Special Proceedings Case Digests.pdf

Remedial Law II Special Proceedings Case Digests As discussed by Judge Debalucos --[ NOTORIOUS STUDY ]-Batch 2018

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Based on the discussion on January 22, 2018 HEIRS OF GUIDO YAPTINCHAY vs Basic Questions: HON. ROY S. DEL ROSARIO 1.) What is Special Proceedings? G.R. No. 124320. March 2, 1999 2.) Distinguish Special Proceedings from Ordinary Civil Action. 3.) What are the requirements of extrajudicial settlement of estate Principle: But the plaintiffs who claimed to be the legal heirs of the to be valid? said Guido and Isabel Yaptinchay have not shown any proof or even 4.) As a rule, probate court has no power to rule issue of ownership. a semblance of it - except the allegations that they are the legal What are the exceptions to this rule? heirs of the aforementioned Yaptinchays - that they have been 5.) What are the different modes of settling the estate? declared the legal heirs of the deceased couple. Now, the 6.) What is the remedy of one of the heirs who was not included in determination of who are the legal heirs of the deceased couple the extrajudicial settlement of estate? must be made in the proper special proceedings in court, and not in an ordinary suit for reconveyance of property. This must take precedence over the action for reconveyance. SPOUSES DOMINADOR MARCOS vs In Litam, etc., et. al. v. Rivera, this court opined that the declaration HEIRS OF ISIDRO BANGI of heirship must be made in an administration proceeding, and not G.R. No. 185745 October 15, 2014 in an independent civil action. Principle: On general principle, independent and in spite of the statute of frauds, courts of equity have enforced oral partition when it has been completely or partly performed.

FACTS: In this case, the heirs filed a civil action for recovery of ownership of a parcel of land. However, there was no showing that they have established their status as an heir.

Regardless of whether a parol partition or agreement to partition is valid and enforceable at law, equity will in proper cases, where the parol partition has actually been consummated by the taking of possession in severalty and the exercise of ownership by the parties of the respective portions set off to each, recognize and enforce such parol partition and the rights of the parties thereunder. Thus, it has been held or stated in a number of cases involving an oral partition under which the parties went into possession, exercised acts of ownership, or otherwise partly performed the partition agreement, that equity will confirm such partition and in a proper case decree title in accordance with the possession in severalty.

ISSUE: Should the heirs establish first their status as an heir?

It has been ruled that oral partition is effective when the parties have consummated it by the taking of possession in severalty and the exercise of ownership of the respective portions set off to each.

Question: What is the nature of the estate of a deceased person? Answer: It is a creation of law to enable disposition of assets to be properly made (Limjoco vs Intestate of Fragrante, 80 Phil. 776).

RULING: Yes. The determination of who are the legal heirs of the deceased couple must be made in the proper special proceedings in court, and not in an ordinary suit for reconveyance of property. This must take precedence over the action for reconveyance.

GENERAL RULE: The RTC or MTC, acting as a probate court, is a court of LIMITED JURISDICTION. Therefore, matters brought before it during a probate or settlement proceeding, which are alien to said to said proceeding and which are matters proper for an RTC or MTC as a court of general jurisdiction to decide, cannot be acted upon by a probate court. EXCEPTIONS: (a) The question of ownership of property de decided upon by the probate court if the conflicting claimants as owners are all heirs of the decedent and they all agree to submit the question of ownership for determination by the probate court. (b) During the process of inventory of the property of the estate of the decedent, in order to determine whether or not certain properties be included in such inventory, as belonging to the

“MORE PAIN, MORE GAIN!”

Page 1

Remedial Law II Special Proceedings Case Digests As discussed by Judge Debalucos --[ NOTORIOUS STUDY ]-Batch 2018

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ decedent’s estate, the probate court may decide prima facie the and testament she executed in California, she designated her ownership of said properties. brother, as the executor of her will. She left properties in the Philippines and in the U.S. Another brother of Ruperta filed a petition for probate of the will of Ruperta in the RTC so that he CYNTHIA C. ALABAN may also be appointed as special administrator for her estate. The vs nephews of Ruperta, on the other hand, opposed and claimed as COURT OF APPEALS one of their grounds that his will should not be probated in the G.R. No. 156021 September 23, 2005 Philippines but in the U.S where she executed it. Principle: According to the Rules, notice is required to be personally given to known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator. A perusal of the will shows that respondent was instituted as the sole heir of the decedent. Petitioners, as nephews and nieces of the decedent, are neither compulsory nor testate heirs who are entitled to be notified of the probate proceedings under the Rules. Respondent had no legal obligation to mention petitioners in the petition for probate, or to personally notify them of the same. Besides, assuming arguendo that petitioners are entitled to be so notified, the purported infirmity is cured by the publication of the notice. After all, personal notice upon the heirs is a matter of procedural convenience and not a jurisdictional requisite. The non-inclusion of petitioners names in the petition and the alleged failure to personally notify them of the proceedings do not constitute extrinsic fraud. Petitioners were not denied their day in court, as they were not prevented from participating in the proceedings and presenting their case before the probate court. NOTE: Any administration upon the estate of a living person (not presumed dead) is VOID.

IN RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE WILL OF RUPERTA PALAGANAS G.R. No. 169144 January 26, 2011 Principle: But our laws do not prohibit the probate of wills executed by foreigners abroad although the same have not as yet been probated and allowed in the countries of their execution. A foreign will can be given legal effects in our jurisdiction. Article 816 of the Civil Code states that the will of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the Philippines if made in accordance with the formalities prescribed by the law of the place where he resides, or according to the formalities observed in his country. FACTS: Ruperta, who is a Filipino, who became a naturalized United States (U.S.) citizen, died single and childless. In the last will “MORE PAIN, MORE GAIN!”

