Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
JUDGE CALDONA
MINI DIGESTS
SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE
I. SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE OF DECEASED PERSONS
A. Jurisdiction and Venue
- Jurisdiction = authority of a court to take cognizance of a case
- RTC = 100k; MM:200k
- MENDOZA v TEH
Facts:
1. Wife filed before the RTC a complaint for reconveyance
of title and damages.
2. The complaint includes a prayer that she be appointed
as administratrix.
3. Private respondents MTD: LoJ
Doctrines:
1. An action for reconveyance = cognizable by RTC
o Likewise, actions incapable of pecuniary
estimation such as appointment of an
administratrix of an estate
2. Respondents confuses juris with venue
o Mere fact that husband resides in QC at time of
death = affects only venue and NOT j
o Whether a particular matter should be resolved
by the RTC in the exercise of its general
jurisdiction or its limited probate jurisdiction is
NOT a jurisdictional issue but a mere question of
procedure
- NATCHER v CA
Facts:
1. Father and children entered into an extra-j settlement of
estate of mother.
2. Father married again.
3. Father died.
4. Children filed a complaint with RTC alleging that upon
fathers death, stepmom forged the TCT of a lot to make
it appear that father sold it to her.
Doctrines:
1. Action v Special Proceeding
o Action = formal demand of ones right in a court
of justice in the manner prescribed by the
court/law
Special Proceeding = remedy by which a party
seeks to establish status, right, or a particular
fact
o Action for reconveyance and annulment of title
with damages = civil action
Matters relating to settlement of estate such as
advancement of property = special proceeding
2. ?s of Advancement = probate court
ESCHEAT
- Intestate + NO heirs
- Last residence/estate (RTC)
- One of the incidents of sovereignty
- State = NOT the sole and exclusive interested party
o Any person alleging to have a direct right/interest in the property
sought to be escheated
- BALAIS-MABANAG v REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF QC
Facts:
1. Sellers rescinded agreement with first buyer of a parcel of land since
the second buyer had greater amt of offer.
ADOPTION
DSWD v JUDGE ANTONIO BELEN
Facts:
1. Spouses filed a verified petition for adoption of their minor niece.
2. RTC granted based on the findings and recommendations of the DSWD, which
are contained in the Adoptive Home Study Report and Child Study prepared
by the local office of DSWS through the social worker.
3. DSWD: No record in its files regarding such adoption case.
Doctrine: The adoption decree was not proper.
o A case study should be conducted by the DSWD, involving the child to be
adopted, its natural parents, and the adopting parents.
o The proper course that respondent judge should have taken was to notify the
DSWD at the outset about the commencement of the case so that the
corresponding case study could have been accordingly conducted by said
department which undoubtedly has the necessary competence to make the
proper recommendation.
o Moreover, respondent judge should never have merely presumed that it was
routinary for the social welfare officer to coordinate with the DSWD regarding
the adoption proceedings. It was his duty to exercise caution and to see to it
that such coordination was observed in the adoption proceedings, together
with all the other requirements of the law.
o By respondents failure to do so, he may well have wittingly or unwittingly
placed in jeopardy the welfare and future of the child whose adoption was
under consideration. Adoption, after all, is in a large measure a legal device
by which a better future may be accorded an unfortunate child like in this
case.
REPUBLIC v HERNANDEZ
Facts:
1. Spouses filed a petition to adopt a minor child.
2. In the same petition, they prayed for the change of the minors name.
Doctrine: Change of given name NOT allowed
1. The law allows the adoptee, as a matter of right and obligation, to bear the
surname of the aer upon the issuance of the decree of adoption.
HOWEVER, the given/proper name, also known as first/Christian name,
of the aee must remain as it was originally registered on the civil
register.
The creation of an adoptive relationship does not confer upon the
adopter a license to change the adoptees given name. Neither is it a
mere incident nor an adjunct of an adoption proceeding.
2. If change in ones name is desired, the separate filing of petition for change of
name is necessary.
Different substantive and procedural requirements
LANDINGAN v RP
Facts:
1. Aunt filed a petition for adoption of her minor nieces and nephew.
2. DSWD social worker reported that the minors are eligible for adoption given
that the surviving parent has given her consent.
3. However, aunt failed to present the DSWD social worker as a witness and
offer in evidence the voluntary consent of the biological parent; no
documentary evidence that the biological mother consented.
Doctrine:
o The written consent of the biological parents is indispensable for the validity
of a decree of adoption. Indeed, the natural right of a parent to his child
requires that his consent must be obtained before his parental rights and
VICENTE v MAJADUCON
Facts:
1. X was found guilty of BP 22.
2. X filed an MR, which she prayed to be considered a petition for issuance of
writ of habeas corpus, citing Vaca case.
3. Court allowed her to post bail.
Doctrine: X should not have been granted bail based on the writ.
o GR: Issuance of writ is disallowed when the person alleged to be restrained of
his liberty by is suffering imprisonment under lawful judgment.
