Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

Case 48

Municipal Council of San Pedro Laguna vs. Colegio de San Jose, G.R. No. L-45460, February
25, 1938


Topic: Escheat, When proceeding will not prosper

Chapter XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure(Old code), relative to the escheat of properties,
does not in fact authorize the filing of a demurrer to the petition presented for that purpose, and
section 91 and 99 permitting the interposition of demurrers to the complaint and answer,
respectively, are not applicable to special proceedings. But is no reason of a procedure nature
which prevents the filing of a motion to dismiss based upon any of the grounds provided by law
for a demurrer to a complaint. In such case, the motion to dismiss pays the role of a demurrer and
the court should resolve the legal question raised therein. When, for instance, a petition for
escheat does not state facts which entitle the petitioner to the remedy prayed from and even
admitting them hypothetically it is clear that there are nor grounds for the court to proceed to the
inquisition provided by law, we see no reason to disallow an interest party from filing a motion to
dismiss the petition which is untenable from all standpoints. And when the motion to dismiss is
entertained upon this ground, the petition may be dismissed unconditionally and the petitioner is
not entitled, as in the case of a demurrer, to be afforded an opportunity to amend his petition.

Case 57

Landingin vs. Republic, G.R. No. 164948, June 27, 2006


Topic: Financial qualification in adoption

Since the primary consideration in adoption is the best interest of the child, it follows that the
financial capacity of prospective parents should also be carefully evaluated and considered.
Certainly, the adopter should be in a position to support the would-be adopted child or children, in
keeping with the means of the family.

Case 66

In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Kunting, G.R. No. 167193, April 19, 2006


Topic: Habeas Corpus, Effect of Filing Charges in Court

Writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued once person is charged with a criminal offense. Under
Section 1, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, the writ of habeas corpus extends to all case of illegal
confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, or by which the rightful
custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto. The remedy of habeas corpus
has one objective: to inquire into the cause of detention of a person, and if found illegal, the court
orders the release of the detainee. If, however, the detention is proven lawful, then the habeas
corpus proceedings terminate.
Case 75

Canlas vs. Napico Homeowners Association I-XIII, Inc., G.R. No. 182795, June
5, 2008

Topic: Writ of Amparo, writ does not protect commercial or property rights

The threatened demolition of a dwelling by virtue of a final judgment of the court is not included
among the enumeration of rights 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.

Case 84

Leonardo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125329, September 10, 2003.


Topic: Change of Name, Illegitimate child may now use fathers surname

In the case at bar, the primary issue to be resolved before determining petitioners available
remedy under the facts of the case is whether an illegitimate child born after the effectivity of the
Family Code has the right to use her fathers surname. This Court rules in the negative. Article
176 of the Family Code reads:

Article 176. Illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the parental authority of
their mother, and shall be entitled to support in conformity with this Code. The legitime of each
illegitimate child shall consist of one-half of the legitime of a legitimate child. (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)

The rule applies even if petitioners father admits paternity.

(Do not be confused, for ratio purposes only. I think this is the old rule. May case na talaga na
nagsasabi na an illegitimate child may now use his/her fathers name)

Case 93

Braza vs. City Civil Registrar of Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental, G.R. No. 181174,
December 4, 2009


Topic: Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry, No jurisdiction to nullify

marriages in the rule on legitimacy and filiation

In a special proceeding for correction of entry under Rule 108 (Cancellation or Correction of
Entries in the Original Registry), the trial court has no jurisdiction to nullify marriages and rule on
legitimacy and filiations.

Rule 108 of the Rules of Court vis-a-vis Article 412 of the Civil Code charts the procedure by
which an entry in the civil registry may be cancelled or corrected. The proceeding contemplated
therein may generally be used only to correct clerical, spelling, typographical and other innocuous
errors in the civil registry. A clerical error is one which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the
understanding; an error made by a clerk or a transcriber; a mistake in copying or writing, or a
harmless change such as a correction of name that is clearly misspelled or of a misstatement of
the occupation of the parent. Substantial or contentious alterations may be allowed only in
adversarial proceedings, in which all interested parties are impleaded and due process is properly

The petitioners cause of action is actually to seek the declaration of Pablo and Lucilles marriage
as void for being bigamous and impugn Patricks legitimacy, which causes of action are governed
not by Rule 108 but by A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC which took effect on March 15, 2003, and Art. 171
of the Family Code, respectively; hence, the petition should be filed in a Family Court as
expressly provided in said Code. It is well to emphasize that, doctrinally, validity of marriages as
well as legitimacy and filiation can be questioned only in a direct action seasonably filed by the
proper party, and not through collateral attack such as the petition filed before the court a quo.

Case 102

Republic vs. Court of Appeals (Tenth Div.), G.R. No. 159614, December 9, 2005

Topic: Absentees, Strict standard approach consistent with the states policy to protect and
strengthen marriage

It is the policy of the State to protect and strengthen the family as a basic social institution.
Marriage is the foundation of the family. Since marriage is an inviolable social institution that the
1987 Constitution seeks to protect from dissolution at the whim of the parties. For respondents
failure to prove that he had a well-founded belief that his wife is already dead and that he exerted
the required amount of diligence in searching for his missing wife, the petition for declaration of
presumptive death should have been denied by the trial court and the Honorable Court of

The court ruled that Alan failed to prove that he has a well-founded belief, before he filed his
petition with RTC, that his spouse was dead. He failed to present a witness other than the
Barangay Captain. He even failed to present those friends of Lea which he inquired to
corroborate his testimony. He also failed to make inquiries from his parents-in-law regarding Leas
whereabouts before filing his petition in the RTC. It could have enhanced his credibility had he
made inquiries from his parents-in-law about Lea's whereabouts considering that Lea's father was
the owner of Radio DYMS. He did report and seek help of the local police authorities and NBI to
locate Lea but he did so only after the OSG filed its notice to dismiss his petition in RTC.