G.R. No.

208828-29 December 11, 2013

RICARDO C. SILVERIO, SR., Petitioner,
vs.
RICARDO S. SILVERIO, JR., CITRINE HOLDINGS, INC., MONICA
P. OCAMPO and ZEE2 RESOURCES, INC., Respondents.
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

Mark Lester L. Aure

Doctrine:

Our jurisprudence is therefore clear that (1) any disposition of estate

property by an administrator or prospective heir pending final
adjudication requires court approval and (2) any unauthorized disposition
of estate property can be annulled by the probate court, there being no
need for a separate action to annul the unauthorized disposition.

The probate court having jurisdiction over properties under administration

has the authority not only to approve any disposition or conveyance, but
also to annul an unauthorized sale by the prospective heirs or
administrator

G.R. No. 134029 February 6, 2007

RODOLFO SAN LUIS, Petitioner,
vs.
FELICIDAD SAGALONGOS alias FELICIDAD SAN
LUIS, Respondent.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

Austria, Jefferson S.

DOCTRINE:

[1] Section 2, Rule 79 of the Rules of Court provides that: xxx A petition for
letters of administration must be filed by an interested person xxx. 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 against the estate, such
as a creditor. The interest must be material and direct, and not merely
indirect or contingent.

[2] What is required in the settlement of the estate for venue is the resident
and not domicile. In Domicile, there is intent to remain which is what is
required for election. For resident, it is the last actual and physical abode.
G.R. No. 183053 October 10, 2012
EMILIO A.M. SUNTAY III vs. ISABEL COJUANGCO-SUNTAY.
PEREZ, J.

GATUC, RALPH LAWRENCE

DOCTRINE:

The paramount consideration in the appointment of an administrator

over the estate of a decedent is the prospective administrator’s interest in
the estate. This is the same consideration which Section 6, Rule 78 takes
into account in establishing the order of preference in the appointment of
administrator for the estate.

G.R. No. 146006 February 23, 2004

JOSE C. LEE AND ALMA AGGABAO, in their capacities as
President and Corporate Secretary, respectively, of Philippines
International Life Insurance Company, and FILIPINO LOAN
ASSISTANCE GROUP, petitioners, vs.
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY BRANCH 85
presided by JUDGE PEDRO M. AREOLA, BRANCH CLERK OF
COURT JANICE Y. ANTERO, DEPUTY SHERIFFS ADENAUER G.
RIVERA and PEDRO L. BORJA, all of the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City Branch 85, MA. DIVINA ENDERES claiming to be
Special Administratrix, and other persons/public officers acting
for and in their behalf, respondents.
Corona, J.

Guevara, Ron Jason A.

DOCTRINE/S:

The sale of any property of the estate by an administrator or

prospective heir without order of the probate or intestate court is void and
passes no title to the purchaser.

THE ESTATE OF HILARIO M. RUIZ, EDMOND RUIZ, Executor,

petitioner,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS (Former Special Sixth Division), MARIA
PILAR RUIZ-MONTES, MARIA CATHRYN RUIZ, CANDICE
ALBERTINE RUIZ, MARIA ANGELINE RUIZ and THE PRESIDING
JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASIG, BRANCH
156, respondents.
 PUNO, J.:

Hilal, Jalanie B.

DOCTRINE:

Only the widow and children of the decedent is covered by support.

Properties under probate should not be distributed to the heirs unless after
all debts and obligations against the estate is settled.

AMELIA GARCIA-QUIAZON, JENNETH QUIAZON and MARIA

JENNIFER QUIAZON, Petitioners, 
 vs.
 MA. LOURDES BELEN, for
and in behalf of MARIA LOURDES ELISE QUIAZON, Respondent.
G.R. No. 189121 July 31, 2013 PEREZ, J.:

Marquez, Jay Michael A.

