Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DEFINITION:
A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a
right or a particular fact. (Section (c), Rule 1)
The term special proceeding may be defined as an application or proceeding to
establish the status or right of a party, or a particular fact. Usually, in special proceedings,
no formal pleadings are required unless the statute expressly so provides and the remedy is
granted generally upon an application or motion. (Natcher vs. CA, G.R. No.
133000, October 2, 2001)
A special proceeding, by which a party seeks to establish a status, right, or a
particular fact, has one definite party, who petitions or applies for a declaration of a status,
right, or particular fact, but no definite adverse party. (Montaer vc CA, G.R. No. 174975,
January 20, 2009)
Are the enumerations under Sec. 1, Rule 72 exclusive?
The list under Section 1, Rule 72 is not exclusive. Any petition which has for its
main purpose the establishment of a status, right or a particular fact may be included as
special proceeding. (Festin, Special Proceedings, A Foresight to the Bar Exam:
Question and Answer Noted, Bar Questions, Cases and Updated Laws, 2011)
What are some of the cases which are considered special proceeding?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
fact that should the alleged last will be rejected or is disapproved, the proceeding shall
continue as intestacy. (Uriarte vs CFI Of Negros, G.R. Nos. L-21938-39 May 29, 1970)
Insolvency proceedings and settlement are actions in rem:
Insolvency proceedings end settlement of a decedents estate is both proceedings in
rem which are binding the whole world. Consequently, a liquidation of similar import or other
equivalent general liquidation must also necessarily be a proceeding in rem so that all
interested persons whether known to the parties or not may be bound by such proceeding.
(Philippine Savings Bank vs Lantin, G.R. No. L-33929. September 2, 1983.)
4.1. 1. JURISDICTION OVER SETTLEMENT OF THE ESTATE.
The Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over proceedings for the settlement of the
estate of a deceased person (probate proceedings) where the gross value of the estate
exceeds P300,000 and in Metro Manila where the gross value of the estate exceeds
P400,000. Where the gross value does not exceed P300,000 or P400,000 it would be
the Municipal Trial Court which would have jurisdiction. (BP 129 and RA 7691)
4.1. 2 VENUE IN JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE
The matter of venue, or the particular Court of First Instance where the special
proceeding should be commenced, is regulated by former Rule 75, Section 1 of the Rules of
Court, now Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court, which provides that the
estate of a decedent inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death, whether a citizen
or an alien, shall be in the court of first instance in the province in which he resided
at the time of his death, and if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the court
of first instance of any province in which he had estate. (Uriarte vs CFI Of Negros,
G.R. Nos. L-21938-39 May 29, 1970)
Place of residence of the deceased is for the determination of venue:
The place of residence of the deceased is not an element of jurisdiction over the
subject-matter but merely of venue. And it is upon this ground that in the new Rules of Court
the province where the estate of a deceased person shall be settled is properly called
"venue". (Cuenco vs CA, G.R. No. L-24742 October 26, 1973)
The place of residence of the deceased in settlement of estates, probate of will, and
issuance of letters of administration does not constitute an element of jurisdiction over the
subject matter. As it is merely constitutive of venue (Fule vs. CA, L-40502, November 29,
1976).
Venue in settlement of the estate waivable:
It is well settled in this jurisdiction that wrong venue is merely a waiveable procedural
defect. Moreover, it must be remembered that this Court is not inclined to annul
proceedings regularly had in a lower court even if the latter was not the proper
venue therefor, if the net result would be to have the same proceedings repeated in some
other court of similar jurisdiction; more so in a case like the present where the objection
against said proceedings is raised too late. (Uriarte vs CA, G.R. Nos. L-21938-39 May
29, 1970)
Exclusionary rule on venue in settlement of the estate:
Even assuming that there is concurrent venue among the Regional Trial Courts of the
places where the decedent has residences, the Regional Trial Court first taking cognizance of
the settlement of the estate of the decedent, shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all
other courts (Section 1, Rule 73). (Vda. De Chua vs CA. G.R. No. 116835 March 5,
1998)
4.1. 3. EXTENT OF JURISDICTION OF PROBATE COURT
Coverage on the extent of the power of the probate court: Issue of ownership not
included:
The probate jurisdiction of the former court of first instance or the present regional
trial court relates only to matters having to do with the settlement of the estate and probate
of wills of deceased persons, and the appointment and removal of administrators, executors,
guardians and trustees and does not extend the jurisdiction of a probate court to the
determination of questions of ownership that arise during the proceeding. The parties
concerned may choose to bring a separate action as a matter of convenience in the
preparation or presentation of evidence. (Ramos vs CA, G.R. No. 42108 December 29,
1989)
Jurisdiction of probate court to determine whether property belongs to conjugal
partnership or exclusive ownership of a party
In the case now before us, the matter in controversy is the question of ownership of
certain of the properties involved whether they belong to the conjugal partnership or to
the husband exclusively. This is a matter properly within the jurisdiction of the probate court
which necessarily has to liquidate the conjugal partnership in order to determine the estate
of the decedent which is to be distributed among his heirs who are all parties to the
proceedings. (Leo C. Romero and David Amando C. Romero vs. Hon. Court of
Appeals, Aurora C. Romero and Vittorio C. Romero, G.R. No. 188921, April 18,
2012)
Probate court has a special and limited jurisdiction:
It must be emphasized that the trial court, sitting, as a probate court, has limited
and special jurisdiction and cannot hear and dispose of collateral matters and issues which
may be properly threshed out only in an ordinary civil action. (Vda. De Manalo vs. CA,
G.R. No. 129242. January 16, 2001)
The authority of the Regional Trial Court, sitting, albeit with limited jurisdiction, as a
probate court over the estate of deceased individual, is not a trifling thing. The court's
jurisdiction, once invoked, and made effective, cannot be treated with indifference nor
should it be ignored with impunity by the very parties invoking its authority. (Romero vs
CA, G.R. No. 188921, April 18, 2012)
Issues that may be resolved by the probate court:
In testament to this, it has been held that it is within the jurisdiction of the probate
court to (1) approve the sale of properties of a deceased person by his prospective heirs
before final adjudication; (2) to determine who are the heirs of the decedent; (3) the
recognition of a natural child; (4) the status of a woman claiming to be the legal wife of the
decedent; the legality of disinheritance of an heir by the testator; and (5)to pass upon the
validity of a waiver of hereditary rights. (Romero vs CA, G.R. No. 188921, April 18,
2012)
Determination of heir an issue resolvable by probate court
While the foregoing allegations, if admitted to be true, would consequently warrant
the reliefs sought for in the said complaint, the rule that the determination of a decedents
lawful heirs should be made in the corresponding special proceeding precludes the RTC, in
an ordinary action for cancellation of title and reconveyance, from granting the same. In the
case of Heirs of Teofilo Gabatan v. CA, the Court, citing several other precedents, held that
the determination of who are the decedents lawful heirs must be made in the proper special
proceeding for such purpose, and not in an ordinary suit for recovery of ownership and/or
possession, as in this case:
Jurisprudence dictates that the determination of who are the legal heirs of the
deceased must be made in the proper special proceedings in court, and not in an
ordinary suit for recovery of ownership and possession of property. This must take
precedence over the action for recovery of possession and ownership. The Court has
consistently ruled that the trial court cannot make a declaration of heirship in the civil action
for the reason that such a declaration can only be made in a special proceeding. Under
Section 3, Rule 1 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court, a civil action is defined as one by which
a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or
redress of a wrong while a special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to
establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. It is then decisively clear that the declaration
of heirship can be made only in a special proceeding inasmuch as the petitioners here are
seeking the establishment of a status or right. (Heirs of Magdaleno Ypon vs. Gaudioso
Ponteras Ricaforte a.k.a. Gaudioso E. Ypon, and The Register of Deeds of Toledo
City., G.R. No. 198680, July 8, 2013)
"The court which acquires jurisdiction over the properties of a deceased person
through the filing of the corresponding proceedings, has supervision and control over
the said properties, and under the said power, it is its inherent duty to see that the
inventory submitted by the administrator appointed by it contains all the properties, rights
and credits which the law requires the administrator to set out in his inventory. In
compliance with this duty the court has also inherent power to determine what properties,
rights and credits of the deceased should be included in or excluded from the inventory. (De
Leon vs CA, G.R. No. 128781, August 6, 2002)
The court acts as trustee and as such, should jealously guard the estate and see to it
that it is wisely and economically administered, not dissipated (Timbol vs. Cano, 111 Phil.
923, G.R. No. L-15445, April 29, 1961).
Should an heir or person interested in the properties of a deceased person duly call
the courts attention to the fact that certain properties, rights or credits have been left out in
the inventory, it is likewise the courts duty to hear the observations, with power to
determine if such observations should be attended to or not and if the properties referred to
therein belong prima facie to the intestate, but no such determination is final and ultimate in
nature as to the ownership of the said properties. (De Leon vs CA, G.R. No. 128781,
August 6, 2002)
4.2. SUMMARY SETTLEMENT OF ESTATES
General rule:
When a person dies leaving property, the same should be JUDICIALLY ADMINISTERED and the
competent court should appoint a qualified administrator, in the order established in Section
6, Rule 78, in case the deceased left no will, or in case he had left one, should he fail to
name an executor therein. (Pereira vs CA, G.R. No. L-81147 June 20, 1989)
Exceptions:
1. Extrajudicial settlement (Section 1, Rule 74)
2. Summary settlement of estates of small value (Section 2, Rule 74)
4.2.1. EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT BY AGREEMENT BETWEEN HEIRS, WHEN
ALLOWED
As a general rule, when a person dies living property in the Philippine Islands, his
property should be judicially administered and the competent court should appoint a
qualified administrator, or in case the deceased left no will, or in case he had left one should
he fail to name an executor therein. This rule, however, is subject to the exceptions, such as
when the heirs are all of lawful age and there are no debts there is no reason why the estate
should be burdened with the cost and expenses of an administrator. (Pereira vs CA, G.R.
No. L-81147 June 20, 1989 citing Utulo vs. Pasion vda. De Garcia, 66 Phil. 303,
G.R. No. 45904, September 30, 1938)
This court repeatedly held that when a person dies without leaving pending
obligations to be paid, his heirs, whether of age or not, are not bound to submit the property
to a judicial administration and the appointment of an administrator are superfluous and
unnecessary proceedings (Fule vs CA, G.R. No. L-40502 November 29, 1976)
If the intention were otherwise the framer of the rule would have employed the
word shall as was done in other provisions that are mandatory in character. Note that the
word may is used not only once but in the whole section which indicates an intention to
leave the matter entirely to the discretion of the heirs. (Arcilla vs Montejo, G.R. No. L21725, November 29, 1968)
It should be noted that recourse to an administration proceeding even if the estate
has no debts is sanctioned only if the heirs have good reasons for not resorting to an action
for partition. Where partition is possible, either in or out of court, the estate should not be
burdened with an administration proceeding without good and compelling reasons.
(Pereira vs CA, G.R. No. L-81147 June 20, 1989)
Effect of Exclusion of Heirs-Agreement null and void
Hence, in the execution of the Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate with Absolute
Deed of Sale in favor of spouses Uy, all the heirs of Anunciacion should have participated.
Considering that Eutropia and Victoria were admittedly excluded and that then minors Rosa
and Douglas were not properly represented therein, the settlement was not valid and
binding upon them and consequently, a total nullity.
Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court provides:
SECTION 1. Extrajudicial settlement by agreement between heirs. x x x no
extrajudicial settlement
shall be binding upon any person who has not participated
therein
or had no notice thereof. x x x
(emphasis supplied). (Neri, at al. vs.
Heirs of Hadji Yusop Uy and Julpha Ibrahim Uy., G.R. No. 194366,
October
10,
2012)
4.2.2. TWO-YEAR PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD
Extrajudicial settlement is an ex-parte proceeding:
The procedure outlined in Section 1 of Rule 74 of extrajudicial settlement, or by
affidavit, is an ex parte proceeding. It cannot by any reason or logic be contended that such
settlement or distribution would affect third persons who had no knowledge either of the
death of the decedent or of the extrajudicial settlement or affidavit, especially as no mention
of such effect is made, either directly or by implication. (Sampilo vs CA, G.R. No. L10474, February 28, 1958)
Two (2) year prescriptive period applies only persons who knew or participated in
the extrajudicial settlement:
The provisions of Section 4 of Rule 74, barring distributees or heirs from objecting to
an extrajudicial partition after the expiration of two years from such extrajudicial partition, is
applicable only to persons who have participated or taken part or had notice of the
extrajudicial partition, and, in addition, when the provisions of Section 1 of Rule 74 have
been strictly complied with. There is nothing therein, or in its source which shows clearly a
statute of limitations and a bar of action against third persons. (Sampilo vs CA, G.R. No.
