1.

Upon plaintiff’s application, an ex parte warrant of seizure on defendant’s car was issued before
service of summons. The sheriff’s return stated that the defendant left for the USA and that his address in
the Philippines is unknown. The car having been seized by the sheriff, the plaintiff moved to have the
summons served by publication which the court granted and a copy thereof together with the complaint
was sent by registered mail to defendant’s last known address. Thereafter, the trial court issued a show
cause order why the case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant.

a) How would you respond to the court’s show cause order? (5%)
b) Was the warrant of seizure properly issued? (5%)
c) Was the warrant of seizure properly implemented? (5%)

2. In a partition suit, the RTC on December 15 rendered judgment declaring that plaintiff and
defendant are co-owners only of Lot No. 1 but not Lot No. 2. In the same decision, the court appointed 3
commissioners to hear and recommend physical partition of Lot No. 1. Defendant received copy of the
decision on January 5, while the plaintiff, on January 11.

a) If the defendant appeals, when and how should the appeal be taken? (5%)
b) On Jan, 13 defendant filed notice of appeal but 5 days later on Jan. 18 he withdrew it and filed a
motion for reconsideration. Are the withdrawal of the appeal and the filing of the motion for
reconsideration proper? (5%)
c) Assuming defendant’s appeal was not withdrawn, plaintiff on January 25 moved to reconsider the
Dec. 15 decision, may the court entertain the same despite perfection of defendant’s appeal?
(5%)
d) Assuming again that there was no withdrawal of defendant’s appeal, the trial court granted
plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration ruling that Lot No. 2 is also co-owned by both parties, may
the defendant file a motion for reconsideration despite the perfection of his appeal? (5%)

3. When should a party respond to the following pleadings: (a) amended pleading; (b) counterclaim;
(c) 3rd party complaint; (d) cross-claim subject to a motion to dismiss; and (d) reply. (5%)

4. XYZ Co., a Philippine corporation, entered into a contract for the supply of materials with ABC
Co. a foreign corporation not domiciled nor licensed to do business in the Philippines. Pursuant to the
arbitration clause of the agreement and after XYZ Co. defaulted in its obligation, ABC Co. filed and was
able to obtain from the arbitral tribunal in Singapore an award against XYZ Co. To prevent its impending
enforcement, XYZ Co. filed a verified complaint against ABC Co. with RTC-Manila for injunction with
damages and prayed to nullify the arbitral award with prayer for TRO and preliminary injunction. What is
the proper mode of service so that the RTC-Manila will acquire jurisdiction over the ABC Co.? (5%)

5. After a judgment was rendered ordering the defendant to surrender possession of the litigated
property to plaintiff, the former filed a notice of appeal. Twenty (20) days later, the court, on motion of
plaintiff, appointed a receiver to take possession the litigated property pending appeal. Defendant moved
for reconsideration arguing that the trial court lost jurisdiction to appoint a receiver owing to the perfection
of the appeal. Decide. (5%)

6. When are motions for new trial considered pro forma? (10%)

7. Landowner X appointed A agent to look for a buyer for his land. The latter designated A-1 as his
sub-agent for the same purpose without the knowledge and consent of X. A-1 found a purchase but X
withdrew from the transaction. Agent A and sub-agent A-1 joined as plaintiffs in one complaint for
recovery of the commission which they failed to realize because of landowner X’s withdrawal. Is the
joinder of plaintiffs proper? (5%)

8. Pedro Realty Corp., with offices at Malolos, Bulacan, filed an ejectment suit against in Damaso
in the MTC of Bulacan. Trial commenced and terminated with a judgment ordering Damaso to vacate and
pay back rentals in the amount of P500,000.00. On appeal, Damaso moved for the reversal of the
judgment on the following grounds: (a) non-referral of the dispute to the Lupon; and (b) the award of back
rentals in the amount of P500,000.00 is beyond the MTC’s jurisdiction. Decide. (5%)
(a) Damaso is correct. No ejectment complaint shall be instituted unless there has been a confrontation of
the parties before the Lupon and no conciliation or settlement has been reached as certified by the Lupon
Secretary as attested by the Lupon or Pangkat Chairman.

(b) Damaso is not correct. An action for ejectment is within the jurisdiction of the MTC.

9. In a case instituted by Pedro against Daniel, the RTC of Makati, Br. X, issued a writ of
attachment. When the sheriff attempted to attach a parcel of land allegedly belonging to Daniel, he was
confronted by Javier who, claiming ownership over the property, presented the sheriff with a 3rd party
claim [walang sinabing affidavit pero kasi affidavit kailangan sa Rules??]. As the sheriff was still
threatening to proceed with the attachment. Javier filed an action in the RTC of Manila, Br. XXII, against
the sheriff and Pedro for injunction and damages. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss contending
that the action constitutes undue interference on the processes of a co-equal court. Decide. (5%)

I will decide against Javier. A person who claims rights to the property being taken by the sheriff under a
writ of attachment may protect his rights by executing an affidavit of his title or right to the possession of
the property. He must serve it upon the sheriff while the latter has possession of the property. It is only
upon the receipt of the sheriff by the affidavit of the third-party, in this case Javier, where he shall no
longer be bound to keep the property under replevin or be obligated to deliver it to the applicant. In this
case, Javier did no such thing. Therefore, the sheriff shall not be liable for damages for the taking or
keeping of such property.

