Sample QS - CIVPRO

2BB - CLASSLIST
DEADLINE: MARCH 29, 2023 (11:59PM)
5 Units to HUHU!
PLEASE INDICATE LEGAL BASIS
[MUST READ]
INSTRUCTIONS:
[ANSWER]
➢ Includes position and legal basis (may include DIRECT to the point position and even just the
legal bases)
➢ May or may not in the form of ALAC Method;
➢ Give effort in answering
[ALTERNATIVE ANSWER]
➢ Second/sub classmate assigned shall answer or provide an alternative answer
ADDITIONAL NOTES RELATED TO THE QUESTION:
➢ May include additional information regarding the question that may help our classmate/s review
➢ Make sure your notes are updated/subscribed to the amended rules
➢ Include REFERENCE
REV NOTES:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1rebf0ZRK4lhF3lhw6zQpN8mnlTsVPh4y
NOTE: Di nag-uulit Justice, but by reviewing this QS, we can forecast Justice's fave
topics and be familiar with the general rules.
Those who are not able to answer before the deadline – > will be removed from the GDOCS. TY!
____________________________________________________________________________________
QS 2021
Q1.
In his complaint for reconveyance against Barat, filed with the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan, Tipid alleged that
the market value of the property subject matter of the case is Php. 50,000.00. The only documents
appended to the complaint are: the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping, the copy of the
TCT as issued to Barat, the Judicial affidavit of Tipid detailing how Barat fraudulently acquired his title to
the property. Assume that you are the counsel for Barat, what defense/s will you put up in the answer?
Briefly discuss your defense/s.
[ANSWER]
➢ Jurisdiction over the subject matter is wanting. In a real action, jurisdiction over the subject matter
of the case is determined by the assessed value of the subject property. As held by the SC, in
order for a court to take cognizance of the case, the assessed value must be clearly set forth in
the complaint. Since there is no allegation as to the assessed value of the property, then the court
has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the present case.
➢ GENOVEVA G. GABRILLO, REP. HEREIN BY ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, MEDARDO G. CADIENTE,

JR., V. HEIRS OF OLIMPIO PASTOR REP. BY CRESENCIANA MANGUIRAN VDA. DE PASTOR
➢ There’s not even an attachment of tax declaration for the subject property. In BSP vs Legaspi
(G.R. No. 205966), it was held that non-inclusion of assessed value on the face of complaint is
not fatal if there’s an attached tax declaration showing the assessed value of the property.
➢ Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 is explicit that the jurisdiction of the court over an action involving
title to, or possession of a real property is determined by its assessed value and not the market
value thereof.
Q2.
In the preceding problem, if the RTC proceeded to trial and rendered a decision, as counsel for Barat,
what argument would you advance in your appeal to challenge the ruling, and why?
[ANSWER]
➢ As Barat’s counsel, I would argue that the RTC committed an error in not dismissing the case for
lack of jurisdiction. Jurisprudence provides that, settled is the rule that the courts cannot take
judicial notice of the assessed value or even the market value of the land. The assessed value of
the realty in question must be clearly set forth in the complaint to prompt the court whether it can
or cannot take cognizance of the case. That failure to allege the real property's assessed value in
the complaint would not be fatal if, in the documents annexed to the complaint, an allegation of
the assessed value could be found. However, in this case, there are no documents that would
show substantial compliance with the rule on assessed value. Hence, the RTC erred in taking
cognizance of the case and the decision rendered is null and void.
➢ The decision rendered by the RTC is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction.

Legal basis: GENOVEVA G. GABRILLO, REP. HEREIN BY ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, MEDARDO G.
CADIENTE, JR., PETITIONER, V. HEIRS OF OLIMPIO PASTOR REP. BY CRESENCIANA
MANGUIRAN VDA. DE PASTOR, RESPONDENT, G.R. No. 234255, October 02, 2019
Additional Notes:
➢ It is the duty of the court to dismiss an action for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Sec 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC, provides that: “x x x
when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction
over the subject matter, x x x the court shall dismiss the claim”
Q3.
X is a new homeowner and member of Mahigpit Subdivision Homeowners Association (MSHA). The
subdivision is located in Pasig City. By way of security measures, The MSHA requires its members to
purchase a car sticker as a condition for entry and exit inside the subdivision. X refused to purchase a car
sticker, and so the MSHA’s guard did not allow X to enter the subdivision. Hence, X engaged a lawyer
who filed a complaint for damages and injunction against MSHA and its officers. The complaint was
filed in RTC Quezon City. Assume you are the counsel for MSHA, what defense or defenses would you
raise in the answer?
[ANSWER]
➢ I will raise the affirmative defense of improper venue in the answer (Sec. 12[2], Rule 8). A
personal action may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff resides or where the defendant
resides, or in a the case of a non-resident defendant, where he may be found, at the election of
the plaintiff (Sec. 2, Rule 4).
In the case at bar, the complaint for damages and injunction constitutes a personal action. Hence,
the case must be filed in Pasig City, where X and MSHA both reside.
- Also, failure to state the cause of action in the complaint is a ground for dismissal.

➢
Q4.
MM Lending filed with the MTC of Valenzuela City, five (5) separate complaints for collection of sum of
money against its borrower Ms. Utangera based on five (5) promissory notes bearing separate due dates.
The cases were docketed and prayed for the award as follows: 1) Civil Case No. 1111- for Php
200,000.00; 2) Civil Case No. 2222- for Php 200,000.00; 3) Civil Case No. 3333 for Php 300,000.00; 4)
Civil Case No. 4444 for Php 300,000.00; and 5) Civil Case No. 5555 for Php 200,000.00. Ms. Utangera’s
counsel filed a motion to dismiss the complaint based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the
totality rule wherein the total claim of MM amounts to 1.2 Million; as such, it falls within the jurisdiction of
the RTC. Rule on the motion and give reason/s.
[ANSWER]
➢ The motion must be denied. The amounts claimed are covered by each promissory note. Hence,
each debt is a separate cause of action unless the pleader, in his discretion, joined them as
allowed under Section 5, Rule 2, Rules of Court. In this case, MM did not join the causes of action
but were filed separately. Hence, totality rule under Section 33(1), BP 129, will not apply as the
said rule is applicable only when the causes of action are embodied in the same complaint.

➢ Note: RA 11576 increased the amount of demand covered by RTC to more than P2M. Hence,
due to the said amendment the claim amounting to 1.2 million is still within the jurisdiction of the
MTC.
Q5.
Ngo filed a complaint for recovery of real property with the RTC against Go, his neighbor. In his
answer, Go raised as an affirmative defense the failure of Ngo to first file his complaint with the Barangay
Lupon. Consequently, the RTC suspended the proceedings and referred the case to the Barangay Lupon.
A Certificate to File Action was later submitted by Ngo to the RTC stating that: 1) There has been a
personal confrontation between the parties before the Punong Barangay/Pangkat Tagapagkasundo; 2) A
settlement was reached; 3) The settlement has been repudiated in a statement sworn to before the
Punong barangay by _____ on the ground on _____. Therefore the corresponding complaint (sic) for the
dispute may now be filed in Court/government office. Despite the certification, Ngo admitted in court
that there was really no confrontation between the parties before the Lupon. Hence, Go filed a
motion to set aside the order referring the case to the Lupon and insisted on the dismissal of the case for
failure to comply with a condition precedent. Rule on the motion and explain your ruling.
[ANSWER]
➢ I will grant the motion to set aside the order referring the case to the Lupon and the dismissal of
the case. Under the amended Rules of Court, the failure to comply with a condition precedent is
no longer a ground for dismissal but already included in Sec. 12(a), Rule 8 as an affirmative
defense. In the case given, the petitioners successfully prevented the trial court from exercising
jurisdiction over the case by timely invoking the ground in their answer as an affirmative defense.
Thus, the complaint is dismissible for failure to comply with the mandatory requirement of
barangay conciliation as a condition precedent before filing an action.
➢ No alternative answer, added the additional notes

➢ On the part of Ngo, it may be possible to use as a defense that a Certificate to File Action was
already submitted stating that there were proceedings but the parties did not arrive at a
settlement. It can be presumed that the Certificate was issued by the barangay captain of
Barangay Lupon.

➢ Barangay conciliation is a condition precedent for filing a case. However, failure to comply with
a condition precedent is no longer a ground for a motion to dismiss under the Amended Rules. It
is now included in the enumerated Affirmative Defenses that may be set out in the answer under
Sec. 12(a), Rule 8. Being a waivable defense, the failure to raise non-compliance with condition
precedent in the answer constitutes a bar from raising such defense later in the proceedings. (UP
BOC)
Q6.
CC, assisted by a Public Attorney, filed a complaint with the RTC for damages against OO, with prayer to
prosecute the case as a pauper litigant. The RTC granted CC’s application to litigate as a pauper litigant
without hearing and without submitting any proof of indigency, and CC was thus exempted from the
payment of docket fees. Believing that CC was not qualified as a pauper litigant, OO’s counsel filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint for non-payment of docket fees arguing that the court did not acquire
jurisdiction over the complaint. The court denied the motion to dismiss. OO opted not to file an answer
upon the belief that the court lacked jurisdiction over the case due to non-payment of docket fees. Hence,
the court declared OO in default AND rendered judgment in favor of CC. OO appealed the judgment to
CA. During the pendency of the appeal, a law was passed exempting all clients of the PAO from the
payment of docket fees. In his brief, OO assigned as errors the following:
1)the RTC’s lack of jurisdiction over the case for non-payment of docket fees; 2)the RTC proceedings and
the decision rendered are void for lack of jurisdiction due to non-payment of docket fees. Assume you are
the counsel for CC, refute the assigned errors.
[ANSWER]
➢ As the counsel for CC I would argue that the RTC has jurisdiction over the case since there was
no evident bad faith on the part of CC as the pauper litigant in the non-payment of docket fees the
case should not be dismissed for non-payment of docket fees. There is also a law that was
passed exempting all PAO clients from payment of docket fees, as a result CC assisted by the
public attorney is exempt from payment of docket fees. Therefore the RTC proceedings and
decision is valid.

➢ Sun Insurance v. Asuncion
➢ Statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending
and undetermined at the time of their passage. Procedural laws are retrospective in that sense
and to that extent.
Q7.
123 Corporation entered into a contract of lease with NYC Bank whereby the latter agreed to lease in
favor of the former its 2,000 sq.m. warehouse. During the course of the lease period, the rented room had
some leaks and got flooded whenever there is heavy rain. 123 Corp. demanded from NYC to effect some
repairs per its obligation under the contract, but the latter ignored the demands. Hence, Ayudah Hazzan,
the General Manager of 123 Corp. filed a complaint for breach of contract. Assume you are the
counsel for NYC, based alone on the complaint, what defense/s would you state in the answer? Explain.
[ANSWER]
➢ I will allege in my counterclaim that the plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action because he is
not a real party in interest in the case.
A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the
suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Every action must be prosecuted or defended in
the name of the real party in interest.
➢
Q8.
In the preceding question, if the court renders judgment and you appeal the same, what will be your main
assignment of error? Explain.
[ANSWER]
➢ The main assignment of error would be the trial court’s “disregarding the allegations in the complaint" in
determining the existence or non-existence of a cause of action for failure to dismiss the case for a failure to
state a cause of action, and instead, rendered a decision.
➢ Since the lack of cause of action does not affect the authority of a court to hear and decide a
given case, if the court has jurisdiction over its subject matter, over the parties therein, and, in an
action in rem, over the res, the court could render a valid verdict in accordance with the prayer of
the complaint. (If hindi mag appeal na)
➢ No alternative answer

➢
Q9.
Art” filed a complaint for collection of a Php. 500,000.00 loan of “Bor” with the METC of Manila. Before
summons is served, “Art” filed a motion to dismiss his complaint claiming that he will refile it in the proper
court. Thereafter, “Art” refiled his same complaint with METC Manila, but he reduced his claim to Php.
400,000.00. Later, he filed a motion to dismiss before “Bor” could file an answer, stating that “Bor”
promised to pay the amount claimed. The court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint.
Subsequently, “Art” again filed the same complaint when “Bor” did not pay him. This time, he filed it in the
RTC as he prayed an award of P500,00.00. “Bor” filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of res judicata
based on the two dismissal rule. Decide the motion to dismiss.
[ANSWER]
➢
➢ The motion to dismiss filed by “Bor” on the ground of res judicata based on the two dismissal rule
will not give merit.
➢ In one case decided by the Supreme Court, the Doctrine of Res Judicata refers to "a final
judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive as to the
rights of the parties and their privies and constitutes an absolute bar to subsequent actions
involving the same claim, demand, or cause of action.”
➢ In this case, “Art” file a motion to dismiss his complaint to refile it with the proper court. Thereafter,
“Art” refiled the same complaint before the MeTC Manila with a prayer of Php400,000, he filed a
motion to dismiss before “Bor” could file an answer, stating that “Bor” promised to pay the amount
claimed which the court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint of “Art”. Subsequently,
“Art” again filed the same complaint when “Bor” did not pay him before the RTC with a prayer of
Php500,000. The purpose of the "two-dismissal rule" is "to avoid vexatious litigation. "When a
complaint is dismissed a second time, the plaintiff is now barred from seeking relief on the same
claim. Here, the plaintiff seeks 2 different prayers in different courts. Thus, the motion to dismiss
filed by “Bor” on the ground of res judicata based on the two dismissal rule will not give merit.

➢ Dismissal w/o Prejudice: The GR is that the action or claim may be refiled unless the action
cannot be refiled, since it was dismissed due to the following grounds: res judicata, prescription,
extinguishment of the claim or demand, and unenforcibility under the statue of frauds, in these
instances, the remedy of the plaintiff is now to appeal.
➢ Section 1, Rule 17: Dismissal upon notice by plaintiff. — A complaint may be dismissed by the
plaintiff by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service of the answer or of a motion for
summary judgment. Upon such notice being filed, the court shall issue an order confirming the
dismissal. Unless otherwise stated in the notice, the dismissal is without prejudice, except that a
notice operates as an adjudication upon the merits when filed by a plaintiff who has once
dismissed in a competent court an action based on or including the same claim. Unless otherwise
specified in the order, a dismissal under this paragraph shall be without prejudice. A class suit
shall not be dismissed or compromised without the approval of the court.
➢ Two Dismissal Rule:
Q10.
Xian filed a complaint for forcible entry against Yeng. After submission of position papers, the MTC
rendered a decision in favor of Xian and ordered Yeng to vacate the property. Yeng filed a motion for
reconsideration which was denied by the MTC after 30 days from the time it was filed. The MTC held that
the motion lacked merit. Immediately upon receipt of the order denying his motion for reconsideration,
Yeng’s counsel filed a notice of appeal. Assume you are the counsel for Xian, will you oppose the notice
of appeal? If so, on what ground?
[ANSWER]
➢ As MM's attorney, I will argue that L.L. split his cause of action, and therefore at least
one of the cases should be dismissed. The law provides that splitting a cause of action is
the act of dividing a single or indivisible cause of action into several parts or claims and
bringing several actions thereon and it is not allowed. Jurisprudence provides that a
single act/delict may sometimes violate several rights of a person. In this case, there is
only 1 cause of action of LL and that is, the non-payment of MM's money obligation
towards LL which includes the principal and interest.
➢ No motion for reconsideration allowed for summary procedure 🙂, thus the time for appeal has
already lapsed.
FROM JUSTICE’S PPT:
Splitting a single cause of action and its effects
➢ SPLITTING A CAUSE OF ACTION - The act of dividing a single or indivisible cause of

action into several parts or claims and bringing several actions thereon. IT IS NOT
ALLOWED.
➢ Splitting prohibition applies NOT only to complaints but also to counterclaims and
cross-claims, third-party claim, and the likes.
➢ A single act/delict may sometimes violate several rights of a person. Nevertheless the
plaintiff has only one cause of action regardless of the number of rights violated (Joseph
v. Bautista 170 SCRA 540 (1989)
Remedies against splitting a single cause of action:
A) Motion to dismiss on the ground of:

1)Litis pendentia (Sec. 12, Rule 15); or
2)Res judicata (Sec. 12, Rule 15]).
B) Plead in the answer as an affirmative defense. (Sec. 5(B), Rule 6)
➢ · GENERAL RULE: A contract embraces only one cause of action even if it contains
several stipulations.
➢ · EXCEPTION: A contract to do several things at several times is divisible, and
judgment for a single breach of a continuing contract is not a bar to a suit for a
subsequent breach. (e.g. promissory note payable in several installments so long as
there is no acceleration clause)
Q11.
Pappy filed a complaint against his daughter, Dada, for annulment of title and recovery of ownership of a
one-hectare agricultural land. Pappy alleged that Dada obtained title on the said land by forging his
signature in a Deed of Sale, and that he never sold the land to her. After Pappy’s presentation of his
evidence-in-chief, he died due to Covid19 infection. Dada is the only surviving heir of Pappy, although the
latter left a girlfriend. Pappy’s counsel filed a manifestation on the death of his client and stated that the
only surviving heir is the defendant, Dada. However, he manifested his opposition on the substitution of
Dada as plaintiff in the case because she is the defendant. Assume you are the counsel for Dada, what
arguments or procedural step/s would you advance or adopt? Explain.
[ANSWER]
➢ Move for the dismissal of the case on the basis that the ownership of the agricultural land is
already transferred to dada by operation of law being the sole heir of the property.
➢ No alternative answer.
➢ The case will be dismissed if the interest of the plaintiff is transferred to a defendant unless there
are several plaintiffs in which case, the remaining plaintiffs can proceed with their own cause of
action.
➢ The counsel of Pappy cannot anymore question the substitution of parties. PATAY NA SI PAPPY,
no more attorney-client relationship. :)

➢
Q12.
Noli is married to Cel. During the marriage, Noli purchased a residential lot in his name and stated therein
that he is a single. The TCT was thus issued in Noli’s name, as a single. Subsequently, Noli obtained a
loan from C- Bank in the amount of P1,000,000.00, and as security, he executed a real estate mortgage
over the said lot in favor of C-Bank. When Noli defaulted in paying the loan, C-Bank filed a petition for
extrajudicial foreclosure, a copy was sent to both spouses. Cel was surprised about the loan and
mortgage made by Noli, and discovered for the first time about the lot purchased by Noli in his name,
making it appear that he is a single. Hence, Cel filed a complaint for annulment of Real Estate Mortgage
against Noli and C-Bank in the RTC of Muntinlupa. Cel alleged in her complaint that the mortgaged
property is conjugal in nature because they have adopted conjugal partnership of gain to govern their
property regime. C-Bank filed an answer with an affirmative defense for the dismissal of the complaint for
failure to state a cause of action. C-Bank argued that Cel is not a real party in interest because the
mortgaged property is solely in Noli’s name, as single. Hence, C-Bank posits that it is a mortgagee in
good faith because the title of the mortgaged property was registered solely in Noli’s name, as a single;
thus, C-Bank further argued that regardless of whether the signature of Cel was forged or not is
immaterial to the validity of the real estate mortgage. The RTC denied the prayer to dismiss the
complaint. Undaunted, C-Bank filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals(CA) and reiterated
the same arguments as in the RTC. The CA dismissed the petition as it held that based on the facts as
admitted by C-Bank in its petition, C-Bank is a mortgagee in bad faith. The CA further held that the
mortgaged property is a conjugal property of the spouses Noli and Cel; as such, Cel is a real party in
interest to question the mortgage made without her consent. The CA decision became final and an entry
of judgment was issued. Back in the RTC, Cel presented her evidence and rested her case. During its
turn, C-Bank called to the witness stand its field investigator to prove that it is a mortgagee in good faith. It
also listed Noli as an adverse party witness to prove that the mortgaged property is not conjugal. Assume
you are the counsel for Cel, what argument/s would you advance to oppose the presentation of C-Bank’s
witnesses aforementioned.
[ANSWER]
➢ CA already decided on the issues, it will remain as the law of the case 🙂
thus, barring the
presentation of evidence regarding the nature of ownership of the property and the presence of
bad faith.
➢ only witnesses whose judicial affidavits are attached to the pleading shall be presented by the
parties during trial (?) not sure huhu

➢
Q13.
Upon receipt of the complaint for recovery of a vehicle, Judge “Mabilis” examined its content and found
that the venue was improperly laid. Consequently, he issued an order dismissing the complaint on that
ground. State whether the order of dismissal was correct or wrong.
[ANSWER]
➢ The order of dismissal was wrong. In civil cases, when the venue is improperly laid, the court
cannot motu proprio dismiss the case. Venue is procedural and not substantive. Venue is not a
matter of jurisdiction. Wrong venue is merely a procedural infirmity, not a jurisdictional
impediment.
➢ The answer is it depends. In civil cases, venue is jurisdictional and thus may be waived, either
expressly or impliedly. However, under Sec9, Rule IV of Expedited Rules of Procedure for First
Level Courts provides that in small claims cases, venue that is improperly laid is a ground for
motu proprio dismissal.

➢ The court cannot dismiss a complaint motu proporio. The only exceptions to this rule is: Sec 3,
Rule 17 & if there is no jurisdiction on the face of the complaint (Sec 1, Rule 9).
Q14.
Explain or illustrate the concept of “hypothetical admission” when a motion to dismiss is filed.
[ANSWER]
➢ When a motion to dismiss is filed, the material allegations of the complaint are deemed to be
hypothetically admitted. This hypothetical admission extends not only to the relevant and material
facts as well pleaded in the complaint, but also to inferences that may be fairly deduced from
them. A motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action HYPOTHETICALLY ADMITS the
material allegations of the complaint. However, there are exceptions. (G.R. No. L- 24548; October
27, 1983)
[1] Matters of evidence;

[2] Scandalous matters;
[3] Legally impossible facts;
[4] Facts inadmissible in evidence;
[5] Surplus and irrelevant matters;
[6] Conclusions or interpretations of law; and
[7] Averments contradicted by more specific averments;
[8] Allegations of which the court will take judicial notice are not true;
➢ In a motion to dismiss, what is being interposed is an affirmative defense. Under the Rules of
Court, an affirmative defense is an allegation of a new matter which, while hypothetically
admitting the material allegations in the pleading of the claimant, would nevertheless prevent or
bar recovery by him or her.
For instance, the defendant “may admit hypothetically” that he or she indeed owed the plaintiff a
sum of money and that he or she failed to pay upon demand, and while hypothetically admitting,
interposes a new matter or allegation barring the recovery of the claim, and that is the right of
action has already prescribed, it being more than 10 years already.

➢
Q15.
“A” filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court
denied the motion. Subsequently, “A” filed an answer and raised as an affirmative defense that the court
did not acquire jurisdiction over his person because the summons was not validly served on him. Rule on
the affirmative defense.
[ANSWER]
➢ The affirmative defense is untenable. Sec 23, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides that
inclusion in a motion to dismiss other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the defendant
shall be deemed a voluntary appearance. Hence, by filing a motion to dismiss outright based on
the ground of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the defendant is deemed to have acquiesced to
the Court’s jurisdiction.
➢ The defense is with merit. The defendants in the case at bar appeared through a special
appearance, an exception to the rule on voluntary appearance. A party who makes a special
appearance in court, challenging the jurisdiction of said court, is not deemed to have submitted
himself to the jurisdiction of the court. Jurisdiction over the person must be seasonably raised,
i.e., that it is pleaded in a motion to dismiss or by way of an affirmative defense in an answer.
Voluntary appearance shall be deemed a waiver of this defense. The assertion, however, of
affirmative defenses shall not be construed as an estoppel or as a waiver of such defense. Thus,
if proven that the summons was not validly served, the defense may be given merit.