L-10474, February 28, 1958)
4.2.3. AFFIDAVIT OF SELF-ADJUDICATION BY SOLE HEIR
If there is only one heir, he may adjudicate to himself the entire estate by means of
an affidavit filed in the office of the register of deeds. The parties to an extrajudicial
settlement, whether by public instrument or by stipulation in a pending action for partition,
or the sole heir who adjudicates the entire estate to himself by means of an affidavit shall
file, simultaneously with and as a condition precedent to the filing of the public instrument,
or stipulation in the action for partition, or of the affidavit in the office of the register of
deeds, a bond with the said register of deeds, in an amount equivalent to the value of the
personal property involved as certified to under oath by the parties concerned and
conditioned upon the payment of any just claim that may be filed under Section 4 of this
rule. It shall be presumed that the decedent left no debts if no creditor files a petition for
letters of administration within two (2) years after the death of the decedent. (Sec.1, Rule
74)
4.2.4. SUMMARY SETTLEMENT OF ESTATES OF SMALL VALUE, WHEN ALLOWED
Factors to consider in the summary settlement of the estate of small value:
a) WE uniformly held that for the court to acquire jurisdiction in a petition for
summary settlement of estate under the rules, the requirement that the amount of the
estate involved should not exceed P10,000,00 (P6,000.00 under the old rules) is
jurisdictional. (Del Rosario v. Cunanan, L-37903, March 30, 1977);
b) Decedent died testate or intestate;
c) Petition filed by an interested person;
d) Notice published at least once a week for 3 consecutive weeks in a newspaper of
general circulation;
e) Hearing of petition held not less than 1 month nor more than 3 months from the
date of the LAST publication of notice;
f) Payment of such debts of the estate as the court shall find to be due;
g) The order of partition or award, if it involves real estate, recorded in the register of
deeds; and
h) Bond filed with the register of deeds in an amount to be fixed by the court.
Bond not required in case when only real property is involved:
No bond is necessary when only real estate is involved because the lien as recorded
is sufficient security for any claim which may be filed under Sec 4, that is, when an heir or
other person has been unduly deprived of his lawful participation in the estate.
4.2.5. REMEDIES OF AGGRIEVED PARTIES AFTER EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT OF
ESTATE
Binding effects of extra-judicial settlement:
An extrajudicial settlement despite the publication shall not be binding on any person
who has not participated therein or who had no notice of death of the decedent. this is
because the procedure in section 1, rule 74 is an ex parte proceeding (Sampilo vs CA,
G.R. No. L-10474, February 28, 1958)
A SUMMARY SETTLEMENT is likewise NOT BINDING upon heirs or creditors who were
not parties therein or had no knowledge thereof.
REMEDIES OF AN EXCLUDED CREDITOR:
1. Proceed Against the Bond (Section 4, Rule 74)
a) The unpaid creditor MAY PROCEED against the bond by filing, WITHIN 2 YEARS, a
motion for the payment of his credit in the court wherein such summary settlement was had.
b) AFTER the lapse of the 2 year period, the creditor may NO LONGER proceed
against the bond, BUT can institute an ordinary action against the distributees within the
statute of limitations.
2. Petition for Letters of Administration
3. Action to annul a deed of extrajudicial settlement on the ground of fraud
should be filed within four years from the discovery of fraud. (Regalado, 2008)
4. Proceed Against the Real Property
a) The lien subsists for 2 years.
b) The 2-year lien upon the real property distributed by extrajudicial or summary
settlement shall be annotated on the title issued to the distributees and after 2 years will be
cancelled by the register of deeds without need of court order (LRC Circular 143)
5) Ordinary Civil Action
REMEDIES OF AN EXCLUDED HEIR:
1) Action to compel settlement of estate(Section 4, Rule 74)
2) Action for rescission on the ground of lesion (Art. 1381, par. 1, NCC) Prescriptive
period is 4 years
3) Accion Reivindicatoria
4)10 years, Implied Trust. Annulment on the ground of fraud
When does the prescriptive period of four (4) years begin to run?
Prescriptive period is 4 years. The period of four (4) years therein prescribed did not
begin to run until actual discovery of the fraud perpetrated by respondents, which, it
is claimed, took place in 1956 or 1957; and that accordingly, said period had not expired
when the present action was commenced on November 4, 1958. (Gerona vs. De Guzman,
Gr L-19060, 1964)
PERIOD FOR CLAIM OF MINOR OR INCAPACITATED PERSON
If on the date of the expiration of the period of two (2) years prescribed in the
preceding section the person authorized to file a claim is a minor or mentally incapacitated,
or is in prison or outside the Philippines, he may present his claim within one (1) year after
such disability is removed. (Section 5, Rule 75)
4.3. PRODUCTION AND PROBATE OF WILL
What is probate of the will?
A judicial act whereby an instrument is adjudged valid and is ordered to be recorded.
It is the statutory method of establishing the proper execution of the instrument and giving
notice of its contents. The probate of a will by the court having jurisdiction thereof is
considered as conclusive as to its due execution and testamentary capacity of the testator
(Mercado
vs.
Santos,
No.
45629,
22
September
1938).
4.3.1. NATURE OF PROBATE PROCEEDING:
The probate of the will is mandatory (Guevara vs. Guevara, 74 Phil. 479 and 98
Phil. 249; Baluyot vs. Panio, L-42088, May 7, 1976, 71 SCRA 86).
Consolidation of the intestate proceedings with testate proceedings:
It is anomalous that the estate of a person who died testate should be settled in an
intestate proceeding. Therefore, the intestate case should be consolidated with the testate
proceeding and the judge assigned to the testate proceeding should continue hearing the
two cases. (Roberts vs. Leonidas, G.R. No. L-55509 April 27, 1984)
Reason why the will should be probated:
The law enjoins the probate of the Will and public policy requires it, because unless
the Will is probated and notice thereof given to the whole world, the right of a person to
dispose of his property by Will may be rendered nugatory. (Maninang vs. CA, G.R. No. L57848 June 19, 1982)
Exceptions:
a) The heirs divide the estate according to the will; pay the creditors accordingly so
that none of them may be prejudiced. By permitting partition and division of estate without
judicial proceedings would enable the heirs to take over their respective shares in the
inheritance without delay and thereby avoid expenses and waste (McMicking v. Sy
Combieng, 21 Phil. 219)
b) No will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved or allowed in
court. We find, that the document may be sustained on the basis of Article 1056 which reads
as follows: Art. 1056. If the testator should make a partition of his properties by an act inter
vivos, or by win, such partition shall stand in so far as it does not prejudice the legitime of
the forced heirs . (Mang-Oy vs CA, G.R. No. L-27421 September 12, 1986)
Issues that may be resolved in probate proceedings:
As a general rule, courts in probate proceedings are limited only to passing upon the
extrinsic validity of the will sought to be probated, the due execution thereof, the testator's
testamentary capacity and the compliance with the requisites or solemnities prescribes by
law. The question of the intrinsic validity of a will normally comes only after the court has
declared that the will has been duly authenticated. (Nufable vs Nufable, G.R. No.
126950 July 2, 1999)
In a special proceeding for the probate of a will, the issue by and large is restricted to
the extrinsic validity of the will, i.e., whether the testator, being of sound mind, freely
executed the will in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law. (Rules of Court,
Rule 75, Section 1; Rule 76, Section 9.)
Probate court cannot pass upon issue of ownership: Exceptions:
As a rule, the question of ownership is an extraneous matter which the Probate Court
cannot resolve with finality. Thus, for the purpose of determining whether a certain property
should or should not be included in the inventory of estate properties, the Probate Court
may pass upon the title thereto, but such determination is provisional, not conclusive, and is
subject to the final decision in a separate action to resolve title. (Pastor Jr. vs. CA, G.R.
No. L-56340 June 24, 1983)
EXCEPTION WHEN PROBATE COURT MAY PASS UPON INTRINSIC VALIDITY:
1) Null and void will:
In Nuguid v. Nuguid (17 SCRA 449) cited by the trial court, the testator instituted the
petitioner as universal heir and completely preterited her surviving forced heirs. A will of this
nature, no matter how valid it may appear extrinsically, would be null and void and separate
or latter proceedings to determine the intrinsic validity of the testamentary provisions would
be superfluous. (Nepomuceno vs CA, G.R. No. L-62952 October 9, 1985)
2) Grave abuse of discretion by the probate court: Remedy of certiorari available:
An act done by a Probate Court in excess of its jurisdiction may be corrected
by Certiorari. And even assuming the existence of the remedy of appeal, we harken to the
rule that in the broader interests of justice, a petition for certiorari may be entertained,
particularly where appeal would not afford speedy and adequate relief. (Maninang vs CA,
G.R. No. L-57848 June 19, 1982)
Doctrine of estoppels not applicable in probate proceedings:
Doctrine of estoppel is not applicable in probate proceedings as the presentation and
probate of a will are requirements of public policy, being primarily designed to protect the
testator's, expressed wishes, which are entitled to respect as a consequence of the
decedent's ownership and right of disposition within legal limits. It would be a non
sequitur to allow public policy to be evaded on the pretext of estoppel. (Fernandez, Et Al.
vs. Dimagiba, L-23638, October 12, 1967)
4.3.2. WHO MAY PETITION FOR PROBATE; PERSONS ENTITLED TO NOTICE
The following may petition for the allowance of a will:
a) Testator himself during his lifetime
b) Heir (person interested in the estate)
c) Executor
d) Creditor
e) Devisee or legatee
Person who will intervene in probate proceedings must have an interest:
It is a well-settled rule that in order that a person may be allowed to intervene in a
probate proceeding he must have an interest in the estate, or in the will, or in the property
to be affected by it either as executor or as a claimant of the estate (Ngo The Hua vs.
Chung Kiat Hua, Et Al., L-17091, September 30, 1963);
Who is an interested party?
An INTERESTED PARTY is one who would be benefited by the estate such as an heir or
one who has a claim against the estate such as a creditor. (Sumilang vs. Ramagosa, 21
SCRA 1398, G.R. No. L-23135
December 26, 1967)
4.4. ALLOWANCE OR DISALLOWANCE OF WILL
4.4. 1. Contents of petition for allowance of will
a) Rule 76, section 2 requires that the petition for allowance of a will must show: "(a)
the jurisdictional facts." Such "jurisdictional facts" in probate proceedings, as held by the
Court in Fernando vs. Crisostomo " are the death of the decedent, his residence at the time
of his death in the province where the probate court is sitting, or if he is an inhabitant of a
foreign country, his having left his estate in such province." (Cuenco vs CA, G.R. No. L24742 October 26, 1973)
b) Names, ages and residences of heirs, legatees, and devisees;
10
11
12
13
An interested party has been defined in this connection as one who would be
benefited by the estate, such as an heir, or one who has a claim against the estate, such as
a creditor (Intestate Estate of Julio Magbanwa 40 Off. Gaz. 1171).
Nature of the interest?
The interest required in order that a person may be a party thereto must be
material and direct, and not merely indirect or contingent. In the case at bar,
Petitioners interest in the estate of the deceased Maria V. Lindayag was disputed, through a
motion to dismiss her petition, by the surviving spouse on the ground that said deceased
was survived by him and by three legally adopted children thus excluding petitioner who
was the deceaseds sister, as an heir. (Saguinsin vs. Lindayag, G.R. No. L-17759.
December 17, 1962 )
Lack of interest is a ground for the dismissal of the action on the ground of lack
legal capacity to sue:
Of course, since the opening sentence of the section requires that the petition must
be filed by an interested person, it goes without saying that a motion to dismiss may lie not
on the basis of lack of jurisdiction on the part of the court, but rather on the ground of lack
of legal capacity to institute the proceedings. (Pilipinas Shell vs. Dumlao, G.R. No.
44888. February 7, 1992)
4.5. 4. POWERS AND DUTIES
RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWERS:
OF
EXECUTORS
AND
ADMINISTRATORS;
1) To have access to, and examine and take copies of books and papers relating to
the partnership in case of a deceased partner;
2) To examine and make invoices of the property belonging to the partnership in case
of a deceased partner;
3) To make improvements on the properties under administration with the necessary
court approval except for necessary repairs;
4) To possess and manage the estate when necessary:
a) payment of debts; and
b) payment of expenses of administration;
5) To maintain in tenantable repairs houses and other structures and fences and to
deliver the same in such repair to the heirs or devisees when directed so to do by the court.
Duty to account by the executor or administrator mandatory:
The duty of an executor or administrator to render an account is not a mere incident
of an administration proceeding which can be waived or disregarded as it is a duty that has
to be performed and duly acted upon by the court before the administration is finally
ordered closed and terminated, to the end that no part of the decedent's estate be left
unaccounted for. The fact that the final accounts had been approved does not divest the
court of jurisdiction to require supplemental accounting. (Vda. De Chua vs. CA. G.R. No.
