Bonus Questions Flashcards
Ren and Nessa married sometime in 2025 and from their union came born Leeonen their legitimate son.
However, their marriage turned sour after 5 years of marriage after it was proven through Nessa’s documentary evidence that Ren was physically and emotionally abusing his wife and son and has failed to provide financially despite repeated requests and demands for support. Ren was ordered by the court give support pendente lite to his wife and child.
Ren filed an appeal questioning the validity of the order stating that there was no prior hearing and reception of evidence on his part before the order was issued.
Resolve the case.
certiorari is proper remedy
Martin sold 5,000 piculs of sugar to Arman, payable upon demand.
Upon deliver of the sugar to Arman however, the latter was not able to pay the purchase price. After a lapse of sometime from the date of delivery, Martin brought an action for recission of the contract of sale and as incident of this action, filed for replevin of the sugar to him.
The court later granted the order of replevin.
Was the grant proper?
- replevin as a main action (get property after trial)
- replevin as prov rem (get pending case)
[PROPER]
LB: Yes, as a prov rem it can be availed of
[IMPROPER]
LB: Ocejo, Perez, & Co
Rpvln only available where principal relief sought is recovery of possession of personal property and NOT recovery merely INCIDENTAL relief sought in the action
Roen filed for a collection of sum of money from Apple who owes him a total of 2M pesos. During the pendency of the case, Roen later learned that Apple was disposing of her property and that the rest of her real property was deteriorating due to mismanagement and neglect.
A. May Roen apply for appoint of a receiver of Apples property?
B. If judgement is rendered in favor of Roen, and the same becomes final and executory. May Roen apply for the appointment of a receiver of Apples property?
No, cannot apply because property is NOT property in litigation
yes but only after the main case is disposed on execution, the court may appoint receiver of the property of the judgment obligor
Millyn filed for a writ of preliminary injunction with a prayer for TRO is included in her complaint in the multi-sala RTC Branches 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 held by judges, Mai, Mark, Janessa, Lee, Fulton. Being urgent in nature, Judge Mai, the executive judge sitting in Branch 1 upon filing of the petition raffled the case in the presences of judges Mark, Janessa, Arman and Fulton. The case eventually fell in the sala of Judge Fulton and granted the emergency TRO post-haste. Is the TRO valid? Why?
no because only executive judge can issue TRO 72hrs
Shannen sued Jon for a collection of sum of money. Shannen alleged that Jon committed fraud in contracting the loan, Shannen filed for preliminary attachment with the court after she found out that Jon was about to depart from the Philippines in order to avoid his obligations to her.
The court issued the preliminary attachment in favor of Shannen. While summons were yet to be served to Jon Sherrif Mark attached Jon’s properties.
However, upon receiving the service of summons Jon moved to lift the attachment on the grounds that the attachment was issued and implemented prior to service of summons.
Shannen opposed Jon’s contentions reasoning that the writ can be appleid for and granted at the commencement of the action or at any time thereafter and the subsequent service of summons to him eventually cured any irregularities that might have attended the enforcement of the writ.
A. Is Shannen correct in saying that the irregularity was cured by the subsequent service of summons?
B. Was the issuance of the writ proper considering that it was issued prior to the service of summons?
[a]
summons must preceed or served contemporaneously with the writ of preliminary attachment otherwise it is invalid and cannot be cured by subsequent service of summons.
iow, the issuance is proper but the execution, which required the prior or contemporaneous giving of all the affidavits, cannot be cured by later giving the service of summons on a later time?
[b]
The issuance is proper. Jon’s contentions that the issuance is improper because it was not attended by contemporaneous service of summons is untenable. Section 1 Rule 57 specifically provides that “ xxx a writ of preliminary attachment may be issued before the service of summons if the plaintiff establishes to the satisfaction of the court that the defendant’s property is in danger of being concealed, removed, or destroyed, or if the defendant is about to leave the jurisdiction of the court, and that the plaintiff has a good cause of action against the defendant.”
