Glen-de-luna-gwapo.docx

As judicial guardian over the person and the estate of a minor, X may not be appointed despite the fact that she has all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications as judicial guardian, merely on the basis of her US citizenship and residency in the US. In a similar case deicide by the SC, it held that while there is nothing in the law which requires the court to appoint residents only as administrators/guardians, the courts, charged with the responsibilities of protecting the estate of the deceased persons, wards of the estate, etc., will find much difficulty in complying with this duty by appointing administrators and guardians who are not under personally subject to their jurisdiction. Notwithstanding that there is no statutory requirement, the courts should not consent to the appointment of persons as administrators/guardians who are not personally subject of the jurisdiction of our courts here. (GR 4898 3/19/1909?) In granting or denying petitions for change of name, the question of “proper and reasonable cause” is left to the sound discretion of the court. Yes. In granting/denying petitions for change of name, it is up to the sound discretion of the court whether proper and reasonable cause was justified by the applicant. The evidence presented need only be satisfactory to the court and not all the best evidence available. A special proceeding for a change of name involve a judicious evaluation of the sufficiency and propriety of the justifications advance 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 C bought property from some of the co-heirs but when the non-signatory co-heirs found out about it and he refused to resell the land to the latter, the latter instituted a case against him, which was won in the CA (holding that the partition and sale were void and not binding on the part of the nonsignatory co-heirs who were not informed of the said transactions). The CA ruling is meritorious. It is well established in our jurisprudence that upon the death of a persons, each of his heirs becomes the undivided owner of the whole estate left with respect to the part of the portion which might be adjudicated to him, a community of ownership being thus formed among the coowners of the estate/co-heirs while it remains undivided. Unless a project of partition is effected, each heir cannot claim ownership over a definite portion of the inheritance, without partition, either by agreement or by judicial proceeding, a co-heir cannot dispose of a specific portion of the estate, what a co-owner may dispose of is only his undivided aliquot share, which shall be limited to the portion that may be allotted to him upon partition. (GR L-44426 2/25/1982)

The parents of the minor to be adopted sre also the parents of the petitioner-wife. The minor, therefore, is the latter’s legitimate brother. May an elder sister adopt a younger brother? Yes, the law does not provide for the express prohibition of adoption among relatives. There are no

The writ of habeas data is designed to enforce the right of freedom of the person. The writ of habeas date provides a judicial remedy to protect a person’s right to control information regarding one’s self, particularly in instances where such information is being collected through unlawful means in order to achieve unlawful ends. The proceeding for issuance of writ of habeas data does not entail and finding of criminal, civil or administrative culpability. If the allegations in the petition are proven through substantial evidence, then the Court may: 1. Grant access to the database or information 2. Enjoin the act complained of 3. In case the database or information contains erroneous data or information, order its deletion, destruction or rectification

An alien resident minor wants to apply for a change of name to a name by which he was baptized and by which he is known in school but the court denied his petition on the sole ground that he is an alien. The reason for denial is incorrect. The law provides that a person may file a petition to change his name in the RTC where he resides. A person refers to all natural persons but not limited to Filipino. Citizens. It also includes aliens domiciled in the PH. Defense pwede: minority not allowed to file a case. And in change of name requisite is the person who wishes to change name should file the petition not another person A was adopted by B and C when A was only a toddler. Later on in life, A filed with the RTC a petition for change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, as he wanted to reassume the surname of his natural parents because the surname of his adoptive parents sounded offensive and was seriously affecting his business and social life. The adoptive parents gave their consent to the petition for change of name. May A file a petition for change of name? If the RTC grants the petition for change of name, what, if any, will be the effect on the respective relations of A with his adoptive parents and with his natural parents? Discuss.

No. A cannot file a petition for change of name because the reasons he invoked do not fall among the grounds that would justify the filing of a petition for change of name, to wit: 1. When the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to write or prounounce 2. Change results as a legal consequence, as in legitimation 3. Change will avoid confusion 4. When one has continuously used and been known since childhood by a Filipino name and was unaware of alien parentage 5. Since desire to adopt Filipino name to erase signs of alienage all in good faith and without prejudicing anybody

6. 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 Moreover, the touchstone for the grant of a change of name is that there be “proper and reasonable cause” for which the change is sought. To justify a request for change of name, petitioner must show not only some proper or compelling reason therefore but also that he will be prejudiced by the use of his true and official name.