ISSUE: Should the will executed by a foreigner be probated in the Philippines? RULING: Yes. Our laws do not prohibit the probate of wills executed by foreigners abroad although the same have not as yet been probated and allowed in the countries of their execution. A foreign will can be given legal effects in our jurisdiction.

Question: What are the two stages of probate of a will? Answer: These are: (a) FIRST PHASE – The probate court will determine the EXTRINSIC validity of the will. (b) SECOND PHASE – The probate court will inquire into the INTRINSIC validity of the provision of the will.

EDGAR SAN LUIS vs FELICIDAD SAN LUIS G.R. No. 133743 February 6, 2007 Principle: We find that the latter has the legal personality to file the subject petition for letters of administration, as she may be considered the co-owner of Felicisimo as regards the properties that were acquired through their joint efforts during their cohabitation. Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court states that letters of administration may be granted to the surviving spouse of the decedent. However, Section 2, Rule 79 thereof also provides in part: SEC. 2. Contents of petition for letters of administration. – A petition for letters of administration must be filed by an interested person and must show, as far as known to the petitioner: x x x. An "interested person" has been defined as one who would be benefited by the estate, such as an heir, or one who has a claim

Page 2

Remedial Law II Special Proceedings Case Digests As discussed by Judge Debalucos --[ NOTORIOUS STUDY ]-Batch 2018

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ against the estate, such as a creditor. The interest must be Based on the discussion on January 24, 2018 material and direct, and not merely indirect or contingent. Questions: In the instant case, respondent would qualify as an interested 1.) Are clerk of courts qualified to be appointed as administrators of person who has a direct interest in the estate of Felicisimo by estate of decedents? virtue of their cohabitation, the existence of which was not 2.) What are the instances when a special administrator may be denied by petitioners. If she proves the validity of the divorce and appointed? Felicisimo’s capacity to remarry, but fails to prove that her 3.) What is the Statute of Non-claims? marriage with him was validly performed under the laws of the 4.) What is Tardy Claim? U.S.A., then she may be considered as a co-owner under Article 144 of the Civil Code. This provision governs the property relations between parties who live together as husband and wife ESTATE OF AMADEO MATUTE OLAVE without the benefit of marriage, or their marriage is void from the vs beginning. It provides that the property acquired by either or both HONORABLE MANASES G. REYES of them through their work or industry or their wages and salaries G.R. No. L-29407 July 29, 1983 shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership. In a co-ownership, it is not necessary that the property be acquired through their Principle: Section 1, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court, provides that joint labor, efforts and industry. Any property acquired during the "no action upon a claim for the recovery of money or debt or union is prima facie presumed to have been obtained through interest thereon shall be commenced against the executor or their joint efforts. Hence, the portions belonging to the co-owners administrator; ..." The claim of private respondent SAMCO being shall be presumed equal, unless the contrary is proven. one arising from a contract may be pursued only by filing the same in the administration proceedings in the Court of First Instance of FACTS: It was established in this case that the man married thrice. Manila (Sp. Proc. No. 25876) for the settlement of the estate of the The first wife died. The second one, an American citizen, divorced deceased Amadeo Matute Olave; and the claim must be filed him. The third wife filed a petition for administration. The children within the period prescribed, otherwise, the same shall be deemed of the first wife objected, arguing that the marriage between them "barred forever." (Section 5, Rule 86, Rules of Court). is viod, since at the time they were married, the second wife was still alive. Hence, the marriage between them was still valid. The purpose of presentation of claims against decedents of the estate in the probate court is to protect the estate of deceased ISSUE: Is the third wife qualified to file for letters for persons. That way, the executor or administrator will be able to administration? examine each claim and determine whether it is a proper one which should be allowed. Further, the primary object of the RULING: Yes. provisions requiring presentation is to apprise the administrator and the probate court of the existence of the claim so that a proper and timely arrangement may be made for its payment in NOTE: The administration of the estate in the country where he full or by pro-rata portion in the due course of the administration, died a resident – Domiciliary administration. inasmuch as upon the death of a person, his entire estate is burdened with the payment of all of his debts and no creditor shall Administration of the estate situated in another country – enjoy any preference or priority; all of them shag share pro-rata in Ancillary administration. the liquidation of the estate of the deceased.

Question: What is the collective name given to the provisions of Sec. 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court fixing a period for the filing of claims against the estate of a decedent, and if not filed within said period, are barred? Answer: These are called the STATUTE OF NON-CLAIMS (Santos vs Manarang, 27 Phil 209).

“MORE PAIN, MORE GAIN!”

Page 3

Remedial Law II Special Proceedings Case Digests As discussed by Judge Debalucos --[ NOTORIOUS STUDY ]-Batch 2018

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SERAFIN MEDINA UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs vs THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS EDMUND SANTIBAEZ G.R. No. L-34760 September 28, 1973 G.R. No. 149926. February 23, 2005 Principle: The Court does not look with favor on such practice of clerks of court or other court employees being appointed as administrators of estates of decedents pending settlement before the probate court. The objectivity and impartiality of such clerks of court or other employees so appointed as administrators in discharging their regular functions may be easily compromised by extraneous considerations. Furthermore, because of the administrator's fees and compensation payable to them, it is not inconceivable that self-interest intrudes and consciously or unconsciously, obstacles are placed against the prompt settlement and termination of the proceedings in derogation of the primordial purpose of the law to strive to have the estate settled expeditiously and promptly so that the benefits that may flow therefrom may be immediately enjoyed by the decedent's heirs and beneficiaries. Probate courts are therefore enjoined to desist from such practice of appointing their clerks of court or other court employees as administrators or receivers of estates or the like. NOTE: * If the Defendant is still alive upon accrual of the action relating to money claims arising from the contract, file the action against the defendant under the STATUTE LIMITATIONS *If the Defendant is already dead before the action can be filed, file it in the form of a money claim from contract where the STATUTE OF NON-CLAIMS shall govern.

