REM REV 1

Final Exam

Prof. J. A. Obra December 17, 2022

There are 67 items and 8 pages in this exam. If you agree with the
statement, just write “True”. If you don’t, write “False”, explain why the
statement is false and state the correct statement. Please leave one (1) blank
space between your answers.

1) The CA should deny the petition for relief from its judgment
rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction filed by the party
aggrieved by said judgment on the ground that the latter was prevented
by extrinsic fraud from presenting his evidence in the trial court.

2) The CA properly denied the petition for relief from the

resolution of the Civil Service Commission directing the execution of its
final order.

3) A petition for relief from judgment is neither a mode of appeal

nor an original action.

4) When the execution of the final and executory judgment of the

RTC is attended with extrinsic fraud, the proper remedy for the
judgment obligor is to file with the same RTC a petition for relief from
such proceeding.

5) If the RTC grants the petition for relief from denial of appeal, it
shall require the lower court to give due course to the appeal and
transmit the record of the case to the proper appellate court.
 6) A party aggrieved by the judgment of the RTC in a civil action
may file with the CA a petition for annulment of the judgment on the
ground that it was rendered without due process of law.

7) Upon a proper petition, the CA may annul the judgment of the

RTC on the ground that the latter failed to acquire jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant.

8) The CA should deny the petition for annulment of judgment of

the RTC filed on the ground that the RTC acted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it rendered the
judgment.

9) The advanced age and illness of the judgment obligee are good
reasons for granting his application for execution pending appeal.

10) After an appeal has been perfected, the judgment creditor’s

offer to post a sufficient bond in favor of the judgment debtor is not a
good reason for granting his application for discretionary execution.

11) The appellee’s urgent need for funds to defray the medical
expenses of his gravely ill wife would not justify the execution of the
judgment pending appeal.
12) The court should hold in abeyance the resolution of the motion
for discretionary execution during the pendency of a motion for
reconsideration of the judgment.

13) The court may or may not require the applicant for
discretionary execution to give a bond in favor of the appellant.
 14) In an action for support, execution of the judgment in favor of
the plaintiff is a matter of right even during the pendency of an appeal.

15) The plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment of the RTC may

seasonably file with the CA a petition for annulment of such judgment
on the ground that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of
the case.

ANS: FALSE. Only the accused can file for an annulment of

judgment grounded on lack of jurisdiction.

Section 5, Rule 6 (in relation to Section 2(2), Rule 47) -

Affirmative defenses may also include grounds for the dismissal of a
complaint, specifically, that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter, that there is another action pending between the same parties for
the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment.

16) In an action for injunction, an appeal from the judgment in

favor of the plaintiff does not vacate the judgment.

17) Upon the filing by the judgment creditor of a motion for

execution, the court shall resolve the motion outright without waiting for
the judgment debtor to file any written opposition.

18) After the court has granted the application for writ of
execution, the clerk of court is authorized to issue the writ of execution
without any further court intervention.

19) As a rule, when an appeal is taken from a judgment, it is

vacated and, consequently, it cannot be executed pending appeal.
 20) Despite a determination that its judgment has become final and
executory, the court cannot motu proprio order its execution.

21) After it is determined by probable cause in the PI that a public

officer and a private person conspired in violating the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act, the private person may be charged alone in the
Sandiganbayan if the public officer died before the information could be
filed.

22) While an independent civil action and the civil action instituted
with the criminal action involve the same parties and are based on the
same act or omission, the former may be filed during the pendency of
the latter without violating the rule on litis pendentia.

23) For execution of judgment to be valid, it is not enough that the

writ of execution be applied for by motion by the judgment obligee and
issued by the court within five years from entry of judgment, the
execution itself must be done within the same period.

24) The RTC exercises exclusive original jurisdiction over a

petition for annulment of judgment of the MTC.

25) If the judgment obligor fails to object to the issuance of the

writ of execution six years after entry of judgment, he will be deemed to
have waived such objection thereby rendering the execution valid.
ANS: FALSE. The limitation that a judgment be enforced by
execution within five years, otherwise it loses efficacy, goes to the very
jurisdiction of the Court. A writ issued after such period is void, and
the failure to object thereto does not validate it, for the reason that
 jurisdiction of courts is solely conferred by law and not by express or
implied will of the parties.

26) There are instances when the judgment may be validly

executed beyond five years after its entry.

27) An action for revival of judgment rendered by the MTC shall

be cognizable exclusively by the MTC.

ANS: FALSE. An action for revival of judgment is a new and

independent action. It is different and distinct from the original judgment
sought to be revived or enforced. (Heirs of Miranda, Sr. v. Miranda,
G.R. No. 179638, 2013). The action for revival of judgment need not
necessarily be filed with the same court that decided the case; it shall be
filed in the RTC as one incapable of pecuniary estimation.

28) For the purpose of determining its proper venue, an action for
revival of judgment is a real action if the judgment sought to be revived
was rendered in a real action and a personal action, if rendered in a
personal action.

29) In an action for revival of judgment, the court may not correct
errors of fact or errors of law in the judgment sought to be revived.

30) The execution of a revived judgment may be applied for by

motion within five years from entry of the judgment in the action for
revival of judgment.

31) After five years but within ten years from the entry of the
judgment in the action for revival of judgment, the execution of the
revived judgment may be applied for by instituting an independent
action for revival of judgment.

32) The judgment obligee as the plaintiff and the judgment obligor
as the defendant are the only real parties in interest in an action for
revival of judgment.

33) The order of the court denying the claim of ownership of a

third-party claimant over a parcel of land levied upon by the sheriff is
not appealable.

34) A Philippine court may properly deny recognition of a foreign

judgment if it determines that the foreign judgment contravenes a
well-entrenched public policy in the Philippines.

35) In an action for recognition of a foreign judgment, the

Philippine court may determine whether the foreign judgment was
rendered in accordance with the laws of the country where it was
rendered.

36) A Philippine court may recognize a foreign divorce decree in a

special proceeding for cancellation and correction of entries in the civil
registry under Rule 108.

37) “Claim preclusion” is one of the effects of a final and

executory judgment which provides that when a cause of action between
two parties has been tried and resolved by a competent court in a final
and executory judgment, neither of the parties may bring another action
against the other for the same cause of action.
 38) The MTC exercises exclusive original jurisdiction over a
criminal action where the offense charged is reckless imprudence
resulting in damage to property where the alleged cost of damage on
which the penalty of fine is based is P100,000.00.

39) The MTC shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction if the

accused is a public officer with a salary grade of 26 and the offense
charged is indirect bribery.

ANS: FALSE. Indirect bribery, punishable by imprisonment of

less than 6 years under Art. 211 of the RPC, but by express provision of
Sec. 4 (par. a) of PD 1606 as amended, is placed within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan;

40) No law expressly provides that the RTC shall exercise

exclusive original jurisdiction over criminal actions involving offenses
punishable with imprisonment of more than 6 years.

41) The Family Court shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction

over a criminal action where the offense charged against the 17-year old
accused is violation of R. A. No. 9165 punishable with imprisonment of
not more than six years.

42) The Sandiganbayan may take cognizance of a criminal action

charging an MTC judge of committing acts of lasciviousness against one
of his female staff.

43) In the absence of any allegation in the information that the

accused municipal mayor committed the rape with homicide in relation
to his office, the RTC may properly exercise original jurisdiction over
the criminal action.

44) The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original

jurisdiction over a criminal action for violation of R. A. No. 3019 where
the accused is a Branch Manager of the Pasay City GSIS field office
with salary grade of 26.

45) If ultimate facts are alleged in the information showing that the
accused public officer with a salary grade of 30 committed the violation
of R. A. No. 9165 using the powers of his public office, the
Sandiganbayan shall exclusively take cognizance of the criminal action.

ANS: FALSE. The pertinent provisions of R.A. No. 9165

expressly provides that the RTC shall exercise exclusive original
jurisdiction over all violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act regardless of whether the accused is a public officer
with a salary grade of at least 27 and he committed the crime in
relation to his office and regardless of the imposable penalty. (De
Lima vs Hon. Guerrero)

46) The private offended party who has been authorized in writing
through his counsel to prosecute the criminal action in the RTC is
without legal personality to appeal to the CA the court’s order
dismissing the case for lack of probable cause.

47) If the offense charged was committed in Pateros, Metro Manila

and the offense does not require PI, the criminal action may be instituted
by filing the complaint directly with the MeTC of Pateros.
 48) There are instances when the accused may be validly convicted
of two or more offenses charged in one information.

49) After the accused has entered his plea, the court may allow the
amendment of the information changing the offense charged from
murder to homicide.

50) After the victim died of the same wounds inflicted by the
accused for which he was initially charged with frustrated murder and to
which he pleaded not guilty, the court may properly allow the
prosecution to amend the information by changing the offense charged
to murder.

51) The venue of the institution of a criminal action may not be

transferred even with the approval of the Supreme Court.

52) The RTC of Quezon City has no jurisdiction over an offense

punishable with imprisonment of more than 6 years if the same was
committed in Pasay City.

53) The criminal action for violation of B. P. Blg. 22 may properly

be instituted and tried in the MTC of the place where the subject check
was dishonored by the drawee bank.

54) As a rule, the offended party is required to pay filing fee for all
damages other than actual sought in the civil action instituted with the
criminal action.

55) Once the civil action to recover damages arising from the
crime is instituted with the criminal action, any civil action arising from
the same act or omission constituting the crime may no longer be
instituted.

ANS: FALSE. The offended party can file two separate suits for
the same act or omission. The first a criminal case where the civil action
to recover civil liability ex delicto is deemed instituted, and the other a
civil case for quasi-delict - without violating the rule on nonforum
shopping. The two cases can proceed simultaneously and independently
of each other. (Casupanan vs Laroya)

56) If the accused dies during the pendency of the criminal action,
the civil action to recover damages arising from the act or omission
constituting the crime may still be instituted or may remain pending
against the estate of the accused.

57) An action for nullity of marriage based on psychological

incapacity of the husband previously instituted by the wife does not raise
a prejudicial question in the subsequently instituted criminal action for
frustrated parricide filed by the wife against the husband.

58) If the offense charged did not require PI but is not covered by
the rule on summary procedure, and the MTC judge found probable
cause, he may or may not issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused.

59) If the offense charged is covered by the rule on summary

procedure and the MTC judge found probable cause, he is prohibited
from issuing a warrant of arrest against the accused.

60) The arrest of a prisoner while escaping from his place of

detention is an arrest in flagrante delicto.
 ANS: FALSE. In flagrante delicto - when in his presence, the
person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense.

61) After conviction by the RTC of an offense punishable with

imprisonment of more than 6 years but not death, reclusion perpetua or
life imprisonment, the court may still deny bail even if the prosecution
failed to show that any of the bail-negating circumstances exist.

62) If the judgment of conviction of the RTC imposes the penalty

of reclusion perpetua, the same shall be appealable to the Supreme
Court by notice of appeal.

63) In an appeal taken by the accused from a judgment of

conviction, the appellate court may increase the penalty of imprisonment
imposed by the trial court.

64) If the accused filed a motion for reconsideration of the

judgment of conviction rendered by the RTC, he may file the notice of
appeal within 15 days from his receipt of the order denying his motion
for reconsideration.

65) An accused who has been acquitted of Violation of B. P. Blg.

22 for issuing Check No. 1007 will be placed in double jeopardy if he is
again charged with estafa for issuing the same check.

ANS: FALSE. Under the law, an accused may be charged with

violation of BP 22 for issuing a check without violating his/her
 right against double jeopardy. Violation of BP 22 is a different
offense under a different law arising from the same criminal act.

66) For purposes of a warrantless search, an object is in plain view

when, despite its being inside a package, it is easily observable to the
police officer because of the transparent nature of the package.

67) The rape victim who got pregnant and gave birth to a child
may apply for support pendente lite for her child from the accused in the
civil action instituted with the criminal action.