2024 BAR EXAMINATIONS

REMEDIAL LAW

March 7, 2024 8:30 A.M. – 10:30

A.M.

INSTRUCTIONS

1. This is a 2-hour examination consisting of 10 items, each worth 10 points. If

the item contains sub-questions, please mark your answer separately with “(a)”
followed by the corresponding answer, then “(b)” followed by the answer.

2. Read each question carefully. Do not assume facts that are not provided in the
question.

3. Answer the questions clearly and concisely. Your answer should demonstrate
your ability to analyze the facts, identify issues, apply the law and
jurisprudence, and arrive at a sound and logical conclusion. A mere “Yes” or
“No” answer, or a mere legal conclusion without an explanation will not be
given full credit.

4. Allocate your time efficiently. The items are in random sequence. You may
skip items and move to items that you may find easier to answer. Use the 'Flag'
feature so that you can return to the unanswered items.

5. Do not write your name, distinguishing marks, or extraneous words or phrases

in any of your answers. This may be considered cheating and may disqualify
you from the entire Bar Examinations.

6. Do not type your final answer in the notes box, which is an optional tool. Any
text written in the notes box will not be included in your final answer

7. Technical issues during the exam are rare, but if you experience one, do not
panic. Do not attempt to submit your exam answers. Call the attention of your
proctor for assistance.

8. If you need to step out of the room, use the Hide Screen feature to prevent
anyone else from seeing your answers.

9. You have until 10:00 A.M. to finish the exam. Make sure you have completed
and reviewed your answers before then. When submitting, the system will ask
you one more time to confirm if you are ready to submit your answer file, to
give you another opportunity to review your answers.

10. Once done, show your proctor the green screen confirming your submission. If
the green screen does not appear, check with your proctor before leaving the
room.

(Sgd.) GERWIN A. PANGHULAN

Associate Justice and
2024 Bar Examinations Chairperson
1. Pikachu, a Filipino citizen and permanent resident of Barcelona, Spain, filed
with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, where she owns a rest
house, a complaint for ejectment against Bulbasaur, a resident of Barangay
Daliao, Davao City. Pikachu’s property, which is located in Digos City,
Davao del Sur, has an assessed value of PhP 400,000. Appended to the
complaint was Pikachu’s certification on non-forum shopping executed in
Davao City duly notarized by Atty. Ash Ketchum, a notary public.

(a) Was there a need to refer the case to the Lupong Tagapamayapa for
prior barangay conciliation before the court can take cognizance of
the case?
(b) Was the action properly instituted before the RTC of Davao City?
(c) Should the complaint be verified or is the certification sufficient?

2. Machamp had sons with different women — (i) Machop with longtime
partner Dedenne and (ii) Giratina Origin and Giratina Altered with his
housemaid Wiglytuff. When Machamp fell ill in 2014, he entrusted all his
property titles and shares of stock in various companies to Delia who, in turn,
handed them to Machop for safekeeping. After the death of Machamp,
Machop induced Giratina Origin and Giratina Altered to sign an agreement
and waiver of their right to Machamp’s estate in consideration of PhP 45
million. As Machop reneged on his promise to pay, Giratina Origin and
Giratina Altered filed with the RTC of Manila a complaint for annulment of
the agreement and waiver. The summons and complaint were received by
Marill, the housemaid of Machop, on the day it was first served. Hence,
Machop filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over
his person. RTC Manila granted the motion to dismiss.

Giratina Origin and Giratina Altered thereafter filed a new complaint against
Machop for annulment of the agreement and waiver. Before Machop could
file his answer, Giratina Origin and Giratina Altered filed a motion to
withdraw their complaint praying that it be dismissed without prejudice. An
Order was issued granting the motion to withdraw without prejudice on the
basis that the summons had not yet been served on Machop. Machop filed a
motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal. He argued that the
dismissal should have been with prejudice under the “two-dismissal rule” of
the Rules of Court, in view of the previous dismissal of the first case.

Will the two-dismissal rule apply making the second dismissal with
prejudice?

3. Pokemon, Inc. sued Mobile Legends, a resident of Bukidnon. To serve

summons, the sheriff waited in the lobby of Mamaru Hotel (MH), where
Mobile Legends stays whenever he is in Manila. The sheriff failed to serve the
summons because Mobile Legends left the hotel for an emergency. Hours
 later, the sheriff asked the front desk about Mobile Legends’s whereabouts
and his room number. The hotel refused to disclose on grounds of
confidentiality. The sheriff tried again the next day, but Mobile Legends was
in a conference until midnight. So, the following day, the sheriff left the
summons and a copy of the complaint with MH’s chief security officer
(CSO), even as the CSO refused because Mobile Legends had already
checked out by then. The sheriff thereafter filed his return, stating the dates,
times and places of his attempts, the name of the CSO, and the fact that the
complaint was served with the summons. When Mobile Legends did not file
an Answer, Pokemon, Inc. moved to declare him in default.

Was there a valid substituted service of summons? Explain briefly.

4. On January 18, 2024, a warrant of arrest was issued against Dialga. At 11:00
p.m. on January 30, 2024, police officers arrested Dialga at her house pursuant
to the arrest warrant. Before arraignment, Dialga moved to quash the
information on the grounds that the warrant was served at nighttime and
beyond ten days from its issuance.

