REMEDIAL LAW QUIZ #2

Q.1

Which of the following is in accord with the applicable rules on receivership?

The court may appoint the plaintiff as receiver of the property in litigation over the defendant's objection.
A receiver may be appointed after judgment if the judgment obligor refuses to apply his property to satisfy the judgment.
The trial court cannot appoint a receiver when the case is on appeal.
The filing of bond on appointment or a receiver is mainly optional.

Q.2

Bearing in mind the distinction between private and public document, which of the following is admissible in evidence without further proof of due execution or genuineness?

Baptismal certificates.
Official record of the Philippine Embassy in Singapore certified by the Vice-Consul with official seal.
Documents acknowledged before a Notary Public in Hong Kong.
Unblemished receipt dated December 20, 1985, signed by the promisee, showing payment of a loan, found among the well-kept file of the promisor.

Q.3

Ramon witnessed the commission of a crime but he refuses to testify for fear of his life despite a subpoena being served on him. Can the court punish him for contempt?

No, since no person can be compelled to be a witness against another.
Yes, since public interest in justice requires his testimony.
No, since Ramon has a valid reason for not testifying.
Yes, since litigants need help in presenting their cases.

Q.4

the right to intervene is not absolute. In general, it CANNOT be allowed where

the intervenor has a common interest with any of the parties.
it would enlarge the issues and expand the scope of the remedies.
the intervenor fails to put up a bond for the protection of the other parties.
the intervenor has a stake in the property subject of the suit.

Q.5

Which of the following grounds for dismissal invoked by the court will NOT PRECLUDE the plaintiff from refiling his action?

Res judicata.
Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Unenforceability under the Statute of Frauds.
Prescription.

Q.6

When may a co-owner NOT demand the partition of the thing owned in common?

When the property of one of the co-owners has attached the property.
When related co-owners agreed to keep the property within the family.
When the property is essentially indivisible.
When a co-owner uses the property as his residence.

Q.7

The city prosecutor of Manila filed, upon Soledad's complaint, a criminal action for estafa against her sister, Wella, before the RTC of Manila for selling to Victor a land that she previously sold to Soledad. At the same time, Soledad filed a civil action to annul the second sale before the RTC of Quezon City. May the Manila RTC motu propio suspend the criminal action on the ground of perjudicial question?

No, the accused must file a motion to suspend the action based on prejudicial question.
Yes, it may be clearly inferred that complainant will not object to the suspension of the criminal action.
Yes, if it finds from the record that such prejudicial question exists.
Yes, if its is conviced that due process and fair trial will be better served if the criminal case is suspended.

Q.8

Which of the following conforms to the applicable rule on replevin?

The property has been wrongfully detained by the adverse party.
The applicant must finle a bond executed to the adverse party in an amount equal to the value of the property as determined by the court.
The applicant has a contingent claim over the property object of the writ.
The plaintiff may apply for the writ at any time before judgment.

Q.9

Which of the following has NO PLACE in an application for a replevin order? A statement

that the property is wrongfully detained by the adverse party.
that the property has not been distrained for a tax assessment or placed under custodia legis.
of the assessed value of the property.
that the applicant owns or has a right to the possession of the property.

Q.10

In which of the following instances is the quantum of evidence ERRONEOUSLY applied?

In Writ of Amparo cases, substantial evidence.
to satisfy the burden of proof in civil cases, preponderance of evidence.
to overcome a disputable presumption, clear and convincing evidence.
to rebut the presumptive validity of a notarial document, substantial evidence.