Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Special Proceeding a) A is a Filipino citizen; died at

vs. Ordinary Civil Action Japan; with property in Quezon,


Generally, not Manila, Cebu
adversarial Who has jurisdiction? The court
A remedy by which a One by which a party which first acquire jurisdiction to
party seeks to sues another for the the exclusion of other courts..
establish a status, a enforcement or hence if the heirs filed it first in
right or a particular protection of a right, Quezon, then Quezon has
fact. or the prevention or jurisdiction.
redress of a wrong. What if A renounces is residency
Initiatory pleading: in Japan; upon his death, he is
Petition Complaint residing in Boracay. Then file it in
Counterpart: Boracay.
Opposition Answer 2) Escheat
Rules which govern: As to the 1st kind: file it in the RTC
Rules on special Ordinary rules of civil where he resides, provided he died a
proceeding; Ordinary procedure Filipino resident; OR
civil action file it in the RTC where his properties
(suppletory) are situated, if he died NOT being
Generally, Action prescribes Filipino resident
imprescriptible As to the 2nd kind: RTC where the bank
(statute of limitations is located (within the jurisdiction of 1
does not apply) court only)
Record on appeal Notice of appeal As to the 3rd kind: RTC where the
property is situated
SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE - Rule 78?

Difference to ordinary civil action: 1)


determine if the will is genuinely executed
(order is appealable, although proceedings
will continue; appeal: RECORD on APPEAL)

Rule 85, Sec. 7


2% -- P1 – 5,000
-- P5,000 – P30,000
-- P30,000 – P100,000
25% -- P100,000 above
Where filed?
3) Trusteeship: RTC (400k); MTC (300k)
ESCHEAT proceedings: 4) Guardianship: RTC where the
1) When decedent died without heirs petitioner resides
(under what principle?) Over his person: Filipino resident >
2) Unclaimed deposits for 10yrs residence of minor
3) Sale of land in violation of the Over his property: non-resident >
constitution (60-40, foreign where the property is located
ownership) 5) Adoption:
Where filed: RTC where the adopter resides (if
1) Settlement of estate: if he dies as domestic adoption)
Filipino resident, regardless of RTC where the adoptee resides, OR
citizenship: Inter-country adoption board (inter-
MTC where he resides (threshold: country adoption)
300k) 6) Hospitalization of insane person: RTC
RTC where he resides (threshold: where the insane is confined
400k)
Example:
INTER-COUNTRY ADOPTION •as opposed to the other two writs, H.C.
• the entire process takes place in a foreign allows general alibi.
country and the decree is issued therein.
Sec.3 (a) and (f); Sec. 8, 9, 14  If habeas corpus is suspended, no one can
question the legality of the detention
•Legally free child = below 15
•SITUATION: a defective warrant of arrest was
•"repatriation" -- last resort. If the issued. Then, the accused was arrested &
compatibility bet.prospective adopter and detained. Subsequently, a case was filed
adoptee fails, in the meantime, hahanap ng against hin. Since he should not have been
ibang pwedeng mag-adopt sa child (subject to arrested in the first place, habeas corpus is
another trial custody) not the proper remedy. Reason: there's a
legal basis for the detention.
DOMESTIC ADOPTION Correct remedy: file a motion to quash the
Sec.4, Sec. 5 information and the warrant
Sec. 5 (1) "deed of voluntary commitment"
--for child below 18 who was voluntarily SITUATION: What if the person was already
committed to the DSWD released? The case should not be dismissed
"Judicially declared available for adoption" outright. The rightful custody of the person
(ex: foundling)-- there must be a declaration must be determined --- determine W/N he
of abandonment. should continue to be under the custody of
the accused)
Sec.6, 11
WRIT OF AMPARO
Sec. 11(2) consent of biological parents is
-A prerogative/extraordinary writ
necessary IF KNOWN (unless, in cases of
-not available for every violation of
involuntary commitment)
constitutional rights
•SITUATION: a child, while under the custody -Court can recommend administrative
of his biogical parents, shot another person. sanctions
The defense of the biological parents: since -Simple denial that the accused does not
the adoption decree retroacts to the day of know the whereabouts of the victim is NOT
the filing of the petition, it is the adopter who enough; production order may be issued
should be held civilly liable. -covers even mere threats; kahit hindi pa
dinudukot ang victim
Their contention is incorrect. It is the
biological parents who remain to be liable •Sec. 1, 2, 4, 9, 14, 16, 17
because the child is still under their
supervision & control at the time of the •Sec. 9(d) --extraordinary diligence
incident.
Case:
(Cases) Fr.Reyes vs. Sec.of Justice Gonzales
•Tamargo vs. CA If there is initially a Hold Departure Order and
•Cabigting vs. Republic later on you're cleared but the order was not
• In Re Petition for Adoption of Michelle Lim yet corrected, remedy: motion to leave? (Not
and Michael Jude Lim (In case the petitioner writ of amparo) reason: not all violation of
remarries, the petition must be filed jointly consti.rights is correctible by amparo.
with the present spouse)
HABEAS DATA
•Diwata Landingan vs. Republic
-Re: right of privacy
-Concerns those who gathers data
HABEAS CORPUS -There are limited persons who are allowed to
-literally means, to produce the body; but it file, as opposed to writ of amparo
also covers the issue of rightful custody of the
person. •Sec.1, 2, 4, 5, 6
•actual physic restraint, not always required •Sec.6(e) -- the ultimate relief sought
•if detention is illegal because of error of
•facebook posts are not covered
judgment, remedy: appeal the decision
•Sec. 2, 3, 4, 10, 11

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi