Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 10

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 174975 January 20, 2009
LUISA !O MONTA"ER, ALEJAN#RO MONTA"ER, JR., LILLI$ET!
MONTA"ER%$ARRIOS, AN# R!O#ORA ELEANOR MONTA"ER%#ALUPAN,
Petitioners,
vs.
S!ARI&A #ISTRICT COURT, 'OURT! S!ARI&A JU#ICIAL #ISTRICT,
MARA(I CIT), LILING #ISANGCOPAN, AN# ALMA!LEEN LILING S.
MONTA"ER, Respondents.
D ! I S I O N
PUNO, C.J.:
This Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition see"s to set aside the Orders of the Shari#a
District !ourt, Fourth Shari#a $udicial District, Mara%i !it&, dated 'u(ust )), )**+
,
and
Septe-ber ),, )**+.
)
On 'u(ust ,., ,/0+, petitioner 1uisa 2ho Monta3er, a Ro-an !atholic, -arried
'le4andro Monta3er, Sr. at the I--aculate !onception Parish in !ubao, 5ue6on !it&.
7

Petitioners 'le4andro Monta3er, $r., 1illibeth Monta3er89arrios, and Rhodora leanor
Monta3er8Dalupan are their children.
:
On Ma& )+, ,//0, 'le4andro Monta3er, Sr. died.
0
On 'u(ust ,/, )**0, private respondents 1ilin( Disan(copan and her dau(hter,
'l-ahleen 1ilin( S. Monta3er, both Musli-s, filed a ;!o-plaint; for the 4udicial
partition of properties before the Shari#a District !ourt.
+
The said co-plaint %as entitled
;'l-ahleen 1ilin( S. Monta3er and 1ilin( M. Disan(copan v. the states and Properties
of 1ate 'le4andro Monta3er, Sr., 1uisa 2ho Monta3er, 1illibeth 2. Monta3er, 'le4andro
2ho Monta3er, $r., and Rhodora leanor 2. Monta3er,; and doc"eted as ;Special !ivil
'ction No. .8*0.;
.
In the said co-plaint, private respondents -ade the follo%in(
alle(ations< =,> in Ma& ,//0, 'le4andro Monta3er, Sr. died? =)> the late 'le4andro
Monta3er, Sr. is a Musli-? =7> petitioners are the first fa-il& of the decedent? =:> 1ilin(
Disan(copan is the %ido% of the decedent? =0> 'l-ahleen 1ilin( S. Monta3er is the
dau(hter of the decedent? and =+> the esti-ated value of and a list of the properties
co-prisin( the estate of the decedent.
@
Private respondents pra&ed for the Shari#a District
!ourt to order, a-on( others, the follo%in(< =,> the partition of the estate of the decedent?
and =)> the appoint-ent of an ad-inistrator for the estate of the decedent.
/

Petitioners filed an 'ns%er %ith a Motion to Dis-iss -ainl& on the follo%in( (rounds<
=,> the Shari#a District !ourt has no 4urisdiction over the estate of the late 'le4andro
Monta3er, Sr., because he %as a Ro-an !atholic? =)> private respondents failed to pa&
the correct a-ount of doc"et fees? and =7> private respondents# co-plaint is barred b&
prescription, as it see"s to establish filiation bet%een 'l-ahleen 1ilin( S. Monta3er and
the decedent, pursuant to 'rticle ,.0 of the Fa-il& !ode.
,*
On Nove-ber )), )**0, the Shari#a District !ourt dis-issed the private respondents#
co-plaint. The district court held that 'le4andro Monta3er, Sr. %as not a Musli-, and its
4urisdiction eAtends onl& to the settle-ent and distribution of the estate of deceased
Musli-s.
,,

On Dece-ber ,), )**0, private respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
,)
On
Dece-ber )@, )**0, petitioners filed an Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration,
alle(in( that the -otion for reconsideration lac"ed a notice of hearin(.
,7
On $anuar& ,.,
)**+, the Shari#a District !ourt denied petitioners# opposition.
,:
Despite findin( that the
said -otion for reconsideration ;lac"ed notice of hearin(,; the district court held that
such defect %as cured as petitioners ;%ere notified of the eAistence of the pleadin(,; and
it too" co(ni6ance of the said -otion.
,0
The Shari#a District !ourt also reset the hearin(
for the -otion for reconsideration.
,+
In its first assailed order dated 'u(ust )), )**+, the Shari#a District !ourt reconsidered
its order of dis-issal dated Nove-ber )), )**0.
,.
The district court allo%ed private
respondents to adduce further evidence.
,@
In its second assailed order dated Septe-ber
),, )**+, the Shari#a District !ourt ordered the continuation of trial, trial on the -erits,
adduce-ent of further evidence, and pre8trial conference.
,/

See"in( recourse before this !ourt, petitioners raise the follo%in( issues<
I.
RSPONDNT SB'RI#' DISTRI!T !OCRT D M'R'EI !ITF 1'!2S
$CRISDI!TION OVR PTITIONRS EBO 'R ROM'N !'TBO1I!S 'ND NON8
MCS1IMS.
II.
RSPONDNT SB'RI#' DISTRI!T !OCRT D M'R'EI !ITF DID NOT '!5CIR
$CRISDI!TION OVR ;TB ST'TS 'ND PROPRTIS OF TB 1'T
'1$'NDRO MONT'GR, SR.; EBI!B IS NOT ' N'TCR'1 OR $CRIDI!'1
PRSON EITB !'P'!ITF TO 9 SCD.
III.
RSPONDNT SB'RI#' DISTRI!T !OCRT DID NOT '!5CIR $CRISDI!TION
OVR TB !OMP1'INT OF PRIV'T RSPONDNTS 'H'INST PTITIONRS
DC TO NON8P'FMNT OF TB FI1INH 'ND DO!2TINH FS.
IV.
RSPONDNT SB'RI#' DISTRI!T !OCRTIM'R'EI !ITF !OMMITTD
HR'V '9CS OF DIS!RTION 'MOCNTINH TO 1'!2 OF $CRISDI!TION
EBN IT DNID TB OPPOSITION OF PTITIONRS 'ND TBN HR'NTD
TB MOTION FOR R!ONSIDR'TION OF RSPONDNTS 1I1INH
DIS'NH!OP'N, T '1. EBI!B E'S F'T'11F DF!TIV FOR 1'!2 OF '
;NOTI! OF B'RINH.;
V.
RSPONDNT SB'RI#' DISTRI!T !OCRTIM'R'EI !ITF !OMMITTD
HR'V '9CS OF DIS!RTION 'MOCNTINH TO 1'!2 OF $CRISDI!TION
EBN IT ST SP1. !IVI1 '!TION .8*0 FOR TRI'1 VN IF TB !OMP1'INT
P1'IN1F RV'1S TB'T RSPONDNT '1M'B1N 1I1INH S. MONT'GR
S2S R!OHNITION FROM '1$'NDRO MONT'GR, SR. EBI!B !'CS OF
'!TION PRS!RI9D CPON TB D'TB OF '1$'NDRO MONT'GR, SR. ON
M'F )+, ,//0.
In their !o--ent to the Petition for Certiorari, private respondents stress that the Shari#a
District !ourt -ust be (iven the opportunit& to hear and decide the Juestion of %hether
the decedent is a Musli- in order to deter-ine %hether it has 4urisdiction.
)*

$urisdiction< Settle-ent of the state of Deceased Musli-s
Petitioners# first ar(u-ent, re(ardin( the Shari#a District !ourt#s 4urisdiction, is
dependent on a Juestion of fact, %hether the late 'le4andro Monta3er, Sr. is a Musli-.
Inherent in this ar(u-ent is the pre-ise that there has alread& been a deter-ination
resolvin( such a Juestion of fact. It bears e-phasis, ho%ever, that the assailed orders did
not deter-ine %hether the decedent is a Musli-. The assailed orders did, ho%ever, set a
hearin( for the purpose of resolvin( this issue.
'rticle ,:7=b> of Presidential Decree No. ,*@7, other%ise "no%n as the !ode of Musli-
Personal 1a%s of the Philippines, provides that the Shari#a District !ourts have eAclusive
ori(inal 4urisdiction over the settle-ent of the estate of deceased Musli-s<
'RTI!1 ,:7. Ori(inal 4urisdiction. I =,> The ShariKa District !ourt shall have
eAclusive ori(inal 4urisdiction over<
A A A A
=b> 'll cases involvin( disposition, distribution and settle-ent of the estate of deceased
Musli-s, probate of %ills, issuance of letters of ad-inistration or appoint-ent of
ad-inistrators or eAecutors re(ardless of the nature or the a((re(ate value of the propert&.
The deter-ination of the nature of an action or proceedin( is controlled b& the aver-ents
and character of the relief sou(ht in the co-plaint or petition.
),
The desi(nation (iven b&
parties to their o%n pleadin(s does not necessaril& bind the courts to treat it accordin( to
the said desi(nation. Rather than rel& on ;a falsa descriptio or defective caption,; courts
are ;(uided b& the substantive aver-ents of the pleadin(s.;
))