➢ The submission of other issues in a motion to dismiss, or of an affirmative defense (as
distinguished from an affirmative relief) in an answer, would necessarily foreclose, and have the
effect of a waiver of, the right of a defendant to set up the court’s lack of jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant. . . . In the same manner that a plaintiff may assert two or more causes of
action in a court suit, a defendant is likewise expressly allowed, under Section 2, Rule 8, of the
Rules of Court, to put up his own defenses alternatively or even hypothetically. Indeed, under
Section 2, Rule 9, of the Rules of Court, defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion
to dismiss or in an answer, except for the failure to state a cause of action, are deemed waived.
We take this to mean that a defendant may, in fact, feel enjoined to set up, along with his
objection to the court’s jurisdiction over his person, all other possible defenses. It thus appears
that it is not the invocation of any of such defenses, but the failure to so raise them, that can
result in waiver or estoppel. By defenses, of course, we refer to the grounds provided for in Rule
16 of the Rules of Court that must be asserted in a motion to dismiss or by way of affirmative
defenses in an answer.
Q16.
“B” filed an answer to the complaint for recovery of real property filed by “C”. Subsequently, “B’s” counsel
realized that the complaint is defective as it did not allege the assessed value of the property, and neither
any document was attached to determine the assessed value. Hence, “B”, through counsel, filed a motion
to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction. “C’s” counsel opposed on the ground of alleged waiver of such
ground on the part “B”, and, because the motion is unprocedural as it was filed after the filing of an
answer. Rule on the motion by discussing the parties’ arguments.
[ANSWER]
➢ The motion to dismiss shall be granted. Jurisdiction is conferred by law and determined by the
allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought (p. 70, Riano). Complaint for
recovery of real property is a real action and jurisdiction over real actions will involve
determination of the assessed value of the property. Hence, since the complaint did not allege the
assessed value of the property and there was no proof attached to determine the assessed value,
then the court has not acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter.
C’s counsel’s argument is untenable. Jurisprudence dictates that objections to jurisdiction cannot
be waived and may be brought at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal (G.R. No.
251177).
➢ Lack of jursidiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even for the first time on
appeal. Hence, B can validly file a motion to dismiss…actually same sa answer above

➢
Q17.
“A” filed a complaint against “B” for damages sustained by his car based on a traffic accident. “B”
filed his answer to the complaint, and denied being the cause of the damage to “A’s” car. Claiming that
“A” was very much aware that it was “C” who caused the damage to his car because “C’ recklessly
drove his car that hit and bumped “B’s” car, which in turn, bumped “A’s” car, B interposed a
counterclaim on the ground of malicious prosecution by “A” against him. “B” also filed leave to
file a third-party complaint against “C”, and the court granted. Hence, his third-party complaint was
admitted. Realizing his error, “A” subsequently filed a motion to dismiss his complaint against “B.”
If the court grants the motion of “A,” may “B” insists on prosecuting his counterclaim against “A”, as
well as his third-party complaint against “C,” in the same case?. Discuss and give reasons.
[ANSWER]
➢ ➢ Yes. Under Sec. 2 Rule 17, the dismissal upon motion by the plaintiff shall be without
prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in a separate action unless
within 15 calendar days from notice of the motion the defendant manifests his preference to have
his counterclaim resolved in the same action.
➢ (1) On the counterclaim. B can insist on prosecuting his counterclaim against A. However, where
a complaint is dismissed the defendant must notify the court within 15 days whether to prosecute
his counterclaim in the same case or in another case.
(2) On the third-party complaint against C. B can insist on prosecuting his third party complaint. It
would depend on the nature of third party complaint: Complaint can stand alone even with the
dismissal and the counterclaim of defendant, such complaint may be maintained; or Complaint is
based on the success of defendant on the answer, then such complaint may also be dismissed.
Here, the complaint can stand alone even with the dismissal since the third party C was already
impleaded in the case and an allegation as to damages against C can still be pursued where the
dismissed complaint only concerns of A seeking damages from B.

Section 4. Dismissal of counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party complaint. — The provisions of
this Rule shall apply to the dismissal of any counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party complaint.
A voluntary dismissal by the claimant by notice as in Section 1 of this Rule, shall be made
before a responsive pleading or a motion for summary judgment is served or, if there is none,
before the introduction of evidence at the trial or hearing.
Q18.
AJ filed a complaint for collection of sum of money against BJ. The sheriff went to the house of BJ to
serve the summons, but only his wife was there. The sheriff handed the summons to BJ’s wife and made
a return indicating such fact. For failure of BJ to file an answer within 30 days as required in the
summons, and on motion of AJ’s counsel, the RTC, where the case was raffled, declared BJ in default.
Thereafter, it rendered a decision granting all the relief prayed for by AJ. Assume you are the counsel for
BJ what procedural remedy would you take? What ground/s would you raise? Explain.
[ANSWER]
➢ The procedure for a proper service of summons was not complied with. Substituted service may
only be availed when for justifiable reasons, the defendant cannot be served personally after at
least 3 attempts of 2 different dates. (Sec. 6, Rule 14 and Manotoc v. CA)
The service of summons to the wife of BJ would only be valid if it was shown that there were
previous attempts to personally deliver it to BJ.
➢ Legal basis
Section 6. Substituted service. — If, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be served
personally after at least three (3) attempts on two (2) separate dates, service may be effected:
(a) By leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's residence to a person at least
eighteen (18) years of age and of sufficient discretion residing therein;
(b) By leaving copies of the summons at defendant's office or regular place of business with
some competent person in charge thereof. A competent person includes, but not limited to,
one who customarily receives correspondences for the defendant;
(c) By leaving copies of the summons, if refused entry upon making his or her authority and
purpose known, with any of the officers of the homeowner’s association or condominium
corporation, or its chief security officer in charge of the community or the building where the
defendant may be found; and
(d) By sending an electronic mail to the defendant’s electronic mail address, if allowed by the
court.
Q19.
In the preceding question, after the declaration of default and before judgment is rendered, BJ’s counsel
filed a motion to lift the order of default and to admit answer alleging that the reason why he failed to
timely file an answer was that the summons was improperly served. The RTC nonetheless denied BJ’s
motion stating that BJ has already made a voluntary appearance. Hence, the RTC proceeded to allow AJ
to present evidence exparte following the default order, and rendered judgment thereafter. Questions: is
there a voluntary appearance on the part of BJ? Is the judgment rendered thereunder valid? Explain your
answers.
[ANSWER]
There is no voluntary appearance on the part of BJ. Because the contention of the counsel of BJ
that the summons was improperly served constitutes special appearance. Special appearance is
the exception to the general rule on voluntary appearance. Therefore, the RTC did not acquire
jurisdiction over the person of BJ.
The judgment rendered by the RTC is null and void. Because the RTC never acquired jurisdiction
over the person of BJ since the summons was improperly served. (Sec.13 Rule 14)
➢ There is a voluntary appearance on the part of BJ. Jurisprudence provides that When a party
requests affirmative relief from the court without specifically challenging the court's lack of
jurisdiction, this is referred to as a voluntary appearance. Also in the same case decided by the
Supreme Court , by seeking affirmative relief in his Opposition without objecting to the jurisdiction
of the trial court, the defendant thereby voluntarily submitted to its jurisdiction therefore his
voluntary appearance thus cured the defect in the service of the summons. In this case, BJ
through his counsel filed a motion to lift the order of default and to admit answer alleging that the
reason why he failed to timely file an answer without objecting the jurisdiction of the court and that
act alone constitutes his voluntary appearance. This now gives the RTC the jurisdiction over BJ
and therefore it’s decision is valid.
➢
➢
➢ A party who makes a special appearance in court challenging the jurisdiction of said court based
on the ground of invalid service of summons is not deemed to have submitted itself to the
jurisdiction of the court [ G.R. No. 203298. January 17, 2018 ]
Q20.
GG, a high public official, was sued for forfeiture of ill-gotten wealth. The summons was issued and
served with a copy of the complaint on GG’s wife. The sheriff’s return states that because GG was in jail,
due to a plunder case, at the time of service of summons, the summons was handed to his wife DD, at
their residence, and who readily received it and undertook to deliver the same to her husband GG. Was
the summons validly served? Explain.
[ANSWER]
➢ The summons were invalidly served. Under the rules, when the defendant is a prisoner confined
in jail or institution, service shall be effected upon him or her by the officer having the
management of such jail or institution who is deemed as a special sheriff for said purpose. The
jail warden shall file a return within five (5) calendar days from service of summons to the
defendant.
Applying it in the instant case, considering that GG was in jail and the summons were served to
his wife and not to the jail manager or director of prison, the summons were invalidly served.
Q21.
In the preceding question, will your answer be the same if the summons and complaint were served by
the sheriff on GG’s wife DD, while the latter was in the jail visiting GG at the time of service?
[ANSWER]
➢ When the defendant is a prisoner confined in a jail or institution, service shall be effected upon
the prisoner by the officer having the management of such jail or institution who is deemed
deputized as a special sheriff for said purpose (Sec. 8, Rule 14). Resort to substituted service is
permitted only when the summons cannot be promptly served on the defendant in person and
after stringent formal and substantive requirements have been complied with. There is no
justifiable reason why the service of summons cannot be effected upon GG personally since he is
in jail.
➢
Q22.
Mar filed a complaint for breach of contract with damages against Archi, for the latter’s alleged failure to
timely finish the construction of his house for a period of six months. In his answer, Archi averred that the
reason why the project’s completion was delayed was due to the delay of the delivery of the special glass
materials which Mar himself ordered from a supplier ABC Glass Corporation(ABC). With this information,
Mar wants to include ABC as a defendant. Assume you are the counsel for Mar, what move or advice will
you give? Explain.
[ANSWER]
➢ I will advice Mar to amend the complaint.

➢ Rule 10 of the Rules of Court provides that a party may amend the complaint to add another
patrty.
➢ In this case, Mar wants to include ABC as a defendant. He may amend the complaint filed with
leave of court because it is no longer a matter of right but a matter of discretion. Thus, I will
advice Mar to amend the complaint with leave of court.
Q23.
Ayyudah, a Labanese, came to put up an oil business in the Philippines. Upon his enticement, he was
able to convince Hazzan, a former Lebanese but who is already a naturalized Filipino Citizens, as he is
married to a Filipina, and has several businesses here, to invest Fifty Million Pesos for the project. After
receiving the money, Ayyudah went back to Lebanon, purportedly to talk to the oil suppliers for the
intended oil business in the Philippines. After a year, nothing was heard of from Ayyudah, as he never
came back to the country since he left in 2016. Worse, Hazzan was able to discover from his friends in
Lebanon that Ayyudah was a fraud and had several cases in Lebanon for defrauding people. Hazzan
approached you as he intends to file a civil complaint against Ayyudah in order to get back his money.
What advice will you give regarding the probability of obtaining a favorable judgment, once the complaint
is filed here, considering that Ayyudah has no residence in the Philippines.
[ANSWER]
➢ A.M. No.11-3-6-SC AMENDED SECTION 12, RULE14 OF THE RULES OF COURT ON

SERVICE UPON FOREIGN PRIVATE JURIDICAL ENTITY will apply. (Make sure to serve
summons throught the following means below:)
➢ If the foreign private juridical entity is not registered in the Philippines or has no resident
agent, service may, with leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines through any of the
following means:
a) By personal service coursed through the appropriate court in the foreign country with the
assistance of the Department of Foreign Affairs;
b)By publication once in a newspaper of general circulation in the country where the defendant
may be found and by serving a copy of the summons and the court order by registered mail at the
last known address of the defendant;
c)By facsimile or any recognized electronic means that could generate proof of service; or
d)By such other means as the court may in its discretion direct."
➢ Can’t think of any alternative answer. Same answer above.
Q24.
Alona filed a complaint for collection of a loan of P500,000.00 against Belle, the borrower. Attached to the
complaint is a copy of the promissory note signed by Belle. Belle filed her unverified answer and denied
having borrowed any money from Alona. Belle also put up a counterclaim against Alona for the latter’s
unpaid loan of P300,000.00, as shown in the promissory note appended to her pleading. Assume that the
case will now proceed to trial, what fact/s are deemed already admitted, and for which they should no
longer be litigated during the trial of the case.
[ANSWER]
The fact that Belle owed P500,000.00 from Alona as evidenced by the promissory note is
deemed admitted.
According to Rule 8, whenever an action is based on an actionable document, the adverse party
who desires to deny the genuineness and due execution of such document, he must, in his
answer or responsive pleading, specifically deny and make a verified denial or a denial under
oath.
Specific denial is sufficient if it specifically denies the material allegations as well as it indicates
the substance of the matter it relies on to support the denial while denial under oath means that
the pleading must be verified. (optional)
In this case, Belle submitted an unverified answer and made only a general denial which are
clearly not in compliance with the rule since a promissory note, an actionable document, is
attached in the complaint.
Therefore, the contents and information in the promissory are deemed admitted and they are no
longer needed to be litigated during the trial of the case.
Q25.
Differentiate Court Annexed Mediation from Judicial Dispute Resolution, as to referral, and who presides.
Explain the confidentiality rule in both proceedings, and who are the parties or persons bound by under
the said rule?
[ANSWER]
➢ After pre-trial and, after issues are joined, the court shall refer the parties for mandatory
court-annexed mediation. The period of court-annexed mediation shall not exceed thirty (30)
calendar days without further extension. Outcome of CAM is if settled, courts
approves/disapproves settlement; if no settlement, court may refer case for JDR or go to trial.
JDR on the other hand has a Two judge system; JDR Judge shall conduct the JDR, upon referral
of the judge of the court where the case was originally raffled. Duration of JDR is within a
non-extendible period of fifteen (15) calendar days from notice of failure of the court-annexed
mediation. CAM is for civil and selected criminal cases, while JDR is for civil cases only.
➢ The proceedings during the CAM and JDR is CONFIDENTIAL. All participants are covered by the
confidentiality rule. But, the confidentiality can be waived.
➢
➢
_____________________
QS 2022
Q1.
Under the rules, the Supreme Court has concurrent original jurisdiction over Petitions for Certiorari,
Prohibition, and Mandamus under Rule 65. Illustrate, by giving example, how concurrent original
jurisdiction operates and what is the limitation?
[ANSWER]
➢ Concurrent jurisdiction exists when two or more courts are given the equal authority to hear and
decide a case.
The limitation is the doctrine of hierarchy of courts where direct resort to supreme court is
improper because it is the court of last resort.
An example is that in a Petition for Habeas Corpus and quo warranto, the Supreme Court has
concurrent jurisdiction with the CA and RTC.
Q2.
XX filed with the RTC of Manila, a complaint for specific performance with prayer for preliminary injunction
to enjoin the defendant YY from terminating the contract of lease pending litigation. The case was raffled
to RTC Manila, Branch 52. After summary hearing, the RTC Manila, Br. 52 granted the preliminary
injunction. After posting the injunction bond, the writ of injunction was issued and about to be
implemented by the sheriff of Br. 52. Subsequently, YY filed a complaint for injunction with the RTC
Manila, seeking to enjoin the sheriff from implementing the writ of preliminary injunction. Assume that you
are the counsel for XX, what remedy would you adopt to counter YY’s complaint?
[ANSWER]
➢ As counsel for XX, I would file a motion to dismiss on the grounds of litis pendentia. Under Sec. 5,
Rule 6 of the Rules of Court, litis pendentia, or when there is another action pending between the
same parties for the same cause, is a ground for dismissal of a complaint. The requisites of litis
pendentia are: (1) the identity of the parties; (2) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for,
the relief being founded on the same facts; and (3) identity of two cases such that judgment in
one would amount to res judicata in the other.
In the present case, there is identity of parties, XX and YY; the rights asserted and reliefs sought
are founded on the facts, that is the termination of the subject contract of lease pending litigation;
and identity of cases such that res judicata would result from judgment of either one, because a
complaint for injunction is a different remedy from the auxiliary writ of preliminary injunction,
wherein the a complaint for injunction seeks for an adjudication as to the merits, and if decided in
favor of plaintiff, the court shall grant a final injunction permanently enjoining the defendant from
committing the act complained. Should the complaint for injunction filed by YY be granted, it
would constitute res judicata to the original complaint for specific performance with prayer with
preliminary injunction filed by XX, since the court would have to render judgment as to merits.
Thus, all the elements of litis pendentia present, the YY’s motion should be dismissed.
Q3.
AA, a 17 years old girl, filed a complaint for damages against BB, 40 years old, based on the latter’s FB
post making it appear that they had sexual contact when in truth the same post is false because they are
not known to each other. Besides, they never had any chance to meet with each other. Assume you are
the counsel for BB, what remedy would you adopt to counter AA’s complaint?
[ANSWER]
➢ To counter AA’s complaint, BB can resort to the modes of discovery under the Rules of Court —
which is used as a device along with the pre-trial hearing to narrow and clarify basic issues
between the parties and to fully ascertain if there is indeed a claim.
BB can also wait until the prosecution rested its case and move for dismissal on the ground that
upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief under Rule 33 of the Rules of
Court. The effect of the grant is the dismissal of the case.
(Not sure. If not remedies under modes of discovery or demurrer to evidence — file an answer,
specifically denying the allegations and file a counterclaim against AA)

