7.

X filed a complaint for forcible entry against Y with the MTC Pasig, who ruled in favor
of X. A writ of execution was then issued in favor of X, pending Y’s appeal before the
RTC. Before the writ could be implemented, Y moved for the court to recall the writ on
the ground that the government had already taken over the premises. The RTC ruled in
favor of Y and recalled the writ. Was it proper for the court to recall the writ? (4%)

8. A obtained a loan from B payable in 6 months. When A failed to pay the loan when
due, B filed a complaint against A for sum of money, with prayer for payment of 12%
annual interest. A was declared in default for failing to file an answer. The RTC ruled in
B’s favor and directed A to pay interest at the rate of 5% per month. After the lapse of
period to appeal, B moved for the issuance of writ of execution. A then filed a motion to
set aside judgment and for new trial to be conducted. Is A’s remedy correct? If so, why?
If not, why not and what is the proper remedy, if any? (6%)

9. A, B, C, D and E, are residents of Batangas and Manila. They caused the filing of
petition for writ of kalikasan with prayer for award of damages against X Corp., who
operated pipelines covering the stretch from Batangas to Pandacan Terminal in Manila,
due to the leakage from the pipelines causing the buildings covered by said pipelines to
begin to smell with gas. The leaks later increased compelling the residents of
condominiums and occupants of buildings to leave the same. Only 5 residents, A, B, C, D,
and E, signed their acquiescence to the filing of the petition.

a. Do A, B, C, D, and E have locus standi to file the petition for writ of kalikasan?
(3%)
b. Are A, B, C, D, and E entitled to the damages prayed for? (4%)
c. What are the requisites that must occur for the writ of kalikasan to prosper?
(3%)