EXAMINATION 1 IN SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS

EXAMINATION 1 IN SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS

 

1.      What do you think are the features of Rule 65 to make it fall under the special civil action? Enumerate at least five to distinguish it from other modes of appeal.

2.      Two drugs cases were filed against Jose Uy, one under section 5 and section 11 of R.A. 9605. He was convicted in the RTC and affirmed by the CA, the judgment of which became final and executory since his counsel did not file an appeal. Jose Cruz himself wrote a letter to the Supreme Court stating that the cases against him were all ‘set-up” fabricated, or a “frame up”. The Supreme Court en banc took a look at his case and found indeed that there were many lapses both in the procedure used and substantive issues, such as the lack of witnesses during the arrest, inventory and marking contrary to Section 21 of R.A. 9605. Questions: (1) State the rule on immutability of a final judgment (2) State the exceptions to this rule (3) In this case, is it correct for the supreme court to invalidate a final judgment and render a judgment of acquittal instead? Explain.

3.      Maria Virginia filed a case of rape against Joe Cruz, John Uy, Jeffrey Keung. The RTC found guilt and convicted the three accused in conspiracy. John  Uy’s defense that he did not do anything except that he owns the lodging house where the rape was perpetrated. Jeffrey also made it as a defense that he was just a friend  of Joe who had sexual intercourse with the victim who was drunk and who voluntarily went with them inside the lodging house. In fact, it was Maria who performed “blow job” and went on top of Joe, until she achieved her orgasm and fell asleep.

The accused who were convicted in the RTC appealed the judgment to the CA which exonerated them. You are the counsel of Maria who thinks that an injustice had been committed against your client, what legal action would you make to reverse the judgment of acquittal? Explain your answer.

 

4.      Contempt of court are of two kinds, state them. Explain the principle that contempt of court shall be used “sparingly”, as exercised by the supreme court in the case of Borromeo and in other illustrative cases which you think was applied to it.

 

5.      You are the mayor of Liloy. You need a site for the construction of your public market and you think that the lot of Maria Decena is the perfect site. You want to buy said property for the use of the municipality. State the proper procedure and the rule to be followed in buying said property.

 

6.      You are the Chief of Police of Sergio Osmeña. One day you apprehended a Navarra pick-up passing along your jurisdiction, without a certificate of registration while the driver also possessed an unlicensed firearm. You then arrested the driver and impounded the Navarra. Two days later, two claimants of the Navarra came: one is the alleged registered owner, while the other one is the BPI Bank Inc. which claims that said car is still owned by their company pursuant to the contract of sale and chattel mortgage executed by the registered owner. You doubt where to hand over the said vehicle. What legal action if any, would you take to solve your confusion? Explain the elements of said legal action.

 

7.      You are the judge of a Regional Trial Court. Atty. Juan Sy, a disgruntled lawyer after losing a civil case in your court, wrote a letter in the Nandau and even spoke over DXDR that the judge is biased, corrupt and a nincompoop. You heard it over the radio. Then Maria Capra, the client of Atty. Juan Sy wrote a letter to you saying that you never understood her predicament as a mother who had to support three young kids, and that when she lost her case in your court, she can no longer feed her children. The case is still in your sala with a pending motion for reconsideration to resolve. What legal action is any, shall you take to maintain the integrity of your court? Granting that the case is now pending appeal to the Court of Appeals, what any other legal action would you take to vindicate your honor? Explain.

 

8.      Explain declaratory relief, and cite examples of the so called “similar remedies” In what instances can you not use declaratory relief as a special civil action.

 

9.      Chief Justice Sereno, as you all know was removed from her seat, through a Quo Warranto Proceedings. Discuss how the Supreme Court ruled that said action is proper under the circumstances. In some ways, quo Warranto is also used in Election laws, and civil service laws. Distinguish these two “quo warrantos”. Explain.

 

10. State the similarities and distinctions of “extrajudicial foreclosure” and “Judicial foreclosure”. In your opinion, which procedure is more convenient and efficient as a remedy or a tool to help your suffering client. Explain.

 

CASE PROBLEM

 

CASE PROBLEM 1:

1.Rubymina is a public health facility operated by the Department of Health to administer care and treatment to patients suffering from Hansen's disease, commonly known as leprosy, and to provide basic health services to non-Hansen's cases. Since 1930, it has occupied a portion of a parcel of land denominated as Lot No. 12345 in Jagobiao, Mandaue City, Cebu.

Spouses Rubencio and Perla Balbosa (the Spouses Balbosa) allege that they are the owners of Lot No. 12345 by virtue of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 53698. They claim that they have acquired the property from the Spouses Tarcelo B. Galvez and Cirila Alba (the Spouses Galvez), whose ownership was covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. RO9865. Per the Spouses Balbosa's verification, OCT No. RO9865 was reconstituted based on Decree No. 699021, issued to the Spouses Galvez by the Land Registration Office on March 29, 1939.

On May 6, 2005, the Spouses Balbosa filed a Complaint for Ejectment (Complaint) before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Mandaue City against the occupants of Lot No. 12345, namely, Rubymina, Silaw National High School, the Bureau of Food and Drugs, and some residents (collectively, the occupants). The Spouses Balbosa alleged that they had sent demand letters and that the occupants were given until April 15, 2005 to vacate the premises. They further claimed that despite the lapse of the period, the occupants refused to vacate; hence, they were constrained to file the Complaint.

In their Answer,  the occupants alleged that since they had been in possession of the property for more than 70 years, the case was effectively one for recovery of possession, which was beyond the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court. They likewise claimed that the Spouses Balbosa were guilty of laches since it took more than 60 years for them to seek the issuance of a Torrens title over the property. They also averred that the Spouses Balbosa's certificate of title was void since they, the actual inhabitants of the property, were never notified of its issuance. 

In its September 29, 2005 Decision,  the Municipal Trial Court in Cities ordered the occupants to vacate the property, finding that the action was one for unlawful detainer, and thus, within its jurisdiction. It likewise found that the Spouses Balbosa were the lawful owners of Lot No. 12345 and that the occupants were occupying the property by mere tolerance. 

Evaluate the facts of the case and as a judge write the dispositive portion of the decision.

 

END OF THE EXAMINATON