INTRODUCTI ON -case punctuated by various incidents relative to modes of discovery, pre-trial, postponements or

continuances, MTDs, Motion to declare defendant in default, et al.

BASIS AND COMPONENTS OF REMEDIAL LAW -Pending hearing, Senate conducted hearing in aid of legislation on the issuances of fake titles and
Article VIII, Section 13, Constitution focused on how Kenrick was able to obtain title to lands wherein it built perimeter fence. Here is where
The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any case submitted to it for decision en banc or in division shall atty. Garlitos denied that he signed the answer before the RTC
be reached in consultation before the case is assigned to a Member for the writing of the opinion of the -with that admission before the senate, OSG filed Urgent motion to declare Kenrick in default. - answer
Court. A certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice shall be issued and a copy thereof attached no signature of counsel so mere scrap of paper
to the record of the case and served upon the parties. Any Member who took no part, or dissented, or -RTC: granted, declared defendant in default, allowed RP to present evidence ex parte
abstained from a decision or resolution must state the reason therefor. The same requirements shall be -MR: Denied, so petition for certiorari
observed by all lower collegiate courts. -CA: reversed RTC
statements of Atty. Garlitos in the Senate hearing unreliable, not subject to cross examination
Acts of Atty Garlitos after the filing of the answer: although he did not sign it, he prepared the draft of
Civil Procedure (Section 3a, ROC) the answer and even if it was signed by another person, he did not contest it and even represented
Ordinary Civil Action: one by which a party sues another for Kenrick in another case - these acts supposedly cured whatever defect the answer had
...the enforcement or protection of a right,
...or the prevention or redress of a wrong ISSUE: WON CA erred ? YES. Kenrick is really in default, for their answer was not signed therefore the
Special Civil Action: similar to an ordinary civil action but subject to specific rules prescribed for it said pleading is deemed as a mere scrap of paper and thus they are not considered to have submitted
any answer at all.
Special Proceedings
-a remedy by which a party seeks to establish On the alleged blanket authority given by Atty. Garlitos for anyone to sign the draft answer he
...a status prepared
a right -acts of Kenrick was deemed to have adopted the statements of Atty. Garlitos (that the answer
or a particular fact submitted was not signed by him therefore, they have submitted a defective answer) - adoptive
admission
Criminal procedure -SIGNED PLEADING: signed by the counsel or the party himself; counsel's signature cannot be delegated
-criminal Action: one by which the State and means that he certifies that he has read the pleading; that, to the best of his knowledge, information
prosecutes a person and belief, there is a good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay. Under the Rules of
for an act or omission punishable by law Court, it is counsel alone, by affixing his signature, who can certify to these matters.

Evidence On liberal interpretation of rules (rules are mere technicalities.)

R128.1 Evidence is the means
Sanctioned by these rules
Of ascertaining in a judicial proceedings
The truth
In relation to a matter of fact
Importance of Procedural Rules
REPUBLIC V. KENRICH DEV'T CORPORATION 498 SCRA 220
Facts:
-Kenrick Development Corp built a perimeter wall which encroached upon some parcels of land occupied
by ATO based on TCTs derived from TCT No. 17508 registered in the name of one Alfonso Concepcion.
When ATO verified the TCTs with the Land Registration Authority (LRA), it was found that there were no
record of TCT no. 17508 and its ascendant title. Land was also covered by Villamor Air Base.
-so OSG, on behalf of LRA, filed a COMPLAINT FOR REVOCATION, ANNULMENT AND CANCELLATION OF
CERTIFICATES OF TITLE in behalf of RP vs. Kenrick and Alfonso Concepcion
-Alfonso Concepcion cannot be found so alias summon by publication done
-Kenrick allegedly filed an answer signed by Atty. Onofre Garlitos, Jr as their counsel (but later on, during
a Senate hearing, it was found that somebody else signed for Atty. Garlitos but he did not authorize such
signing)
Procedural requirements which have often been disparagingly labeled as mere technicalities have their
own valid raison d etre in the orderly administration of justice. To summarily brush them aside may
result in arbitrariness and injustice. 19
The Courts pronouncement in Garbo v. Court of Appeals 20 is relevant:
Procedural rules are [tools] designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases. Courts and litigants alike
are thus [enjoined] to abide strictly by the rules. And while the Court, in some instances, allows a
relaxation in the application of the rules, this, we stress, was never intended to forge a bastion for
erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. The liberality in the interpretation and application of
the rules applies only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances. While it is true
that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in
accordance with the prescribed procedure to insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.
Like all rules, procedural rules should be followed except only when, for the most persuasive of
reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of
his thoughtlessness in not complying with the prescribed procedure. 21 In this case, respondent failed
to show any persuasive reason why it should be exempted from strictly abiding by the rules.
As a final note, the Court cannot close its eyes to the acts committed by Atty. Garlitos in violation of
the ethics of the legal profession. Thus, he should be made to account for his possible misconduct.
SAN PABLO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION V. CIR 492 SCRA 192

