PART I

Note: As stated in the Instructions, Part I covers problem sets labelled A.1. to A.10. All
answers to these questions should be written in Booklet I.

A.1.

ABC Homeowners Association, Inc. sued Mr. X before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
for collection of unpaid association dues. Mr. X filed a motion to dismiss solely on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction, asserting that the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes among homeowners and their associations. The
RTC denied Mr. X's motion, maintaining that it has jurisdiction over the case. This
prompted Mr. X to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
before the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC in
denying his motion to dismiss.

(a) Is Mr. X's chosen remedy of certiorari and direct recourse to the Supreme Court
proper? Explain. (2.5%)

(b) Assuming that Mr. X's motion was instead granted by the RTC, what is the
proper remedy of ABC Homeowners Association, Inc. to challenge the RTC ruling?
Explain. (2.5%)

A.2.

Ms. A filed a complaint for damages against Ms. B, alleging that Ms. B negligently
caused the demolition of her house's concrete fence, the top half of which fell on the
front portion of Ms. A's car and permanently damaged its engine. In her answer, Ms. B
denied any personal liability for the damage caused to Ms. A's car, averring that she
merely acquiesced to the advice of her contractor, XYZ Construction Co., to have the
concrete fence demolished. Thus, damages, if any, should be collected from it.

Thereafter, Ms. A filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, alleging that Ms. B's
statement in her answer is actually a negative pregnant. Ms. B opposed the motion,
reiterating her defense in her answer which purportedly rendered judgment on the
pleadings improper. Ms. B also moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground of non-
joinder of XYZ Construction Co., which she alleged is an indispensable party to the case.

(a) Is Ms. A's motion for judgment on the pleadings proper? Explain. (3%)

(b) Is XYZ Construction Co. an indispensable or a necessary party? Explain. (3%)

(c) Assuming that XYZ Construction Co. is an indispensable party, is its non-
joinder a ground for the dismissal of the case? Explain. (3%)

A.3.

Mr. C sued Mr. D for reconveyance of property and damages, claiming that Mr. D,
through fraud and forgery, was able to obtain the title to Lot No. 1234, which was
previously registered in Mr. C's name. The complaint was filed before the Regional Trial
Court.

Instead of filing an answer, Mr. D moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack
of cause of action. In opposition, Mr. C argued that lack of cause of action is not a
ground for a motion to dismiss as the ground provided under Section 1 (g), Rule 16 of
the Rules of Court is failure to state a cause of action.

Distinguish the concepts of lack of cause of action and failure to state a cause of
action. Based on this distinction, is Mr. C's opposition tenable? Explain. (5%)

A.4.

Mrs. E filed a complaint for sum of money against Mr. F in the amount of ₱1,000,000.00
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). After due proceedings, the RTC ruled in favor of
Mrs. E, and since no appeal was interposed thereto, the ruling became final and
executory as evinced by an Entry of Judgment dated July 2, 2012. However, Mrs. E was
unable to immediately move for the execution of said judgment because she had a work
engagement overseas.

On June 29, 2017, Mrs. E returned to the country and, on the same day, filed a motion for
the issuance of a writ of execution before the RTC. On July 7, 2017, the RTC granted the
motion, and consequently, issued a writ of execution in Mrs. E's favor.

Was the RTC's issuance of the writ of execution procedurally infirm? Explain. (3%)

A.5.

Mrs. G defaulted in the payment of her loan obligation with Z Bank. As such, Z Bank
extra-judicially foreclosed Mrs. G's mortgaged property and sold it at public auction
where it emerged as the highest bidder. Eventually, a certificate of sale was issued in Z
Bank's favor, and title to the property was later consolidated under the bank's name.

Claiming that Z Bank used fraudulent machinations in increasing the interest and penalty
charges on the loan, thereby making it impossible for her to pay, Mrs. G filed before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) a complaint for cancellation of consolidation of ownership
over a real property with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction
against Z Bank. Immediately thereafter, the RTC issued an ex parte writ of preliminary
injunction enjoining Z Bank from disposing of the foreclosed property or taking
possession thereof.

Did the RTC err in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction ex parte? Explain.
(3%)

A.6.

Mr. H filed a complaint against Mr. I to recover the amount of ₱500,000.00 based on
their contract of services. In his answer, Mr. I admitted that he has yet to pay Mr. H for
his services based on their contract but nevertheless, interposed a counterclaim alleging
that Mr. H still owed him rental arrearages for the lease of his apartment also amounting
to ₱500,000.00.

It has come to Mr. H's attention that Mr. I did not pay any filing fees when he filed his
answer. As such, Mr. H moved to dismiss the counterclaim. In response to Mr. H's
motion, Mr. I averred that the non-payment of filing fees was purely based on
inadvertence and that the said filing fees had already been paid as of date, as evinced by
the official receipt issued by the clerk of court therefor.

(a) What is the nature of Mr. l's counterclaim? Is the payment of filing fees required
for such counterclaim to prosper? Explain. (3%)

(b) Should Mr. I's counterclaim be dismissed? Explain. (3%)

 A.7.

As a result of an anonymous complaint, Mr. J, a local public official, was held

administratively liable for Grave Misconduct by the Office of the Ombudsman
(Ombudsman) in Administrative Case No. 1234. As such, he was imposed the penalty of
dismissal from service. The Ombudsman also found probable cause to indict him for
violation of Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No.3019, or the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act," in Criminal Case No. 4321. Mr. J moved for the reconsideration of the
Ombudsman's Joint Decision but was denied.

Unperturbed, Mr. J filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
before the Court of Appeals (CA), assailing the Ombudsman's Joint Decision in
Administrative Case No. 1234 and Criminal Case No. 4321. However, the CA dismissed
the petition outright, holding that such petition constitutes an improper remedy to assail
the administrative and criminal aspects of the aforementioned Ombudsman ruling.

Was the CA's dismissal of Mr. J's petition correct? Explain. (5%)

A.8.

Ms. A filed a petition for a writ of amparo, claiming that she was being threatened by Mr.
B, her ex-boyfriend, with whom she has a child out of wedlock, named C. Ms. A alleged
that since she started dating someone else, Mr. B began stalking her, parking his car on
the street outside her house, and watching her house until the wee hours of the morning.
She thus feared for her life.

(a) Is Ms. A entitled to a writ of amparo? Explain. (2.5%)

(b) Assuming that Mr. B took away C without Ms. A's knowledge and consent, what
is the proper remedy for Ms. A to immediately recover C's custody? Explain. (2.5%)

A.9.

Ms. N initiated a special proceeding for the correction of entries in the civil registry
under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), impleading
only the Local Civil Registrar therein. In her petition, Ms. N sought to change the entry
in her birth certificate with respect to the date of her parents' marriage from "May 22,
1992" to "not married." The Office of the Solicitor General opposed the petition, arguing
that Ms. N's parents should have been impleaded in the proceeding. In response, Ms. N
argued that this was not necessary since it was an entry in her own birth certificate which
she intended to change. Hence, it was a matter personal to her, and as such, the
participation of her parents in the case could be dispensed with.

Is Ms. N's position correct? Explain. (3%)

A.10.

Distinguish the following:

(a) Writ of kalikasan and writ of continuing mandamus (3%)

(b) Warrant to Search, Seize, and Examine Computer Data (WSSECD) and
Warrant to Examine Computer Data (WECD) (3%)

- END OF PART I -
Note: This marks the end of Part I. The forthcoming problem sets will fall under Part II
and the answers therefor should be written in Booklet II.

PART II

Note: As stated in the Instructions, Part II covers problem sets labelled B.11. to
B.20. All answers to these questions should be written in Booklet II.

B.11.

Mr. X filed a complaint for sum of money against his old friend, Mr. Y. In order to ensure
that Mr. Y would not be able to file a responsive pleading and much more, participate in
the case, Mr. X paid off Mr. Y's counsel, Atty. Z, who deliberately let the case proceed as
such without his client's knowledge.

Eventually, judgment was rendered on March 1, 2016 in Mr. X's favor, a copy of which
was received by Atty. Z on April 4, 2016. Bothered by his conscience, Atty. Z brought the
copy of the decision to Mr.Y on June 1, 2016, thereby surprising the latter and causing
him grief. Meanwhile, the decision became final and executory in due course on April
19, 2016.

Thereafter, Mr. Y took steps in vindicating his rights, which culminated on August 15,
2016 when he, as represented by a new counsel, filed a petition for annulment of
judgment before the Court of Appeals (CA) on the ground of extrinsic fraud. The CA
dismissed the petition on the ground that Mr. Y failed to submit a satisfactory explanation
as to why he directly resorted to a petition for annulment of judgment, when he could
have filed a petition for relief from judgment.

(a) What are the differences between a petition for relief from judgment and a
petition for annulment of judgment in terms of grounds and periods to file? (3%)

(b) Was the CA's dismissal of Mr. Y's petition for annulment of judgment proper?
Explain. (2%)

B.12.

Ms. R received a subpoena ad testificandum from a Regional Trial Court (RTC) directing
her to appear and testify in a case. Despite notice and without any sufficient justification,
Ms. R failed to appear. This prompted the RTC to issue a show-cause order directing Ms.
R to explain, within ten (10) days, why she should not be cited for contempt for her
nonappearance despite receipt of the subpoena. Ms. R, however, did not file her
comment. After due hearing with notice to the parties, the RTC cited her in indirect
contempt, and consequently, ordered her arrest.

Ms. R moved to quash the warrant issued for her arrest, claiming that a formal charge
should have been filed against her, and that the same should have been docketed and
prosecuted as a separate case against her. She thus claimed that since this procedure was
not followed, the order citing her in contempt is null and void.

(a) Is Ms. R's contention tenable? Explain. (3%)

(b) What is the proper mode of appeal should Ms. R decide to assail her contempt
citation? Will the filing of such appeal automatically result in the suspension of the
execution of judgment? Explain. (2%)

B.13.

In a neighborhood bicycle race, Mr. A bumped the bicycle of one of his competitors, Mr.
B, in order to get ahead. This caused the latter to lose control of the bike which hit the
concrete pavement and sent Mr. B crashing headfirst into the sidewalk. By the time the
organizers got to him, Mr. B was dead. Law enforcement authorities who witnessed the
incident arrested Mr. A without a warrant, and immediately brought him to the inquest
prosecutor for the conduct of an inquest. Thereafter, an Information for Homicide was
filed by the inquest prosecutor without the conduct of a preliminary investigation. The
next day Mr. A requested for the conduct of a preliminary investigation.

(a) Is the inquest prosecutor's filing of the Information without the conduct of
preliminary investigation proper? (2.5%)

(b) Is Mr. A's request permissible? Explain. (2.5%)

B.14.

Mr. P was charged with Plunder before the Sandiganbayan along with several
government officials. Before his arraignment, he filed a petition for bail. This was
objected to by the prosecution which insisted that he should first be arraigned before he
applies for bail, considering that grant of bail will result in the accused fleeing the court's
jurisdiction.

(a) When is bail a matter of right before conviction? (2%)

(b) Is the objection of the prosecution valid? Explain. (3%)

B.15.

In an Information filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Mr. C was charged with
Carnapping for supposedly taking the motorcycle of Mr. O and joyriding with it around
the city. When Mr. C was arraigned, he entered a plea of "not guilty" to the charge. After
the prosecution rested its case, Mr. C proceeded to file a demurrer to evidence. The
demurrer was denied by the RTC.

(a) Would Mr. C be allowed to present evidence in his defense after the denial of his
demurrer? Explain. (2%)

(b) Assuming that the demurrer was granted by the RTC and the prosecution's
motion for reconsideration thereto is denied, what is the prosecution's further
procedural recourse? Explain. (3%)

B.16.

Mr. W was charged with raping his neighbor's seventeen (17)-year old daughter, AAA.
When he was arraigned, Mr. W expressed his desire to plead "guilty," provided that his
sentence be substantially reduced. Both AAA's mother and the prosecutor were amenable
to the proposal. Consequently, the judge entered a plea of guilty for Mr. W and sentenced
him to serve a reduced straight penalty of only ten (10) years of imprisonment, as agreed
upon.

(a) Did the judge properly enter a plea of guilty for Mr. W? Explain. (2%)
(b) Assuming that Mr. W was once more charged with the crime of Rape committed
against AAA based on the same incident, may Mr. W validly invoke the defense of
double jeopardy through a motion to quash and will such motion prosper? Explain.
(3%)

B.17.

In a case for specific performance and damages, plaintiff Q presented photocopies of the
contracts he had executed with defendant R for the purpose of establishing their
existence. Defendant R's counsel objected to the admission of said photocopies, invoking
the best evidence rule.

(a) Should the objection of defendant R's counsel be sustained? Explain. (3%)

(b) Assuming that the best evidence rule applies, under what circumstances will the
photocopies be admissible in evidence? (2%)

B.18.

In a case for Attempted Parricide brought against Mr. M by his wife, Mrs. N, their son, C,
was called as a witness for the prosecution. Mr. M's counsel objected, invoking the filial
privilege rule.

Meanwhile, in a separate case for Serious Physical Injuries also brought against Mr. M,
but this time by his son, C, Mrs. N was called to testify against Mr. M. Mr. M's counsel
objected, invoking the marital disqualification rule.

Should the objections of Mr. M's counsel in both cases be sustained? Explain. (5%)

B.19.

A criminal complaint for Theft was filed against Mr. T by his employer for allegedly
stealing company property. During trial, the prosecutor called Mr. T's former supervisor,
Mr. V, to the stand and attempted to question him on similar incidents also involving Mr.
T with his previous employer. Mr. T's counsel objected to the question, invoking the rule
on res inter alias acta. In response, the prosecutor argued that the question should be
allowed since he was trying to establish Mr. T's habit of stealing things from the
workplace.

(a) Should the objection of Mr. T's counsel be sustained? Explain. (2.5%)

(b) Assuming that the prosecution presents evidence on the bad moral character of
Mr. T, may the same be admitted in the present case? Explain. (2.5%)

B.20.

AAA, a ten (10)-year old minor, was sleeping inside her room when she was awakened
by her uncle, Mr. G, who was reeking of alcohol and was already on top of her. After Mr.
G succeeded in having carnal knowledge of AAA, the former immediately left the latter's
room. Thereafter, AAA rushed into the room of her mother, MMM, and spontaneously
and frantically reported the incident. Eventually, Mr. G was arrested and was indicted for
the crime of Rape.

During trial, MMM was presented as a witness to testify on what AAA reported to her
and AAA's gestures and disposition at that time. Mr. G's counsel objected to MMM's
testimony on the ground that it is hearsay evidence. The prosecutor countered that the
subject of MMM's testimony may be admitted as an independently relevant statement
and as part of the res gestae.

(a) May MMM's testimony be admitted on the ground that it constitutes an

independently relevant statement? Explain. (2.5%)

(b) May AAA's statement to MMM be admitted on the ground of res gestae?
Explain. (2.5%)

JUSTICE MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Chairperson
2018 Bar Examinations

Danielle, a Filipino citizen and permanent resident of Milan, Italy, filed with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, where she owns a rest house, a complaint for
ejectment against Dan, a resident of Barangay Daliao, Davao City. Danielle's property,
which is located in Digos City, Davao del Sur, has an assessed value of PhP 25,000.
Appended to the complaint was Danielle's certification on non-forum shopping executed
in Davao City duly notarized by Atty. Dane Danoza, a notary public.
(a) Was there a need to refer the case to the Lupong Tagapamayapa for
prior barangay conciliation before the court can take cognizance of the case? (2.5%)

(b) Was the action properly instituted before the RTC of Davao City? (2.5%)

(c) Should the complaint be verified or is the certification sufficient? (2.5%)

II

Dendenees Inc. and David, both stockholders owning collectively 25% of Darwinkle
Inc., filed an action before the RTC of Makati to compel its Board of Directors (BOD) to
hold the annual stockholders' meeting (ASM) on June 21, 2017, as required by
Darwinkle Inc. 's By-Laws, with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction to use as
record date April 30, 2017. The complaint alleged, among others, that the refusal to call
the ASM on June 21, 2017 was rooted in the plan of the BOD to allow Databank Inc.
(which would have owned 50% of Darwinkle Inc. after July 15, 2017) to participate in
the ASM to effectively dilute the complainants' shareholdings and ease them out of the
BOD. Dendenees Inc. and David paid the amount of PhP 7 ,565 as filing fees based on
the assessment of the Clerk of Court. The BOD filed a motion to dismiss on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction. They averred that the filing fees should have been based on the
actual value of the shares of Dendenees Inc. and David, which were collectively worth
PhP 450 million.

If you were the Judge, will you grant the motion to dismiss? (5%)

III

On February 3, 2018, Danny Delucia, Sheriff of the RTC of Makati, served the Order
granting the ex-parte application for preliminary attachment of Dinggoy against Dodong.
The Order, together with the writ, was duly received by Dodong. On March 1, 2018, the
Sheriff served upon Dodong the complaint and summons in connection with the same
case. The counsel of Dodong filed a motion to dissolve the writ.

(a) Can the preliminary attachment issued by the Court in favor of Dinggoy be
dissolved? What ground/s can Dodong's counsel invoke? (2.5%)

(b) If Dodong posts a counter bond, is he deemed to have waived any of his claims for
damages arising from the issuance of the Order and writ of attachment? (2.5%)

IV

Dick Dixson had sons with different women - (i) Dexter with longtime partner Delia and
(ii) Dongdong and Dingdong with his housemaid Divina. When Dick fell ill in 2014, he
entrusted all his property titles and shares of stock in various companies to Delia who, in
turn, handed them to Dexter for safekeeping. After the death of Dick, Dexter induced
Dongdong and Dingdong to sign an agreement and waiver of their right to Dick's estate
in consideration of PhP 45 million. As Dexter reneged on his promise to pay, Dongdong
and Dingdong filed a complaint with the RTC of Manila for annulment of the agreement
and waiver. The summons and complaint were received by Dalia, the housemaid of
Dexter, on the day it was first served. Dexter filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction over his person. RTC Manila granted the motion to dismiss.

Dongdong and Dingdong thereafter filed a new complaint against Dexter for annulment
of the agreement and waiver. Before Dexter could file his answer, Dongdong and
Dingdong filed a motion to withdraw their complaint praying that it be dismissed without
prejudice. An Order was issued granting the motion to withdraw without prejudice on the
basis that the summons had not yet been served on Dexter. Dexter filed a motion for
reconsideration of the order of dismissal. He argued that the dismissal should have been
with prejudice under the "two-dismissal rule" of Rule 17, Section 1 of the Rules of Court,
in view of the previous dismissal of the first case.

Will the two-dismissal rule apply making the second dismissal with prejudice? (5%)

Dorton Inc. (Dorton) sued Debra Commodities Inc. (Debra), Daniel, and Debbie in the
RTC of Manila for recovery of sum of money. The complaint alleged that, on October 14,
2017, Debra obtained a loan from Dorton in the amount of PhP 10 million with interest
of 9% per annum. The loan was evidenced by a promissory note (PN) payable on
demand signed by Daniel and Debbie, the principal stockholders of Debra, who also
executed a surety agreement binding themselves as sureties. Copies of both the PN and
the surety agreement were attached to the complaint. Dorton further alleged that it made
a final demand on March 1, 2018 for Debra and the sureties to pay, but the demand was
not heeded.

Debra, Daniel, and Debbie filed their answer, and raised the affirmative defense that,
while the PN and the surety agreement appeared to exist, Daniel and Debbie were
uncertain whether the signatures on the documents were theirs. The PN and the surety
agreement were pre-marked during pre-trial, identified but not authenticated during trial,
and formally offered.

Can the RTC of Manila consider the PN and the surety agreement in rendering its
decision? (5%)

VI

Daribell Inc. (Daribell) filed a complaint for sum of money and damages against spouses
Dake and Donna Demapilis for unpaid purchases of construction materials in the sum of
PhP 250,000. In their answer, spouses Demapilis admitted the purchases from Daribell,
but alleged that they could not remember the exact amount since no copies of the
documents were attached to the complaint. They nevertheless claimed that they made
previous payments in the amounts of PhP 110,000 and PhP 20,000 and that they were
willing to pay the balance of their indebtedness after account verification. In a written
manifestation, spouses Demapilis stated that, in order to buy peace, they were willing to
pay the sum of PhP 250,000, but without interests and costs. Subsequently, Daribell filed
a motion for partial summary judgment. Thereafter, Daribell filed an amended complaint,
alleging that the total purchases of construction materials were PhP 280,000 and only
PhP 20,000 had been paid. Daribell also served upon the spouses Demapilis a request for
admission asking them to admit to the genuineness of the statement of accounts, delivery
receipts and invoices, as well as to the value of the principal obligation and the amount
paid as stated in the amended complaint.

Daribell thereafter amended the complaint anew. The amendment modified the period
covered and confirmed the partial payment of PhP 110,000 but alleged that this payment
was applied to the spouses' other existing obligations. Daribell however reiterated that
the principal amount remained unchanged.

(a) Is the request for admission deemed abandoned or withdrawn by the filing of the
second amended complaint? (2.5%)

(b) Can the amendment of the complaint be allowed if it substantially alters the cause of
action? (2.5%)
(c) Can the facts subject of an unanswered request for admission be the basis of a
summary judgment? (2.5%)

VII

Dory Enterprises Inc. (Dory) leased to Digna Corporation (Digna) a parcel of land
located in Diliman, Quezon City. During the term of the lease, Digna was informed by
DBS Banking Corporation (DBS) that it had acquired the leased property from the
former owner Dory, and required Digna to pay the rentals directly to it. Digna promptly
informed Dory of DBS' claim of ownership. In response, Dory insisted on its right to
collect rent on the leased property.

Due to conflicting claims of Dory and DBS over the rental payments, Digna filed a
complaint for interpleader in the RTC of Manila. Digna prayed that it be allowed to
consign in court the succeeding monthly rentals, and that Dory and DBS be required to
litigate their conflicting claims. It later appeared that an action for nullification of
a dacion en pago was filed by Dory against DBS in the RTC of Quezon City. In said
case, Dory raised the issue as to which of the two (2) corporations had a better right to
the rental payments. Dory argued that, to avoid conflicting decisions, the interpleader
case must be dismissed.

Does the action for nullification of the dacion en pago bar the filing of the interpleader
case? (2.5%)

VIII

Spouses Dondon and Donna Dumdum owned a residential lot in Dapitan City. Doy
Dogan bought said lot and took possession thereof with the promise to pay the purchase
price of PhP 2 million within a period of six (6) months. After receiving only PhP
500,000, spouses Dumdum executed the deed of absolute sale and transferred the title to
Doy Dogan. The balance was not paid at all. Spouses Dumdum, through counsel, sent a
demand letter to Doy Dogan for him to pay the balance of PhP 1.5 million plus interest of
PhP150,000. Doy Dogan responded in a letter by saying that "while the remaining
balance is admitted, the interest charged is excessive." There being no payment, spouses
Dumdum filed with the RTC of Dapitan City a complaint for reconveyance with damages
against Doy Dogan.

In his answer, Doy Dogan raised, by way of affirmative defense, that the purchase price
had been fully paid and for this reason the complaint should have been dismissed.
Spouses Dumdum then filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings which was granted
by the RTC of Dapitan City. The Court awarded PhP1 .5 million actual damages
representing the balance of the purchase price, PhP 200,000 as moral damages, PhP
200,000 as exemplary damages, PhP 90,000 as interest, PhP 50,000 as attorney's fees,
and PhP 5,000 as cost of suit.

Was it proper for the RTC of Dapitan City to grant the motion for judgment on the
pleadings? (2.5%)

IX

In 2015, Dempsey purchased from Daria a parcel of land located in Dumaguete, Negros
Oriental. The latter executed a deed of absolute sale and handed to Dempsey the owner's
duplicate copy of TCT No. 777 covering the property. Since he was working in Manila
and still had to raise funds to cover taxes, registration and transfer costs, Dempsey kept
the TCT in his possession without having transferred it to his name. A few years
thereafter, when he already had the funds to pay for the transfer costs, Dempsey went to
the Register of Deeds of Dumaguete and discovered that, after the sale, Daria had filed a
petition for reconstitution of the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 777 which the RTC
granted. Thus, unknown to Dempsey, Daria was able to secure a new TCT in her name.

What is Dempsey's remedy to have the reconstituted title in the name of Daria nullified?
(5%)

In a buy-bust operation, 30 kilos of shabu were seized from Dave and Daryll. They were
arrested and placed on inquest before Prosecutor Danilo Doon who ordered their
continued detention. Thereafter, the information for the sale and distribution
of shabu was filed in court. When arraigned, Dave and Daryll pleaded not guilty to the
charge. During pre-trial, counsel for both of the accused raised, for the first time, the
illegality of the arrest. The case proceeded to trial. After trial, the court scheduled the
promulgation of judgment with notice to both the accused and their counsel, Atty.
Dimayuga. During the promulgation, only Dave and Atty. Dimayuga were present. Both
the accused were convicted of the crime charged.

(a) Was the challenge to the validity of the arrest timely raised? (2.5%)

(b) What is the remedy available to Daryll, if any, to be able to file an appeal? (2.5%)

XI

In 2007, Court of Appeals Justice (CA Justice) Dread Dong (J. Dong) was appointed to
the Supreme Court (Court) as Associate Justice. Immediately after the appointment was
announced, several groups questioned his qualification to the position on the ground that
he was not a natural born Filipino citizen. In the same year, the Court issued an Order
enjoining him from accepting the appointment or assuming the position and discharging
the functions of his office until he is able to successfully complete all the necessary steps
to show that he is a natural born citizen of the Philippines. However, he continued to
exercise his functions as CA Justice.

Since the qualification of a natural born citizen applies as well to CA Justices, Atty.
Dacio, a practicing lawyer, asked the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), through a
verified request, to initiate a quo warranto proceeding against J. Dong in the latter's
capacity as incumbent CA Justice. The OSG refused to initiate the action on the ground
that the issue of J. Dong's citizenship was still being litigated in another case.

When the OSG refused to initiate a quo warranto proceeding, Atty. Dacio filed a petition
for certiorari against the OSG and certiorari and prohibition against J. Dong. The
petition for certiorari against the OSG alleged that the OSG committed grave abuse of
discretion when it deferred the filing of a quo warranto proceeding against J. Dong,
while the petition for certiorari and prohibition against J. Dong asked the Court to order
him to cease and desist from further exercising his powers, duties and responsibilities as
CA Justice. In both instances, Atty. Dacio relied on the fact that, at the lime of J. Dong's
appointment as CA Justice, his birth certificate indicated that he was a Chinese citizen
and his bar records showed that he was a naturalized Filipino citizen.

(a) May the OSG be compelled, in an action for certiorari, to initiate a quo
warranto proceeding against J. Dong? (2.5%)

(b) Does Atty. Dacio have the legal personality to initiate the action for certiorari and
prohibition against J. Dong? (2.5%)

XII
Dodo was knocked unconscious in a fist fight with Dindo. He was rushed to the
emergency room of the Medical City where he was examined and treated by Dr. Datu. As
he was being examined, a plastic sachet appearing to contain shabu fell from Dodo's
jacket which was on a chair beside him. Dodo was thus arrested by the same policemen
who assisted him to the hospital. At Dodo's trial, the public prosecutor called Dr. Datu to
the witness stand. When the public prosecutor asked Or. Datu as to what he saw in the
emergency room, Dodo's counsel objected, claiming doctor-patient privilege rule.

How would you rule on the objection? (2.5%)

XIII

Denny is on trial for homicide. The prosecution calls Danilo, a police officer, who
interviewed the victim, Drew, shortly after the shooting. Danila's testimony is being
offered by the prosecution for purposes of proving that (i) Drew is now dead; (ii) while
in the emergency room, Drew was posting his medical condition on Facebook and was
"liking" the posts of his Facebook friends; (iii) Drew asked the nurse for water but was
refused because he was bleeding, which subsequently angered Drew; and (iv) that before
dying, Drew signed a statement in which he identified Denny as the shooter.

Is the proposed testimony of Danilo admissible? (2.5%)

XIV

Dave is on trial for sexual assault of Delly, a law student who sidelines as a call center
agent. Dave offers the testimony of Danny, who says that Dave is known in the
community as a decent and discerning person. The prosecution presents a rebuttal
witness, Dovie, who testifies that, if Dave was reputed to be a good person, that
reputation was a misperception because Dave had been previously convicted of
homicide.

Is Dovie's testimony admissible as to the character of Dave? (2.5%)

XV

Atty. Dalmacio, the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation, applied for a search
warrant before the Executive Judge of RTC Manila. He alleged in his application that a
certain alias Django was keeping about 10 kilos of shabu in a wooden cabinet located at
Dillian's Store in Paseo de Sta. Rosa, Laguna. The Executive Judge of Manila personally
examined Atty. Dalmacio and his witnesses and thereafter issued the search warrant
particularly describing the place to be

searched and the items to be seized.

(a) Can the search warrant issued by the Executive Judge of Manila be enforced in
Laguna? (2.5%)

(b) Can the legal concept of "venue is jurisdictional" be validly raised in applications for
search warrants? (2.5%)

XVI

Danjo, a stay-in gardener at the Dy family home in Quezon City, applied for overseas
employment in Riyadh as a flower arranger. After he left for abroad, Dino Dy, head of
the family, discovered that all his wristwatches were missing. Dino followed Danjo's
lnstagram account and in one instance saw Danjo wearing his Rolex watch. He filed a
complaint for qualified theft against Danjo with the Office of the Prosecutor (OP),
Quezon City. The subpoena with the affidavit-complaint was served on Denden, Danjo's
wife, at their house. No counter-affidavit was filed by Danjo who continued to work in
Riyadh. After conducting a preliminary investigation, the OP found probable cause
against Danjo and subsequently filed the information for qualified theft before the RTC
of Quezon City. The court likewise found probable cause and issued in 2016 a warrant
for Danjo's arrest.

Danjo was repatriated to the Philippines in 2018. While Danjo was lurking outside the
Dys' house, which was only about 100 meters away from the police station, SPO1 Dody
recognized Danjo. Realizing that the police station had a copy of Danjo's warrant of
arrest, SPO1 Dody immediately pursued and arrested Danjo.

(a) Was the warrant of arrest issued against Danjo who was not in the Philippines valid?
(2.5%)

(b) Can the warrant of arrest be served on Danjo upon his return? (2.5%)

XVII

Don Deles, a contractor, was sued together with Mayor Dante Dungo and Congressman
Dal Dilim for malversation of public funds before the Office of the Ombudsman. Danny
Din, a material witness of the complainant Diego Domingo, was hired as an engineer by
a construction company in Qatar, and had to depart in two (2) months. To perpetuate
Danny Din's testimony, Diego Domingo applied for his conditional examination before
the Sandiganbayan.

Should the application for conditional examination of Danny Din be granted? (2.5%)

XVIII

The Republic of the Philippines (Republic) filed a complaint with the Sandiganbayan in
connection with the sequestered assets and properties of Demo Companies Inc. (Demo)
and impleaded its officers and directors. Since the complaint did not include Demo as
defendant, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution where it ordered Demo to be
impleaded. Thereafter, the Republic filed an amended complaint naming Demo as
additional defendant, which amendment was later admitted.

Demo filed a motion for bill of particulars for the Republic to clarify certain matters in
its amended complaint. The Sandiganbayan immediately granted the motion. Upon
submission of the bill of particulars by the Republic, Demo filed a motion to dismiss
arguing that the answers in the bill of particulars were indefinite and deficient responses
to the question of what the alleged illegally acquired funds or properties of Demo were.
The Sandiganbayan dismissed the case.

(a) Was the Sandiganbayan correct in dismissing the case? (2.5%)

(b) What can the defendant, in a civil case, do in the event that his motion for bill of
particulars is denied? (2.5%)

XIX

Drylvik, a German national, married Dara, a Filipina, in Dusseldorf, Germany. When the
marriage collapsed, Dara filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage before the
RTC of Manila. Drylvik, on the other hand, was able to obtain a divorce decree from the
German Family Court. The decree, in essence, states:
The marriage of the Parties contracted on xxx before the Civil Registrar of Dusseldorf is
hereby dissolved. The parental custody of the children Diktor and Daus is granted to the
father.

Drylvik filed a motion to dismiss in the RTC of Manila on the ground that the court no
longer had jurisdiction over the matter as a decree of divorce had already been
promulgated dissolving his marriage to Dara. Dara objected, saying that while she was
not challenging the divorce decree, the case in the RTC still had to proceed for the
purpose of determining the issue of the children's custody. Drylvik counters that the issue
had been disposed of in the divorce decree, thus constituting res judicata.

(a) Should Drylvik's motion to dismiss be granted? (2.5%)

(b) Is a foreign divorce decree between a foreign spouse and a Filipino spouse,
uncontested by both parties, sufficient by itself to cancel the entry in the civil registry
pertaining to the spouses' marriage? (2.5%)

XX

Dominic was appointed special administrator of the Estate of Dakota Dragon. Delton,
husband of Dakota, together with their five (5) children, opposed the appointment of
Dominic claiming that he (Dominic) was just a stepbrother of Dakota. After giving
Dominic the chance to comment, the court issued an Order affirming the appointment of
Dominic.

(a) What is the remedy available to the oppositors? (2.5%)

(b) If there are no qualified heirs, can the government initiate escheat proceedings over
the assets of the deceased? To whom, in particular, shall the estate of the deceased go and
for whose benefit? (2.5%)

XXI

The municipality of Danao, Cebu was a quiet and peaceful town until a group of miners
from Denmark visited the area and discovered that it was rich in nickel. In partnership
with the municipal mayor, the Danish miners had to flatten 10 hectares of forest land by
cutting all the trees before starting their mining operations. The local DENR, together
with the Samahan Laban sa Sumisira sa Kalikasan, filed a petition for writ
of kalikasan against the municipal mayor and the Danish miners in the RTC of Cebu.

(a) Is the petition within the jurisdiction of the RTC of Cebu? (2.5%)

(b) What is the Precautionary Principle? (2.5%)

XXII

Danica obtained a personal loan of PhP 180,000 from Dinggoy, payable in 18 equal
monthly installments of PhP 10,000 until fully paid. In order to complete her payment at
an earlier date, Danica instead paid PhP 20,000 monthly, and continued doing so until the
15th month, which payments Dinggoy all accepted. Later on, she realized that she had
overpaid Dinggoy by 100% as she should have already completed payment in nine (9)
months. She demanded the return of the excess payment, but Dinggoy completely
ignored her. Thus, Danica availed of the Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases by
filing before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) a statement of claim, together with the
required documents.
Should the MTC proceed with the case under the: (i) Revised Rules Summary Procedure;
(ii) the Rules of Procedure for Small Claims; or (iii) the regular procedure for civil cases?
(5%)