Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Under Section 6 Rule 120, if the judgment was The Supreme Court has held that reckless
for conviction and the failure of the accused to imprudence is a single crime and that its consequences
appear was without justifiable cause, he shall on persons and property are material only to determine
lose the remedies available under the Rules of the penalty.
Court and the court shall order his arrest. The
accused may regain the remedies only if he Here there was only one act and crime of
surrenders and files a motion for leave to avail reckless imprudence. The death, the physical injuries,
of the remedies under the Rules of Court. and the damage to the tricycle are only consequences
of the same reckless act of McJolly. Hence there was
Here the failure of Balatong and Labong to double jeopardy when a second information arising
appear was without justifiable cause as even from the same reckless act was brought against the
their lawyers were not aware of the reason for accused. (Ivler v. Modesto-San Pedro, 17 November
their absence. Hence they lost their remedies 2010).
under the Rules.
Since Balatong and Labong did not surrender
and file a motion for leave to avail of remedies, III.
it was incorrect for the trial court to take
cognizance of the joint motion for While passing by a dark uninhabited part of
reconsideration insofar their barangay, PO2 Asintado observed shadows and
as Balatong and Labong were concerned. The heard screams from a distance. PO2 Asintado hid
trial court should instead have ordered their himself behind the bushes and saw a man beating a
arrest. (People v. De Grano, 5 June 2009, woman whom he recognized as his neighbor, Kulasa.
Peralta, J.). When Kulasa was already in agony, the man stabbed
her and she fell on the ground. The man hurriedly left
On the other hand, it was correct for the trial thereafter.
court to take cognizance of the joint motion for
reconsideration insofar as Ludong was PO2 Asintado immediately went to Kulasas
concerned since he and his lawyer were rescue. Kulasa, who was then in a state of hysteria,
present during the promulgation. kept mentioning to PO2 Asintado Si Rene, gusto
akong patayin! Sinaksak niya ako! When PO2 especially here where the declarant is dead and thus
Asintado was about to carry her, Kulasa refused and unavailable to testify. (ANTONIO R. BAUTISTA, BASIC
said Kaya ko. Mababaw lang to. Habulin mo si Rene. EVIDENCE 214-215 [2004 ed.]). In U.S. v. Gil, 13 Phil.
530 (1909), the Supreme Court upheld dying
The following day, Rene learned of Kulasas death and, declarations as an exception to the confrontation
bothered by his conscience, surrendered to the clause since such declarations have always been
authorities with his counsel. As his surrender was regarded as an exception to the general rule regarding
broadcasted all over media, Rene opted to release his hearsay evidence.
statement to the press which goes:
2.
I believe that I am entitled to the presumption of
innocence until my guilt is proven beyond reasonable The argument that the trial court erred in
doubt. Although I admit that I performed acts that may holding that Renes statement to the press was a
take ones life away, I hope and pray that justice will be confession which, standing alone, would be sufficient to
served the right way. God bless us all. warrant conviction is meritorious.
(Sgd.)
Rene Firstly, Renes statement is not a confession but
an admission. A confession is one wherein a person
The trial court convicted Rene of homicide on the basis acknowledges his guilt of a crime, which Rene did not
of PO2 Asintados testimony, Kulasas statements, do. Secondly, even assuming it is a confession,
and Renes statement to the press. On standing alone it would not be sufficient to warrant
appeal, Rene raises the following errors: conviction since it is an extrajudicial confession which
is not sufficient ground for conviction unless
1. The trial court erred in giving weight to PO2 corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. (S3
Asintados testimony, as the latter did not have any R133).
personal knowledge of the facts in issue, and
violated Renes right to due process when it Nonetheless this was a harmless error since the
considered Kulasas statements despite lack of admission of Rene was corroborated by the testimony
opportunity for her cross-examination. of PO2 Asintado on Kulasas statement.
2. The trial court erred in holding that Renes
statement to the press was a confession which,
standing alone, would be sufficient to warrant IV.
conviction.
