1.

Moira, a Filipina K-Pop fan met Jason, a Korean Citizen in Baguio City, after
days of courtship, they decided to get married in Sorsogon City where she was a
resident. Desirous to build a family, Moira and Jason went to Korea, but only
after 3 years of relationship the two parted ways because of Jason’s philandering
ways. Thus, the two submitted a divorce by agreement before the City Hall in
Seoul Korea which was eventually approved and recorded. After several months,
she went back to the Philippines and reunited with Peter, her college of law
boyfriend. Moira filed a petition for recognition of foreign judgment before the
RTC of Sorsogon City but the petition was denied on the ground that Art 26 FC
does not apply in cases of divorce by mutual agreement but it applies only to
divorce obtained either by Filipina or foreigner in foreign country. (10 points)

Is the RTC correct in in denying the petition? Why or why not? Explain.
No, the RTC is not correct in denying the petition.

In the case of Manalo, it states that the letter of the law does not demand that the alien spouse
should be the one who initiated the proceeding wherein the divorce decree was granted. It does not
distinguish whether the Filipino spouse is the petitioner or the respondent in the foreign divorce proceeding.

2. Kate and Kabalikat Civicom filed a pet for Writ of Kalikasan before CA against
DENR and SMS Corp., a private corporation engage in selling petroleum
products, due to the oil spill in Manila Bay which damaged the fish cages of Kate
and the coral reefs in the bay. Subsequently, Kate filed before the RTC of Manila
a case for violation of the RA 8550 (Fisheries Code) and Sec. 48 and 49 of RA
9003 (criminal cases) against SMS Corp.’s officers. The CA deferred the petition
for Writ of Kalikasan in view of the subsequent filing of criminal case against
SMS Corp. officers. Is the CA correct? Why or why not? Explain. ( 5 points)

No, the CA is not correct.

Under the rule, the filing of a petition for the issuance of the writ of
kalikasan shall not preclude the filing of separate civil, criminal, or
administrative actions.
3. Paula filed a petition for Writ of Amparo against the General Ariola, head of
CIDG and Col. Lo, head of HPG for the alleged abduction of her spouse Al
Cheeno. While the petition for Writ of Amparo was pending, Paula filed a case
before the prosecutor’s office for kidnapping and serious illegal detention against
the same officers.
a) What will happen to the petition for Writ of Amparo previously filed by Paula?
(2.5 points)

The petition for Writ of Amparo previously filed by Paula will still
 commence.

Under Sec. 23 of Writ of Amparo, when a criminal action has been filed
subsequent to the filing of a petition for Writ of Amparo, the latter shall be
consolidated with the criminal action. After consolidation, the procedure
under this rule shall continue to apply to the disposition of the reliefs in the
petition.

In the case at bar, Paula filed a petition for Writ of Amparo, the said petition
is pending, he filed a case before the prosecutor’s Office for kidnapping and
serious illegal detention.

Therefore, the petition for writ of amparo previously filed by Paul will
commence.
b) What if Paula filed a case for kidnapping and serious illegal detention but while
the case was pending, she filed a petition for writ of amparo. What will happen
to the writ of amparo petition? (2.5 points)
The case filed by Paula pertaining to the Writ of Amparo case will be available
by motion.
Under the rule (Section 22), when a criminal action has been commenced, no
separate petition for the writ shall be filed. The reliefs under the writs shall be
available by motion in the criminal case.

4. Spouses Vanessa and John Joshua were appointed as legal guardians over the
person and properties of the ward Rhey, a 32-year-old incompetent with a mental
age of 8 years old. Rhey was subjected to bilateral vasectomy with the consent of
Vanessa and John Joshua. After knowing this, Sister Christine of Pink Sisters
Society, the child caring agency who gave consent to the legal guardianship where
Rhey was a former ward, filed a case for violation of RA 7160 against the
Spouses. The Spouses argued that Spouses' appointment as Rhey’s legal
guardians divested Sister Christine of the authority to file a criminal case for child
abuse. The Spouses further argued that the parental authority and responsibility
over Rhey were transferred to them, to the exclusion of all others, including the
child-caring agency that took in Rhey as a ward.

a) Does guardianship divest other persons such as Sister Christine the right to
institute a criminal case against the guardians Spouses Vanessa and John Joshua
for the abuse committed against a ward? Why or why not? Explain. (10 points)

Verzosa vs Republic of the Philippines

Yes, the guardianship may be divested to other person

Under the law, guardianship can be divested to other person if

the one of the ruling of the supreme court, the Right of other person or other party
to file criminal case on the guardian is valid. However, there are cases that usually
the culprit is the guardin or parent, the other party may file on their behalf.
 5. James Pecson is married to Roziel Bruzola Pecson. But as a result of James
amorous relationship with Alexandria Supelana, the latter bore a child named
Joyce in Legazpi City. Roziel filed a petition for cancellation and correction of
Joyce’s birth certificate under Rule 108 before the RTC of Legazpi City from
Joyce Pecson to Joyce Supelana claiming she was not recognized by James in her
birth certificate. LCR of Legazpi was impleaded in the petition. After the required
publication and posting, the case was set for initial hearing and the SOLGEN
entered its appearance. Joyce claimed that even if she was not recognized by
James, she enjoyed open and continuous recognition by her father. The RTC
granted her petition for correction of entries under Rule 108 on the ground that
for an illegitimate child to use the surname of her father, she must be expressly
recognized in her birth certificate and it is for the best interest of the child and
of the parties that the surname of Joyce be corrected and for her to use her
mother’s surname.
Is the ruling the RTC in granting the petition, correct? Why or why not? (10
points)

RTC is incorrect,

In the case of braza, the court heled that the legitimacy and filiation
of children cannot be collaterally attacked in a petition for correction of
entries under Rule 108. In effect, these cases hold that legitimacy and
filiation can be threshed out only in an “action” directly instituted for that
purpose.
6. Carlo was imprisoned for homicide, punishable by 10 years of prision mayor as
minimum indeterminate penalty to 14 years, 8 months of reclusion temporal as
maximum penalty. Upon the 11th year of imprisonment, her live in partner Trina
filed a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus before the RTC on the ground that
he had already served the minimum term of imprisonment and that the writ of
habeas corpus may be availed of as a post-conviction remedy.
a) Does Trina have the personality to file the action? Why or why not? (5
points)

265 of Festin

Yes, Trina has the personality to file the action.

Under Section 3, Rule 102, a petition for the issuance of writ of

habeas corpus may be filed some person in his behalf.
 b) If you are the RTC judge where the petition was filed, will you grant the
petition? Why or why not? (5 points)

268 of Festin

Under the rule, petition for habeas corpus cannot be

granted if the accused only served the minimum of his sentence as he
must serve his sentence up to its maximum term.

7. Lucia was married to Jude, however, due to their long-distance relationship,

unknown to Jude, Lucia filed a petition in court (RTC 1) to have him
presumptively dead for purposes of re-marriage. It appears that Jude went abroad
for work and sometimes communicate with Lucia. RTC 1 granted the said
petition on 1995. Lucia thereafter contracted two (2) subsequent marriages (with
Franze and subsequently with Mark), because of the decision of RTC 1. On 2019,
Jude learned that Lucia died. Thus, on that year, Jude filed a petition before
 RTC 3 to set aside the decision of RTC 1 in order for him to claim the death
benefits of Lucia as well as manifesting to the court (RTC 3) the fact of his re-
appearance. Questions:
a) Is the judgment rendered by RTC 1 already final and executory? ( 5 points)

Yes, the judgement rendered by RTC 1 already final and executory

Under Rule 107, Art. 41 of FC, the court was explicit that the court’s
judgment in summary proceedings, such as declaration of presumptive
death of an absent spouse shall be immediately final and executory.

b) If you are the Judge of RTC 3 where the petition of Jude was filed, will you
grant the petition? Why or why not? (10 points)

(rule 47) Santos vs Santos

As the Judge, I will grant the petition.

Under the rule, when there is re-appearance of the missing

spouse, the subsequent marriage is terminated.

8. Jose an employee of the DOH revealed during the Senate Investigation the
alleged corruption of the pandemic funds. As a result, Jose received threats to
his life allegedly from the high-ranking government officials of the said
department. On advice by his counsel, Jose filed a petition for writ of amparo
before the CA and sought refuge for protection before the Pink Fathers and
Sisters Society (PFSS), a private religious organization. After due hearing, the CA
granted the petition and issued the privilege of the writ against those officials.
Usec. Dianne, one of the named respondents filed a motion for reconsideration
of the order granting the privilege of the writ of amparo. Jose opposed the
motion on the ground that it’s a prohibited pleading under the rules on amparo.

a) Is the contention of Jose that the motion filed by Usec. Dianne is a

prohibited pleading tenable? Why or why not? ( 5 points)

Tenable

Under the rule on Writ of Amparo, motion for reconsideration of

interlocutory orders or interim relief orders are prohibited
 pleadings and motions.

b) Assuming that the motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA,
what is the remedy of the respondents? (5 points)

The respondent may file appeal before the Supreme Court

Under Sec. 19 of the Writ of Amparo, any party may appeal from
final judgement or order of the supreme court under Rule 45 The3
appeal may raise questions of fact or law or both.

c) Assuming that during the hearing of the petition, the CA granted the
writ as well as the request of Jose that he be under the temporary
custody of PFSS, but the SOLGEN argued that PFSS is not an agency
of the government, not accredited agency and thus incapable of giving
protection to Jose. Resolve. (5 points)

The contention of SOLGEN is correct

Under Writ of Amaparo, Sec. 14 (d) (2), the court may also
refer witnesses to other government agency or private
institutions capable of keeping and securing their safety.

9. Pauline filed a petition for Writ of Amparo (WOA) and Writ of Habeas Data
(WHD) before the RTC of Manila against Gen. Lucero of AFP and Kim,
manager of BTN TV, a privately owned network, for the allege threats to her life
and for allegedly red tagging her as member of the leftist group. Thereafter, the
writ was issued. Gen. Lucero filed a return stating his defense that the acts
complained were done in the performance of his duties while Kim argued that
the case against him must be dismissed on the ground that as a private individual,
 the writ of amparo may not be enforced against him. Kim further filed a verified
motion ad cautelam for the issuance of Temporary Protection Order (TPO)
against Pauline for the alleged expletives she uttered as a retaliation when she
was interviewed by the media. RTC granted the two motions filed by Kim. In
response, Pauline availed of the interim reliefs by filing a verified motion before
the court, specifically stating the place sought to be inspected for the issuance of
inspection order against the camp where she was detained and BTN TV office
where the allege data where stored, which the also RTC granted.

Rule on the following issues:

a. That Kim cannot be a respondent in the petition for WOA. Why or why not.
(2.5 points)

Kim can be a respondent in the petition for WOA.

Under the rule in Writ of Amparo, Sec. 17, the respondent who is a private
individual or entity must prove that extraordinary diligence as required by
applicable laws, rules and regulations was observed in the performance of
duty.

b. The propriety of the grant of the TPO in favor of Kim. (2.5 points)

No, the granting of TPO to Kim is not correct.

Under the rule, the granting of TPO must be made/given to aggrieved party
and any member of the immediate family.

c. The propriety of the interim reliefs of inspection order issued by the court against
Camp where she was detained and BTN TV where the alleged data where stored.
(2.5 points)

Section 14 (b)- the court, justice or judge upon verified motion and after due
hearing may issue order of inspection. It shall state in detail the place or
places to be inspected.

d. Assuming that what was filed by Pauline, a concerned citizen was a petition for
Writ of Kalikasan ( WK) for alleged environmental damage for the dumpsite
operated by Gen. Lucero, and Pauline filed a verified motion in court for the
issuance of witness protection order (WPO) and the judge granted, is the judge
correct? Why or why not? (2.5 points)
 No, the decision of the judge is not correct.
Under the rule, Writ of Kalikasan, it has no interim relief.

Therefore, the judge/court cannot issue WPO

10. Christine Gipit born in Legazpi City, is the daughter of Jana Intia and Chris
Gipit. Jana registered her in LCR Legazpi City with COLB Registry No. 401 as
Christine Gipit. Christine has two legitimate sisters Kate and Mary. She has been
continuously using the name Christine Gipit from all her transactions. However,
much to her surprise that when she was securing official documents for her
survivorship/retirement benefits with the GSIS, she discovered that she had
another birth certificate registered with LCR of Naga City under Registry No.
306 where it erroneously indicated that she was born on November 17, 1955 and
her father's name was "Richie Postigo". Hence, she filed in 2015, a petition for
correction of entries under Rule 108 to change and correct the entries in her
COLB under RN. 306 to conform to her COLB No. 401. LCR of Naga City and
Legazpi City were both impleaded in the petition. After the required publication
and posting requirements, the SOLGEN entered its appearance, trial was made
ex parte. Christine presented its purported two (2) COLB, her government issued
 IDs, employment and school records. Thereafter, the RTC granted the petition
for correction of entries.

a) Is the court correct in granting the petition? Why or why not? (5 points)

RTC is not correct in granting the petition.

Under the rule, the state must present its own evidence before
issuance of judgment.

In the case, the trial must made ex-parte.

b) On appeal, the SOLGEN argued that the proper procedure is not Rule 108
but RA 9048 as amended considering that correction of surname falls within
the ambit of RA 9048. Resolve the contention of the SOLGEN. (5 points)

The argument of SOLGEN is not correct.

Under Rule 108, it speaks of substantial and adversarial

aspects of the proceeding w. While RA 9048 it speaks only for
typographical and clerical errors and the status, sec, cannot
be change.
11. Is falling out of love sufficient ground for a spouse to file a petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage under Art 36 of the Family Code in relation to
AM NO. 02-11-10-SC? Cheating knows no gender. Why do people cheat?
(BONUS QUESTION) 2 points

No, falling out of love is not a sufficient ground for a spouse to file a petition
for declaration of nullity of marriage.

Under the Family Code, nullity of marriage can be obtained only through the
following grounds:
lack of parental consent, insanity/psychological incapacity; fraud, force, intimidation, or
undue influence; impotence; and sexually transmissible diseases.

Incapacity must be proven during the

-The End-