Principle: The filing of a money claim against the decedents estate in the probate court is mandatory. This requirement is for the purpose of protecting the estate of the deceased by informing the executor or administrator of the claims against it, thus enabling him to examine each claim and to determine whether it is a proper one which should be allowed. The plain and obvious design of the rule is the speedy settlement of the affairs of the deceased and the early delivery of the property to the distributees, legatees, or heirs. `The law strictly requires the prompt presentation and disposition of the claims against the decedent's estate in order to settle the affairs of the estate as soon as possible, pay off its debts and distribute the residue. Question: May the probate court entertain a belated claim of a creditor? If so, under what circumstances? Answer: Even if the time fixed to file claims against the estate has expired, so long as there is no order of distribution yet issued by the court, on the application of a late creditor, the court, for good cause shown and on such claim to be filed within 1 month from notice of the court to the creditor giving him permission to file such late claim (Barredo vs CA GR No. L-17863 November 28, 1962).

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK vs INDEPENDENT PLANTERS ASSOCIATION, INC. G.R. No. L-28046 May 16, 1983 Principle: It is crystal clear that Article 1216 of the New Civil Code is the applicable provision in this matter. Said provision gives the creditor the right to 'proceed against anyone of the solidary debtors or some or all of them simultaneously.' The choice is undoubtedly left to the solidary, creditor to determine against whom he will enforce collection. In case of the death of one of the solidary debtors, he (the creditor) may, if he so chooses, proceed against the surviving solidary debtors without necessity of filing a claim in the estate of the deceased debtors. It is not mandatory for him to have the case dismissed against the surviving debtors and file its claim in the estate of the deceased solidary debtor . . .

“MORE PAIN, MORE GAIN!”

Page 4

Remedial Law II Special Proceedings Case Digests As discussed by Judge Debalucos --[ NOTORIOUS STUDY ]-Batch 2018

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ As correctly argued by petitioner, if Section 6, Rule 86 of the ISABEL P. PORTUGAL and JOSE DOUGLAS PORTUGAL Revised Rules of Court were applied literally, Article 1216 of the vs New Civil Code would, in effect, be repealed since under the Rules LEONILA PORTUGAL-BELTRAN of Court, petitioner has no choice but to proceed against the G.R. No. 155555. August 16, 2005 estate of Manuel Barredo only. Obviously, this provision diminishes the Bank's right under the New Civil, Code to proceed NOTE: This is an exception to the case of Yaptinchay vs Del Rosario against any one, some or all of the solidary debtors. Such a case construction is not sanctioned by the principle, which is too well settled to require citation, that a substantive law cannot be Principle: It appearing, however, that in the present case the only amended by a procedural rule. Otherwise stared, Section 6, Rule property of the intestate estate of Portugal is the Caloocan parcel 86 of the Revised Rules of Court cannot be made to prevail over of land,to still subject it, under the circumstances of the case, to a Article 1216 of the New Civil Code, the former being merely special proceeding which could be long, hence, not expeditious, procedural, while the latter, substantive. just to establish the status of petitioners as heirs is not only impractical; it is burdensome to the estate with the costs and expenses of an administration proceeding. And it is superfluous in ALAN JOSEPH A. SHEKER light of the fact that the parties to the civil case – subject of the vs present case, could and had already in fact presented evidence ESTATE OF ALICE O. SHEKER before the trial court which assumed jurisdiction over the case G.R. No. 157912 December 13, 2007 upon the issues it defined during pre-trial. Principle: The certification of non-forum shopping is required only for complaints and other initiatory pleadings. The RTC erred in ruling that a contingent money claim against the estate of a decedent is an initiatory pleading. In the present case, the whole probate proceeding was initiated upon the filing of the petition for allowance of the decedent's will. Under Sections 1 and 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court, after granting letters of testamentary or of administration, all persons having money claims against the decedent are mandated to file or notify the court and the estate administrator of their respective money claims; otherwise, they would be barred, subject to certain exceptions. Such being the case, a money claim against an estate is more akin to a motion for creditors' claims to be recognized and taken into consideration in the proper disposition of the properties of the estate.

FACTS: This case involves a small parcel of land. There was an issue as to whether or not the heirs should established first their status as an heir. ISSUE: Should the heirs establish first their status as an heir? RULING: No. According to the Supreme Court, that would be impractical.

Rodriguez vs Borja GR No. L-21993 June 21, 1966

Based on the discussion on January 28, 2018

Principle: Upon the deposit of the will, the RTC motu proprio has taken steps to fix the time and place for proving the will.

Questions to Answer: 1.) Is the judgment of the court in probate proceeding appealable? 2.) What is the writ of Habeas Corpus? 3.) What are the instances when petition for issuance of Habeas Corpus available? 4.) What is the period to file appeal in Habeas Corpus?

Pedro died andd his will was delivered to the RTC of Bulacan by Maria, not accompanied by a petition for the same. Then, Josefa, a relative of Pedro, filed a petition for settlement of estate of deceased Pedro, before the RTC of Rizal. AT the same day, Maria who delivered Pedro’s will in the RTC of Bulacan filed a petition before the Bulacan RTC for the probate of Pedro’s will. ISSUE: Which RTC acquired jurisdiction to the exclusion of the RTC?

“MORE PAIN, MORE GAIN!”

