The document contains 10 multiple choice questions about principles of civil procedure in the Philippines, including anticipatory breach, jurisdiction, joinder of causes of action, necessary and indispensable parties. Specifically, it asks about when objection to jurisdiction can be made, the appellate powers of the Court of Appeals, whether foreclosure and collection cases can be joined, and if non-joinder of indispensable parties is grounds for dismissal.
The document contains 10 multiple choice questions about principles of civil procedure in the Philippines, including anticipatory breach, jurisdiction, joinder of causes of action, necessary and indispensable parties. Specifically, it asks about when objection to jurisdiction can be made, the appellate powers of the Court of Appeals, whether foreclosure and collection cases can be joined, and if non-joinder of indispensable parties is grounds for dismissal.
The document contains 10 multiple choice questions about principles of civil procedure in the Philippines, including anticipatory breach, jurisdiction, joinder of causes of action, necessary and indispensable parties. Specifically, it asks about when objection to jurisdiction can be made, the appellate powers of the Court of Appeals, whether foreclosure and collection cases can be joined, and if non-joinder of indispensable parties is grounds for dismissal.
The document contains 10 multiple choice questions about principles of civil procedure in the Philippines, including anticipatory breach, jurisdiction, joinder of causes of action, necessary and indispensable parties. Specifically, it asks about when objection to jurisdiction can be made, the appellate powers of the Court of Appeals, whether foreclosure and collection cases can be joined, and if non-joinder of indispensable parties is grounds for dismissal.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2
PRE-TEST
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW I
ATTY. ZEHAN LOREN E. TOCAO- TALIPASAN, REB
I. What is the principle of anticipatory breach?
II. When should objection to jurisdiction over the subject matter be made? Can it be tackled motu propio for the first time on appeal? III. Does the Court of Appeals have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform acts necessary to resolve factual issues? IV. Is an action for foreclosure of a real estate mortgage an action incapable of pecuniary estimation? V. A filed a complaint against B for collection of sum of money amounting to Php 400,000.00 before the Regional Trial Court. However, after the trial the Court found that the liability is only up to Php 350,000.00 only hence it rendered judgment dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. Is the Court action valid? VI. N sued S for injuries he suffered when S drove his car recklessly and bumped into N. S confessed judgment and was adjudged to pay Php 5,000.00. N became blind because of the injuries he sustained in the accident. He filed another suit against S this time for P 100,000.00 May S plead the filing of the first complaint in abatement of the second suit and contend that the judgment on the merits in the first case constitutes a bar in the second? VII. A files a collection suit against B. In the same complaint he included a petition for judicial foreclosure of mortgage.Is joiner proper? VIII. A, a Manila resident, filed a complaint against B, a resident of Iloilo City. In the RTC of Manila. The complaint joins causes of action: one for collection of Php 500,000.00 and the other for title to real property in Iloilo City with an assessed value of Php 20,000.00, both cause of action being unrelated to each other. Was there a proper joinder of causes of action? IX. Is the non-joinder of necessary party or indispensable party a ground for motion to dismiss? X. O sold a parcel of land to B. Subsequently O sold and delivered the same parcel of land to C, who filed with the RTC an application for original registration of the land. The application was granted and an original certificate of title (OCT) was issued in the name of C. B filed an action for reconveyance against C. Judgment was rendered in favor of B. On appeal, C argued that B should have impleaded the seller O who is an indispensable party. Is C‟s argument correct?