Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
avail of remedies, it was incorrect for the trial court to take cognizance of
SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO 2014 REMEDIAL the joint motion for reconsideration insofar as Balatong and Labong were
LAW BAR EXAM concerned. The trial court should instead have ordered their arrest.
(People v. De Grano, 5 June 2009, Peralta, J.).
I.
Ludong, Balatong, and Labong were charged with murder. After trial, the On the other hand, it was correct for the trial court to take cognizance of
court announced that the case was considered submitted for decision. the joint motion for reconsideration insofar as Ludong was concerned
Subsequently, the Clerk of Court issued the notices of promulgation of since he and his lawyer were present during the promulgation.
judgment which were duly received. On promulgation day, Ludong and his
lawyer appeared. The lawyers of Balatong and Labong appeared but (B)
without their clients and failed to satisfactorily explain their absence No, Balatong and Labong cannot appeal their conviction in
when queried by the court. Thus, the judge ordered the Clerk of Court to case Ludong accepts his conviction for homicide.
proceed with the reading of the judgment convicting all the accused. With
respect to Balatong and Labong, the judge ordered that the judgment be
entered in the criminal docket and copies be furnished their lawyers. The Since Balatong and Labong failed to appear during the
lawyers of Ludong, Balatong, and Labong filed within the reglementary promulgation of the conviction without justifiable cause, they lost the
period a Joint Motion for Reconsideration. The court favorably granted the remedies under the Rules of Court including the remedy of an appeal.
motion of Ludong downgrading his conviction from murder to homicide but
denied the motion as regards Balatong and Labong. (4%) II.
(A) Was the court correct in taking cognizance of the Joint Motion for
Reconsideration? McJolly is a trouble-maker of sorts, always getting into brushes with the
(B) Can Balatong and Labong appeal their conviction in law. In one incident, he drove his Humvee recklessly, hitting a pedicab
case Ludong accepts his conviction for homicide? which sent its driver and passengers in different directions. The pedicab
driver died, while two (2) of the passengers suffered slight physical
ANSWERS: injuries. Two (2) Informations were then filed against McJolly. One,
for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property,
(A) and two, for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries. The
No, the court was not correct in taking cognizance of the Joint latter case was scheduled for arraignment earlier, on which
Motion for Reconsideration insofar as Balatong and Labong were occasion McJolly immediately pleaded guilty. He was meted out the
concerned. penalty of public censure. A month later, the case for reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide was also set for arraignment. Instead of
pleading, McJolly interposed the defense of double jeopardy.
Resolve. (4%)
Under Section 6 Rule 120, if the judgment was for conviction and the
failure of the accused to appear was without justifiable cause, he shall
lose the remedies available under the Rules of Court and the court shall ANSWER:
order his arrest. The accused may regain the remedies only if he
surrenders and files a motion for leave to avail of the remedies under the The defense of double jeopardy is meritorious and the second
Rules of Court. information for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide should be
quashed on the ground of double jeopardy.
Here the failure of Balatong and Labong to appear was without justifiable
cause as even their lawyers were not aware of the reason for their
absence. Hence they lost their remedies under the Rules.
The Supreme Court has held that reckless imprudence is a single 1. The trial court erred in giving weight to PO2 Asintado’s testimony, as
crime and that its consequences on persons and property are material only the latter did not have any personal knowledge of the facts in issue, and
to determine the penalty. violated Rene’s right to due process when it considered Kulasa’s
statements despite lack of opportunity for her cross-examination.
2. The trial court erred in holding that Rene’s statement to the press was
Here there was only one act and crime of reckless imprudence. a confession which, standing alone, would be sufficient to warrant
The death, the physical injuries, and the damage to the tricycle are only conviction.
consequences of the same reckless act of McJolly. Hence there was Resolve. (4%)
double jeopardy when a second information arising from the same reckless
act was brought against the accused. (Ivler v. Modesto-San Pedro, 17 ANSWER:
November 2010).