DOCTRINES:

There are some cases that make a distinction between the terms
"residence" and "domicile" but as generally used in statutes fixing venue,
the terms are synonymous, and convey the same meaning as the term
"inhabitant." In other words, "resides" should be viewed or understood in
its popular sense, meaning, the personal, actual or physical habitation of a
person, actual residence or place of abode. It signifies physical presence
in a place and actual stay thereat. Venue for ordinary civil actions and that
for special proceedings have one and the same meaning. As thus defined,
"residence," in the context of venue provisions, means nothing more than a
person’s actual residence or place of abode, provided he resides therein
with continuity and consistency.

An "interested party," in estate proceedings, is one who would be

benefited in the estate, such as an heir, or one who has a claim against the
estate, such as a creditor. Also, in estate proceedings, the phrase "next of
kin" refers to those whose relationship with the decedent is such that they
are entitled to share in the estate as distributes. Having a vested right in
the distribution of Eliseo’s estate as one of his natural children, Elise can
rightfully be considered as an interested party within the purview of the
law.

Supreme Court of the Philippines

THIRD DIVISION
G.R. NO. 150175, February 05, 2007
ERLINDA PILAPIL, HEIRS OF DONATA ORTIZ BRIONES, et. al,
PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS OF MAXIMINO R. BRIONES, et. al.,
RESPONDENTS
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

Nasalga, Jose Marie

Doctrines:

1. It is well established that the law serves those who are vigilant and
diligent and not those who sleep when the law requires them to act.
The law does not encourage laches, indifference, negligence or
ignorance.

2. Court decision on Special Proceeding cannot be attacked

collaterally. Respondents should bring a direct action to nullify the
CFI Order, dated 15 January 1960, in Special Proceedings No. 928-R,
and attain a favorable judgment therein, the assailed Order remains
valid and binding.

G.R. No. 156407. January 15, 2014

THELMA ARANAS vs. MERCADO, ET AL

PATACSIL, ROMEL C.

DOCTRINE

The probate court is authorized to determine the issue of ownership

of properties for purposes of their inclusion or exclusion from the
inventory to be submitted by the administrator, but its determination shall
only be provisional unless the interested parties are all heirs of the
decedent, or the question is one of collation or advancement, or the parties
consent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the probate court and the
rights of third parties are not impaired. Its jurisdiction extends to matters
incidental or collateral to the settlement and distribution of the estate, such
as the determination of the status of each heir and whether property
included in the inventory is the conjugal or exclusive property of the
deceased spouse.

Other doctrine:

The remedy against an interlocutory order not subject of an appeal

is an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65, provided that the
interlocutory order is rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction or with
grave abuse of discretion. Then is certiorari under Rule 65 allowed to be
resorted to. (Examples: Order denying motion for the approval of the
inventory and order denying motion for reconsideration are interlocutory.
This is because the inclusion of the properties in the inventory was not yet
a final determination of their ownership. Hence, the approval of the
inventory and the concomitant determination of the ownership as basis for
inclusion or exclusion from the inventory were provisional and subject to
revision at anytime during the course of the administration proceedings)

G.R. No. 166884. June 13, 2012

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.
LAMBERTO C. PEREZ, NESTOR C. KUN, MA. ESTELITA P.
ANGELES-PANLILIO, and NAPOLEON O. GARCIA, respondents
Brion, J

Diwa, Andrea Marciana B

DOCTRINE:

Under the TR Law, intent to defraud is presumed when (1) the

entrustee fails to turn over the proceeds of the sale of goods covered by
the trust receipt to the entruster; or (2) when the entrustee fails to return
the goods under trust, if they are not disposed of in accordance with the
terms of the trust receipts.

In all trust receipt transactions, both obligations on the part of the

trustee exist in the alternative—the return of the proceeds of the sale or the
return or recovery of the goods, whether raw or processed.

Estafa; Trust Receipts Law; Elements of estafa under Article 315,

paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, in relation with Section 13 of the
Trust Receipts Law.—In order that the respondents “may be validly
prosecuted for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised
Penal Code, in relation with Section 13 of the Trust Receipts Law, the
following elements must be established: (a) they received the subject
goods in trust or under the obligation to sell the same and to remit the
proceeds thereof to [the trustor], or to return the goods if not sold; (b) they
misappropriated or converted the goods and/or the proceeds of the sale;
(c) they performed such acts with abuse of confidence to the damage and
prejudice of Metrobank; and (d) demand was made on them by [the
trustor] for the remittance of the proceeds or the return of the unsold
goods.”
 G.R. No. 188801. October 15, 2014
Castro v Gregorio

Danielle Lindsay Dizon

The law itself provides for penal sanctions for those who violate its
provisions. Under Article VII, Section 21 of R.A. No. 8552. Unfortunately,
Jose’s death carried with it the extinguishment of any of his criminal
liabilities.

R.A. No. 8552 fails to provide any provision on the status of adoption
decrees if the adoption is found to have been obtained fraudulently.
Petitioners also cannot invoke Article VI, Section 19 of R.A. No. 8552 since
rescission of adoption can onlybe availed of by the adoptee. Petitioners,
therefore, are left with no other remedy in law other than the annulment of
the judgment.

GR. No. 105308 September 25, 1998

HERBERT CANG, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and Spouses RONALD V. CLAVANO and
MARIA CLARA
Romero, J.:

Estadilla, Britz E.

DOCTRINE:

Underlying the precepts in international conventions and the

domestic statues with respect to children is the overriding principle that all
actuations should be in the best interests of the child. This is not, however,
to be implemented in derogation of the primary right of the parent or
parents to exercise parental authority over him. The rights of parents vis-à-
vis that of their children are not antithetical to each other, as in fact, they
must be respected and harmonized to the fullest extent possible.

G.R. No. 135216. August 19, 1999

TOMASA VDA. DE JACOB, as Special Administratrix of the
Intestate Estate of Deceased Alfredo E. Jacob, petitioner, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, PEDRO PILAPIL, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS
for the Province of Camarines Sur, and JUAN F. TRIVINO as
publisher of “Balalong,– respondents. PANGANIBAN, J.:
Glovasa, Imelou A.

DOCTRINE:

Adoption; The burden of proof in establishing adoption is upon the

person claiming such relationship.–The burden of proof in establishing
adoption is upon the person claiming such relationship. This Respondent
Pilapil failed to do. Moreover, the evidence presented by petitioner shows
that the alleged adoption is a sham.

G.R. No. 103695. March 15, 1996

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINE vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS,
JAIME B. CARANTO, and ZENAIDA P. CARANTO

Gonzales, Irene A.

The necessary consequence of the failure to implead the civil

registrar as an indispensable party and to give notice by publication of the
petition for correction of entry was to render the proceeding of the trial
court, so far as the correction of entry was concerned, null and void for
lack of jurisdiction both as to party and as to the subject matter.

G.R. No. 175080 November 24, 2010

EUGENIO R. REYES, joined by TIMOTHY JOSEPH M. REYES, MA.
GRACIA S. REYES, ROMAN GABRIEL M. REYES, and MA.
ANGELA S. REYES,
-versus-
LIBRADA F. MAURICIO (deceased) and LEONIDA F. MAURICIO,

HATAB, KARIZSA

Doctrine:

The legitimacy of the child cannot be contested by way of defense or

as a collateral issue in another action for a different purpose. The necessity
of an independent action directly impugning the legitimacy is more clearly
expressed in the Mexican code (article 335) which provides: The contest of
the legitimacy of a child by the husband or his heirs must be made by
proper complaint before the competent court; any contest made in any
other way is void. This principle applies under our Family Code. Articles
170 and 171 of the code confirm this view, because they refer to the action
to impugn the legitimacy
 In the Matter of the Adoption of Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia
[G.R. No. 148311. March 31, 2005]
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:

Macababbad, Realyn T.

Doctrine:

Adoption statutes, being humane and salutary, should be liberally

construed to carry out the beneficent purposes of adoption. The interests
and welfare of the adopted child are of primary and paramount
consideration, hence, every reasonable intendment should be sustained to
promote and fulfill these noble and compassionate objectives of the law.
"In case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed
that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail.

An adopted child is entitled to all the rights provided by law to a

legitimate child without discrimination of any kind, including the right to
bear the surname of her father and her mother.
There is no law regulating the use of a middle name.

G.R. No. 188801 October 15, 2014

ROSARIO MATA CASTRO AND JOANNE BENEDICTA
CHARISSIMA M. CASTRO, A.K.A. "MARIA SOCORRO M.
CASTRO" AND "JAYROSE M. CASTRO," Petitioners,
vs
JOSE MARIA JED LEMUEL GREGORIO AND ANA MARIA REGINA
GREGORIO, Respondents.
LEONEN, J.:

RIVERA, NOVELYN B.

DOCTRINE:

Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act on the prevailing party in

litigation committed outside of the trial of the case, whereby the defeated
party is prevented from fully exhibiting his side of the case by fraud or
deception practiced on him by his opponent, such as by keeping him away
from court, from giving him a false of a promise, or where the defendant
never had the knowledge of the suit, being kept in ignorance by the acts of
the plaintiff, or where an attorney fraudulently or without authority
connives at his defeat. When fraud is employed by a party precisely to
prevent the participation of any interested party, then fraud is extrinsic,
regardless of whether the fraud was committed through the use of forged
documents or perjured testimony during the trial.
RA 8552 fails to provide any provision on the status of adoption decrees if
the adoption is found to have been fraudulently. Rescission of adoption can
only be availed of by the adoptee. Petitioners whose consent was not
obtained/obtained fraudulenty cannot invoke RA 8552, they are left with no
other remedy in law other than annulment of judgment.

G.R. No. 192531 November 12, 2014

BERNARDINA P. BARTOLOME, Petitioner, vs. SOCIAL SECURITY
SYSTEM and SCANMAR MARITIME SERVICES, INC.,
Respondents.
VELASCO, JR., J.:

ROBLES, WINDY M.

DOCTRINE:

Even though parental authority is severed by virtue of adoption, the

ties between the adoptee and the biological parents are not entirely
eliminated. To demonstrate, the biological parents, in some instances, are
able to inherit from the adopted, as can be gleaned from Art. 190 of the
Family Code: Art. 190. Legal or intestate succession to the estate of the
adopted shall be governed by the following rules: xxx (2) When the
parents, legitimate or illegitimate, or the legitimate ascendants of the
adopted concur with the adopter, they shall divide the entire estate, one-
half to be inherited by the parents or ascendants and the other half, by the
adopters; xxx (6) When only collateral blood relatives of the adopted
survive, then the ordinary rules of legal or intestate succession shall apply.

In the same way that certain rights still attach by virtue of the blood
relation, so too should certain obligations, which, the Court rules, include
the exercise of parental authority, in the event of the untimely passing of
their minor offspring’s adoptive parent. We cannot leave undetermined the
fate of a minor child whose second chance at a better life under the care of
the adoptive parents was snatched from him by death’s cruel grasp.
Otherwise, the adopted child’s quality of life might have been better off not
being adopted at all if he would only find himself orphaned in the end.
Thus, the Court hold that Cornelio’s death at the time of John’s minority
resulted in the restoration of petitioner’s parental authority over the
adopted child.

[G.R. No. 139789. May 12, 2000]

ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO, petitioner, vs. ERLINDA I. BILDNER and
SYLVIA K. ILUSORIO, JOHN DOE and JANE DOE, respondents.
 [G.R. No. 139808. May 12, 2000]
POTENCIANO ILUSORIO, MA. ERLINDA I. BILDNER, and SYLVIA
ILUSORIO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ERLINDA K.
ILUSORIO, respondents.
Pardo, J.

Saavedra, Anne Janine M.

DOCTRINE:

Marital rights including coverture and living in conjugal dwelling

may not be enforced by the extra-ordinary writ of habeas corpus. A writ of
habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention, or
by which the rightful custody of a person is withheld from the one entitled
thereto. "Habeas corpus is a writ directed to the person detaining another,
commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner at a designated time
and place, with the day and cause of his capture and detention, to do,
submit to, and receive whatsoever the court or judge awarding the writ
shall consider in that behalf." It is a high prerogative, common-law writ, of
ancient origin, the great object of which is the liberation of those who may
be imprisoned without sufficient cause. It is issued when one is deprived of
liberty or is wrongfully prevented from exercising legal custody over
another person.

G.R. No. 147780 May 10, 2001

Panfilo LACSON, Michael Ray B. Aquino, and Cesar O. Mancao
vs.
Sec. Hernando PEREZ, P/Director Leandro Mendoza, and P/Sr.
Supt. Reynaldo Berroya
Melo, J

Velasquez, Liane Rose R.

DOCTRINE:

Justice Kapunan’s Dissenting Opinion

The distinction (between the calling out power, on one hand, and the
power to suspend the privilege of the write of habeas corpus and to declare
martial law, on the other hand) places the calling out power in a different
category from the power to declare martial law and the power to suspend
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, otherwise, the framers of the
Constitution would have simply lumped together the three powers and
provided for their revocation and review without any qualification.
 The reason for the difference in the treatment of the aforementioned
powers highlights the intent to grant the President the widest leeway and
broadest discretion in using the "calling out" power because it is
considered as the lesser and more benign power compared to the power
to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the power to
impose martial law, both of which involve the curtailment and suppression
of certain basic civil rights and individual freedoms, and thus necessitating
affirmation by Congress and, in appropriate cases, review by this Court.

Justice Sandoval-Gutierrez’s Dissenting Opinion

If a state of martial law "does not suspend the operation of the

Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative
assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts
and agencies over civilians, where civil courts are able to function, nor
automatically suspend the privilege of the writ," then it is with more
reason, that a mere declaration of a state of rebellion could not bring about
the suspension of the operation of the Constitution or of the writ of habeas
corpus.

G.R. No. 210636. July 28, 2014

Tujan-Militante vs. Cada-Deapera
VELASCO, J.:

Villar, Czarinalyn Mara

DOCTRINE:

Habeas Corpus; Considering that the writ is made enforceable

within a judicial region, petitions for the issuance of the writ of habeas
corpus, whether they be filed under Rule 102 of the Rules of Court or
pursuant to Section 20 of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC, may therefore be filed
with any of the proper Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) within the judicial
region where enforcement thereof is sought.— Considering that the writ
is made enforceable within a judicial region, petitions for the issuance of
the writ of habeas corpus, whether they be filed under Rule 102 of the
Rules of Court or pursuant to Section 20 of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC, may
therefore be filed with any of the proper RTCs within the judicial region
where enforcement thereof is sought.

Summons; Service of summons is not required in a habeas

corpus petition, be it under Rule 102 of the Rules of Court or A.M. No.
03-04-04-SC.—As regards petitioner’s assertion that the summons was
improperly served, suffice it to state that service of summons, to begin
with, is not required in a habeas corpus petition, be it under Rule 102 of the
Rules of Court or A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC. As held in Saulo v. Cruz, 105 Phil.
315 (1959), a writ of habeas corpus plays a role somewhat comparable to a
summons, in ordinary civil actions, in that, by service of said writ, the court
acquires jurisdiction over the person of the respondent.

G.R. No. 130277 May 9, 2002

LOURDES BARRIENTOS ELEOSIDA, for and in behalf of her minor
child, CHARLES CHRISTIAN ELEOSIDA, petitioner,
LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF QUEZON CITY, and CARLOS
VILLENA BORBON, respondents.

ARCEO, FRANCIS EMMANUEL B.

DOCTRINE:

Can a substantial issue be corrected in the entry of the birth of a

person in the civil registry?

Yes, provided the party avail the adversarial proceeding rather

than a summary proceeding.

GR 170340, 29 June 2007

Republic of the Philippines, petitioner,
vs.
Carlito I. Kho, Michael Kho, Mercy Nona Kho-Fortun, Heddy
Moira Kho-Serrano, Kevin Dogmoc Kho (minor, and Kelly
dogmoc Kho (Minor), respondents

Aure, Mark Lester L.