'lthou(h private respondents desi(nated the pleadin( filed before the Shari#a District
!ourt as a ;!o-plaint; for 4udicial partition of properties, it is a petition for the issuance
of letters of ad-inistration, settle-ent, and distribution of the estate of the decedent. It
contains sufficient 4urisdictional facts reJuired for the settle-ent of the estate of a
deceased Musli-,
)7
such as the fact of 'le4andro Monta3er, Sr.#s death as %ell as the
alle(ation that he is a Musli-. The said petition also contains an enu-eration of the
na-es of his le(al heirs, so far as "no%n to the private respondents, and a probable list of
the properties left b& the decedent, %hich are the ver& properties sou(ht to be settled
before a probate court. Further-ore, the reliefs pra&ed for reveal that it is the intention of
the private respondents to see" 4udicial settle-ent of the estate of the decedent.
):
These
include the follo%in(< =,> the pra&er for the partition of the estate of the decedent? and =)>
the pra&er for the appoint-ent of an ad-inistrator of the said estate.
Ee cannot a(ree %ith the contention of the petitioners that the district court does not have
4urisdiction over the case because of an alle(ation in their ans%er %ith a -otion to
dis-iss that Monta3er, Sr. is not a Musli-. $urisdiction of a court over the nature of the
action and its sub4ect -atter does not depend upon the defenses set forth in an ans%er
)0
or
a -otion to dis-iss.
)+
Other%ise, 4urisdiction %ould depend al-ost entirel& on the
defendant
).
or result in havin( ;a case either thro%n out of court or its proceedin(s
undul& dela&ed b& si-ple strata(e-.
)@
Indeed, the ;defense of lac" of 4urisdiction %hich
is dependent on a Juestion of fact does not render the court to lose or be deprived of its
4urisdiction.;
)/

The sa-e rationale applies to an ans%er %ith a -otion to dis-iss.
7*
In the case at bar, the
Shari#a District !ourt is not deprived of 4urisdiction si-pl& because petitioners raised as
a defense the alle(ation that the deceased is not a Musli-. The Shari#a District !ourt has
the authorit& to hear and receive evidence to deter-ine %hether it has 4urisdiction, %hich
reJuires an a priori deter-ination that the deceased is a Musli-. If after hearin(, the
Shari#a District !ourt deter-ines that the deceased %as not in fact a Musli-, the district
court should dis-iss the case for lac" of 4urisdiction.
Special Proceedin(s
The underl&in( assu-ption in petitioners# second ar(u-ent, that the proceedin( before
the Shari#a District !ourt is an ordinar& civil action a(ainst a deceased person, rests on an
erroneous understandin( of the proceedin( before the court a quo. Part of the confusion
-a& be attributed to the proceedin( before the Shari#a District !ourt, %here the parties
%ere desi(nated either as plaintiffs or defendants and the case %as deno-inated as a
special civil action. Ee reiterate that the proceedin(s before the court a quo are for the
issuance of letters of ad-inistration, settle-ent, and distribution of the estate of the
deceased, %hich is a special proceedin(. Section 7=c> of the Rules of !ourt =Rules>
defines a special proceedin( as ;a re-ed& b& %hich a part& see"s to establish a status, a
ri(ht, or a particular fact.; This !ourt has applied the Rules, particularl& the rules on
special proceedin(s, for the settle-ent of the estate of a deceased Musli-.
7,
In a petition
for the issuance of letters of ad-inistration, settle-ent, and distribution of estate, the
applicants see" to establish the fact of death of the decedent and later to be dul&
reco(ni6ed as a-on( the decedent#s heirs, %hich %ould allo% the- to eAercise their ri(ht
to participate in the settle-ent and liJuidation of the estate of the decedent.
7)
Bere, the
respondents see" to establish the fact of 'le4andro Monta3er, Sr.#s death and,
subseJuentl&, for private respondent 'l-ahleen 1ilin( S. Monta3er to be reco(ni6ed as
a-on( his heirs, if such is the case in fact.
Petitioners# ar(u-ent, that the prohibition a(ainst a decedent or his estate fro- bein( a
part& defendant in a civil action
77
applies to a special proceedin( such as the settle-ent of
the estate of the deceased, is -isplaced. Cnli"e a civil action %hich has definite adverse
parties, a special proceedin( has no definite adverse part&. The definitions of a civil
action and a special proceedin(, respectivel&, in the Rules illustrate this difference. ' civil
action, in %hich ;a part& sues another for the enforce-ent or protection of a ri(ht, or the
prevention or redress of a %ron(;
7:
necessaril& has definite adverse parties, %ho are
either the plaintiff or defendant.
70
On the other hand, a special proceedin(, ;b& %hich a
part& see"s to establish a status, ri(ht, or a particular fact,;
7+
has one definite part&, %ho
petitions or applies for a declaration of a status, ri(ht, or particular fact, but no definite
adverse part&. In the case at bar, it bears e-phasis that the estate of the decedent is not
bein( sued for an& cause of action. 's a special proceedin(, the purpose of the settle-ent
of the estate of the decedent is to deter-ine all the assets of the estate,
7.
pa& its
liabilities,
7@
and to distribute the residual to those entitled to the sa-e.
7/