Q4.
A complaint was filed by CC against DD for collection of sum of money. Upon order of the Court, the
Branch Clerk issued the summons, and directed the sheriff to serve it on DD. The sheriff went to the
house of DD, but the latter was not there. The sheriff served the summons on the wife of DD. As DD
failed to file an answer, he was declared in default, and judgment was rendered against him. If DD
interposes an appeal, what should be the best error that may be assigned to repel the decision?
[ANSWER]
➢ DD can say that the act of the sheriff delivering the summons to DD’s wife is in violation of the
procedure for a proper service of summons. The law provides that substituted service is only
permissible when the defendant cannot be served personally after at least three attempts on two
distinct dates for justifiable reasons. In this case, the Sheriff only made one attempt to serve the
summons directly to DD, he went straight to his wife without even stating the reason why.
Therefore, the best error that may be assigned so the DD can repel the decision is the Improper
service of Summons.
(Agree with the main A. Placed notes instead)

UP LMT: When is substituted service of summons allowed?
ANS: It is allowed if, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be served personally after at
least 3 attempts on 2 different dates. It may be effected by:
1. By leaving copies of the summons at the defendant’s residence to a person at least 18 years
of age and of sufficient discretion residing therein;
2. By leaving the copies of the summons at the defendant’s office or regular place of business
with some competent person in charge thereof.
3. By leaving copies of the summons, if refused entry upon making his or her authority and
purpose known, with any of the officers of the homeowners' association or condominium
corporation, or its chief security officer in charge of the community or the building where the
defendant may be found; and 4. By sending an electronic mail to the defendant's electronic mail
address, if allowed by the court. [Rule 14, Section 6]
Q5.
A complaint was filed by EE against FF for damages. Upon order of the Court, the Branch Clerk issued
the summons, and directed the sheriff to serve it on FF. The sheriff went to the house of FF, but the
latter was not there. The sheriff served the summons on the wife of FF. FF filed a motion for
extension of time to file answer and the Court granted him 15 days additional time to file answer. Still,
FF failed to file an answer. Thus, he was declared in default, and judgment was rendered against
him. FF filed a motion for reconsideration against the decision claiming that it is null and void
because the Court never acquired jurisdiction over his person. Assume you are the judge, how
would you resolve FF’s motion for reconsideration?
[ANSWER]
➢ Deny the motion. Because the defendant has already made a voluntary appearance therefore he
can no longer question the validity of service of summons. By his voluntary appearance he is
deemed to have waived the issue on jurisdiction and validity of service of summons. As provided
for under Sec 23 Rule 14 ROC.
Section 23. Voluntary appearance. — The defendant's voluntary appearance in the action
shall be equivalent to service of summons. The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other
grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall be deemed a
voluntary appearance.
What are the instances under jurisprudence wherein the court construed there is voluntary
appearance?
1. By filing an answer (Guy vs. Gacott, GR No. 206147, January 13, 2016).
2. By asking for affirmative relief from the Court (Reicon Realty Builders Corp vs.
Diamond Dragon, GR No. 204796, February 4, 2015).
3. The inclusion in a motion to dismiss on other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant shall be deemed a voluntary appearance.
However, the mere act of the defendant or his counsel in making a conditional
appearance or special appearance in court to object to the jurisdiction of the court over
his person, is not deemed a voluntary appearance or voluntary submission to the
jurisdiction of the court.
Q6.
GG intends to file a complaint for sum of money on May 10, 2022 against HH. She intends to collect the
following amounts: Principal= P1,000,000.00; Interest=P500,000.00; Surcharge= P600,000.00; and
Attorney’s Fees=P200,000.00. In what Court level should the complaint be filed? Explain.
[ANSWER]
➢ GG should file her complaint in the First Level Courts.
The law provides that actions demanding sums of money not exceeding P2,000,000.00
is within the original/exclusive jurisdiction of First Level Courts. The law also provides
that the amount of sums of money demanded is exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs, the amount of which must
be specifically alleged but the filing fees thereon shall be paid
In this case, GG’s complaint for sum of money exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind and attorney’s fees only amounts to P1,000,000.00. Therefore, her claims
fall within the original/exclusive jurisdiction of First level Courts.
FIRST LEVEL COURTS

A. ORIGINAL/EXCLUSIVE /CIVIL
● Actions involving personal property valued at not more than P2,000,000.00;
● Actions demanding sums of money not exceeding P2,000,000.00; Admiralty and maritime cases
included.
○ Note: amount of sums of money demanded is exclusive of interest, damages of whatever
kind , attorney’s fees ,litigation expenses and costs (IDALEC), the amount of which must
be specifically alleged but the filing fees thereon shall be paid
○ Note: damages will only be excluded if it is merely incidental to a principal action. If the
claim for damages is the principal action then the amount of damages claimed shall be
determinative of jurisdiction. Totality rule applies.
● Probate proceedings, testate or intestate, where gross value of the estate does not exceed
P2,000,000.000(BP 129, Sec. 33, as amended by RA 11576);
● Actions involving title to or possession of real property or any interest therein where the assessed
value does not Exceed P400,000.00;
● Provisional remedies in principal actions within their jurisdiction
● Inclusion and exclusion of voters(Sec. 38, BP 881);
● Cases covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure
○ a. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer actions, with jurisdiction to resolve the issue of
ownership only to determine the issue of possession; irrespective of the amount of
damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered. Where attorney’s fees are awarded,
the same shall not exceed P20,000
● 8. Small claims.
Q7.
HH filed with the RTC of Makati, a complaint for recovery of ownership of a residential lot. HH alleged in
his complaint that the lot involved has a fair market value (FMV) of P3,000,000.00. The lot was
fraudulently titled in the name of the defendant, II. A motion to dismiss was filed by II, on the ground that
the Court lacked jurisdiction over the complaint for failure to allege the assessed value. HH opposed the
motion and argued that based on the FMV, the RTC has jurisdiction. Assume you are the judge, resolve
the motion to dismiss.
[ANSWER]
➢ As the judge, I would rule in favor of II. The law provides that in cases involving ownership or
possession of real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property
exceeds P400,000 the RTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over the case. The difference
between assessed value and fair market value is that the fair market value is the price at which a
property could be anticipated to trade in an open market and on the other hand an assessed
value assesses a property's worth based on input from government tax assessors and
determines the amount of property taxes an owner can anticipate paying. In this case HH filed
with the RTC of Makati, a complaint for recovery of ownership of a residential lot but he stated the
fair market value instead of the assessed value required by law. Therefore, I would grant the
motion to dismiss of II.
➢ I will grant the motion to dismiss.

➢ Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 is explicit that the jurisdiction of the court over an action involving
title to, or possession of a real property is determined by its assessed value and not the market
value thereof. It contemplates a more conservative and stable method of valuation that is based
on a standard mechanism (multiplying the fair market value by the assessment level) conducted
by the local assessors. This assessed value must be averred in the complaint; otherwise, it
cannot be ascertained which trial court shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the action.
➢ The assessed value of the realty in question must be clearly set forth in the complaint to prompt
the court whether it can or cannot take cognizance of the case.
Q8.
In the preceding question (Q7), may HH amend the complaint to state the assessed value of the
controverted lot, and attached a copy of the Tax Declaration which indicates its assessed value as
P600,000.00? Explain.
[ANSWER]
➢ Yes. The law provides that A party has the right to amend his pleading once at any time before
a responsive pleading is served or, in the case of a reply, at any time within ten (10) calendar
days of its service. In this case, HH ,as a party , has the right to amend and he can act on
his right because a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading . Therefore, HH can
amend his complaint before a responsive pleading has been served or with 10 days of the
service of a reply.
Rule 10, Section 2. Amendments as a matter of right. — A party may amend his pleading once
as a matter of right at any time before a responsive pleading is served or, in the case of a
reply, at any time within ten (10) calendar days after it is served.
Q9.
JJ filed with the RTC of Pasig, a complaint for unlawful detainer against KK. JJ alleged in the complaint
that the house and lot involved has a fair market value (FMV) of P3,000,000.00, and an assessed value of
P600,000.00. The lot was rented by KK, but the lease contract has expired. Thus, JJ averred that the
complaint was filed within one year from the date of expiration of the contract. A motion to dismiss was
filed by KK, on the ground that the Court lacked jurisdiction over the complaint, as it should have been
filed with the MeTC of Pasig. JJ opposed the motion and argued that based on the FMV and the
assessed value, the RTC has jurisdiction. Assume that the allegation in the complaint were true, and you
were the judge, how would you resolve the motion to dismiss? Explain.
[ANSWER]
➢ I will grant KK’s motion to dismiss.

