Civil Procedure – Finals 2020 1

LAST NAME, First Name

I.

(1)
Yes.

BP 129 sets the jurisdiction of the courts. “Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil
cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:

(8)In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the
property in controversy exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (100,000.00) or,
in such other abovementioned items exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos
(200,000.00).”

The amount exceeds what is prescribed, and the amount is ceiling amount is
higher now due to A.M. 08-8-7-SC as amended OCA Circular No. 165-2018
which increased the amounts respectively to 300,000 outside of Metro Manila
and 400,000 within Metro Manila.

Since the amount in the complaint exceeds 400,000; the jurisdiction falls
within the jurisdiction of the RTC.

(2)
Yes.

Sec. 2 and 4, Rule 4 of the 1997 Rules of Court says it is proper.

Sec 2 states:
All other actions may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the
principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal
defendants resides…
Sec 4 states:
the rule on venue is not applicable where the parties have validly agreed in
writing before the filing of the action on the exclusive venue thereof.

The case involves a promissory note that restricts the venue wit the word
“exclusive”, and the venue where the case was instituted is allegedly one where
they have a branch.

The case is properly instituted, because the venue falls within the restrictive
venue stipulated under the promissory note, which is permissible under the
law.
(3)

No.

In a jurisprudence the court ruled that: “it is well-settled that the courts may
not motu proprio dismiss the case on the ground of improper venue.”

The court may motu proprio dismiss the case on lack of jurisdiction. The
grounds mentioned by the court at the case at bar comprises that of improper
venue because the requisites for lack of jurisdiction are laid down in Sec. 19 of
BP 129. The grounds the court had specified for its motu proprio dismissal of
the case can be found under Rule 4 of the 1997 Rules of Court.

Since the grounds were improper, the motu proprio dismissal of the case is
Civil Procedure – Finals 2020 2
LAST NAME, First Name

improper as well.

II.

(1)

The Metc has jurisdiction over the case.

Pursuant to Republic Act No. 7691 (RA 7691), the proper Metropolitan Trial
Court (Me TC), MTC, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) has exclusive
original jurisdiction over ejectment cases, no matter the how much the
assessed value of the land is.

(2)

As the trial court Judge, I will rule pursuant to Sec. 3 Rule 9 of the Rules of
Court.

I shall check if there is proof of such failure, then I shall declare the party in
default. Thereupon, I shall proceed to render judgement granting claimant
such relief as his pleading may warrant(ex-Parte proceeding), unless evidence
is further needed. The reception of this evidence can be delegated to the clerk
of court.

But Jan Kar Ma shall be entitled to notice of subsequent proceedings but not
to take part in the trial.

(3)

No.

RULE 7 Of the Rules of court states:

SEC. 4. Verification. - Except when otherwise specifically required by law or

rule, pleadings need not be under oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit.

The requirement on verification of a pleading is a formal and not a

jurisdictional requisite. It is intended simply to secure an assurance that what
are alleged in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the
imagination or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good
faith.

The case doesn’t need to be verified.

(4)

Yes. The trial Court is correct.

In a similar Jurisprudence, the Court ruled that: Failure to attach a copy of the
Board Resolution proving the authority of the representative to sign the
Civil Procedure – Finals 2020 3
LAST NAME, First Name

certification against forum shopping was fatal to its petition and sufficient
ground to dismiss since the courts are not expected to take judicial notice of
Board Resolutions or Secretary Certificates issued by corporations.

There being no Board Resolution on Mr. Elephine Stone’s authority to sign the
Certification against Forum Shopping is a fatal defect that caused the court to
dismiss the case.

III.

(1)

As counsel for Ms. Clara, the course of action I would suggest to preserve her
interest over the property as against Mr. Bastus is file a complaint of Accion
reivindicatoria or accion de reivindicacion is an action despite the cancellation
of title. We will allege ownership over the parcel of land and seek recovery of its
full possession. It is a suit to recover possession of a parcel of land as an
element of ownership.

For Ms. Lumacad, I will suggest to file an action for reconveyance and
annulment of title which does not seek to question the contract which allowed
the adverse party to obtain the title to the property. An action for reconveyance
and cancellation of title prescribes in 10 years from the time of the issuance of
the Torrens title over the property.

(2)
Pleadings may be amended by adding or striking out an allegation or the name
of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party or a mistaken or
inadequate allegation or description in any other respect, so that the actual
merits of the controversy .

A party may amend his pleading once as a matter of right at any time before a
responsive pleading is served or, in the case of a reply, at any time within ten
(10) days after it is served.

Substantial amendments may be made only upon leave of court. In formal

amendments , a defect in the designation of the parties and other clearly
clerical or typographical errors may be summarily corrected by the court at any
stage of the action.

Supplemental pleadings are done upon motion of a party the court may, upon
reasonable notice and upon such terms as are just, permit him to serve a
supplemental pleading setting forth transactions, occurrences or events which
have happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented.
Adverse parties may plead thereto within ten (10) days from notice of the order
admitting the supplemental pleading.
Civil Procedure – Finals 2020 4
LAST NAME, First Name

(3)
As the Trial Court Judge, I shall not admit the amendment or supplemental
complaint on the ground that it is improper because it goes against Sec. 5,
Rule 2 of the 1997 Rules of Court. If there are multiple parties, the joinder is
made subject to the rules of joinder of parties:

(1)the right to relief must arise out of the same cause of action.
In the case at bar, there is no cause of action because Ms. Clara has no direct
transaction with Mr. Jalandoni to create a cause of action. It is Ms. Lumacad
who has the transaction with Mr. Jalandoni, and not Ms. Clara

(2)There must be a question of law or fact is common to all parties.

In the case at bar the fact is not common, because with Ms. Lumacad, the
complaint is to annul TCT No. 333333, with Mr. Jalandoni, it will be fraud and
cancellation of TCT No. 444444.

IV.

(1)
No.

Under Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Court Only a natural or juridical persons, or
authorized by law may be parties to a civil action.

A law office is a partnership in the practice of law, is a non- legal entity. Being
a non-legal entity, it cannot be a proper party.

Therefore Manalo Guerra Law Office it cannot sue or be sued.

(2)

If I were the trial court judge, I shall deny the motion to dismiss the case.

Under Sec. 11, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Court: Neither Misjoiner nor non-
joinder of parties is ground for dismissal of an action . Parties may be dropped
or added by order of the court on motion or any party or on its own initiative at
any stage of the action and on such terms are just. Any claim against a
misjoined party may be served and proceeded with separately.

Pursuant to Sec. 11, Rule 3, dismissal of the case is not necessary, thus it
shall be my ruling as the trial court judge.

(3)
Civil Procedure – Finals 2020 5
LAST NAME, First Name

Pursuant to the 2019 Rules of Court, my answer to item 2 will not change.

Under the Revised Rules, only the following grounds may be raised as grounds
for a Motion to Dismiss: (a) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; (b)
pendency of action between the same parties for the same cause; and (c) cause
of action is barred by prior judgment or by the statute of limitations.

Other grounds for dismissal available under the present rules must, under the
Revised Rules, be pleaded as an affirmative defense in the Answer which the
court will have to resolve within 30 calendar days

Sec 11, Rule 3 has not been changed and is not within the grounds for
dismissal in the Revised Rules. Only the procedure has changed, but not the
ground to deny dismissal of misjoiner or non-joinder, hence it will get the same
result, denial.

V.

(1)

As counsel for Ms. Velaloco, my remedy will be a motion to annulment of

judgment.

According to a recent jurisprudence: “A petition for annulment of judgment is a

remedy in equity so exceptional in nature that it may be availed of only when
other remedies are wanting, and only if the judgment, final order or final
resolution sought to be annulled was rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction
or through extrinsic fraud.”

Also: “Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the successful party in a
litigation which is committed outside the trial of a case against the defeated
party, or his agents, attorneys or witnesses, whereby said defeated party is
prevented from presenting fully and fairly his side of the case.”

There is extrinsic fraud because the the title over the property was already
consolidated under Ms. Velaloco’s name, hence the unlawful detainer case
should have not prosper for want of ownership.

(2)
As counsel for Ms. Velaloco, I will oppose the motion to dismiss by putting in
writing the grounds on why the motion to dismiss the interpleader case should
be denied.

One of my grounds will be that there exists a conflicting claim due to the
payment of rentals awarded by the court in the unlawful detainer case and my
demand for rentals.

Second is Ms. Sencidivilla pending petition for the annulment of foreclosure,

since the ownership is not yet settled, the interpleader case should not cease to
subsist.
Civil Procedure – Finals 2020 6
LAST NAME, First Name

Third there is no ground in the facts of the case to dismiss the interpleader
case.

(3)

I shall deny the motion to dismiss the interpleader case because the action to
nullify the foreclosure of Ms. Sencidivilla is still pending, hence the payment of
rentals cannot be determined yet due to Ms. Velaloco’s demanded rentals from
Ms. Varonumang.

Under Rule 62 of the 1997 Rules of court, for an interpleader to exists, there
should be two conflicting claims.

The two conflicting claims exists, hence the interpleader shall remain.

(4)
Under the Revised Rules, only the following grounds may be raised as grounds
for a Motion to Dismiss: (a) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; (b)
pendency of action between the same parties for the same cause; and (c) cause
of action is barred by prior judgment or by the statute of limitations.

other grounds for dismissal available under the present rules must, under the
be pleaded as an affirmative defense in the Answer which the court will have to
resolve within 30 calendar days.

Pursuant to the revised rules, I shall deny the joint motion on the grounds
that:

A)Their grounds for dismissal is not enlisted on the grounds that fall under the
motion to dismiss; and
B)They have not filed their joint motion for dismissal as an affirmative defense.
C)The Interpleader still exists.

VI.

(1)
No.

According to Manotoc v. Court of Appeals, 499 SCRA 21 (2006), stresses that

for substituted service of summons to be available, there must be several
attempts by the sheriff to personally serve the summons within a reasonable
Civil Procedure – Finals 2020 7
LAST NAME, First Name

period which eventually resulted in failure in order to prove impossibility of

prompt service.—In the instant case, it appears that the sheriff hastily and
capriciously resorted to substituted service of summons without actually
exerting any genuine effort to locate the individual petitioners.

Several attempts means at least three (3) tries, preferably on two (2) different
dates.

The service summons to Mr. Domingo did not Substantially comply with these
requisites. hence Mr. Domingo shall be denied of Due process if the ex-parte
hearing shall proceed.

(2)
No. The Petition for Annulment of Judgment is neither an action in rem or
quasi- rem.

In a case decided by the court, it said: “ A petition for annulment of Judgement

is one in personam. It is neither an action in rem or quasi rem.”

This is because on the parties interest would be affected by the decision.

(3)

No, there was no Valid substituted swevice on Mr Domingo because the

requisites of a valid summons were not met substantially.

The requisites of a valid substituted service in the Montoc case are:

1) Impossibility of Prompt Personal Service

The party relying on substituted service or the sheriff must show that
defendant cannot be served promptly or there is impossibility of prompt
service. Section 8, Rule 14 provides that the plaintiff or the sheriff is given a
"reasonable time" to serve the summons to the defendant in person, but no
specific time frame is mentioned.

(2) Specific Details in the Return

The sheriff must describe in the Return of Summons the facts and
circumstances surrounding the attempted personal service. The efforts made to
find the defendant and the reasons behind the failure must be clearly narrated
in detail in the Return.

(3) A Person of Suitable Age and Discretion

If the substituted service will be effected at defendant’s house or residence, it

should be left with a person of "suitable age and discretion then residing
therein."

(4) A Competent Person in Charge

If the substituted service will be done at defendant’s office or regular place of

Civil Procedure – Finals 2020 8
LAST NAME, First Name

business, then it should be served on a competent person in charge of the

place. Thus, the person on whom the substituted service will be made must be
the one managing the office or business of defendant, such as the president or
manager; and such individual must have sufficient knowledge to understand
the obligation of the defendant in the summons, its importance, and the
prejudicial effects arising from inaction on the summons.

(4)

If I were Mr. Mr. Piccio’ counsel, I would suggest him to change his mode to
electronic mailing.

In the 2019 rules of Court, under Sec 5 & 21, Rule 14:

Sec 5: (d) By sending an electronic mail to the defendants electronic mail

address if allowed by the court.

Sec. 21: If Summons was served by the electronic mail, with a copy of the
summons as served, and the affidavit of the person mailing, shall constitute
as service.

This mode seems efficient, hence Mr. Piccio’ can surely comply with its
requisites and produce a valid summons.

(5)

No. There was no voluntary appearance on the part of Mr. Domingo for he only
appeared to reject the jurisdiction of the court and questioned the validity of
the summons.

As cited in jurisprudence: “ a party who makes a special appearance to

challenge among others the court’s jurisdiction over the person cannot be
considered to have submitted to its authority.”

VII.

(1)
Yes the RTC has jurisdiction over the case.

It falls under Sec. 7, Rule 6: “Such counterclaim must be within the

jurisdiction of the Court both as to the amount and the nature thereof,
except in an original action before the Trial court, The counterclaim may be
compulsory regardless of the amount.”

The case at bar is an original action before the RTC, so this rule shall apply
on the counterclaim even if the amount is on 300,000.
Civil Procedure – Finals 2020 9
LAST NAME, First Name

(2)

Mr. Growspe’s counterclaim is compulsory in nature because it arises from the

lease agreement they had.

Under Sec. 7, Rule 6, a compulsory counterclaim is one which being cognizable

by the regular courts of justice, arises out or is connected with the transaction
or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim and
does not require for the adjudication the presence of third parties whom the
court cannot acquire jurisdiction.

The subject of his counterclaim is the 300,000 lost profit which is considered
as damages from the unlawful possession of the land leased.

(3)

No.

It has been a settled rule in Philippine jurisprudence that Payment of filing fees
for compulsory counterclaims is not required.

If it's a permissive counterclaim, we have to pay the docket fees.

Mr. Growspe is not required to pay filing fees for his counterclaim because it is
compulsory in nature.

(4)

Yes. The RTC may continue with the hearing the counterclaim notwithstanding
the dismissal of the main complaint.

Rules of Court, Rule 17, Sec. 2, which states in full:

Dismissal by order of the court.— Except as provided in the preceding section,

an action shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff’s instance save upon order of
the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper. If a
counterclaim has been pleaded by a defendant prior to the service upon him of
the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, the action shall not be dismissed against the
defendant’s objection unless the counterclaim can remain pending for
independent adjudication by the court. Unless otherwise specified in the order,
a dismissal under this paragraph shall be without prejudice.

According to the facts, the counterclaim was filed before the dismissal of the
case, so the hearing for the counterclaim shall proceed.
Civil Procedure – Finals 2020 10
LAST NAME, First Name

Freedom Wall
Feel free to share memes (max of 1 page)