Page 5

Remedial Law II Special Proceedings Case Digests As discussed by Judge Debalucos --[ NOTORIOUS STUDY ]-Batch 2018

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RULING: Jurisdiction was vested in the Bulacan RTC upon delivery NOTE: of the will, even if no petition for allowance was filed until later, *Before a writ of habeas corpus is issued, the court usually issues because upon the deposit of the will, the RTC motu proprio has an order addressed to a person detaining another – directing him taken steps to fix the time and place for proving the will. to show cause why the writ should not be granted – this is not the writ itself. It is simply a citation to show cause. If, after receipt of this citation, the respondent deported the alien in custody in RAYMOND MICHAEL JACKSON custody, it is not contempt. vs HON. FLORITO S. MACALINO *The writ of habeas corpus is usually issued after the citation, if G.R. No. 139255. November 24, 2003 there is no cause why writ should not issue. This is the preemptory writ of habeas corpus itself. It contains an unconditional Principle: Even if the arrest of a person is illegal, supervening order for the respondent to produce the body of the detained events may bar his release or discharge from custody. What is to person in court at a time and place designated in the writ. Failure be inquired into is the legality of his detention as of, at the earliest, to produce the body upon this writ may constitute contempt if not the filing of the application for a writ of habeas corpus, for even if satisfactorily explain (Lee Yick Hon vs Collector of Customs, 41 Phil. the detention is at its inception illegal, it may, by reason of same 548). supervening events such as the instances mentioned in Section 4, Rule 102, be no longer illegal at the time of the filing of the application. Any such supervening events are the issuance of a The general rule is that the Writ of Habeas Copus will not issue if judicial process preventing the discharge of the detained person. the detention is voluntary. The exception to this rule is, when the person detained is a MINOR (Flores vs Cruz, 52 O.G. 5112). FACTS: An information was filed against an American citizen, Raymond Jackson for violation of Article 176 of the Revised Penal Code. Summary deportation proceedings were initiated at the ZACARIAS VILLAVICENCIO, ET AL., Commission of Immigration and Deportation (CID) against the vs petitioner. However, he could not be deported because he filed a JUSTO LUKBAN, ET AL., petition to lift the summary order of deportation with the CID G.R. No. L-14639 March 25, 1919 which had not yet been resolved. Principle: A prime specification of an application for a writ The CID then issued an order for his arrest for being an undesirable of habeas corpus is restraint of liberty. The essential object and alien, based on the hold departure order in one of the criminal purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into all manner cases. Jackson filed a petition for habeas corpus against the of involuntary restraint as distinguished from voluntary, and to Commissioner of the CID. The court directed its issuance as well as relieve a person therefrom if such restraint is illegal. Any restraint a return of the writ by the respondents. In their return, the which will preclude freedom of action is sufficient. The forcible respondents alleged inter alia that the detention was on the basis taking of these women from Manila by officials of that city, who of the summary deportation order issued and the hold departure handed them over to other parties, who deposited them in a order of the Makati RTC. distant region, deprived these women of freedom of locomotion just as effectively as if they had been imprisoned. Placed in Davao ISSUE: Will the petition of Habeas Corpus prosper? without either money or personal belongings, they were prevented from exercising the liberty of going when and where RULING: No. they pleased. The restraint of liberty which began in Manila continued until the aggrieved parties were returned to Manila and Even if the arrest of a person is illegal, supervening events may bar released or until they freely and truly waived his right. his release or discharge from custody. In this case, the alien citizen was already arrested by virtue of an order issued by CID. NOTE: The Writ of Habeas Corpus will lie on the following instances: (a) deprivation of any fundamental or constitutional rights;

“MORE PAIN, MORE GAIN!”

Page 6

Remedial Law II Special Proceedings Case Digests As discussed by Judge Debalucos --[ NOTORIOUS STUDY ]-Batch 2018

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (b) lack of jurisdiction of the court to impose the sentence or on medical condition where afflicted persons possess both male and the subject matter; female characteristics. Jennifer Cagandahan grew up with (c) excessive penalty or the penalty is not provided by law; secondary male characteristics. To further her petition, (d) excessive bond; Cagandahan presented in court the medical certificate evidencing (e) to inquire the legality of an order of confinement by a that she is suffering from Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia which court martial. certificate is issued by Dr. Michael Sionzon of the Department of Psychiatry, University of the Philippines-Philippine General Hospital, who, in addition, explained that Based on the discussion on January 29, 2018 “Cagandahan genetically is female but because her body secretes male hormones, her female organs did not develop normally, thus Preliminary Questions: has organs of both male and female.” The lower court decided in 1.) Distinguish Rule 103 from Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. her favor but the Office of the Solicitor General appealed before 2.) Is change of name a matter of right? the Supreme Court invoking that the same was a violation of Rules 3.) What will happen to the petition for change of name if the 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court because the said petition did not jurisdictional facts are not established? implead the local civil registrar. 4.) Does illegitimate children have the right to decide if they want to use the surname of their father or not? ISSUE: Whether or not Cagandahan’s sex as appearing in her birth 4.) Are Multiple Appeals allowed in Special Proceedings? certificate be changed. RULING: Yes. GRACE M. GRANDE vs PATRICIO T. ANTONIO G.R. No. 206248 February 18, 2014 Principle: Art. 176 gives illegitimate children the right to decide if they want to use the surname of their father or not. It is not the father (herein respondent) or the mother (herein petitioner) who is granted by law the right to dictate the surname of their illegitimate children. Nothing is more settled than that when the law is clear and free from ambiguity, it must be taken to mean what it says and it must be given its literal meaning free from any interpretation. Respondent’s position that the court can order the minors to use his surname, therefore, has no legal basis.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JENNIFER CAGANDAHAN GR No. 166676, September 12, 2008 FACTS: Jennifer Cagandahan filed before the Regional Trial Court Branch 33 of Siniloan, Laguna a Petition for Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate of her name from Jennifer B. Cagandahan to Jeff Cagandahan and her gender from female to male. It appearing that Jennifer Cagandahan is sufferingfrom Congenital AdrenalHyperplasia which is a rare “MORE PAIN, MORE GAIN!”