Under RA 11576, RTC has jurisdiction in all civil actions involving title to, or possession of, real
property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value exceeds P400K, except for forcible
entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred
upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts, and Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts,
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. By way of exception, unlawful detainer and forcible entry cases
will always be cognizable by the first level courts regardless of the assessed value involved.
In this case, since the complaint filed by JJ was for unlawful detainer, even if the assessed value
of the property involved was P600K, JJ should have filed his complaint before the MeTC of Pasig.
RTC Pasig has no jurisdiction to take JJ’s unlawful detainer case.
➢
Section 1. Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as “The Judiciary Reorganization
Act of 1980,” as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Section 19. Jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts in Civil Cases. – Regional Trial Courts
shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
“x x x
“(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any
interest therein, where the assessed value exceeds Four hundred thousand pesos
(P400,000.00), except for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings,
original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts, and
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
Section 2. Section 33 of the same law is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Section 33. Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. – Metropolitan Trial
Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts shall exercise:
(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real
property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the property or any interest therein
does not exceed Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) exclusive on interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That in cases of land not
declared for taxation purposes, the value of such property shall be determined by the assessed
value of the adjacent lots.
Q10.
In RTC Manila, a complaint for sum of money in the principal amount of P3,000,000.00 was filed by LL
against MM, on January 05, 2022. Subsequently, on April 12, 2022, LL filed another complaint against
MM with the MeTC of Manila to collect the interest due on the principal, which amounts to P500,000.00.
LL alleged that the reason why the P500,000.00 interest was not included in the first complaint was due to
the fact that the said interest was not yet due and demandable at the time the first complaint was filed.
Assume that you are the counsel for MM, what remedy would you adopt to counter LL’s second
complaint that was filed with the MeTC of Manila? Explain.
[ANSWER]
➢ A party may not institute more than 1 suit for a single cause of action. If two or more suits are
instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits
in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others on the ground of res judicata or
litis pendentia. (Secs 3 & 4, Rule 2; Sec. 12, Rule 15).
In the case, I will file a motion to dismiss on the ground of litis pendentia since the first complaint
in RTC Manila is pending when the second complaint was filed.
Q11.
In the preceding question (Q10), instead of filing another complaint, is there another remedy available
under the rules, for LL to include in his first complaint, his claim for P500,000.00 interest against MM?
Explain.
[ANSWER]
➢ Section 1, Rule 10 of Rules on Civil Procedure allows a pleading to be amended among others by
adding or striking out an allegation. In this case, instead of filing another complaint, LL may
amend his pleading by adding his claim for interest. Further, such amendment may be done
either as a matter of right or by leave of court. It is a matter of right if there has been no
responsive pleading filed yet. On the other hand, it is by leave of court if there has been a
responsive pleading filed.
Q12.
In the RTC of Bulacan, NN filed a complaint for annulment of title against OO. NN alleged that OO’s title
on the lot in dispute is void because the Deed of Sale was not signed by NN, but by an impostor, who
even used a void reconstituted owner’s copy of NN’s title, and that the original of the same is with NN. As
OO was in actual possession of the property, NN joined as one of his causes of action, an averment for
forcible entry and prayed that aside from declaring OO’s title as void, OO should also be ordered to
surrender his possession of the premises. Records show that the complaint was filed within one year from
the time OO entered the lot in controversy. Assume you are the counsel for OO, do you have any
objection to NN’s complaint regarding joinder of his causes of action? Explain.
[ANSWER]
➢

➢ The Joinder of causes of action shall not include Special Civil Actions covered in Rules 62-71
Q13.
A residential property consisting of 1,000 square meters located in Old Sta. Mesa, Manila, is co-owned by
A, B, and C. The said property was inherited by them from their late father, PP, evidenced by a Deed
Extrajudicial Partition that they have executed, and duly recorded with the Register of Deeds for Manila.
D, claiming to be the child of PP from another woman, filed a complaint for the recovery of his share and
partition of the same property. Made as defendants in his complaint were A and B only. He did not
implead C because the latter is already residing in the U.S.A., and he does not know C’s address therein.
Assume you are the counsel for A and B, what affirmative defense or objection would you allege in the
answer of your clients? Explain.
[ANSWER]
➢ As the counsel for A and B I would object on the non-inclusion of C as the defendant in the
complaint. Under the Rules of Court, all the co-owners are indispensable parties and failure to
implead an indispensable party although not a ground for a motion to dismiss shall constitute a
void judgment. (Sec. 7 Rule 3)
Q14.
In the preceding question (Q13), what, if any, is the remedy/procedure available under the rules, for D to
implead C as co-defendant of A and B in the action? Explain.
[ANSWER]
➢ The remedy of D to implead C as co-defendant of A and B is to file an amended pleading to

implead C as an indispensable party.
An indispensable party must be joined in the proceedings, otherwise, the proceedings are void.
(Section 7, Rule 3) A co-owner of a real property is considered an indispensable party.
➢
Q15.
In the MeTC of Caloocan City, QQ filed on March 1, 2022, a complaint against RR for recovery of
ownership of a 2,000 square meter residential lot situated in Quezon City. In his complaint, QQ alleged
that the controverted lot has an assessed value of P200,000.00, as supported by the Tax Declaration
appended to the complaint. RR filed a motion to dismiss and argued that the RTC has no jurisdiction over
the complaint considering its assessed value which is more than P50,000.00. The RTC denied RR’s
motion to dismiss citing the new law, R.A. 11576, which amended B.P. 129 and R.A. 7691, thereby
expanding the jurisdiction of the MeTCs and all first level courts such that, in real action where the
assessed value of the property is P400,000.00 and below, the first level courts have jurisdiction.
Subsequently, RR filed an answer and raised as an affirmative defense that the complaint should be
dismissed due to improper venue. QQ’s counsel opposed the affirmative defense on the ground of waiver
of venue, since it was not raised earlier when RR filed a motion to dismiss. Assume that you are the
judge, rule on RR’s affirmative defense of improper venue, citing your basis.
[ANSWER]
➢ As the judge, I would rule in favor of the affirmative defense of improper venue. In a real action,
the venue in this place where the real property or any portion thereof is located. (Sec. 1, Rule 4)
➢ I will grant RR’s affirmative defense of improper venue. 2019 Amendments to 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure prohibits motion to dismiss based on improper venue. The rule now is to raise it as an
affirmative defense in an answer. If no motion to dismiss had been filed or allowed, any of the
grounds for dismissal provided for in Rule 16, INCLUDING IMPROPER VENUE, may be pleaded
as affirmative defenses and a preliminary hearing may be had thereon at the discretion of the
court. In CASES UNDER RSP preliminary hearing of affirmative defenses is not permitted
(Bayview Hotel Case).
Q16.
In the MeTC of Makati City, SSS filed on March 1, 2022, a complaint against TTT for recovery of
ownership of a 50 square meter, which is a portion of the 5,000 square meter residential lot titled in TTT’s
name. In his complaint, SSS alleged that the controverted lot has an assessed value of P500,000.00, as
supported by the Tax Declaration appended to the complaint. TTT filed a motion to dismiss and argued
that the MeTC has no jurisdiction over the complaint considering its assessed value which is more than
P400,000.00. TTT cites the new law, R.A. 11576, which amended B.P. 129 and R.A. 7691, thereby
expanding the jurisdiction of the MeTCs and all first level courts such that, in real action where the
assessed value of the property is above P400,000.00, the RTCs have jurisdiction. SSS’s counsel
opposed the motion and posited that since only 50 square meters of the 5,000.00 sq.m. that is the subject
of the action, then logically and mathematically, the assessed value of the 50 sq.m. subject of the case is
only P5,000.00. Hence, SSS submits that the MeTC has jurisdiction. Assume that you are the judge, rule
on TTT’s motion to dismiss, citing your basis.
[ANSWER]
➢ I will rule in favor of TTT’s motion to dismiss.

