REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 2

2nd Sem., 2016

FINAL EXAM
I.

TRUE or FALSE. Write TRUE if the statement is correct and FALSE if

the statement is wrong.

1.

The plaintiff in an action for interpleader seeks to enforce a right or

redress a wrong.

2.

A person who is not a party to a contract can file a petition for

declaratory relief and seek a judicial interpretation of such contract.

3.

A petition for certiorari reviewing the judgment or final order of the

Commission on Audit should be filed within 30 days from notice.

4.

In a petition for prohibition, prior filing of a motion for reconsideration

is absolutely necessary.

5.

Mandamus is a writ issued to compel the performance of both

ministerial and discretionary duty.

6.

In a quo warranto action by a private individual, it is necessary for the

petitioner to prove his right to the office in dispute.

7.

In an action for expropriation, the government cannot proceed to take

over the property unless the courts judgment attains finality.

8.

In a judicial foreclosure of mortgage, the mortgagor may still redeem

his property before the registration of certificate of sale and order
confirming the sale.

9.

All co-owners in the property subject of an action for partition of real

property are indispensable parties.

10.

In unlawful detainer, the one (1) year period within which to file the
action starts from the date of unlawful withholding reckoned from final
demand.

11.

The order of direct contempt is appealable.

12.

A charge of contempt for alleged disobedience properly lies even if

initiated by a person not a party to the action or proceeding in which
the order is issued.

13.

There is no need for a hearing for a conviction for indirect contempt to

issue.

14.

The principle of res judicata strictly applies to expropriation cases.

15.

The rights of third persons are not affected by an action for partition.

II.

Give what is asked.

1.

The grounds for the special civil actions of certiorari and prohibition.

2.

The grounds for mandamus.

3.

The stages in the special civil action of partition.

4.

The stages in an action for expropriation.

5.

Two (2) appeals available to the parties in expropriation cases.

6.

Remedies available to the mortgagee when the obligation has become

due and demandable.

7.

Persons who may commence an action for quo warranto.

II. Discuss the following clearly, completely but as concise as possible. Make
sure that your discussion does not exceed one page on your test booklet.
1 Plaintiffs are occupying housing units under a project of PHHC, under
lease and they pay rentals. They were assured that after 5 years of
continuous occupancy they would be entitled to purchase such lots.
However, PHHC announced that the management of the project would
be transferred to GSIS. The manager of PHHC refused to recognize all
transactions. But later on both the GSIS and the PHHC agreed that
payment of the monthly amortizations by the residents would be made
directly to the PHHC. Alleging that they do not know now where to pay
the monthly amortizations, plaintiffs filed an interpleader suit against
GSIS and PHHC to settle the ownership of the project. (Beltran vs.
PHHC, Aug. 28, 1969)
Is the filing of the interpleader suit proper? Discuss.
2 Ollada, a CPA authorized to practice accounting at Central Bank filed in
the CFI a petition for declaratoy relief after his petition for a writ of
preliminary injunction had been dismissed in the CFI assailing the
enforcement of the Bank with two requirements for CPAs, re: that the
applicant CPA should sign a statement under oath and that, upon
accreditation, a CPA would be governed by the rules and regulations of
the Central Bank and not by those of the Philippine Institute of
Accountants. He alleges that because of these requirements he had
suffered serious injury, and that such enforcement has resulted in the
unlawful restraint in the practice of CPAs in the Office of the Central
Bank. The CFI dismissed the petition. (Ollada vs. Central Bank, May
31, 1962)
Issue:Whether or not a declaratory relief is proper. Decide and discuss.
3 X filed his certificate of candidacy to run as vice mayor of Y
municipality. Thereafter the election officer forwarded to the COMELEC
Law Department the names of candidates who were not registered
voters therein, Xs name included. Later, the COMELEC en banc issued
Resolution 1 disqualifying the said candidates. X and company filed a
petition/opposition which was denied through Resolution 2. During the
election, X garnered the highest number of votes for vice mayor but his

proclamation was suspended. X filed before the Supreme Court a

petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 64 of the Rules of
Court. COMELEC assails the petition as improper and contends that X
should have instead filed a pre-proclamation controversy. (Ibrahim vs.
COMELEC, Jan. 8, 2013)
Decide.
4 In 1990, Congress passed RA 6971 or the Productivity Incentive Act of
1990. The Secretary of Finance and DOLE were tasked to promulgate
the rules and regulations in the implementation of the law. Then
Finance Secretary Estanislao and Labor Secretary Ruben Torres jointly
issued the rules implementing RA 6971. Petitioner Philbank Employees
Association claimed that the implementing rules were not in conformity
with the law itself. They attacked the rules by filing a petition for
certiorari. (Philbank Employees Association vs. Estanislao, 1993)
Is the petition proper? Decide.
5 After the issuance of the order of expropriation, the court did not
anymore appoint commissioners saying that even if there are
commissioners, the report is only recommendatory. The court will still
have the final say. So the appointment of commissioners can be
dispensed with.
May the trial court dispense with the appointment
commissioners in expropriation proceedings? Discuss.

of

the

6 A and his family resided in room 123 of the building of B until they
thransferred to a new residence. However, A retained the lease and
possession of the room for keeping his important belongings. When A
wanted to go inside his room one day, he found out that his key no
longer matched the lock. A requested B to provide him with the
appropriate key but was denied. A filed a complaint alleging that he
has a clear and unmistakable right to the use of the room and he prays
that B be ordered to provide him the appropriate key. (Lim Kieh Tong
vs. CA, 1991)
What kind of a complaint was filed? Why?
7 Prior to filing of the ejectment case against the defendant, the plaintiff
brought the matter to the Barangay Captain but no settlement was
reached. A certification to file action was issued by the Barangay
Captain. So, the plaintiff filed the case. The complaint for unlawful
detainer contained no allegation that there was a prior demand to
vacate. The defendant moved to dismiss on that ground. The plaintiff
contended that no further demand to vacate is needed after a
certification to file action was issued by the Barangay Captain. Any
further demand to vacate was only repetitive and unnecessary.
Decide.
8 The one who filed the petition for a contempt proceeding is somebody
who is not part of the case. He is not the person benefited by the
order but he initiated the petition against one of the parties for their
disobedience on a lawful court order.

Will a charge of contempt for alleged disobedience properly lie if it is

initiated by a person not a party to the action or proceeding in which
the order is issued?