Is the position of Dialga tenable? Explain.

5. Spouses Zacian and Gardevoir Charmer owned a residential lot in Dapitan

City. Xernias bought said lot and took possession thereof with the promise to
pay the purchase price of PhP 2 million within a period of six (6) months.
After receiving only PhP 500,000, spouses Charmer executed the Deed of
Absolute Sale and transferred the title to Xernias. The balance was not paid at
all. Spouses Charmer, through counsel, sent a demand letter to Xernias for
him to pay the balance of PhP 1.5 million plus interest of PhP150,000.
Xernias responded in a letter by saying that “while the remaining balance is
admitted, the interest charged is excessive.” There being no payment, Spouses
Charmer filed a complaint for reconveyance with damages against Xernias in
the RTC of Dapitan City.

In his Answer, Xernias raised, by way of affirmative defense, that the

purchase price had been fully paid and for this reason the complaint should
have been dismissed.

Spouses Charmer then filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings which
was granted by the RTC of Dapitan City. The Court awarded PhP1.5 million
actual damages representing the balance of the purchase price, PhP200,000 as
moral damages, PhP 200,000 as exemplary damages, PhP 90,000 as
interest, PhP 50,000 as attorney’s fees, and PhP 5,000 as cost of suit.

Was it proper for the RTC of Dapitan City to grant the motion for
judgment on the pleadings?
6. In 2015, Regigigas purchased from Regieleki a parcel of land located in
Dumaguete, Negros Oriental. The latter executed a Deed of Absolute Sale and
handed to Regigigas the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 777 covering the
property. Since he was working in Manila and still had to raise funds to cover
taxes, registration and transfer costs, Regigigas kept the TCT in his possession
without having transferred it to his name. A few years thereafter, when he
already had the funds to pay for the transfer costs, Regigigas went to the
Register of Deeds of Dumaguete and discovered that, after the sale, Regieleki
had filed a petition for reconstitution of the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT
No. 777 which the RTC granted. Thus, unknown to Regigigas, Regieleki was
able to secure a new TCT in her name.

What is Regigigas’s remedy to have the reconstituted title in the name of

Regieleki nullified?

7. Shinx and Fennekin were married in 1996. However, in November 2003,

Fennekin left for the United States (US) due to her alleged irreconcilable
differences with Shinx. In 2020, Shinx filed a petition for the declaration of
nullity of his marriage with Fennekin before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Makati City, where he resides.Subsequently, Shinx filed a motion for
issuance of summons by publication because Fennekin already resided abroad.
The RTC issued an Order dated August 27, 2020 granting the motion and
directed the summons to be served upon Fennekin by publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in the US. However, the copies of the order,
summons, and complaint were not served at her last known address.
Meanwhile, no answer was filed by Fennekin. Thus, the RTC rendered a
decision granting the petition, which eventually became final and executory.

Was the August 27, 2020 Order of the RTC proper? Explain your
answer.

8. In 2014, Feebas filed before the Regional Trial Court a petition for change of
name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court to change her first name, include
her middle name, and correct the spelling of her surname, from “Feeber
Lapras”, as stated in her birth certificate, to “Feebas Garchomp Lapraz”.
According to Feebas, she has been using the name “Feebas Garchomp
Lapraz” since childhood.

Will the petition of Feebas prosper? Explain your answer.

9. In a buy-bust operation, 30 kilos of shabu were seized from Dewgong and

Duskull. They were arrested and placed on inquest before Prosecutor Dratini
Dragonaire who ordered their continued detention. Thereafter, the
information for the sale and distribution of shabu was filed in court. When
arraigned, Dewgong and Duskull pleaded not guilty to the charge. During pre-
trial, counsel for both of the accused raised, for the first time, the illegality of
 the arrest. The case proceeded to trial. After trial, the court scheduled the
promulgation of judgment with notice to both the accused and their counsel,
Atty. Hydreigon. During the promulgation, only Dewgong and Atty.
Hydreigon were present. Both the accused were convicted of the crime
charged.

(a) Was the challenge to the validity of the arrest timely raised?
(b) What is the remedy available to Duskull, if any, to be able to file an
appeal?

10. Tyranitar, a German national, married Lechonk, a Filipina, in Dusseldorf,

Germany. When the marriage collapsed, Lechonk filed a petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage before the RTC of Manila. Tyranitar, on the
other hand, was able to obtain a divorce decree from the German Family
Court. The decree, in essence, states:

“The marriage of the Parties contracted on xxx before the Civil Registrar of
Dusseldorf is hereby dissolved. The parental custody of the children Snorlax
and Blissey is granted to the father.”

Tyranitar filed a motion to dismiss in the RTC of Manila on the ground that
the court no longer had jurisdiction over the matter as a decree of divorce had
already been promulgated dissolving his marriage to Lechonk. Lechonk
objected, saying that while she was not challenging the divorce decree, the
case in the RTC still had to proceed for the purpose of determining the issue
of the children’s custody. Tyranitar counters that the issue had been disposed
of in the divorce decree, thus constituting res judicata.

(a) Should Tyranitar’s motion to dismiss be granted?

(b) Is a foreign divorce decree between a foreign spouse and a Filipino
spouse, uncontested by both parties, sufficient by itself to cancel the
entry in the civil registry pertaining to the spouses’ marriage?