1|S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
San Pablo Manufacturing Corporation was assessed by the BIR for DEFICIENCY miller's tax and
manufacturer's sales tax. It was imposed on the sales of corn and edible oil as manufactured products.
SPMC opposed the assessment but their protest was denied. SPMC appealed to CTA.
-CTA: cancelled deficiency manufacturer's tax on sales of corn and edible oils but not deficiency miller's
tax. MR denied
-SPMC appealed to CA BUT the attached VERIFICATION and CNFS to the appeal was WITHOUT THE
CORPORATE SECRETARY'S CERTIFICATE, BOARD RESOLUTION OR POWER OF ATTORNEY but only with the
SPMC's chief financial officer who did not appear to have authority to sign the verification and CNFS. MR
DENIED
ISSUE: WON CA should have given cognizance to the appeal? NO
On SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE (as the merits would allegedly show that SPMC was not liable for the
miller's tax as the crude oil was sold to UNICHEM and UNICHEM exported it as an ingredient of fatty
acid and glycerine)
-R43.5 (appeals to CA from CTA): Needs pleading to be verified + CNFS. If w/o proper verification, treated
as an unsigned pleading. If w/o CNFS, ground for dismissal.
WHO MAY BE SIGNATORIES TO CORPORATION'S DOCUMENTS: only by natural persons duly authorized
for the purpose by corporate by-laws or by specific acts of the board of directors. In the absence of
authority from the BoD, no person, not even the officers of the corporation, can bind the corporation.
Here: AS SPMC'S PETITION DID NOT INDICATE THAT THE PERSON WHO SIGNED THE VERIFICATION/CNFS
WAS AUTHORIZED BY BOD.
WHY: IT ONLY RELIED ON THE ALLEGED POWER OF THE CHIEF FINANCING OFFICER TO REPRESENT SPMC
IN ALL MATTERS REGARDING FINANCES OF CORPORATION - INCLUDING FILING OF SUITS
BUT: no power of attorney, no authorization from the BoD
= unsigned pleading
strict compliance with procedural rules is enjoined to facilitate the orderly administration of justice.
Substantial compliance will not suffice in a matter involving strict observance such as the requirement
on non-forum shopping, as well as verification. Utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be
rationalized by harping on the policy of liberal construction.
Even if grant substantial compliance, SPMC still is liable for miller's tax
-The tax exemption applied only to the exportation of rope, coconut oil, palm oil, copra by-products and
dessicated coconuts, whether in their original state or as an ingredient or part of any manufactured
article or products, by the proprietor or operator of the factory or by the miller himself.
-The language of the exemption proviso did not warrant the interpretation advanced by SPMC. Nowhere
did it provide that the exportation made by the purchaser of the materials enumerated in the exempting
clause or the manufacturer of products utilizing the said materials was covered by the exemption. Since
SPMCs situation was not within the ambit of the exemption, it was subject to the 3% millers tax
imposed under Section 168 of the 1987 Tax Code.
TRINIDAD V. ACAPULCO 493 SCRA 179
Facts
Backstory: Acapulco owed Trinidad around P566k.
Trinidad's version: as payment for the P566k, Acapulco gave him the Mercedez Benz she bought from
Canete for P500k by way of dacion en pago. A deed of sale was executed to that effect. He did not give
instructions to Acapulco to buy it from Canete, he did not borrow it from Acapulco and Acapulco did not
demand for its return
Acapulco's version: Acapulco was asked by Canete to sell the Mercedes Benz for P580k (but she could
buy it herself for P500k). While she was finding a buyer, Trinidad borrowed the car from her and
2|S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
instructed her to buy the car from Canete herself then Trinidad would then pay her (so bayaran muna
nya para mura bili then saka bibilhin ni Trinidad). However, after buying the Benz from Canete, Trinidad
did not return the car and did not pay Acapulco, saying that he would just offset whatever Acapulco
owes to him. As a result, the checks issued by Acapulco in favor of Canete (to pay the P500k) were not
funded and bounced. Criminal charges were filed against her by Canete.
-Acapulco filed Complaint for nullification of sale she made in favor of Trinidad, prayed that the car be
returned to her and that Trinidad pay damages.
-Trinidad alleged that there was dacion en pago between them (and alleged those above)
-Pre-trial order focused on WON there was dacion en pago between them
RTC: NO DACION EN PAGO because no common consent (for Acapulco);
-MR :he alleged that there was implied consent on the part of Acapulco because she delivered the car
herself after he threatened that he'll file an estafa case against her
-Supplemental Motion: assuming no consent from Acapulco, there was legal compensation (since
Acapulco owed him P566k and the cost of the car was P500k)
-appealed to CA
CA: affirm
(1) legal compensation allegation filed too late
(2) parties already agreed that the issue would only be WON there was dacion en pago
(3) dacion en pago was not present - Acapulco did not give consent
(4) no legal compensation (obligation in money not equivalent to delivery of car)
(5) admission that the sale price of the car was not paid by him (as he wanted that the car be
given as payment for Acapulco's debts) entitled Acapulco to file action for rescission of sale
ISSUE: WON legal compensation argument of Trinidad should still be appreciated, though not expressly
stated in his Answer to the Complaint before RTC, as his allegations in the answer and the facts proven in
TC shows the presence of legal compensation
HELD: For TRINIDAD. There's legal compensation
On technical rules (late raising of issue of legal compensation):
-Our rules recognize the broad discretionary power of an appellate court to waive the lack of proper
assignment of errors and to consider errors not assigned. The interest of justice dictates that the Court
consider and resolve issues even though not particularly raised if it is necessary for the complete
adjudication of the rights and obligations of the parties and it falls within the issues already found by
them. While it is true that petitioner failed to raise the issue of legal compensation at the earliest
opportunity, this should not preclude the courts from appreciating the same especially in this case,
where ignoring the same would only result to unnecessary and circuitous filing of cases.
Indeed, the doctrine that higher courts are precluded from entertaining matters neither alleged in the
pleadings nor raised during the proceedings below but ventilated for the first time only in a motion for
reconsideration or on appeal, is subject to exceptions, such as when:
a. grounds not assigned as errors but affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter;
b. matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently plain or clerical errors within
contemplation of law;
c. matters not assigned as errors on appeal but consideration of which is necessary in arriving at
a just decision and complete resolution of the case or to serve the interests of justice or to
avoid dispensing piecemeal justice;
d. matters not specifically assigned as errors on appeal but raised in the trial court and are
matters of record having some bearing on the issue submitted which the parties failed to
raise or which the lower court ignored;
 e. matters not assigned as errors on appeal but closely related to an error assigned; and
f. matters not assigned as errors on appeal but upon which the determination of a question
properly assigned, is dependent.
ON WON there was LEGAL COMPENSATION
-Compensation takes effect by operation of law even without the consent or knowledge of the parties
concerned when all the requisites mentioned in Article 1279 of the Civil Code are present. This is in
consonance with Article 1290 of the Civil Code which provides that:
Article 1290. When all the requisites mentioned in article 1279 are present, compensation takes effect by
operation of law, and extinguishes both debts to the concurrent amount, even though the creditors and
debtors are not aware of the compensation.
Since it takes place ipso jure, when used as a defense, it retroacts to the date when all its requisites are
fulfilled.
-CA: denied Petition for certiorari:
(1) OSG failed to attach CTC of assailed order (TC's denial of MR)
(2) OSG failed to attach a copy of the order declaring Clemente Jomoc presumptively dead
---based on (1) and (2) alone + Rule 46.3: the case should have been dismissed!
(3) Declaration of presumptive death is a SPECIAL PROCEEDING as it merely seeks for a declaration of the
trial court of the presumptive death of the absentee spouse. It does not seek enforcement or protection
of a right or the prevention or redress of a wrong. Neither does it involve a demand of a right or a COA
that can be enforced
ISSUE: WON THE DECLARATION OF PRESUMPTIVE DEATH OF AN ABSENTEE SPOUSE IS A SPECIAL
PROCEEDIGN OR A SUMMARY PROCEEDING (IF NOT A SPECIAL PROCEEDING, DOES NOT NEED A RECORD
ON APPEAL)
HELD: it is NOT A SPECIAL RPOCEEDING!

Article 1279 provides that in order that compensation may be proper, it is necessary: RULE 72: SUBJECT MATTER AND APPLICABILITY
that each one of the obligors be bound principally, and that he be at the same time a principal creditor of OF GENERAL RULES
the other; Section 1. Subject matter of special proceedings. Rules of special proceedings are provided for in the
that both debts consist in a sum of money, or if the things due are consumable, they be of the same kind, following:
and also of the same quality if the latter has been stated; a. Settlement of estate of deceased persons;
that the two debts be due; b. Escheat;
that they be liquidated and demandable; c. Guardianship and custody of children;
that over neither of them there be any retention or controversy, commenced by third persons and d. Trustees;
communicated in due time to the debtor. e. Adoption;
f. Rescission and revocation of adoption;
Here, petitioners stance is that legal compensation has taken place and operates even against the will of g. Hospitalization of insane persons;
the parties because: h. Habeas corpus;
respondent and petitioner were personally both creditor and debtor of each other; i. Change of name;
the monetary obligation of respondent was P566,000.00 and that of the petitioner was P500,000.00 j. Voluntary dissolution of corporations;
showing that both indebtedness were monetary obligations the amount of which were also both known k. Judicial approval of voluntary recognition of minor natural children;
and liquidated; - of no moment if the other obligation was the delivery of the car l. Constitution of family home;
both monetary obligations had become due and demandablepetitioners obligation as shown in the m. Declaration of absence and death;
deed of sale and respondents indebtedness as shown in the dishonored checks; and n. Cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry.
neither of the debts or obligations are subject of a controversy commenced by a third person.
Sec. 2. Applicability of rules of civil actions. In the absence of special provisions, the rules provided for
in ordinary actions shall be, as far as practicable, applicable in special proceedings. (Underscoring
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS supplied)
REPUBLIC VS. COURT OF APPEALS 458 SCRA 200 (2005) CIVIL CODE
Facts: Art. 390. After an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives, he
-Apolinaria Malinao Jomoc wanted a declaration of the presumptive death of her husband Clemente shall be presumed dead for all purposes, except for those of succession.
Jomoc, who has been absent for 9 years, to be able to marry again. x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
-RTC: granted it, declared her husband presumptively dead
basis: Article 41,par2, FC: four consecutive years only required; must institute a summary proceeding FAMILY CODE
for the declaration of presumptive death of absentee spouse Art. 41. A marriage contracted by any person during the subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null
-Republic, through OSG, sought to appeal by filing ONLY A NOTICE OF APPEAL and void, unless before the celebration of the subsequent marriage, the prior spouses had been absent
-TC disapporved the Notice of appeal: based on Rule 41, Section 2(a), there should also be a RECORD OF for four consecutive years and the spouse present had a well-founded belief that the absent spouses was
APPEAL filed and served as the present case was a special proceeding already dead. In case of disappearance where there is danger of death under the circumstances set forth
-OSG filed MR: denied in the provisions of Article 391 of the Civil Code, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient.
-OSG filed Petition for certiorari before CA: declaration of presumptive death is NOT A SPECIAL
PROCEEDING or a case of multiple or separate appeals which would require a record on appeal