Ultimately, we are of the view that 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 thinks of himself as a male and considering that his body produces high levels of male hormones (androgen) there is preponderant biological support for considering him as being male. Sexual development in cases of intersex persons makes the gender classification at birth inconclusive. It is at maturity that the gender of such persons, like respondent, is fixed.

ROMMEL JACINTO DANTES SILVERIO vs REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 174689 October 22, 2007 Principle: Petitioner’s basis in praying for the change of his first name was his sex reassignment. He intended to make his first name compatible with the sex he thought he transformed himself into through surgery. However, a change of name does not alter one’s 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 petitioner’s first name for his declared purpose may only create grave complications in the civil registry and the public interest.

Page 7

Remedial Law II Special Proceedings Case Digests As discussed by Judge Debalucos --[ NOTORIOUS STUDY ]-Batch 2018

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ FACTS: On November 26, 2002, Silverio field a petition for the (d) when one has continuously used and been known since change of his first name “Rommel Jacinto” to “Mely” and his sex childhood by a Filipino name, and was unaware of alien parentage; from male to female in his birth certificate in the RTC of Manila, (e) a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of Branch 8, for reason of his sex reassignment. He alleged that he is former alienage, all in good faith and without prejudicing anybody; a male transsexual, he is anatomically male but thinks and acts like and a female. (f) when the surname causes embarrassment and there is no showing that the desired change of name was for a fraudulent The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of him, explaining that it is purpose or that the change of name would prejudice public consonance with the principle of justice and equality. interest. The Republic, through the OSG, filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals alleging that there is no law allowing change of Respondent’s reason for changing his name cannot be considered name by reason of sex alteration. Petitioner filed a reconsideration as one of, or analogous to, recognized grounds, however. but was denied. Hence, this petition. The procedure recited in Rule 103] regarding change of name and ISSUE: Whether or not the change in name and sex in birth in Rule 108 concerning the cancellation or correction of entries in certificate are allowed by reason of sex reassignment. the civil registry are separate and distinct. They may not be substituted one for the other for the sole purpose of expediency. RULING: No. To hold otherwise would render nugatory the provisions of the Rules of Court allowing the change of one’s name or the correction Petitioner’s basis in praying for the change of his first name was his of entries in the civil registry only upon meritorious grounds. sex reassignment. He intended to make his first name compatible with the sex he thought he transformed himself into through surgery. However, a change of name does not alter one’s legal IN RE: PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME AND/OR capacity or civil status. RA 9048 does not sanction a change of CORRECTION/CANCELLATION OF ENTRY IN CIVIL REGISTRY OF first name on the ground of sex reassignment. Rather than JULIAN LIN CARULASAN WANG avoiding confusion, changing petitioner’s first name for his G.R. No. 159966. March 30, 2005 declared purpose may only create grave complications in the civil registry and the public interest. Principle: In the case at bar, the only reason advanced by petitioner for the dropping his middle name is convenience. Before a person can legally change his given name, he must However, how such change of name would make his integration present proper or reasonable cause or any compelling reason into Singaporean society easier and convenient is not clearly justifying such change. In addition, he must show that he will be established. That the continued use of his middle name would prejudiced by the use of his true and official name. In this case, he cause confusion and difficulty does not constitute proper and failed to show, or even allege, any prejudice that he might suffer reasonable cause to drop it from his registered complete name. as a result of using his true and official name. In addition, petitioner is only a minor. Considering the nebulous foundation on which his petition for change of name is based, it is REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES best that the matter of change of his name be left to his judgment vs and discretion when he reaches the age of majority. As he is of ULIAN EDWARD EMERSON COSETENG-MAGPAYO tender age, he may not yet understand and appreciate the value of G.R. No. 189476 February 2, 2011 the change of his name and granting of the same at this point may just prejudice him in his rights under our laws. Principle: A person can effect a change of name under Rule 103 (CHANGE OF NAME) using valid and meritorious grounds including: FACTS: A petition was filed by Anna Lisa Wang for the change of (a) when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult name and/or correction/cancellation of entry in the Civil Registry to write or pronounce; of her son, a minor, Julian Lin Carulasan Wang before the RTC of (b) when the change results as a legal consequence such as Cebu City. legitimation; (c) when the change will avoid confusion; “MORE PAIN, MORE GAIN!”

Page 8

Remedial Law II Special Proceedings Case Digests As discussed by Judge Debalucos --[ NOTORIOUS STUDY ]-Batch 2018