Doctrine:

Even substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected through

a petition filed under Rule 108 provided the parties aggrieved by the error
avail themselves of the appropriate adversary proceeding.

Appropriate adversary proceeding - one having opposing parties;

contested, as distinguished from an ex parte application, one of which the
party seeking relief has given legal warning to the other party, and
afforded the latter an opportunity to contest it.
 The obvious effect of Republic Act No. 9048 is to make possible the
administrative correction of clerical or typographical errors or change of
first name or nickname in entries in the civil register, leaving to Rule 108
the correction of substantial changes in the civil registry in appropriate
adversarial proceedings.

A petition for correction is an action in rem, an action against a thing

and not against a person. The decision on the petition binds not only the
parties thereto but the whole world. An in rem proceeding is validated
essentially through publication.

G.R. No. 159966. March 30, 2005

IN RE: PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME AND/OR
CORRECTION/CANCELLATION OF ENTRY IN CIVIL REGISTRY
OF JULIAN LIN CARULASAN WANG also known as JULIAN LIN
WANG, to be amended/corrected as JULIAN LIN WANG, JULIAN
LIN WANG, duly represented by his mother ANNA LISA
WANG, Petitioners,
vs.
CEBU CITY CIVIL REGISTRAR, duly represented by the Registrar
OSCAR B. MOLO, Respondents.
TINGA, J.:

Austria, Jefferson S.

DOCTRINE:

Among the grounds for change of name which have been held valid are:
(a) when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to
write or pronounce;
(b) when the change results as a legal consequence, as in legitimation;
(c) when the change will avoid confusion;
(d) when one has continuously used and been known since childhood by a
Filipino name, and was unaware of alien parentage;
(e) a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of former
alienage, all in good faith and without prejudicing anybody; and
(f) when the surname causes embarrassment and there is no showing that
the desired change of name was for a fraudulent purpose or that the
change of name would prejudice public interest.

G.R. No. 181174 December 04, 2009

 MA. CRISTINA TORRES BRAZA, PAOLO JOSEF T. BRAZA and
JANELLE ANN T. BRAZA, Petitioner
vs.
THE CITY CIVIL REGISTRAR OF HIMAMAYLAN CITY, NEGROS
OCCIDENTAL, minor PATRICK ALVIN TITULAR BRAZA,
represented by LEON TITULAR, CECILIA TITULAR and LUCILLE
C. TITULAR, Respondents
CARPIO MORALES, J.:

Chua, Mark Andrew Y.

DOCTRINE:

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..

G.R. No. 174689 October 22, 2007

ROMMEL JACINTO DANTES SILVERIO, petitioner,
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
Corona, J.,

Gatuc, Ralph Lawrence B.

Doctrine:

RA 9048 now governs the change of first name. It vests the power
and authority to entertain petitions for change of first name to the city or
municipal civil registrar or consul general concerned. Under the law,
therefore, jurisdiction over applications for change of first name is now
primarily lodged with the aforementioned administrative officers. The
intent and effect of the law is to exclude the change of first name from the
coverage of Rules 103 (Change of Name) and 108 (Cancellation or
Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) of the Rules of Court, until and
unless an administrative petition for change of name is first filed and
subsequently denied.

G.R. No. 166676 September 12, 2008

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.
JENNIFER B. CAGANDAHAN, respondent.
 Quisumbing, J.

Guevara, Ron Jason A.

DOCTRINE/S:

1. Under RA 9048, a correction in the civil registry involving the

change of sex is not a mere clerical or typographical error. It is a
substantial change for which the applicable procedure is Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court. Rule 108 now applies only to substantial changes and
corrections in entries in the civil register.

2. Under Rule 103, a change of name is not a matter of right but of

judicial discretion.

G.R. No. 198010 August 12, 2013

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER,
vs.
DR. NORMA S. LUGSANAY UY, RESPONDENT.
PERALTA, J.:

Hilal, Jalanie B.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby

GRANTED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated February 18, 2011 and
Resolution dated July 27, 20011 in CA-G.R. CV No. 00238-MIN, are SET
ASIDE. Consequently, the June 28, 2004 Order of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 27, Gingoog City, in Spl. Proc. No. 230-2004 granting the Petition
for Correction of Entry of Certificate of Live Birth filed by respondent Dr.
Norma S. Lugsanay Uy, is NULLIFIED.