Resolve. (4%) An order of the court requiring a retroactive re-dating
of an order, judgment or document filing be entered or
ANSWER: recorded in a judgment is: (1%)
(A) pro hac vice
Renes appeal is denied for lack of merit. (B) non pro tunc
(C) confession relicta verificatione
1. (D) nolle prosequi
The judicial remedy that I would recommend to 1. The RTC is without jurisdiction because under the
Maria is to file a collection suit for the P125,000 rentals Totality Rule, the claim for damages in the amount of
in arrears and the P12,500 interest due. The remedy P350,000.00 fall within the exclusive original
would be expeditious since it would be governed by the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of
Rules on Summary Procedure as the amount of the Paraaque City.
demand, excluding interest, does not exceed 2. The venue is improperly laid because what the
P200,000. complaint alleged is Co Batongs business address and
not his residence address.
(B)
Are the grounds invoked in the Motion to Dismiss
The proper venue of the collection suit would proper? (4%)
be in Marikina City, where Tenant resides.
ANSWER:
Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, venue in
personal actions is with the residence of either the No, the grounds invoked in the motion to dismiss
plaintiff or the defendant, at the plaintiffs election. improper.
1.
Since the Plaintiff does not reside in the The invocation of the Totality Rule is misplaced.
Philippines, venue may be laid only in Marikina City Under Art. 360 of the Revised Penal Code, jurisdiction
where the defendant Tenant resides. over a civil action for damages in case of libel is with
the Court of First Instance, now the Regional Trial Court.
(C) (Nocum v. Tan, 23 September 2005). The said
provision does not mention any jurisdictional amount
If Maria insists on filing an ejectment suit over such action; hence the Totality Rule is
against Tenant, the one-year period within which to file inapplicable.
the action shall be reckoned from the expiration of 5- 2.
days from notice of the last demand to pay and The ground that the complaint mentioned the
vacate. (Cruz v. Atencio, 28 February 1959; Sy Oh v. complainants office address rather than his residence
Garcia, 30 June 1969). is of no moment since the complaint also stated that
the libelous article was printed and first published in
Paranaque City. Under Article 360 of the Revised Penal
VI. Code, venue in a civil action for libel also lies in the
place where the libelous article was printed and first
As a rule, courts may not grant an application for published.
provisional remedy without complying with the
requirements of notice and hearing. These
requirements, however, may be dispensed with in an VIII.
application for: (1%)
Johnny, a naturalized citizen of the United States of
(A) writ of preliminary injunction America (USA) but formerly a Filipino citizen, executed
(B) writ for preliminary attachment a notarial will in accordance with the laws of the State
(C) an order granting support pendente lite of California, USA. Johnny, at the time of his death, was
(D) a writ of replevin survived by his niece Anastacia, an American citizen
residing at the condominium unit of Johnny located at
ANSWER: Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City; a younger
brother, Bartolome, who manages Johnnys fish pond in
(B) Lingayen, Pangasinan; and a younger sister, Christina,
who manages Johnnys rental
condominium units in Makati City. Johnnys entire
VII. estate which he inherited from his parents is valued at
P200 million. Johnny appointed Anastacia as executrix
Co Batong, a Taipan, filed a civil action for damages of his will. (4%)
with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Paraaque City (A) Can Johnnys notarial will be probated before the
against Jose Penduko, a news reporter of the Philippine proper court in the Philippines?
Times, a newspaper of general circulation printed and (B) Is Anastacia qualified to be the executrix
published in Paraaque City. The complaint alleged, of Johnnys notarial will?
among others, that Jose Penduko wrote malicious and
defamatory imputations against Co Batong; that Co ANSWERS:
Batongs business address is in Makati City; and that
the libelous article was first printed and published in (A)
attended the enforcement of the writ (Onate v.
Yes, the formal validity of a will is governed also by the Abrogar, 23 February 1995).
national law of the decedent. (Article 817, Civil Code).
A will proved and allowed in a foreign country, Here the sheriff levied upon the house and lot prior to
according to the laws of such country, may be allowed, the service of the summons and the complaint upon
filed, and recorded by the proper Regional Trial Court in Agente. Hence the writ of preliminary attachment was
the Philippines. (S1 R77). not properly executed. The subsequent service of
(B) summons and the complaint did not cure the
irregularity in the enforcement of the writ.
Yes, assuming that Anastacia is of legal age, she is
qualified to be an executor although an alien because
she is a resident of the Philippines. (S1 R78). X.