116835 March 5, 1998)
Purpose of the bond by the administrator:
Pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 81, the bond secures the performance of the duties
and obligations of an administrator namely:
(1) to administer the estate and pay the debts;
(2) to perform all judicial orders;
(3) to account within one (1) year and at any other time when required by the
probate court; and
(4) to make an inventory within three (3) months.
More specifically, per Section 4 of the same Rule, the bond is conditioned on the
faithful execution of the administration of the decedents estate requiring the special
administrator to:
14
(1) make and return a true inventory of the goods, chattels, rights, credits, and estate
of the deceased which come to his possession or knowledge;
(2) truly account for such as received by him when required by the court; and
(3) deliver the same to the person appointed as executor or regular administrator, or
to such other person as may be authorized to receive them.
Verily, the administration bond is for the benefit of the creditors and the heirs, as it
compels the administrator, whether regular or special, to perform the trust reposed in, and
discharge the obligations incumbent upon, him, therefore, it should not be considered as
part of the necessary expenses chargeable against the estate, not being included among the
acts constituting the care, management, and settlement of the estate. (Ocampo vs.
Ocampo, G.R. No. 187879, July 5, 2010)
4.5. 5. APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR:
Order of preference in the appointment of regular administrator may be
considered in the appointment of a special administrator:
Nothing is wrong for the judge to consider the order of preference in the appointment
of a regular administrator in appointing a special administrator. After all, the consideration
that overrides all others in this respect is the beneficial interest of the appointee in the
estate of the decedent (Fule vs. CA, G.R. No. L-40502 November 29, 1976)
Principal object of the appointment of a special administrator:
The principal object of the appointment of a temporary administrator is to preserve
the estate until it can pass to the hands of a person fully authorized to administer it for the
benefit of creditors and heirs, pursuant to Section 2 of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court.
(Ocampo vs. Ocampo, G.R. No. 187879, July 5, 2010)
Nature of the duty of the special administrators:
The Special Administrators that while they may have respective interests to protect,
they are officers of the Court subject to the supervision and control of the Probate Court and
are expected to work for the best interests of the entire estate, its smooth administration,
and its earliest settlement. (Corona vs. CA, G.R. No. L-59821 August 30, 1982)
When can a special administrator be appointed?
The specific and limited powers of special administrators and that their appointment
merely temporary and subsists only until a regular administrator is duly appointed (since
Rule 80, section 1 provides for the appointment of a special administrator as a caretaker
only "when there is delay in granting letters testamentary or of administration by
any cause") (Medina vs. Beda Gonzales, G.R. No. L-34760 September 28, 1973)
Appointment of a special administrator discretionary:
The discretion to appoint a special administrator or not lies in the probate court but
that is no authority for the judge to become partial, or to make his personal likes and dislikes
prevail over, or his passions to rule, his judgment but such discretion must be based on
reason, equity, justice and legal principle. There is no reason why the same fundamental and
legal principles governing the choice of a regular administrator should not be taken into
account in the appointment of a special administrator. (Fule vs. CA, G.R. No. L-40502
November 29, 1976)
Choice of the executrix of special administrator deserves highest consideration:
The executrix's choice of Special Administrator, considering her own inability to serve
and the wide latitude of discretion given her by the testatrix in her Will (Annex "A-1"), is
entitled to the highest consideration.. (Corona vs CA, G.R. No. L-59821 August 30,
1982)
4.5. 6. GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL OF ADMINISTRATOR:
1.) neglects to render his account and settle the estate according to law, or
2) neglects to perform an order or judgment of the court, or
15
16
17
deceased debtor as these claims are not actually extinguished. (Stronghold Insurance vs.
Republic-Asahi, G.R. No. 147561, June 22, 2006)
Claims for taxes survive the death of the decedent:
Claims for taxes may be collected even after the distribution of the decedent's estate
among his heirs who shall be liable therefor in proportion of their share in the inheritance.
(Government of the Philippines vs. Pamintuan, 55 Phil. 13)
Reason for the rule:
The reason for the more liberal treatment of claims for taxes against a decedent's
estate in the form of exception from the application of the statute of non-claims, is not hard
to find. Taxes are the lifeblood of the Government and their prompt and certain availability
are imperious need. (Vera vs. Hon. Fernandez, G.R. No. L-31364 March 30, 1979)
Claims against a deceased surety on the performance bond is a claim which
survive:
Death is not a defense that he or his estate can set up to wipe out the obligations
under the performance bond. Consequently, petitioner as surety cannot use his death to
escape its monetary obligation under its performance bond. (Stronghold Insurance vs.
Republic-Asahi, G.R. No. 147561, June 22, 2006)
Claims include quasi-Contract and contingent claims
In Maclan v. Garcia, Maclan filed a civil case to recover from Ruben Garcia the
necessary expenses he spent as possessor of a piece of land. Garcia acquired the land as an
heir of its previous owner, he set up the defense that this claim should have been filed in the
special proceedings to settle the estate of his predecessor. Maclan, on the other hand,
contended that his claim arises from law and not from contract, express or implied. Thus, it
need not be filed in the settlement of the estate of Garcias predecessor, as mandated by
Section 5, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court (now Section 5, Rule 86).
The court held under these facts that a claim for necessary expenses spent as previous
possessor of the land is a kind of quasi-contract. Citing Leung Ben v OBrien, it explained
that the term implied contracts, as used in our remedial law, originated from the common
law where obligations derived from quasi-contracts and from law are both considered as
implied contracts. Thus, the term quasi-contract is included in the concept implied
contracts as used in the Rules of Court. Accordingly, the liabilities of the deceased arising
from quasi-contracts should be filed as claims in the settlement of his estate, as provided in
Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court.
A distinctive character of Metrobanks fourth-party complaint is its contingent nature the
claim depends on the possibility that Metrobank would be adjudged liable to AMC, a future
event that may or may not happen. This characteristic unmistakably marks the complaint as
a contingent one that must be included in the claims falling under the terms of Section 5,
Rule 86 of the Rules of Court. (Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company v. Absolute
Management Corporation, G.R. No. 170498. January 9, 2013)
4.6.3. CLAIM OF EXECUTOR OR ADMINISTRATOR AGAINST THE ESTATE
Remedies of a creditor:
The contract made between the administrator and the lawyer does not bind the
estate to such an extent that the lawyer can maintain an action against it and recover a
judgment which is binding upon it. In such a case the creditor has two remedies:
(1)He can prosecute an action against the administrator as an individual. If judgment
is rendered against the administrator and it is paid by him, when he presents his final
account to the Court of First Instance as such administrator he can include the amount so
paid as an expense of administration. The creditor can also
(2) Present a petition in the proceeding relating to the settlement of the estate,
asking that the court, after notice to all persons interested, allow his claim and direct the
administrator to pay it as an expense of administration. Whichever course is adopted the
18
heirs and other persons interested in the estate will have a right to inquire into the necessity
for making the contract and the value of the work performed by the attorney." (Ramos vs.
Bidin, G.R. No. L-53650 May 28, 1988)
Causal relation between the monetary claims and the acts of administration:
The rule is that where the monetary claim against the administrator has a relation to
his acts of administration in the ordinary course thereof, such claims can be presented for
payment with the court where a special proceeding for the settlement of the estate is
pending, although said claims were not incurred by the deceased during his lifetime and
collectible after his death. (Quirino vs. Gorospe, G.R. No. L-58797, January 31, 1989)
4.6.4. PAYMENT OF DEBTS
Procedure for the payment of debts:
The proper procedure allowed by the Rules of Court is for the court to order the sale
of personal estate or the sale of mortgaged of real property of the deceased and all debts or
expenses of administration should be paid out of the proceeds of the sale or mortgage. The
order for the sale or mortgage should be issued upon motion of the administrator and with
the written notice to all the heirs, legatees and devisees residing in the Philippines,
according to Rule 89, section 3, and Rule 90, section 2. (Aldamiz vs. CFI, G.R. No. L2360, December 29, 1949)
Action against a distributee of the debtors assets by the creditor based on
monetary claims:
The only instance wherein a creditor can file an action against a distributee of the
debtor's asset is under Section 5, Rule 88 of the Rules of Court. The contingent claims must
first have been established and allowed in the probate court before the creditors can file an
action directly, against the distributes, such is not the situation in the case at bar. (De
Bautista vs. De Guzman, G.R. No. L-28298 November 25, 1983)
Instances when the probate court can issue writ of execution: Exclusive:
The circumstances that the Rules of Court expressly specifies that the probate court
may issue execution
(1) to satisfy (debts of the estate out of) the contributive shares of devisees, legatees
and heirs in possession of the decedent's assets (Sec. 6. Rule 88),
(2) to enforce payment of the expenses of partition (Sec. 3, Rule 90), and
(3) to satisfy the costs when a person is cited for examination in probate proceedings
(Sec. 13, Rule 142)
Under the rule of inclusion unius est exclusion alterius, above cited instances are the
only circumstances when probate court can issue a writ of execution. (Pastor, Jr. vs. CA,
G.R. No. L-56340 June 24, 1983)
4.7. ACTIONS BY AND AGAINST EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS
4.7.1.
ACTIONS
THAT
MAY
BE
BROUGHT
AGAINST
EXECUTORS
ADMINISTRATORS
AND
The only actions that may be instituted against the executor or administrator
independently of the testate or intestate proceedings are:
1) Recovery of real or personal property or any interest therein from the estate;
2) Enforcement of a lien thereon;
3) Action to recover damages for an injury to person or property, real or personal; and
4) Action to recover damages for breach of contract entered into by the decedent, but
committed by the administrator, which is personal to him (Gutierrez vs. Barreto-Datu,
G.R. No. L-17175, July 31, 1962).
Claim by the administrator against third person is by way of an action not by
motion:
"When the demand is in favor of the administrator and the party against whom it is
enforced is a third party, not under the court's jurisdiction, the demand cannot be by mere
19
motion by the administrator, but by an independent action against the third person." Matters
affecting property under judicial administration may not be taken cognizance of by the court
in the course of intestate proceedings, if the "interests of third persons are prejudiced".
(Dela Cruz vs. Camon, G.R. No. L-21034, April 30, 1966)
When does the liability of an administrator for tax payment begin?
That "the assessment is deemed made when the notice to this effect is released,
mailed or sent to the taxpayer for the purpose of giving effect to said assessment." It
appearing that the person liable for the payment of the tax, in this case the administrator,
did not receive the assessment, the assessment could not become final and executory. (RP
vs. Dela Rama, G.R. No. L-21108, November 29, 1966)
Monetary claims against the estate?
It is apparent that actions for damages caused by tortious conduct of a defendant
survive the death of the latter. Under Rule 87, section 5, the actions that are abated by
death are:
(1) claims for funeral expenses and those for the last sickness of the decedent;
(2) judgments for money; and
(3) "all claims for money against the decedent, arising from contract express or
implied".
It is not enough that the claim against the deceased party be for money, but it must
arise from "contract express or implied", and these words (also used by the Rules in
connection with attachments and derived from the common law) were construed to include
all purely personal obligations other than those which have their source in delict or tort.
(Aguas v.s Llemos, G.R. No. L-18107, August 30, 1962)
Action that survive against the executor or administrator:
Rule 88, section 1, enumerates actions that survive against a decedent's executors
or administrators, and they are:
(1) actions to recover real and personal property from the estate;
(2) actions to enforce a lien thereon; and
(3) actions to recover damages for an injury to person or property.
When heirs may act in place of the Administrator:
1) No appointed administrator yet.
Section 2 of Rule 87 of the same Rules, which also deals with administrators, states:
Sec. 2. Executor or administrator may bring or defend actions which survive. - For the
recovery or protection of the property or rights of the deceased, an executor or
administrator may bring or defend, in the right of the deceased, actions for causes which
survive.
When no administrator has been appointed, as in this case, there is all the more
reason to recognize the heirs as the proper representatives of the deceased (Go Chan vs.
Young, G.R. No. 131889, March 12, 2001)
Even if there
exceptions, viz:
is
an
appointed
administrator,
jurisprudence
recognizes
two
20
21
be paid before
distributees post a
proportion to their
118671, January
Declaration of heirs can be made even before the satisfaction of the obligation
chargeable to the estate:
What the court is enjoined from doing is the assignment or distribution of the residue
of the deceased's estate before the above-mentioned obligations chargeable to the estate
are first paid. Nowhere from said section may it be inferred that the court cannot make a
declaration of heirs prior to the satisfaction of these obligations. (Ngo The Hua vs. Chung
Kiat Hua, G.R. No. L-17091, September 30, 1963)
Determination of charges against the estate necessary before the distribution of
legal share:
Before any conclusion about the legal share due to a compulsory heir may be reached, it is
necessary that the net estate of the decedent must be ascertained, by deducting all payable
obligations and charges from the value of the property owned by the deceased at the time
of his death; then, all donations subject to collation would be added to it, form there, the
legitime of the compulsory heir or heirs can be established; and it is only then can it be
ascertained whether or not a donation had prejudiced the legitimes. (Natcher vs. CA, G.R.