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Julian was the son of Anna Lisa Wang and Sing-Foe Wang. They difficulty does not constitute proper and reasonable cause to were not yet married to each other when Julian was born. drop it from his registered complete name. Subsequently, when Julian’s parents got married, the latter executed a deed of legitimation of their son so that the child’s In addition, petitioner is only a minor. Considering the nebulous name was changed from Julian Lin Carulasan to Julian Lin foundation on which his petition for change of name is based, it is Carulasan Wang. best that the matter of change of his name be left to his judgment Reason: Since the family plans to stay in Singapore and, since in and discretion when he reaches the age of majority. As he is of Singapore middle names or the maiden surname of the mother are tender age, he may not yet understand and appreciate the value of not carried in a persons name, they anticipated that Julian will be the change of his name and granting of the same at this point may discriminated against because of his current registered name just prejudice him in his rights under our laws. which carries a middle name. Also, the spouses’ daughter and Julian might get confused if they are really brothers and sisters because they have different surnames. Lastly, Carulasan sounds MARINDUQUE MINING funny in Singapore’s Mandarin language since they do not have vs the letter “R” but if there is, they pronounce it as “L”. It is for these COURT OF APPEALS reasons why the name of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang is requested G.R. No. 161219 October 6, 2008 to be changed to Julian Lin Wang. Principle: No record on appeal shall be required except in special RTC: denied the petition. It found that the reasons proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals where abovementioned does not fall within the grounds recognized by the law or the Rules of Court so require. The reason for multiple law. It further ruled that the real reason behind is only appeals in the same case is to enable the rest of the case to convenience. proceed in the event that a separate and distinct issue is resolved by the trial court and held to be final. MR: Denied. The Singaporean practice of not carrying a middle name does not justify the dropping of the middle name of a In such a case, the filing of a record on appeal becomes legitimate Filipino child who intends to study there. The dropping indispensable since only a particular incident of the case is brought of the middle name would be tantamount to giving due to the appellate court for resolution with the rest of the recognition to or application of the laws of Singapore instead of proceedings remaining within the jurisdiction of the trial court. Philippine law which is controlling. Hence, this Appeal. SC required the OGS to comment on the petition. OSG: Trial Court is correct. legitimate children have the right to bear the surnames of both their mother and father, and such right cannot be denied by the mere expedient of dropping the same (Family Code). Mere convenience is not sufficient to support a petition for change of name and/or cancellation of entry. ISSUE: Whether the name mother’s surname should be dropped in the instant case because it is a common practice in Singapore to omit said surname?

Based on the discussion on January 31, 2018 Preliminary Questions: 1.) What is the Writ of Amparo? 2.) What is the Writ of Habeas Data? 3.) Distinguish Writ of Habeas Corpus, Writ of Amparo and Writ of Habeas Data. 4.) What is consent decree? 5.) What is continuing mandamus? 6.) What is Environmental Protection Order (EPO)? 7.) What is Precautionary Principle? 8.) What is Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)?

RULING: No. In the case at bar, the only reason advanced by petitioner for the dropping his middle name is convenience. However, how such change of name would make his integration into Singaporean society easier and convenient is not clearly established. That the continued use of his middle name would cause confusion and “MORE PAIN, MORE GAIN!”

Page 9

Remedial Law II Special Proceedings Case Digests As discussed by Judge Debalucos --[ NOTORIOUS STUDY ]-Batch 2018

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ REVEREND FATHER ROBERT P. REYES RULING: No. VS COURT OF APPEALS Here, the restriction on petitioners right to travel as a G. R. No. 182161 December 3, 2009 consequence of the pendency of the criminal case filed against him was not unlawful. Petitioner has also failed to establish that his right to travel was impaired in the manner and to the extent that it Principle: The rights that fall within the protective mantle of the amounted to a serious violation of his right to life, liberty and Writ of Amparo under Section 1 of the Rules thereon are the security, for which there exists no readily available legal recourse following: (1) right to life; (2) right to liberty; and (3) right to or remedy. security. The right to travel refers to the right to move from one place to another. As we have stated in Marcos v. Sandiganbayan, a persons right to travel is subject to the usual constraints imposed by the very necessity of safeguarding the system of justice. In such cases, whether the accused should be permitted to leave the jurisdiction for humanitarian reasons is a matter of the courts sound discretion. Here, the restriction on petitioners right to travel as a consequence of the pendency of the criminal case filed against him was not unlawful. Petitioner has also failed to establish that his right to travel was impaired in the manner and to the extent that it amounted to a serious violation of his right to life, liberty and security, for which there exists no readily available legal recourse or remedy.

VERY IMPORTANT: It is a MUST that you should be able to distinguish Writ of Habeas Corpus, Writ of Amparo and Writ of Habeas Data.

FACTS: Petitioner, Rev. Reyes was among those arrested in the Manila Peninsula Hotel siege on November 2007 and together with fifty (50) others, they were brought to Camp Crame to await inquest proceedings. On December 2007, a Hold Departure Order List was issued ordering the Immigration to include the name of petitioner and 49 others for the alleged crime of Rebellion, in the interest of national security and public safety. Petitioner’s counsel wrote the DOJ Secretary requesting the lifting of HDO, in view of the dismissal of his client’s criminal case on rebellion. That, the DOJ Secretary has not acted on their request, petitioner then next recourse was for the availment of the writ of amparo because of his alleged continued restraint of right to travel.

ARMANDO Q. CANLAS vs NAPICO HOMEOWNERS ASS’N., G.R. No. 182795 June 5, 2008 Principle: The threatened demolition of a dwelling by virtue of a final judgment of the court, which in this case was affirmed with finality by this Court in G.R. Nos. 177448, 180768, 177701, 177038, is not included among the enumeration of rights as stated in the above-quoted Section 1 for which the remedy of a writ of amparo is made available. Their claim to their dwelling, assuming they still have any despite the final and executory judgment adverse to them, does not constitute right to life, liberty and security. There is, therefore, no legal basis for the issuance of the writ of amparo. FACTS: It appears that petitioners are settlers in a certain parcel of land situated in Barangay Manggahan, Pasig City. Their dwellings/houses have either been demolished as of the time of filing of the petition, or is about to be demolished pursuant to a court judgment. ISSUE: Is there legal basis for the issuance of the Writ of Amparo? RULING: No. The threatened demolition of a dwelling by virtue of a final judgment of the court, which in this case was affirmed with finality by this Court in G.R. Nos. 177448, 180768, 177701, 177038, is not included among the enumeration of rights as stated in the abovequoted Section 1 for which the remedy of a writ of amparo is made available. Their claim to their dwelling, assuming they still have any despite the final and executory judgment adverse to them, does not constitute right to life, liberty and security. There is, therefore, no legal basis for the issuance of the writ of amparo.

