I

(10 points)

Afaga filed an unlawful detainer case against Berto. After the

Municipal Trial Court examined the complaint, it issued an order for
Berto to submit his answer within 10 days from receipt of the
summons. Berto failed to submit an answer because his lawyer, Atty.
Batas, was abroad when he received the summons. Subsequently, he
was declared in default and judgment was rendered against him
since March 31, 2020.

He came to you today to seek your services as counsel. Which

among these remedies can he avail of?

(1) Motion for reconsideration over the decision rendered by the

MTC;

(2) Appeal over the decision of the MTC;

(3) Motion for new trial;

(4) Petition for relief from the judgment rendered by the MTC.

Explain fully.

The remedy he can avail of is appeal over the decision of

the Municipal Trial Court.
Under the Law it provides that the judgment of MTC in
ejectment cases against the plaintiff is not immediately
executory pending appeal. On the other hand, the judgment of
the MTC in ejectment cases against the defendant is
immediately executory pending appeal. However, the
defendant may stay execution by perfecting an Appeal. Appeal
is perfected by filing a notice of appeal and paying the required
appeal and other lawful fees within 15 days from notice of the
judgment.

II
(10 points)

Ms. A lost in a collection suit filed by Ms. B in a decision

rendered by the Municipal Trial Court of Bacarra, Ilocos Norte. As a
result, she was ordered to pay with interest computed at 6% per
annum. Within the reglementary period, Ms. A thru counsel, filed a
Notice of Appeal. The case was then raffled to the Regional Trial
Court of Laoag City for appeal.

On appeal, Ms. A was required to pay the corresponding

docket and appeal fees but failed. This prompted the RTC to dismiss
her appeal. Unperturbed, she filed a Motion for Reconsideration over
the dismissal, which was also denied. She then filed a Petition for
Review under Rule 42, on mixed questions of law and fact, appealing
the dismissal of her appeal. She argued that there is a factual issue on
the deadline for the payment of appeal and docket fees.

Is the remedy proper?

No the remedy filed by Ms. A is not proper.

In fact it is expressly provided under Rule 42 that failure of the
petitioner to comply with any of the requirements regarding the
payment of the docket and other lawful fees shall be sufficient
ground for the dismissal of the case thereof.
What Ms. A. should have done was to pay the corresponding
docket and appeal fees as this was required under Rule 40 which
expressly provides that, within the period for taking an appeal, the
appellant shall pay to the clerk of the court which rendered the
judgment or final order appealed from the full amount of the
appellate court docket and other lawful fees.
In the case, Ms. A. failed to pay the docket and appeal fees
when she was required to do so.
III
(10 points)

Esther filed a petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

under Article 36 of the Family Code against her husband, Jun, an
American citizen working and residing in Guam, at the RTC of
Bangui, Ilocos Norte. She deliberately indicated in her complaint that
the last known residence of Jun is Brgy. Balaoi, Pagudpud, Ilocos
Norte. Logically, the summons issued was returned and unserved.
The sheriff made a Return and reported that the defendant is not
residing in the specified address. Esther then moved for the service of
summons by publication which was granted by the RTC. Eventually,
a decision was promulgated on January 30, 2019.

When Jun returned to the Philippines on March 30, 2020, he

learned from relatives that the petition was filed by his wife and
immediately got a copy at the RTC of Bangui, Ilocos Norte.
Subsequently, he came to seek your legal services.
 As counsel, what will be your advice on Jun and the proper
remedy?

I will advise Jun that the judgment rendered by the RTC will be
annulled by reason of extrinsic fraud.
Under the law, one of the grounds for annulment of judgments
or final orders and resolution is extrinsic fraud. Extrinsic fraud exists
when there is a fraudulent act committed by the prevailing party
outside the trial of the case, whereby the defeated party was
prevented from presenting fully his side of the case by fraud or
deception practiced on him by the prevailing party.
In the case at bar, extrinsic fraud was manifested when Esther
deliberately indicated in her complaint that the last known residence
of Jun is Brgy. Balaoi, Pagudpud, Ilocos Norte, where in fact Jun is
residing in Guam, to which led to the fact that RTC eventually
promulgated decision and which has prevented Jun to present fully
his side.
With the foregoing facts, RTC’s decision therefore must be
annulled.