“I believe that I am entitled to the presumption of innocence until my Since Kulasa’s statement is an exception to the hearsay rule, Rene
guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Although I admit that I cannot complain that his right to due process was violated when the trial
performed acts that may take one’s life away, I hope and pray that justice court considered Kulasa’s statement despite lack of opportunity to cross-
will be served the right way. God bless us all. examine her.
(Sgd.)
Rene” There should be no serious question about the admissibility
against an accused of hearsay where this hearsay falls under an exception
to the hearsay rule, especially here where the declarant is dead and thus
The trial court convicted Rene of homicide on the basis of PO2 Asintado’s unavailable to testify. (ANTONIO R. BAUTISTA, BASIC EVIDENCE 214-215
testimony, Kulasa’s statements, and Rene’s statement to the press. On [2004 ed.]). In U.S. v. Gil, 13 Phil. 530 (1909), the Supreme Court upheld
appeal, Rene raises the following errors: dying declarations as an exception to the confrontation clause since “such
declarations have always been regarded as an exception to the general
rule regarding hearsay evidence.”
2.
(A) What judicial remedy would you recommend to Maria?
The argument that the trial court erred in holding that Rene’s (B) Where is the proper venue of the judicial remedy which you
statement to the press was a confession which, standing alone, would be recommended?
sufficient to warrant conviction is meritorious. (C) If Maria insists on filing an ejectment suit against Tenant, when do you
Firstly, Rene’s statement is not a confession but an admission. A reckon the one (1)-year period within which to file the action?
confession is one wherein a person acknowledges his guilt of a crime,
which Rene did not do. Secondly, even assuming it is a confession, ANSWERS:
standing alone it would not be sufficient to warrant conviction since it is
an extrajudicial confession which is not sufficient ground for conviction (A)
unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. (S3 R133).
The judicial remedy that I would recommend to Maria is to file a
Nonetheless this was a harmless error since the admission of Rene collection suit for the P125,000 rentals in arrears and the P12,500 interest
was corroborated by the testimony of PO2 Asintado on Kulasa’s due. The remedy would be expeditious since it would be governed by the
statement. Rules on Summary Procedure as the amount of the demand, excluding
interest, does not exceed P200,000.
(B)
IV.
The proper venue of the collection suit would be in Marikina City,
An order of the court requiring a retroactive re-dating of an order, where Tenant resides.
judgment or document filing be entered or recorded in a judgment
is: (1%)
(A) pro hac vice Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, venue in personal actions is
(B) non pro tunc with the residence of either the plaintiff or the defendant, at the
(C) confession relicta verificatione plaintiff’s election.
(D) nolle prosequi
Since the Plaintiff does not reside in the Philippines, venue may
ANSWER: be laid only in Marikina City where the defendant Tenant resides.
XII.
Under S20 R3, when the action is on a contractual money claim and the
defendant dies before entry of final judgment, the action shall not be Mary Jane met Shiela May at the recruitment agency where they both
dismissed but shall instead be allowed to continue until entry of final applied for overseas employment. They exchanged pleasantries, including
judgment. details of their personal circumstances. Fortunately, Mary Jane was
deployed to work as front desk receptionist at a hotel in Abu Dhabi where
she met Sultan Ahmed who proposed marriage, to which she readily
Here the action is on a contractual money claim, that is, a claim for accepted. Unfortunately for Shiela May, she was not deployed to work
rentals based on a lease contract. Hence it shall be allowed to continue abroad, and this made her envious of Mary Jane.
until final judgment. (S20 R3, S5 R86). Mary Jane returned to the Philippines to prepare for her wedding. She
secured from the National Statistics Office (NSO) a Certificate of No
XI. Marriage. It turned out from the NSO records that Mary Jane had
previously contracted marriage with John Starr, a British citizen, which
A search warrant was issued for the purpose of looking for unlicensed she never did. The purported marriage between Mary Jane and John
firearms in the house of Ass-asin, a notorious gun for hire. When the Starr contained all the required pertinent details on Mary Jane. Mary
police served the warrant, they also sought the assistance of barangay Jane later on learned that Shiela May is the best friend of John Starr.
tanods who were assigned to look at other portions of the premises around As a lawyer, Mary Jane seeks your advice on her predicament. What legal
the house. In a nipa hut thirty (30) meters away from the house of Ass- remedy will you avail to enable Mary Jane to contract marriage
asin, a barangay tanod came upon a kilo of marijuana that was wrapped in with Sultan Ahmed? (4%)
newsprint. He took it and this was later used by the authorities to
charge Ass-asin with illegal possession of marijuana. Ass-asin objected to
the introduction of such evidence claiming that it was illegally seized. Is ANSWER:
the objection of Assasin valid? (4%)
The objection that the guards had no personal knowledge of the The Ombudsman, after conducting the requisite preliminary investigation,
contents of the package before it was opened is misplaced. The one found probable cause to charge Gov. Matigas in conspiracy
testifying is the trainer not the guards and he had personal knowledge of with Carpintero, a private individual, for violating Section 3(e) of Republic
the circumstances since he was present during the incident. Besides there Act (RA) No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as amended).
is no rule of evidence that one cannot testify about the contents of a Before the information could be filed with the Sandiganbayan, Gov.
package if he did not have prior personal knowledge of its contents before Matigas was killed in an ambush. This, notwithstanding, an information
opening it. was filed against Gov. Matigas and Carpintero.
At the Sandiganbayan, Carpintero through counsel, filed a Motion to
The objection that the testimony of the trainer of the dog is Quash the Information, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the
hearsay is not valid. Hearsay is an out-of-court declaration made by a Sandiganbayan, arguing that with the death of Gov. Matigas, there is no
person which is offered for the truth of the matter asserted. public officer charged in the information.
Here what is involved is a dog who is not a person who can make Is the motion to quash legally tenable? (4%)
an out-of-court declaration. (Lempert & Saltzburg, A MODERN APPROACH
TO EVIDENCE 370-371 [1982]). A dog is not treated as a declarant or ANSWER:
witness who can be cross-examined. (People v. Centolella, 305 N.Y.S.2d
279). Hence testimony that the dog sat beside the package is not
testimony about an out-of-court declaration and thus not hearsay.
No, the motion to quash is not legally tenable.
In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court held that the death of was filed was a Motion to Quash Arrest and to Fix Bail, not a Petition for
the public officer did not mean that the allegation of conspiracy between Bail.
the public officer and the private person can no longer be proved or that (A) If you are the Sandiganbayan, how will you rule on the motion? (3%)
their alleged conspiracy is already expunged. The only thing extinguished (B) If the Sandiganbayan denies the motion, what judicial remedy should
by the death of the public officer was his criminal liability. His death did the accused undertake? (2%)
not extinguish the crime nor did it remove the basis of the charge of
conspiracy between him and the private person. Hence the ANSWERS:
Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the offense charged. (People v. Go,
25 March 2014, Peralta, J.) (A)
If I were the Sandiganbayan, I would deny the Motion to Quash Arrest
Warrant and to Fix Bail.
XVI.
Plaintiff filed a complaint denominated as accion publiciana, The motion to quash warrant of arrest may be considered since only
against defendant. In his answer, defendant alleged that he had no jurisdiction over the person not custody of the law is required.
interest over the land in question, except as lessee Jurisdiction over the person of A was obtained by his voluntary
of Z. Plaintiff subsequently filed an affidavit of Z, the lessor appearance made through the filing of the motion seeking affirmative
of defendant, stating that Z had sold to plaintiff all his rights and relief. (See Miranda v. Tuliao, 31 March 2006).
interests in the property as shown by a deed of transfer attached to the
affidavit. Thus, plaintiff may ask the court to render: (1%)
(A) summary judgment Nonetheless I would still deny the motion to quash arrest
(B) judgment on the pleadings warrant. The ground that the offense charged is malversation not plunder
(C) partial judgment is not a valid ground to quash the arrest warrant. A should simply file an
(D) judgment by default application for bail and contend that he is entitled thereto as a matter of
right.
ANSWER:
The motion to fix amount of bail, which is in effect an application
(A) (S1 & 3, R35) for bail cannot be granted unless the accused is in custody of the law.
(Miranda v. Tuliao, 31 March 2006). Here A was not in custody of the law
XVII. but still at large. Hence the motion to fix the amount of bail should be
denied.
A was charged before the Sandiganbayan with a crime of plunder, a non- (B)
bailable offense, where the court had already issued a warrant for his
arrest. Without A being arrested, his lawyer filed a Motion to Quash If the Sandiganbayan denies the motion, the judicial remedy that
Arrest Warrant and to Fix Bail, arguing that the allegations in the the accused should undertake is to file a petition for certiorari under Rule
information did not charge the crime of plunder but a crime of 65 with the Supreme Court. Certiorari is available to challenge
malversation, a bailable offense. The court denied the motion on the interlocutory orders rendered with grave abuse of discretion since appeal
ground that it had not yet acquired jurisdiction over the person of the is unavailable.
accused and that the accused should be under the custody of the court
Here the order denying the Motion to Quash Arrest Warrant and to
since the crime charged was nonbailable.
Fix Bail is interlocutory since it does not completely dispose of the case.
The accused’s lawyer counter-argued that the court can rule on the
Hence certiorari is available. A should aver that the Sandiganbayan acted
motion even if the accused was at-large because it had jurisdiction over
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or excess of
the subject matter of the case. According to said lawyer, there was no
jurisdiction in denying his motion.
need for the accused to be under the custody of the court because what
(iii) The ground that no motion for reconsideration was filed from the
order denying the petition for bail is improper. As previously discussed,
XVIII. an order denying bail is merely interlocutory. Hence the failure to move
for reconsideration thereof during the trial will not render the order final
A was charged with murder in the lower court. His Petition for Bail was and conclusive.
denied after a summary hearing on the ground that the prosecution had
established a strong evidence of guilt. No Motion for Reconsideration was (B)
filed from the denial of the Petition for Bail. During the reception of the
evidence of the accused, the accused reiterated his petition for bail on No, after conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by
the ground that the witnesses so far presented by the accused had shown death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, admission to bail is
that no qualifying aggravating circumstance attended the killing. The discretionary. (S5 R114).
court denied the petition on the grounds that it had already ruled that: (i)
the evidence of guilt is strong; (ii) the resolution for the Petition for
Bail is solely based on the evidence presented by the prosecution; and (iii)
no Motion for Reconsideration was filed from the denial of the Petition for XIX.
Bail. (6%)
(A) If you are the Judge, how will you resolve the incident? A vicarious admission is considered an exception to the hearsay rule. It,
(B) Suppose the accused is convicted of the crime of homicide and the however, does not cover: (1%)
accused filed a Notice of Appeal, is he entitled to bail? (A) admission by a conspirator
(B) admission by a privy
ANSWERS: (C) judicial admission
(A) (D) adoptive admission
If I were the judge, I will grant the Petition for Bail if the evidence does
not show any qualifying aggravating circumstance. In such a case the (C) Note: a vicarious admission is an extrajudicial admission. Hence C is
offense would be only homicide which is bailable. not covered by the rule regarding vicarious admissions.
(i) The ground that the court had already ruled that the evidence of guilt XX.
is strong is improper. An order denying an application for bail is
interlocutory and remains at the control of the court until final judgment. Tom Wallis filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a Petition for
Hence the court is not bound by its earlier ruling and may reconsider the Declaration of Nullity of his marriage with Debi Wallis on the ground of
same if the evidence or law warrants the same. psychological incapacity of the latter. Before filing the petition, Tom
Wallis had told Debi Wallis that he wanted the annulment of their
marriage because he was already fed up with her irrational and eccentric
(ii) The ground that the resolution for the Petition for Bail is solely based behaviour. However, in the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage,
on the evidence presented by the prosecution is improper. While S8 R114 the correct residential address of Debi Wallis was deliberately not alleged
provides that the prosecution has the burden of proof to show that the and instead, the residential address of their married son was stated.
evidence of guilt is strong, it should not be taken to mean that the Summons was served by substituted service at the address stated in the
resolution of the bail application is based solely on the prosecution petition. For failure to file an answer, Debi Wallis was declared in
evidence. At the hearing for the bail application, both the prosecution default and Tom Wallis presented evidence ex-parte. The RTC rendered
and the accused must be given reasonable opportunity to prove or to judgment declaring the marriage null and void on the ground of
disprove, respectively, that the evidence of guilt is strong. (Santos v. psychological incapacity of Debi Wallis. Three (3) years after the RTC
Ofilada, 245 SCRA 56). judgment was rendered, Debi Wallis got hold of a copy thereof and
wanted to have the RTC judgment reversed and set aside.
If you are the lawyer of Debi Wallis, what judicial remedy or remedies will appeal before the Court of Appeals (CA). Robert White moved for
you take? Discuss and specify the ground or grounds for said remedy or dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the same involved purely a
remedies. (5%) question of law and should have been filed with the Supreme Court (SC).
However, Al Pakino claimed that the appeal involved mixed questions of
fact and law because there must be a factual determination if, indeed, Al
ANSWER: Pakino was duly authorized by Goodfeather Corporation to file the
If I were the lawyer of Debi Wallis, the judicial remedy I would take is to complaint. Whose position is correct? Explain. (4%)
file with the Court of Appeals an action for annulment of the RTC
judgment under Rule 47. An action for annulment of judgment may be ANSWER:
resorted to since the remedies of appeal and petition for relief are no
longer available through no fault of Debi Wallis. (S1 R47). Robert White’s position is correct. In a case involving similar
facts, the Supreme Court held that the issue of whether or not the trial
court erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that the person who
The ground for annulment of judgment would be lack of filed the complaint in behalf of the plaintiff corporation was not
jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction also covers lack of jurisdiction over the authorized to do so is a legal issue, reviewable only by the Supreme Court
person of the defendant since the judgment would be void. (1 FLORENZ in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. (Tamondong v. Court
D. REGALADO, REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM 558 [7 th rev. ed., of Appeals, 26 November 2004).
3rd printing]).
Mr. Humpty filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a complaint Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, a prejudicial question arises if
against Ms. Dumpty for damages. The RTC, after due proceedings, there has been a previously filed civil action. Here the civil action was
rendered a decision granting the complaint and ordering Ms. Dumpty to filed after the criminal action. Hence no prejudicial question will arise.
pay damages to Mr. Humpty. Ms. Dumpty timely filed an appeal before Moreover the Supreme Court has held that a pending case for declaration
the Court of Appeals (CA), questioning the RTC decision. Meanwhile, the of nullity of marriage does not raise a prejudicial question to a charge of
RTC granted Mr. Humpty’s motion for execution pending appeal. Upon bigamy since a person who contracts a second marriage without first
receipt of the RTC’s order granting execution pending appeal, Ms. awaiting a judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage has already
Dumpty filed with the committed bigamy. (People v. Odtuhan, 17 July 2013, Peralta, J.).
CA another case, this time a special civil action for certiorari assailing
said RTC order. Is there a violation of the rule against forum shopping
considering that two (2) actions emanating from the same case with the XXV.
RTC were filed by Ms. Dumpty with the CA? Explain. (4%)
Mr. Boaz filed an action for ejectment against Mr. Jachin before the
ANSWER: Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). Mr. Jachin actively participated in every
No, there is no violation of the rule against forum shopping. stage of the proceedings knowing fully well that the MeTC had no
jurisdiction over the action. In his mind, Mr. Jachin was thinking that if
Forum shopping applies where two or more initiatory pleadings were filed the MeTC rendered judgment against him, he could always raise the issue
by the same party. This is discernible from the use of the phrase on the jurisdiction of the MeTC. After trial, the MeTC rendered judgment
“commenced any action or filed any claim” in S5 R7. against Mr. Jachin. What is the remedy of Mr. Jachin? (1%)
Here the first case involves the filing by Ms. Dumpty of a notice of appeal (A) File an appeal
which is not an initiatory pleading. Hence there is no forum shopping. (B) File an action for nullification of judgment
(C) File a motion for reconsideration
(D) File a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
XXIV.
ANSWER:
Solomon and Faith got married in 2005. In 2010, Solomon contracted a
second marriage with Hope. When Faith found out about the second
marriage of Solomon and Hope, she filed a criminal case for bigamy before (A) See S8 R40. R47 is not available since appeal is still available. Not C
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila sometime in 2011. since a prohibited pleading.
Meanwhile, Solomon filed a petition for declaration of nullity of his first
marriage with Faith in 2012, while the case for bigamy before the RTC of
Manila is ongoing. Subsequently, Solomon filed a motion to suspend the XXVI.
proceedings in the bigamy case on the ground of prejudicial question. He
asserts that the proceedings in the criminal case should be suspended Parole evidence is an: (1%)
because if his first marriage with Faith will be declared null and void, it (A) agreement not included in the document
will have the effect of exculpating him from the crime of bigamy. (B) oral agreement not included in the document
Decide. (4%) (C) agreement included in the document
(D) oral agreement included in the document
ANSWER:
ANSWER:
(A) Note: It is suggested that either A or B be considered as correct. If the RTC denies Ms. Bright’s motion to dismiss, her remedies
Strictly speaking parol evidence does not have to be an agreement; it is are:
simply any evidence, whether written or oral, which is not contained in a
written agreement subject of a case and which seeks to modify, alter, or (a) File a motion for reconsideration.
explain the terms of the written agreement. (b) Proceed to trial and if she loses, appeal and assign the failure to
dismiss as a reversible error.
XXVII. (c) File a special civil action for certiorari and/or mandamus if the denial
of the order to dismiss is made with grave abuse of discretion amounting
Mr. Avenger filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a complaint to lack of or excess of jurisdiction.
against Ms. Bright for annulment of deed of sale and other
documents. Ms. Bright filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the (C)
ground of lack of cause of action. Mr. Avenger filed an opposition to the If the RTC renders a decision in favor of Mr. Avenger, Ms. Bright’s
motion to dismiss. State and discuss the appropriate remedy/remedies remedies are:
under each of the following situations: (6%)
(A) If the RTC grants Ms. Bright’s motion to dismiss and dismisses the (a) File a motion for reconsideration or new trial under Rule 37.
complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action, what will be the
(b) File an appeal to the Court of Appeals under Rule 41.
remedy/remedies of Mr. Avenger?
(B) If the RTC denies Ms. Bright’s motion to dismiss, what will be her (c) File an appeal to the Supreme Court under Rule 45 if the appeal will
remedy/remedies? raise only questions of law.
(C) If the RTC denies Ms. Bright’s motion to dismiss and, further
proceedings, including trial on the merits, are conducted until the RTC (d) File a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38.
renders a decision in favor of Mr. Avenger, what will be the (e) File an action for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 on the ground
remedy/remedies of Ms. Bright? of extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction.
ANSWERS:
XXVIII.
(A)
If the RTC grants Ms. Brights’s motion to dismiss, the remedies of A was adopted by B and C when A was only a toddler. Later on in
Mr. Avenger are: life, A filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a petition for change of
name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, as he wanted to reassume the
(a) File a motion for reconsideration under Rule 37. surname of his natural parents because the surname of his adoptive
parents sounded offensive and was seriously affecting his business and
(b) Re-file the complaint. The dismissal does not bar the re-filing of the
social life.
case (S5 R16).
The adoptive parents gave their consent to the petition for change of
(c) Appeal from the order of dismissal. The dismissal order is a final order name. May A file a petition for change of name? If the RTC grants the
as it completely disposes of the case; hence it is appealable. petition for change of name, what, if any, will be the effect on the
respective relations of A with his adoptive parents and with his natural
(d) File an amended complaint as a matter of right curing the defect of parents? Discuss. (4%)
lack of cause of action before the dismissal order becomes final. This is
because a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading; hence Mr.
Avenger can amend the complaint as a matter of right. (S2 R10). ANSWER:
(B) Yes, A may file a petition for change of name. Changing name on the
ground that it is offensive and seriously affects the petitioner’s business
and social life is a valid ground especially where the adoptive parents had No, the MTC was not correct in dismissing the case for lack of
given their consent. jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has held that an allegation of ownership
as a defense in the answer will not oust the MTC of jurisdiction in an
ejectment case. (Subano v. Vallecer, 24 March 1959). What determines
The grant of the petition will not change A’s relations with his subject-matter jurisdiction is the allegations in the complaint and not
adoptive and natural parents. The Supreme Court has held that change of those in the answer. Furthermore, the MTC is empowered under S16 R70
name under Rule 103 affects only the name and not the status of the to resolve the issue of ownership, albeit for the purpose only of resolving
petitioner. (Republic v. CA, 21 May 1992). the issue of possession.
(B)
XXIX. No the RTC was not correct in ruling that the case was within its
original jurisdiction and that hence it may conduct a full-blown trial of the
Estrella was the registered owner of a huge parcel of land located in a appealed case as if it were originally filed with it.
remote part of their barrio in Benguet. However, when she visited the
property after she took a long vacation abroad, she was surprised to see
that her childhood friend, John, had established a vacation house on her Under S8 R40, if an appeal is taken from an MTC order dismissing a
property. case for lack of jurisdiction without a trial on the merits, the RTC on
Both Estrella and John were residents of the same barangay. To recover appeal may affirm the dismissal order and if it has jurisdiction thereover,
possession, Estrella filed a complaint for ejectment with the Municipal try the case on the merits as if the case was originally filed with it.
Trial Court (MTC), alleging that she is the true owner of the land as
evidenced by her certificate of title and tax declaration which showed the Here the RTC did not have jurisdiction over the case since it is an
assessed value of the property as P21,000.00. On the other ejectment suit cognizable exclusively by the MTC. The assessed value of
hand, John refuted Estrella’s claim of ownership and submitted in the land is irrelevant for the purpose of determining jurisdiction in
evidence a Deed of Absolute Sale between him and Estrella. After the ejectment suits and would not oust the MTC of jurisdiction in the same
filing of John’s answer, the MTC observed that the real issue was one of manner as allegations of ownership would not oust the MTC of
ownership and not of possession. Hence, the MTC dismissed the complaint jurisdiction.
for lack of jurisdiction. The RTC should have reversed the dismissal order and remanded
On appeal by Estrella to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), a full-blown trial the case to the MTC for further proceedings. (S8 R40).
was conducted as if the case was originally filed with it. The RTC reasoned
that based on the assessed value of the property, it was the court of Note: Utmost liberality should be given to the examinee on this
proper jurisdiction. Eventually, the RTC rendered a judgment question as it does not appear to be within the coverage of the remedial
declaring John as the owner of the land and, hence, entitled to the law examination per the bar examination syllabus given by the Supreme
possession thereof. (4%) Court.
(A) Was the MTC correct in dismissing the complaint for lack of
jurisdiction? Why or why not?
(B) Was the RTC correct in ruling that based on the assessed value of the
property, the case was within its original jurisdiction and, hence, it may
conduct a full-blown trial of the appealed case as if it was originally filed
with it? Why or why not?
ANSWERS:
(A)