ISSUE: Is the right to travel covered by the Writ of Amparo? “MORE PAIN, MORE GAIN!”

Page 10

Remedial Law II Special Proceedings Case Digests As discussed by Judge Debalucos --[ NOTORIOUS STUDY ]-Batch 2018

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ EDGARDO NAVIA FACTS: It appears that on 27 February 2012, respondent vs Magtanggol B. Gatdula filed a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Virginia Pardico Amparo in the Regional Trial Court of Manila. It was raffled to the GR No. 184467 June 19 2012 sala of Judge Silvino T. Pampilo, Jr. on the same day. Principle: But lest it be overlooked, in an amparo petition, proof of disappearance alone is not enough. It is likewise essential to establish that such disappearance was carried out with the direct or indirect authorization, support or acquiescence of the government. This indispensable element of State participation is not present in this case. The petition does not contain any allegation of State complicity, and none of the evidence presented tend to show that the government or any of its agents orchestrated Bens disappearance. In fact, none of its agents, officials, or employees were impleaded or implicated in Virginias amparo petition whether as responsible or accountable persons. Thus, in the absence of an allegation or proof that the government or its agents had a hand in Bens disappearance or that they failed to exercise extraordinary diligence in investigating his case, the Court will definitely not hold the government or its agents either as responsible or accountable persons.

SECRETARY LEILA M. DE LIMA vs MAGTANGGOL B. GATDULA G.R. No. 204528 February 19, 2013 Principle: The insistence on filing of 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. A memorandum is a prohibited pleading under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. 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.

“MORE PAIN, MORE GAIN!”

The Amparo was directed against petitioners Justice Secretary Leila M. De Lima, Director Nonnatus R. Rojas and Deputy Director Reynaldo O. Esmeralda of the National Bureau of Investigation (DE LIMA, ET AL. for brevity). Gatdula wanted De Lima, et al. "to cease and desist from framing up Petitioner [Gatdula] for the fake ambush incident by filing bogus charges of Frustrated Murder against Petitioner [Gatdula] in relation to the alleged ambush incident." Instead of deciding on whether to issue a Writ of Amparo, the judge issued summons and ordered De Lima, et al. to file an Answer. He also set the case for hearing on 1 March 2012. The hearing was held allegedly for determining whether a temporary protection order may be issued. During that hearing, counsel for De Lima, et al. manifested that a Return, not an Answer, is appropriate for Amparo cases. Judge Pampilo insisted that "[s]ince no writ has been issued, return is not the required pleading but answer". The judge noted that the Rules of Court apply suppletorily in Amparo cases. He opined that the Revised Rules of Summary Procedure applied and thus required an Answer. Judge Pampilo proceeded to conduct a hearing on the main case on 7 March 2012. Even without a Return nor an Answer, he ordered the parties to file their respective memoranda within five (5) working days after that hearing. Since the period to file an Answer had not yet lapsed by then, the judge also decided that the memorandum of De Lima, et al. would be filed in lieu of their Answer. The RTC rendered a "Decision" granting the issuance of the Writ of Amparo. The RTC also granted the interim reliefs prayed for, namely: temporary protection, production and inspection orders. The production and inspection orders were in relation to the evidence and reports involving an on-going investigation of the attempted assassination of Deputy Director Esmeralda. It is not clear from the records how these pieces of evidence may be related to the alleged threat to the life, liberty or security of the respondent Gatdula.

Page 11

Remedial Law II Special Proceedings Case Digests As discussed by Judge Debalucos --[ NOTORIOUS STUDY ]-Batch 2018

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ISSUES: Considering that the default setting for Facebook posts (1) Is the filing of the answer appropriate? is"Public," it can be surmised that the photographs in question (2) Is the filing of memorandum appropriate? were viewable to everyone on Facebook, absent any proof that (3) Is the application of the Revised Rules of Summary Proceeding petitioners’ children positively limited the disclosure of the to Writ of Amparo correct? photograph. If suchwere the case, they cannot invoke the protection attached to the right to informational privacy. RULING: (1) No. FACTS: In January 2012, Angela Tan, a high school student at St. Theresa’s College (STC), uploaded on Facebook several pictures of The insistence on filing of an Answer was inappropriate. It is the her and her classmates (Nenita Daluz and Julienne Suzara) wearing Return that serves as the responsive pleading for petitions for the only their undergarments. issuance of Writs of Amparo. The requirement to file an Answer is Thereafter, some of their classmates reported said photos to their contrary to the intention of the Court to provide a speedy remedy teacher, Mylene Escudero. Escudero, through her students, viewed to those whose right to life, liberty and security are violated or are and downloaded said pictures. She showed the said pictures to threatened to be violated. In utter disregard of the Rule on the STC’s Discipline-in-Charge for appropriate action. Writ of Amparo, Judge Pampilo insisted on issuing summons and Later, STC found Tan et al to have violated the student’s requiring an Answer. handbook and banned them from “marching” in their graduation ceremonies scheduled in March 2012. (2) No. A memorandum is a prohibited pleading under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. (3) No. 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.

RHONDA AVE S. VIVARES vs ST. THERESA'S COLLEGE G.R. No. 202666 September 29, 2014 Principle: To "engage" in something is different from undertaking a business endeavour. To "engage" means "to do or take part in something." It does not necessarily mean that the activity must be done in pursuit of a business. What matters is that the person or entity must be gathering, collecting or storing said data or information about the aggrieved party or his or her family. Whether such undertaking carries the element of regularity, as when one pursues a business, and is in the nature of a personal endeavour, for any other reason or even for no reason at all, is immaterial and such will not prevent the writ from getting to said person or entity.

