REMEDIAL LAW (2016-2017)

1. Which of the following civil cases falls under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) outside of Metro Manila?

A. An action for recovery of a sum of money amounting to P300,000.00.
B. A real action where the assessed value of the property is P20,000.00.
C. An action for specific performance to compel the execution of a deed of sale.
D. A probate proceeding where the gross value of the estate is P300,000.00.

Legal Basis: Under B.P. Blg. 129, actions whose subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation, such as specific performance, fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC. The other options fall within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) outside Metro Manila.

2. A party who fails to file and serve a request for admission on the adverse party regarding material facts within the latter’s personal knowledge faces which consequence?

A. The case will be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
B. The party shall not be allowed to present evidence on such facts, unless the court allows it for good cause.
C. The party is deemed to have admitted the facts in favor of the adverse party.
D. The party may be cited for indirect contempt of court.

Legal Basis: Rule 26, Section 5 of the Rules of Court provides that a party who fails to file and serve a request for admission shall not be permitted to present evidence on such facts, subject to exceptions.

3. Eduardo filed a complaint in RTC Manila to annul a real estate mortgage and the subsequent foreclosure sale of his property located in Makati. Galaxy Bank moved to dismiss on the ground of improper venue. How should the court rule?

A. Deny the motion, because the action for annulment is a personal action and Manila is the plaintiff’s residence.
B. Grant the motion, because an action for annulment of a mortgage and foreclosure sale is a real action that must be filed where the property is located.
C. Deny the motion, because the action is incapable of pecuniary estimation and venue is determined by the plaintiff’s residence.
D. Grant the motion, but only if the certificate of sale has been registered, which is when the action becomes a real action.

Legal Basis: An action for annulment of a real estate mortgage is a real action if a foreclosure sale has already taken place, as it affects title to or possession of real property. Venue for real actions is where the property is situated (Makati). (See Chua v. Total Office Products and Services). However, as noted in *First Sarmiento Holdings*, if the certificate of sale has not yet been registered, the action is considered incapable of pecuniary estimation. The bar problem implies a completed foreclosure, making it a real action.

4. Under the 2004 Guidelines on Pretrial, what is the “one-day examination of witness” rule?

A. A witness must complete their testimony within 24 hours from the start of the examination.
B. The court must hear at least one witness per day of trial.
C. A witness has to be fully examined in one day only, subject to the court’s discretion to extend for justifiable reasons.
D. All witnesses for one party must be presented on a single trial date.

Legal Basis: The “one-day examination of a witness” rule under the 2004 Guidelines of Pretrial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures mandates that a witness’s direct and cross-examination should be completed within a single day, subject to the court’s discretion.

5. Juan filed a complaint for sum of money (P50,000) against Pedro in the MTC. The case did not undergo barangay conciliation. Pedro filed a motion to dismiss. As the MTC judge, how should you rule on the motion?

A. Grant the motion, as failure to undergo barangay conciliation is a jurisdictional defect.
B. Deny the motion, because a motion to dismiss is a prohibited pleading in a small claims case.
C. Deny the motion, because the intervention of the Council of Elders is substantial compliance.
D. Grant the motion, because the RTC, not the MTC, has jurisdiction.

Legal Basis: A claim for P50,000 falls under the Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases. Under these rules, a motion to dismiss is a prohibited pleading. The court should proceed with the case and may refer the parties to mediation/conciliation at the hearing stage.

6. Spouses Marlon and Edith have a combined gross monthly income of P30,000. Under the “indigency test” in Section 21, Rule 3, what must they prove to be exempt from paying filing fees?

A. That their income is less than double the monthly minimum wage.
B. That they do not own any real property.
C. That they have no money or property sufficient and available for food, shelter, and basic necessities for themselves and their family.
D. That their expenses for their children’s education exceed their monthly income.

Legal Basis: Section 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court establishes the “indigency test,” which requires a party to prove they lack sufficient money or property for their family’s basic necessities. This is distinct from the income-based qualification in Rule 141. (Sps. Algura v. City of Naga).

7. When is substituted service of summons upon a defendant considered valid?

A. When the sheriff attempts personal service once and fails.
B. When the defendant cannot be personally served within a reasonable time for justifiable reasons, and the summons is left with a person of suitable age and discretion at the defendant’s residence.
C. When the defendant is temporarily out of the country, and the summons is served on his spouse.
D. When the defendant’s caretaker falsely informs the sheriff that the defendant no longer resides at the address, and the sheriff leaves the summons with the caretaker.

Legal Basis: Rule 14, Section 7 of the Rules of Court requires that for substituted service to be valid, personal service must be impossible within a reasonable time for justifiable causes. Leaving the summons with a person of suitable age and discretion at the defendant’s residence is a proper mode. Option D is also correct based on jurisprudence (*Sagana v. Francisco*), where the defendant’s deception justifies substituted service, but B is the general rule stated in the Rules.

8. A buyer at an extra-judicial foreclosure sale seeks to obtain a writ of possession AFTER the redemption period has lapsed and title has been consolidated. Which statement is most accurate?

A. The buyer must file an ex parte petition and post a bond to obtain the writ.
B. The issuance of the writ of possession is a ministerial duty of the court and will issue as a matter of course without a bond.
C. The buyer must file a separate civil action for ejectment to gain possession.
D. The buyer is only entitled to possession after a full hearing to determine ownership.