Doc"et Fees
Petitioners# third ar(u-ent, that 4urisdiction %as not validl& acJuired for non8pa&-ent of
doc"et fees, is untenable. Petitioners point to private respondents# petition in the
proceedin( before the court a quo, %hich contains an alle(ation esti-atin( the decedent#s
estate as the basis for the conclusion that %hat private respondents paid as doc"et fees
%as insufficient. Petitioners# ar(u-ent essentiall& involves t%o aspects< =,> %hether the
cler" of court correctl& assessed the doc"et fees? and =)> %hether private respondents paid
the correct assess-ent of the doc"et fees.
Filin( the appropriate initiator& pleadin( and the pa&-ent of the prescribed doc"et fees
vest a trial court %ith 4urisdiction over the sub4ect -atter.
:*
If the part& filin( the case paid
less than the correct a-ount for the doc"et fees because that %as the a-ount assessed b&
the cler" of court, the responsibilit& of -a"in( a deficienc& assess-ent lies %ith the sa-e
cler" of court.
:,
In such a case, the lo%er court concerned %ill not auto-aticall& lose
4urisdiction, because of a part&#s reliance on the cler" of court#s insufficient assess-ent of
the doc"et fees.
:)
's ;ever& citi6en has the ri(ht to assu-e and trust that a public officer
char(ed b& la% %ith certain duties "no%s his duties and perfor-s the- in accordance
%ith la%,; the part& filin( the case cannot be penali6ed %ith the cler" of court#s
insufficient assess-ent.
:7
Bo%ever, the part& concerned %ill be reJuired to pa& the
deficienc&.
::

In the case at bar, petitioners did not present the cler" of court#s assess-ent of the doc"et
fees. Moreover, the records do not include this assess-ent. There can be no deter-ination
of %hether private respondents correctl& paid the doc"et fees %ithout the cler" of court#s
assess-ent.
Aception to Notice of Bearin(
Petitioners# fourth ar(u-ent, that private respondents# -otion for reconsideration before
the Shari#a District !ourt is defective for lac" of a notice of hearin(, -ust fail as the
uniJue circu-stances in the present case constitute an eAception to this reJuire-ent. The
Rules reJuire ever& %ritten -otion to be set for hearin( b& the applicant and to address
the notice of hearin( to all parties concerned.
:0
The Rules also provide that ;no %ritten
-otion set for hearin( shall be acted upon b& the court %ithout proof of service
thereof.;
:+
Bo%ever, the Rules allo% a liberal construction of its provisions ;in order to
pro-ote LtheM ob4ective of securin( a 4ust, speed&, and ineApensive disposition of ever&
action and proceedin(.;
:.
Moreover, this !ourt has upheld a liberal construction
specificall& of the rules of notice of hearin( in cases %here ;a ri(id application %ill result
in a -anifest failure or -iscarria(e of 4ustice especiall& if a part& successfull& sho%s that
the alle(ed defect in the Juestioned final and eAecutor& 4ud(-ent is not apparent on its
face or fro- the recitals contained therein.;
:@
In these eAceptional cases, the !ourt
considers that ;no part& can even clai- a vested ri(ht in technicalities,; and for this
reason, cases should, as -uch as possible, be decided on the -erits rather than on
technicalities.
:/