“MORE PAIN, MORE GAIN!”

The issue went to court but despite a TRO (temporary restraining order) granted by the Cebu RTC enjoining the school from barring the students in the graduation ceremonies, STC still barred said students. Subsequently, Rhonda Vivares, mother of Nenita, and the other mothers filed a petition for the issuance of the writ of habeas data against the school. They argued, among others, that: 1. The privacy setting of their children’s Facebook accounts was set at “Friends Only.” They, thus, have a reasonable expectation of privacy which must be respected. 2. The photos accessed belong to the girls and, thus, cannot be used and reproduced without their consent. Escudero, however, violated their rights by saving digital copies of the photos and by subsequently showing them to STC’s officials. Thus, the Facebook accounts of the children were intruded upon; 3. The intrusion into the Facebook accounts, as well as the copying of information, data, and digital images happened at STC’s Computer Laboratory; They prayed that STC be ordered to surrender and deposit with the court all soft and printed copies of the subject data and have such data be declared illegally obtained in violation of the children’s right to privacy. The Cebu RTC eventually denied the petition. Hence, the instant petition.

Page 12

Remedial Law II Special Proceedings Case Digests As discussed by Judge Debalucos --[ NOTORIOUS STUDY ]-Batch 2018

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for writ of habeas data is It must be underscored, however, that since her tenure of office proper. has already ended, former President Arroyo can no longer invoke the privilege of presidential immunity as a defense to evade judicial determination of her responsibility or accountability for RULING: Yes, it is proper but in this case, it will not prosper. the alleged violation or threatened violation of the right to life, liberty and security of Lozada. Contrary to the arguments of STC, the Supreme Court ruled that: 1. The petition for writ of habeas data can be availed of even if this is not a case of extralegal killing or enforced disappearance; and 2. The writ of habeas data can be availed of against STC even if it is not an entity engaged in the business of “gathering, collecting, or storing data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party”. First, the Rule on Habeas Data does not state that it can be applied only in cases of extralegal killings or enforced disappearances. Second, nothing in the Rule would suggest that the habeas data protection shall be available only against abuses of a person or entity engaged in the business of gathering, storing, and collecting of data. The Supreme Court ruled that if an online networking site (ONS) like Facebook has privacy tools, and the user makes use of such privacy tools, then he or she has a reasonable expectation of privacy (right to informational privacy). Thus, such privacy must be respected and protected. In this case, however, there is no showing that the students concerned made use of such privacy tools. Evidence would show that that their post (status) on Facebook were published as “Public”. RODOLFO NOEL LOZADA, JR., vs PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO G.R. Nos. 184379-80 April 24, 2012 Principle: It is settled in jurisprudence that the President enjoys immunity from suit during his or her tenure of office or actual incumbency. Conversely, this presidential privilege of immunity cannot be invoked by a non-sitting president even for acts committed during his or her tenure. In the case at bar, the events that gave rise to the present action, as well as the filing of the original Petition and the issuance of the CA Decision, occurred during the incumbency of former President Arroyo. In that respect, it was proper for the court a quo to have dropped her as a respondent on account of her presidential immunity from suit.

“MORE PAIN, MORE GAIN!”

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY vs ROSARIO GOPEZ LIM G.R. No. 184769 October 5, 2010 Principle: The writs of amparo and habeas data will NOT issue to protect purely property or commercial concerns nor when the grounds invoked in support of the petitions therefor are vague or doubtful. Employment constitutes a property right under the context of the due process clause of the Constitution. It is evident that respondent’s reservations on the real reasons for her transfer - a legitimate concern respecting the terms and conditions of one’s employment - are what prompted her to adopt the extraordinary remedy of habeas data. Jurisdiction over such concerns is inarguably lodged by law with the NLRC and the Labor Arbiters. In another vein, there is no showing from the facts presented that petitioners committed any unjustifiable or unlawful violation of respondent’s right to privacy vis-a-vis the right to life, liberty or security. To argue that petitioners’ refusal to disclose the contents of reports allegedly received on the threats to respondent’s safety amounts to a violation of her right to privacy is at best speculative. FACTS: A letter was sent to the Meralco admin department in bulacan denouncing Lim, an administrative clerk. She was ordered to be transferred to Alabang due to concerns over her safety. She complained under the premise that the transfer was a denial of her due process. She wrote a letter stating that: “It appears that the veracity of these accusations and threats to be [sic] highly suspicious, doubtful or are just mere jokes if they existed at all.” She added, “instead of the management supposedly extending favor to me, the net result and effect of management action would be a punitive one.” She asked for deferment thereafter. Since the company didn’t respond, she filed for a writ of habeas data in the Bulacan RTC due to meralco’s omission of provding her with details about the report of the letter. To her, this constituted a violation of her

Page 13

Remedial Law II Special Proceedings Case Digests As discussed by Judge Debalucos --[ NOTORIOUS STUDY ]-Batch 2018

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ liberty and security. She asked for disclosure of the data and measures for keeping the confidentiality of the data. Meralco filed a reply saying that the jurisdiction was with the NLRC and that the petition wasn’t in order. The trial court ruled in her favor. In the SC, Meralco petitioned that Habeas Data applies to entities engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding an aggrieved party’s person, family or home. ISSUE: Is Habeas Data the right remedy for Lim? RULING: No. The writs of amparo and habeas data will NOT issue to protect purely property or commercial concerns nor when the grounds invoked in support of the petitions therefor are vague or doubtful. ==END== “Study hard as if the bar exam is near.” “Be in love with the law and the law will guide you.” “Always aim high and fulfill your dreams!”

“MORE PAIN, MORE GAIN!”

Page 14