Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
COLLEGE OF LAW
BAGUIO CITY
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS IN REMEDIAL LAW
JULY 16, 2014
By:
REYNALDO U. AGRANZAMENDEZ
Dean, College of Law
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS
Baguio City
CIVIL PROCEDURE
1. Spouses Manuel and Lolita signed a promissory
note binding themselves to pay solidarily to Boston the
sum of P1,400,000. As the debt already became due,
Boston filed against Manuel and Lolita a complaint for
collection. In her amended answer, Lolita alleged that
Manuel had already died two years before the filing of the
complaint. On Bostons motion, Lolita submitted the
names of the heirs of Manuel. Whereupon, Boston moved
for substitution, praying that Manuel be substituted by his
heirs. The court granted the substitution. Later, Lolita
filed a motion to dismiss, alleging among other grounds,
that the estate of Manuel should be impleaded as an
indispensable party. She also alleged that plaintiffs claim
should be presented as a money claim in the probate
proceedings of the estate of Manuel.
Questions:
a) Is the court correct in ordering the substitution of
Manuel by his heirs?
b) Is the estate of Manuel an indispensable party?
c) What is the remedy of Boston as creditor to file a
claim against estate of Manuel (the deceased spouse) or to
file an action for collection against Lolita (the surviving
spouse)?
disposition of the real property. Title is the legal link between the
owner and the property. On the other hand, certificate of title is the
document of ownership under the Torrens system of registration
issued by the government through the Register of Deeds. While title
is the claim, right, or interest in real property, a certificate of title is
the evidence of such claim. In the problem presented, the issue of
who between plaintiff and defendant has the valid title to the subject
real property must first be determined before a determination of who
between them is legally entitled to the certificate of title covering the
real property involved.
3. There is a judgment against X. The judgment
became final, and a writ of execution was issued. The
sheriff levied on Xs house. The house was later sold to Y in
an execution sale. Xs certificate of title was cancelled and a
new one was issued to Y, the purchaser of the house at the
execution sale. Four years later, X filed an action for the
cancellation of Ys certificate of title. In his complaint
against Y, X alleged that the house is a family home and
therefore exempt from execution. May the action prosper?
No, the action may not prosper. Although the house is a family
home and therefore exempt from execution, X should have claimed
the exemption from execution before its sale on execution. The right
to exemption is a personal privilege granted to the judgment obligor,
and as such, it must be claimed not by the sheriff but by the judgment
obligor. It is not sufficient that the judgment obligor claiming
exemption merely alleges that such property is a family home. He
must set up his claim and prove to the sheriff the exemption of the
subject property before its sale on execution. (Oliva-de Mesa v. Acero
et al., G.R. No. 185064, Jan. 16, 2012)
4. X filed with the regional trial court a complaint for
collection of a sum of money. In his complaint, he prayed
that Y be ordered to pay the principal obligation with
interest thereon at 12% per annum. For failing to file his
answer despite being granted an extension, Y was declared
in default on motion of X. The trial court rendered
judgment ordering defendant Y to pay the principal
obligation with interest thereon at surprisingly 5%
monthly interest (or 60% interest per annum). Defendants
counsel received a copy of the judgment, but allowed it to
become final without even questioning the award of 5%
monthly interest. Y filed a petition for annulment of
judgment with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals
granted the petition. X now claims that the Court of
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
1. The RTC issued a search warrant. On motion of the
person against whom it was issued, the RTC quashed the
search warrant. What is the remedy against the order
quashing search warrant? Is it appeal or a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65?
Worldwide Web Corporation et al. v. People of the Philippines
et al., G.R. No. 161106, Jan. 13, 2014, teaches that:
An application for search warrant may be filed as an incident in
a main criminal case already filed in court. Or, such an application
may be filed in court in anticipation of one yet to be filed (here, the
application for search warrant is instituted as a principal proceeding
prior to the filing of the criminal action).
Where the search warrant is issued as an incident in a pending
criminal action, an order quashing the search warrant is merely
interlocutory and therefore not appealable. Such order may only be
assailed in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
But an order quashing a search warrant issued independently
prior to the filing of a criminal action is a final order that can be the
proper subject of an appeal.
2. Suppose the court issued an order quashing the
search warrant.
The applicant filed a motion for
reconsideration of the order, but his motion was denied by
the court because it does not bear the conformity of the
public prosecutor. In denying the motion, the court relied
on Sec. 5, Rule 110, which provides: All criminal actions
commenced by a complaint or information shall be
prosecuted under the direction and control of the
prosecutor. Is the court correct?
25
No, the court is not correct. Sec. 5, Rule 110 does not apply
because an application for search warrant, although it is a criminal
process, is not a criminal action. Therefore, the conformity of the
public prosecutor is not necessary to give the applicant a personality
to question an order quashing the search warrant. (Worldwide Web
Corporation et al. v. People of the Philippines et al., G.R. No. 161106,
Jan. 13, 2014)
3. Notwithstanding notice to him, the accused failed to
appear during the promulgation of judgment. The RTC
promulgated the judgment, convicting him of the crime
charged. Later, the accused moved for reconsideration,
questioning the validity of the promulgation, the factual
and legal basis of his conviction, and the correctness of the
penalty imposed. The regional trial court denied his motion
for reconsideration. Accused then filed with the Court of
Appeals a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The CA
granted the petition and acquitted the accused. Is the
acquittal of the accused correct?
No. Errors of the trial court in its judgment is correctible only
by appeal, not in a certiorari proceedings. In a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 as in the problem presented, the Court of Appeals is
authorized to resolve only errors of jurisdiction and not errors of
judgment. (Almuete v. People, G.R. No. 179611, March 12, 2013)
4. What are the requirements for motion for bail in
offenses punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment?
As provided for in Section 6, A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC, March 14,
2014, but took effect May 1, 2014 (Guidelines for Decongesting
Holding Jails by Enforcing the Rights of Accused Persons to Bail and
to Speedy Trial), the requirements are:
a) the hearing of the motion for bail shall be summary;
b) the prosecution has the burden of showing that the evidence
of guilt is strong;
c) if the accused wants the court to consider his evidence, he
may submit the affidavits of his witnesses attesting to his
innocence;
26
27
b)
Requirements:
But under Section 6 of R.A. No. 10389, the requirements for the
release by the court of a detained person on recognizance are:
a)
b)
c)
d)
Disqualifications:
Although all the requisites and requirements have been
complied with, still the accused may not be released on recognizance
if he has any of the disqualifications mentioned in Section 7 of R.A.
No. 10389, which are as follows:
a)
b)
c)
28
d)
e)
f)
g)
29
b)
c)
30
31
32
33
34
in Sec. 32 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC have not been deleted from Sec. 38
of R.A. No. 9344. Hence, juveniles who have been convicted of a
crime the imposable penalty for which is reclusion perpetua, life
imprisonment, or death are disqualified from having their sentence
suspended.
Take note, however, that in People v. Sarcia, G.R. No. 169641,
Sept. 10, 2009, 599 SCRA 20, cited in People v. Allen Udtojan
Mantalaba, G.R. No. 186227, July 20, 2011, it was held that although
suspension of sentence can still be applied even if the child in conflict
with the law is already 18 years of age or more at the time of the
pronouncement of his guilt, Sec. 40 of the same law limits the
suspension of sentence until the child reaches the maximum age of
21. Hence, the appellant, who is now beyond the age of 21 can no
longer avail himself of the provisions of Secs. 38 and 40 of RA 9344
as to suspension of his sentence because this has already become
moot and academic.
13. May the offended party in estafa and violation of
BP 22 arising from the single act of issuing a bouncing
check intervene through a private prosecutor in both
criminal cases?
Yes. Settled is the rule that the single act of issuing a bouncing
check may give rise to two distinct criminal offenses: estafa and
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. The Rules of Court allow the
offended party to intervene through a private prosecutor in each of
these two penal proceedings. However, the recovery of the single civil
liability arising from the single act of issuing a bouncing check in
either criminal case bars the recovery of the same civil liability in the
other criminal action. While the law allows two simultaneous civil
remedies for the offended party, it authorizes recovery in only one. In
short, while two crimes arise form a single set of facts, only one civil
liability attaches to it. (Rodriquez v. Ponferrada, et al., G.R. Nos.
155531-34, July 29, 2005)
14. After the prosecution has rested its case, the
accused files a demurrer to evidence. In resolving the
demurrer to evidence, should the trial court likewise decide
the civil aspect of the case and determine the civil liability of
the accused?
The answer should be qualified as follows:
a) If the demurrer to evidence is filed without leave of court:
35
36
an acquittal. An appeal from said order would violate the right of the
accused against double jeopardy. This is based on the finality-ofacquittal rule which means that verdicts of acquittal are to be
regarded as absolutely final and irreviewable.
b) If appeal is not a remedy against an order granting
demurrer to evidence, what then is the remedy?
The remedy is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure upon a clear showing by the petitioner that
the lower court, in acquitting the accused, committed not merely
reversible errors of judgment but also grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or a denial of due process,
thus rendering the assailed judgment void. In Sanvicente v. People,
441 Phil. 139 (2002), the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the
CA which reversed the acquittal of the accused upon a demurrer to
evidence, holding that the trial court committed grave abuse of
discretion in preventing the prosecution from establishing the due
execution and authenticity of a certain letter marked as Exh. LL
which positively identified the accused as the perpetrator of the crime
charged.
To put it another way, any further prosecution of the accused
after an acquittal would violate the right of the accused against double
jeopardy. To this rule, there are exceptions as follows: (1) when the
prosecution is denied due process, as in the case of Galman v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-72670, Sept. 12, 1986, where the
Supreme Court declared the sham trial a mock trial, and the
predetermined judgment of acquittal was held unlawful and void ab
initio; (2) when the trial court commits grave abuse of discretion in
granting the demurrer to evidence filed by the accused.
Thus, double jeopardy will not attach when the trial court acted
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of excess of
jurisdiction, such as where the prosecution was denied the
opportunity to present its case or where the trial was a sham. (People
v. Laguio Jr., G.R. No. 128587, March 16, 2007)
In People v. Sandiganbayan and Barcenas, G.R. No. 174504,
March 21, 2011, it was held that although the grant of demurrer is not
subject to appeal it is still reviewable through certiorari under Rule
65.
The Supreme Court ruled, in Ysidoro v. Hon. Leonardo-de
Castro et al., G.R. No. 171513, Feb. 6, 2012, that the rule against
double jeopardy cannot be properly invoked in a Rule 65 petition,
predicated on two exceptional grounds, namely: in a judgment of
acquittal rendered with grave abuse of discretion by the court; and
37
where the prosecution had been deprived of due process. The rule
against double jeopardy does not apply in these instances because a
Rule 65 petition does not involve review of facts and law on the merits
in the manner done in an appeal. A review under Rule 65 only asks
the question of whether there has been a validly rendered decision,
not the question of whether the judgment is legally correct. In the
other words, the focus of the review is to determine whether the
judgment is per se void on jurisdictional grounds. (RUA: A petition
purportedly brought under Rule 65 should be dismissed if it does not
raise any jurisdictional ground, as when, for example, it seeks to have
the evidence reviewed by the higher court.)
16. Jayson was involved in a vehicular collision where
Nestor, the driver of the other vehicle, died. Evangeline,
Nestors wife, sustained only minor injuries, although their
vehicle was heavily damaged. Jayson was charged with two
offenses before the MeTC of Pasig City, namely: (1) Criminal
Case No. 82367, for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
Slight Physical Injuries; and (2) Criminal Case No. 82366,
for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and
Damage to Property. Jayson pleaded guilty to the charge in
Criminal Case No. 82367 and was meted the penalty of
public censure. Invoking his conviction in Criminal Case
No. 82367, he moved to quash the Information in Criminal
Case No. 82366 on the ground of double jeopardy, but the
trial court denied Jaysons motion. Is the trial court correct
in refusing the quashal of the information?
No, the trial court is not correct. In Ivler v. Modesto-San Pedro
et al., G.R. No. 172716, Nov. 17, 2010, the Supreme Court, held that
double jeopardy has already set in. Citing the opinion of Justice
J.B.L. Reyes in the earlier case of People vs. Buan, 22 SCRA 1383,
March 29, 1968, it said: as the careless act is single, whether the
injurious result should affect one person or several persons, the
offense (criminal negligence) remains one and the same, and can not
be split into different crimes and prosecutions.
17.
If the trial court convicted the accused of
frustrated homicide, but on appeal the appellate court
found him guilty of attempted homicide as the accused had
insisted all along, may he apply for probation?
Yes, as held by the Supreme Court (En Banc) in Colinares v.
People, G.R. No. 182748, Dec. 13, 2011.
38
39
40
41
42
b)
43
c)
44
45
46
47
48
trial court in this case did not declare the marriage void because there
was no marriage to speak of in the first place.
4. Where may the estate of a deceased person be
settled?
The estate of the a deceased person may be settled
a) in the province or city where he resided at the time of his
death, if he was a resident of the Philippines.
Note that under Sec. 1, Rule 73 of the Rules of Court, the estate
of a deceased person shall be settled in the Regional Trial Court of the
province in which he resides at the time of his death. As held in
Garcia Fule v. CA, G.R. Nos. L-40502 & L-42670, Nov. 29,1976 [74
SCRA 189], the term resides connotes actual residence as
distinguished from legal residence or domicile. In other words,
resides should be viewed or understood in its popular sense,
meaning, the personal, actual or physical habitation of a person,
actual
residence
or
place
of
abode.
(See
also:
San Luis v. San Luis, G.R. No. 133743 and G.R. No. 134029, Feb. 6,
2007)
b) in the province where he had estate, if he was not a resident
of the Philippines.
5. What are the two exceptions to the requirement
that the estate of a decedent be judicially administered
through an administrator or executor?
The two exceptions are:
a) if there is extrajudicial settlement among the heirs; and
b) in summary settlement of estate of small value.
6. What are the requisites of a valid extrajudicial
settlement?
The following are the requisites:
a) the decedent died intestate;
b) there is no outstanding debts of the estate at the time of
settlement;
49
50
51
52
53