GARCIA
JD-III
EXAMINATION 1 IN SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS
1.
Rule 65 is a special civil action which is different from other modes
of appeal because:
a. It is an original action and not a mode of
appeal;
b. It is only resorted to when there is no
other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy;
c. The action is to remedy a lack or excess of
jurisdiction or a grave abuse of discretion which amounts to excess or lack of
jurisdiction;
d. The action is lodged against a tribunal,
officer, or board which exercises a judicial or quasi-judicial function; and
e. It is filed only in the Supreme Court.
2.
ANSWER:
1) The rule on immutability of judgment states
that judgments made by the court, once it becomes final, can no longer be
modified.
2) Exceptions to the rule of immutability of
judgment are those changes that only correct clerical errors or ambiguities in
the judgment. But changes that modify the judgment are not allowed. However,
the rule on immutability of judgment does not apply when the Supreme Court
exercises its power to review judgments for grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction, which includes anomalies that are in clear
violation of the proper procedures.
3) Yes, the Supreme Court was correct in invalidating the final judgment but it was remiss in rendering a judgment of acquittal. The Supreme Court En Banc found that there were many lapses in the procedure used and substantive issues, such as the lack of witnesses during the arrest, which is a violation of the right of a person to be heard. However, the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, and should have remanded the case to the lower court and called for a new trial.
3.
ANSWER:
As the counsel of Maria, I would file a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65, to contest the validity of the judgment
of acquittal.
Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, a
petition for certiorari is a remedy filed when a tribunal, board, or officer,
exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial function, has acted with lack of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. Judgments of acquittal may be reviewed by the Supreme Court,
under the allegation that it was decided with lack of jurisdiction or with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Thus, the legal action that I would make is
to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, alleging that the acquittal
was made with grave abuse of discretion amount to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.
4.
ANSWER:
The two kinds of
contempt of court are direct and indirect contempt. Direct contempt is
misbehavior inside the court, while acts of indirect contempt are enumerated
under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.
Contempt of court
shall be used sparingly because it is used to protect the integrity of the
court. Thus, it shouldn’t be used so often that the intent of the power of
contempt of court loses its significance.
5.
ANSWER:
I would file an
expropriation case under Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, stating the necessity
and the public purpose of the expropriation, and depositing to the court the
fair market value of the land I seek to expropriate, so that I may enter into
the property.
The court will first
determine the propriety of the expropriation. It shall hear both the plaintiff
and the defendant, if the defendant has any objections, and thereafter decide.
After a decision has
been made favoring the propriety of the expropriation, the court shall order
the creation of a commission which will decide the amount of just compensation
that is due to the owner of the land.
After the commission has decided on the proper amount of the just compensation, the plaintiff shall be ordered to pay to the owner of the land the amount decided and only after payment of just compensation in money shall the plaintiff be allowed to take the property.
6.
ANSWER:
I would file an
interpleader under Rule 62 of the Rules of Court, to compel the claimants to
litigate their claims with each other.
The elements of an interpleader action under Rule 62 are a) that there is a person who claims no interest or has an interest that is not disputed in whole or in part by the claimants b) on a subject matter and c) there are conflicting claims upon the subject matter that may be made against the person who files for an interpleader.
7.
ANSWER:
I would file an action
for indirect contempt of court under Rule 71 against Atty. Juan Sy for his acts
in speaking ill of the court over DXDR in saying that the judge is biased,
corrupt, and a nincompoop. His acts constitute an indirect contempt of court
for improper conduct, in disparaging the court, reducing the public’s
confidence in the legal process, and thus degrading the administration of
justice.
8.
ANSWER:
An action for declaratory
relief is filed by a person who is interested under a deed, contract, or will
or whose rights are affected by a statute, an executive order or regulation, a
local ordinance, or any other governmental regulation, to determine a question
of construction or validity, and to declare his rights and duties thereunder.
Similar remedies under
Rule 63 are quieting of title, consolidation of ownership, and reformation of
an instrument.
An action for
declaratory relief cannot be resorted to when there is already breach or
violation, when there is no justiciable controversy, or when the issue is not
yet ripe for judicial determination.
9.
ANSWER:
The Supreme Court
ruled that the action of quo warranto was proper under the circumstances, in
the case of Chief Justice Serreno, because she had no right to the office,
being unqualified. Under the action for quo warranto under the Rules of Court,
a quo warranto may be brought against a person who usurps an office or who has
no right thereto.
10.
ANSWER:
In an extrajudicial
foreclosure, an immediate foreclosure upon default of payment is provided for
in the mortgage contract. In a judicial foreclosure, an action to foreclose a
mortgaged property is needed before such property may be sold in a public
auction.
In my opinion, I think
an extrajudicial foreclosure is a more convenient and efficient remedy than a
judicial foreclosure because it can be agreed upon by the parties and does not
require the intervention of the court, which is usually a longer and
painstaking process.
CASE PROBLEM
CASE PROBLEM 1:
ANSWER:
The petition of the Spouses Balbosa
is without merit.
The action is neither qualifies as
an action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer but a recovery of possession
that is not cognizable by the MTC.
An action for forcible entry is
filed when a person is deprived of possession due to force, intimidation,
stealth, threat or strategy. An action for unlawful detainer is filed against
an occupant who maintains possession of the property despite the conclusion of
a contract or agreement. Neither of these conditions is satisfied by the
circumstances of this case.
There is no allegation to the fact
that the occupants of the lot have acquired it through of the modes enumerated,
nor was there any contract or agreement between the parties. Thus, the action
should be for recovery of possession and should be filed with the RTC and not
the MTC.
Thus, the petition is dimissed.
END OF THE EXAMINATON
No comments:
Post a Comment