Determine whether or not the following statements are correct and explain and/or give the reason/s for

your
answers. (5 pts. for each question)

1. The MTC has exclusive jurisdiction over an action for partition involving a parcel of land with an assessed
value of P15,000.00. Accurate. MCT shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions involving title
to or possession of real property or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property or
interest therein does not exceed P20,000 outside Metro Manila (P50,000 if within Metro Manila)
2. When a defendant is already deceased upon the filing of the complaint, the court may order the legal heir/s
or representative to appear and be substituted for the deceased party. Accurate. Upon receipt of notice of
death, the court will first determine whether or not the claim is extinguished by such death. If the claim
survives, the court shall order the legal representative of the deceased to appear or be substituted for the
deceased within 30 days.
3. It is not necessary to make a certification against forum shopping on a compulsory counterclaim. Accurate.
Compulsory counterclaim is not an initiatory pleading. A compulsory counter-claim cannot be the subject
of a separate and independent adjudication as when it is for damages, moral, exemplary or attorney’s fees,
by reason of an alleged malicious and unfounded suit against the defendant. (UST v. Surla)
4. A party in default cannot be a witness in the case because he cannot anymore “take part in the trial”.
Inaccurate. While the defendant can no longer take part in the trial, because he lost standing in the court,
"loss of standing" must be understood to mean only the forfeiture of one's rights as a party litigant,
contestant or legal adversary. There is nothing in the rule, however, which contemplates a disqualification
to be a witness or a deponent in a case. Default does not make him an incompetent. (Cavila v. Florendo)
5. No award in excess of the amount or different in kind from that prayed for in the complaint maybe awarded
by the court. Accurate. Even if the evidence shows that the plaintiff has the right to recover more, the court
has no authority to grant it. Sec 3d, Rule 9 of Rules of Court.
6. The court on its own initiative may dismiss a case for improper venue if the same is apparent on the face of
the complaint. Inaccurate. It is plain error on the part of a court to take a procedural shortcut by dismissing
a case on the ground of improper venue. It should wait for a motion to dismiss or a positive pleading from
the defendant raising improper venue as a defense. Only actions covered by rules on summary procedure
and in small cases can be dismissed motu propio by the court. (Dacoycoy v. IAC)
7. Service of final judgment through publication is necessary if extraterritorial service of summons was made on
the defendant. Inaccurate. Extraterritorial service of summons may be effected out of the Philippines
either by personal service or by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places, by leave of
court and for such a time the court may order.
8. An action for reconveyance of real property with an assessed value of P20,000.00 which at the same time
seeks to recover P500,000.00 as plaintiff’s share in the fruits of the property should be filed with the RTC.
Inaccurate. The objective of the action as shown by the allegations of the complaint and the relief prayed
for is to actually obtain title to real property; jurisdiction over such actions is determined by the assessed
value of the property. All civil actions which involve title to or possession of real property or an interest
therein shall be under the jurisdiction of MTC if the property does not exceed P20, 000.
9. No foreign private juridical entity with no license to do business in the Philippines can sue or be sued in our
courts. Inaccurate. It is not the lack of the prescribed license to do business in the Philippines but doing
business without license, which bars a foreign corporation from access to our courts. Such juridical entity
may not be denied the privilege of pursuing its claims for a contract which was entered into and
consummated outside the Philippines or to protect its reputation, its corporate name, its goodwill.
(Converse v. Universal Rubber)
10. In a collection suit based on a promissory note, the defendant should not be allowed to prove the affirmative
defense of payment if his answer is unverified as this has the effect of a technical admission of the
genuineness and due execution of the promissory note. Inaccurate. Verification is not required, what is
required by the under the Rules on Court is for the adverse party to, under oath, specifically deny the
genuineness and due execution of the note and set forth what he claims to be the facts.
11. A vendor of a real property is an indispensable party in a suit for recovery of title filed by a third person
against the vendee. Inaccurate. Unless the vendor is acting fraudulently, he is not an indispensable party
because the case can be adjudicated even without his presence and final determination can be given.
12. An action filed in the RTC of Manila to recover the amount of 400,000.00 and P500,000.00 due from X and Y,
respectively, arising from two (2) separate promissory notes should be dismissed outright on the ground of
improper joinder of parties. Inaccurate. Misjoinder of parties is not a ground for dismissal of an action. The
proper remedy is the dropping of the party either by an order of the court, on a motion by any of the
parties or on the initiative of the misjoined party.
13. A compulsory counterclaim or cross-claim must always be within the jurisdiction of the court otherwise no
relief thereon can be awarded by the court. Inaccurate. It is correct that a counterclaim must, generally, be
within the jurisdiction of the court both as to the amount and its nature, except that in an original action
before the RTC, the counterclaim may be considered compulsory regardless of the amount
14. An initiatory pleading without a certification against forum shopping should not be dismissed unless it is
shown that litis pendentia or res judicata exists. Inaccurate. Failure to submit a certification against forum
shopping as a ground for dismissal of the case is a separate and distinct from forum shopping itself. It is
therefore not required to determine wheter litis pendecia or res judicata exist before a the dismissal of the
case for submitting an initiatory pleading without certification against forum shopping.
15. A non-resident not found in the Philippines may be served with summons through his wife who is in the
Philippines provided that the action is in rem or quasi in rem. Generally accurate, husband and wife must be
sued jointly in an action in rem and actions quasi in rem. Provided however, that the property in question
is under absolute community or under conjugal property regimes. The statement will be inaccurate if the
husband and wife is under a separation of property regime.
16. Failure of plaintiff to comply with a court order requiring the amendment of the complaint to implead a
necessary party is a ground for dismissal. The same rule applies if the party ordered to be joined is an
indispensable party. Inaccurate. Failure to implead a necessary party even without justifiable casue, shall only
result to a waiver of any claim against that party by the pleader. The joinder of indispensable party however
is mandatory and the court cannot proceeds without their presence, therefore, the action must be dismissed
when indispensable parties are not impleaded before the court.
17. Filing of a reply is mandatory. Inaccurate. Generally, filing of a reply is not mandatory. If a party does not
file such reply, all the new matters alleged in the answer are deemed controverted or denied. No
admission follows from the failure to file a reply. When the defense in the answer is based upon actionable
document, the plaintiff has to file a reply under oath if he desires to deny the genuineness of the
instrument. (Sec. 10 of Rule 6)
18. All actions for annulment of judgment should be filed with the Court of Appeals. Inaccurate. CA only has
exclusive and original jurisdiction in actions for the annulment of judgment of the RTC. The annulment of
judgement of MTCs should be filed in RTC, since it is the RTC which jurisdiction over MTC and such action
shall be treated as an ordinary civil action.
19. Referral to the Lupon for conciliation is not necessary if the parties to the dispute are not residents of the
same city or municipality. Inaccurate. All disputes are subject to Barangay conciliation and prior recourse
thereto is a pre-condition before filing a complaint in court. Although one of the exception are disputes
 involving parties who actually resides in barangay’s of different cities or municipalities, such barangay
units may adjoin each other and the parties may agree to submit their differences to amicable.
20. No motions for reconsideration or petitions for certiorari are allowed in cases governed by Rules on Summary
Procedure. Accurate. Motion for reconsideration and petitions for certiorari are expressly prohibited by the
Rules on summary proceeding. The SC however allowed a petition of certiorari in a case where the MTC
gravely abused its discretion by indefinitely suspending the proceedings in an ejectment case, thereby
acting in direct contrast with the purpose of a summary proceeding. (Go v. CA)