GR No. 196049, 2013-06-26

MINORU FUJIKI v. MARIA PAZ GALELA MARINAY

Ismael Jimlan, S.

DOCTRINE:
 A recognition of a foreign judgment is not an action to nullify a
marriage. It is an action for Philippine courts to recognize the effectivity of
a foreign judgment, which presupposes a case which was already tried
and decided under foreign law. Article 26 of the Family Code further
confers jurisdiction on Philippine courts to extend the effect of a foreign
divorce decree to a Filipino spouse without undergoing trial to determine
the validity of the dissolution of the marriage. The second paragraph of
Article 26 of the Family Code provides that “[w]here a marriage between a
Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is
thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or
her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under
Philippine law.”

G.R. No. 189538 February 10, 2014

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,
vs.
MERLINDA L. OLAYBAR, Respondent.

Marquez, Jay Michael A.

DOCTRINE:

In correction of entries, the Court has repeatedly ruled that "even

substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected through a petition
filed under Rule 108, with the true facts established and the parties
aggrieved by the error availing themselves of the appropriate adversarial
proceeding." An appropriate adversary suit or proceeding is one where
the trial court has conducted proceedings where all relevant facts have
been fully and properly developed, where opposing counsel have been
given opportunity to demolish the opposite party’s case, and where the
evidence has been thoroughly weighed and considered.

Procedural requirement in special proceedings, formal pleadings

and a hearing may be dispensed with, and the remedy granted upon mere
application or motion. However, a special proceeding is not always
summary. The procedure laid down in Rule 108 is not a summary
proceeding per se. It requires publication of the petition; it mandates the
inclusion as parties of all persons who may claim interest which would be
affected by the cancellation or correction; it also requires the civil registrar
and any person in interest to file their opposition, if any; and it states that
although the court may make orders expediting the proceedings, it is after
hearing that the court shall either dismiss the petition or issue an order
granting the same. Thus, as long as the procedural requirements in Rule
108 are followed, it is the appropriate adversary proceeding to effect
substantial corrections and changes in entries of the civil register.
 G.R. No. 197174
September 10, 2014
FRANCLER P. ONDE, Petitioner,
vs.
THE OFFICE OF THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRATION OF LAS
PIÑAS CITY, Respondent.

Nasalga, Jose Marie

Doctrine:

Corrections of entries in the civil register including those on

citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage
involve substantial alterations. Substantial errors in a civil registry may be
corrected and the true facts established provided the parties aggrieved by
the error avail themselves of the appropriate adversary proceedings.

Petition seeking a substantial correction of an entry in a civil register

must implead as parties to the proceedings not only the local civil
registrar, as petitioner did in the dismissed petition for correction of
entries, but also all persons who have or claim any interest which would be
affected by the correction. This is required by Section 3, Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court.

CASTORIO ALVARICO vs. AMELITA L. SOLA

QUISUMBING, J.:

DIZON, DANIELLE LINDSAY

Anent petitioner’s contention that it was the intention of Fermina for

Amelita to hold the property in trust for him, we held that if this was really
the intention of Fermina, then this should have been clearly stated in the
Deed of Self-Adjudication executed in 1983, in the Deed of Donation
executed in 1984, or in a subsequent instrument. Absent any persuasive
proof of that intention in any written instrument, we are not prepared to
accept petitioner’s bare allegation concerning the donor’s state of mind.
The decision of the CA is AFFIRMED. The complaint filed by petitioner
against respondent is declared properly DISMISSED.
 G.R. No. 172720 September 14, 2015
ELISEO MALTOS AND ROSITA P. MALTOS
vs.
HEIRS OF EUSEBIO BORROMEO
LEONEN, J.:

Ragiles, John Paul A.