3|S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
For the purpose pf contracting the subsequent marriage under the preceding paragraph, the spouses of procedure are not to be applied in a technical sense. Given the issue raised before it by petitioner,
present must institute a summary proceeding as provided in this Code for the declaration of what the appellate court should have done was to direct petitioner to comply with the rule.
presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of a reappearance of the absent
spouse. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) As for petitioners failure to submit copy of the trial courts order granting the petition for declaration of
presumptive death, contrary to the appellate courts observation that petitioner was also assailing it,
RULES OF COURT ON WHEN RECORD ON APPEAL REQUIRED petitioners 8-page petition filed in said court does not so reflect, it merely having assailed the order
Rule 41, Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Court, on Modes of Appeal, invoked by the trial court in disapproving the Notice of Appeal.
disapproving petitioners Notice of Appeal, provides:
Sec. 2. Modes of appeal. - DEFINITION: R2.2, RO C
Ordinary appeal. - The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the
exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which Cause of action defined: a COA
rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. -is the act or omission
No record on appeal shall be required except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or By which a party violates the right of another
separate appeals where the law or these Rules so require. In such cases, the record on appeal shall be
filed and served in like manner. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) DISTINGUISHED FROM C IVIL ACTION R2.1 AND 2 .2
R2.1: Ordinary Civil Actions, basis of -
By the trial courts citation of Article 41 of the Family Code, it is gathered that the petition of Apolinaria
every civil action
Jomoc to have her absent spouse declared presumptively dead had for its purpose her desire to contract
Must be based on a cause of action
a valid subsequent marriage. Ergo, the petition for that purpose is a "summary proceeding," following
R2.2 COA
above-quoted Art. 41, paragraph 2 of the Family Code.
SUBJECT MATTER
Since Title XI of the Family Code, entitled SUMMARY JUDICIAL PROCEEDING IN THE FAMILY LAW, RULE 72.1, ROC
contains the following provision, inter alia: Rules of Special proceedings are provided for in the following cases:
xxx a. Settlement of estate of deceased persons
Art. 238. Unless modified by the Supreme Court, the procedural rules in this Title shall apply in all cases b. Escheat
provided for in this Codes requiring summary court proceedings. Such cases shall be decided in an c. Guardianship and custody of children
expeditious manner without regard to technical rules. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) d. Trustees
x x x, e. Adoption
f. Rescission and revocation of adoption
there is no doubt that the petition of Apolinaria Jomoc required, and is, therefore, a summary g. Hospitalization of insane persons
proceeding under the Family Code, not a special proceeding under the Revised Rules of Court appeal for h. Habeas corpus
which calls for the filing of a Record on Appeal. It being a summary ordinary proceeding, the filing of a i. Change of name
Notice of Appeal from the trial courts order sufficed. j. Voluntary dissolution of corporations
k. Judicial approval of voluntary recognition of minor natural children
That the Family Code provision on repeal, Art. 254, provides as follows: l. Constitution of family home
Art. 254. Titles III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, XI and XV of Book I of Republic Act No. 386, otherwise known as m. Declaration of absence and death
the Civil Code of the Philippines, as amended, and Articles 17, 18, 19, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 39, 40, 41 and n. Cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry
42 of Presidential Decree No. 603, otherwise known as the Child and Youth Welfare Code, as amended,
and all laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations rules and regulations, or parts thereof,
inconsistent therewith are hereby repealed, (Emphasis and underscoring supplied), APPLICABILITY OF RUL ES OF CI VIL ACTIONS
seals the case in petitioners favor. RULE 12.2, ROC
In the absence of special provisions
*IN SHORT, SINCE THE TRIAL COURT USED THE FAMILY CODE, AND THE FAMILY CODE DESIGNATES The rules provided for in ordinary actions shall be
SUCH CASES AS A SUMMARY PROCEEDING AND NOT A SPECIAL PROCEEDING, IT IS NOT A SPECIAL As far as practicable
PROCEEDING Be applicable in special proceedings

Finally, on the alleged procedural flaw in petitioners petition before the appellate court. Petitioners
failure to attach to his petition before the appellate court a copy of the trial courts order denying its
motion for reconsideration of the disapproval of its Notice of Appeal is not necessarily fatal, for the rules II. SETTLEMENT OF ES TATE OF DECEASED PER SONS
VENUE AND PROCESS RULE 7 3, SECTIONS 1 -4

4|S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
Section 1 Where estate of deceased persons settled. If absent and unheard from for the periods fixed in the Civil Code
If the decedent is an inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death, But if such person proves to be alive,
Whether a citizen or an alien He shall be entitled to the balance o his estate
His will shall be proved, After payment of all his debts.
Or letters of administration granted The balance may be recovered by motion in the same proceeding.
And his estate settled,
In the Court of First Instance in the province in which he resides at the time of his death Civil Code Provisions relevant:
And if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, Article 390: 10yr-absence for purposes of opening succession
The Court of First Instance of any province in which he had estate. If 75 years: absence of 5 years
The court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent Article 391: danger of death: 4 years
Shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts. a. On board a vessel lost during a sea voyage
The jurisdiction assumed by a court b. On board a plane which is missing
So far as it depends on the place of residence of the decedent c. Was in the armed forces and has taken part in war
Or of the location of his estate d. Has been in danger of death under other circumstances
Shall not be contested in a suit or proceeding
Except in an appeal from that court Article 392: recovery of property upon reappearance
In the original sense If the absentee appears
Or when the want of jurisdiction appears on the record. Or without appearing his existence is proved
He shall recover his property in the condition in which it may be found
Section 2 Where estate settled upon dissolution of marriage And the price of any property that may have been alienated
When the marriage is dissolved Or the property acquired therewith;
By death of the husband or wife But he cannot claim either fruits or rents
The community property shall be
Inventoried
Regalado: Article 392 + Rule 73.4: conditions of recovery of absentee
Administered
(a) All debts must have been paid
And liquidated
(b) He shall recover his property in the condition in which it may have been found, together with the
And the debts thereof paid
price of any property that may have been alienated or the property acquired therewith
In the testate or intestate proceedings of the deceased spouse
(c) He is not entitled to fruits or rents
If both spouses have died,
the conjugal partnership shall be liquidated
in the testate or intestate proceedings of either. SAN JUAN V. CRUZ, 479 SCRA 410
SHORT SUMMARY: THIS IS THE CASE WHEREIN A DEVISEE OF A DECEASED PENDING PETITION FOR
Section 3 Process PROBATE DIED, AND HIS HEIRS WERE PRESENTED TO SUBSTITUTE HIM, BUT ONE OF THE HEIRS OF THE
In the exercise of probate jurisdiction, DECEDENT OPPOSED SAID SUBSTITUTION, INSISTING THAT A COURT-APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR OR
Courts of First Instance may issue warrants and process EXECUTOR SHOULD INSTEAD BE THE PROPER SUBSTITUTE
Necessary to compel the attendance of witnesses
Or to carry into effect their orders and judgments Decedent: Loreto Samia San Juan
And all other powers granted to them by law. Last will and testament: Oscar Casa as one of the devisees
If a person does not perform an Death: October 25, 1988
order -Atty. Teodorico Aquino filed PETITION FOR PROBATE with QC RTC
or judgment -pending petition, Oscar died intestate on May 24, 1999: so Firs of Aquino et al. entered their
rendered by a court in the exercise of its probate jurisdiction appearances as counsel for Federico Casa, Jr. (one of Oscar's heirs) - entry of appearance DENIED:
it may issue a warrant for the apprehension Federico Casa, Jr. was not the executor or administrator of the estate of the devisee
and imprisonment of such person -RTC ordered Aquino to secure appointment of administrator or executor of estate of Oscar Casa
until he performs such order or judgment -Aquino filed pleading "Appointment of Administrator" signed by alleged heirs of Oscar Casa, praying
or is released. that Federico Casa Jr. be designated as administrator of Oscar Casa's estate and that he may be
substituted (Federico is the nearest accessible heir to attend the hearing of the probate of the will +
Section 4. Presumption of death most competent to assume the responsibilities and duties of the ADMINISTRATOR)
For purposes of settlement of his estate, -Epifanio San Juan filed MOTION TO DECLARE APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR AS INADEQUATE OR
A person shall be presumed dead INSUFFICIENT: heirs should present an administrator of Oscar Casa's estate as representative

