CIVPRO ANSWERS:

1. AA filed an ejectment suit via forcible entry against BB. Upon receipt by the latter of summons, BB
filed a motion for extension of time of fifteen days to file an answer. In filing the motion, BB argued
that under the Rules of Court defendant is allowed to move and seek for an extended time of 30 days
to file a responsive pleading. Decide on the motion. (10%)

ANSWER:

YES, the defendant is allowed to move and seek an extended time of 30 days to file a responsive
pleading.

Under the Rules of Court, the defendant shall file his answer to the complaint within 30 calendar days
after the service of summons, unless a different period is fixed by the court.

In the case at bar, BB argued that he is allowed to move and seek for an extension of 30 days to file a
responsive pleading.

Therefore, the defendant is allowed to move and seek an extended time of 30 days to file a responsive
pleading since the allotted time for answer is within 30 calendar days.

2. ABC filed a complaint under the Rule on Summary Procedure against XYC. XYC filed an answer
within the reglementary period. ABC filed a reply. What is or are required under the RERFLCs so that
all pleadings submitted by the parties will be admitted for consideration of the court. (10%)

ANSWER:

a. If the allegations in the pleading are true and correct based on his personal or based on authentic
documents.

b. If the pleading is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of
litigation.

c. If the factual obligations have evidentiary support or if specifically identified will likewise have
evidentiary support after a seasonable opportunity for discovery.

3. XYC filed a complaint for collection of sum money against ABC. The latter in his answer include an
affirmative defense that the venue was improperly laid. The affirmative defense was denied by the
court. ABC filed a motion for reconsideration that the place where the case was filed is neither the
place of residence of the plaintiff and his. Decide on the motion for reconsideration. (10%)

ANSWER:

The motion for reconsideration should be denied.

Under the Rules of Court, a defendant shall raise his or her affirmative defenses in his or her answer but
shall be limited on the ground that the venue was improperly laid.

In the case at bar, ABC include in his affirmative defense that the venue was improperly laid. However,
the court denied the motion and the reason why ABC filed a motion for reconsideration.
Therefore, the motion for reconsideration filed by the ABC should be dismissed since it was included in
the answer that the venue was improperly laid.

4. A) What are the remedies of party declared in default? (5%)

B) Distinguish compulsory counterclaim from permissive counterclaim. (5%)

ANSWERS:

A. The remedies of party declared in default are:

- The defendant may file a motion under oath to set aside the order of default at anytime after discovery
and before judgment on the ground that his failure to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or
excusable negligence, and that he has a meritorious defense.

- If the judgment has already been rendered and the defendant discovered the default, he may file a
motion for a new trial; Provided that the judgment is not yet final and executory.

- A defendant may file a petition for relief, if the defendant discovered the default after the judgment
became final and executory.

- The defendant may also appeal from the judgment rendered against him as contrary to the evidence or
to the law even if no petition to set aside the order of default has been presented by him.

B. Under the Rules of Court, a compulsory counterclaim is one which is cognizable by the regular courts
of justice and is connected with the transactions or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the
opposing party and does not require the presence of third parties. On the other hand, a permissive
counterclaim does not arise or is not connected with the subject matter of the opposing party's claim.

5. Salvador entered into a contract of loan secured by real estate mortgage with Celso. When the loan
became due and demandable, Salvador failed to pay despite demand. Celso filed an action for judicial
foreclosure of real estate mortgage. Celso also later filed a collection of sum of money case against
Salvador for the full amount of the loan. Will the 2 cases prosper? Explain briefly. (10%)

ANSWER:

NO, the filing of a separate cause of action is not allowed.

Under the Rules of Court, when the payment for mortgage is not made, a single cause of action is
enough.

In the case at bar, both demands that was filed by Celso constitutes a single of action even though the
debt and the mortgage has a separate agreement.

Therefore, the filing of a separate cause of action is not allowed and will not make the case prosper since
the complaint is connected to each other. In addition, they cannot split up the complaint because it is
both for payment for foreclosure of the mortgage.
6. Union Bank entered into a contract to sell in favor of Maunlad Homes. It was agreed upon that in
the event of rescission due to failure to pay or to comply with the terms of the contract, Maunlad
Homes will be required to immediately vacate the property and must voluntarily turn possession over
to Union Bank. When Maunlad Homes failed to pay the monthly amortization, Union Bank sent the
former a Notice of Rescission of Contract dated February 5, 2003, demanding payment of the
installments due within 30 days from receipt; otherwise, it shall consider the contract automatically
rescinded. Maunlad Homes failed to comply. Hence, on November 19, 2003, Union Bank sent Maunlad
Homes a letter demanding payment of the rentals due and requiring that the subject property be
vacated and its possession turned over to the bank. When Maunlad Homes continued to refuse, Union
Bank instituted an ejectment suit before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati City, Branch
64, on February 19, 2004. The ejectment suit was filed by Union Bank in Makati City, based on the
contract stipulation that "the venue of all suits and actions arising out or in connection with the
Contract to Sell shall be in Makati City." The MTC ruled that the proper venue for the ejectment action
is in Malolos, Bulacan, pursuant to the second paragraph of Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court.
Hence, the case for ejectment was dismissed. Is the dismissal correct? (10%)

ANSWER:

YES, the dismissal is correct.

Under the Rules of Court, the Contract to sell must be filed in MTC.

In the case at bar, the suit was filed in Metropolitan Trial Court.

Therefore, the dismissal is correct since the venue is improperly laid.

7. In 2005, Spouses Trayvilla instituted before the RTC Civil Case for specific performance and damages
against respondent Sejas. It was alleged in the complaint filed that Sejas sold his parcel of land to the
Spouses by virtue of a private handwritten document which the Spouses took possession thereafter.
Sejas later reasserted his ownership over said land. The Spouses prayed that Sejas be ordered to
execute a final deed of sale over the property and transfer the same to them.

The Spouses amended their complaint, this time for specific performance, reconveyance, and
damages, spouses Trayvilla impleaded respondent Juvy Paglinawan as additional defendant, claiming
that Sejas subsequently sold the subject property to her, after which she caused the issuance of a new
title to her name. The Spouses Trayvilla prayed that Sejas be ordered to execute a final deed of sale in
their favor and transfer the property to them; that Paglinawan’s title be cancelled, and the property be
reconveyed to them.

Respondents moved to dismissed the case, arguing that the Spouses’ case was not for specific
performance but was in reality a real action or one involving title to and possession of real property, in
which case the value of the property should be alleged in the complaint in order that the proper filing
fee may be computed and paid; that since the value of the land was not alleged in the Amended
Complaint, the proper filing fee was not paid, and for this reason the case should be dismissed. A) Was
the case filed by spouses Trayvilla a real action (5%). Explain B) Did the RTC acquire jurisdiction over
the case? Justify (5%)

ANSWERS:

A. YES, the suit is a real action.

Under the Rules of Court, a real action is one that affects the title or possession of real property and its
interests.

In the case at bar, the Spouses Trayvilla's purpose in filing the complaint is to secure their claim
ownership and title to the subject property which makes the case as a real action.

Therefore, the suit is a real action because it concerns about the title and possession of a real property.

B. NO, the RTC cannot acquire jurisdiction.

Under the Rules of Court, the MTC has a jurisdiction over a real property.

In the case at bar, the Spouses Trayvilla's concern is regarding a claim of title and ownership.

Therefore, the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case since it is a real action.

8. Enrile filed a civil complaint for damages against the Villanueva-Ong for libel before the RTC due to
an article about the former posted in the Philippine Star. Villanueva-Ong then filed an answer with
compulsory counterclaims asking for damages and attorney’s fees. Enrile then filed a motion to
dismiss arguing that the Villanueva-Ong’s counterclaims are permissive since they are based on
different sources of obligations (the latter’s claim is quasi-delict, while the former’s claim is based on
delict), and hence should have complied with the requirements of an initiatory pleading. Villanueva-
Ong opposed the motion contesting that her counterclaims are compulsory in nature since both
counterclaims arose from the filing of Enrile’s complaint. The RTC ruled against the Villanueva-Ong by
making her pay the required fees. Decide. (10%)

ANSWER:

The RTC erred in ruling that the counterclaim that Villanueva-Ong filed is permissive.

Under the Rules of Court, compulsory counterclaims do not require to pay the required fee.

In the case at bar, the RTC ruled against Villanueva-Ong by making him pay the required fees.

Therefore, the RTC is erred in making Villanueva-Ong pay for the required fees because the case of
Villanueva-Ong falls under compulsory counterclaim.

9. In the preliminary hearings conducted by the DOJ Panel, Senator De Lima filed an Omnibus Motion
to have the consolidated cases endorsed to the Ombudsman. She also submitted a Manifestation with
Motion to First Resolve Pending Incident and to Defer Further Proceedings. This was denied by the
DOJ Panel and declared all pending incidents and cases submitted for resolution. Senator De Lima
thereafter filed before the CA a Petition for Prohibition and Certiorari assailing the jurisdiction of the
DOJ Panel over the complaints against her. The DOJ Panel, in the absence of any restraining order
issued by the CA, recommended the filing of information against her.
Judge Juanita Guerrero thereafter issued an Order finding probable cause for the issuance of warrants
of arrest against the Senator De Lima. Accordingly, the warrant was issued and served on her who was
committed to the PNP Custodial Center. She thereafter filed the petition before the Supreme Court
praying that the court grant a writ of certiorari to annul the Order by Judge Guerrero which issued that
warrant of arrest, grant a writ of prohibition to enjoin respondent judge from further proceeding with
the case until Senator De Lima’s Motion to Quash has been resolved, and the issuance of a status quo
pro ante order to restore petitioner to her liberty and freedom. Whether Senator De Lima violated the
rule on forum shopping. (10%)

ANSWER:

YES, Senator De Lima violated the rule on forum shopping.

Under the Rules of Court, forum shopping exists when a party repetitively avails several judicial remedies
in different courts with the same transactions and facts raising the same issue.

In the case at bar, Senator De Lima filed several judicial remedies to different courts in order to assail the
decision of the courts.

Therefore, Senator De Lima violated the rule on forum shopping since she filed several remedies with
the same facts and transactions raising the same issue.

10. Gatmaytan and others filed a complaint before the RTC against Sps. Garcia and MLI, and PNB to
whom the disputed lot purchased in 1991 had been mortgage. In the complaint stated are multiple
causes of action. Gatmaytan and others argued that their complaint should be allowed to proceed
since its action “primarily for the declaration of nullity of the 1996 Deed of Absolute Sale and
alternatively, for quieting of title.” Should Gatmaytan and others’ complaint be allowed to proceed for
trial on the merits? (10%)

ANSWER:

YES, the complaint is allowed to proceed for trial on the merits.

Under the Rules of Court, parties are allowed to file an alternative cause of actions. Hence, they may
plead as many separate claims as they may have.

In the case at bar, Gatmaytan filed for the declaration of nullity of the Deed of Absolute Sale and for
quieting of title.

Therefore, the complaints of Gatmaytan may be allowed to proceed for trial in accordance with the
alternative causes of action.