➢ RA 11576 provides that the jurisdiction must be based on the assessed value of the property.
➢ In this case, the assessed value must be based on the whole property and not on a partial portion
of the property. Thus, I will rule in favor of of TTT’s motion to dismiss.
Q17.
State the conditions and procedures before a plaintiff may resort to service of summons by publication
on a defendant residing in the Philippines.
[ANSWER]
The following are the requisites to a service of summons by publication:
1. Where identity and whereabouts are UNKNOWN and CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED by

diligent inquiry;
2. Summons was served in person and by substituted service but failed
3. There must be LEAVE OF COURT.
4. There must be a service of summons by registered mail.
5. Motion for leave must be supported by affidavit of merit setting forth the grounds:
a. Where the affidavit must alleged that: the newspaper is published for the
dissemination of local news and general information;
b. That, it has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers;
c. That it is published at regular intervals.
➢ Rule 14, Sec. 14. Service upon defendant whose identity or whereabouts are unknown. In any
action where the defendant is designated as an unknown owner, or the like, or whenever his
whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry, service may, by leave of
court, be effected upon him by publication in a newspaper of general circulation and in such
places and for such time as the court may order
Summons by Publication (Sec. 14)

REQUISITES:
a. Defendant’s identity and whereabouts are UNKNOWN and CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED by

diligent inquiry; and
b. Summons was served in person and by substituted service but failed (Santos vs. PNOC,
G.R. No. 170943, September 23, 2008, 566 SCRA 272)
c. There must be LEAVE OF COURT.
d. There must be a service of summons by registered mail.
e. Motion for leave must be supported by affidavit of merit setting forth the grounds (Sec. 19,
Rule 14, G.R. NO. 150908, January 21, 2005, Lagrimas Pacana-Gonzales vs. CA);
Service of summons through publication-
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION MUST ALLEGED:
1. That, the newspaper is published for the dissemination of local news and general information;
2. That, it has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers;
3. That it is published at regular intervals. (Basa vs. Mercado, 61 Phil. 632; G.R. NO. 150908,
January 21, 2005, Lagrimas Pacana-Gonzales, AS ONE OF THE HEIRS OF LUCIANO
PACAÑA, PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND MANUEL CARBONELL
PHUA)
Q18.
What are the consequences of a party’s failure to appear during the pre-trial of a case.
[ANSWER]
➢ (RULE 18, Sec 2) The failure without just cause of a party and counsel to appear during
pre-trial, despite notice, shall result in a waiver of any objections to the faithfulness of the
reproductions marked, or their genuineness and due execution.
The failure without just cause of a party and/or counsel to bring the evidence required shall
be deemed a waiver of the presentation of such evidence.
Note: If it is the plaintiff or his counsel did not appear, dismissal of the complaint. If it is the
defendant or his counsel who failed to appear, court will allow the plaintiff to present
evidence ex-parte.
Q19.
Assume that you were engaged as counsel of XXX, an American citizen and residing in the U.S.A. You
filed a collection case in his behalf. During the trial, XXX disclosed to you that he could not come and
testify as plaintiff. What remedy should you adopt to present XXX testimony in court.
[ANSWER]
➢ The testimony of any person may be taken upon ex parte motion of a party. Deposition is the
taking of testimony out of court of any person, whether party to the action or not but at the
instance of a party to the action. It is taken out of court.
➢ Depositions, if within a foreign state or country, may be taken before it may be taken
i. On notice before a secretary of
embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice- consul, or consular agent
of the Philippines,
ii. Before such person or officer as may
be appointed by commission or under
letters rogatory, or
iii. Any person authorized to administer
oaths as stipulated by parties in writing.
[Sec. 14, Rule 23]
➢ A party desiring to take the deposition of any person upon oral examination shall give reasonable
notice in writing to every other party to the action. The notice shall state:
a. The time and place for taking the deposition,
b. The name and address of each person to be examined, if known, and
c. if the name is not known, a general description sufficient to identify him or the particular class
or group to which he belongs.

Q20.
Assume that you are the counsel for FFF. You filed an annulment of mortgage in his behalf against ABC
Bank. During the trial, you found it necessary to call the Manager of ABC Bank to ferret out the truth that
FFF did not sign the mortgage documents. What procedure/s would you adopt to be able to present ABC
Bank’s manager as a witness.
[ANSWER]
➢ Under Section 6, Rule 7 of the Rules, the (a) names of witnesses who will be presented to prove
a party's claim or defense and the (b) summary of the witnesses' intended testimonies, [provided
that the judicial affidavits of said witnesses shall be attached to the pleading and form an integral
part thereof], shall be included in the pleading. Only witnesses whose judicial affidavits are
attached to the pleading shall be presented by the parties during trial. Except if a party presents
meritorious reasons as basis for the admission of additional witnesses, no other witness or
affidavit shall be heard or admitted by the court.

Sample QS - CIVPRO

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sample QS - CIVPRO

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sample QS - CIVPRO

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2BB - CLASSLIST

DEADLINE: MARCH 29, 2023 (11:59PM)

PLEASE INDICATE LEGAL BASIS

➢ Second/sub classmate assigned shall answer or provide an alternative answer

ADDITIONAL NOTES RELATED TO THE QUESTION:

ADDITIONAL NOTES RELATED TO THE QUESTION:

➢ GENOVEVA G. GABRILLO, REP. HEREIN BY ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, MEDARDO G. CADIENTE,

ADDITIONAL NOTES RELATED TO THE QUESTION:

ADDITIONAL NOTES RELATED TO THE QUESTION:

ADDITIONAL NOTES RELATED TO THE QUESTION:

➢ No alternative answer, added the additional notes

ADDITIONAL NOTES RELATED TO THE QUESTION:

ADDITIONAL NOTES RELATED TO THE QUESTION:

ADDITIONAL NOTES RELATED TO THE QUESTION:

ADDITIONAL NOTES RELATED TO THE QUESTION:

ADDITIONAL NOTES RELATED TO THE QUESTION:

FROM JUSTICE’S PPT:

Splitting a single cause of action and its effects

➢ SPLITTING A CAUSE OF ACTION - The act of dividing a single or indivisible cause of

Remedies against splitting a single cause of action:

A) Motion to dismiss on the ground of:

ADDITIONAL NOTES RELATED TO THE QUESTION:

ADDITIONAL NOTES RELATED TO THE QUESTION:

ADDITIONAL NOTES RELATED TO THE QUESTION:

[1] Matters of evidence;

ADDITIONAL NOTES RELATED TO THE QUESTION:

ADDITIONAL NOTES RELATED TO THE QUESTION:

ADDITIONAL NOTES RELATED TO THE QUESTION:

ADDITIONAL NOTES RELATED TO THE QUESTION:

ADDITIONAL NOTES RELATED TO THE QUESTION:

ADDITIONAL NOTES RELATED TO THE QUESTION:

ADDITIONAL NOTES RELATED TO THE QUESTION:

➢ I will advice Mar to amend the complaint.

ADDITIONAL NOTES RELATED TO THE QUESTION:

➢ A.M. No.11-3-6-SC AMENDED SECTION 12, RULE14 OF THE RULES OF COURT ON

➢ Can’t think of any alternative answer. Same answer above.

ADDITIONAL NOTES RELATED TO THE QUESTION:

ADDITIONAL NOTES RELATED TO THE QUESTION:

ADDITIONAL NOTES RELATED TO THE QUESTION:

ADDITIONAL NOTES RELATED TO THE QUESTION:

ADDITIONAL NOTES RELATED TO THE QUESTION:

ADDITIONAL NOTES RELATED TO THE QUESTION:

(Agree with the main A. Placed notes instead)

ADDITIONAL NOTES RELATED TO THE QUESTION:

ADDITIONAL NOTES RELATED TO THE QUESTION:

ADDITIONAL NOTES RELATED TO THE QUESTION:

FIRST LEVEL COURTS

➢ I will grant the motion to dismiss.

ADDITIONAL NOTES RELATED TO THE QUESTION:

ADDITIONAL NOTES RELATED TO THE QUESTION:

➢ I will grant KK’s motion to dismiss.

ADDITIONAL NOTES RELATED TO THE QUESTION:

Section 2. Section 33 of the same law is hereby amended to read as follows:

ADDITIONAL NOTES RELATED TO THE QUESTION:

ADDITIONAL NOTES RELATED TO THE QUESTION:

ADDITIONAL NOTES RELATED TO THE QUESTION:

ADDITIONAL NOTES RELATED TO THE QUESTION:

➢ The remedy of D to implead C as co-defendant of A and B is to file an amended pleading to

ADDITIONAL NOTES RELATED TO THE QUESTION:

➢ I will rule in favor of TTT’s motion to dismiss.