Pcu Spec Pro Syllabus.docx

Philippine Christian University REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 2 Atty. Freidrick Lu Course Syllabus Part 1 (Special Proceedings) SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (Rules 72 to 109) A. Settlement of Estate 1. Venue vs. Jurisdiction (Rule 73) 2. Kinds of Settlement a. Extrajudicial (1) By Agreement (2) By Self-Adjudication b. Judicial (1) Summary (Rule 74) (2) By Petition (Rule 75 to 90) a. Intestate b. Testate (3) By Partition (Rule 69) 3. The Administrator or Executor a. Special vs. Regular (Rule 80) b. Bonds (Rule 81) c. Powers and Duties (Rule 84) d. Accountability (Rule 85) 4. Claims against the Estate 5. Actions by and against Executor and Administrator (Rule 87) 6. Distribution and Partition (Rule 90) Cases: 1. Silverio Sr. v. Silver Jr. Aug. 13, 2014 2. San Luis v. San Luis 514 SCRA February 2007 3. Agtarap v. Agtarap 651 SCRA June 2011 4. Suntay III v. Cojuangco-Suntay 683 SCRA October 2012 5. Lee v. RTC of QC 423 SCRA February 2004 6. Heirs of Hilario Ruiz v. Edmond Ruiz 252 SCRA January 1996 7. Unionbank v. Santibanez 452 SCRA February 2005 8. Garcia-Quiazon v. Belen 702 SCRA July 31, 2013 9. Pilapil v. Heirs of Briones 514 SCRA February 2007 10. Sabidong v. Solas 699 SCRA June 2013 11. Aranas v. Mercado 713 SCRA 12. Butiong v. Plazo 765 SCRA 227 B. Escheats (Rule 91) 1. Definition 2. Historical Background and legal basis 3. Actions for Reversions (Sec. 5) Cases: 1. Alvarico v. Sola 382 SCRA 2. Maltos v. Heirs of Eusebio Borromeo 770 SCRA 397 C. Guardians and Guardianship (Rule 92 to 97) as amended by A.M. No. 3-02-05-SC, May 1, 2003 1. Venue v. Jurisdiction (Sec. 92) 2. Appointment: kinds and qualifications (Sec. 93) 3. Requirement (Sec. 94) 4. Power and Duties (Sec. 96)

5. Termination (Sec. 97) Cases: 1. Goyena v. Ledesma Gustilo, January 13, 2003 2. Caniza v. CA February 24, 2017 3. Neri v. Heirs of Hadji Yusop Uy 683 SCRA 4. Oropesa v. Oropesa 671 SCRA (4/20/12) 5. Abad v. Biazon 687 SCRA (12/2012) D. Trustees (Rule 98) 1. Parties 2. Kinds/Classes Case: Landbank of the Phil. V. Perez 672 SCRA E. Adoption and Custody of Minors (Rule 99 to 100) 1. The Domestic Adoption Act of 1998 (RA 8552) 2. Inter Country Adoption Act of 1995 (RA 8043) 3. Rule of Adoption (A.M. No. 02-6-02-SC dated July 31 2002 effective Aug 22 2002) a. Who may adopt (S-4) b. Who may be adopted (S-5) c. Venue and Jurisdiction (S-20) CASES: 1. Castro vs. Gregorio, 738 SCRA (10/15/14) a. Husband and wife, estranged since gay tendencies, his lover larry’s children he wanted to adopt saying that it’s his illegitimate children b. Issue on WON consent of the children and his current spouse is required? c. Held: you need the consent of the adopter’s children if they are 10 years old or older, what is required is the summons to be served to ensure that their substantive rights are not violated. d. needs the consent of the spouse in order to adopt. And since they’re still married, the lack of consent from Rosario was fatal to the adoption petition wherein the court never acquired jurisdiction over the case. 2. Cang vs. CA – 296 SCRA 128 written consent of the parent who has allegedly abandoned them a. A case for legal separation due to extramatiral affairs was approved and a decree of divorce has been acquired in the states; the wife was given custody to the 3 children and now the brother and sister in law of ana filed a petition for adoption and was granted; he contested such adoption decree b. Issue on whether or not his consent was required c. Held: yes, the consent of the parent who has allegedly abandoned them is required when the person allegedly abandoning their children has not manifested any signs of abandonment of all of his parental duties of support, love and care of his children. In fact, he was shown to cater to their whims and send them packages, letters and had phone calls with them. 3. Vda de Jacob vs CA – 255 SCRA 99 a. Tomasa is the administratrix of the deceased’s property claiming to be the wife of petitioner through a reconstituted marriage contract (not going into details, but marriage was valid cuz exceptional circumstances). and pedro pilapil was claiming to be the adopted son of Alfredo E. Jacob, he is petitioning to intervene and get his share in the estate of the deceased. (both are claiming that their respective relationships (marriage and adoption) are invalid. b. Issue on the validity of the Marriage and the adoption

