Remedial Law Review 1 Assignment No.

1
To be submitted on August 27, 2019

Explain briefly your answers. Write your answers on a thick notebook.

Part I. 2-point Questions

1. What trial court outside Metro Manila has exclusive original jurisdiction over an action filed on
November 13, 2017 to recover the possession of an apartment unit being occupied by the defendant by mere
tolerance of the plaintiff, after the former ignored the last demand to vacate that was duly served upon and
received by him on July 6, 2017?

(a) It depends. The instant action is an accion publiciana considering that more than a year has lapsed
from the date of last demand (Natalia Realty, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 126462, November 12, 2002; Penta
Pacific Realty Corporation v. Ley Construction and Development Corpora tion, G.R. No. 161589,
November 24, 2014). Thus, if the assessed value of the apartment unit does not exceed P20,000.00, the
Municipal Trial Court has the exclusive original jurisdiction over the action (Penta Pacific Realty
Corporation, supra; BP Big. 129. Sec. 1).

On the other hand, if the assessed value of the apartment unit exceeds P20,000.00, the Regional Trial
Court has the exclusive original jurisdiction over the action (Penta Pacific Realty Corporation, supra; BP
Blg. 129, Sec. 19). The allegation of the assessed value of the apartment unit must be found in the
complaint, otherwise the action should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the trial court is not
thereby afforded the means of determining from the allegations of the pleading Whether jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the action pertains to it or to another court (Penta Pacific Realty Corporation,
supra).

Exclusive original jurisdiction is vested in the MTCC/ MTC / MCTC. The instant case is an unlawful
detainer case, because it is one for recovery of possession of real property, the possession by the
defendant is by mere tolerance, and the case was filed within one year from notice on July 6, 2017.

2. What trial court outside Metro Manila has exclusive original jurisdiction over a complaint in which the
principal relief sought is the enforcement of a seller’s contractual right to repurchase a lot with an assessed
value of Php22,000.00?

RTC. Because the assessed value is more than P20,000.00.

3. What court in Metro Manila has jurisdiction over an action for specific performance or, in the alternative,
for damages in the amount of P180,000.00?
An action for specific performance or, in the alternative, for damages in the amount of 180,000.00 falls
within the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts in Metro Manila. Although an action for specific
performance is not capable of pecuniary estimation, sincethe alternative demand for damages is capable
ofpecuniary estimation, it is within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts in Metro Manila.

4. What court outside Metro Manila has jurisdiction over an action for a writ of injunction?
An action for injunction is not capable of pecuniary estimation and hence falls within the jurisdiction of the
RTCs

5. What court in Metro Manila has jurisdiction over an action for replevin of a motorcycle valued at
P150,000.00?
An action for replevin of a motorcycle valued at150,000.00 falls within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan
Trial Courts in Metro Manila

6. What court in Metro Manila has jurisdiction over an action for interpleader to determine who between the
defendants is entitled to receive the amount of P190,000.00 from the plaintiff?
An action for interpleader to determine who between the defendants is entitled to receive the amount of
P190,000.00 falls within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts in Metro Manila

7. What court outside Metro Manila has jurisdiction over a petition for the probate of a will involving an estate
valued at P200,000.00?
A petition for the probate of a will involving an estate valued at 200.000.00 falls within the Jurisdiction
of the Metropolitan Trial Courts in Metro Manila
8. What is an interlocutory order?
An interlocutory order refers to an order issued between the commencement and the end of the suit
which is not a final decision of the whole controversy and leaves something more to be done on its merits

9. How should the records of child and family cases in the Family Courts or RTC designated by the Supreme
Court to handle Family Court cases be treated and dealt with? The records of child and family cases in the
Family Code to handle Family Court cases shall be dealt with utmost confidentiality.

10. How shall the Rules of Court be construed?

The Rules of Court should be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just,
speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.

Part II. 3-point Questions

1. What is the concept of remedial law?
The concept of Remedial Law lies at the very core of procedural due process, which means a
law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment
only after trial, and contemplates an opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered

2. Distinguish between substantive law and remedial law.

SUBSTANTIVE LAW is that part of the law which creates, defines and regulates rights
concerning life, liberty, or property, or the powers of agencies or instrumentalities for the
administration of public affairs. This is distinguished from REMEDIAL LAW which
prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their invasion

3. What is the objective of the Katarungang Pambarangay Law? The object of the
Katarungang Pambarangay Law is to effect an amicable settlement of disputes among
family and barangay members at the barangay level without judicial recourse and
consequently help relieve the courts of docket congestion

4. In rendering a decision, should a court take into consideration the possible effect of its
verdict upon the political stability and economic welfare of the nation?
No, because a court is required to take into consideration only the legal issues and the
evidence admitted in the case. The political stability and economic welfare of the nation
are extraneous to the case. They can have persuasive influence but they are not the main
factors that should be considered in deciding a case. A decision should be based on the
law, rules of procedure, justice and equity. However, in exceptional cases the court may
consider the political stability and economic welfare of the nation when these are capable
of being taken into judicial notice of and are relevant to the case

5. What is the difference between a judgment and an opinion of the court?

The judgment or fallo is the final disposition of the Court which is reflected in the
dispositive portion of the decision. A decision is directly prepared by a judge and signed
by him, containing clearly and distinctly a statement of the facts proved and the law upon
which the judgment is based.

6. Under what conditions may the identity of parties in child and family cases be divulged?
The identity of parties in child and family cases shall not be divulged unless necessary
and with authority of the judge.

7.What is the doctrine of hierarchy of courts?

The doctrine states that where courts have concurrent jurisdiction over a subject matter, a case
mustbe filed before the lowest court possible having the appropriate jurisdiction. The principle of
hierarchy ofcourts requires that recourse should be made to the lower courts before they are
made to the highercourts.

The doctrine of hierarchy of courts provides that where there is a concurrence of jurisdiction by
courts over an action or proceeding, there is an ordained sequence of recourse to such courts
beginning from the lowest to the highest. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s original
jurisdiction should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefore
 8. What is the Harmless Error Rule in relation to appeals?Under Section 3 of Rule 53 No error in
either the admission or the exclusion of evidence and no error or defect in any ruling order or in
anything done or omitted by the court or by any of the parties is ground for granting a new trial
or for setting aside, modifying, or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, unless refusal to
take such action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice. The court at every
stage of the proceeding must regard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect
the substantial rights of the parties.

The harmless error rule in relation to appeals provides that the appellate court should not reverse
a judgment as a result of any error or defect which does not affect the substantial rights of the
parties (S6, R51)

9. Distinguish jurisdiction from venue? JURISDICTION treats of the power of the Court to
decide a case on the merits, while VENUE refers to the place where the suit may be filed. In
criminal actions, however, venue is jurisdictional. Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law;
venue, of procedural law. Jurisdiction may be not be conferred by consent through waiver upon a
court, but venue may be waived, except in criminal cases

10. Distinguish error of jurisdiction versus error of judgment.

An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction. Such an
error does not deprive the court of jurisdiction and is correctible only by appeal; whereas an error
of jurisdiction is one which the court acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction. Such an error
renders an order or judgment void or voidable and is correctible by the special civil action of
certiorari.

Part III. 5-point Questions

1. Santa filed against Era in the RTC of Quezon City an action for specific performance praying for the
delivery of a parcel of land subject of their contract of sale. Unknown to the parties, the case was
inadvertently raffled to an RTC designated as a special commercial court. Later, the RTC rendered
judgment adverse to Era, who, upon realizing that the trial court was not a regular RTC, approaches you and
wants you to file a petition to have the judgment annulled for lack of jurisdiction. What advice would you
give to Era? Explain your answer.

I will advise Era that a petition to have the judgment annulled for lack of jurisdiction has no basis. In
Gonzales v. GJH Land, Inc. (G.R. NO. 202664 November 10, 2015), the Supreme Court ruled that the fact
that a particular branch which tras been designated as a Special Commercial, Court does not shed the RTC’s
general jurisdiction over ordinary civil cases under the imprimatur of statutory law, L.E. Batas Pambansa
Blg. 129. The designation of Special Commercial Court was merely intended as a procedural tool to
expedite the resolution of commercial cases in line with the court’s exercise of jurisdiction. This designation
was not made by statute but only by an internal Supreme Court rule under its authority to promulgate rules
governing matters of procedure and its constitutional mandate to supervise lower courts.