DOCTRINE:

General Rule: Reversion under Section 101 of the Public Land Act is
not automatic. The Office of the Solicitor General must first file an action for
reversion since the title has already vested in the individual.

However, reversion is automatic when:

Under Section 29, after the cultivation of the land has begun, the
purchaser, with the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and
Commerce, may convey or encumber his rights, provided such
conveyance or encumbrance does not affect any right or interest of the
Government in the land: And provided, further, That the transferee is not
delinquent in the payment. Any sale and encumbrance made without the
previous approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce shall be
null and void and shall produce the effect of annulling the acquisition and
reverting the property and all rights to the State, and all payments on the
purchase price theretofore made to the Government shall be forfeited.

G.R. No. 147148, January 13, 2003

PILAR Y. GOYENA, Petitioner, v. AMPARO LEDESMA-GUSTILO,
respondent.
CARPIO MORALES, J.

Britanico, Nerie D.

DOCTRINE:

In the selection of a guardian, a large discretion must be allowed the

judge who deals directly with the parties. As a rule, when it appears that
the judge has exercised care and diligence in selecting the guardian, and
has given due consideration to the reasons for and against his action which
are urged by the interested parties, his action should not be disturbed
unless it is made very clear that he has fallen into grievous error.
 [G.R. No. 110427. February 24, 1997]
The Incompetent, CARMEN CAIZA, represented by her legal
guardian, AMPARO EVANGELISTA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF
APPEALS (SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION), PEDRO ESTRADA and his
wife, LEONORA ESTRADA, respondents.
NARVASA, C.J.:

CAIDO, CARLA YESHABETH

DOCTRINE

The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the

deceased, without requiring the appointment of an executor or
administrator and the court may appoint guardian ad litem for the minor
heirs. To be sure, an ejectment case survives the death of a party. Caiza's
demise did not extinguish the desahucio suit instituted by her through her
guardian that action, not being a purely personal one, survived her death;
her heirs have taken her place and now represent her interests.

G.R. No. 194366 October 10, 2012

NAPOLEON D. NERI, ALICIA D. NERI-MONDEJAR, VISMINDA
D. NERI-CHAMBERS, ROSA D. NERI-MILLAN, DOUGLAS D.
NERI, EUTROPIA D. ILLUT-COCKINOS AND VICTORIA D.
ILLUT-PIALA, Petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF HADJI YUSOP UY AND
JULPHA* IBRAHIM UY, Respondents.

Catipay, Jan Kriezl M.

DOCTRINE:

Administration includes all acts for the preservation of the property

and the receipt of fruits according to the natural purpose of the thing. Any
act of disposition or alienation, or any reduction in the substance of the
patrimony of child, exceeds the limits of administration.

Ratification means that one under no disability voluntarily adopts

and gives sanction to some unauthorized act or defective proceeding,
which without his sanction would not be binding on him. It is this voluntary
choice, knowingly made, which amounts to a ratification of what was
theretofore unauthorized, and becomes the authorized act of the party so
making the ratification. Once ratified, expressly or impliedly such as when
the person knowingly received benefits from it, the contract is cleansed
from all its defects from the moment it was constituted, as it has a
retroactive effect.

G.R. No. 184528. April 25, 2012

Nilo Oropesa vs. Cirilo Oropesa
Leonardo-De Castro, J.; Division

Cayago, Fresnel A.

Doctrine:

A finding that a person is incompetent should be anchored on clear,

positive and definite
evidence.

G.R. No. 191993 December 5, 2012

EDUARDO T. ABAD, Petitioner, vs. LEONARDO BIASON and
GABRIEL A. MAGNO, Respondents.
REYES, J.:

Cazeñas, Vanessa Gem P.

DOCTRINE:

It is a well-established rule that the relationship of guardian and

ward is necessarily terminated by the death of either the guardian or the
ward. The supervening event of death rendered it pointless to delve into
the propriety of Biason’s appointment since the juridical tie between him
and Maura has already been dissolved. The petition, regardless of its
disposition, will not afford Abad, or anyone else for that matter, any
substantial relief.