c. Held: the marriage is valid, the adoption however, is not. Granted and CA reversed. Because of the fact that the person alleging to be the adopted child has the burden of proving that the adoption was indeed valid. In the present case, pedro did not overcome that burden, he used the NBI testimony which was not sufficient because the evidence presented by petitioner was given more weight in the fact that when presented the signature, the judge who granted the adoption decree said that it was not his signature. 4. Republic vs. CA – 255 SCRA 99 change of surname a. Spouses Caranto wanted to adopt Midael C Mazon, but mistakenly made the petition under Michael C. Mazon, and the publication therein. It was decreed by the RTC and the name was corrected to Michael as well. CA affirmed b. Issue on the jurisdiction of the RTC and the changing of the name of the child. c. Held: jurisdiction was acquired even if the notice did not state the true name of the child Midael C. Mazon, because of the court’s opinion that changing the name from Midael to Michael cannot possibly cause confusion because both names are “magkatugma” and “tono”. d. Held 2: the RTC should not have changed the name though. So it is void and without force and effect because the local civil registrar was not impleaded as a party in this case and under rule 108, a change in name requires the civil registrar as an indispensable party, no notice was given as well. Pursuant to 189 of the family code which states that the adopted child shall acquire the reciprocal rights and obligations arising from the relationship of a parent and child, including the right of the adopted to use the surname of the adopter and that upon reaching the age of majority, he may file a petition to change his surname, as the use by the adoptee of the surname of the adopter is more an incident rather than the object of adoption. 5. Reyes vs. Mauricio 636 SCRA a. Eugenio Reyes is the lawful owner of a plot of land where the tenant to it was Godofredo who died, succeeded by Librada and Leonida. They cultivated the land but due to a fraud committed by eugenio, they were ejected from the land because he took advantage of the illiteracy and old age of Librada Mauricio. The DARAB held that they are tenants of the subject property but on appeal, the filiation of Leonida with librada was being collaterally attacked by eugenio stating that she was merely her ward and not a legal heir of the same. b. Issue on WON filiation may be collaterally attacked. c. Held: no, “The contest of the legitimacy of a child by the husband or his heirs must be made by proper complaint before the competent court; any contest made in any other way is void.” This principle applies under our Family Code. Articles 170 and 171 of the code confirm this view, because they refer to “the action to impugn the legitimacy.” This action can be brought only by the husband or his heirs and within the periods fixed in the present articles. Hence, the filiation or the legitimacy of a child cannot be attacked collaterally. 6. In the Master of Stephanie Nathy Astorga-Garcia, 454 SCRA a. Petition of honorario catindig to adopt his own daughter and that her daughter use her mother’s surname Garcia as her middle name and his last name catindig as her surname, Trial court declared her as Nathy Catindig, and not Garcia Catindig. A MR was filed. b. Issue WON this is allowable c. Yes, because she is a legitimate child now by virtue of adoption, and she acquires all the rights provided to a legitimate child without discrimination of any kind. This includes the right to use her mother’s surname as her middle name and her adoptive father’s surname as her surname. Her continued use of her mother’s surname as her middle name maintains the maternal lineage between her and her mother. 7. In Re: Adoption of Michelle & Michael Lim, 588 SCRA (2009) a. Monina Lim who is married to Primo Lim didn’t bear children, they were entrusted with the care and custody of both Michael and michelle lim by lucia. Their parents

