Vda. de Chua vs.

CA, GR 116835 March 5, 1998 Facts: Roberto Chua was the common-law husband of Florita A. Vallejo and had two illegitimate sons with her. On May 28, 1992, Roberto Chua died intestate in Davao City. Upon the death of Roberto, Vallejo filed with the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City a petition for the guardianship and administration over the persons and properties of the two minors. Herein petitioner filed for its dismissal, claiming that she was the sole surviving heir of the decedent being his wife; and that the decedent was a resident of Davao City and not Cotabato City, which means that the said court was not the proper forum to settle said matters. The petitioner failed to submit the original copy of the marriage contract and the evidences that she used were: a photocopy of said marriage contract, Transfer Certificate of Title issued in the name of Roberto L. Chua married to Antonietta Garcia, and a resident of DavaoCity; Residence Certificates from 1988 and 1989 issued at Davao City indicating that he was married and was born in Cotabato City; Income Tax Returns for 1990 and 1991 filed in Davao City where the status of the decedent was stated as married; passport of the decedent specifying that he was married and his residence was Davao City. The trial court ruled that she failed to establish the validity of marriage, and even denied her petition. This was later appealed to the appellate court, but it decided infavor of herein respondents. Issue: Whether or not the trial and appellate court is correct on their ruling on the validity of the marriage of Antonietta Garcia to Roberto Chua. Ruling: The Supreme Court held that the lower court and the appellate court are correct in holding that petitioner herein failed to establish the truth of her allegation that she was the lawful wife of the decedent. The best evidence is a valid marriage contract which the petitioner failed to produce. Transfer Certificates of Title, Residence Certificates, passports and other similar documents cannot prove marriage especially so when the petitioner has submitted a certification from the Local Civil Registrar concerned that the alleged marriage was not registered and a letter from the judge alleged to have solemnized the marriage that he has not solemnized said alleged marriage. The lower court correctly disregarded the Photostat copy of the marriage certificate which she presented, this being a violation of the best evidence rule, together with other worthless pieces of evidence. A valid, original marriage contract would be the best evidence that the petitioner should have presented. Failure to present it as evidence would make the marriage dubious. Montaner vs sharia Facts: Luisa Kho Montaer, a Roman Catholic, married Alejandro Montaer, Sr. at the Immaculate Conception Parish in Cubao, Quezon City. Alejandro died. Petitioners herein are their three children. Liling Disangcopan and her daughter, Almahleen, both Muslims, filed a "Complaint" for the judicial partition of properties before the Sharia District Court. They claim to be the first family of Alejandro. Petitioner children filed an Answer with a Motion to Dismiss becasue Discangcopan failed to pay the correct amount of docket fees. Petitioners point to Disangcopans petition which contains an allegation estimating the decedents estate as the basis for the conclusion that

what private respondents paid as docket fees was insufficient. Issue: Whether or not the proper docket fees were paid for Complaint for the judicial partition of properties. Held: Yes, only because the petitioner children failed to present the clerk of courts assessment. Filing the appropriate initiatory pleading and the payment of the prescribed docket fees vest a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter. If the party filing the case paid less than the correct amount for the docket fees because that was the amount assessed by the clerk of court, the responsibility of making a deficiency assessment lies with the same clerk of court. In such a case, the lower court concerned will not automatically lose jurisdiction, because of a partys reliance on the clerk of courts insufficient assessment of the docket fees. As every citizen has the right to assume and trust that a public officer charged by law with certain duties knows his duties and performs them in accordance with law, the party filing the case cannot be penalized with the clerk of courts insufficient assessment. However, the party concerned will be required to pay the deficiency. In the case at bar, petitioner children did not present the clerk of courts assessment of the docket fees. Moreover, the records do not include this assessment. There can be no determination of whether Disangcopan correctly paid the docket fees without the clerk of courts assessment. PACIFIC BANKING CORP. vs. COURT OF APPEALS (1995) Difference between Civil Action and Special Proceedings FACTS These are two consolidated cases involving the question of whether a petition for liquidation is a special proceeding or an ordinary civil action. CASE 1. The Pacific Banking Corporation (PaBC) was placed under receivership by the Central Bank, and subsequently placed under liquidation. The Pacific Banking Corporation Employees Organization (Union) filed a Complaint-in-intervention seeking payment of benefits due its members as employees of PaBC. The Trial Court ordered payment of the principal claims of the Union. The Liquidator filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but which was subsequently denied. The Liquidator then filed a notice of Appeal and a Motion for Addiditional Time to Submit Record on Appeal. The Trial Court disallowed the Notice of Appeal on the ground that it was filed more than 15 days after receipt of the decision. CASE 2. Ang Keong Lan and EJ Ang Intl filed claims for the payment of investment in the PaBC allegedly in the form of shares of stocks amounting to US$2,531,632.18. The Trial Court directed the Liquidator to pay private respondents the total amount of their claim as preferred creditors. After his Motion for Reconsideration was denied, the Liquidator filed a notice of Appeal. The Trial Court ordered the Notice of Appeal stricken off the record on the ground that it had been filed beyond the 15 day period from receipt of the decision. ISSUES/HELD W/N a petition for liquidation is a special proceeding or an ordinary civil action. A petition for liquidation is a special proceeding W/N the appeals of the Liquidator should have been upheld. CASE 1 - YES CASE 2 - NO RATIO Rule 2 of the Rules of Court provide: 1. Action defined - Action means an ordinary suit in a court of justice, by which one party prosecutes another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong 2. Special proceeding distinguished Every other remedy, including one to establish the status or right of a party or a particular fact, shall be by special proceeding. Civil Action:

1. of 2. 3.

The act by which one sues another in a court of justice for the enforcement or protection a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong. A formal demand of a right by one against another Ex. Where a party litigant seeks to recover property from another

Special Proceeding: 1. The act by which one seeks to establish the status or right of a party, or a particular fact 2. A petition for a declaration of a status, right or fact. 3. Ex. Where a party litigant seeks the appointment of a guardian for an insane, the remedy is a special proceeding to establish the fact or status of insanity calling for an appointment of guardianship. A petition for liquidation of an insolvent corporation should be classified as a special proceeding and not an ordinary action. Such a petition does not seek the enforcement or protection of a right nor the prevention or redress of a wrong against a party. A petition for liquidation merely seeks a declaration of the corporations state of insolvency and the concomitant right of creditors and the order of payment of their claims in the disposition of the corporations assets. In a petition for liquidation, the period of appeal is 30 days (Not 15) and the party appealing must, in addition to a notice of appeal, file with the trial court a record on appeal. In Case 1, the Liquidator filed a notice of appeal and a motion for extension to file a record of appeal on within 30 days from receipt of the order granting the Unions claim, and filed a record on appeal within the extension sought. In Case 2, the Liquidators notice of appeal was filed on time, having been filed on the 23rd day of receipt of the order granting the claim of the Stockholders. However, the Liquidator did not file a record on appeal, with the result that he failed to perfect his appeal.