No. 133000, October 2, 2001)
Claim of the creditor of the heirs of the deceased may be collected from the share
of the heir:
The creditor of the heirs of a deceased person is entitled to collect his claim out of
the property which pertains by inheritance to said heirs, only after the debts of the testate
or intestate succession have been paid and when the net assets that are divisible among the
heirs are known, because the debts of the deceased must first be paid before his heirs can
inherit. (Litonjua vs. Montilla, G.R. No. L-4170, January 31, 1952)
4.8.2. PROJECT OF PARTITION
Power of the probate court to determine share: Project of partition:
The probate court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction to distribute the estate, has the
power to determine the proportion or parts to which each distributee is entitled . A project of
partition is merely a proposal for the distribution of the heredity estate which the court may
accept or reject. It is the court that makes that distribution of the estate and determines the
persons entitled thereto. (Vda. De Kilayko vs. Tengco, G.R. No. 45425 March 27,
1992)
Approval of
proceedings:
the
project
of
partition
does
not
terminate
administration
In the case of Montemayor vs. Gutierrez (114 Phil. 95), an estate may be partitioned
even before the termination of the administration proceedings. Hence, the approval of the
project of partition did not necessarily terminate the administration proceedings. (Luzon
Surety vs. Quebrar, G.R. No. L-40517 January 31, 1984)
Requisites in order to consider settlement proceeding closed:
22
In order that a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of a deceased may be
deemed ready for final closure:
(1) there should have been issued already an order of distribution or assignment of
the estate of the decedent among or to those entitled thereto by will or by law, but
(2) such order shall not be issued until after it is shown that the "debts, funeral
expenses, expenses of administration, allowances, taxes, etc. chargeable to the estate"
have been paid, which is but logical and proper.
(3) Besides, such an order is usually issued upon proper and specific application for
the purpose of the interested party or parties, and not of the court. (Palicte vs. Ramolete,
G.R. No. L-55076 September 21, 1987)
When will the heirs be entitled to residue of the estate?
It is only after, and not before, the payment of all debts, funeral charges, expenses of
administration, allowance to the widow, and inheritance tax shall have been effected that
the court should make a declaration of heirs or of such persons as are entitled by law to the
residue. (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 2nd ed., Vol. II, p. 397, citing Capistrano
vs. Nadurata, 49 Phil., 726; Lopez vs. Lopez, 37 Off. Gaz., 3091.) (Jimoga-On vs.
Belmonte, 84 Phil. 545, G.R. No. L-1605, September 13, 1949)
Order of distribution and delivery of the residue of the estate closes the
settlement proceeding:
What brings an intestate (or testate) proceeding to a close is the order of distribution
directing delivery of the residue to the persons entitled thereto after paying the
indebtedness, if any, left by the deceased. (PCIB vs. Escolin, G.R. Nos. L-27860 And L27896 March 29, 1974)
Grounds to set aside final liquidation:
The only instance where a party interested in a probate proceeding may have a final
liquidation set aside is when he is left out by reason of circumstances beyond his control or
through mistake or inadvertence not imputable to negligence. Even then, the better practice
to secure relief is reopening of the same case by proper motion within the reglementary
period, instead of an independent action. (Vda. De Alberto vs. Ca, G.R. No. L-29759
May 18, 1989)
After approval of partition and distribution and receipt of share of the distributee
forecloses attack o its validity:
Where a partition had not only been approved and thus become a judgment of the
court, but distribution of the estate in pursuance of such partition had fully been carried out,
and the heirs had received the property assigned to them, they are precluded from
subsequently attacking its validity or any part of it. (Ralla vs. Judge Untalan, G.R. Nos.
L-63253-54, April 27, 1989)
Power to distribute exclusive with the power court: Doctrine of non-interference:
We hold that the separate action was improperly filed for it is the probate court that
has exclusive jurisdiction to make a just and legal distribution of the estate. In the interest of
orderly procedure and to avoid confusing and conflicting dispositions of a decedent's estate,
a court should not interfere with probate proceedings pending in a co-equal court. (Solivio
vs. CA, G.R. No. 83484, February 12, 1990)
4.8.3. REMEDY OF AN HEIR ENTITLED TO RESIDUE BUT NOT GIVEN HIS SHARE:
Non-compliance of the order of distribution of estate does not terminate probate
proceedings:
As long as the order of the distribution of the estate has not been complied with, the
probate proceedings cannot be deemed closed and terminated because a judicial partition is
not final and conclusive and does not prevent the heirs from bringing an action to obtain his
share, provided the prescriptive period therefore has not elapsed (Mari vs. Bonilia, 83
Phil. 137 March 19, 1949, G.R. No. L-852).
Remedies of heir who has not receive his share:
23
As a general rule, the better practice, however, for the heir who has not received his
share, is to demand his share through a proper motion in the same probate or
administration proceedings, or for reopening of the probate or administrative
proceedings if it had already been closed, and not through an independent
action. (Solivio vs. CA, G.R. No. 83484, February 12, 1990)
ANALYSIS of Solivio and Guilas case:
In Solivio case, the proceeding were still pending, thus, the movant had lost her right to
have herself declared as a co-heir in said proceedings. Because she failed to pursue the
motion in the same action but instead erroneously chose to file a separate action. Unlike the
circumstances present in the Guilas case where the estate proceedings had already been
closed and terminated for three years, thus, the separate action filed by the movant for the
annulment of the project partition was allowed to continue.
4.8.4. INSTANCES WHEN PROBATE COURT MAY ISSUE WRIT OF EXECUTION
Probate court generally cannot issue a writ of execution. It is not supposed to issue a
writ of execution because its orders usually refer to the adjudication of claims against the
estate which the executor or administrator may satisfy without the necessity of resorting to
a writ of execution. The probate court, as such, does not render any judgment enforceable
by execution. (Pastor, Jr. vs. CA, G.R. No. L-56340, June 24, 1983)
The circumstances that the Rules of Court expressly specifies that the probate court
may issue execution
(1) to satisfy (debts of the estate out of) the contributive shares of devisees, legatees
and heirs in possession of the decedent's assets (Sec. 6. Rule 88),
(2) to enforce payment of the expenses of partition (Sec. 3, Rule 90), and
(3) to satisfy the costs when a person is cited for examination in probate proceedings
(Sec. 13, Rule 142)
Under the rule of inclusion unius est exclusion alterius, the above cited instances are
the only circumstances when probate court can issue a writ of execution. Clearly, the
provision authorizes execution to enforce payment of debts of estate. A legacy is not a debt
of the estate.(Pastor, Jr. vs. CA, G.R. No. L-56340, June 24, 1983)
4.8.5. Effects of judgment of local courts:
24
25
Trustee
The following conditions shall be deemed a part of the bond whether written therein
1) INVENTORY. The trustee shall submit to the court an inventory of the personal and
real estate belonging to him as trustee who shall have come to his possession or knowledge.
2) MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSITION. The trustee shall manage and dispose of such
estate and faithfully discharge his trust in relation thereto.
3) ACCOUNT. The trustee shall render under oath at least once a year until his trust
is fulfilled an account of the property in his hands and of the management and disposition
thereof.
4) SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS. The trustee shall settle his accounts and deliver the
remaining estate in his hands to those entitled thereto (S6 R98; Manuel R. Riguera
Special Proceeding Notes).
4.9.3. REQUISITES FOR THE REMOVAL AND RESIGNATION OF A TRUSTEE:
1) If removal appears essential in the interests of the petitioners:
a) Petition to the proper RTC of the parties beneficially interested;
b) Due notice to the trustee; and
c) Hearing
2) Removal of a trustee who is insane or otherwise incapable of discharging
his trust or evidently unsuitable therefore:
a) At the initiative of the court;
b) After due notice to all persons interested
3) Resignation:
a) whether appointed by the court or under a written instrument;
b) if it appears to the court proper to allow such resignation (FEU Remedial Law
Reviewer 2014, page 146)
4.9.4. GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL AND RESIGNATION OF A TRUSTEE
26
27
28
29
30
Parents and guardians may not therefore repudiate the inheritance of their wards
without judicial approval. This is because repudiation amounts to an alienation of property
which must pass the court's scrutiny in order to protect the interest of the ward. Not having
been judicially authorized, the Release and Waiver of Claim in the instant case is void and
will not bar private respondents from asserting their rights as heirs of the deceased. (Guy
vs. CA, G.R. No. 163707, September 15, 2006)
Power of the guardianship special and limited:
Generally, the guardianship court exercising special and limited jurisdiction cannot
actually order the delivery of the property of the ward found to be embezzled, concealed or
conveyed. In a categorical language of this Court, only in extreme cases, where property
clearly belongs to the ward or where his title thereto has been already judicially decided,
may the court direct its delivery to the guardian. (Parco & Bautista vs. CA, G.R. No. L33152 January 30, 1982)
Conflict of interest a ground for the removal of the guardian:
Conflict of interest has been held sufficient ground for removal, the court may
exercise discretion to render a guardian unsuitable for the trust. To the extent that a court
uses its discretion in appraising whether a person is unsuitable or incapable of discharging
his trust, it can be said that removal is discretionary but such discretion must be exercised
within the law, and when the latter has laid down the grounds for removal of a guardian,
discretion is limited to inquiring as to the existence of any of those grounds. (In The Matter
of Guardianship of Carmen Vda. De Bengson vs. PNB, G.R. No. L-17066, December
28, 1961)
Relationship of guardian and ward is dissolved by death
It is a well-established rule that the relationship of guardian and ward is necessarily
terminated by the death of either the guardian or the ward. The supervening event of death
rendered it pointless to delve into the propriety of Biasons appointment since the juridical
tie between him and Maura has already been dissolved. (Eduardo T. Abad vs. Leonardo
Biason and Gabriel Magno., G.R. No. 191993, December 5, 2012)
4.11.2. CONDITIONS OF THE BOND OF THE GUARDIAN
Before an appointed guardian enters upon the execution of his trust, he shall give a
BOND.
Conditions:
1) To make and return to the court, within three (3) months, a true and complete
INVENTORY of all the estate of his ward which shall come to his possession or knowledge or
to the possession or knowledge of any other person for him;
2) To FAITHFULLY execute the duties of his trust, to manage and dispose of the estate
according to these rules for the best interests of the ward, and to provide for the proper
care, custody, and education of the ward;
3) To Render a true and just ACCOUNT of all the estate of the ward in his hands, and
of all proceeds or interest derived therefrom, and of the management and disposition of the
same, at the time designated by these rules and such other times as the court directs; and
at the expiration of his trust to Settle his accounts with the court and Deliver and pay over
all the estate, effects, and moneys remaining in his hands, or due from him on such
settlement, to the person lawfully entitled thereto;
4) To PERFORM all orders of the court by him to be performed. (Section 1, rule 94)
Purpose of the Bond:
The purpose of the bond is for the protection of the property of the minor or
incompetent to the end that he may be assured of an honest administration of his funds
during his minority. The bond served as security to those interested in the property
settlement of the estate, and the parties interested acquire a vested interest in the bond
which cannot be divested without their consent, except in a manner prescribed by law
(Special Proceedings, Herrera, 2005 Edition P. 281).
Necessity of the Bond:
31
When required by statutes to give a bond, no person can qualify and acts as guardian
without complying with this condition precedent. The court should not grant letters of
guardianship without requiring a bond. (Special Proceedings, Herrera, 2005 Edition P.
282)
4.11.3. RULE ON GUARDIANSHIP OVER MINOR
SALIENT PROVISIONS UNDER THE RULE ON GUARDIANSHIP OF MINORS (AM NO.
03-02-05 SC):
I. APPLICABILITY OF THE RULE:
Father and mother as legal guardian of minor; court appointment not required:
The father and mother shall jointly exercise legal guardianship over the person and
property of their unemancipated common child without the necessity of a court
appointment. The Rule shall be suppletory to the provisions of the Family Code on
guardianship (Sec. 1, AM NO. 03-02-05 SC).
Who may file petition for guardianship?
On grounds authorized by law, any relative or other person on behalf of a minor, or
the minor himself if 14 years of age or over, may petition the Family Court for the
appointment of a general guardian over the person or property, or both, of such minor. The
petition may also be filed by the Secretary of DSWD and of the DOH in the case of an insane
minor who needs to be hospitalized (Sec. 1, AM NO. 03-02-05 SC).
