim
against Pedro. Certification against non-forum shopping is required only in initiatory
pleading. A counterclaim is not an initiatory pleading. Apply the law to the facts of the case,
Dado may set up a counterclaim without the need to execute a certification against non-
forum shopping.

VIII. Yes. Sisa may file a third-party complaint against Damaso. The Rule provides that a
defendant party may, leave of court, file a complaint against a person not party to the
action for contribution, indemnity, subrogation, and other relief in respect of his opponents
claim. In the case, Dado and Sisa are defendant in the action commenced by Pedro.
Damasso is not a party to the action. Therefore, Sisa as defendant may, with leave of court,
file a third party complaint, for contribution, indemnity, subrogation, and other relief
against Damaso who is not a party to the action.

IX. No. The judgment of the RTC is valid. Despite that Dado was already residing in France, the
jurisdiction over the person of Dado may be acquired by the court through service of
summon to the residence of the defendant with some person of suitable age and discretion.

X. The effect of the failure to file an answer in a civil case governed by Summary Procedure is
that the court is simply tasked to render judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged
in the complaint. On the other hand, the failure to file answer in a civil case governed by
Regular provision of the Rules of Court, the court may muto proprio or on motion of the
plaintiff, shall render judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint
and limited to what is prayed therein.