2. An amicable settlement was signed before a Lupon Tagapamayapa on January 3, 2001. On July 6, 2001, the
prevailing party asked the Lupon to execute the amicable settlement because of the non-compliance by the
other party of the terms of the agreement. The Lupon concerned refused to execute the settlement/
agreement. Is the Lupon correct in refusing to execute the settlement/agreement?

Yes, the Lupon is correct in refusing to execute the settlement/agreement because the exe-cution sought is
already beyond the period of six months from the date of the settlement within which the Lupon is
authorized to execute.

3. A brings an action in the MTC of Manila against B for the annulment of an extrajudicial foreclosure sale of
real property with an assessed value of P50,000.00 located in Laguna. The complaint alleged prematurity of
the sale for the reason that the mortgage was not yet due. B timely moved to dismiss the case on the ground
that the action should have been brought in the RTC of Laguna. Decide with reason.

The motion should be granted. The MTC of Manila has no jurisdiction because the action for the annulment
of the extrajudicial foreclosure is not capable of pecuniary estimation and is therefore under the jurisdiction
 of the RTCs. However, the action for annulment is a personal action and the venue depends on the residence
of either A or B. Hence, it should be brought in the RTC of the place where either of the parties resides.

4. A files an action in the Municipal Trial Court against B, the natural son of A’s father, for the partition of a
parcel of land located in Taytay, Rizal with an assessed value of Php20,000.00. B moves to dismiss the
action the ground that the case should have been brought in the RTC because the action is one that is not
capable of pecuniary estimation as it involves primarily a determination of hereditary rights and not merely
the bare right to real property. Resolve the motion.
The motion should be granted. The action for partition depends on a determination of the hereditary rights
of A and B, which is not capable of pecuniary estimation. Hence, even though the assessed value of the land
is P20,000.00, the Municipal Trial Court has no jurisdiction..

5. P sued A in the RTC Manila to recover the following sums: (1) 200,000.00 on an overdue promissory note,
(2) P80,000.00 on the purchase price of a computer, (3) P150,000.00 for damages to his car and (4)
P100,000.00 for attorney’s fees and litigation expenses. Can A move to dismiss the case on the ground that
the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter? Explain.
No, because the RTC-Manila has jurisdiction over the subject matter. P may sue A in one complaint
asserting as many causes of action as he may have and since all the claims are principally for recovery of
money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction. [Rule 2, sec. 5(d)]. The aggregate
amount claimed is P450,000.00, exclusive of the amount of P100,000.00 for attorney’s fees and expenses of
litigation. Hence, the RTC-Manila has jurisdiction.

Yes, A can move to dismiss the case on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Under Section 5(c), Rule 2, the joinder shall not include actions governed by special rules. Here, the action
for collection of P200,000.00 is governed by a special rule, i.e. the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims
Cases. Hence, the joinder of causes of action is not proper and consequently the totality rule cannot come
into play. The RTC Manila would not have jurisdiction since the claim in each cause of action falls below
the jurisdictional amount of P400,000.00.

Previous answer, before small claims. No. Because the RTC-Manila has jurisdiction over the subject matter.
P may sue A in one complaint asserting as many causes of action as he may have and since all the claims are
principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction. (Rule 2,
Sec. 5[d]). The aggregate amount claimed is P450,000.00, exclusive of the amount of P100,000.00 for
attorney’s fees and expenses for litigation. Hence, the RTC- Manila has jurisdiction.

6. A filed with the MTC of Manila an action for specific performance against B, a resident of Quezon City, to
compel the latter to execute a deed of conveyance covering a parcel of land situated in Quezon City having
an assessed value of P19,000.00. B received the summons and a copy of the Complaint on 02 January 2003.
On 10 January 2003, B filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
contending that the subject matter of the suit was incapable of pecuniary estimation. The court denied the
motion. Was the denial of the Motion to Dismiss the Complaint correct?
The denial of the Motion to Dismiss the Complaint was not correct. Although the assessed value of the
parcel of land involved was P19,000.00, within the jurisdiction of the MTC of Manila, the action filed by A
for Specific Performance against B to compel the latter to execute a Deed of Conveyance of said parcel of
land was not capable of pecuniary estimation and, therefore, the action was within the
jurisdiction of RTC.

7. P sued A and B in one complaint in the RTC Manila, the cause of action against A being on an overdue
promissory note for P300,000.00 and that against B being on an alleged balance of P300,000.00 on the
purchase price of good sold on credit. Does the RTC-Manila have jurisdiction over the case? Explain.

No, the RTC-Manila has no jurisdiction over the case A and B could not be joined as defendants in one
complaint because the right to relief against both defendants do not arise out of the same transaction or
series of transactions and there is no common question of law or fact common to both. (Rule 3, sec. 6).
Hence, separate complaints will have to be files and they would fall under the jurisdiction of the
Metropolitan Trial Court.

8. Amorsolo, a Filipino citizen permanently residing in New York City, filed with the RTC of Lipa City a
complaint for Rescission of Contract of Sale of Land against Brigido, a resident of Barangay San Miguel,
Sto. Tomas, Batangas. The subject property, located in Barangay Talisay, Lipa City has an assessed value of
19,700. Appended to the complaint is Amorsolo’s verification and certification of non-forum shopping
 executed in New York City, duly notarized by Mr. Joseph Brown, Esq., a notary public in the State of New
York. Brigod filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the following grounds:
(a) The court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person of Amorsolo because he is not a resident of the
Philippine.
(b) The RTC does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action involving the real property with an
assessed value of P19,700; exclusive and original jurisdiction is with the Municipal Trial Court.
Assume you’re the judge, resolve the motion.

A . The ground that the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person of Amorsolo is without merit.
The Supreme Court has held that a court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff when he files
the complaint or petition before the court. Besides the ground for a motion to dismiss is that the court has no
jurisdiction over the person of the defending party, not over the person of the claimant.
B. The ground that the RTC does not have subject-matter jurisdiction is without merit. A complaint for
rescission of a contract of sale is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation and hence within the
jurisdiction of the RTC pursuant to B.P. Blg. 129.

9. Josefa filed in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Alicia and Mabili, a petition for the probate of the will of
her husband, Martin, who died in the Municipality of Alicia, the residence of the spouses. The probable
value of the estate which consisted mainly of a house and lot was placed at P195,000.00 and in the petition
for the allowance of the will, attorney’s fees in the amount of P10,000.00, litigation expenses in the amount
of P5,000.00 and costs were included. Pedro, the next of kin of Martin, filed an opposition to the probate of
the will on the ground that the total amount included in the relief of the petition is more than P200,000.00,
the maximum jurisdiction amount for municipal circuit trial courts. The court overruled the opposition and
proceeded to hear the case. Was the municipal circuit trial court correct in its ruling?

YES, the Municipal Trial Court was correct in proceeding to hear the case. It gas exclusive jurisdiction
in all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the value of the estate does not exceed
P200,000. The value in this case of P95,000 is within its jurisdiction. In determining the jurisdictional
amount, excluded are attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs; these are considered only for
determining the filing fees.

10. Agatha filed a complaint against Yana in the RTC in Makati City to collect Php350,000.00, an amount
representing the unpaid balance on the price of the car Yana had bought from Agatha. Realizing a
jurisdictional error in filing the complaint in the RTC, Agatha filed a notice of dismissal before she was
served with the answer of Yana. The RTC issued an order confirming the dismissal.

Three months later, Agatha filed another complaint against Yana based on the same cause of action this time
in the MeTC of Makati City. However, for reasons personal to her, Agatha decided to have the complaint
dismissed without prejudice by filing a notice of dismissal prior to the service of the answer of Yana. Hence,
the case was dismissed by the MeTC.

A month later, Agatha refiled the complaint against Yana in the same MeTC. May Yana successfully invoke
the Two-Dismissal Rule to bar Agatha’s third complaint? Explain your answer.

No, Yana may not successfully invoke the Two-Dismissal Rule to bar Agatha’s third complaint.
Under the Two-Dismissal Rule, the notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits
provided it is filed by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in a competent court an action based on or
including the same claim. (S1, R17)
Here the first dismissal by the plaintiff was not in a competent court as the RTC in Makati City did not
have subject-matter jurisdiction over an action seeking to recover P350,000. Hence Agatha’s third
complaint is not barred by the Two-Dismissal Rule.

-end-