Practice question
A lawful private monetary settlement contains a separate clause purporting to grant a specified court subject-matter power that no statute supplies. Which conclusion is necessary about that clause?
- The clause necessarily amends every jurisdictional statute.
- Notarization makes the clause a legislative act.
- The amount of the settlement automatically validates any selected forum.
- A private signature is constitutionally superior to statute.
- The jurisdiction-granting clause cannot create the missing judicial power.
Legal references
- Civil Code, Articles 2035(5) and 2037, jurisdiction excluded from compromise and judicial-execution distinction: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/pdf/ra_386_1949.pdf
- Rules of Court, Rule 9 Section 1 and Rule 65 Section 1, read with applicable amendments: https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/rc_1-71_civil.html
- Spouses Agullo v. Victa-Espinosa, G.R. No. 269921, April 22, 2025, en banc main decision, governing law at filing and Rule 9: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/apr2025/gr_269921_2025.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.