I.

The plaintiff should file for a motion to declare the defendant in default for failure to answer the
request for admission of the plaintiff within the time prescribed by the rules.

The Rules of Court provides that a court may declare a defendant in default when: 1.) he fails to
give his answer within the time prescribed by the rules; 2.) that he was able to give his answer
but beyond the reglementary period; and 3.)

Hence in this case, the failure of the defendant to answer the admission request of the entire
material allegations stated in the complaint by the plaintiff, the latter may ask the court to declare
the defendant in default.

II.

III.
a.
Yes. The Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over Jocy’s counterclaim.
b.

IV.
Yes, The Regional Trial Court of Manila should consider the promissory note and the surety
agreement in rendering its decision. The Rules of Court provides that when an actionable
document is attached in a complaint and it is considered as a genuine document of the plaintiff,
said document is deemed admitted to the court.

In this case, since the loan was evidenced by a promissory note and a surety agreement was also
executed by the principal stockholders, said actionable document shall be deemed considered by
the court.
V.
No. The Regional Trial Court shall not grant the motion to dismiss filed by the Saint Aaron
School on the ground of forum shopping. This is so because an ejectment case is different from
the collection of sum of money
VI.

VII.
Yes. The Regional Trial Court of Taguig City has jurisdiction over the counterclaims of Tess.
This is because the said compulsory counterclaim and the permissive counterclaim of Tess is
capable of pecuniary estimation.
 VIII.
No. The dismissal of Judge Risa is not proper. True, that it is a condition precedent that a
barangay conciliation should be complied for possible amicable settlement between parties who
are neighbors before filing a case to the proper court. However, it is also provided under the
Katarungang Pambarangay Law that it has no jurisdiction over an action for recovery of a sum
of money amounting to more than one million pesos.

In this case, the amount that should be recovered by ida is P1.5 million, that even Small Claims
proceedings cannot assert jurisdiction over the case.

Thus, the dismissal by Judge Risa in this case is not proper.

IX.
No. Atty. Terry is not correct. The Trial Court did not err when it ruled in favor of both causes of
action.

X.

XI.
Yes. The motion to declare Laura in default should be granted. This is so because the Rules of
Court provides that, a court may declare a defendant in default when he fails to file his answer to
the complaint within the reglementary period.

However, the relief that may be availed by the defendant is to file a motion to dismiss the order
of default by reason that his failure to do so was due to fraud or excusable negligence.

Hence, if still the court cannot find a compelling reason to grant the motion of the defendant, and
that the declaration of default be granted, the defendant will not be allowed to join in the
proceeding. And thus, the court may give his judgment based on the evidence presented by the
plaintiff.

XII.
a.
Yes. There is a valid service of summons upon Buboy.

The Rules of Court provides that in service of summons, when the defendant is not present in his
residence, the sheriff may leave the summons to the defendant’s relative, or a member of his
family, provided that said person to whom the summon shall be given is not a minor.
In this case, since the wife of Buboy is present, she is allowed by the court to receive and sign
the said summon on behalf of her husband.

Hence, the service of summon in this case is valid.

b.
Yes. Buboy is deemed to have voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court. The
Rules of Court provides that a court may acquire a jurisdiction over the defendant when he
voluntarily submits himself to the court by means of filing motions or answers to the complaint.

In this case, the motion to dismiss filed by Buboy on the ground that there is a lack of
jurisdiction over his person and prescription of the cause of action constitutes a voluntary
submission of himself to the court.

XIII.
a.
b.
The Municipal Trial Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over a case of a real action with an
amount not exceeding twenty thousand pesos outside Metro Manila.

In this case, the principal relief sought is the enforcement of a seller’s contractual right to
repurchase a lot with an assessed value of fifteen thousand pesos. Hence the case should be filed
in a Municipal Trial Court where the lot is located.

XIV.
Yes. The denial of the petition on the ground of res judicata is proper in this case.

The Rules of Court provides that one of those instances when a court may dismiss a petition is
when there has already been a prior judgment on the first suit.

In this case, the court already denied the petition of Jimuel for insufficiency of the evidence
presented by him at the trial, hence the second suit be dismissed by a court on the ground of res
jusdicata is proper.
XV.
Yes. The action of the court is correct. This is so because the Rules of Court provides that when
the plaintiff fails to raise an objection on time, said plaintiff is deemed to have lost his right to
object during the trial.

In this case, the pre-trial has already been terminated, hence before the said trial, the plaintiff has
been given the opportunity to raise his objections to the reservation of witnesses by the
defendant. However he failed to do so on time, allowing the court to allow the reserved witnesses
and documents of Ben in the trial.

Hence, the action of the court to deny Ana’s objection is correct.

XVII.
If I were the judge, I will deny the motion of Kay on the ground that the service of summon has
already been served and that he only filed his motion after ten days when the summon was
served.

XVIII.
Yes. There is a splitting of a single action in this case. This is so because the deed of Elise's real
estate mortgage is security for her obligation, and the contract of loan.

Even if the two contracts arise from a single cause of action which is the contract of loan, the
deed of real estate mortgage should be separated.

Hence there exist a splitting of a single cause of action.

XIX.
a. The Municipal Trial Court has an exclusive jurisdiction over a real action with an
assessed value not exceeding the value of twenty thousand pesos.
b. The Regional Trial Court has an exclusive jurisdiction over a real action with an assessed
value of more than four hundred thousand pesos outside Metro Manila but not more than
five hundred thousand in Metro Manila. In this case, the land registration case where
there is no controversy or opposition over the land with an assessed value of 450, 000
pesos is under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial court.
c. Probate Proceeding where the gross value of the estate is 1.5 million is under the
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court
d. Petitions of corporations, partnerships, or associations to be declared in the state of
suspension of payments is under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court
e. Petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against inferior courts and other bodies
is under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC