EXAMINATION/ ANSWERS/ HANNAH GRACE G. REFUGIO

 

Hannah Grace Refugio

JD III

Special Civil Action Midterm Exam

1

Rule 65 falls under the special civil action because this is not considered an ordinary appeal, it is subject to certain special rules. Certiorari on Rule 65 is: (1) an original and independent action; (2) usually directed against an interlocutory order where no appeal may be taken from; (3) raises questions of jurisdiction in cases where tribunals acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, not only on questions of law; (4) requires a prior motion for reconsideration as a general rule; and (5) filed only with the Supreme Court, being a mode of appeal.

2

(1)          The doctrine of immutability of judgment is premised upon the existence of a final and executory judgment. Once a judgment attains finality, it becomes immutable and unalterable, however unjust the result of error may appear.

(2)          The exceptions to the rule on immutability of judgment are : (1)cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement  is in question;(2)criminal cases in which the appealed decision imposes the death penalty or reclusion perpertua;(3)cases raising novel questions of law;(4)cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls;(5)cases where the penalty recommended or imposed is the dismissal of a judge, the disbarment of a lawyer, or the suspension of any of them for a period of more than one year; (6)cases involving the reinstatement in the judiciary of a dismissed judge, the reinstatement of a lawyer in the roll of attorneys, or the lifting of a judge's suspension or a lawyer's suspension from the practice of law; (8)cases involving conflicting decisions of two or more divisions; (9)cases where three votes in a Division cannot be obtained; and (10)division cases where the subject matter has a huge financial impact on businesses or affects the welfare of a community.

(3 )         Yes, it is correct for the supreme court to invalidate a final judgment and render a judgment of acquittal when it finds that the judgment in the lower courts are incorrect. One of the exceptions provided under the law on immutability of judgment on criminal cases in which the appealed decision imposes the death penalty or reclusion perpertua. In this case, the maximum penalty that could be imposed on Jose Uy under the law is reclusion perpetua. Hence, the doctrine on immutability of judgment does not apply.

3

If I am the counsel of Maria who thinks that an injustice had been committed against my client, the legal action I would make to reverse the judgment of acquittal is to file for certiorari under Rule 65. Being a remedy of last resort, this is available when there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Petition for certiorari seeks to correct jurisdictional errors often arising out of a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. In this case the decision of the CA may be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

4

Contempt of court is of two kinds: (1) direct; and (2) indirect contempt. The offence of contempt of court is often described in case law as sui generis, which means that it belongs to a species all of its own and so is unique. The power to punish for contempt is to be used sparingly.

5

The proper procedure and the rule to be followed in buying said property is expropriation. In this rule, the private owner is deprived of property against his will, the state must show that there is a genuine need and public purpose in taking the private property, provided that just compensation must be afforded to the private owner. The authority of the plaintiff to expropriate must be determined, the necessity and the public purpose, then, the determination of just compensation through the appointed commissioners.

6

The legal action to be taken to solve the confusion is to file an Interpleader, a special civil action filed by a person against two conflicting claims made upon the same subject matter, over which he has no interest thereon. The elements of Interpleader are the following: (1) there must be two or more claimants with adverse or conflicting interest upon a subject matter; (2) the claims are made upon the same person; (3) The claims involve the same subject matter; and (4) the plaintiff has no claim on the subject matter.

7

To maintain the integrity of the court, the legal action is to charge contempt of court with the defendants. Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, obstructs, impedes or degrade the administration of justice constitutes indirect contempt. To vindicate the honor of the court, Contempt Proceedings must be done pending appeal to punish contemptuous conduct and to compel the contemnor to do what the law requires him to uphold the power of the court.

8

Declaratory relief is defined as an action by any person interested in a contract, deed, will, or other written instrument, executive order or resolution, to determine any question of construction or validity arising from the instrument, executive order or regulation, or statute, and for a declaration of his rights and duties thereunder. Examples of “similar remedies under this rule are An action for the reformation of an instrument, to quiet title to real property or remove clouds therefrom, or to consolidate ownership.

9

The Court invoked the doctrine of the "transcendental" importance of judicial review, ruling that the quo warranto petition was a valid exercise of the Court's power, there was an actual controversy, and the Republic had standing. The Court ruled that quo warranto cases and impeachment proceedings can proceed independently and simultaneously due to the fact that they are based on different causes of action; quo warranto questions the eligibility and valid exercise of a position; whereas, impeachment is removal for committing crimes specified by the Constitution. Furthermore, it ruled that if it wished, Congress may have continued to impeachment without prejudice from the Court on the principle of the separation of powers.

Quo warranto in Election Laws is distinguished from the quo warranto in the civil service in the following distinctions: (1) the issue in the former is the eligibility of the person elected, in the latter, issue is the legality of the occupancy of office; (2) the petition is brought in the Comelec, the RTC, MTC depending upon the case, in the latter, the petition is filed with the Supreme Court; (3) in the former, the petitioner may be any voter, in the latter, the petitioner is the person who claims to be entitled of the office; and(4) the court cannot declare the elected second place to occupy the office in the former, the court determines who is legally appointed in the latter.

10

Judicial and extrajudicial foreclosures may be distinguished from each other as follows: (1) A judicial foreclosure is governed by the Rules of Court; an extrajudicial foreclosure is governed by an Act; (2) recovery of the deficiency can be done by mere motion for a deficiency judgment in judicial foreclosure; in an extrajudicial foreclosure, the recovery of the deficiency is through an independent action; (3) There is an equity of redemption in a judicial foreclosure but no right of redemption; there is a right of redemption in extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage. (4)In a judicial foreclosure, there could be a deficiency judgment rendered by the court; there can be no judgment for a deficiency in an extrajudicial foreclosure because there is no judicial proceeding; and (5) A judicial foreclosure involves the filing of an independent action; an extrajudicial judicial foreclosure does not require filing of an action.

Extrajudicial foreclosure is convenient and efficient as a remedy or a tool to help suffering clients because there is no need of filing actions in a court that will take time and resources on the part of the clients.

 

CASE PROBLEM:

In this case, the respondents failed to state when the possession of the petitioner is initially lawful, when and how their possession started. This is insufficient to determine if the action was filed within a year from dispossession, as required in an ejectment case. The proper remedy in this case is to file for an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria asserting their right of ownership to the property. Being that the respondents failed the file the proper case before the appropriate court, MTC, the said court has no jurisdiction over the case. Subsequently, the decisions rendered by the RTC and the CA are also considered void.

EXAMINATION - MARTINEZ

 Krizabel B. Martinez

1.) Rule 65 is an independent action. It is not a mode of appeal. Under the rule, a petition for certiorari may be filed when any tribunal or board exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or even with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. This type of remedy is deemed corrective since it annuls or nullify a proceeding which is caused by usurpation of jurisdiction. The discretionary acts of any tribunal or board may be covered under this rule.

2. )

1. The rule on immutability of judgment states that once a judgment becomes final, it cannot be altered unless due to any clerical errors. A judgment is immutable once it attains finality upon the lapse of the reglementary period to appeal and no appeal is perfected within such period. No court can exercise appellate jurisdiction to review a case or modify a decision that has become final. The doctrine is founded on considerations of public policy and sound practice.

2. The exceptions to the rule are as follows: correction of clerical errors; judgment is void; nunc pro tunc entries; or when grave injustice would result.

3. Yes. The rule on immutability of judgment admits of exceptions where the court may alter a judgment which has become final. Among the exceptions is where there would be grave injustice resulting to the application of the rules. The lapse of 

3.) As the counsel of Maria, I would file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. As a rule, a judgment rendered in favor of the defendant is immediately final and executory. However, a petition may be filed by the aggrieved party in a special civil action under Rule 65 where it is shown that the lower court committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. As previously held by the court, the CA which acquitted the rape case against several persons acted with grave abuse of discretion. Maria has suffered grave injustice through the acquittal of the accused. 

4.) Contempt of court may be classified according to nature and manner of commission. It may be civil or criminal as to nature. Contempt may be direct or indirect as to manner of commission. The power to punish for contempt must be used sparingly. It should be exercised with caution, deliberation and with due regard to the law, as well as the constitutional rights of the person. There must be clear refusal to obey the orders of the court in order for such power to be exercised.

5.) For the local government to acquire the said property, it must exercise the power of eminent domain. First, there must be an ordinance enacted by the legislative council. The power must be exercised for public use or welfare. It must be exercised by the local chief executive and there must be payment of just compensation. 

6.) I would file an action for interpleader to solve the confusion. Under Rule 62, a special civil action for interpleader may be filed against 2 or more claimants with conflicting claims over the same subject matter. It is necessary that the issue of ownership and possession be first determined by the conflicting parties before I could hand over the vehicle.

7.) To maintain the integrity of the court, I would file a case for criminal contempt against Atty. Sy. Criminal contempt refers to the conduct directed against the dignity of the court or judge acting judicially. Since Atty. Sy defamed the honor of the judge, he is liable for criminal contempt.

8.) Under the rules, declaratory relief is an action filed by any interested person in a deed, will, contract or other instrument to determine any question of construction or validity from said instrument. The terms of such instrument must be doubtful there must be no breach of the instrument yet. It is necessary that there is an actual justiciable controversy and that the issue is ripe for adjudication. The similar remedies under the rule are reformation of instrument, consolidation of ownership and quieting of title. If a contract does not reflect the true agreement of the parties, they may bring an action for reformation of instrument under such rule. An action for consolidation of ownership may also be filed for purpose of the registration of the property. The quieting of title is filed when the parties seek to remove a cloud in the title of the property or any interest.

9.) Quo warranto under rule 66 deals with the issue on the legality of the occupancy of the office regarding a legal appointment, while quo warranto in election laws deals with the issue on the eligibility of the person elected. 

The petition is filed within 1 year from the time the right of petitioner to hold the office arose in an appointive office. However, the petition is filed within 10 days after the proclamation of the results under the election laws.

The Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or Regional Trial Courts have jurisdiction over quo warranto in civil cases. COMELEC, RTC or MTC has jurisdiction over quo warranto proceedings under election laws. 

10.) Extrajudicial foreclosure does not require the filing of an action in court. While judicial foreclosure involves the filing of an independent action. 

The right of redemption exists in an extrajudicial foreclosure. Meanwhile, there is only an equity of redemption, no right of redemption, in a judicial foreclosure.

I think it would be better for my client to opt for an extrajudicial foreclosure since it would lessen the expenses that would have been used in court. Since the right of redemption exists within 1 year, it is an advantage on the part of debtor as compared to a judicial foreclosure where ownership is retained only by paying the debt within a shorter period than 1 year.

CASE PROBLEM 1.

While an ejectment case merely settles the issue of the right of actual possession, the issue of ownership may be passed upon if the issue of possession cannot be resolved without it. In the case, the petitioners should not vacate the property. The Spouses allege that petitioner's occupation was illegal from the start. The proper remedy should have been to file an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria to assert their right of possession or their right of ownership. The Municipal Trial Court had no jurisdiction over the case. 

 

EXAMINATION - BOLANDO

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.

ANSWER:

 

                 Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus is a remedy available when there is no appeal, nor plain or speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law directed against any tribunal, board or officer, whether exercising judicial or quasi-judicial function.

 

                 A petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, in comparison with Rule 45, is an original action and not a mode of appeal. It raises questions of jurisdiction, whether a tribunal, board or officer acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Secondly, a petition for Prohibition under Rule 65, in comparison with injunction, has its basis on the ground that the court against the writ imposed with acted without or in excess of jurisdiction when jurisdiction is not a necessity in an injunction. Lastly, in a petition for Mandamus, in comparison with Injunction, the proceeding is directed against the tribunal, board or officer for the sole purpose to compel the performance of ministerial and legal duty.

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.

 

ANSWER:

 

(1)  The rule of immutability of a final judgment provides that when a judgment has attained finality, it can no longer be disturbed. The reasons behind this rule are to have the speedy disposition of cases and to end judicial controversies at the expense of occasional errors.

(2)  However, there are exceptions with applicability of this rule: correction of clerical errors; in cases of that judgment is void; nunc pro tunc entries; when there are grounds for annulment of judgment or petition for relief; when circumstance will rise that after judgment attained finality, the execution of the same is unjust and inequitable and in cases of exceptional in nature when the interest of justice so requires.

(3)  Yes, the Supreme Court may invalidate the final judgment rendered by the lower court.

 

Under the Rules, when judgment has been rendered, it becomes final and executory and the court has no power to revoke the said judgment. This is the doctrine of immutability of a final judgment. However, the said doctrine has an exception. The Rules provides that in cases of exceptional in nature, when it is necessary in the interest of justice to modify the judgment in order to render proper disposition of the case and whenever circumstances arise, after such finality of the decision, rendered the execution of the same as unjust and inequitable, the judgment can then be revoked or invalidated.

 

Wherefore, the findings of the Supreme Court of the lapses and procedures that were neglected by the lower court gives the former the power to invalidate the prior judgment and revert back the case to the lower court for further proceedings.   

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.

 

ANSWER:

 

            Rule 67, Expropriation, one of the inherent powers of the State is the power of Eminent Domain. This power aims to take property owned by individuals for public purpose of the government upon payment of just compensation.

 

            The authority of the local government unit to exercise the power of eminent domain must be established. Local Government Unit, under the constitution, has given the power to expropriate property provided that the use for the subject property must solely be for public purpose and just compensation must be given to the owners of the expropriated property prior to the transfer of the property to the local government unit. An ordinance must also be passed for expropriation of a particular private property and the same authority is granted to the Chief Executive for the execution of the said ordinance.

 

            A public market is an essential infrastructure within a community. The construction of the said public market is a public purpose that qualifies the expropriation proceeding. The local government of Liloy must pay Maria Decena just compensation prior to the expropriation of her lot.

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.

 

ANSWER:

 

            I will file for a special civil action to interplead under Rule 62 of the Rules of Court.

 

            Section 1, Rule 62, an action filed by a person against two conflicting claims over the same subject matter of which he has no interest nor if he has, in whole or in part, does not disputed the claimants. The purpose of this rule are to compel the conflicting claimants to interplead and litigate the several claims among themselves and to protect one from double vexation in respect of one liability.

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.

 

ANSWER:

 

            I will take legal action to submit Atty. Juan Sy and his client, Maria Capra, for an indirect contempt before my court. The letter and the provocation in the radio that the judge is biased by an officer of the court, Atty. Juan Sy, is an improper conduct intend to degrade the administration of justice and a valid ground for an action of indirect contempt against him.

 

            In an indirect contempt, a hearing is necessary. An appeal from a final order or judgment of an indirect contempt can be done in a proper court as the same with criminal cases.

 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.

 

ANSWER:

 

            Declaratory Relief, under Section 1, Rule 63, is filed by any person who has interest in the deed, will, contract or other written instrument and whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order, ordinance or any other governmental regulation, before breach or violation, may bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court in the question of construction or validity of the said documents and for a declaration of rights and duties.

 

            Section 1, Rule 63, paragraph 2, provides the similar remedies such as: Action for reformation of an instrument; an action to quiet title or remove cloud of a real property; and an action to consolidate ownership.

 

            Declaratory relief cannot be used as a special civil action, under the Rules, when there will be a breach or violation thereof. Such breach or violation will convert this action into an ordinary 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.

 

ANSWER:

 

            In the case of Chief Justice Sereno, the ground for prescription was taken an issue of which Quo Warranto proceeding has a limitation of within one (1) after the cause of arises. However, the Supreme Court held in this case that an action for quo warranto is imprescriptible if brought by the State at its own instance.

 

            Quo Warranto in Election laws can be filed by any voter against the members of the congress or a provincial or city official, of which it must be filed before the COMELEC, or against municipal or barangay official, of which it must be filed with the appropriate RTC or MTC. However, Quo Warranto, under Rule 66,  can be filed by the Office of the Solicitor General or by any person who claims to be entitled in a public office.

  

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.

 

ANSWER:

 

            Judicial Foreclosure is an action that requires court intervention and governed by Rule 68 of the Rules of Court. This involves only an equity of redemption and there could be a deficiency judgment as result. On the other hand, an Extrajudicial Foreclosure has no court intervention. A right of redemption also existed and a mortgagor has a right to redeem the foreclosed property within one (1) year from the registration of the deed of sale. There shall be no deficiency judgment and recovery for any deficiency shall be through an independent action.

 

     The more convenient procedure is an extrajudicial foreclosure. The reason behind is the non-intervention of the Court that will expedite the proceedings rather than be subject to litigation before any appropriate court. In an extrajudicial foreclosure, mortgagor has given the right to redeem the property for one last chance rather than in a judicial foreclosure where equity redemption is only available. 

 

CASE PROBLEM

ANSWER:

            Rule 70 of the Rules of Court differentiate Forcible Entry from an Unlawful Detainer. The former, forcible entry, is invoked when a person has been deprived of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat or stealth. On the other hand, Unlawful Detainer, a possession is initially lawful but it becomes illegal by reason of termination of the right of possession as based in the contract, such as a lease contract and a demand is necessary.

 

            The case filed before the Municipal Trial Court that contemplates an action for unlawful detainer has no merit. The Municipal Trial Court has erred in its decision to order the occupants to vacate the premises of the subject lot.

 

            The issue raised must be in accord with Rule 70, Forcible Entry. The spouses in this case were deprived of their right to possess the property for more than 70 years. It is not an unlawful detainer for there was no legal right vested to the occupants to possess the subject lot.

 

            Wherefore, this case shall be set aside and revert back to the Municipal Trial Court.

 

            

EXAMINATION ANSWER/ SAGUIN, GESELLE

                                                                                1. 

In Rule 65, it is an independent action whereas in the mode of appeal it is just an ordinary action. It involves the question of the jurisdiction and not the law, unlike other modes of appeal. It is directed against an interlocutory order or matters where there is no other plain and speedy remedy. And, the case will not stay challenge unless there is a temporary restraining order. 

                                                                                  2. 

1.  The rule on immutability of the final judgment means that when the judgment already attained its finality it can no longer be disturbed to avoid delay and judgments errors. 

 2. Under the law, the exceptions are when there is a correction of clerical errors , there is a grave injustice resulting to the rules applied, void judgments and any other exceptions provided by the law. 

3. No, it is not correct for the Supreme Court to invalidate the final judgment and render an acquittal instead.Under the rule , on immutability of the final judgment means that when the judgment already attained its finality it can no longer be disturbed. It is clear that there is a final judgment already rendered by the Court. And that it is not of the exceptions provided by the law, Therefore, in applying the rule on immutability of final judgment. Therefore, the  Supreme Court is incorrect in issuing a judgment of acquittal.

                                                                                 3. 

The legal action that I can take is to file for a review of judgments. Under the law, it must be based on a question of law through a  mode of review.In Rule 65 , the petition must alleges grave abuse of discretion towards the  respondent court or tribunal acted in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise of its jurisdiction as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Hence, rule 65 may be avail by the Maria Virginia as a remedy.

                                                                                 4. 

Generally , a contempt is a disobedience to the court. There are two kinds of contempt direct contempt and indirect contempt. In direct contempt, a person is  guilty of misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court as to  interrupt the proceeding, While, an indirect contempt is committed  by a person who resist to a  lawful  order of a court,  abuses or interferes unlawfully with the proceedings of a court not constituting direct contempt. It must be used sparingly means the court will avail to both kinds of contempt to protect the court's proceedings and preserve the dignity of the court. This law must apply with caution that it won't jeopardize the constitutional right of a person.

                                                                                 5. 

Under the law, a  local government unit is vested with the power of eminent domain . However, before it can exercise this power it must create an ordinance enacting to exercise the power of eminent domain. The purpose must be for public use, public benefit or for the general welfare. And lastly, there must be a valid payment for just compensation. 

                                                                                 6. 

I will file for an action for interpleader. Under the law, an interpleader is when a party has property in his possession but who claims no interest in the subject or is not disputed by others, goes to court and asks that conflicting claimants  to litigate among themselves  to determine finally who is entitled to the property. It is proper because as the Chief of Police, I don't have any prior knowledge if  who is entitled to the vehicle since there are  two conflicting claimants of the said vehicle. 

                                                                                 7. 

I will file for a contempt against the court. Under the law, a  contempt is a power to punish that is essential for the preservation of court proceedings as well to maintain the integrity and respect for the court as a enforcer of the justice. However , in this case there is a clear violation that constitute an indirect contempt. Because Atty. Juan, not committed in the presence of the court exercised an improper conduct that  degrade the administration of justice. 

                                                                                 8. 

Under the law, a declaratory relief is when it is brought by a person interested under a contract or any other  written instrument that are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation. The other similar remedies are action for reformation of an instrument, to quiet title and to consolidate ownership. The court is given the discretion to act or not to act on the petition. It may choose not to construe the instrument if  a decision would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy which gave rise to the action and when the  construction is not necessary anymore. 

                                                                                   9. 

Under the law, a quo warranto is a writ is issued by court to determine the right to use an office, franchise or position and also to oust a person entitled to hold right on the grounds for forfeiture of the said exercise of office, franchise or position. In this quo warranto it is  issue of the legality of the said position, office or franchise on the grounds of forfeiture or usurpation of power. Whereas, in the election law it is a question of the eligibility of the elected person on the grounds of ineligibility, disqualification or failure to meet the said requirements prescribe by the law. And lastly, in quo warranto in the rules of court only the person entitled to the said office, association or position can file a petition unlike in the election law, it can be filed by any voters. 

                                                                                10. 

Under the law,  a judicial foreclosure is an  ordinary  action for foreclosure  through court proceedings, while an extrajudicial foreclosure is available when a person authorize the mortgage of a property through  special power of attorney. I think the more convenient for me is through extrajudicial foreclosure because it is more speedy unlike the judicial foreclosure.In the judicial foreclosure, you need to undergo the judicial proceedings prescribed by the law.

 CASE PROBLEM: 

There are remedies available for a person who is deprived of his or her property. Under the law, a forcible entry or unlawful detainer may be avail by any person. In forcible entry, it is an action to recover a possession of a property who is in illegal possession from the beginning. And that the lawful owner is deprived of the physical possession of such property by force, threat or intimidation. A unlawful order is when it is illegally witholds possession of the property because of a reason of termination or expiration of a contract. In this case, the proper remedy should  be a forcible entry and not a case of unlawful detainer. In forcible entry, one is deprived of physical possession of the said property by means of force, intimation , threat or any other means, It is clear that spouses Balbosa was deprived for the use of their properties because of the the occupants.  Moreover, there can also be no tolerance since the possession was illegal obtained. Wherefore, the judgment of the RTC is modified.  

EXAMINATION/ ANSWERS/ ANGELES, ANA CHRISTEL S.

1.

For Rule 65 to fall under special civil action, it must be directed to a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. The tribunal, board, or officer must be acting without or in excess its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Moreover, Rule 65 can only be availed of when there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. 

Rule 65 can be availed of when there is an error of jurisdiction. On the other hand, ordinary modes of appeal is availed of when there is an error of judgment. 

Rule 65 is an original and independent action while an ordinary mode of appeal is a continuation of the original action. 

Rule 65 raises questions of jurisdiction while an ordinary mode of appeal raises questions of law as a general rule. 

 An action brought under Rule 65 should be filed not later than 60 days from notice of judgment while an ordinary mode of appeal should be filed not later than 15 days from the notice of judgment. 

 An action brought under Rule 65 requires prior Motion for Reconsideration as a general rule while an ordinary mode of appeal does not require a prior Motion for Reconsideration.

2.

1. The rule on immutability of judgment states that a decision which acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable. Such judgment cannot be modified even if   such modification is to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law.

2. The exceptions to the rule on the immutability of final judgments are the following: (1) correction of clerical errors, (2) nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party; and and (3) void judgments.

3. Yes. Such judgment may reversed. The law only prohibits modification in judgment of acquittal. 

3.

If I were the counsel of Maria, I will file a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.

While it is true that a judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable as stated under the finality-of-acquittal doctrine, the jurisprudence provides that a judgment of acquittal can be assailed by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

Since injustice has committed against my client, I will file a petition for certiorari and prove that the respondent court has acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction for it to prosper.

4.

Contempt of court can be direct or indirect contempt.

The principle that contempt of court shall be used sparingly means that when constitutional rights is invoked by the defendant, such justification cannot be availed if it is used to insult lawyers, judges, and court employees as well as to obstruct justice and abusing the rules of procedure in court.

5.

There must be an ordinance enacted by the LGU to exercise the power of eminent domain.

The law provides  that expropriation shall be exercised filing a verified complaint which shall state the right as well as the purpose of expropriation, describe the real or personal property sought to be expropriated, and join as defendants all persons owning or claiming to own, or occupying any part of the property.

After filing the action for expropriation, a deposit must be made in the proper court of atleast 15% of the fair market value of the property. 

6.

I will file an action for interpleader. The Rules of Court provides for the action for interpleader to prosper: First, there must be two or more conflicting claims. Second, the claim must be made upon the same subject matter. Third, the claim must be made against a person who claims no interest whatever in the subject matter. Lastly, if the plaintiff has an interest in whole or in part upon the subject matter, the interest must not be disputed. 

7.

I can file an action for criminal contempt. This action may be brought against the dignity of the court or a judge acting within the scope of its power. It can also be filed against an act which obstructs administration of justice. 

8.

Declaratory relief is a special civil action filed by a person who interested in a deed, will, contract or other written instrument. It may also be filed by any person whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation.

The Rules of Court provides for similar remedies which are the following:  (a) an action for the reformation of an instrument; (b) an action to quiet title to real property; and (c) and an action to consolidate ownership.

The law provides that a declaratory relief will not prosper as a special civil action if  before the termination of the case, there is already a breach or violation of an instrument or a statute, executive order or regulation. In such case, the special civil action shall be converted into an ordinary action

9.

The SC said that direct resort to SC is justified considering that the action is directed against the Chief Justice. The Supreme Court has also jurisdiction over the case since the petition is of transcendental importance. Also, impeachment is not the only remedy to remove an officer from office which is invalidly appointed or elected.

In quo warranto under election laws, the governing law is the Election law. Quo warranto under civil service laws is governed by Civil Service Law.

Quo warranto under the election laws deals with the issue of eligibility or ineligibility of the person elected. On the other hand, the second deals with the legality or illegality of appointment. 

10. 

Extrajudicial foreclosure and judicial foreclosure are similar in the sense that they are remedies in which a creditor in a contract of loan may be availed of in case of non-payment of loan or debt.

A judicial foreclosure is governed by the Rules of Court while an extrajudicial foreclosure is governed by Real Estate Mortgage Law.

In judicial foreclosure, there is an equity of redemption in which the judgment obligor may redeem the property within a period of not less than 90 days nor more than 120 days from the entry of judgment. In extrajudicial foreclosure, the debtor has a right to redeem the property within 1 year from the sale of the real estate mortgage.

In judicial foreclosure, there can be a deficiency judgment by the court. On the other hand, there can be no judgment for deficiency in extrajudicial foreclosure because there is no judicial proceeding involved.

In my opinion, extrajudicial foreclosure is more convenient and efficient remedy than judicial foreclosure since it can be done bby mere agreement of the parties without court intervention. 

CASE PROBLEM:

The action filed should be accion publiciana and not unlawful detainer.

The Rules of Court provides that unlawful detainer must be filed within one (1) year from the date of dispossession.  If the dispossession is more than one year, an accion publiciana must be filed. Also, unlawful detainer may be filed only in the proper Municipal Trial Court. Accion  publiciana may be filed only in the Regional Trial Court.

In the given case, the occupants alleged that since they had been in possession of the property for more than 70 years.

 Hence, unlawful detainer cannot be availed of.

EXAMINATION ANSWER/ LINALYN BATION

 

Bation, Linalyn T.

Special Civil Action

JD-III

 

I.

          Certiorari under Rule 65 is an original and independent action. It is not a mode of appeal. It invokes the original jurisdiction of the court to annul a decision made by a judicial or quasi-judicial body. It is different from other modes of appeal, in the sense that Certiorari under Rule 65: (i) is a remedy to correct an error of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment; (ii) is an original and independent action; (iii) the decision under Rule 65 is appealable; (iv) the court uses its original jurisdiction and (v) it should be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of judgment.

 

II.

(1)

          The rule on immutability of judgment bars the court to modify a decision that has already attained finality of judgment. It becomes immutable and unalterable even if it is meant to correct erroneous conclusions.

(2)

          The doctrine of immutability of judgment, however is not absolute. It is subject to some exceptions. The following are: (i) nunc pro tunc entries; (ii) void judgment and (iii) correction of clerical errors and (iv) whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable.

(3)

          Yes, the Supreme Court can invalidate the final judgment as it falls under one of the exceptions of the doctrine of immutability of judgment. The law provides that whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision that would render its execution unjust and inequitable, immutability of judgment may not apply.

         

III.

          If I were the counsel of Maria, I would file for a petition for Certiorari under Rule 65. A petition for Certiorari can be filed by an aggrieved party when a court has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction which has no appeal or any other speedy remedy.

          Although, an appeal can no longer be made when accused are acquitted, however, petition under Rule 65 is an original and independent action. Moreover, there is no double jeopardy in this case, as the court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Hence, Maria can avail of Rule 65 petition for Certiorari.

 

IV.

          The two (2) kinds of contempt of court are the direct contempt and indirect contempt. Direct contempt is committed when a person has obstructed or interrupted the proceedings inside the court while indirect contempt is committed outside the presence of the court.

 

V.

          The rule on expropriation shall govern when buying a private property for public use. In order for me, the mayor to legally appropriate the property, I should file for a complaint and state therein the property and the purpose why the property should be appropriated. Just compensation shall then be ascertained for the property sought. Proceedings shall then be made regarding the expropriation.

 

VI.

          I can file for an interpleader in this case. An interpleader can be filed when there are two conflicting claims on the same subject matter and the petitioner has no interest therein. The requisites for an interpleader are the following: (i) there are two or more claimants; (ii) the conflicting claims involves the same subject matter; (iii) conflicting claims are made against the petitioner and (iv) the petitioner has no interest therein.

 

VII.

          I can file for contempt of court against the defendants to maintain the integrity of the court. One of the acts that is punishable under indirect contempt of court is when there is an improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice.

VIII.

          Declaratory relief can be filed by any interested person in a deed, will or a contract to determine any question of construction or the validity of said written instrument. Only construction or the validity of the instrument can be raised in an action for declaratory relief and the declaration of his rights and obligations from the instrument.

          Similar remedies include the quieting of title to a real property and the removal of clouds therefrom.

         

IX.

          A chief justice can only be removed in office through impeachment; however, Chief Justice Sereno was ousted from her position through a quo warranto. An action for a quo warranto may be filed against: (i) a person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public position or franchise; (ii) a public officer who does act which under the law, constitute a ground for forfeiture of office and (iii) an association and corporation without being legally incorporated.

          The Supreme Court held in Chief Justice Sereno’s case, that she unlawfully holds the position as she failed to submit the required SALN. The court further argues that, she can be removed through quo warranto proceedings as she was never qualified in the first place to hold the office. According to the court, they cannot impeach someone who in the first place did not qualify to be the Chief Justice. Thus, Chief Justice Sereno was ousted in the office through quo warranto.

          Quo warranto in election laws, raises in issue the disloyalty or the ineligibility of the winning candidate. It is a proceeding to unseat the respondent from office.

 

X.

          Judicial and extrajudicial foreclosure are both means to terminate the rights of the mortgagor over the property. Judicial foreclosure is governed by the rules of court, while extrajudicial foreclosure is governed by another law. A filing for an action is required in judicial foreclosure while it is not in extrajudicial foreclosure. There is a right of redemption to both.

 

CASE PROBLEM

I.

          The Municipal Trial Court erred when it rendered the case to be one of an unlawful detainer, the case involves an accion publiciana. Ejectment cases can only be filed within one (1) year from the dispossession of the property, otherwise accion publiciana should be filed. The MTC has the jurisdiction to hear and try cases involving ejectment whereas, the RTC has the jurisdiction to try and hear cases involving accion publiciana.

          In the case at bar, it is evident that unlawful detainer can no longer filed as it already lapsed one (1) year from the dispossession of the property, hence accion publiciana should be filed. And since, the petitioners filed the improper remedy in the MTC which does not have jurisdiction over the case. The judgment therefore is void.