Spec-pro-finals-ot.docx

Special Proceedings Final Exam 2018 1. Children of first marriage of dad found out after 60 years that the children of 2nd marriage had an Extrajudicial Partition of the only property left by their dad, excluding them, so they filed for annulment of aid partition but both RTC and CA ruled that their right is already barred by laches. The children of the first marriage indisputably have an interest in the property of the first marriage, as well as in the property of the second. They have a right to allege and prove in the appropriate proceeding in the proper forum that their father, Rodolfo P. Gonzalez, had brought property acquired by him and his first wife into his second marriage with Luz Dizon, and also that all or certain of the property acquired during said second marriage is conjugal in character. And they have the right to challenge in the appropriate proceeding in the proper forum their father's capacity to make dispositions of property acquired during either of his marriages. The issues necessarily involved are factual, i.e., the degree of Rodolfo P. Gonzalez' alleged incapacity; the manner and other circumstances of the acquisition of the properties during the first and second marriages; the attendance of fraud, or undue pressure or influence on any dispositions or attempts at disposition by Rodolfo P. Gonzalez of any property. Obviously, these issues cannot be resolved without evidence which, to be sure, may not be received and passed upon by this Court in the first instance. And until these issues are resolved, there is clearly a need to warn any person interested in any property titled in the name of Rodolfo P. Gonzalez, among others, of the pendency of the proceedings which might eventually result in the invalidation of any transaction made by said Rodolfo P. Gonzalez affecting such property. As Mr. and Mrs. Rodolfo P. Gonzalez point out, "the effect of the notices of lis pendens . . .are not delimited to the properties of Dr. RODOLFO P. GONZALEZ, but extend to the proprietary interests of Dra. LUZ DIZONGONZALEZ, . . . who is not personally involved in the proceedings for guardianship." This is true, but it cannot be helped, since the latter's name does in fact appear in the titles together with her husband's, and under the law, no disposition of property can be made alone by either of them. Whether the person whose property is sought to be placed under guardianship be sole owner, or co-owner of property is immaterial. If shown to be non compos mentis, any disposition made by him under either supposition would be equally defective. The argument that anyway, Mrs. Luz Dizon-Gonzalez is required by law to "concur and co-sign" and hence, there "could be no instance . . . that Dr. Gonzalez might be influenced to execute deeds of transfers to his prejudice," would appear to beg the question since the accusation is that it is precisely the wife who has influenced and might continue to influence him" to his prejudice. Gonzales v. Ordonez-Benitez

2. 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.

3. 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. Sec. 5. Judgment. - Upon satisfactory proof in open court on the date fixed in the order that such order has been published as directed and that the allegations of the petition are true, the court shall, if proper and reasonable cause appears for changing the name of the petitioner, adjudge that such name be changed in accordance with the prayer of the petition. Rule 103 (Change of Name) of the Rules of Court What is a proper and reasonable cause therefor rests on the sound discretion of the court. The evidence presented need only be satisfactory to the court. "Not a mere matter of allowance or disallowance of the petition, 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." Republic v. Bolante CHANGE OF NAME; DETERMINATION OF PROPER AND REASONABLE CAUSE, DISCRETIONARY ON COURT; EVIDENCE REQUIRED. — 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. (Yu v. Republic, L-14022, Dec. 28, 1959; Ong v. Republic L-15549, June 30, 1962.) The evidence presented need only be satisfactory to the Court and not all the best evidence available. (Ching v. Republic, L8301, April 28, 1956.) 4. 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).

5. 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? SEC. 4. Who may adopt. – The following may adopt: (1) Any Filipino citizen of legal age, in possession of full civil capacity and legal rights, of good moral character, has not been convicted of any crime involving moral

turpitude; who is emotionally and psychologically capable of caring for children, at least sixteen (16) years older than the adoptee, and who is in a position to support and care for his children in keeping with the means of the family. The requirement of a 16-year difference between the age of the adopter and adoptee may be waived when the adopter is the biological parent of the adoptee or is the spouse of the adoptee’s parent; *** SEC. 5. Who may be adopted. – The following may be adopted: (1) Any person below eighteen (18) years of age who has been voluntarily committed to the Department under Articles 154, 155 and 156 of P.D. No. 603 or judicially declared available for adoption; (2) The legitimate child of one spouse, by the other spouse; (3) An illegitimate child, by a qualified adopter to raise the status of the former to that of legitimacy; (4) A person of legal age regardless of civil status, if, prior to the adoption, said person has been consistently considered and treated by the adopters as their own child since minority; (5) A child whose adoption has been previously rescinded; or (6) A child whose biological or adoptive parents have died: Provided, That no proceedings shall be initiated within six (6) months from the time of death of said parents. (7) A child not otherwise disqualified by law or these rules. Rule on Adoption per AM 02-6-02-SC 6. The writ of habeas data is designed to enforce the right of freedom of the person. SEC.1. Habeas Data. - The writ of habeas data is 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. Writ of Habeas Data (AM No. 08-1-16-SC) 7. The lessees of the land were sought to be evicted but since they put up a residential house in the property, they refused to do so. The lessee, who was also the judicial administratrix of her husband co-lessee, entered into an amicable settlement with the owner of the property wherein she agreed to leave the property. She was however replaced as judicial administratrix so she now claims that the amicable settlement cannot be enforced against her. Can her acts bind the next administrator of the estate?

8. 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. Valid Grounds for Change of Name 1. The name is ridiculous, tainted with dishonor or extremely difficult to write or pronounce. 2. Change results as a legal consequence of legitimation 3. The change will avoid confusion. 4. A sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of former alienage [Uy v. Republic, G.R. No. L22712 (1965)] 5. Having continuously used and been known since childhood by a Filipino name, having been unaware of alien parentage [Ang Chay v. Republic, G.R. No. L-28507 (1970)] 6. Intersexuality is a valid ground for change of name and change of entry of sex in the civil registry. Where the person is biologically or naturally intersex the determining factor in his gender classification would be what the individual, having reached the age of majority, with good reason, thinks of his sex. Sexual development in cases of intersex persons makes the gender classification at birth inconclusive. It is at maturity that the gender of such persons is fixed. [People v. Cagandahan, G.R. No. 166676 (2008)] DESIRE TO ADOPT A FILIPINO NAME TO ERASE SIGNS OF FORMER ALIEN NATIONALITY. — In the absence of prejudice to the State or any individual, a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of a former alien nationality which unduly hamper social and business life, is a proper and reasonable cause for a change of name. It is not trivial, whimsical or capricious. Uy v. Republic, G.R. No. L-22712 (1965) 9-10. 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.