ANSWER:
XIII.
Yes, the objection of Ass-asin is valid.
A foreign dog trained to sniff dangerous drugs from
Under the Constitution, the right of the people packages, was hired by FDP Corporation, a door to door
against unlawful search is inviolable except in cases forwarder company, to sniff packages in their depot at
where a valid search warrant was issued or in the international airport. In one of the routinary
exceptional cases where the law provides for a inspections of packages waiting to be sent to the
warrantless search. (Sec. 2, Art. III, Constitution). United States of America (USA), the dog sat beside one
Under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, items of the packages, a signal that the package contained
seized by virtue of an unlawful search are inadmissible dangerous drugs. Thereafter, the guards opened the
in evidence. (Sec. 3[2], Art. III, Constitution). package and found two (2) kilograms of cocaine.
The owner of the package was arrested and charges
Here the the seizure of the marijuana was were filed against him. During the trial, the
illegal since it was not pursuant to a search warrant. prosecution, through the trainer who was present
The search warrant was for the search and seizure of during the incident and an expert in this kind of field,
unlicensed firearms not marijuana. Nor would the testified that the dog was highly trained to sniff
exception regarding items seized under plain view packages to determine if the contents were dangerous
apply. The marijuana was wrapped in newsprint and drugs and the sniffing technique of these highly trained
clearly not in plain sight. Hence the marijuana may not dogs was accepted worldwide and had been successful
be introduced in evidence over Ass-asins objection. in dangerous drugs operations. The prosecution moved
to admit this evidence to justify the opening of the
package. The accused objected on the grounds that: (i)
XII. the guards had no personal knowledge of the contents
of the package before it was opened; (ii) the testimony
Mary Jane met Shiela May at the recruitment agency of the trainer of the dog is hearsay; and (iii) the
where they both applied for overseas employment. accused could not cross-examine the dog.
They exchanged pleasantries, including details of their Decide. (4%)
personal circumstances. Fortunately, Mary Jane was
deployed to work as front desk receptionist at a hotel ANSWER:
in Abu Dhabi where she met Sultan Ahmed who
proposed marriage, to which she readily accepted. The accuseds objections are overruled.
Unfortunately for Shiela May, she was not deployed to
work abroad, and this made her envious of Mary Jane. The objection that the guards had no personal
Mary Jane returned to the Philippines to prepare for her knowledge of the contents of the package before it was
wedding. She secured from the National Statistics opened is misplaced. The one testifying is the trainer
Office (NSO) a Certificate of No Marriage. It turned out not the guards and he had personal knowledge of the
from the NSO records that Mary Jane had previously circumstances since he was present during the
contracted marriage with John Starr, a British citizen, incident. Besides there is no rule of evidence that one
which she never did. The purported marriage cannot testify about the contents of a package if he did
between Mary Jane and John Starr contained all the not have prior personal knowledge of its contents
required pertinent details on Mary Jane. Mary Jane later before opening it.
on learned that Shiela May is the best friend of John
Starr. The objection that the testimony of the trainer
As a lawyer, Mary Jane seeks your advice on her of the dog is hearsay is not valid. Hearsay is an out-of-
predicament. What legal remedy will you avail to court declaration made by a person which is offered for
enable Mary Jane to contract marriage with Sultan the truth of the matter asserted.
Ahmed? (4%)
Here what is involved is a dog who is not a
ANSWER: person who can make an out-of-court declaration.
(Lempert & Saltzburg, A MODERN APPROACH TO charge of conspiracy between him and the private
EVIDENCE 370-371 [1982]). A dog is not treated as a person. Hence the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction
declarant or witness who can be cross-examined. over the offense charged. (People v. Go, 25 March
(People v. Centolella, 305 N.Y.S.2d 279). Hence 2014, Peralta, J.)
testimony that the dog sat beside the package is not
testimony about an out-of-court declaration and thus
not hearsay. XVI.
The objection that the accused could not cross- Plaintif filed a complaint denominated as accion
examine the dog is without merit. Under the publiciana, against defendant. In his
Constitution, the accuseds right of confrontation refers answer, defendant alleged that he had no interest over
to witnesses. As previously discussed, a dog is not a the land in question, except as lessee
witness who can be cross-examined. of Z. Plaintif subsequently filed an affidavit of Z, the
lessor of defendant, stating that Z had sold
Note: It is urged that utmost liberality be to plaintif all his rights and interests in the property as
exercised in grading this number. The answer is not shown by a deed of transfer attached to the affidavit.
found in Philippine law and jurisprudence and even in Thus, plaintif may ask the court to render: (1%)
commentaries by writers on evidence. (A) summary judgment
(B) judgment on the pleadings
(C) partial judgment
XIV. (D) judgment by default
XVIII. XIX.
A was charged with murder in the lower court. A vicarious admission is considered an exception to the
His Petition for Bail was denied after a summary hearsay rule. It, however, does not cover: (1%)
hearing on the ground that the prosecution had (A) admission by a conspirator
established a strong evidence of guilt. No Motion for (B) admission by a privy
Reconsideration was filed from the denial of (C) judicial admission
the Petition for Bail. During the reception of the (D) adoptive admission
evidence of the accused, the accused reiterated his
petition for bail on the ground that the witnesses so far (C) Note: a vicarious admission is an extrajudicial
presented by the accused had shown that no qualifying admission. Hence C is not covered by the rule
aggravating circumstance attended the killing. The regarding vicarious admissions.
court denied the petition on the grounds that it had
already ruled that: (i) the evidence of guilt is strong; (ii)
the resolution for the Petition for Bail is solely based on XX.
the evidence presented by the prosecution; and (iii) no
Motion for Reconsideration was filed from the denial of Tom Wallis filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a
the Petition for Bail. (6%) Petition for Declaration of Nullity of his marriage
(A) If you are the Judge, how will you resolve the with Debi Wallis on the ground of psychological
incident? incapacity of the latter. Before filing the petition, Tom
(B) Suppose the accused is convicted of the crime of Wallis had told Debi Wallis that he wanted the
homicide and the accused filed a Notice of Appeal, is annulment of their marriage because he was already
he entitled to bail? fed up with her irrational and eccentric behaviour.
However, in the petition for declaration of nullity of
ANSWERS: marriage, the correct residential address of Debi
Wallis was deliberately not alleged and instead, the
(A) residential address of their married son was stated.
Summons was served by substituted service at the
If I were the judge, I will grant the Petition for address stated in the petition. For failure to file an
Bail if the evidence does not show any qualifying answer, Debi Wallis was declared in default and Tom
aggravating circumstance. In such a case the offense Wallis presented evidence ex-parte. The RTC rendered
would be only homicide which is bailable. judgment declaring the marriage null and void on the
ground of psychological incapacity of Debi Wallis. Three
(i) The ground that the court had already ruled that (3) years after the RTC judgment was rendered, Debi
the evidence of guilt is strong is improper. An order Wallis got hold of a copy thereof and wanted to have
denying an application for bail is interlocutory and the RTC judgment reversed and set aside.
If you are the lawyer of Debi Wallis, what judicial dismissing the complaint on the ground that the person
remedy or remedies will you take? Discuss and specify who filed the complaint in behalf of the plaintiff
the ground or grounds for said remedy or corporation was not authorized to do so is a legal issue,
remedies. (5%) reviewable only by the Supreme Court in a petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45. (Tamondong v.
ANSWER: Court of Appeals, 26 November 2004).
If I were the lawyer of Debi Wallis, the judicial remedy I (Note: An alternative answer would be that the
would take is to file with the Court of Appeals an action appeal raises a factual question of whether or not Al
for annulment of the RTC judgment under Rule 47. An Pakino was indeed authorized to file the complaint in
action for annulment of judgment may be resorted to behalf of Goodfeather Corporation. A reading
since the remedies of appeal and petition for relief are of Tamondong would show that the appellant only
no longer available through no fault of Debi Wallis. (S1 raised a legal question of whether it was proper to
R47). dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of
action but did not raise a factual issue as to whether
The ground for annulment of judgment would the filer was in fact authorized by the corporation.).
be lack of jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction also covers
lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
since the judgment would be void. (1 FLORENZ D. XXII.
REGALADO, REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM 558 [7 th rev.
ed., 3rd printing]). Which of the following decisions may be appealed
directly to the Supreme Court (SC)? (Assume that the
Here the court did not acquire jurisdiction over issues to be raised on appeal involve purely questions
the person of Debi since there was no valid substituted of law) (1%)
service of summons. Substituted service of summons (A) Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered
should have been made at Debis residence. (S7 in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
R14). Hence the judgment of the RTC was void. Since (B) Decision of the RTC rendered in the exercise of its
the judgment is void, the petition for annulment original jurisdiction.
thereof is imprescriptible. (S3 R47). (C) Decision of the Civil Service Commission.
(D) Decision of the Office of the President.
Furthermore, default judgments are not allowed
in declaration of nullity of marriage. (S3[e] R9). Hence ANSWER:
the trial courts rendition of a default judgment was
made with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack (B) Note: In an appeal from RTC judgment in the
of jurisdiction. exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, the appeal should
be to the CA even if the questions are only legal. Hence
A should be excluded. (S2[c] R42).
XXI.
XXIV. ANSWER:
Solomon and Faith got married in 2005. In (A) Note: It is suggested that either A or B be
2010, Solomon contracted a second marriage considered as correct. Strictly speaking parol evidence
with Hope. When Faith found out about the second does not have to be an agreement; it is simply any
marriage of Solomon and Hope, she filed a criminal evidence, whether written or oral, which is not
case for bigamy before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of contained in a written agreement subject of a case and
Manila sometime in 2011. which seeks to modify, alter, or explain the terms of
Meanwhile, Solomon filed a petition for declaration of the written agreement.
nullity of his first marriage with Faith in 2012, while the
case for bigamy before the RTC of Manila is ongoing.
Subsequently, Solomon filed a motion to suspend the XXVII.
proceedings in the bigamy case on the ground of
prejudicial question. He asserts that the proceedings in Mr. Avenger filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a
the criminal case should be suspended because if his complaint against Ms. Bright for annulment of deed of
first marriage with Faith will be declared null and void, sale and other documents. Ms. Bright filed a motion to
it will have the effect of exculpating him from the crime dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of cause of
of bigamy. Decide. (4%) action. Mr. Avenger filed an opposition to the motion to
dismiss. State and discuss the appropriate
ANSWER: remedy/remedies under each of the following
situations: (6%)
Motion to suspend proceedings denied. (A) If the RTC grants Ms. Brights motion to dismiss and
dismisses the complaint on the ground of lack of cause
Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, a prejudicial of action, what will be the remedy/remedies of Mr.
question arises if there has been a previously filed civil Avenger?
action. Here the civil action was filed after the criminal (B) If the RTC denies Ms. Brights motion to dismiss,
action. Hence no prejudicial question will arise. what will be her remedy/remedies?
(C) If the RTC denies Ms. Brights motion to dismiss
Moreover the Supreme Court has held that a pending and, further proceedings, including trial on the merits,
case for declaration of nullity of marriage does not are conducted until the RTC renders a decision in favor
raise a prejudicial question to a charge of bigamy since of Mr. Avenger, what will be the remedy/remedies
a person who contracts a second marriage without first of Ms. Bright?
awaiting a judicial declaration of nullity of his first
marriage has already committed bigamy. (People v. ANSWERS:
Odtuhan, 17 July 2013, Peralta, J.).
(A)
ANSWERS:
XXVIII. (A)
A was adopted by B and C when A was only a toddler. No, the MTC was not correct in dismissing the
Later on in life, A filed with the Regional Trial Court case for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has
(RTC) a petition for change of name under Rule 103 of held that an allegation of ownership as a defense in the
the Rules of Court, as he wanted to reassume the answer will not oust the MTC of jurisdiction in an
surname of his natural parents because the surname of ejectment case. (Subano v. Vallecer, 24 March 1959).
his adoptive parents sounded offensive and was What determines subject-matter jurisdiction is the
seriously affecting his business and social life. allegations in the complaint and not those in the
The adoptive parents gave their consent to the petition answer. Furthermore, the MTC is empowered under
for change of name. May A file a petition for change of S16 R70 to resolve the issue of ownership, albeit for
name? If the RTC grants the petition for change of the purpose only of resolving the issue of possession.
name, what, if any, will be the effect on the respective
relations of A with his adoptive parents and with his (B)
natural parents? Discuss. (4%)
No the RTC was not correct in ruling that the
ANSWER: case was within its original jurisdiction and that hence
it may conduct a full-blown trial of the appealed case
Yes, A may file a petition for change of name. as if it were originally filed with it.
Changing name on the ground that it is offensive and
seriously affects the petitioners business and social life Under S8 R40, if an appeal is taken from an
is a valid ground especially where the adoptive parents MTC order dismissing a case for lack of jurisdiction
had given their consent. without a trial on the merits, the RTC on appeal may
affirm the dismissal order and if it has jurisdiction
The grant of the petition will not change As thereover, try the case on the merits as if the case was
relations with his adoptive and natural parents. The originally filed with it.
Supreme Court has held that change of name under
Rule 103 affects only the name and not the status of Here the RTC did not have jurisdiction over the
the petitioner. (Republic v. CA, 21 May 1992). case since it is an ejectment suit cognizable exclusively
by the MTC. The assessed value of the land is
irrelevant for the purpose of determining jurisdiction in
XXIX. ejectment suits and would not oust the MTC of
jurisdiction in the same manner as allegations of
Estrella was the registered owner of a huge parcel of ownership would not oust the MTC of jurisdiction.
land located in a remote part of their barrio in Benguet.
However, when she visited the property after she took The RTC should have reversed the dismissal
a long vacation abroad, she was surprised to see that order and remanded the case to the MTC for further
her childhood friend, John, had established a vacation proceedings. (S8 R40).
house on her property.
Both Estrella and John were residents of the Note: Utmost liberality should be given to the
same barangay. To recover possession, Estrella filed a examinee on this question as it does not appear to be
complaint for ejectment with the Municipal Trial Court within the coverage of the remedial law examination
(MTC), alleging that she is the true owner of the land as per the bar examination syllabus given by the Supreme
evidenced by her certificate of title and tax declaration Court.
which showed the assessed value of the property as
P21,000.00. On the other
hand, John refuted Estrellas claim of ownership and
submitted in evidence a Deed of Absolute Sale
between him and Estrella. After the filing of Johns
answer, the MTC observed that the real issue was one
substantiated during the trial. (Dionisio v Sioson
Puerto, 31 October 1974).
Here the amount claimed was P500,000. Even
if the claim substantiated during the trial was only
P300,000 that is not determinative of subject-matter
jurisdiction.
Hence the argument that lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction can be raised at any time is misplaced
since in the first place the RTC has jurisdiction.
ANSWERS:
a) No, judgment on the pleadings is not proper.
Under Section 2 of Rule 8, a party may set forth two or
more statements of a defense alternatively or a) No, the court should not grant Neils Motion
hypothetically. The Supreme Court has held that to Dismiss.
inconsistent defenses may be pleaded alternatively or Under Section 5 of Rule 7, a certification
hypothetically provided that each defense is consistent against forum shopping is required only for initiatory
with itself. (Baclayon v. Court of Appeals, 26 February pleadings or petitions.
1990). Here the Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of
Hence Plaintiffs contention that defendants Execution, although erroneously denominated as a
answer failed to tender an issue as his defenses are petition is actually a motion for issuance of a writ of
sham for being inconsistent is without merit. execution under Rule 39.
Hence the motion to dismiss on the ground of
lack of a certification against forum shopping should be
b) Yes, the court should grant Defendants
denied.
motion for summary judgment.
Under Section 2 of Rule 35, a defendant may at
any time, move with supporting admissions for a b) Aldrins remedy is to file a motion for judgment for
summary judgment in his favor. specific act under Section 10(a) of Rule 39.
Here the Plaintiff had impliedly admitted the Under Section 10(a) of Rule 39, if a judgment
genuineness and due execution of the directs a party to execute a conveyance of land and
acknowledgment receipt, which was the basis of the party fails to comply, the court may direct the act
Defendants defense, by failing to specifically deny it to be done at the disobedient partys cost by some
under oath. other person appointed by the court or the court may
Hence the Defendant may move for a summary by an order divest the title of the party and vest it in
judgment on the basis that Plaintiff had admitted that the movant or other person.
Defendant had already paid the P1 million obligation.