Practice question
In a case materially matching Primark's procedural issue, an affirmative-defense ruling dismisses the claims for lack of legal capacity without prejudice. The aggrieved party takes an ordinary appeal. What did the Supreme Court hold about that remedy?
- The appeal was necessarily proper because every dismissal is appealable.
- The party could ignore the without-prejudice character.
- The appellate court must accept any remedy selected.
- Ordinary appeal was the wrong remedy; the order fell within the without-prejudice exclusion and the appropriate Rule 65 route had to be used.
- Lack of capacity automatically converted the case into a criminal action.
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2024/aug2024/gr_263887_2024.html — Philippine Primark Properties v. China Banking Corporation Trust and Assets Management Group, G.R. 263887, August 19, 2024, main opinion, Rule 41 Section 1 discussion.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.