The Municipal Court of First Instance (MTC) is expected to hear the case under the Revised Small Claims Rules of Procedure (the “Revised Rules”). In accordance with the latest modification of these rules (En Banc Resolution of 10 July 2018 in A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC), the MTC applies the revised rules in all actions of a purely civil nature, where the claim or discharge for which the prayer is intended solely for the payment or reimbursement of a sum of money not exceeding 300 Php. 000.00* plus interest and costs. Demo filed a request for a list of details for the Republic to resolve certain issues in its amended complaint. Sandiganbayan immediately acceded to the request. After the Republic submitted the Chronicle, Demo filed a motion for rejection, arguing that the answers in the Chronicle were vague and imperfect answers to the question of what funds or real estate were allegedly acquired illegally by demo. Sandigan Bayan dismissed the case. Atty.
Dalmacio, the director of the National Bureau of Investigation, requested a search warrant from the executive judge of RTC Manila. He claimed in his request that a certain alias Django kept about 10 kilos of shabu in a wooden cabinet in Dillian`s store on Paseo de Sta. Rosa, Laguna. The Executive Judge of Manila personally questioned Atty. Dalmacio and his witnesses, and then issued the search warrant, which described in particular the place to be searched and the objects to be seized. Dorton Inc. (Dorton) sued Debra Commodities Inc. (Debra), Daniel and Debbie at the Manila RTC for the recovery of a sum of money. The complaint alleged that on October 14, 2017, Debra received a loan of 10 million Philippine pesos from Dorton with an interest of 9% per annum. The loan was backed by a promissory note (PN), payable on request, signed by Daniel and Debbie, Debra`s major shareholders, who also signed a guarantee agreement that became binding as collateral.
The complaint was accompanied by copies of the PR and the warranty agreement. Dorton also claimed that on March 1, 2018, it made a final claim to Debra and the guarantors for payment, but the claim was not considered. Rule 119, rule 12, of the Rules of Procedure provides that a conditional hearing of prosecution witnesses may be requested if a person has been held responsible for a criminal offence. In addition to this requirement, the applicant must prove that: (a) the witness is too ill or frail to appear at trial in accordance with the court order; (b) or is to leave the Philippines without a fixed date of return, he may be heard without delay before the judge or tribunal before which the case is pending, subject to reservation. Should Danny Din`s request for conditional review be granted? (2.5%) The case will be investigated before the Ombudsman`s office. There is still no trial of the case before the Sandiganbayan. Article 119, Article 15 of the Rules of Procedure on the conditional hearing of the prosecution witness shall be heard before the court before which the case is pending. As in Silverio v. Republic (G.R. No. 174689, 22. October 2007), our laws do not penalize a change of name and a correction of the registration in the civil register according to sex due to a change of sex.
A change of sex is not one of the reasons why a change of first name may be permitted under Republic Act No. 9048. The application for rectification of the registration relating to the sex of Silverio`s birth certificate cannot succeed, since that document did not contain an error and could not be corrected. Silverio was born a man. The sex of a person is determined at birth. Given that there is no law that legally recognizes sex change, determining a person`s sex at the time of birth is immutable unless accompanied by an error. Should the MTC proceed with the following case: (i) revised rules of summary procedure; (ii) the Rules of Procedure for Small Claims; or (iii) due process in civil matters? (5%) Don Deles, an entrepreneur, along with Mayor Dante Dungo and Congressman Dal Dilim, were prosecuted in front of the Ombudsman`s office for ignoring public funds. Danny Din, a key witness for plaintiff Diego Domingo, was hired by a construction company in Qatar as an engineer and had to leave in two (2) months. To confirm Danny Din`s testimony, Diego Domingo requested his conditional examination before the Sandiganbayan.
Dodo was knocked out in a fight with Dindo. He was taken to the Medical City emergency room, where he was examined and treated by Dr. Datu. When he was examined, a plastic bag that appeared to contain shabu fell from Dodo`s jacket lying on a chair next to him. Dodo was arrested by the same police officers who took him to the hospital. During Dodo`s trial, the prosecutor called Dr. Datu to the witness stand. When the prosecutor asked Dr. Datu what he had seen in the emergency room, Dodo`s lawyer disagreed, saying that doctor-patient privilege was a rule. (b) Is a foreign divorce decree between a foreign spouse and a Filipino spouse, not contested by both parties, sufficient to cancel the registration at the spouses` civil registry office? (2.5%) Danjo was repatriated to the Philippines in 2018. While Danjo was hiding in front of the House of Dys, which was only about 100 meters from the police station, SPO1 recognized Dody Danjo.
When SPO1 Dody realized that the police station had a copy of Danjo`s arrest warrant, he immediately sued and arrested Danjo. On February 3, 2018, Makati RTC Sheriff Danny Delucio served the order granting Dinggoy`s ex parte application for seizure against Dodong. The Order was duly received with Dodong`s document. On March 1, 2018, Sheriff Dodong served the complaint and subpoena related to the same case. Dodong`s lawyer filed a motion to dissolve the pleadings. (b) What can the defendant do in a civil case if his request for information is rejected? (2.5%) b) No, a foreign divorce decree between a foreign spouse and a spouse of the Fili pino, which is not contested by both parties, is not in itself sufficient to cancel the registration at the registry office. Before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our courts, the party claiming it must prove the divorce as a fact and prove its compliance with the foreign law that allows it (Republic v. Manalo, G.R.
No. 221029, April 24, 2018). PROPOSED ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS OF THE 2018 MEDICAL EXAMINATION Samantha sold her entire stake in a sole proprietorship to Sergio for An amount of PhP 1 million. According to the purchase agreement, Samantha had to pay all unpaid electricity bills previously incurred by the sole proprietorship. A month after the sale agreement was reached, Samantha had still not paid the 50,000 phP of utility bills accumulated before the sale. Santino is not prevented from inheriting from her mother, because an attempt against the life of the deceased is a ground for the indignity of an heir only if there is a final judgment on the conviction (Article 1032 of the Civil Code). The facts presented do not mention that Santino was convicted of an assassination attempt. Sofronio was married with two children when he had a brief affair with Sabrina that led to her pregnancy and the birth of her son Sinforoso. Although his wife knew nothing about the case, Sofronio regretted it, but secretly paid alimony for Sinforoso. When Sinforoso was 10 years old, Sofronio sadly died.
Only Sofronio`s father, Salumbides, knew Sabrina and Sinforoso. To support Sinforoso, Salumbides gave Sabrina usufruct rights to one of her properties – a house and land – until Sinforoso was of legal age. Sabrina took possession of the property on the basis of bail jurors. Two (2) years after the creation of the usufruct, the house accidentally burned down, and three (3) years later, Sinforoso died before he could reach the age of 18. (a) What recourse are the counterparties available? (2.5%). (b) Will your response be the same in the case of Sharon`s petition? (2.5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, the usufruct will continue after the fire of the house. If the usufruct is established on land to which a building belongs, and if it is destroyed in any way whatsoever, the usufructuary has the right to use the land and materials (Article 607 of the Civil Code). Usufruct on land and materials continues. The case was only partially lost, the law continues to the remaining parties (Article 604 of the Civil Code).
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Sam`s parents are wrong. Under section 9 of Republic Act No. 8043 or the Intercountry Adoption Act 1995, the requirement that the adopter be at least twenty-seven years of age and at least sixteen years of age that the adoptee does not apply if the adopter is by nature the spouse of the parent. Since Sam is Selena`s spouse, who is by nature Suri`s parent, Sam can adopt Suri even if he is under twenty-seven and not at least sixteen years older than the adoptee. [NOTE: The Inter-Country Act 1995 requires that only a child under the age of 15 who is voluntarily or involuntarily related to the Department of Social Work and Services (DSWD) may be adopted under the Intercountry Adoption Act, and the adopter must be at least 27 years of age and at least 16 years older than the child, that must be adopted at the time of the application, unless the adopter is the biological parent of the child to be adopted or the spouse of that parent.