10. Pedro was awarded a money judgment by the High Court of Hongkong in the amount of
HK$40,000.00 or the equivalent of Php240,000.00. In what court should the action for the enforcement of
the said foreign judgment be filed? (5%)

The action for the enforcement of a foreign judgment may be executed in the foreign country which
rendered judgment because it is not prohibited by the Rules or here in the Philippines because a foreign
judgment is not limited by the fact that it was rendered in a foreign country. However, if Pedro chooses to
file the action here, the judgment is only presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties. (R39.48)

11. Plaintiff, a Manila resident, sued the defendant, a resident of Malolos, Bulacan, in the RTC-Manila
for a sum of money. When the sheriff tried to serve the summons and the complaint on the defendant at
his Bulacan residence, the sheriff was told that the defendant had gone to Manila for business and would
not be back until the evening of that day.

So, the sheriff served the summons, together with a copy of the complaint, on the defendant’s 12-year-old
daughter residing thereat. For failure to answer the complaint, the trial court, on motion of plaintiff,
declared defendant in default and thereafter rendered default judgment ordering defendant to pay the
entire amount prayed for in the complaint. Six years after the entry of judgment, the plaintiff filed an action
for revival of judgment. May the defendant raise the defence and successfully oppose the revival action
on the ground that the judgment is null and void because the RTC-Manila never acquired jurisdiction over
his person due to improper substituted service of summons? (5%)

Yes. In an action strictly in personam like a complaint for a sum of money, personal service on the
defendant is the preferred mode of service. It has been held that it is only when the defendant cannot be
served personally within a reasonable time that substituted service may be made and the impossibility of
prompt service should be shown by stating the efforts made to find the defendant personally and the fact
that such efforts failed. The sheriff must make at least three attempts within two days in order that
substituted service may be resorted to. Furthermore, substituted service must be effected on a person of
suitable age and discretion residing at the defendant’s residence. A six year old child does not fall within
that category.

For failure to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, being an indispensable party, the
judgment is null and void.

12. Pedro filed a petition for declaration of the nullity of his marriage to Carmela because of the
alleged psychological incapacity of the latter. After trial, the court rendered judgment dismissing the
petition on the ground that Pedro failed to prove the psychological incapacity of his wife. The judgment
having become final, Pedro filed another petition, this time on the ground that his marriage to Carmela
had been celebrated without a license. Is the second action barred by the judgment in the first? (5%)

No. The second action is not barred by the judgment in the first because they are different causes of
action. The first case involved the JDN of marriage under Art. 36 of the FC while the second case was
due to the lack of a marriage license under Art. 35(3) of the FC.

13. In putting up his new factory, Daniel acquired on credit certain heavy machineries from ABC Co
with chattel mortgage thereon.

The machineries were imbedded in the ground inside Daniel’s factory. When Daniel defaulted in his
payment, ABC Co. brought an action for recovery the machineries with application for writ of replevin. In
his answer Daniel mainly alleged prematurity in that ABC Co. had granted him an extension of time to
settle his obligation. As the judge, would you issue the replevin? (5%)

No. In a suit for replevin, a clear right of possession must be established. A foreclosure under a chattel
mortgage may properly be commenced only once there is default on the part of the mortgagor of his
obligation secured by the mortgage. Since the mortgagee’s right of possession is conditioned upon the
actual fact of default, it must first be determined if there was an actual extension granted by the
mortgagee.

14. A judgment rendered by the trial court ordering defendant to pay plaintiff the unpaid loan of
Php500,000.00. Defendant appealed the judgment while plaintiff seasonably filed a motion for execution
pending appeal which the trial court granted after positing of a bond and upon good reasons stated in the
order.

However, with the defendant’s filing of a sufficient supersedeas bond, the trial court lifted the order of
execution pending appeal. In due time the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision. When the
judgment became final and executor, Pedro moved to enforce the money judgment against the
supersedeas bond. Defendant’s bondsman opposed the motion contending that the application for
damages against the supersedeas bond should have been filed with the appellate court before the
judgment became executor pursuant procedure in Sec. 20, Rule 57. Resolve. (5%)

[Not sure] The bondsman’s contention has no merit. R57.20 only applies in cases of an application for
damages on account of improper, irregular, or excessive attachment. In this case, there is no allegation of
such. Therefore, Pedro may enforce the money judgment against the supersedeas bond.
15. In a suit for a sum of money defendant answered with counterclaim raising the
affirmative defence of prescription and praying for moral and exemplary damages in his
counterclaim. The trial court upon plaintiff’s motion conducted a preliminary hearing on the
affirmative defence and as a result dismissed the compliant on the ground of prescription. As
defendant’s lawyer, how will you proceed to recover on the counterclaim? (5%) Prosecute the
counterclaim in either the same or in a separate action because the counterclaim survives the
dismissal. However, to prosecute it in the same action, it must be within 15 days from notice of
the motion, manifest the preference to have the counterclaim resolved in the same action.

16.
a) When may party file a motion for bill of particulars? (2.5%) A motion for bill of particulars
should be filed before responding to a pleading. Where the motion for BoP is directed to a
complaint, the motion should be generally filed within 15 days after service of summons (R11.1)
If the motion is directed to a counterclaim or cross-claim, then the same must be filed within 10
days from service of counterclaim or cross-claim. If BoP is to clarify a reply, 10 days from
service thereof.

b) Within what time shall the movant for bill of particulars file his responsive
pleading? (2.5%) After the service of the bill of particulars or of a more definite pleading, or after
notice of denial of his motion, the movant may file his responsive pleading within the period to
which he was entitled at the time of filing his motion, which shall not be less than 5 days in any
event. (R12.5)

c) Within what time shall the order requiring a pleader to file a bill of particulars be
complied with obeyed? (2.5%) Rule 12.3. If the motion is granted, it must be complied within 10
days from notice of the order unless a different period is fixed by the court.

d) What is the effect of non-compliance with the order of a bill of particulars? (2.5%)
If the order is not obeyed, the court may order the striking out of the pleading or the
portions thereof to which the order was directed or make such other order as it deems
just. (R12.4)