are unknown as shown by a DSWD certification, so they simulated the birth as if michelle and Michael were their own. Primo died, and after a few years, Monina remarried an American citizen and then availed of the amnesty in 8552 of persons who simulated births and now seeks to adopt both. b. WON Monina can singly adopt? c. Held:No, there are only 3 instances i. One spouse seeks to legitimately adopt their illegitimate son/daughter with the other’s consent ii. One spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate son/daughter of the other spouse iii. If there was legal separation d. She filed the petitions by herself, without being joined by her husband. The petitions must be denied. Dura lex sed lex. The law is explicit on requiring Husband and wife SHALL jointly adopt. The use of the word “shall” means that the joint adoption by the husband and wife is mandatory. 8. Nery vs Sampana, 734 SCRA a. This is a case with the IBP first stemming for a package annulment and adoption. Nery’s annulment was now final and executory wherein she paid 200k, she paid 100k for the adoption on installment basis and sampana asked if nery had an aunt wherein the foreign adopter may attest to as his wife. But the case was never filed, so the IBP basically suspended him for 3 months and ordered to pay back the 100k he misappropriated. b. Issue is WON the penalty is severe enough (SC said no so 3 years and 100k) but there was an issue on adoption as well. c. Held: Under the Domestic Adoption Act provision which Sampana suggested, the alien adopter can jointly adopt a relative withing the 4th degree of consanguinity or affinity of his/her Filipino spouse and the certification of the alien’s qualification to adopt is waived. 9. Castro vs Gregorio, 738 SCRA a. 10. Bartolome vs. SSS, 740 SCRA a. John Colcol was adoprted by Cornelio but the latter passed away during the minority of John, he was working as an electrician at scanmar maritime services and he met his untimely demise remaining unmarried and childless. Now here comes her biological mother Bernardina Bartolome alleging that she is the sole beneficiary of the estate and SSS claims of john. b. ISSUE ON WON death of adopted restores the parental authority to Bernardina and WON she is considered the beneficiary of john in the SSS claim c. Yes, and yes. The manner herein of terminating the adopter’s parental authority, unlike the grounds for rescission, justifies the retention of vested rights and obligations between the adopter and the adoptee, while the consequent restoration of parental authority in favor of the biological parents, simultaneously, ensures that the adoptee, who is still a minor, is not left to fend for himself at such a tender age. From the foregoing, it is apparent that the biological parents retain their rights of succession tothe estate of their child who was the subject of adoption. While the benefits arising from the death of an SSS covered employee do not form part of the estate of the adopted child, the pertinent provision on legal or intestate succession at least reveals the policy on the rights of the biological parents and those by adoption vis-à-vis the right to receive benefits from the adopted. In the same way that certain rights still attach by virtue of the blood relation, so too should certain obligations, which, the Court ruled, include the exercise o parental authority, In the event of the untimely passing of the adopter d. The Court held that Cornelio’s adoption of John, without more, does not deprive petitioner of the right to receive the benefits stemming from John’s death as a dependent parent given Cornelio’s untimely demise during John’s minority. Since the parent by adoption already died, then the death benefits under the Employees’ Compensation Program shall accrue to the biological parents.

F. Habeas Corpuz (R-102) 1. Definition and Nature or Scope (S-1) 2. Requisites for Application (S-3) 3. Disallowance or Discharge of Writ (S-4) 4. Preliminary citation vs writ (S-6) 5. The return: when evidence; when plea (S-10, 12, 13) Cases: 1. Ilusorio vs Bildner, 332 SCRA 169 a. Case where the potenciano illusorio who is the president and chairman of baguio country club 86 years old and was overdosed by his wife. A petition for guardianship over the person and property of potenciano due to the advanced age, frail health, poor eyesight, and impaired judgment. After attending a meeting, he did not return to their home in antipolo and chose to remain in Makati city and did not want to see his wife. A petition for HC was filed with the CA to have custody of his husband alleging that herein respondents refused her demands to see her husband. b. Issue on the validity of the writ of habeas corpus c. Held: invalid, because A writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention, or by which the rightful custody of a person is withheld from the one entitled thereto. To justify the grant for such petition, the restraint of liberty must an illegal and involuntary deprivation of freedom of action. The illegal restraint of liberty must be actual and effective not merely nominal or moral. d. Moreover, the case at bar does not involve the right of a parent to visit a minor child but the right of a wife to visit a husband. In any event, that the husband refuses to see his wife for private reasons, he is at liberty to do so without threat or any penalty attached to the exercise of his right, coverture, is a matter beyond judicial authority and cannot be enforced by compulsion of a writ of habeas corpus carried out by the sheriffs or by any other process. 2. Serapio vs Sandiganbayan- 396 SCRA 443 Habeas corpus not the right remedy to assert one’s right to bail a. Petitioner was the board of trustees for an ERAP foundation who deposited 200m in their foundation. He was roped into the criminal cases of Estrada. The ombudsman filed with the sandiganbayan several information and no bail was granted for the provisional release of herein petitioner. He filed with the SC for a P4HC beause he was allegedly denied due process by want of preliminary investigation. b. WON the case would prosper c. Held: no, since the right to a PI is not a constitutional right but a right in statute, he was afforded the right to answer the charges against him in the PI and jurisprudence dictates that the court will not interfere with the discretion of the ombudsman in conducting the PI. d. Also, the denial of the P4HC does not deny him his right to due process because there is no basis for the issuance of the writ in favor of the petitioner because he voluntarily surrendered himself to the authorities, habeas corpus will not lie when there is no deprivation of liberty. Aaaand Habeas corpus is not the right remedy in asserting one’s right to bail 3. Lacson vs Perez, 357 SCRA 756 the arrests remain speculative to this day since the state of rebellion has already been lifted. a. Ping is questioning the proclamation of suspension of the WoHC because of the fact that there is rebellion and insurrection. He is stating that there will be a lot of warrantless arrests hence he filed for a petition for habeas corpus b. Issue on the habeas corpus

c. Held: THE RELIEF IS PREMATURE, there is no warrantless until now to speak of, and second, it is already moot and academic since the proclamation has been lifted. 4. Sangca vs City Prosecutor of Cebu, 524 SCRA 610 moot and academic since lovely adam was already released. a. Lovely Adam was arrested in a buy bust operation and hence violating certain provisions of RA 9165. A case was filed against her but the prosecutors found that there was no probable cause or enough evidence to try her. Anisah Impal Sangca then filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus and the release of lovely impal adam. b. Issue on the WOHC case being moot and academic c. A writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement of detention in which any person is deprived of his liberty, or in which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled to it. Its essential object and purpose is to inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint and to relieve a person from it if such restraint is illegal. The singular function of a petition for HC is to protect and secure the basic freedom of physical liberty. In this case however, the petitioner has already been released! Hence, moot and academic. 