ONLY E: convict has applied for probation before he commences to serve
sentence, provided the penalty and offense are within the purview of the
Probation Law.
o Rule 102, Sec 14 applies to cases where the applicant for writ is restrained by
virtue of the criminal charges against him and NOT where he is serving a
sentence by reason of final judgment.
o In this case, the judgment finding her guilty and imposing upon her the
penalty of imprisonment has already become final and executory.
She did not apply for probation.
At the time court granted her bail, she was already serving her
sentence.
SALIENTES v ABANILLA
Facts:
MONCUPA v ENRILE
Facts:
1. X filed a petition for habeas corpus.
2. MTD: temporarily released from detention.
Doctrine: Temporary release does NOT render the petition moot and academic
o Temporary release = merely shifted the legality of his actual detention to the
legality of the imposed conditions
o Restrictions attached to his temporary release = restraints on his liberty; limit
the freedom of X
o It is NOT the physical restraint alone which is inquired into by the writ of
habeas corpus
o A release that renders a petition for writ of habeas corpus moot and academic
= one which is free from involuntary restraints
o The ff may still avail of this remedy
1. Person continues to be unlawfully denied one or more of his
constitutional freedom
2. Restraints are not merely involuntary but appear to be unnecessary
3. Deprivation of freedom originally valid has, in the light of subsequent
developments, become arbitrary
VETUZ v VILLANUEVA
Facts: Two versions of facts
a. X (petitioner) asserts that his aunt was taken from him, who was then living
with him. Despite repeated demands, remained futile.
b. Respondents maintain that the aunt willingly went with them.
Doctrine: Aunt is NOT being restrained of her liberty
1. Writ contemplates two instances
i. Deprivation of a persons liberty either through illegal confinement or
through detention
ii. Withholding of the custody of any person from someone entitled to
such custody
2. X: Even though he does not have legal custody of his aunt, respondents have
no right to her custody. Issue of legal custody is irrelevant; what is important
is the aunts personal freedom.
SC: Fundamentally, in order to justify the grant of the writ, the restraint of
liberty must be in the nature of an illegal and involuntary deprivation of
freedom of action.
In general, the purpose of the writ is to determine WoN a particular
person is legally held.
First ascertain whether the person is being restrained of his liberty.
3. While habeas corpus is a writ of right, it will not issue as a matter of course or
as a mere perfunctory operation on the filing of the petition
Judicial discretion
It is only if the court is satisfied that a person is being unlawfully
restrained if his liberty, will the writ be granted.
If the respondents are not detaining or restraining the
applicant/person in whose behalf the petition is filed = dismissal of
petition
SO v JUDGE TACLA
Facts:
1. Father filed the petition for writs of habeas corpus and amparo on behalf of
daughter-accused whose case was pending.
2. Daughter was confined in a hospital, as ordered by the RTC, to determine
whether she could stand the rigors of trial.
3. During pendency of these cases, criminal case against daughter was
dismissed.
Doctrine: Moot and academic due to dismissal of case against her
o She remained in custody of the law to answer for the non-bailable criminal
charge against her, and was simply allowed to pursue medical treatment in
the hospital and from a doctor of her choice.
o Certainly, with the dismissal of the non-bailable case against accused
Guisande, she is no longer under peril to be confined in a jail facility, much
less at the hospital.
WRIT OF KALIKASAN
ARIGO v SCOTT SWIFT
Facts:
1. An American military ship collided with the shoal of the Tubbataha Reefs.
2. No one was reported killed or injured. The fuel and oil likewise did not leak.
3. Petitioners claim that the operations of the US caused environmental damage,
violating their right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
Doctrine:
1. Legal standing
Oposa v Factoran, Jr: SC recognized the public right of citizens to a
balanced and healthful ecology, which for the first time in the nations
constitutional history, is incorporated in the fundamental law.
Right to a balanced and healthful ecology need not be written in the
Constitution for it is assumed to exist from the inception of mankind
and it is an issue of transcendental importance with intergenerational
implications.
Not only do ordinary citizens have legal standing to sue for the
enforcement of environmental rights, they can do so in representation
of their own and future generations.
2. Waiver of state immunity under the VFA
Waiver of State immunity under the VFA pertains only to criminal
jurisdiction and not to SCAs such as the present petition. In fact, it can
be inferred from Sec 17, Rule 7 of the Rules that a criminal case
against a person charged with a violation of an environmental law is to
be filed separately.
In any case, a ruling on the application/non-application of criminal
jurisdiction of the VFA to US personnel who may be found responsible
for the grounding of the ship would be premature and beyond the
province of a petition for a writ of Kalikasan.
3. Writ of Kalikasan = NOT proper remedy to assail the constitutionality of the
VFA
CHANGE OF NAME
ALBA v CA
Facts:
1. Alleged father filed a petition for cancellation of the ff entries in the birth
certificate of his alleged son:
i. His surname as attached to the name of the child
ii. Reference to petitioner as father
iii. Alleged marriage of petitioner to mother
2. The court issued an order setting the petition for hearing and directed
publication and service of said order to the address of the mother appearing
in the birth certificate.