Legal Basis: After the lapse of the redemption period and consolidation of title, the issuance of a writ of possession is a ministerial act of the court. The buyer is entitled to the writ as a matter of right, and no bond is required. The remedy is an ex parte petition. (Navarra v. CA).

9. A transferee who bought a property from the purchaser at a foreclosure sale seeks a writ of possession. Which statement is correct?

A. The transferee cannot obtain a writ of possession and must file a separate action.
B. The transferee can file an ex parte motion for a writ of possession, stepping into the shoes of the original purchaser.
C. The transferee can file a motion for the writ, but it requires a hearing to determine if the property is still in the mortgagor’s possession.
D. The transferee’s right is limited to demanding the reconveyance of the property from the mortgagor.

Legal Basis: A transferee acquires all the rights of the original purchaser, including the right to a writ of possession. However, unlike the original purchaser, the transferee’s motion is not ex parte and requires a hearing. (Reyes v. Chung).

10. What is a writ of continuing mandamus?

A. A writ that compels the performance of a discretionary act by a public officer.
B. A writ that remains in effect indefinitely until the court declares it functus officio.
C. A writ in an environmental case directing an agency to perform acts decreed by final judgment, which remains effective until the judgment is fully satisfied.
D. A writ that can be issued ex parte to prevent irreparable environmental damage.

Legal Basis: The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases define a writ of continuing mandamus as one that directs a government agency to perform a series of acts decreed by the court, remaining effective until the court’s final judgment is fully satisfied.

11. Jose received an order denying his Motion to Dismiss on January 5, 2015. He filed a Motion for Reconsideration on February 4, 2015. Miguel opposed it as being filed out of time. Jose countered that the 15-day rule under Rule 52 does not apply to interlocutory orders. Is Jose correct?

A. No, all motions for reconsideration must be filed within 15 days from notice of the order.
B. Yes, the 15-day period for filing a motion for reconsideration applies only to final orders or judgments, not interlocutory orders.
C. No, because the order denying a motion to dismiss is a final order.
D. Yes, but only if the motion to dismiss was based on lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Legal Basis: Jose is correct. An order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory. The 15-day period for filing a motion for reconsideration under Rule 37 (for trial courts) or Rule 52 (for the CA) applies to final judgments and orders. An interlocutory order may be reconsidered by the court at any time before the rendition of the final judgment. (Rasdas v. Estenor).

12. In a petition for certiorari filed by three dismissed employees, only one signed the verification and certification against forum shopping. The company moved to dismiss the petition due to this defect. When is the signature of only one petitioner considered substantial compliance?

A. Never, as all petitioners must sign the certification.
B. Only if the signing petitioner was authorized by the others through a Special Power of Attorney.
C. When all petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense.
D. Only in labor cases, as the rules are liberally construed.

Legal Basis: The signature of only one of several petitioners in the certification against forum shopping constitutes substantial compliance if they share a common interest and assert a common cause of action or defense. (Jacinto v. Gumaru).

13. Which of the following is an advantage of filing a petition for a writ of kalikasan over a civil complaint for damages?

A. The court can award moral and exemplary damages in a kalikasan case.
B. The petitioner in a kalikasan case is exempt from the payment of docket fees.
C. The judgment in a kalikasan case is appealable to the Court of Appeals.
D. The precautionary principle does not apply in a kalikasan case.

Legal Basis: One of the key advantages of a petition for a writ of kalikasan is the exemption from payment of docket fees. Other advantages include relaxed rules on legal standing and the application of the precautionary principle. Damages are generally not awarded in a kalikasan petition itself.

14. The cross-examination of the prosecution’s principal witness was repeatedly postponed due to the accused’s recurring illness. Before the rescheduled cross-examination, the witness died. The accused moved to expunge the witness’s direct testimony. Should the motion be granted?

A. Yes, because the accused’s right to confrontation was violated.
B. No, because the opportunity to cross-examine was lost due to the accused’s own fault or acts.
C. Yes, because the death of the witness makes the testimony incomplete and unreliable.
D. No, because the prosecution can no longer find a substitute witness.

Legal Basis: The right to cross-examine may be waived. When the failure to cross-examine is due to the fault of the accused (e.g., through repeated postponements), he cannot later on invoke the right of confrontation to have the witness’s direct testimony expunged when the witness becomes unavailable.

15. In a criminal case, the information charges two distinct offenses, rape and acts of lasciviousness, in the alternative. What is the proper ground for the accused to move for the quashal of the information?

A. That the facts charged do not constitute an offense.
B. That the information contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification.
C. That the information charges more than one offense.
D. That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged.

Legal Basis: Rule 117, Section 3(f) of the Rules of Court provides that the accused may move to quash the complaint or information on the ground that it charges more than one offense (duplicity of offenses). Charging offenses in the alternative also makes the information defective as it is confusing.

16. John obtained a copy of a confidential psychiatric report on his wife, Anne, from the psychiatrist’s secretary. In the nullity case he filed, can John testify on the contents of the report without violating the physician-patient privilege?

A. No, the report is confidential and privileged regardless of who testifies.
B. Yes, because the physician-patient privilege can only be invoked by the physician, not the patient’s spouse.
C. Yes, because the privilege bars only the physician from testifying, not other persons who may have knowledge of the information.
D. No, because testifying on the report also violates the marital communication privilege.

Legal Basis: The physician-patient privilege under the Rules of Court disqualifies the physician from testifying on confidential communications. The privilege does not extend to third persons who may have acquired the information, such as the patient’s husband in this case. (Krohn v. Court of Appeals). Note: The 2020 Rules on Evidence now state that the communication remains privileged even in the hands of a third person if the original parties took reasonable precaution to protect its confidentiality. However, the bar question was based on the old rule.

17. An action for reconveyance of a property in the Philippines was filed against Arthur King, whose residence is abroad and whose status (whether alive or dead) is uncertain. The RTC ordered service of summons by publication. Is this correct?

A. No, because an action for reconveyance is an action in personam requiring personal service.
B. Yes, because the action for reconveyance is an action quasi in rem, which allows for extraterritorial service of summons.
C. No, summons by publication is only allowed if the defendant’s location is completely unknown.
D. Yes, but only if it is coupled with service of summons at the defendant’s last known address.

Legal Basis: An action for reconveyance of real property is an action quasi in rem. Under Rule 14, extraterritorial service of summons, including by publication, is proper in actions affecting property within the Philippines in which the defendant has or claims an interest.

18. In a complaint for sum of money, the defendant admitted signing the promissory note but claimed that the loan has not yet matured. The plaintiff filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. How should the court rule?

A. Grant the motion, as the defendant admitted the execution of the note.
B. Deny the motion, because the defendant raised a genuine issue regarding the maturity of the loan.
C. Convert the motion into one for summary judgment and rule accordingly.
D. Deny the motion, because only the defendant can file a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Legal Basis: A judgment on the pleadings is proper only when an answer fails to tender an issue or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleading. Here, the defense that the loan has not yet matured tenders a genuine issue of fact that requires trial.

19. Which of the following distinguishes summary judgment from judgment on the pleadings?

A. Summary judgment is based only on the pleadings, while judgment on the pleadings considers affidavits and depositions.
B. Judgment on the pleadings is proper when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, except the amount of damages.
C. Summary judgment is based on pleadings, affidavits, and depositions, while judgment on the pleadings is based exclusively on the pleadings.
D. Only the plaintiff can move for summary judgment, while only the defendant can move for judgment on the pleadings.

Legal Basis: The primary distinction lies in the basis for the judgment. Judgment on the pleadings under Rule 34 is based solely on the pleadings (complaint and answer). Summary judgment under Rule 35 is based on the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, and admissions to show that there is no genuine issue of fact.

20. An action was filed on November 13, 2017, to recover possession of an apartment unit. The last demand to vacate was received by the defendant on July 6, 2016. Which court outside Metro Manila has jurisdiction?

A. The MTC, as it is an action for unlawful detainer.
B. The RTC, as the action is now an accion publiciana, having been filed more than one year from the last demand.
C. Either the MTC or the RTC, depending on the assessed value of the apartment unit.
D. The Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board.

Legal Basis: The action was filed more than one year from the last demand to vacate. Therefore, it is no longer an unlawful detainer case but an accion publiciana. Jurisdiction over an accion publiciana depends on the assessed value of the property. If the assessed value is P20,000 or less (outside Metro Manila), the MTC has jurisdiction. If it exceeds P20,000, the RTC has jurisdiction.

21. A complaint to enforce a seller’s contractual right to repurchase a lot with an assessed value of P15,000 is filed. Which court outside Metro Manila has exclusive original jurisdiction?

A. The RTC, because an action to enforce a right of redemption is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
B. The MTC, because the ultimate relief sought is the assertion of title to real property, making it a real action, and the assessed value is within the MTC’s jurisdiction.
C. The RTC, because all actions involving title to real property fall under its jurisdiction.
D. The MTC, but only if the action is filed within one year from the expiration of the redemption period.

Legal Basis: There are conflicting jurisprudential views on this. One view holds it is a real action, and jurisdiction depends on the assessed value (Brgy. Piapi v. Talip), which would mean MTC has jurisdiction. The alternative view is that it is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation, vesting jurisdiction in the RTC (Heirs of Bautista v. Lindo). Given the facts, the more direct application of the rule on real actions points to the MTC.

22. A civil case was inadvertently raffled to an RTC designated as a special commercial court. The court proceeded to try the case and rendered judgment. The losing party now seeks to have the judgment annulled for lack of jurisdiction. Will the petition prosper?

A. Yes, because a special commercial court has no jurisdiction over ordinary civil cases.
B. No, because a special commercial court is still an RTC with general jurisdiction and can hear a non-commercial case.
C. Yes, because the error in raffling the case is a jurisdictional defect that cannot be waived.
D. No, because the losing party is estopped from questioning the court’s jurisdiction after participating in the trial.

Legal Basis: A special commercial court is still a court of general jurisdiction. Its designation as a special court does not strip it of its general jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of a civil nature. (Concorde Condominium Inc. v. Baculio).

23. Which of the following is NOT an element of circumstantial evidence sufficient for conviction?

A. There is more than one circumstance.
B. The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven.
C. There is direct evidence linking the accused to the crime.
D. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

Legal Basis: Rule 133, Section 4 of the Rules of Court lays down the three requisites for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient for conviction. The presence of direct evidence is not one of them; in fact, circumstantial evidence is resorted to in the absence of direct evidence.

24. What is the doctrine of hierarchy of courts?

A. A doctrine that mandates that all cases must be appealed to the next higher court in the judicial structure.
B. A doctrine that requires a party to first file a case with the lowest court that has jurisdiction before proceeding to a higher court.
C. A doctrine providing that where courts have concurrent jurisdiction, a party must follow an ordained sequence of recourse from the lowest to the highest court, and direct resort to the Supreme Court is allowed only for special reasons.
D. A doctrine that prohibits the filing of a petition for certiorari directly with the Supreme Court.

Legal Basis: The doctrine of hierarchy of courts dictates that where there is concurrent jurisdiction, litigants should first seek relief from the lower courts in the established judicial hierarchy. Direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction is permissible only for special and important reasons. (Montes v. Court of Appeals).

25. Evan filed a complaint in RTC Manila to annul a promissory note and a real estate mortgage he allegedly executed, claiming forgery. The contracts contained a venue stipulation designating Quezon City as the exclusive venue. ABC Bank moved to dismiss based on this stipulation. How should the court rule?

A. Grant the motion, as exclusive venue stipulations are valid and binding.
B. Deny the motion, because a party assailing the validity of a contract on the ground of forgery cannot be bound by the venue stipulation therein.
C. Grant the motion, but without prejudice to refiling in the proper venue.
D. Deny the motion, because the action is personal and the plaintiff’s residence is the proper venue.

Legal Basis: A party who directly assails the validity of a contract containing a venue stipulation on the ground of forgery is not bound by that stipulation. To enforce the venue clause would be to prematurely require the party to recognize the validity of the very contract he assails. (Briones v. Cash Asia Credit Corp.).

26. In a partition case, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint because two of the co-owners, who are indispensable parties, were not impleaded. Should the motion be granted?

A. Yes, because the absence of an indispensable party is a jurisdictional defect.
B. No, because non-joinder of an indispensable party is not a ground for dismissal of an action.
C. Yes, because no final determination of the case can be had without their presence.
D. No, because the court can proceed with the case and the judgment will not bind the unimpleaded parties.

Legal Basis: Rule 3, Section 11 of the Rules of Court explicitly states that non-joinder of parties, whether necessary or indispensable, is not a ground for dismissal. The remedy is for the court to order the impleading of the indispensable party. (Vesagas v. CA).

27. Merchant Bank filed an action to foreclose a real estate mortgage against Elise. While the foreclosure suit was pending, the bank filed a separate action to collect the principal loan amount based on the same promissory note. Elise moved to dismiss the second action. What is the proper ground?

A. Litis pendentia.
B. Forum shopping.
C. Splitting a single cause of action.
D. Lack of cause of action.

Legal Basis: A creditor cannot file a suit for collection of the debt and another for foreclosure of the mortgage simultaneously or successively. The filing of both constitutes splitting a single cause of action, as both remedies arise from the same cause of action, which is the non-payment of the debt.

28. In an unlawful detainer case, the defendant failed to answer the complaint within the reglementary period. The plaintiff filed a motion to declare the defendant in default. How should the court rule?

A. Grant the motion and allow the plaintiff to present evidence ex parte.
B. Deny the motion, because a motion to declare in default is a prohibited pleading in cases governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure.
C. Grant the motion, but require the plaintiff to still prove his case by a preponderance of evidence.
D. Deny the motion and dismiss the case for failure to prosecute.

Legal Basis: Under the Rule on Summary Procedure, which governs ejectment cases, a motion to declare the defendant in default is a prohibited pleading. If the defendant fails to answer, the court, motu proprio or on motion, shall render judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint.

29. Agatha first filed a collection suit in the RTC, which lacked jurisdiction. She filed a notice of dismissal. She then refiled in the proper MeTC and again filed a notice of dismissal for personal reasons. She filed the same case for a third time in the same MeTC. Can the defendant invoke the “Two-Dismissal Rule”?

A. Yes, because this is the third time the same complaint has been filed.
B. No, because the first dismissal was made in a court that had no jurisdiction over the subject matter.
C. Yes, because the rule applies regardless of the court where the dismissals were made.
D. No, because the second dismissal was without prejudice.

Legal Basis: The “Two-Dismissal Rule” under Rule 17, Section 1 requires that the first dismissal must have been in a competent court. Since the RTC had no jurisdiction over the first case, the dismissal therein does not count for the purpose of applying the rule. Therefore, the third complaint is not barred.

30. In an RTC case, the defendant filed a compulsory counterclaim for P250,000. The plaintiff moved to dismiss the counterclaim, arguing that the amount is below the RTC’s jurisdictional amount. Should the counterclaim be dismissed?

A. Yes, because the RTC has no jurisdiction over claims amounting to only P250,000.
B. No, because in an original action before the RTC, the court has jurisdiction over a compulsory counterclaim regardless of the amount.
C. Yes, unless the defendant pays the corresponding docket fees for the counterclaim.
D. No, because the counterclaim is treated as a separate action that can be consolidated with the main case.

Legal Basis: Rule 6, Section 7 of the Rules of Court provides that the court has jurisdiction to entertain a compulsory counterclaim regardless of the amount. The nature of a counterclaim as compulsory is determined by its connection to the main action, not by the amount claimed.

31. Harold filed an unverified answer to a collection suit, specifically denying the genuineness of the promissory note sued upon. During trial, he sought to present an NBI expert to prove forgery. May the plaintiff validly object?

A. No, because the denial was specific and raised the issue of forgery.
B. Yes, because the failure to deny the genuineness and due execution of an actionable document under oath constitutes an admission.
C. No, because evidence of forgery is always admissible to prevent injustice.
D. Yes, but only if the plaintiff presents his own handwriting expert first.

Legal Basis: Under Rule 8, Section 8, when an action is founded upon a written instrument, its genuineness and due execution are deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath, specifically denies them. Since Harold’s answer was unverified, he is deemed to have admitted the genuineness and due execution of the note and is precluded from presenting evidence of forgery.

32. What is the proper mode of appeal from a decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)?

A. Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court under Rule 45.
B. Petition for Review to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43.
C. Special Civil Action for Certiorari to the Court of Appeals under Rule 65.
D. Notice of Appeal filed with the NLRC.

Legal Basis: Decisions of the NLRC are final and executory and not subject to appeal. The remedy for an aggrieved party is to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. (St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC).

33. An RTC issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) effective for 20 days. On the 19th day, the court extended the TRO for another 20 days on the same ground. A day after the original TRO expired, the defendant violated the injunction. Is the defendant liable for contempt?

A. Yes, because the TRO was validly extended by the court.
B. No, because the court has no authority to extend a TRO on the same ground for which it was issued.
C. Yes, because the defendant acted in bad faith.
D. No, because contempt only applies to violations of a writ of preliminary injunction, not a TRO.

Legal Basis: Under Rule 58, Section 5, a TRO is effective only for a period of 20 days. The court cannot extend or renew the TRO on the same ground. The extension was invalid, and the TRO was deemed automatically vacated after the initial 20-day period. Therefore, there was no valid order to violate.

34. The prosecution offered photocopies of marked money in a drug buy-bust operation. The defense objected, invoking the Best Evidence Rule. Should the objection be sustained?

A. Yes, because the original marked bills must be presented in court.
B. No, because the Best Evidence Rule (now Original Document Rule) applies only when the content of a document is the subject of inquiry.
C. Yes, unless the prosecution can prove that the original bills were lost or destroyed.
D. No, because under the 2020 Rules on Evidence, a photocopy is admissible to the same extent as the original.

Legal Basis: The Best Evidence Rule (Original Document Rule) applies only when the terms or contents of a writing are in issue. When a document, like marked money, is presented as object evidence to prove its existence and use in a transaction, the rule does not apply. (People v. Tandoy). Additionally, under the amended rules, a duplicate like a photocopy is generally as admissible as the original.

35. A dying person stated that Arnulfo shot him. He then added that Arnulfo also shot Vicente, whose body was lying nearby. In the trial for the killing of both victims, is the entire statement admissible as a dying declaration?

A. Yes, because the entire statement was made under the consciousness of impending death.
B. No, only the statement about the declarant’s own death is admissible as a dying declaration.
C. Yes, because the statement about Vicente’s death is part of the res gestae.
D. No, because the statement was not made under oath.

Legal Basis: For a statement to be admissible as a dying declaration, it must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s own death. The part of the statement concerning the death of another person (Vicente) does not meet this requirement and is therefore inadmissible as a dying declaration.

36. To impeach a prosecution witness, the defense counsel asked an impeaching witness about the prosecution witness’s “general reputation in the community for aggressiveness and violent tendencies.” As the prosecutor, what is the proper objection?

A. The question is irrelevant to the homicide case.
B. The question calls for a character evidence that is not allowed.
C. The impeachment is improper because reputation evidence must be limited to the witness’s general reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity.
D. The question calls for an opinion of the witness.

Legal Basis: Under Rule 132, Section 11, a witness may be impeached by evidence that his general reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity is bad. Evidence of a reputation for other character traits, like aggressiveness, is not a proper mode of impeachment.

37. A public official charged in conspiracy with a private contractor passed away while the case was under investigation by the Ombudsman. The private contractor moved to dismiss the charges against him, arguing the conspiracy was extinguished. How should the Ombudsman rule?

A. Grant the motion, as the death of the public officer extinguishes the basis for the conspiracy.
B. Deny the motion, because only the criminal liability of the deceased public officer is extinguished, not the crime itself or the charge of conspiracy.
C. Grant the motion, because the Sandiganbayan loses jurisdiction without a public officer as an accused.
D. Deny the motion, but the private contractor can only be held civilly liable.

Legal Basis: The death of a co-conspirator extinguishes only his own criminal liability. It does not extinguish the crime or remove the basis of the charge of conspiracy against the remaining accused. The case against the private contractor can proceed. (People v. Go).

38. Juancho pleaded guilty to homicide but then presented evidence of complete self-defense. The trial court, convinced by his evidence, acquitted him. Can the prosecution assail the acquittal without violating the rule on double jeopardy?

A. No, an acquittal is final and unappealable, and any appeal would constitute double jeopardy.
B. Yes, because when an accused pleads guilty but presents exculpatory evidence, the plea is deemed withdrawn and a plea of not guilty should be entered, meaning no valid plea was made to which jeopardy could attach.
C. No, because the court had jurisdiction over the case and the accused.
D. Yes, but only through a petition for certiorari on the ground of grave abuse of discretion.

Legal Basis: When an accused pleads guilty but presents evidence that would exonerate him (exculpatory evidence), his plea of guilty is considered withdrawn and a plea of not guilty should be entered for him. Since there was no valid standing plea, the first jeopardy did not attach, and the resulting acquittal can be assailed. (People v. Balisacan).

39. Boy Maton was arrested without a warrant while watching a basketball game. A subsequent search of his bag revealed shabu. He was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. During trial, he moved to dismiss the case due to the illegal arrest and to suppress the seized evidence. The court denied the motions, stating he had waived the issue of the legality of the arrest by pleading. Comment on the court’s ruling.

A. The ruling is entirely correct; waiver of the illegal arrest also means waiver of the right to suppress the evidence.
B. The ruling is entirely incorrect; an illegal arrest can be questioned at any stage of the proceedings.
C. The court is correct that the legality of the arrest was waived by the plea, but it is incorrect that the motion to suppress the evidence was also waived.
D. The court is incorrect about the waiver of the illegal arrest, but correct about the admissibility of the evidence.

Legal Basis: An accused waives any objection to the legality of his arrest if he fails to raise it before entering his plea. However, the waiver of an illegal arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during that illegal arrest. The “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine still applies to the evidence. (People v. Racho).

40. What is the effect of failure to serve written interrogatories under Rule 25?

A. The party who failed to serve may be declared in default.
B. The matters sought to be elicited are deemed admitted.
C. The party not served cannot be compelled by the adverse party to give testimony in open court or a deposition pending appeal.
D. The complaint or answer of the erring party may be stricken out.

Legal Basis: Rule 25, Section 6 of the Rules of Court provides this specific sanction to encourage the use of discovery procedures and prevent trial by ambush.

41. Which of the following is NOT a required content of a judicial affidavit?

A. The name and address of the lawyer who supervised the examination.
B. A statement that the witness is answering questions under oath, conscious of liability for perjury.
C. The curriculum vitae of the witness to establish their credibility.
D. A jurat with the signature of the notary public.

Legal Basis: Section 3 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule enumerates the required contents of a judicial affidavit. A curriculum vitae is not among them, although personal circumstances like occupation are required.

42. A buyer at an extra-judicial foreclosure sale seeks a writ of possession BEFORE the expiration of the redemption period. What must the buyer do?

A. File an ex parte petition and furnish a bond in favor of the debtor.
B. File a civil action for ejectment.
C. Wait for the redemption period to expire as a matter of law.
D. File an ex parte petition without a bond, as possession is a matter of right.

Legal Basis: Under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, the purchaser can obtain a writ of possession during the redemption period by filing an ex parte petition and posting a bond in an amount equivalent to the use of the property for 12 months, to indemnify the debtor in case the sale is annulled.

43. When may a warrantless arrest be made by a peace officer when an offense has just been committed?

A. When he has probable cause based on a tip from an anonymous informant.
B. When he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it.
C. Anytime within 48 hours from the commission of the crime.
D. Only if the crime committed is a heinous crime.

Legal Basis: Rule 113, Section 5(b) of the Rules of Court, known as the “hot pursuit” arrest, requires two elements: the offense has just been committed, and the arresting officer has probable cause based on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances.

44. A judgment in a case for a sum of money was rendered against Gringo. During the pendency of his appeal before the RTC, Gringo died. His counsel informed the court that he cannot substitute the heirs as their identities are unknown. What is the proper remedy for the creditor, Chika?

A. The case must be dismissed as the action does not survive.
B. Move for the appointment of an executor or administrator to be substituted as the defendant.
C. File a petition for the settlement of Gringo’s estate and file the money claim therein.
D. The creditor must locate the heirs and move for their substitution.

Legal Basis: Under Rule 3, Section 16, when a party in an action for a sum of money dies, and the claim is not extinguished, the court shall order the legal representative to appear and be substituted. If none is named, the court may order the opposing party to procure the appointment of an executor or administrator. The suggested answer in the bar materials points to initiating settlement proceedings, which is a practical step to have an administrator appointed.

45. What is a “tender of excluded evidence”?

A. A motion to compel the opposing party to produce evidence they are withholding.
B. A formal offer of evidence made in writing before trial.
C. The remedy of a party to place on record the evidence that the court has ruled to be inadmissible.
D. An offer to settle the case based on the evidence already presented.

Legal Basis: Rule 132, Section 40 of the Rules of Court provides that if the court excludes evidence, the offeror may make a “tender of excluded evidence” (or offer of proof) to include the evidence in the record so that the appellate court may consider it on appeal.

46. When does a public prosecutor conduct an inquest instead of a preliminary investigation?

A. When the offense is punishable by at least 4 years, 2 months, and 1 day.
B. When a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant for an offense requiring preliminary investigation.
C. When the accused waives his right to a preliminary investigation in writing.
D. When the complaint is filed directly with the MTC.

Legal Basis: Rule 112, Section 6 of the Rules of Court provides that an inquest is the proceeding conducted when a person is arrested and detained without a warrant. It is an informal and summary investigation to determine whether the person should remain in custody and be charged in court.

47. What is the Harmless Error Rule in relation to appeals?

A. All errors committed by the trial court are deemed harmless if not raised in the appellant’s brief.
B. An appellate court will not reverse a judgment for any error or defect that does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.
C. Procedural errors are always considered harmless and cannot be a basis for reversal.
D. The rule only applies to criminal cases, not civil cases.

Legal Basis: Rule 51, Section 6 of the Rules of Court embodies the Harmless Error Rule, which states that no error in either the admission or the exclusion of evidence and no error or defect in any ruling or order or in anything done or omitted by the trial 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.

48. The mode of appeal from a judgment of the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction is:

A. Notice of Appeal under Rule 41.
B. Petition for Review to the Court of Appeals under Rule 42.
C. Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court under Rule 45.
D. Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.

Legal Basis: Rule 42 of the Rules of Court provides that the mode of appeal from a decision of the RTC rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction is a petition for review filed with the Court of Appeals.

49. In an unlawful detainer case, the judgment ordered the defendant to vacate and pay attorney’s fees. To stay the immediate execution of the judgment, what must the defendant do?

A. File a notice of appeal and post a supersedeas bond to cover the attorney’s fees.
B. File a notice of appeal and make periodic deposits for the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the property.
C. Perfect an appeal, as a supersedeas bond is not required since no back rentals or damages were awarded.
D. File a motion to stay execution with the appellate court.

Legal Basis: Under Rule 70, a supersedeas bond is required to stay execution only when the judgment awards back rentals, damages, and costs. It is not required to cover attorney’s fees. (Once v. Gonzalez). The defendant must still perfect the appeal and make periodic deposits of current rent to stay execution. Since no rent was awarded, only perfecting the appeal is necessary.

50. A criminal case for serious physical injuries is pending against Tomas. The victim, Darvin, filed a separate civil action for damages. Tomas moved to dismiss the civil action on the ground of litis pendentia. Should the motion be granted?

A. Yes, because the civil action is deemed instituted with the criminal action.
B. No, because an action for damages arising from physical injuries is an independent civil action that can proceed separately.
C. Yes, but only if the victim did not reserve the right to file a separate civil action.
D. No, because litis pendentia does not apply to criminal and civil cases.

Legal Basis: Article 33 of the Civil Code provides that in cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action proceeds independently and is not barred by litis pendentia.

51. In a civil action, a party serves written interrogatories on the adverse party. Within how many days must the adverse party answer the interrogatories?

A. Within 10 days from service thereof.
B. Within 15 days from service thereof.
C. Within 30 days from service thereof.
D. Within a reasonable time as determined by the court.

Legal Basis: Rule 25, Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides that the interrogatories shall be answered within 15 days from service.

52. A party who receives a written request for admission under Rule 26 is deemed to have admitted the matters therein if he fails to file and serve a sworn statement within what period?

A. Within 10 days after service of the request.
B. Within the period designated in the request, which shall not be less than 15 days after service.
C. Within 5 days after the issues have been joined.
D. Within 30 days after service of the request.

Legal Basis: Rule 26, Section 2 of the Rules of Court states that each matter is deemed admitted unless, within the period designated in the request (not less than 15 days), the party to whom it is directed serves a sworn statement of denial or objection.

53. Under the “most important witness” rule, who determines the most important witnesses to be heard in a trial?

A. The plaintiff’s counsel.
B. The defendant’s counsel.
C. The judge, during the pretrial conference.
D. The parties, by mutual agreement.

Legal Basis: The 2004 Guidelines of Pretrial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures provide that the judge shall, during the pretrial conference, determine the most important witnesses and limit their number.

54. An action for damages was filed against Jose, who denied liability. He filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, which the court denied. What is Jose’s remedy against the denial?

A. File an appeal, as the denial is a final order.
B. File a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 if there is grave abuse of discretion.
C. File an answer and proceed to trial, and if the judgment is adverse, raise the denial as an error on appeal.
D. Both B and C are correct remedies.

Legal Basis: The general rule is that an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and not appealable. The proper remedy is to file an answer and proceed to trial, and then raise the issue on appeal from the final judgment. A petition for certiorari is an exception, available only when there is grave abuse of discretion. Therefore, C is the standard procedure.

55. What is the main difference between a petition for a writ of kalikasan and a complaint for damages in terms of the burden of proof?

A. In both cases, the plaintiff has the burden to prove damages by a preponderance of evidence.
B. In a kalikasan case, the precautionary principle may shift the burden of evidence to the respondent to prove that their action is not harmful.
C. In a damages case, the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove they were not negligent.
D. The standard of proof in a kalikasan case is proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Legal Basis: A key advantage of the writ of kalikasan is the application of the precautionary principle, which provides that when human activities may lead to threats of serious and irreversible damage to the environment that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, action shall be taken to avoid or diminish that threat. This effectively shifts the burden of evidence away from the petitioner. In a regular civil case for damages, the plaintiff has the burden to prove damages.

56. A policeman executes a warrantless arrest two hours after a murder was committed, based on information from a witness identifying Max as the killer. Under the “hot pursuit” doctrine, what is meant by “personal knowledge”?

A. The policeman must have personally witnessed the commission of the crime.
B. The policeman’s personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that the person arrested committed the crime.
C. The policeman must have seen the suspect fleeing from the crime scene.
D. The policeman must have personally recovered the murder weapon from the suspect.

Legal Basis: For a valid “hot pursuit” arrest, “personal knowledge” means knowledge of facts and circumstances, not necessarily of the crime’s commission itself. This knowledge, which can be based on reasonably worthy information coupled with the officer’s own observations, must be sufficient to create probable cause. (Pestilos v. Generoso).

57. An information for acts of lasciviousness merely states the accused committed such acts without specifying what those acts were. What is the proper ground to quash this information?

A. The facts charged do not constitute an offense.
B. The information does not conform substantially to the prescribed form.
C. The information is duplicitous.
D. The criminal action or liability has been extinguished.

Legal Basis: An information must state the acts or omissions constituting the offense in ordinary and concise language to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged. Failure to specify the acts of lasciviousness means the information does not conform substantially to the required form, violating the accused’s right to be informed.

58. A judgment in an environmental case involving a writ of continuing mandamus is:

A. Immediately executory.
B. Stayed upon the filing of a notice of appeal.
C. Executory only after 30 days from receipt by the parties.
D. Not executory until the Supreme Court affirms the judgment.

Legal Basis: Judgments in cases involving the writ of kalikasan and writ of continuing mandamus under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases are immediately executory.

59. When is bail a matter of judicial discretion after conviction by the RTC?

A. When the offense is not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.
B. In all cases, as bail is never a matter of right after conviction.
C. Only when the accused is a flight risk.
D. When the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment exceeding six years.

Legal Basis: Rule 114, Section 5 provides that upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary. If the penalty imposed exceeds six years, bail shall be denied if certain circumstances (like being a flight risk or having committed the offense while on probation) are present.

60. Which of the following is a valid ground for a warrantless arrest?

A. The person to be arrested is a known drug lord in the community.
B. The person to be arrested is an escaped prisoner.
C. The arresting officer received a reliable tip that the person is about to commit a crime.
D. The person to be arrested looks suspicious and is running away from the police.

Legal Basis: Rule 113, Section 5(c) of the Rules of Court explicitly allows a peace officer or a private person to make a warrantless arrest when the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

61. An RTC outside Metro Manila has exclusive original jurisdiction over a real action if the assessed value of the property is:

A. Exactly P20,000.00
B. More than P20,000.00
C. P20,000.00 or less.
D. More than P50,000.00

Legal Basis: B.P. Blg. 129, as amended, provides that outside Metro Manila, the RTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over real actions where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds P20,000.00.

62. A complaint was filed in the RTC of Manila for the annulment of a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage over a property in Makati. The defendant bank filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue. The plaintiff argued that the action is for annulment, which is incapable of pecuniary estimation, and thus a personal action. Which statement is most accurate?

A. The plaintiff is correct; the action is personal and venue is proper in Manila where plaintiff resides.
B. The defendant is correct; the action is a real action if foreclosure has already occurred, and venue should be in Makati.
C. Both are incorrect; venue in such cases is discretionary upon the court.
D. The defendant is correct, but the ground is not improper venue but lack of jurisdiction.

Legal Basis: An action for annulment of a real estate mortgage becomes a real action once foreclosure has taken place, as it affects title to and possession of the property. Therefore, the venue should be where the property is located. (Chua v. Total Office Products and Services).

63. In a special civil action for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals, the verification was signed by the petitioners’ counsel. The respondent moved to dismiss on this ground. How should the CA rule?

A. Grant the motion, as verification must be signed by the party themselves.
B. Deny the motion, as a lawyer may verify a pleading on behalf of a client, and the defect is merely formal.
C. Grant the motion, as a defective verification is a jurisdictional defect.
D. Deny the motion, but require the petitioners to submit a new verification signed by them.

Legal Basis: A defective verification is a formal, not jurisdictional, defect. The court may simply order its correction. Jurisprudence also holds that a lawyer may verify a pleading for a client. The court should not dismiss the case outright but merely require the party to rectify the defect.

64. When is bail a matter of right before conviction by the RTC?

A. In all cases, as the accused is presumed innocent.
B. When the offense charged is not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.
C. When the evidence of guilt is not strong, regardless of the offense.
D. Never, as bail is always a matter of discretion before the RTC.

Legal Basis: Rule 114, Section 4 of the Rules of Court provides that all persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as a matter of right before conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.

65. A complaint for partition did not implead two sisters who were co-owners and permanent residents of Australia. The defendants moved to dismiss. Which statement is correct?

A. The court should dismiss the case as the sisters are indispensable parties.
B. The court should deny the motion to dismiss and order the plaintiff to implead the sisters.
C. The court has no jurisdiction over the sisters, so the case cannot proceed.
D. The court should proceed with the trial and the judgment will not be binding on the sisters.

Legal Basis: Non-joinder of an indispensable party is not a ground for dismissal. The proper remedy is for the court to order the party to be impleaded. (Rule 3, Sec. 11).

66. In a homicide case, the accused presented exculpatory evidence after pleading guilty. The court acquitted him. What is the effect of presenting exculpatory evidence after a plea of guilty?

A. It is considered an aggravating circumstance.
B. The plea of guilty is deemed withdrawn and a plea of not guilty is entered for the accused.
C. The plea of guilty is considered an irrevocable judicial admission.
D. The court should disregard the exculpatory evidence.

Legal Basis: When an accused pleads guilty but presents exculpatory evidence, his plea is deemed withdrawn and a plea of not guilty shall be entered for him. This is because the exculpatory evidence is inconsistent with a plea of guilt. (People v. Balisacan).

CASE DIGESTS (ARCHIVE)

REMEDIAL LAW (2016-2017)

Remedial Law Interactive Exam (2016-2017 Bar)