The case at bar falls under this eAception. To den& the Shari#a District !ourt of an
opportunit& to deter-ine %hether it has 4urisdiction over a petition for the settle-ent of
the estate of a decedent alle(ed to be a Musli- %ould also den& its inherent po%er as a
court to control its process to ensure confor-it& %ith the la% and 4ustice. To sanction
such a situation si-pl& because of a lapse in fulfillin( the notice reJuire-ent %ill result
in a -iscarria(e of 4ustice.
In addition, the present case calls for a liberal construction of the rules on notice of
hearin(, because the ri(hts of the petitioners %ere not affected. This !ourt has held that
an eAception to the rules on notice of hearin( is %here it appears that the ri(hts of the
adverse part& %ere not affected.
0*
The purpose for the notice of hearin( coincides %ith
procedural due process,
0,
for the court to deter-ine %hether the adverse part& a(rees or
ob4ects to the -otion, as the Rules do not fiA an& period %ithin %hich to file a repl& or
opposition.
0)
In probate proceedin(s, ;%hat the la% prohibits is not the absence of
previous notice, but the absolute absence thereof and lac" of opportunit& to be heard.;
07

In the case at bar, as evident fro- the Shari#a District !ourt#s order dated $anuar& ,.,
)**+, petitioners# counsel received a cop& of the -otion for reconsideration in Juestion.
Petitioners %ere certainl& not denied an opportunit& to stud& the ar(u-ents in the said
-otion as the& filed an opposition to the sa-e. Since the Shari#a District !ourt reset the
hearin( for the -otion for reconsideration in the sa-e order, petitioners %ere not denied
the opportunit& to ob4ect to the said -otion in a hearin(. Ta"en to(ether, these
circu-stances sho% that the purpose for the rules of notice of hearin(, procedural
process, %as dul& observed.
Prescription and Filiation
Petitioners# fifth ar(u-ent is pre-ature. '(ain, the Shari#a District !ourt has not &et
deter-ined %hether it has 4urisdiction to settle the estate of the decedent. In the event that
a special proceedin( for the settle-ent of the estate of a decedent is pendin(, Juestions
re(ardin( heirship, includin( prescription in relation to reco(nition and filiation, should
be raised and settled in the said proceedin(.
0:
The court, in its capacit& as a probate court,
has 4urisdiction to declare %ho are the heirs of the decedent.
00
In the case at bar, the
deter-ination of the heirs of the decedent depends on an affir-ative ans%er to the
Juestion of %hether the Shari#a District !ourt has 4urisdiction over the estate of the
decedent.
IN *IE( (!EREO', the petition is DNID. The Orders of the Shari#a District
!ourt, dated 'u(ust )), )**+ and Septe-ber ),, )**+ respectivel&, are 'FFIRMD.
!ost a(ainst petitioners.
SO ORDRD.
RFN'TO S. PCNO
!hief $ustice
E !ON!CR<
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
'ssociate $ustice
RENATO C. CORONA
'ssociate $ustice
A#OL'O S. A+CUNA
'ssociate $ustice
TERESITA J. LEONAR#O%#E CASTRO
'ssociate $ustice
! R T I F I ! ' T I O N
Pursuant to Section ,7, 'rticle VIII of the !onstitution, I certif& that the conclusions in
the above decision had been reached in consultation before the case %as assi(ned to the
%riter of the opinion of the !ourt#s Division.
RE)NATO S. PUNO
!hief $ustice
'oo,no,-.
,
Rollo, pp. ,,*8,,,.
)
Id. at ,,0.
7
Id. at +*.
:
Id. at +78+0.
0
Id. at .7.
+
Id. at .:8@).
.
Id. at .:.
@
Id. at .08...
/
Id. at .@8./.
,*
Id. at @7, @/8/+.
,,
Id. at //8,*,.
,)
Id. at ,*)8,*/.
,7
Id. at ,)@8,)/.
,:
Id. at ,7@.
,0
Id.
,+
Id.
,.
Id. at ,,*8,,,.
,@
Id. at ,,,.
,/
Id. at ,,0.
)*
Id. at ,/,.
),
Vda. de Manalo v. Court of Appeals, :*) Phil. ,0), ,+, =)**,>.
))
Heirs of Celso Amarante v. Court of Appeals, H.R. No. .+7@+, Ma& ),, ,//*,
,@0 S!R' 0@0, 0/:.
)7
Musa v. Moson, H.R. No. /00.:, 'u(ust ,+, ,//,, )** S!R' .,0, .,/.
):
Vda. de Manalo v. Court of Appeals, supra note ),, at ,+).
)0
Salas v. Castro, H.R. No. ,**:,+, Dece-ber ), ,//), ),+ S!R' ,/@, )*:.
)+
Hilado v. Chavez, H.R. No. ,7:.:), Septe-ber )), )**:, :7@ S!R' +)7, +:,.
).
Salas v. Castro, supra note )0.
)@
Vda. de Manalo v. !ourt of 'ppeals, supra note ),, at ,+7.
)/
Salas v. Castro, supra note )0.
7*
Mamadsual v. Moson, H.R. No. /)00., Septe-ber )., ,//*, ,/* S!R' @), @..
In the above-entioned case, the !ourt held that the Special Rules of
Procedure in Shari#a !ourts, I4ra8at8al8Maha"i- al Shari#a, proscribe ;the
filin( of a -otion to dis-iss in lieu of an ans%er %hich %ould stop the
runnin( of the period to file an ans%er and cause undue dela&.;
7,
Musa v. Moson, supra note )7, at .),8.)).
7)
Vda. de Manalo v. Court of Appeals, supra note ),, at ,+0.
77
Ventura v. Hon. Militante, 7.: Phil. 0+) =,///>.
7:
Rules of !ourt, Rule ,, Sec. 7, par. =a>.
70
Rules of !ourt, Rule 7, Sec. ,.
7+
Rules of !ourt, Rule ,, Sec. 7, par. =c>.
7.
Pacific an!in" Corporation #mplo$ees %r"anization v. Court of Appeals, 7,)
Phil. 0.@, 0/7 =,//0>.
7@
Id.
7/
Vda. de Manalo v. Court of Appeals, supra note ),, at ,+0.
:*
Sun Insurance %ffice, &td. v. Asuncion, H.R. Nos. .//7.87@, Februar& ,7, ,/@/,
,.* S!R' ).:, )@0.
:,
Rivera v. 'el Rosario, H.R. No. ,::/7:, $anuar& ,0, )**:, :,/ S!R' +)+,
+70.
:)
Id.
:7
A$ala &and, Inc. v. Spouses Carpo, 7// Phil. 7)., 77: =)***>, citin" Se"ovia v.
arrios, .0 Phil. .+:, .+. =,/:+>.
::
(il)#state *olf and 'evelopment, Inc. v. +avarro, H.R. No. ,0)0.0, $une )/,
)**., 0)+ S!R' 0,, +,.
:0
Rules of !ourt, Rule ,0, Secs. :80.
:+
Rules of !ourt, Rule ,0, Sec. +.
:.
Rules of !ourt, Rule ), Sec. +.
:@
Vlason #nterprises Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 7+/ Phil. )+/, )// =,///>.
:/
*oldloop Properties, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, H.R. No. //:7,, 'u(ust ,,,
,//), ),) S!R' :/@, 0*:.
0*
Victor$ &iner, Inc. v. Malinias, H.R. No. ,0,,.*, Ma& )/, )**., 0)7 S!R' )./,
)/,8)/).
0,
Vlason #nterprises Corporation v. Court of Appeals, supra note :@, at )//87**.
0)
Victor$ &iner, Inc. v. Malinias, supra note 0*, at )/).
07
'e or,a, et al. v. -an, et al., /7 Phil. ,+., ,., =,/07>.
0:
Portu"al v. Portu"al)eltran, H.R. No. ,00000, 'u(ust ,+, )**0, :+. S!R'
,@:, ,/@.
00
.riarte v. Court of (irst Instance +e"ros %ccidental, et al., ,:: Phil. )*0, ),08
),+ =,/.*>.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi