JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER

2023 JURISTS REMEDIAL LAW MOCK BAR EXAMINATION

Name of Student: Hernandez, Fruzan

P sued D in the RTC for the annulment of a deed of sale of a house and lot to D and for P to be
declared the owner thereof. Prior to filing the case, P had transferred possession of the house in
the lot to X. The RTC rendered a judgment in favor of D which judgment became final and
executory. Subsequently D filed an action with the MTC to recover damages of ₱300,000
against X for his use and occupancy of the house. X moved to dismiss on the ground of res
judicata. Resolve the motion.

There is no Res Judicata in this case.

The Rules on Civil Procedure provide that the judgment or final order is a bar to the
prosecution of a subsequent action based on the same claim or cause of action.

In this case, the subsequent filing of P against X will not amount to res judicata as the
action being raised by P is not the same with the previously decided case, which is an
annulment of a deed of sale.

Hence, the motion to dismiss based on res judicata filed by X should not be given
credence.

Petrov filed with the RTC an action for recovery of possession of a parcel of land against
Danilov. Danilov filed an answer in which he raised prescription as an affirmative defense. Does
the RTC have a duty to resolve the affirmative defense or may it defer the resolution to the trial
of the case?

Yes, the Regional Trial Court can motu proprio resolve the defense.

The Revised Rules of Court provide that when a party raised in his or her answer a
ground for motion to dismiss by way of affirmative defense, the court may conduct a
summary hearing within fifteen (15) days from receipt of such answer. The court shall
motu proprio resolve the defense within thirty (30) days from the filing of the answer.

Here, the affirmative defense on the ground of prescription filed by Danilov can resolve
by the trial court within 30 days after conducting a summary hearing.
 3

Primus filed with the Regional Trial Court an action for recovery of a parcel of land against
Darvish. At the time Primus filed the complaint, his application with the DENR for the issuance
of a homestead patent over the subject parcel of land was still pending. Darvish filed an answer
raising the affirmative defense of failure to state a cause of action. Subsequently, Primus’s
application was granted and a homestead patent over the land issued in his name. Primus then
filed a motion for leave of court to amend the complaint by adding an allegation regarding the
grant of the homestead patent. May the court grant leave for the amendment?

The court may not grant the leave for the amendment filed by Primus.

The Rules of Civil Procedure provide as a general rule that amendment can no longer be
availed of as a matter of right if a responsive pleading has already been filed. Further,
albeit the responsive pleading, such as an affirmative answer being served, the plaintiff
can still seek for an amendment of his or her complaint by leave of court. But subject to
exceptions, and one of those is when the court finds that the case filed has no cause of
action from the beginning which could be amended.

Here, Primus filed an amendment after the responsive pleading has been served.
Although he filed an amendment by leave of court, he did not have a lawful ownership
yet over the property in question at the time he instituted the case. Hence, an affirmative
defense for failure to state a cause of action was filed by Darvish.

Therefore, the court may not grant the amendment by leave of court filed by Primus, for
being sought after the motion to dismiss based on lack of cause of action had been filed.
It also falls under the exception which prohibits the court from granting such an
amendment by leave of court.

Ponty filed with the RTC an action for recovery of a parcel of land against Darcy. Ponty alleged
in his complaint that he is the owner of the said property by virtue of a deed of sale executed by
Darcy in his favor. A copy of the deed of sale was appended to the complaint as Annex A
thereof. Aside from the recovery of the land, Ponty also prayed for the award of ₱100,000 a
month as reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the land from the filing of the
complaint up to the time possession of the land is awarded to him.

In his unverified answer, Darcy denied the allegation concerning the sale of the property in
question, as well as the appended deed of sale, for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth thereof. Upon motion, the RTC rendered judgment on the pleadings
in favor of Ponty granting him the reliefs prayed for in his complaint. Was the rendition of the
judgment on the pleadings proper?

No, the judgment on the pleadings is improper.

The Rules of Civil Procedure provide that the judgment on the pleadings is proper if the
adverse party in his answer fails to tender an issue, that he or she does not deny the
allegations in the complaint, or if he or she admits the truthfulness of the allegations in
the pleadings.

In the case at bar, Darcy denied the allegations concerning the sale of the property in
question, as well as the appended deed of sale. Which is in contrast to the requisites
necessary to render judgment on the pleadings.

Ergo, the judgment on the pleadings is not proper.

Pia filed with the RTC a complaint to collect a ₱2,000,000 loan from Dina. Dina filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Upon receipt of the motion to
dismiss, Pia forthwith filed an amended complaint in which she added a prayer for collection of
accrued interest of ₱200,000 based on the stipulation to pay interest of 10% per annum in the
loan agreement. Should Dina’s motion to dismiss be granted?

No, the motion to dismiss should not be granted.

Under the Rules of Court, the Regional Trial Court has a jurisdiction to hear and try civil
cases involving the recovery of sum of money exceeding 2,000,000.00. On the other
hand, the Rules likewise provide that there can still be a valid amendment even after the
defendant already filed his or her motion to dismiss, as the law says that a motion to
dismiss is not considered as a responsive pleading. For there is already a necessity to
file an amendment with leave of court once a responsive pleading has been filed.

In this case, the action will fall under the jurisdiction of the RTC. The filing of amendment
by Pia to increase the amount of her money claim, which will exceed 2,000.000.00 or in
this case 2,200,000.00 is proper. That, even if Dina has already filed a motion to dismiss,
it will not bar the filing of a substantial amendment.

Ergo, having the proper filing of an amendment to meet the correct jurisdictional amount
by Pia, Dina’s motion to dismiss should be denied.

Primus filed an action before the Regional Trial Court to recover a parcel of land against Dmitri.
Primus alleged that he had executed a contract to sell over the land in favor of Dmitri; however,
after making a down payment of ₱450,000, Dmitri failed to pay the balance of ₱1 million. Dmitri
filed an answer with a counterclaim for moral and exemplary damages for the filing of what he
said was an unwarranted suit by Primus. The RTC rendered a judgment in favor of Primus
which in due course became final and executory.
Subsequently Dmitri filed with the RTC an action against Primus for the refund of the
₱450,000downpayment. Primus filed amotion to dismiss on the ground of res judicata, arguing
that Dmitri should have set up the claim for refund as a counterclaim in the first case. How
should the court rule on the motion to dismiss?

The court can no longer hear the counterclaim, as it has already lost its jurisdiction over
the case.

The law provides that once a court already disposed of a case, such as when the case
had already attained finality, it also then lost its jurisdiction over same action. Hence, it
can no longer hear any claim which would arise therefrom, such as a counterclaim which
is just an auxiliary to the main action. However, in a calendar of cases decided by the
Supreme Court, it says that, for fairness and to serve the ends of justice, a party who still
seeks for a counterclaim after a case has become final and executory, can still pursue
the same in a separate adjudication.

Hence, Dmitri may still file a separate claim against Primus for the refund of sum of oney
amounting to Php 450,000.00.

Pedro filed a complaint against Dondi before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Dondi filed an
answer with the affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction. The RTC issued an order
granting the affirmative defense and dismissing the complaint, which order was received by
Pedro on June 1. On July 15, Pedro filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 to set aside the RTC’s dismissal order. Dondi filed a comment in which he prayed
for the dismissal of the petition on the following grounds:

(a) The dismissal order had become final and executory since Pedro did not appeal therefrom
within 15 days from notice thereof.

(b) The petition for certiorari was filed without a prior motion for reconsideration filed by Pedro
with the RTC.

Should Pedro’s petition for certiorari be dismissed based on the grounds raised by Dondi?

Yes, the petition for certiorari filed by Pedro should be dismissed.

Under the Rules on Civil Procedure, a dismissal of a case based on lack of jurisdiction
over a person is without prejudice, and is thereby appealable within a period of 15 days.

On the other hand, the same rule explains that the filing of a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 is not automatic, and that a dismissal order, whether correct or not, is still a final
order, and the correct remedy to be filed is either a motion for reconsideration or an
appeal. However this rule also has exceptions, such as, where the party is being
deprived of due process, when there is an extreme necessity for the resolution of the
case, or that the court has no jurisdiction over the same case, among others. Petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 is applicable if proved that the court acted with grave abuse of
discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Further, the Rule provides that a
motion for reconsideration must be filed within a period of 15 days.
In the instant case, the remedy of Pedro in first filing a petition for certiorari under Rule
65 is wrong, as he should have first filed a appeal or a motion for reconsideration. As
there is as well no showing in the case above that the Regional Trial Court acted with
grave abuse of discretion, which amounts to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Additionally,
since Pedro sought a wrong remedy, Dondi was right in claiming that he aside from filing
an improper petition, he also lost the allowable period of time to file an appeal which is
15 days from receipt of the judgment.

Therefore, by failure to appeal and by filing a wrong remedy, Pedro’s petion for certiorari
should be dismissed.

Oscar filed with the Regional Trial Court an action to recover possession of a car from Darius.
Oscar alleged that Darius had unlawfully taken the car. Darius filed and served an answer in
which he alleged that the car was sold to him by Thirdy who was the owner thereof. Oscar then
filed with the RTC a sworn application, together with the requisite bond, for the issuance of a
writ of replevin. May the RTC issue the writ of replevin?

No, the Regional Trial Court cannot outrightly grant the application for a writ of replevin
in favor of Oscar.

In one case decided by the Supreme court, it ruled that for a writ of replevin to be
granted, the plaintiff should first establish through an affidavit, his rightful ownership or
that he is entitled of possession of the sought property to be recovered, and that the
defendant illegally detains the same. He should also indicate the market value of the
property being recovered, and should also give a corresponding bond. Further, the law
also protects the right of the third party who was able to acquire the subject property in
good faith.

In this case, Oscar should first establish his lawful right of ownership and possession
prior to the enforcement of the said writ of replevin, moreover, it shall likewise be proved
that Darius illegally got hold possession of the property, such as in this case the alleged
Oscar’s car.

In light of the foregoing, without satisfying the requisites of the law for the successful
recovery of a property by way of a writ of replevin, the Regional Trial Court cannot grant
the herein petition filed by Oscar.

A woman died leaving her husband (petitioner) and her seven siblings (private respondents) as
her sole heirs. The petitioner then executed affidavits of self-adjudication under Rule 74 averring
that he was the sole heir and causing the registration of his wife’s real property under his sole
name. The private respondents thus filed with the RTC an action for annulment of the affidavits
and for reconveyance of the real property against the petitioner.
The petitioner filed an answer which raised the affirmative defense of failure of the complaint to
state a cause of action. The petitioner argued that since there was no preliminary determination
of the private respondents’ status as heirs in the appropriate special proceeding for the
settlement of the deceased’s estate, the private respondents cannot be said to be the real
parties-in-interest. How should the court rule on the affirmative defense?

The court should rule in favor of the respondents.

In one case decided by the Supreme Court, it opined that the right of the heirs in the
estate left by their deceased sibling commenced at the time of death of the decedent.
That there is no need for preliminary determination of their relationship and judicial
declaration of heirship for them to lawfully enforce their rights to the inheritance. The
Supreme Court further said that in a case where another heir executed an affidavit of
self-adjudication of the estate for himself, then the other affected heirs, for the protection
of their rights, may likewise file an ordinary civil action to nullify the same affidavit of
self-adjudication.

Here, the husband has no right to violate the law on succession, which grants the right
over the legal heirs to inherent from the estate of their deceased sibling. Hence, the self-
adjudication executed by the herein husband should be nullified.

10

Beth Loggins filed a petition under Rule 103 to change her surname from Loggins to Huggins,
alleging that her surname, taken together with her first name, subjected her to public ridicule.
The RTC rendered judgment granting the petition. The Republic filed a notice of appeal within
15 days from notice of the judgment. Loggins filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, stating that
since the judgment was in a special proceeding, the Republic should have filed also a record on
appeal. Is Loggin’s contention correct?

Loggin’s contention is wrong.

The Rules on Special Proceedings provide that A violation of the requirement for the
timely perfection of an appeal by record on appeal in Special Proceedings may be a
ground for the dismissal of the appeal. Further, the Rules say that a record on appeal
may be filed within 30 days from receipt of final judgment.

In this case, while it is true that failure of the Republic to file a record an appeal may be a
ground for dismissal of the appeal, however, the reglementary period of 30 days is not
yet fully exhausted. Hence, the Republic can still file the required record on appeal.

In this case, the motion of Loggins is premature, for the Republic still has time to fully
furnish the Court with the subject Record on Appeal.
 11

A complaint for violation of the Anti-Graft Law (R.A. No. 3019) was filed before the Office of the
Ombudsman (OMB) against B, C, and D who are commissioners of the Energy Regulatory
Commission (ERC) with office in Pasig City, Metro Manila. After due preliminary investigation
and finding probable cause, the OMB filed an information against B, C, and D before the RTC of
Pasig City for the violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. The body of the information reads
as follows:

That on 6 November 2020 to 30 April 2021, in Pasig City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, accused public officers B, C, and D, being then Commissioners, all of
the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC), committing the offense in relation to their official
positions as such, conspiring and confederating and mutually helping one another, acting with
evident bad faith, manifest partiality or gross inexcusable negligence, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and criminally give unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to ACME
Power Company (APC) by modifying the date of implementation of Resolution No. 13, Series of
2015, which required APC and other Distribution Utilities to go through a Competitive Selection
Process (CSP) before entering into Power Supply Agreements (PSA[s]) from 6 November 2020
to 30 April 2021, thereby favoring APC by allowing it to file with ERC on 29 April 2021 the PSAs
it entered with its sister companies/affiliates, namely: (1) Atimonan One Energy, Inc. (AIE). [et
al.], without complying with the CSP requirement, to the damage and prejudice of the
government and public interest.

You are the lawyer for B, C, and D. What legal step or remedy would you take or avail of on
their behalf?

If I were the lawyer for B, C and D, I will file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before
the Supreme Court.

The Law on Civil Procedure provides that any final order or decisions rendered by the
Office of the Ombudsman relative to a criminal case are subject to review by the
Supreme Court. That the aggrieved party should file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
of the Rules of Court based on grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of the Office of the Ombudsman.

In this case, I will file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court on
the ground that the finding of the Ombudsman of probable cause is tainted with grave
abuse of discretion, which amounts to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

12

Jan Du was charged with murder. The information reads as follows:

“That on or about the 1st day of March, 2021, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named
accused with intent to kill, qualified with treachery, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously assault, attack and employ personal violence upon the person of one VIC TIMA by
then and there shooting him with a gun, hitting him on his head, thereby inflicting upon him
serious and mortal wound which was the direct and immediate cause of his death, to the
damage and prejudice of the heirs of the said VIC TIMA.”

Upon arraignment, Jan Du pleaded not guilty. After trial, Du was convicted of murder by the
RTC and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The judgment was affirmed on appeal by the Court
of Appeals. Du intends to appeal to the Supreme Court. How should Du take his appeal to the
Supreme Court?

The judgment may be appealed to the Supreme Court by notice of appeal filed with the
Court of Appeals.

13

Same facts as in the preceding question. May Du’s conviction for murder be reduced to one for
homicide by the Supreme Court on the ground that treachery was not specifically or particularly
alleged?

No, Du’s conviction cannot be reduced from murder to homicide.

In one case decided by the Supreme Court, it explained that the accused should object in the
early stage of the prosecution if there is any insufficiency found in the information. Failure on the
part of the accused to question the said insufficiency either by way of a motion to quash or a
motion for bill of particulars, the accused deemed waived any defects in the information filed
against hi,.

Here, Du failed to question the sufficiency of the Information by availing any of the remedies
provided under the procedural rules, which is either by filing a motion to quash for failure of the
Information to conform substantially to the prescribed form or by filing a motion for bill of
particulars.

Therefore, as Du deemed to have waived any of the waivable defects in the Information filed
against him, the court cannot reduce his penalty from murder to homicide.
 14

Harold contracted marriage with Prima. Harold then filed a petition for declaration of nullity of his
marriage to Prima on the ground of absence of a marriage license. While this petition was
pending, Harold contracted a second marriage with Segunda. When Prima learned of this, she
filed a criminal complaint with the prosecutor for bigamy against Harold. The information for
bigamy against Harold was subsequently filed in court. Harold filed a motion for suspension of
the criminal case on the ground that the marriage nullification case presented a prejudicial
question. Should the motion be granted?

No, the motion should not be granted.

In the recent case of Pulido vs. People, the Supreme Court held that the requirement of a
prior judicial declaration of nullity under Article 40 of the Family Code, which is for
purposes only of remarriage, is no longer applicable and should not be extended in
criminal cases.

Hence, in this case of Bigamy, which is a criminal action, a resolution of a prejudicial

question relative to the judicial declaration of nullity of previous marriage is no longer
required.

Therefore, the herein case should not be suspended based on the motion filed by Harold,
which pertains to the suspension of the criminal caase on the ground that the marriage
nullification case presented a prejudicial question.

15

The car of Boris was stopped by armed policemen at a police checkpoint. Boris was told to
alight and to open the trunk of his car, which he did. Illegal firearms were found inside. Boris
was subsequently convicted by the RTC, the primary evidence against him being the seized
firearms. On appeal before the Court of Appeals, Boris argued that the firearms were illegally
seized and thus inadmissible in evidence. The CA affirmed stating that Boris had consented to
the search and that Boris had waived the ground of illegal seizure by not raising it in the trial
court. The conviction became final and Boris started serving his sentence. You have just been
engaged by Boris’ wife as his counsel. What legal remedy or step would you take, if any, on
behalf of Boris?

I will file a motion to dismiss on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction over the
person of Boris.
In a long line of cases decided by the Higher Court, it ruled that an illegal search will
never give rise to a valid arrest of a person. Further, it held that although policemen, are
given a right to conduct checkpoints, the law says that it is subject to limitation. Such as
the said right is limited to visual search, and that in no way, without a probable cause,
that policemen can go beyond that restrictions.

Here, Boris was stopped albeit in a checkpoint, but there is no showing that the
policemen had probable cause to order him to alight and to open the trunk of his car.
Hence, there is already an invalid search, and that what the policemen did was against
the constitutional right of Boris against lawful search and seizure.

Therefore, the herein court, did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of Boris, and that
the case against the latter should be dismissed.

16

Precocia, claiming to be Davido’s widow, filed a claim against his estate during the probate
proceedings. The administrator resists the claim on his allegation that Davido was never
married. May the administrator introduce, over the relevant objection, Davido’s income tax
returns for the past five years wherein Davido stated that he was not married?

No, it cannot be presented because unlike a marriage license which were duly
acknowledged by both parties, husband and wife, income tax returns is just signed by
Davido alone. Hence, cannot prove marriage as between the two of them.

17

Paco filed a suit for tort against Darko. Paco called Darko as his first witness. On direct
examination of Darko, may Paco’s lawyer ask Darko if:

(a) He had been convicted by final judgment of violating B.P. Blg. 22 by issuing a bouncing
check?

Yes, it is proper. Although, the question has no relation to the fact in issue, it’s intention
is to establish the fact that the accused has been convicted of felony, and it is a valid
circumstance to be taken into consideration as affecting his character and credibility.

(b) If he was known in his hometown as a liar?

The Rules on Evidence provide that in civil cases, the moral character is admissible only
when pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case, hence this question which
pertains to the character of Darko is improper.
 18

An accused who is charged with rape takes the witness stand and testifies that the victim
consented to have sex with him. On cross examination, the prosecutor asks the accused if he
had been convicted by final judgment of estafa through the issuance of a bouncing check. Is this
a proper question?

Yes, it is proper. For the fact that the accused has been convicted of felony is a
circumstance to be taken into consideration as affecting his character and credibility.

19

N. Trapp was charged with corruption of public official for bribing a BIR agent. His defense in
the criminal case was that he was instigated by the agent. May Trapp be allowed by the court to
present two witnesses who will testify that Trapp once turned down a proposal by a colleague to
bribe a customs official with Trapp stating that bribery is evil?

Yes.

The Rules on Evidence provide that the accused may prove his or her good moral
character relative to the moral trait involved in the offense charged., and that proof
regarding the same may be made by testimony as to the reputation or by testimony in the
form of an opinion.

Here, N. Trapp may be allowed by the court to present two witnesses who will testify that
he once turned down a proposal by a colleague to bribe a customs official, with him
stating that bribery is evil.

Therefore, being one of the exceptions wherein character evidence may be admissible, N
Trapp can present a witness who can testify about his moral character.