II. GROUNDS FOR PETITION (Section 4, AM NO. 03-02-05 SC)
The grounds for the appointment of a guardian over the person or property or both,
of a minor are the following:
1) Death, continued absence or incapacity of his parents;
2) Suspension, deprivation or termination of parental authority;
3) Remarriage of his surviving parent, if the latter is found unsuitable to exercise
parental authority; or
4) When the best interest of the minor so require.
III. Who may be appointed guardian of the person or property or both of a minor
(Section 6, AM NO. 03-02-05 SC)
In default of parents or a court-appointed guardian, the court may appoint a guardian
of the person or property or both of a minor, observing as far as practicable, in the following
order of preference:
1) The surviving grandparent in case several grandparent survive, the court shall
select any of them taking into account all relevant considerations;
2) The oldest brother or sister of the minor over twenty-one years of age, unless unfit
or disqualified;
3) The actual custodian of the minor over twenty-one years of age, unless unfit or
disqualified; or
4) Any other person, who in the sound discretion of the court, would serve the best
interest of the minor.
IV. QUALIFICATIONS OF GUARDIANS (Section 5, AM NO. 03-02-05 SC):
a) Moral character;
b) Physical, mental and psychological condition;
c) Financial status;
d) Relationship of trust with the minor;
e) Availability to exercise the powers and duties of a guardian for the full period of
the guardianship;
f) Lack of conflict of interest with the minor; and
g) Ability to manage the property of the minor.
32
33
remaining in his hands, or due from him on such settlement, to the person lawfully entitled
thereto, as provided for in Section 14, par. C of AM No. 03-02-05 SC.
4.12. ADOPTION:
What is adoption?
Adoption is defined as the process of making a child, whether related or not to the
adopter, possess in general, the rights accorded to a legitimate child. It is a juridical act, a
proceeding in rem which creates between two persons a relationship similar to that which
results from legitimate paternity and filiation. (IN RE: Stephanie Garcia, GR 148311,
March 31, 2005)
What is the purpose of adoption?
Formerly, Adoption used to be for the benefit of the adoptor and was intended to
afford to persons who have no child of their own the consolation of having one, by creating
through legal fiction, the relation of paternity and filiation where none exists by blood
relationship. The present tendency, however, is geared more towards the promotion of the
welfare of the child and the enhancement of his opportunities for a useful and happy life,
and every intendment is sustained to promote that objective. (Daoang vs. CA, G.R. No. L34568 March 28, 1988)
4.12.1. Distinguish domestic adoption from inter-country adoption:
DOMESTIC ADOPTION
RA 8552
INTER-COUNTRY ADOPTION
RA 8043
QUALIFICATIONS:
QUALIFICATIONS:
1.)
FILIPINO CITIZEN:
(a)
legal age, in possession of full civil capacity
and legal rights,
(b)
of good moral character, has not been
convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude,
emotionally and
(c)
psychologically
children,
capable
of
caring
for
(d)
at least sixteen (16) years older than the
adoptee, and who is in a position to support and
care for his/her children in keeping with the means
of the family. (Waived when adopter is a biological
parent of the adoptee, or is the spouse of the
adoptees parent)
2.)
ALIEN:
(a)
Any
alien
possessing
the
same
qualifications as above stated for Filipino nationals:
(b)
Provided,
That
his/her
country
has
diplomatic relations with the Republic of the
Philippines,
(c)
that he/she has been living in the
Philippines for at least three (3) continuous years
prior to the filing of the application for adoption
and maintains such residence until the adoption
decree is entered,
(d)
that he/she has been certified by his/her
diplomatic or consular office or any appropriate
government agency that he/she has the legal
capacity to adopt in his/her country, and that
34
(e)
his/her government allows the adoptee to
enter his/her country as his/her adopted
son/daughter:
residency::
(i) a former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a
relative within the fourth (4th) degree of
consanguinity or affinity; or
(ii) one who seeks to adopt the legitimate
son/daughter of his/her Filipino spouse; or
(iii) one who is married to a Filipino citizen and
seeks to adopt jointly with his/her spouse a relative
within the fourth (4th) degree of consanguinity or
affinity of the Filipino spouse; or
3.)
GUARDIAN:
The guardian with respect to the ward after the
termination of the guardianship and clearance of
his/her financial accountabilities.
Husband and wife shall jointly adopt, except
in the following cases:
(i) if one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate
son/daughter of the other; or
(ii) if one spouse seeks to adopt his/her own
illegitimate son/daughter: Provided, However, that
the other spouse has signified his/her consent
thereto; or
(iii) if the spouses are legally separated from each
other.
In case husband and wife jointly adopt, or one
spouse adopts the illegitimate son/daughter of the
other, joint parental authority shall be exercised by
the spouses.
NO PUBLICATION requirement.
35
36
37
3) Child and Home Study Report The social worker shall verify with the Civil
Registry the real identity and registered name of the adoptee.
4) Hearing It shall be held within 6 months from the date of issuance of the order.
In case of application for change of name, hearing shall be held within 4 months after
the last publication of notice nor within 30 days prior to an election.
5) Supervised Trial Custody No petition for adoption shall be finally granted until
the adopters have been given by the court a supervised trial custody period for at least six
(6) months (Sec. 12).
6) Decree of Adoption After the publication of the order of hearing and no
opposition has been interposed to the petition, a decree of adoption shall be entered stating
the name by which the child is to be known which shall take effect as of the date the original
petition was filed EVEN if petitioners die before its issuance.
An amended birth certificate shall be issued. The original birth certificate shall be
stamped "cancelled" and shall be sealed in the Civil Registry records.
The new birth certificate to be issued to the adoptee shall not bear any notation that
it is an amended issue (Sec. 14). (A.M. No. 02-6-02-SC)
IN CASE OF RESCISSION/REVOCATION
Venue:
The petition shall be filed with the Family Court of the city or province where the
adoptee resides.
Time within which to file petition.
The adoptee, if incapacitated, must file the petition for recission or revocation of
adoption within five (5) years after he reaches the age of majority, or if he was imcompetent
at the time of the adoption, within five (5) years after recovery from such incompetency.
(Section 20 and 21 of RA A.M. No. 02-6-02-SC)
c) Best interest of the minor standard
The best interests of the minor and shall give paramount consideration to his
material and moral welfare. The best interests of the minor refer to the totality of the
circumstances and conditions as are most congenial to the survival, protection, and feelings
of security of the minor encouraging to his physical, psychological and emotional
development. It also means the least detrimental available alternative for safeguarding the
growth and development of the minor (Sec. 14[[A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC 2003-04-22]].
It would thus be against the spirit of the law if financial consideration were to be the
paramount consideration in deciding whether to deprive a person of parental authority over
his/her children. Again, it is the best interest of the child that takes precedence in adoption.
( Landingin vs. Republic, G.R. No. 164948, June 27, 2006)
4.13. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
What is a writ of habeas corpus?
Writ of habeas corpus is an order issued by the court commanding a person in
custody of another to produce the body of the person on the place, date and time specified
therein.
Writ of habeas corpus not available in case a person is out on bail?
The law is well settled that a person out on bail is not so restrained of his liberty as to
be entitled to a writ of habeas corpus. The restraint of liberty which would justify the
issuance of the writ must be more than a mere moral restraint; it must be actual or physical.
(Felipe Gonzales vs.. Viola, G.R. No. L-43195, August 23, 1935)
When writ of habeas corpus may be issued?
38
The most basic criterion for the issuance of the writ, therefore, is that the individual
seeking such relief be illegally deprived of his freedom of movement or placed under some
form of illegal restraint. If an individual's liberty is restrained via some legal process, the writ
of habeas corpus is unavailing. (In Re Reynaldo De Villa, G.R. No. 158802, November
17, 2004)
Consequently, the writ may also be availed of where, as a consequence of a judicial
proceeding,
(a) there has been a deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the restraint of a
person,
(b) the court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence, or
(c) an excessive penalty has been imposed, as such sentence is void as to such
excess. (Feria vs. CA, G.R. No. 122954, February 15, 2000)
4.13.1. CONTENTS OF THE PETITION
Application for the writ shall be by petition signed and verified either by the party for
whose relief it is intended, or by some person on his behalf, and shall set forth:
(a) That the person in whose behalf the application is made is imprisoned or
restrained of his liberty;
(b) The officer or name of the person by whom he is so imprisoned or restrained; or, if
both are unknown or uncertain, such officer or person may be described by an assumed
appellation, and the person who is served with the writ shall be deemed the person
intended;
(c) The place where he is so imprisoned or restrained, if known;
(d) A copy of the commitment or cause of detention of such person, if it can be
procured without impairing the efficiency of the remedy; or, if the imprisonment or restraint
is without any legal authority, such fact shall appear. (Section 3, Rule 102)
* In paragraph b, or, if both persons are unknown or uncertain, such officer or person
may be described by an assumed appellation, and the person who is served with the writ
shall be deemed the person intended.
* In paragraph d, a copy of the commitment or cause of detention should set forth, if
it can be procured without impairing the efficiency of the remedy; or, if the imprisonment or
restraint is without any legal authority, such fact shall appear. (FEU bar reviewer,
remedial law 2014, page 153-154)
4.13.2. CONTENTS OF THE RETURN
When the person to be produced is imprisoned or restrained by an officer, the person
who makes the return shall state therein, and in other cases the person in whose custody
the prisoner is found shall state, in writing to the court or judge before whom the writ is
returnable, plainly and unequivocably:
a) Whether he has or has not the party in his custody or power, or under restraint;
b) If he has the party in his custody or power, or under restraint, the authority and
the true and whole cause thereof, set forth at large, with a copy of the writ, order, execution,
or other process, if any, upon which the party is held;
c) If the party is in his custody or power or is restrained by him, and is not produced,
particularly the nature and gravity of the sickness or infirmity of such party by reason of
which he cannot, without danger, be brought before the court or judge;
d) If he has had the party in his custody or power, or under restraint, and has
transferred such custody or restraint to another, particularly to whom, at what time, for what
cause, and by what authority such transfer was made (Sec. 10).
4.13.3. DISTINGUISH PEREMPTORY WRIT FROM PRELIMINARY CITATION
39
40
41
certain civil and criminal cases. A writ of Amparo is a special proceeding. It is a remedy
by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right or particular fact. It is not a civil nor a
criminal action, hence, the application of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure is
seriously misplaced. (Secretary Leila M. De Lima, Director Nonnatus R. Rojas and
Deputy Director Reynaldo O. Esmeralda v. Magtanggol B. Gatdula; G.R. No.
204528. February 19, 2013)
The writ of amparo was promulgated by the Court pursuant to its rulemaking powers
in response to the alarming rise in the number of cases of enforced disappearances and
extrajudicial killings. It plays the preventive role of breaking the expectation of impunity in
the commission of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, as well as the curative
role of facilitating the subsequent punishment of the perpetrators. In Tapuz v. Del Rosario,
the Court has previously held that the writ of amparo is an extraordinary remedy intended to
address violations of, or threats to, the rights to life, liberty or security and that, being a
remedy of extraordinary character, it is not one to issue on amorphous or uncertain grounds
but only upon reasonable certainty. Hence, every petition for the issuance of the writ is
required to be supported by justifying allegations of fact on the following matters:
42
43
44
The writ shall issue if the Court is preliminarily satisfied with the prima facie
existence of the ultimate facts determinable from the supporting affidavits that detail the
circumstances of how and to what extent a threat to or violation of the rights to life, liberty
and security of the aggrieved party was or is being committed. (Tapuz vs. Del Rosario,
G.R. No. 182484, June 17, 2008)
WHAT NEEDS TO BE PROVED
Allegation and proof that the persons subject thereof are missing are not enough
x x x for the protective writ of amparo to issue, allegation and proof that the persons
subject thereof are missing are not enough. It must also be shown and proved by
substantial evidence that the disappearance was carried out by, or with the authorization,
support or acquiescence of, the State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to
acknowledge the same or give information on the fate or whereabouts of said missing
persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged
period of time. Simply put, the petitioner in an amparo case has the burden of proving by
substantial evidence the indispensable element of government participation. x x x (Egardo
Navia, Ruben Dio and Andrew Buising vs. Virginia Pardico, for and in behalf in
representation of Benhur Pardico., G.R. No. 184467, June 19, 2012)
Petitioner must prove the existence of a continuing threat
In cases where the violation of the right to life, liberty or security has already ceased,
it is necessary for the petitioner in an amparo action to prove the existence of a continuing
threat.[ Thus, this Court held in its Resolution in Razon v. Tagitis:
Manalo is different from Tagitis in terms of their factual settings, as enforced
disappearance was no longer a problem in that case. The enforced disappearance
of the brothers Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo effectively ended when they
escaped from captivity and surfaced, while Tagitis is still nowhere to be found and
remains
missing
more
than
two
years
after
his
reported
disappearance. An Amparo situation subsisted in Manalo, however, because of the
continuing threat to the brothers right to security; the brothers claimed that since
the persons responsible for their enforced disappearance were still at large and had not been
held accountable, the former were still under the threat of being once again abducted, kept
captive or even killed, which threat constituted a direct violation of their right to security of
person. (Emphasis supplied.) (RODOLFO NOEL LOZADA, JR., VIOLETA LOZADA and
ARTURO LOZADA, vs. PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO, EDUARDO ERMITA,
AVELINO RAZON, ANGEL ATUTUBO and SPO4 ROGER VALEROSO, * G.R.
Nos. 184379-80, April 24, 2012)
Issuance of writ cannot be justified in the absence of continuing restraint on a
persons liberty
As previously discussed, there is no basis to grant Lozada the privilege of the writ
of amparo, considering that the illegal restraint alleged in this case had already ceased and
there is no imminent or continuing restriction on his liberty. In Castillo v. Cruz, this Court
held as follows:
Although respondents release from confinement does not necessarily hinder
supplication for the writ of amparo, absent any evidence or even an allegation in the
petition that there is undue and continuing restraint on their liberty, and/or that
there exists threat or intimidation that destroys the efficacy of their right to be secure in
their persons, the issuance of the writ cannot be justified. (Emphasis supplied.) (RODOLFO
NOEL LOZADA, JR., VIOLETA LOZADA and ARTURO LOZADA, vs. PRESIDENT GLORIA
MACAPAGAL ARROYO, EDUARDO ERMITA, AVELINO RAZON, ANGEL ATUTUBO and
SPO4 ROGER VALEROSO,* G.R. Nos. 184379-80, April 24, 2012)
45
Actual threat from all the facts and circumstances of the case can qualify as a
violation that may be addressed under the rule on the writ of amparo
The alleged threat to herein petitioners' rights to life, liberty and security must be
actual, and not merely one of supposition or with the likelihood of happening. And, when the
evidence adduced establishes the threat to be existent, as opposed to a potential one, then,
it goes without saying that the threshold requirement of substantial evidence in Amparo
proceedings has also been met. Thus, in the words of Justice Brion, in the context of the
Amparo rule, only actual threats, as may be established from all the facts and circumstances
of the case, can qualify as a violation that may be addressed under the Rule on the Writ of
Amparo. (In the Matter of the Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo in Favor
of Lilibeth Ladaga Vs. Major General Reynaldo Mapagu, Commanding General of
the Philippine Army's 10th Infantry Division, et al./In the Matter of the Petition for
the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo in Favor of Angela A. Librado-Trinidad Vs. Major
General Reynaldo Mapagu, Commanding General of the Philippine Army's 10th
Infantry Division, et al.In the Matter fo the Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of
Amparo in Favor of Carlos Isagani T. Zarate Vs. Major General Reynaldo Mapagu,
Commanding General of the Philippine Army's 10th Infantry Division, et al. G.R.
No. 189689/G.R. No. 189690/G.R. No. 189691, November 13, 2012)
4.14.5. CONTENTS OF RETURN:
Within seventy-two (72) hours after service of the writ, the respondent shall file a
verified written return together with supporting affidavits which shall, among other things,
contain the following:
a) The lawful defenses to show that the respondent did not violate or threaten with
violation the right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party, through any act or
omission;
b) The steps or actions taken by the respondent to determine the fate or
whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the person or persons responsible for the threat, act
or omission;
c) All relevant information in the possession of the respondent pertaining to the
threat, act or omission against the aggrieved party; and
d) If the respondent is a public official or employee, the return shall further state the
actions that have been or will still be taken:
i. to verify the identity of the aggrieved party;
ii. to recover and preserve evidence related to the death or disappearance of the
person identified in the petition which may aid in the prosecution of the person or
persons responsible;
iii. to identify witnesses and obtain statements from them concerning the death or
disappearance;
iv. to determine the cause, manner, location and time of death or disappearance as
well as any pattern or practice that may have brought about the death or
disappearance;
v. to identify and apprehend the person or persons involved in the death or
disappearance; and
vi. to bring the suspected offenders before a competent court.
The return shall also state other matters relevant to the investigation, its resolution and
the prosecution of the case.
A general denial of the allegations in the petition shall not be allowed. (Section 9,
A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC)
4.14.6. EFFECTS OF FAILURE TO FILE RETURN
In case the respondent fails to file a return, the court, justice or judge shall proceed
to hear the petition ex parte (Section 12, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC )
The return is the proper responsive pleading; memorandum is a prohibited
pleading.
46
First the insistence on filing an Answer was inappropriate. It is the Return that serves as the
responsive pleading for petitions for the issuance of Writs of Amparo. The requirement to file
an Answer is contrary to the intention of the Court to provide a speedy remedy to those
whose right to life, liberty and security are violated or are threatened to be violated. In utter
disregard of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, Judge Pampilo insisted on issuing summons and
requiring an Answer.
xxx
The Return in Amparo cases allows the respondents to frame the issues subject to a hearing.
Hence, it should be done prior to the hearing, not after. A memorandum, on the other hand,
is a synthesis of the claims of the party litigants and is a final pleading usually required
before the case is submitted for decision. One cannot substitute for the other since these
submissions have different functions in facilitating the suit.
More importantly, a memorandum is a prohibited pleading under the Rule on the writ
of Amparo. (Secretary Leila M. De Lima, Director Nonnatus R. Rojas and Deputy
Director Reynaldo O. Esmeralda v. Magtanggol B. Gatdula; G.R. No. 204528.
February 19, 2013
4.14.7. OMNIBUS WAIVER RULE
The respondent must plead all his defenses in the return. Failure to do so shall
operate as a waiver of such defense not therein pleaded. (Section 10, A.M. No. 07-9-12SC)
4.14.8. PROCEDURE FOR HEARING
SUMMARY HEARING (Sec. 13) - The hearing on the petition shall be summary in
nature. However, the court, justice or judge may call for a preliminary conference. It shall be
from day to day until completed and given the same priority as petitions for habeas corpus.
4.14.9. INSTITUTION OF SEPARATE ACTION
This Rule on Writ of Amparo shall not preclude the filing of separate criminal, civil or
administrative actions. (Section 21, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC)
4.14.10. EFFECT OF FILING OF A CRIMINAL ACTION
When a criminal action has been commenced, no separate petition for the writ shall
be filed. The reliefs under the writ shall be available by motion in the criminal case. The
procedure under this Rule shall govern the disposition of the reliefs available under the writ
of Amparo. (Section 22, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC)
4.14.11. CONSOLIDATION:
When a criminal action is filed subsequent to the filing of a petition for the writ, the
latter shall be consolidated with the criminal action.
When a criminal action and a separate civil action are filed subsequent to a petition for a
writ of amparo, the latter shall be consolidated with the criminal action.
After consolidation, the procedure under this Rule shall continue to apply to the disposition
of the reliefs in the petition. (Section 23 of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC)
4.14.12. INTERIM RELIEFS AVAILABLE TO PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT
Interim Reliefs for Petitioner: Upon filing of the petition or at anytime before final
judgment, the court, justice or judge may grant any of the following reliefs:
(a) Temporary Protection Order. The court, justice or judge, upon motion or
motu proprio, may order that the petitioner or the aggrieved party and any member of the
immediate family be protected in a government agency or by an accredited person or
private institution capable of keeping and securing their safety. If the petitioner is an
organization, association or institution referred to in Section 3(c) of this Rule, the protection
may be extended to the officers involved.
47
The Supreme Court shall accredit the persons and private institutions that shall
extend temporary protection to the petitioner or the aggrieved party and any member of the
immediate family, in accordance with guidelines which it shall issue.
The accredited persons and private institutions shall comply with the rules and conditions
that may be imposed by the court, justice or judge.
(b) Inspection Order. The court, justice or judge, upon verified motion and after
due hearing, may order any person in possession or control of a designated land or other
property, to permit entry for the purpose of inspecting, measuring, surveying, or
photographing the property or any relevant object or operation thereon.
The motion shall state in detail the place or places to be inspected. It shall be
supported by affidavits or testimonies of witnesses having personal knowledge of the
enforced disappearance or whereabouts of the aggrieved party.
If the motion is opposed on the ground of national security or of the privileged nature
of the information, the court, justice or judge may conduct a hearing in chambers to
determine the merit of the opposition.
The movant must show that the inspection order is necessary to establish the right of
the aggrieved party alleged to be threatened or violated.
The inspection order shall specify the person or persons authorized to make the
inspection and the date, time, place and manner of making the inspection and may
prescribe other conditions to protect the constitutional rights of all parties. The order shall
expire five (5) days after the date of its issuance, unless extended for justifiable reasons.
(c) Production Order. The court, justice or judge, upon verified motion and after
due hearing, may order any person in possession, custody or control of any designated
documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things, or
objects in digitized or electronic form, which constitute or contain evidence relevant to the
petition or the return, to produce and permit their inspection, copying or photographing by
or on behalf of the movant.
The motion may be opposed on the ground of national security or of the privileged
nature of the information, in which case the court, justice or judge may conduct a hearing in
chambers to determine the merit of the opposition.
The court, justice or judge shall prescribe other conditions to protect the
constitutional rights of all the parties.
(d) Witness Protection Order. The court, justice or judge, upon motion or motu
proprio, may refer the witnesses to the Department of Justice for admission to the Witness
Protection, Security and Benefit Program, pursuant to Republic Act No. 6981.
The court, justice or judge may also refer the witnesses to other government
agencies, or to accredited persons or private institutions capable of keeping and securing
their safety.
Interim Reliefs to Respondent: Upon verified motion of the respondent and after due
hearing, the court, justice or judge may issue an inspection order or production order under
paragraphs (b) and (c) of the preceding section.
A motion for inspection order under this section shall be supported by affidavits or
testimonies of witnesses having personal knowledge of the defenses of the respondent.
(Section 14-15 of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC)
Writ is an interlocutory order
The Decision dated 20 March 2012 assailed by the petitioners could not be the judgment
or final order that is appealable under Section 19 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. x x x
This Decision pertained to the issuance of the writ under Section 6 of the Rule on
the Writ of Amparo, not the judgment under Section 18. The Decision is thus an
interlocutory order, as suggested by the fact that temporary protection, production and
inspection orders were given together with the decision. The temporary protection,
production and inspection orders are interim reliefs that may be granted by the court upon
filing of the petition but before final judgment is rendered.( Secretary Leila M. De Lima,
48
make
the
appropriate
interim
and
49
Division, et al. G.R. No. 189689/G.R. No. 189690/G.R. No. 189691, November 13,
2012)
STANDARD OF RELAXED ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
Thus, in Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis, the Court laid down a new standard of relaxed
admissibility of evidence to enable Amparo petitioners to meet the required amount of proof
showing the State's direct or indirect involvement in the purported violations and found it a
fair and proper rule in amparo cases to consider all the pieces of evidence adduced in
their totality and to consider any evidence otherwise inadmissible under our
usual rules to be admissible if it is consistent with the admissible evidence
adduced. Put simply, evidence is not to be rejected outright because it is inadmissible
under the rules for as long as it satisfies the most basic test of reason i.e., relevance of
the evidence to the issue at hand and its consistency with all other pieces of adduced
evidence. (In the Matter of the Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo in
Favor of Lilibeth Ladaga Vs. Major General Reynaldo Mapagu, Commanding
General of the Philippine Army's 10th Infantry Division, et al./In the Matter of the
Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo in Favor of Angela A. LibradoTrinidad Vs. Major General Reynaldo Mapagu, Commanding General of the
Philippine Army's 10th Infantry Division, et al.In the Matter fo the Petition for the
Issuance of a Writ of Amparo in Favor of Carlos Isagani T. Zarate Vs. Major General
Reynaldo Mapagu, Commanding General of the Philippine Army's 10th Infantry
Division, et al. G.R. No. 189689/G.R. No. 189690/G.R. No. 189691, November 13,
2012)
Writ of amparo
disappearance:
available
in
case
of
extrajudicial
killings
and
forced
50
individual. It is meant to provide a forum to enforce ones right to the truth and to
informational privacy, thus safeguarding the constitutional guarantees of a persons right to
life, liberty and security against abuse in this age of information technology. (Meralco vs
Lim, G.R. No. 18476, October 5, 2010)
It bears reiteration that like the writ of amparo, habeas data was conceived as a
response, given the lack of effective and available remedies, to address the extraordinary
rise in the number of killings and enforced disappearances. Its intent is to address violations
of or threats to the rights to life, liberty or security as a remedy independently from those
provided under prevailing Rules. (Meralco vs Lim, G.R. No. 18476, October 5, 2010)
4.15.2. AVAILABILITY OF WRIT
The writ can be invoked by such person to:
1) Find out the information collated about him, particularly by law enforcement
agencies, and
2) Compel them to disclose the use and purpose of such information.
4.15.3. DISTINGUISHED FROM HABEAS CORPUS AND AMPARO (See matrix of
distinctions between Habeas Corpus, Amparo and Habeas Data)
4.15.4. CONTENTS OF THE PETITION
A verified written petition for a writ of habeas data should contain:
(a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner and the respondent;
(b) The manner the right to privacy is violated or threatened and how it affects the
right to life, liberty or security of the aggrieved party;
(c) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to secure the data or
information;
(d) The location of the files, registers or databases, the government office, and the
person in charge, in possession or in control of the data or information, if known;
(e) The reliefs prayed for, which may include the updating, rectification, suppression
or destruction of the database or information or files kept by the respondent.
In case of threats, the relief may include a prayer for an order enjoining the act
complained of; and
(f) Such other relevant reliefs as are just and equitable. (Section 6, A. M. No. 08-1-16-SC)
Threat must be supported by independent and credible evidence
It must be stressed, however, that such threat must find rational basis on the
surrounding circumstances of the case. In this case, the petition was mainly anchored on the
alleged threats against his life, liberty and security by reason of his inclusion in the militarys
order of battle, the surveillance and monitoring activities made on him, and the intimidation
exerted upon him to compel him to be a military asset. While as stated earlier, mere threats
fall within the mantle of protection of the writs of amparo and habeas data, in the
petitioners case, the restraints and threats allegedly made allegations lack corroborations,
are not supported by independent and credible evidence, and thus stand on nebulous
grounds. (In the matter of the petition for the writ of Amparo and the writ of
Habeas Data in favor of Francis Saez, petitioner vs. GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO,
GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, P/DIR. GEN. AVELINO RAZON, 22Nn MICO, CAPT.
LAWRENCE BANAAG, SGT. CASTILLO, CAPT. ROMMEL GUTIERREZ, CAPT. JAKE
OBLIGADO, CPL. ROMAN ITO QUINT ANA, PVT. JERICO DUQUIL, CPL. ARIEL
FONTANILLA, A CERTAIN CAPT. ALCA YDO, A CERTAIN FIRST SERGEANT, PVT. ZALDY
OSlO, A CERTAIN PFC. SONNY, A CERTAIN CPL. JAMES, A CERTAIN JOEL, RODERICK
CLANZA and JEFFREY GOMEZ, respondents, G.R. No. 183533, September 25, 2012)
SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT
In the present case, the Court notes that the petition for the issuance of the privilege
of the writs of amparo and habeas data is sufficient as to its contents. The petitioner made
specific allegations relative to his personal circumstances and those of the respondents. The
petitioner likewise indicated particular acts, which are allegedly violative of his rights and
the participation of some of the respondents in their commission. As to the prerequisite
conduct and result of an investigation prior to the filing of the petition, it was explained that
51
the petitioner expected no relief from the military, which he perceived as his oppressors,
hence, his request for assistance from a human rights organization, then a direct resort to
the court.
Anent the documents sought to be the subject of the writ of habeas data prayed for,
the Court finds the requirement of specificity to have been satisfied. The documents subject
of the petition include the order of battle, those linking the petitioner to the CPP and those
he signed involuntarily, and military intelligence reports making references to him. Although
the exact locations and the custodians of the documents were not identified, this does not
render the petition insufficient. Section 6(d) of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data is clear
that the requirement of specificity arises only when the exact locations and identities of the
custodians are known. The Amparo Rule was not promulgated with the intent to make it a
token gesture of concern for constitutional rights. Thus, despite the lack of certain contents,
which the Rules on the Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data generally require, for as long as
their absence under exceptional circumstances can be reasonably justified, a petition should
not be susceptible to outright dismissal.
From the foregoing, the Court holds that the allegations stated in the petition for the
privilege of the writs of amparo and habeas data filed conform to the rules. However, they
are mere allegations, which the Court cannot accept hook, line and sinker, so to speak,
and whether substantial evidence exist to warrant the granting of the petition is a different
matter altogether. (In the matter of the petition for the writ of Amparo and the writ
of Habeas Data in favor of Francis Saez, petitioner vs. GLORIA MACAPAGAL
ARROYO, GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, P/DIR. GEN. AVELINO RAZON, 22Nn MICO,
CAPT. LAWRENCE BANAAG, SGT. CASTILLO, CAPT. ROMMEL GUTIERREZ, CAPT. JAKE
OBLIGADO, CPL. ROMAN ITO QUINT ANA, PVT. JERICO DUQUIL, CPL. ARIEL
FONTANILLA, A CERTAIN CAPT. ALCA YDO, A CERTAIN FIRST SERGEANT, PVT. ZALDY
OSlO, A CERTAIN PFC. SONNY, A CERTAIN CPL. JAMES, A CERTAIN JOEL, RODERICK
CLANZA and JEFFREY GOMEZ, respondents, G.R. No. 183533, September 25, 2012)
4.15.5. CONTENTS OF RETURN
The respondent shall file a verified written return together with supporting affidavits
within five (5) working days from service of the writ, which period may be reasonably
extended by the Court for justifiable reasons. The return shall, among other things, contain
the following:
(a) The lawful defenses such as national security, state secrets, privileged
communications, confidentiality of the source of information of media and others;
(b) In case of respondent in charge, in possession or in control of the data or
information subject of the petition;
(i) a disclosure of the data or information about the petitioner, the nature of
such data or information, and the purpose for its collection;
(ii) the steps or actions taken by the respondent to ensure the security and
confidentiality of the data or information; and,
(iii) the currency and accuracy of the data or information held; and,
(c) Other allegations relevant to the resolution of the proceeding.
A general denial of the allegations in the petition shall not be allowed. (Section 10,
A. M. No. 08-1-16-SC)
4.15.6. INSTANCES WHEN PETITION MAY BE HEARD IN CHAMBERS
A hearing in chambers may be conducted where the respondent invokes the defense
that the release of the data or information in question shall compromise national security or
state secrets, or when the data or information cannot be divulged to the public due to its
nature or privileged character. (Section 12, A. M. No. 08-1-16-SC)
4.15.7. CONSOLIDATION
When a criminal action is filed subsequent to the filing of a petition for the writ, the
latter shall be consolidated with the criminal action.
When a criminal action and a separate civil action are filed subsequent to a petition
for a writ of habeas data, the petition shall be consolidated with the criminal action.
52
After consolidation, the procedure under this Rule shall continue to govern the disposition of
the reliefs in the petition. (Section 21, A. M. No. 08-1-16-SC)
4.15.8. EFFECT OF FILING OF A CRIMINAL ACTION
When a criminal action has been commenced, no separate petition for the writ shall
be filed. The relief under the writ shall be available to an aggrieved party by motion in the
criminal case.
The procedure under this Rule shall govern the disposition of the reliefs available under the
writ of habeas data. (Section 22, A. M. No. 08-1-16-SC)
4.15.9. INSTITUTION OF SEPARATE ACTION
The filing of a petition for the writ of habeas data shall not preclude the filing of
separate criminal, civil or administrative actions. (Section 20, A. M. No. 08-1-16-SC)
4.15.10. QUANTUM OF PROOF IN APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF HABEAS
DATA
As to the Writ of Habeas Data, it is indispensable requirement before the privilege of
the writ may be extended is the showing, at least by substantial evidence, of an actual or
threatened violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim. This, in the
case at bench, the petitioner failed to do. (Roxas vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No.
189155, September 7, 2010)
Substantial evidence required
Given that the totality of the evidence presented by the petitioner failed to support
his claims, the reliefs prayed for, therefore, cannot be granted. The liberality accorded to
amparo and habeas data cases does not mean that a claimant is dispensed with the onus of
proving his case. Indeed, even the liberal standard of substantial evidence demands some
adequate evidence. (In the matter of the petition for the writ of Amparo and the
writ of Habeas Data in favor of Francis Saez, petitioner vs. GLORIA MACAPAGAL
ARROYO, GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, P/DIR. GEN. AVELINO RAZON, 22Nn MICO,
CAPT. LAWRENCE BANAAG, SGT. CASTILLO, CAPT. ROMMEL GUTIERREZ, CAPT. JAKE
OBLIGADO, CPL. ROMAN ITO QUINT ANA, PVT. JERICO DUQUIL, CPL. ARIEL
FONTANILLA, A CERTAIN CAPT. ALCA YDO, A CERTAIN FIRST SERGEANT, PVT. ZALDY
OSlO, A CERTAIN PFC. SONNY, A CERTAIN CPL. JAMES, A CERTAIN JOEL, RODERICK
CLANZA and JEFFREY GOMEZ, respondents, G.R. No. 183533, September 25, 2012)
Compliance with technical rules of procedure is ideal but it cannot be accorded
primacy
Among the grounds cited by the CA in denying the petition for the issuance of the
writs of amparo and habeas data was the defective verification which was attached to the
petition. In Tagitis, supporting affidavits required under Section 5(c) of the Rule on the Writ of
Amparo were not submitted together with the petition and it was ruled that the defect was
fully cured when the petitioner and the witness personally testified to prove the truth of their
allegations in the hearings held before the CA. In the instant case, the defective verification
was not the sole reason for the CAs denial of the petition for the issuance of the writs of
amparo and habeas data. Nonetheless, it must be stressed that although rules of procedure
play an important rule in effectively administering justice, primacy should not be accorded
to them especially in the instant case where there was at least substantial compliance with
the requirements and where petitioner himself testified in the hearings to attest to the
veracity of the claims which he stated in his petition.
To conclude, compliance with technical rules of procedure is ideal but it cannot be
accorded primacy. In the proceedings before the CA, the petitioner himself testified to prove
the veracity of his allegations which he stated in the petition. Hence, the defect in the
verification attached to the petition. Hence, the defect in the verification attached to the
petition was deemed cured. (In the matter of the petition for the writ of Amparo and
the writ of Habeas Data in favor of Francis Saez, petitioner vs. GLORIA
MACAPAGAL ARROYO, GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, P/DIR. GEN. AVELINO RAZON,
22Nn MICO, CAPT. LAWRENCE BANAAG, SGT. CASTILLO, CAPT. ROMMEL
GUTIERREZ, CAPT. JAKE OBLIGADO, CPL. ROMAN ITO QUINT ANA, PVT. JERICO
DUQUIL, CPL. ARIEL FONTANILLA, A CERTAIN CAPT. ALCA YDO, A CERTAIN FIRST
SERGEANT, PVT. ZALDY OSlO, A CERTAIN PFC. SONNY, A CERTAIN CPL. JAMES, A
53
CERTAIN JOEL, RODERICK CLANZA and JEFFREY GOMEZ, respondents, G.R. No.
183533, September 25, 2012)
SUMMARY
SUMMARY OF
OF DISTINCTIONS
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN
BETWEEN THE
THE WRIT
WRIT OF
OF AMAPARO,
AMAPARO,
WRIT
WRIT OF
OF HABEAS
HABEAS CORPUS
CORPUS AND
AND WRIT
WRIT OF
OF HABEAS
HABEAS DATA
DATA
WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS
WRIT OF AMPARO
LEGAL BASIS
A. M. No. 08-1-16-SC
DATE OF
EFFECTIVITY
July 1, 1997
February 2, 2008
A remedy available to
any person whose right to life,
liberty and security is violated
or threatened with violation
by an
unlawful act
or
omission of a public official or
employee, or of a private
individual or entity.
A remedy available to
any person whose right to
privacy in life, liberty or
security is violated or
threatened by an unlawful
act or omission of a public
official or employee, or of a
private individual or entity
engaged in the gathering,
collecting or storing of data
or information regarding
the person, family, home
and correspondence of the
aggrieved party.
DEFINITION
SCOPE
A command
directed to the person
detaining
another,
requiring him to produce
the body of the person
detained at a designated
time and place, and to
produce and to show
cause and to explain the
reason for detention.
54
2. Court of Appeals or
any member thereof
3. Supreme Court or any
member thereof
WHEN TO FILE
PUNISHMENT FOR
REFUSAL OR
FILING OF FALSE
RETURN
-NOTHING IS STATED
IN THE RULE-
Sources and Legal Basis: Rule 102, A.M. NO. 07-9-12-SC, A.M. NO. 08-1-16-SC,
Special Proceedings by Gemylito Festin)
4.16. CHANGE OF NAME
55
In special proceedings for change of name, what is involved is not a mere matter of
allowance or disallowance of the request, but a judicious evaluation of the sufficiency and
propriety of the justifications advanced in support thereof, mindful of the consequent results
in the event of its grant and with the sole prerogative for making such determination being
lodged in the courts. (RP vs. CA & Maximo Wong, G.R. No. 97906 May 21, 1992)
4.16.1. DIFFERENCES UNDER RULE 103, R.A. NO. 9048 AND RULE 108
SUMMARY
SUMMARY OF
OF DISTINCTIONS
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN
BETWEEN RULE
RULE 103,
103, RULE
RULE 108
108 AND
AND
RA
9048
RA 9048
Rule 103
Rule 108
RA 9048
Name of Law
Change of Name
Cancellation or Correction
of Entries in the Civil
Registry
Subject
Matter
Venue
Contents of
the Petition
56
(f)
when
the
surname
causes embarrassment and
there is no showing that the
desired change of name
was for a fraudulent purpose
or that the change of name
would
prejudice
public
interest.
(RP
vs.
Coseteng-Magpayo, G.R.
No. 189476, February 2,
2011)
What kind of
Proceeding
57
Administrative proceeding.
(Only an investigation may be
conducted.)
What to File
Notice and
Publication
File an affidavit.
Posting
No posting
No posting
Participant
from the
Government
Where to
Appeal
Sources and Legal Basis: RULE 103, RULE 108 AND RA 9048, Special Proceedings
2011 by Gemilito Festin
4.16.2. GROUNDS FOR CHANGE OF NAME
SECTION 4. Grounds for Change of First Name or Nickname. The petition
for change of first name or nickname may be allowed in any of the following cases:
(1) The petitioner finds the first name or nickname to be ridiculous, tainted with
dishonor or extremely difficult to write or pronounce;
(2) The new first name or nickname has been habitually and continuously used
by the petitioner and he has been publicly known by that first name or nickname in the
community; or
(3) The change will avoid confusion. (Section 4, Rule 108)
However, a change of name does not alter ones legal capacity or civil status . RA
9048 does not sanction a change of first name on the ground of sex reassignment. Rather
than avoiding confusion, changing petitioners first name for his declared purpose may only
create grave complications in the civil registry and the public interest. (Silverio vs. CA
G.R. No. 174689, October 22, 2007)
Intersex a ground for change of name:
58
Where the person is biologically or naturally intersex the determining factor in his
gender classification would be what the individual, like respondent, having reached the age
of majority, with good reason thinks of his/her sex. Respondent here has simply let nature
take its course and has not taken unnatural steps to arrest or interfere with what he was
born with. (People vs. Cagandahan, G.R. No. 166676, September 12, 2008)
Factors to be considered in case of change of name:
The reasons offered for changing the name of petitioner's daughter are: (1) that "her
daughter grew up with, and learned to love and recognize Alfredo de la Cruz as her own
father"; (2) to afford her daughter a feeling of security; and (3) that "Alfredo de la Cruz
agrees to this petition, and has signified his conformity at the foot of this pleading". Clearly,
these are not valid reasons for a change of name. (RP vs. Hon. Marcos & Pang Cha
Quen, G.R. No. L-31065, February 15, 1990)
An illegitimate child cannot use the surname of his father:
An illegitimate child whose filiation is not recognized by the father bears only a given
name and his mother surname, and does not have a middle name. The name of the
unrecognized illegitimate child therefore identifies him as such and it is only when the
illegitimate child is legitimated by the subsequent marriage of his parents or acknowledged
by the father in a public document or private handwritten instrument that he bears both his
mothers surname as his middle name and his fathers surname as his surname. (RP vs.
Capote, G.R. No. 157043, February 2, 2007)
4.17. ABSENTEES
Appointment of representative in favor of the absentee:
The law (see Articles 381, 382 and 383) requires the judge to appoint a
representative for the absentee precisely to safeguard the property or interest of the latter.
It is thus imperative that the declaration of absence be for a specific purpose, and that
purpose can be no other than the protection of the interest or property of the absentee. (In
Re Petition for Declaration Of Absence Of Roberto Reyes vs. Alejandro, G.R. No. L32026 January 16, 1986)
Requirements for representation:
There must be an immediate necessity for the representation of the absentee in
some specific urgent matters. (Castan Commentary)
Reason for the declaration of absence:
The need to have a person judicially declared an absentee is when he has properties
which have to be taken cared of or administered by a representative appointed by the Court
(Article 384, Civil Code) The petition to declare the husband an absentee and the petition to
place the management of the conjugal properties in the hands of the wife may be combined
and adjudicated in the same proceedings. (Peyer vs. Martinez, 88 Phil. 72, 80)
4.17.1. PURPOSE OF THE RULE:
A perusal of Rule 107 of the Rules of Court on absentees reveals that it is based on
the provisions of Title XIV of the New Civil Code on absence. And the reason and purpose of
the provisions of the New Civil Code on absence (Arts. 381 to 396) are:
(1) The interest of the person himself who has disappeared;
(2) The rights of third parties against the absentee, especially those who have rights
which would depend upon the death of the absentee; and
(3) The general interest of society which may require that property does not remain
abandoned without someone representing it and without an owner (Civil Code by Francisco,
Vol. 2, pp. 930- 931, 1953 Ed.) (In Re Petition For Declaration Of Absence Of Roberto
Reyes Vv Alejandro, G.R. No. L-32026 January 16, 1986)
4.17.2. WHO MAY FILE; WHEN TO FILE
WHO MAY FILE PETITION?
59
a) Spouse present;
b) Heirs instituted in a will;
c) Relatives who would succeed intestate;
d) Those who have over the absentees property some right subordinated to the
condition of his death.
WHEN TO FILE PETITION?
a) After the lapse of two (2) years from his disappearance or since the receipt of the
last news about the absentee; or
b) After the lapse of five (5) years from such disappearance, if the absentee has left a
person to administer his property. (Section 2, Rule 107)
Title XI of the Family Code is entitled SUMMARY JUDICIAL PROCEEDING IN THE FAMILY
LAW contains the following provision, inter alia:
Art. 238. Unless modified by the Supreme Court, the procedural rules in this Title
shall apply in all cases provided for in this Code requiring summary court proceedings. Such
cases shall be decided in an expeditious manner without regard to technical rules. (Art.
238, Title XI of the Family Code)
There is no doubt that the petition of Apolinaria Jomoc required, and is, therefore, a
summary proceeding under the Family Code, not a special proceeding under the Revised
Rules of Court appeal for which calls for the filing of a Record on Appeal. It being a summary
ordinary proceeding, the filing of a Notice of Appeal from the trial courts order sufficed. (RP
vs CA, G.R. No. 163604. May 6, 2005)
4.18. CANCELLATION OR CORRECTION OF ENTRIES IN THE CIVIL REGISTRY:
Substantive basis of correction or alteration of entries in the Civil Registry:
Article 412 of the New Civil Code is the only substantial law covering the alteration or
correction of entries in the civil register which alteration or correction can only be effected
through a judicial order.
When petition involves substantial and controversial alterations
It is clear from the foregoing discussion that when a petition for cancellation or correction of
an entry in the civil register involves substantial and controversial alterations, including
those on citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage, a strict
compliance with the requirements of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is mandated. If the
entries in the civil register could be corrected or changed through mere summary
proceedings and not through appropriate action wherein all parties who may be affected by
the entries are notified or represented, the door to fraud or other mischief would be set
open, the consequence of which might be detrimental and far reaching. (Republic of the
Philippines vs. Dr. Norma S. Lugsanay Uy., G.R. No. 198010, August 12, 2013)
Changes in citizenship or status are substantial changes:
Changes in the citizenship of a person or in his status from legitimate to
illegitimate or from married to not married are substantial as well as controversial, which can
only be established in an appropriate adversary proceeding. (Rosales vs Castillo-Rosales,
G.R. No. L-31712 September 28, 1984)
Clerical or typographical error can be subject of administrative correction:
Clerical or typographical errors in entries of the civil register are now to be corrected
and changed without need of a judicial order and by the city or municipal civil registrar or
consul general. What is left for the scope of operation of Rule 108 are substantial changes
and corrections in entries of the civil register. (Lee v. CA, G.R. No. 118387, October 11,
2001)
Requirement of two (2) notice of hearing to different potential oppositors
60
The fact that the notice of hearing was published in a newspaper of general
circulation and notice thereof was served upon the State will not change the nature of the
proceedings taken. A reading of Sections 4 and 5, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court
shows that the Rules mandate two sets of notices to different potential
oppositors: one given to the persons named in the petition and another given to
other persons who are not named in the petition but nonetheless may be
considered interested or affected parties. Summons must, therefore, be served not for
the purpose of vesting the courts with jurisdiction but to comply with the requirements of
fair play and due process to afford the person concerned the opportunity to protect his
interest if he so chooses.
While there may be cases where the Court held that the failure to implead and notify
the affected or interested parties may be cured by the publication of the notice of hearing,
earnest efforts were made by petitioners in bringing to court all possible interested parties.
Such failure was likewise excused where the interested parties themselves initiated the
corrections proceedings; when there is no actual or presumptive awareness of the existence
of the interested parties; or when a party is inadvertently left out. (Republic of the
Philippines vs. Dr. Norma S. Lugsanay Uy., G.R. No. 198010, August 12, 2013)
Nature of the proceedings under R.A. 9048 and 108:
Due to RA 9048, Rule 108 ceases to be summary in nature and takes on the
character of an appropriate adversary proceeding. RA 9048 now embodies the summary
procedure, while Rule 108 provides for the adversary proceeding. (Lee v. CA, G.R. No.
118387, October 11, 2001)
4.18.1. ENTRIES SUBJECT TO CANCELLATION OR CORRECTION UNDER RULE 108, IN
RELATION TO R.A. NO. 9048
1. Births
2. Marriages
3. Deaths
4. Legal separations
5. Judgments of annulments of marriage
6. Judgments of declaration of nullity of marriage
7. Legitimations
8. Adoptions
9. Acknowledgments of natural children
10. Naturalization
11. Election, loss or recovery of citizenship
12. Civil interdiction
13. Judicial determination of filiation
14. Voluntary emancipation of a minor; and
15. Changes of names (Section 2, Rule 108)
The civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest which would be
affected by such correction or cancellation shall be made parties (Section 3, Rule 108).
WHAT CORRECTIONS CAN BE MADE BY RA 9048?
RA 9048 allows these corrections:
1) Correction of clerical or typographical errors in any entry in civil registry
documents, EXCEPT corrections involving the change in sex, age, nationality and status of a
person.
2) Change of a person's first name in his/her civil registry document under certain
grounds specified under the law through administrative process. (Civil Registration - Primer
for RA 9048).
What is clerical error?
A clerical or typographical error refers to an obvious mistake committed in
clerical work, either in writing, copying, transcribing, or typing an entry in the civil register
that is harmless and innocuous, such as a misspelled name or misspelled place of birth and
the like, and can be corrected or changed only by reference to other existing record or
records. (Section 2, RA 9048)
61
62
(b) Determines who are the lawful heirs of a deceased person, or the distributive
share of the estate to which such person is entitled;
(c) Allows or disallows, in whole or in part, any claim against the estate of a deceased
person, or any claim presented on behalf of the estate in offset to a claim against it;
(d) Settles the account of an executor, administrator, trustee or guardian;
(e) Constitutes, in proceedings relating to the settlement of the estate of a deceased
person, or the administration of a trustee or guardian, a final determination in the lower
court of the rights of the party appealing, except that no appeal shall be allowed from the
appointment of a special administrator; and
(f) Is the final order or judgment rendered in the case, and affects the substantial
rights of the person appealing unless it be an order granting or denying a motion for a new
trial or for reconsideration. (Section 1, Rule 109)
4.19.2. WHEN TO APPEAL
Appeals in special proceedings necessitate a record on appeal as the original record
should remain with the trial court. Hence, the reglamentary period of thirty (30) days is
provided for the perfection of appeals in special proceedings. (Section 2, Rule 40)
4.19.3. MODES OF APPEAL
While under the concept in ordinary civil actions some of the orders stated in Sec. 1
may be considered interlocutory, the nature of special proceedings declares them as
appealable orders, as exceptions to the provisions of Sec.2, Rule 41. Thus:
a) Ordinary appeal. The appeal to the CA in cases decided by the RTC in the
exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court
which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon
the adverse party. No record on appeal shall be required except in special proceedings and
other cases of multiple or separate appeals where the law or the Rules so require. In such
cases, the record on appeal shall be filed and served in like manner.
b) Petition for review. The appeal to the CA in cases decided by the RTC in the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for review in accordance with Rule
42.
c) Petition for review on certiorari. In all cases where only questions of law are
raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the SC by petition for review on certiorari in
accordance with Rule 45.
4.19.4. RULE ON ADVANCE DISTRIBUTION:
Notwithstanding a pending controversy or appeal in proceedings to settle the estate
of a decedent, the court may permit the part of the estate not affected by the controversy or
appeal to be distributed among the heirs or legatees, in accordance with the Rule 90.
(Section 2, Rule 109)
63