3. Hearing was conducted with the mother not appearing in trial.
4. Petitioners filed a petition for annulment of judgment on the ground of
extrinsic fraud and lack of j over the person. They claim that alleged father
knew that they lived in a different place since it was him who gave the condo
to them. They also alleged that the aunt made the mistake regarding the
address in the birth certificate.
Doctrine:
1. Jurisdiction
A petition for substantial corrections or cancellations of entries under
Rule 108 is a proceeding in rem because it is directed to the thing
itself, the entries in the birth certificate.
In actions in rem, jurisdiction over the res is acquired either by the
seizure of property under legal process, or as a result of the institution
of legal proceedings.
In this case, the court acquired j over the res through the mere
institution of the case.
CERUILA v DELANTAR
Facts:
1. Spouses filed a petition praying that the birth certificate of rape victim be
cancelled and declared null and void due to alleged simulation of birth.
2. Summons was sent only to the Civil Register of Manila.
3. RTC granted the petition.
4. Months after, the victim, represented by DSWD, filed a petition for the
annulment of judgment in the petition for cancellation of entry of her birth
certificate.
Doctrine:
1. Petition for annulment and cancellation of the birth certificate = specpro
Considering that the petition, based on its allegations, does not
question the fact of birth of Rosilyn, all matters assailing the
truthfulness of any entry in the birth certificate properly, including the
date of birth, fall under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court which governs
cancellation or correction of entries in the Civil Registry.
2. Notice requirement
Not only the civil registrar but also all persons who have or claim any
interest which would be affected by a proceeding concerning the
cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register must be made
parties thereto.
Petitioners further claim that the lack of summons on Rosilyn was
cured by the publication of the order of the trial court setting the case
for hearing for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general
circulation.
We do not agree. Summons must still be served, not for the purpose
of vesting the courts with jurisdiction, but to comply with the
requirements of fair play and due process. This is but proper, to afford
the person concerned the opportunity to protect her interest if she so
chooses.
Indeed, there were instances when we ruled that even though an
interested party was not impleaded in the petition, such defect was
cured by compliance with Sec. 4, Rule 108 on publication. In said
cases, however, earnest efforts were made by the petitioners in
bringing to court all possible interested parties.
Such is not the case at bar. The victim was never made a party at all
to the proceedings seeking the cancellation of her birth certificate.
Neither did petitioners make any effort to summon the Solicitor
General.
RP v MERCADERA
Fact: Change of first name. Filed a petition for correction of some entries as
appearing in the certificate of liver birth under Rule 108.
Doctrine: Correct petition
o In the case at bench, the OSG posits that the conversion from "MARILYN" to
"MERLYN" is not a correction of an innocuous error but a material correction
tantamount to a change of name which entails a modification or increase in
substantive rights. For the OSG, this is a substantial error that requires
compliance with the procedure under Rule 103, and not Rule 108.
o A change of ones name under Rule 103 can be granted, only on grounds
provided by law. In order to justify a request for change of name, there must
be a proper and compelling reason for the change and proof that the person
requesting will be prejudiced by the use of his official name. To assess the
CORPUZ v STO.TOMAS
Facts:
1. X is a naturalized Canadian.
2. He married Y whom he found out was cheating on him. He filed a petition for
divorce in Canada and was granted.
3. He returned in PH and plans to marry Z.
4. He wen to the civil registry office and registered the divorce decree.
5. The civil registrar refused to enter the same on the ground that judicial
recognition is necessary.
6. He filed a petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and/or declaration
of marriage as dissolved.
Doctrine: Not the proper proceeding for the cancellation of entries in the civil registry
o The recognition that the RTC may extend to the Canadian divorce decree does
not, by itself, authorize the cancellation of the entry in the civil registry. A
petition for recognition of a foreign judgment is not the proper proceeding,
contemplated under the Rules of Court, for the cancellation of entries in the
civil registry.
o Article 412 of the Civil Code declares that no entry in a civil register shall be
changed or corrected, without judicial order. The Rules of Court supplements
Article 412 of the Civil Code by specifically providing for a special remedial
proceeding by which entries in the civil registry may be judicially cancelled or
corrected. Rule 108 of the Rules of Court sets in detail the jurisdictional and
procedural requirements that must be complied with before a judgment,
authorizing the cancellation or correction, may be annotated in the civil
registry. As these basic jurisdictional requirements have not been met in the
present case, we cannot consider the petition filed with the RTC as one filed
under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
o We hasten to point out, however, that this ruling should not be construed as
requiring two separate proceedings for the registration of a foreign divorce
decree in the civil registry one for recognition of the foreign decree and
another specifically for cancellation of the entry under Rule 108 of the Rules
of Court. The recognition of the foreign divorce decree may be made in a Rule
108 proceeding itself, as the object of special proceedings (such as that in
Rule 108 of the Rules of Court) is precisely to establish the status or right of a
party or a particular fact. Moreover, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court can serve
as the appropriate adversarial proceeding by which the applicability of the