5. Mangila vs. Pangilinan, 701 SCRA 355 when petitioner’s restraint and arrest was lawful, then the petition for the writ cannot be attained. a. He was arrested for multiple counts of Syndicated Estafa, he promised employment in Toronto and didn’t deliver after receiving payments. A warrant of arrest was issued and hence she was arrested. A petition for the WoHC was filed stating that she was not given the chance to quash the warrant of arrest and hence, her due process was violated. b. Issue on the validity of the writ. c. Held: Habeas corpus is the speedy remedy to relieve persons who are unlawfully restrained. In the case at bar, the restraint is not unlawful, in fact, she was arrested and detained by virtue of a valid warrant of arrest. 6. Tujan-Militante vs Cada Deapera, July 28 2014 habeas corpus involving the custody of minors, jurisdiction is vested with the family courts. No need for summons in habeas corpus cases. a. 7. Datukan Malalang Salibo vs. the Warden 755 SCRA 296 Habeas corpus is the correct remedy in cases of deprivation of liberty due to mistaken identity. a. Mistake in person when Datukan Malalang was arrested for participation in the maguindanao massacre but there was a mistake in person when they thought that he was Butukan S Malang. So he filed a case for a petition for the WoHC, which was granted and then reversed by the CA because they said that it was not the proper remedy because all other remedies have not yet been exhausted (ie. Quashal of the information or the warrant of arrest). b. Issue on the validity of WoHC as a remedy to mistake in identity. c. The correct remedy was WoHC, and it should be issued because it is the correct remedy in cases of deprivation of liberty due to mistaken identity, not only that, but the police officers herein deprived him of liberty without due process of law because the arrest was not by virtue of any warrant because he could not have been Butukan as stated in the evidence presented. H Change of Name vs. Correction/Cancellation of Entries, as amended R.A. 9048 and 10172 (Rule 103 vs. Rule 108) 1. Venue vs. Jurisdiction 2. Contents of Petition/Grounds 3. Hearing 4. Judgment 5. R.A. 9048 and its Implementing Rules Cases:

Read: Correction of Civil Entries, 715 SCRA 740 (2/11/14) 1. Eleosida vs Civil Registrar of Q.C. – May 9, 2002 a. Cases can also be for substantial clerical errors, for change of citizenship, nationality, and civil status of a party then an adversarial proceeding is still valid under 108. 2. Republic vs Kho – 526 SCRA a. 9048 lends legislative affirmation to the judicial precedence in substantial changes under 108 under an adversarial proceedings. 3. Petition for Change of Name of Julian Lim Carulusan Wang – 454 SCRA a. Singapore kid/ only for convenience/ no law found for the dropping of the middle name. 4. Braza vs. Civil Registrar of Neg. Occ. – 607 SCRA (2009) a. Substantial- cuz it affected the rights of the persons in succession, legitimate filiation. 5. Republic vs. Silverio – 537 SCRA a. Change of gender not allowed 6. Republic vs. Cagandahan – 565 SCRA a. intersex 7. Republic vs. Uy 703 SCRA (August 12, 2013). a. Strict compliance if substantial alterations in 108. 8. Minora Fujiki vs. Marinay, June 26, 2013 a. Nullify the marriage for bigamy 9. People vs. Merlinda Olaybar, February 10, 2014 a. CENOMAR vs a Korean for cancellation of entries b. WON cancellation of entries in the marriage contract which, in effect nullifies the marriage may be undertaken in a rule 108 proceedings. c. There was no marriage to speak of 10. Onde vs. CR of Las Piñas, 734 SCRA, Sept 2014 a. Substantial correction requiring adversarial proceedings which converts his filiation paternally from legitimate to illegitimate. b. The law is straight forward in these cases because successional rights are affected. I. Prerogative Writs 1. Writ of Amparo 2. Writ of Habeas Data 3. Rules on Environmental Cases a. Writ of Kalikasan b. Writ of Continuing Mandamus Cases: 1. Tapuz vs. Del Rosario, 554 SCRA 2. Caram vs Segui, August 5 2014 3. Vivares et Al. vs. St. Theres College et Al. Sept 29 2014 4. Razon vs. Tagitis, 606 SCRA 5. Roxas vs GMA, 630 SCRA 6. Burgos vs. Esperon, 715 SCRA, February 2014 7. Dolot vs. Paje, 703 SCRA (continuing Mandamus). 8. Meralco vs. Lim, 632 SCRA (10/5/2010) 9. Lee vs. Ilagan, 738 SCRA 59 10. Arigo vs. Swift, 735 SCRA 102 2015 Supreme Court Decisions: 11. Paje vs. Casino, 749 SCRA 39 12. Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tanon Strait vs. Angelo Reyes et Al., 756 SCRA 513, April 21 2015 13. West Tower Condominium vs. Phil. Ind. Corp., 758 SCRA 289 (on precautionary principle)