5|S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
>reply: (1) R3.16: heirs of Oscar may be substituted for the deceased without need for appointment of an
administrator or executor of the estate
(2) Court enjoined to require the representative to appear before the court
-RTC: San Juan's motion DENIED: no need for appointment of administrator or executor, enough that a
representative be appointed (R3.16)
-San Juan filed MR, citing LAWAS V. CA: R3.16: priority still given to the legal representative of deceased
(executor/administrator of estate)
-in case the heirs of the deceased will be substituted, there must be a prior determination by the
probate court of who the rightful heirs are, in line with A1058 NCC and R78.6 and R79.2. (so insist that
there should be petition for appointment of an administrator of Oscar Casa's estate)
-MR DENIED
-2nd MR, append TORRES V. CA: purpose behind the rule on substitution of parties is the protection of
the right of every party to due process, to ensure that the deceased party would continue to be properly
represented in the suit through the duly appointed legal representative of his estate
ONLY in the absence of an executor or administrator that the heirs may be allowed to substitute for
the deceased party
2nd MR DENIED: (1) same arguments; (2) MONTANONO V. SUESA & RIERA V. PALMANORI: no need for
the appointment of an administrator since a legatee is not considered either an indispensable or
necessary party
-MR AGAIN of San Juan:
(1) cases cited did not rule on issue of WON a substitution of a legatee under the will who died during
probate may be done by simply submitting an "appointment of administrator"cases involved WON the
probate court can rule on the validity of the provisions of the will
>Opposition: 3rd MR prohibited by R37.3
>DENIED 3rd MR
CA: dismissed
(1) filed beyond the 60-day period counted from notice of denial of first MR
(2) Subsequent MRs pro forma because it sought the same relief - so did not toll the running of the 60-
day period.
-MR (only interlocutory, not final judgment so should not run 60-d period from denial of 1st MR) -
DENIED
WON 60-day period for filing of petition for certiorari is reckoned from notice of denial of 1st MR even
though a 2nd and 3rd MR of same interlocutory order had been filed and later denied
YES, but different rule:
-the proscription against a pro forma motion applies only to a final resolution or order and not to an
interlocutory one.
-2nd MR, though based on same grounds, is not pro forma BUT may still be denied on the ground that it
is merely a rehash or a mere reiteration of the grounds and arguments already passed upon and resolved
by the court
-cannot reject 2nd MR on the ground that 2nd MR of an interlocutory order is forbidden by law
Thus, there are three essential dates that must be stated in a petition for certiorari brought under Rule
65 of the Rules of Court for the nullification of a judgment, resolution or order:
(1) the date when notice of the judgment, resolution or order was received;
(2) when a motion for a new trial or reconsideration of the judgment, order or resolution was submitted;
and
(3) when notice of the denial thereof was received by petitioner.
6|S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
The requirement of setting forth the three (3) dates in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court is for the purpose of determining its timeliness, considering that a petition is required to be filed
not later than 60 days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution sought to be nullified
BUT Agree with CA that Petition for certiorari should have been filed 60 days after notice of denial of 1st
MR, otherwise indefinite delays will enuse
WON a person nominated as "administrator" by purported heirs of a devisee or legatee may validly
substitute for that devisee or legatee despite the fact that such "administrator" is not court-appointed
YES. The heirs of the estate of Oscar Casa do not need to first secure the appointment of an
administrator of his estate, because from the very moment of his death, they stepped into his shoes and
acquired his rights as devisee/legatee of the deceased Loreto San Juan. Thus, a prior appointment of an
administrator or executor of the estate of Oscar Casa is not necessary for his heirs to acquire legal
capacity to be substituted as representatives of the estate.42 Said heirs may designate one or some of
them as their representative before the trial court.
The second paragraph of the rule is plain and explicit: the heirs may be allowed to be substituted for
the deceased without requiring the appointment of an administrator or executor. However, if within
the specified period a legal representative fails to appear, the court may order the opposing counsel,
within a specified period, to process the appointment of an administrator or executor who shall
immediately appear for the estate of the deceased. The pronouncement of this Court in Lawas v. Court
of Appeals (relied upon by petitioner), that priority is given to the legal representative of the deceased
(the executor or administrator) and that it is only in case of unreasonable delay in the appointment of an
executor or administrator, or in cases where the heirs resort to an extrajudicial settlement of the estate
that the court may adopt the alternative of allowing the heirs of the deceased to be substituted for the
deceased, is no longer true. In Gochan v. Young,a case of fairly recent vintage, the Court ruled as
follows:
The above-quoted rules, while permitting an executor or administrator to represent or to bring suits on
behalf of the deceased, do not prohibit the heirs from representing the deceased. These rules are easily
applicable to cases in which an administrator has already been appointed. But no rule categorically
addresses the situation in which special proceedings for the settlement of an estate have already been
instituted, yet no administrator has been appointed. In such instances, the heirs cannot be expected to
wait for the appointment of an administrator; then wait further to see if the administrator appointed
would care enough to file a suit to protect the rights and the interests of the deceased; and in the
meantime do nothing while the rights and the properties of the decedent are violated or dissipated.
The Rules are to be interpreted liberally in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy
and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. They cannot be interpreted in such a way as
to unnecessarily put undue hardships on litigants. For the protection of the interests of the decedent,
this Court has in previous instances recognized the heirs as proper representatives of the decedent,
even when there is already an administrator appointed by the court. When no administrator has been
appointed, as in this case, there is all the more reason to recognize the heirs as the proper
representatives of the deceased. Since the Rules do not specifically prohibit them from representing the
deceased, and since no administrator had as yet been appointed at the time of the institution of the
Complaint with the SEC, we see nothing wrong with the fact that it was the heirs of John D. Young, Sr.
who represented his estate in the case filed before the SEC. (Emphasis supplied)
VDA. DE REYES V. CA, 169 SCRA 524 (1989)
Short Facts: Beatriz, (not sure if illegit or legit child) opposes the correction of judgment and the re-
opening of the probate proceedings to correct a alleged typographical error in the sqm of the Antipolo
land in question, claiming that there was no typographical error and the parties intended to share only
that area of land. -TC already found that a typographical or clerical error was clearly committed by inadvertence in the
project of partition
Decedent: Antonio de Zuzuarregui, Sr.
Pilar Ibanez de Susuarregui: surviving spouse of decedent -probate proceeding, nature:
-administratix of the estate That a special proceeding for the settlement of an estate is filed and intended to settle the ENTIRE estate
Illegit children: of the deceased is obvious and elementary. It would be absurd for the heirs to intentionally excluded or
Antonio de Zuzuarregui, Jr. leave a parcel of land or a portion thereof undistributed or undivided because the proceeding is
Enrique de Zuzuarregui precisely designed to end the community of interests in properties held by co-partners pro indiviso
Jose de Zuzuarregui without designation or segregation of shares.
*Beatriz de Zuzuarregui vda. Re reyes: daughter of Antonio Sr. by another mother -It is readily apparent from the project of partition that it was meant to be, as in fact it is, a full and
Pacita Javier: niece of administratix complete adjudication and partition of all properties of the estate, necessarily including the entire area
-mother of the three illegit children of the land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 42643. Thus as perceptively posed by the queries
of the respondents, if the intention of the heirs was to make only a partial adjudication and distribution
Project of partition: of the subject parcel of land, why is it that they did not make any further disposition of the remaining
Pilar: 12/16, inclusive of 1/2 of the assets (share of conjugal partnership) balance of 720,000 square meters? What sound reason would the heirs have in holding in suspense the
Beatriz: 1/16 distribution of the difference of 720,000 square meters?
Antonio, Jr.: 1/16 -if they cannot see eye to eye, why share properties as co-owners?
Enrique: 1/16 -weird that the parties came up with 83,781, just omitting the zeroes. So only logical reason is that they
Jose: 1/16 just forgot to put zero.
-according to her own computation, she already received her 1/16 share in the estate. There would not
Antipolo, Rizal property: mentioned 4x in document be a substantial difference in value in their shares...
-adjudicated to Pilar (12/15), Antonio Jr. (1/15), Enrique (1/15) and Jose (1/15)
-Pacita relinquished her right "in lieu of her bigger share in Antipolo, Rizal, real estate property" REYNOSO V. SANTIAGO, 85 PHIL 268
Short summary: husband and eldest son wanted to reopen the probate proceedings of the deceased
-administratix and other three distributees filed a MOTION TO REOPEN SPECIAL PROCEEDIGNS for the wife/mom and wanted the reappointment of the surviving husband as the executor
purpose of correcting an alleged typographical error in the description of the parcel of land (correct land Facts:
area: 803,781.51, not 83,781sqm) Decedent: Salvadora Obispo
-opposition to motion S.Spouse: Victorio Reynoso
TC: Eldest son: Juan Reynoso
(1) opened for purpose of correcting clerical error in description of land -Leoncio Cadiz and other heirs of decedent Salvadora Obispo presented an application in CFI for
(2) correct land area to conform with description of land area in TCT administration of Salvadora's property (No. 2914)
(3) correction be made in the project of partition -Father and son opposed application and filed a document, allegedly the last will and testament of
-CA: Affirm Salvadora, w/ a counter petition for probate
TC: alleged last will and testament is a forgery
Pacita's allegation: no clerical area. The area in the project of partition is correct. She would not have CA: reversed
relinquished her share in the Antipolo land if she new nothing would remain from the land. It was even
repeated 4x in the project of partition -Father and son filed 2 petitions, one special proceedign (No. 2914) an another under a separate and
new docket number (3107) and with different title (Testate Estate of the deceased Salvadora Obispo)
WON there was a clerical error, which is an exemption to correcting or supplying a final judgment 1st petition: (1) special administrator, Meliton Palabrica (2914), be ordered to turn over the properties
already entered? of the deceased and proceeds of copra, nuts and other agricultural products to Victorio Reynoso, and
render accounting within reasonable time;
NONE. (2) render an accounting w/n a reasonable time
On correction of clerical errors: (3) closing of intestate proceeding
It is well settled that even if a decision has become final, clerical errors or mistakes or omission plainly 2nd petition: estate be administered and settled in special proceeding, Victorio Reynoso be appointed as
due to inadvertence or negligence may be corrected or supplied even after the judgment has been executor
entered. The correction of a clerical error is an exception to the general rule that no amendment or -prayer for accounting
correction may be made by the court in its judgment once the latter had become final. The court may -delivery by him to the new executor of the properties
make this amendment ex parte and, for this purpose, it may resort to the pleadings filed by the parties,
the court's findings of facts and its conclusions of law as expressed in the body of the decision. -2 petitions decided separately by Judge Santiago

7|S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
1st petition: substitution unnecessary, inconvenient and expensive + intestate proceeding should not be or by stipulation in a pending action for partition
converted into a testate proceeding in the same original expediente w/o the necessity of changing its or the sole heir who adjudicates the entire estate to himself
number, name or title by means of an affidavit
-withheld: because of the pendency on appeal of a case in which special administrator is plaintiff and shall file,
appellee and Victorio Reynoso defendant and appellant (re: parcel of coconut land) simultaneously with
and as a condition precedent to the filing of the public instrument
WON the intestate proceeding should be discontinued and a new proceeding should be instituted or stipulation in the action for partition
instead? or the affidavit in the office of the register of deeds
-this is in the sound discretion of the court. In no manner does it prejudice the substantial rights of any a bond with the said register of deeds,
heirs or creditors. Amor propio is perhaps the only thing is at stake on this phase of the controversy. in an amount equivalent to the value of the personal property involved
as certified to under oath by the parties concerned
WON a regular executor should be appointed? and conditioned upon the payment of any just claim that may be filed under Section 4 of this rule.
-appointment of the deceased's husband as executor or administrator: If one other than the surviving It shall be presumed that the decedent left no debts
spouse is appointed, which is possible, the feared conflict will not materialize. If Victorio Reynoso is If no creditor files a petition for letters of administration
chosen, a special administrator may be named to represent the estate in the suit against him. Section 8 Within two (2) years after the death of the decedent.
of Rule 87 provides that "If the executor or administrator has a claim against the estate he represents, he The fact of the extrajudicial settlement
shall give notice thereof, in writing, to the court, and the court shall appoint a special administrator who Or administration
shall, in the adjustment of such claim, have the same power and be subject to the same liability as the Shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation
general administrator or executor in the settlement of the claims." The situation in which Victorio In the manner provided in the next succeeding section;
Reynoso is found with reference to the land within the spirit if not exactly within the letter of this But no extrajudicial settlement shall be binding upon any person
provision. Who has not participated therein
-Subject to this observation, an administrator should be appointed without delay in accordance with the Or had no notice thereof.
final decision of the Court of Appeals. The appointment of a special administrator is justified only when
there is delay in granting letters testamentary or of administration occasioned by an appeal from the Section 2 Summary settlement of estates of small value
allowance or disallowance of a will or some other cause. The Court of Appeals having decreed the Whenever the gross value of the estate of a deceased person
probate of the will and the appointment of an albacea, there is no valid reason for the further retention Whether he died testate or intestate,
of a special administrator. The appointment of a regular administrator is necessary for the prompt Does not exceed Php10,000.00
settlement and distribution of the estate. There are important duties devolving on a regular And that fact is made to appear to the Court of First Instance having jurisdiction of the estate
administrator which a special administrator can not perform, and there are many actions to be taken By the petition of an interested persn
by the court which could not be accomplished before a regular administrator is appointed. And upon hearing,
Which shall be held not less than 1 month
B. EXTRAJUDICIAL SET TLEMENT BY AGREEMENT BETWEEN HEIRS SU MMARY Nor more than 3 months
SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE S From the date of the last publication of a notice
which shall be published once a week
for 3 consecutive weeks
Section 1. Extrajudicial settlement by agreement between heirs in a newspaper of general circulation
If the decedent left no will in the province,
And no debts and after such other notice to interested persons as the court may direct,
And the heirs are all of age the court may proceed summarily,
Or the minors are represented by their judicial or legal representatives duly authorized for the purpose without the appointment of an executor
The parties may, or administrator,
Without securing letters of administration and without delay,
Divide the estate among themselves as they see fit to grant, if proper,
By means of a public instrument filed in the office of the register of deeds allowance of the will, if there be,
And should they disagree to determine who are the persons legally entitled to participate in the estate,
They may do so in an ordinary action of partition. and to apportion and divide it among them
If there is only one heir after the payment of such debts of the estate
He may adjudicate to himself the entire estate as the court shall then find to be due;
by means of an affidavit filed in the office of the register of deeds and such persons,
The parties to an extrajudicial settlement, in their own right,
Whether by public instrument

8|S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
if they are of lawful age Shall remain charged with a liability to
and legal capacity, Creditors,
or by their guardians or trustees Heirs,
legally appointed and qualified, Or other persons
if otherwise, For the full period of 2 years after such distribution,
shall thereupon be entitled to receive Notwithstanding any transfers of real estate that may have been made.
and enter into the possession of
the portions of the estate to be awarded to them respectively. Section 5 Period for claim of minor or incapacitated person
The court shall make such orders as may be just If on the date of the expiration of the period of 2 years prescribed in the preceding section
Respecting the costs of the proceedings, The person authorized to file a claim is
And all orders and judgments made or rendered in the course thereof a minor
Shall be recorded in the office of the clerk or mentally incapacitated,
And the order of partition or award, Or is in prison
If it involves real estate, Or outside of the Philippines,
Shall be recorded in the proper registers office. He may present his claim within 1 year after such disability is removed.

Section 3 Bond to be filed by distributees Cases

The court, CRUZ VS. CRISTOBAL, 498 SCRA 37
Before allowing a partition Short Summary: Children of first marriage of dad found out after 60 years that the children of 2nd
in accordance with the provisions of the proceeding section, marriage had an EJ Partition of the only property left by their dad, excluding them, so they filed for
may require the distributes, annulment of said partition but both TC and CA ruled that their right is already barred by laches.
if property other than real is to be distributed,
to file a bond in an amount to be fixed by the court, 1st marriage children:
conditioned for the payment of any just claim Buenaventura Cristobal and Ignacia Cristobal
which may be filed under the next succeeding section. >Elisa-bunso
>Mercedes - eldest sister
Section 4 Liability of distributees and estate >Anselmo
If it shall appear at any time within 2 years after the settlement and distribution of an estate >Socorro
In accordance with the provisions of either of the first two sections of this rule, (SAME)
That an heir
Or other person 2nd marriage children:
Has been unduly deprived of his lawful participation in the estate, Buenaventura Cristobal and Donata Enriquez
Such heir or such other person >Norberto
May compel the settlement of the estate In the courts >Florencio
in the manner hereinafter provided for the purpose of satisfying such lawful participation. >Eufrosina
And if within the same time of 2 years, >Jose
It shall appear that there are debts outstanding against the estate which have not been paid, (JENF)
Or that an heir or other person has been unduly deprived of his lawful participation payable in money,
The court having jurisdiction of the estate may, Dad bought land in San Juan in 1926. He died in 1930. So children squabble over property.
by order for that purpose, -Children of 2nd marriage executed an EJ partition of San Juan property w/o knowledge of 1st marriage
After hearing, children (1st marriage children only found out about it after 6 decades)
Settle the amount of such debts or lawful participation -they attempted to settle at the barangay level but failed to do so.
And order how much and in what manner -1st marriage children filed COMPLAINT FOR ANNULMENT OF TITLE AND DAMAGES:
Each distribute shall contribute in the payment thereof, (1) Annulment of deed of partition
And may issue execution, (2) cancellation of TCTs in favor of 2nd marriage children
If circumstances require, (3) re-partitioning of the subject property
Against the bond provided in the next preceding section (4) damages
Or against the real estate belonging to the deceased, -evidence presented to prove filiation (by 1st marriage children)
Or both. *baptismal certificates of Elisa, Anselmo and Socorro
Such bond and such real estate

9|S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
*Certification from Local Civil Registrar for Socorro that the records in 1909 (when she was born) were all
destroyed due to ordinary wear and tear
*Testimonies:
>Elisa: mom (Ignacia) died when she was only 1y7m
lived with aunt Martina Cristobal because dad married again
brother Anselmo and sister Socorro lived with 2nd family in San Juan
when dad died, Anselmo lived with her and their aunt then Socorro lived with Mercedes
when Stepmom Donata died, 2nd family children lived with Elisa, Anselmo and their aunt
she is now living in the disputed San Juan property since 1948. Other houses in the area
belonged to half brothers and sisters
-out of the 535sqm, she only occupies 36sqm of the San Juan lot
-2nd marriage children divided the property among themselves w/o giving 1st marriage children
their share
-she was offered by Eufrosina to choose between a portion of the land or money but said she'll
have to consult the other 1st marriage children. When she inquired, she found out that the 2nd
marriage children already divided amongst themselves the said property to the exclusion of the
1st marriage children
CROSS: knew that the 2nd marriage children were the ones paying real estate tax due to the
land
>Ester Santos: corroborated what Elisa already said
said that the children had harmonious relationship, until when the 1st marriage children and
their grandchildren were called squatters by the 2nd marriage children and their grandchildren
CROSS: did not know the name of the 1st wife though she knew Buenaventura was married prior
to marriage with Donata
>Jose (presented by the 1st FC though belonging to the 2nd FC): only found out about the 1st FC when
they lived with aunt Martina, and did not admit that Elisa was their sister but only offered land so that
she could have a piece of property of her own
Evidence of 2nd FC (respondents):
*Testimonies:
>Eufrosina: parents (Donata and Buenaventura) were married in 1919. They bought the San Juan
property in 1926.
they lived with Aunt Martina since their parents died and knew since they were kids about the 1st FC
(that they were their brothers and sisters)
admitted that they did execute an EJ Partition of the San Juan property but asserted that the 1st FC
never asserted their alleged right over the property
that they were the ones paying for the real estate tax of said property
TC: dismissed case: petitioners failed to prove their filiation with Buenaventura Cristobal
baptismal and birth certificates have scant evidentiary value
inaction for a long period of time amounted to laches
CA: were able to prove their filiation thru "other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws"
BUT they are barred by lachees
WON LACHES APPLY WHEN IT RESULTS TO GROSS INJUSTICE AND INEQUITY SOUGHT TO BE PREVENTED
BY SUCH PRINCIPLE
NO.
10 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
-PRELIMINARY MATTER: although the title of the pleading filed by the petitioners is for annulment of
title and damages, they prayed for the re-partitioning of the subject land so the court would not limit
their decision on the title
-WON Filiation proved:
A172. Filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following:
(1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or
(2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument
and signed by the parent concerned.
In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be proved by:
(1) the open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or
(2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws: may consist of the childs
baptismal certificate, a judicial admission, a family bible in which the childs name has been
entered, common reputation respecting the childs pedigree, admission by silence, the
testimony of witnesses, and other kinds of proof of admission under Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court
-in this case, the petitioners were able to present many evidences which would show that they were
indeed children of Buenaventura. The respondents on the other hand failed to refute the claim of the
petitioners that they were Buenaventura's children (some even admitted that they were their half bro
and sis)
-WON DEED OF PARTITION VALID: R74.1
The fact of the extrajudicial settlement or administration shall be published in a newspaper of general
circulation in the manner provided in the next succeeding section; but no extrajudicial settlement shall
be binding upon any person who has not participated therein or had no notice thereof. (Underscoring
supplied)
-here: the sole property of Buenaventura's estate is the San Juan property, thus, it is equivalent to the EJ
settlement of t his estate. As the 1st MC were excluded from said partition (and did not have notice
thereof), the said partition would not bind them.
-WON Action has already prescribed
No.
*Article 494, NCC: "no co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership. Such co-owner may
demand at anytime the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as his share is concerned."
... "No prescription shall lie in favor of a co-owner or co-heirs as long as he expressly or impliedly
recognizes the co-ownership."
*Budlong vs. Bondoc: action for partition is imprescriptible. It cannot be barred by prescription
-how divided:
Old civil code applies (as Donata and Buenaventura both died in the 1930s when the NCC was only
effective 1950).
Art 921 and 931: intestate succession = all children would divide the estate equally
Art834: widow was only entitled to usufruct over property, which would terminate upon her death
WON Laches would apply.
NO.
-Laches is the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a
presumption that the party entitled to assert it has abandoned it or declined to assert it. It does not
involve mere lapse or passage of time, but is principally an impediment to the assertion or enforcement
of a right, which has become under the circumstances inequitable or unfair to permit.
-There is no evidence showing failure or neglect on their part, for an unreasonable and unexplained -ACTION FOR ANNULMENT OF EJ SETTLEMENT AND LEGAL REDEMPTION OF LOT, MTC: 30-d period ff a
length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier. The written notice by vendors to co-owners not sent to them so the EJ Settlement and Sale were null and
doctrine of stale demands would apply only where for the reason of the lapse of time, it would be void and had no legal effect on them
inequitable to allow a party to enforce his legal rights. MTC: DISMISS
Moreover, absence any strong or compelling reason, this Court is not disposed to apply the doctrine of -transaction occurred after partition so the co-owners could validly dispose of their shares
laches to prejudice or defeat the rights of an owner. Laches is a creation of equity and its application is -written notice of sale under A1088, though not sent, was cured by the ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF SALE
controlled by equitable considerations. Laches cannot be used to defeat justice or perpetuate an (which was more than 30d before filing of complaint)
injustice. Neither should its application be used to prevent the rightful owners of a property from -no bad faith on part of Cua
recovering what has been fraudulently registered in the name of another.
RTC, appeal: affirm MTC
*Nominal damages awarded CA: Reversed RTC and MTC
-pursuant to Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, the extrajudicial settlement made by the other co-
CUA V. VARGAS, 506 SCRA 374 heirs is not binding upon respondents considering the latter never participated in it nor did they ever
SHORT SUMMARY: Chua bought Catanduanes property from some of the co-heirs but when the non- signify their consent to the same.
signatory co-heirs found out about it and he refused to resell the land to the latter, the latter -MR Denied
instituted case against him, which was won in the CA (holding that the partition and sale were void
and not binding on the part of the non-signatory co-heirs who were not informed of the said WON PUBLICATION of the EJ Partition was binding on the non-signatory heirs because it constitutes due
transactions) notice and therefore, the non-signatory co-heirs were already estopped from assailing the partition and
sale
Mom/Decedent: Paulina Vargas
Heirs: NO. Publication was made AFTER THE PARTITION WAS MADE, NOT BEFORE WHICH WAS REQUIRED IN
Ester R74.1
Visitacion -The procedure outlined in Section 1 of Rule 74 is an ex parte proceeding. The rule plainly states,
Juan however, that persons who do not participate or had no notice of an extrajudicial settlement will not be
Zenaida bound thereby. It contemplates a notice that has been sent out or issued before any deed of settlement
Rosario and/or partition is agreed upon (i.e., a notice calling all interested parties to participate in the said deed
<> of extrajudicial settlement and partition), and not after such an agreement has already been executed
Andres as what happened in the instant case with the publication of the first deed of extrajudicial settlement
Gloria among heirs.
Antonina -The publication of the settlement does not constitute constructive notice to the heirs who had no
Florentino knowledge or did not take part in it because the same was notice after the fact of execution. The
requirement of publication is geared for the protection of creditors and was never intended to deprive
Those who signed the notarized EJ Settlement: heirs of their lawful participation in the decedent's estate. In this connection, the records of the present
Ester case confirm that respondents never signed either of the settlement documents, having discovered their
Visitacion existence only shortly before the filing of the present complaint. Following Rule 74, these extrajudicial
Juan settlements do not bind respondents, and the partition made without their knowledge and consent is
Zenaida invalid insofar as they are concerned.
Rosario
-the said EJ Settlement was published in Catanduanes Tribune for 3 consecutive weeks WON THE RESPONDENTS NON-SIGNATORY CO-HEIRS HAD RIGHT TO REDEEM?
-they were also the ones who executed an EJ Settlement Among Heirs with Sale with Cua YES.
*the latter 4 never signed any document -sale of pro indiviso shares allowed, subject to right of redemption of other co-heirs. This right was never
*all documents executed and published in 1994 lost because the non-signatory co-heirs were never notified in writing of the actual sale. NOTIFICATION
IN WRITING OF THE SALE BY THE VENDOR is required to start the period of redemption (w/n 1 month
-one of the heirs (Gloria Vargas, widow of Santiago Vargas) claimed that she only knew of the EJ from the time they were notified in writing of the sale); even if the co-heirs have actual knowledge of
Settlement + Sale when the original house was demolished sometime in 1995; claimed she was unaware sale, the notification in writing is still required. As there was no such notice here, the right to redeem the
of said settlement shares is still with the non-signatory co-heirs.
-tried to redeem the property from Cua but Cua refused their offer -method of notification remains exclusive, no alternative provided by law
-amicable settlement not reached in barangay level -purpose of A1088: keep strangers to the family out of a joint ownership

WON Cua was a builder in GF

11 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
-not in GF because he was very much aware that NOT ALL THE HEIRS PARTICIPATED IN THE EJ
SETTLEMENT + SALE, as evident from the face of the document itself Section 4. Custodian and Executor subject to fine for neglect
-since no valid partition yet, no sale could occur. Despite this glaring fact, and over the protests of the A person
respondents, he still constructed improvements on the property Who neglects any of the duties required in the two last preceding sections
Without excuse satisfactory to the court
WON MTC does not have jurisdiction, this being incapable of pecuniary estimation Shall be fined not exceeding P2k.
Cua estopped thru active participation in the MTC
Section 5. Person retaining will may be committed.
WON it should still be dismissed for non-joinder of indispensable parties A person
NO. Having custody of a will after the death of the testator
-indispensable party: party-in-interest, without whom there can be no final determination of an action Who neglects without reasonable cause to deliver the same,
and who is required to be joined as either plaintiff or defendant. When ordered so to do,
-here: prayer of complaint was that they be allowed to redeem shares in property sold. The other co- To the court having jurisdiction,
heirs already relinquished their right over their shares to Cua with the alleged sale. As a result, the other May be committed to prison and there kept until he delivers the will.
co-heirs who sold him the property are not anymore needed.
VITUG V. COURT OF APPEALS
On improper verification and CNFS Short Summary: Romarico and Dolores had a joint account with Bank of American National Trust and
Rule may be relaxed. And since the respondent share a common interest with the other respondent, her Savings Assn. and a SURVIVORSHIP AGREEMENT wherein it was agreed that upon death of one of
sole signature complies with the rules. them, the surviving spouse would own the proceeds of the account. Romarico withdrew the said funds
and used it to pay for estate tax, and now wants to acquire authority to dispose of other properties of
C. PRODUCTION OF WIL L ; ALL OWANCE OF WILL NECESSARY RULE 75, SECTIONS 1 -5 his wifes estate for reimbursement of the advance he made. The oppositor alleged that he is not
entitled to the said reimbursement as the funds used, i.e. the funds of the Joint account, was part of
Section 1. Allowance necessary. Conclusive as to execution. the conjugal property. The Court upheld the SURVIVORSHIP AGREEMENT.
No will shall pass Digest:
Either real or personal estate -Romarico Vitug and Dolores Luchangco-Vitug had a joint account in the Bank of American National Trust
Unless it is proved and allowed in the proper court. and Savings Associations. They also have a survivorship agreement wherein it was agreed that upon
Subject to the right of appeal, death of 1 spouse, the surviving spouse would own all the collectibles from the said account.
Such allowance of the will shall be conclusive as to its due execution. -Dolores died. Romarico paid for the estate tax and other dues using the money in the joint savings
account. Pending probate proceedings, Romarico and Rowena Faustino-Corona were appointed as
Section 2. Custodian of will to deliver. cospecial administrator, the appointed executrix being in the states.
The person who has custody of a will -Romarico filed a motion for authority from the probate court to sell certain shares of stock and real
shall, properties belonging to the estate.
within 20 days after he knows of the death of the testator, -Rowena opposed, arguing that the money spent was part of the estate, it being part of the conjugal
deliver the will to the court having jurisdiction, property of the spouses.
or to the executor named in the will. TC: upheld survivorship agreement, granted Romarico's motion
CA: survivorship agreement is a conveyance mortis cause, should comply with the formalities of a valid
Section 3. Executor to present will and accept or refuse trust. will. If it's a donation inter vivos, it is a prohibited donation.
A person named as executor in a will
Shall, HELD: Survivorship agreement valid. Grant motion of Romarico.
Within 20 days after he knows of the death of the testator,
Or 1. NOT A CONVEYANCE MORTIS CAUSA = WILL
Within 20 days after he knows that he is named executor -because the property conveyed is not exclusively owned by DOLORES (decedent)
If he obtained such knowledge after the death of the testator, A will has been defined as "a personal, solemn, revocable and free act by which a capacitated person
Present such will to the court having jurisdiction, disposes of his property and rights and declares or complies with duties to take effect after his
Unless the will has reached the court in any other manner, death." 14 In other words, the bequest or device must pertain to the testator. 15 In this case, the monies
And shall, subject of savings account No. 35342-038 were in the nature of conjugal funds
Within such period, RIVERA V. PBTC (CASE WHERE THE MAID WAS GIVEN THE PROCEEDS OF THE JOINT ACCOUNT): not a
Signify to the court conveyance mortis causa if the property sought to be conveyed is not the exclusive property of the
In writing conveyor
His acceptance of the trust
Or his refusal to accept it.

12 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
 MACAM V. GATMAITAN (LEONARDA OWNED THE HOUSE, JUANA OWNED THE BUICK AUTOMOBILE. ONE 1. Though widow not preterited (not compulsory heir in the direct line), the adopted daughter was
WOULD GET THE OTHER'S PROPERTY UPON THE OTHER'S DEATH): It's an ALEOTORY CONTRACT (article preterited
1790) wherein 1 of the parties or both reciprocally bind themselves to give or do something as an A854. The preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line, whether
equivalent for that which the other party is to give or do in case of the occurrence of an event which is living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the testator, shall annul the
uncertain or will happen at an indeterminate time. institution of heir; but the devisees and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not; inofficious.
If the omitted compulsory heirs should die before the testator, the institution shall he effectual, without
2. NOT A DONATION INTER VIVOS prejudice to the right of representation.
a. It would take effect after death of one Requisites:
b. No conveyance of exclusive property of one spouse to the other 1. The heir omitted is a forced heir (in the direct line);
2. The ommission is by mistake or thru an oversight.
3. IT'S AN ALEOTORY CONTRACT 3. The omission is complete so that the forced heir received nothing in the will. (111 Padilla, Civil Code
Article 2010: By an aleatory contract, one of the parties or both reciprocally bind themselves to give or to Annotated, 1973 Edition, pp. 224-225) (Parenthetical addendum supplied).
do something in consideration of what the other shall give or do upon the happening of an event which is -on widow: even if the surviving spouse is a compulsory heir, there is no preterition even if she is
uncertain, or which is to occur at an indeterminate time. omitted from the inheritance, for she is not in the direct line.
-on adopted daughter: PD 603, Article 39: adoption gives to the adopted person the same rights and
Under the aforequoted provision, the fulfillment of an aleatory contract depends on either the duties as if he were a legitimate child of the adopter and makes the adopted person a legal heir of
happening of an event which is (1) "uncertain," (2) "which is to occur at an indeterminate time." A the adopter. It cannot be denied that she has totally omitted and preterited in the will of the
survivorship agreement, the sale of a sweepstake ticket, a transaction stipulating on the value of testator and that both adopted child and the widow were deprived of at least their legitime. Neither
currency, and insurance have been held to fall under the first category, while a contract for life annuity can it be denied that they were not expressly disinherited. Hence, this is a clear case of preterition of
or pension under Article 2021, et sequentia, has been categorized under the second. In either case, the the legally adopted child.
element of risk is present. In the case at bar, the risk was the death of one party and survivorship of the
other. 2. When there's preterition, the will is annulled and there would be intestate succession. No legacies or
devisees here so intestacy would ensue.
4. Caution: survivorship agreement may operate against the law:
>mere cloak to hide an inofficious donation 3. There being intestacy, the sibling cannot intervene in the probate of the will, he having no interest,
>to transfer property in fraud of creditors thus no legal standing.
>defeat the legitime of a forced heir -Who could intervene:
-but here, no such vice occurs *have interest in the estate
*have interest in the will
ACAIN V. IAC *have interest in the property to be affected by the will (executor or claimant)
Short Summary: Siblings of the deceased wanted the probate of his alleged will but the wife and *one who would be benefited by the estate
adopted daughter filed MTD on the ground that they were preterited. Court held that there was
preterition on the part of the adopted daughter, it being that an adopted child acquires the status of a 4. Certiorari is proper, when the TC committed GAD in not dismissing the probate proceedings when it
legitimate child and thus is considered a compulsory heir in the direct line. As a result, the intestacy appears that the will was invalid.
would ensue and the probate of the will should not have been granted, the defect in the will apparent GR: Probate Court's authority:
from the start. (Exception to rules on Probate proceedings) (1) extrinsic validity of the will
Facts: (2) due execution of the will
-Allegedly, Nemesio Acain died leaving a will whereing only his brothers Antonio, Flores, and Jose and (3) testator's testamentary capcity
sisters Anita, Concepcion, Quirina and Laura were instituted as heirs. His wife and adopted daughter (4) compliance w/ requisites or solemnities prescribed by law
were not mentioned in the will. X: when the invalidity of the provisions of the will are raised.
-the sibling sought the probate of the will, the widow Rosa and adopted daughter Virginia opposed on If not resolved from the start, there would be waste of time, effort, expense, plus added anxiety.
the ff grounds:
(1) no legal capacity to institute the proceedings D. ALLOWANCE OR DISA LLOWA NCE OF WILLS RU LE 76
(2) merely a universal heir
(3) widow and adopted daughter were preterited SECTION 1. WHO MAY PETITION FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF WILL
TC: Deny motion to dismiss by oppositors Any executor,
-MR denied, went directly before SC on a petition for certiorari and prohibition. SC referred to IAC Devisee,
IAC: granted petition of widow and adopted daughter, dismiss petition for probate. Or legatee
Named in a will,
WON Dismissal of the Probate Petition valid? YES Or any other person interested in the estate,
May,

13 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
At any time after the death of the testator, Personal service of copies of the notice at least 10 days before the day of hearing shall be equivalent to
Petition the court having jurisdiction mailing.
to have the will allowed,
Whether the same be in his possession or not, If the testator asks for the allowance of his own will,
Or is lost or destroyed. Notice shall be sent only to his compulsory heirs.
The testator himself may,
During his lifetime, SECTION 5. PROOF AT HEARING. WHAT SUFFICIENT IN ABSENCE OF CONTEST
Petition the court for the allowance of his will. At the hearing
compliance with the provisions of the last 2 preceding sections must be shown before the introduction
SECTION 2. CONTENTS OF PETITION of testimony in support of the will.
A petition for the allowance of a will must show, All such testimony shall be taken under oath
So far as known to the petitioner: And reduced to writing.
(a) The jurisdictional facts; If no person appears to contest the allowance of the will,
(b) the names, The court may grant allowance thereof on the testimony of one of the subscribing witnesses only,
Ages, If such witness testify that the will was executed as is required by law.
And residences of the heirs, legatees and devisees of the testator or decedent;
(c) the probable value and character of the property of the estate In the case of a holographic will,
(d) the name of the person for whom letters are prayed; It shall be necessary that at least one witness
(e) if the will has not been delivered to the court, who knows the handwriting and signature of the testator
The name of the person having custody of it. Explicitly declare that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator.
In the absence of any such competent witness,
But no defect in the petition shall render void the allowance of the wil, And if the court deem it necessary,
Or the issuance of letters testamentary Expert testimony may be resorted to.
Or of administration with the will annexed.
SECTION 6. PROOF OF LOST OR DESTROYED WILL. CERTIFICATE THEREUPON.
SECTION 3. COURT TO APPOINT TIME FOR PROVING WILL. NOTICE THEREOF TO BE PUBLISHED. No will shall be proved as a lost or destroyed will
When a will is delivered to, Unless
Or a petition for the allowance of a will is filed in, *the execution
The court having jurisdiction, And validity of the same be established,
Such court shall fix a time and place for proving the will *And the will is proved to have been
when all concerned may appear to contest the allowance thereof, >in existence at the time of the death of the testator,
and shall cause notice of such time and place to be published 3 weeks successively, >Or is shown to have been fraudulently or accidentally destroyed in the lifetime of the testator without
previous to the time appointed, his knowledge,
in a newspaper of general circulation in the province. *Nor unless its provisions are clearly and distinctly proved by at least 2 credible witnesses.
When a lost will is proved,
But no newspaper publication shall be made The provisions thereof must be distinctly stated and certified by the judge,
Where the petition for probate has been filed by the testator himself. Under the seal of the court,
And the certificate must be filed and recorded as other wills are filed and recorded.
SECTION 4. HEIRS, DEVISEES, LEGATEES, AND EXECUTORS TO BE NOTIFIED BY MAIL OR PERSONALLY.
The court shall also cause copies of the notice of the time and place fixed for proving the will SECTION 7. PROOF WHEN WITNESSES DO NOT RESIDE IN PROVINCE.
To be addressed to the designated or other known heirs, legatees and devisees of the testator If it appears at the time fixed for the hearing
Resident in the Philippines at their places of residence, That none of the subscribing witnesses resides in the province,
And deposited in the post office with the postage thereon prepaid But that the deposition of one or more of them can be taken elsewhere,
At least 20 days before the hearing, The court may,
If such places of residence be known. On motion,
A copy of the notice must in like manner be mailed to the person named as executor, Direct it to be taken,
if he be not the petitioner; And may authorize a photographic copy of the will to be made
also, to any person named as coexecutor not petitioning, And to be presented to the witnesses on his examination,
if their places of residence be known. Who may be asked the same questions with respect to it,
And to the handwriting of the testator and others,

14 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
As would be pertinent and competent if the original will was present. The will may, nevertheless, be allowed if the court is satisfied from the testimony of other witnesses
And from all the evidence presented
SECTION 8. PROOF WHEN WITNESSES DEAD OR INSANDE OR DO NOT RESIDE IN THE PHILIPPINES. that the will was executed
If it appears at the time fixed for the hearing And attested in the manner required by law.
That the subscribing witnesses
are dead or insane, If a holographic will is contested,
or that none of them resides in the Philippines, The same shall be allowed if at least 3 witnesses
the court may admit the testimony of other witnesses to prove who know the handwriting of the testator
the sanity of the testator, explicitly declare that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator;
and the due execution of the will; in the absence of any competent witness,
and as evidence of the execution of the will, and if the court deem it necessary,
it may admit proof of the handwriting of the testator expert testimony may be resorted to.
and of the subscribing witnesses,
or of any of them. SECTION 12. PROOF WHERE TESTATOR PETITIONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF HOLLOGRAPHIC WILL.
Where the testator himself petitions for the probate of his holographic will
SECTION 9. GROUDNS FOR DISALLOWING WILL And no contest is filed,
The will shall be disallowed in any of the following cases: The fact that he affirms that the holographic will and the signature are in his own handwriting,
a. If not executed and attested as required by law; Shall be sufficient evidence of the genuineness and due execution thereof.
b. if the testator was insane, If the holographic will is contested,
or otherwise mentally incapable to make a will, The burden of disproving the genuineness and due execution thereof shall be on the contestant.
at the time of execution; The testator may, in his turn, present such additional proof as may be necessary to rebut the evidence
c. If it was executed under duress, or the influence of fear, or threats; for the contestant.
d. if it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence, on the part of the beneficiary, or of
some other person for his benefit; SECTION 13. CERTIFICATE OF ALLOWANCE ATTACHED TO PROVE WILL. TO BE RECORDED IN THE OFFICE
e. if the signature of the testator was procured by fraud or trick, OF REGISTER OF DEEDS.
and he did not intend that the instrument should be his will at the time of fixing his signature If the court is satisfied,
thereto. upon proof taken and filed,
that the will was duly executed,
SECTION 10. CONTESTANT TO FILE GROUNDS OF CONTEST and that the testator at the time of its execution was of sound and disposing mind,
Anyone appearing to contest the will and not acting under
Must state in writing his grounds for opposing its allowance, duress,
And serve a copy thereof on the petitioner and other parties interested in the estate. menace,
and undue influence ,
SECTION 11. SUBSCRIBING WITNESSES PRODUCED OR ACCOUNTED FOR WHERE WILL CONTESTED. or fraud,
If the will is contested, a certificate of its allowance,
All the subscribing witnesses, signed by the judge,
And the notary in the case of wills executed under the Civil Code of the Philippines, and attested by the seal of the court
if present in the Philippines shall be attached to the will
and not insane, and the will and certificate filed and recorded by the clerk.
must be produced and examined, Attested copies of the will devising real estate and of certificate of allowance thereof,
and the death, shall be recorded in the register of deeds
absence, of the province in which the lands lie.
or insanity of any of them
must be satisfactorily shown to the court. AZUELA V. COURT OF APPEALS
If all or some of such witnesses are present in the Philippines Short Summary: Nephew of decedent wanted the probate of alleged will of his aunt which confers upon
But outside the province where the will has been filed, him the rights to land which he allegedly illegally occupies, so the other 12 heirs assailed the validity of
Their depositions must be taken. the said will because (1) the attestation clause failed to state the number of pages; (2) the attestation
If any or all of them testify against the due execution of the will, clause was not signed at the margins; (3) no notarial acknowledgment; (4) decedent failed to sign on any
Or do not remember having attested to it, of the pages; (5) not number correlatively in letters.
Or are otherwise of doubtful credibility,

15 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
Facts
-Eugenia Igslo allegedly left a will wherein the only heir mentioned were Irene Igsolo (in the states) and
Felix Azuela, the nephew of the decedent. Felix sought the probate of the said will.
-MTD by oppositors (12 heirs of Eugenia) alleging that the said will was forged, it's mere purpose is to
serve as a defense in the forciple entry and usurpation cases filed by them against Felix. Among the
defects noted by the oppositors are:
(1) decedent's signature did not appear on the 2nd page of the will
(2) will was not properly acknowledged
RTC: admitted will to probate, taking into account the testimony of 3 witnesses + modern tendency in
respect to wills
-as to lack of signature: decedent signed at the end of the will - substantial compliance
-lack of acknowledgment: declaration at the end of the will comprised the attestation clause and the
acknowledgment
-on lack of signature by witnesses on attestation clause: signature on the left-hand margin sufficient
-no correlative numbering: only 2 pages so not so serious a defect
-signature a forgery: testimony of witnesses to the will sufficient
CA: reversed
SC: affirm CA
Art. 805. Every will, other than a holographic will, must be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator
himself or by the testator's name written by some other person in his presence, and by his express
direction, and attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the
testator and of one another.
The testator or the person requested by him to write his name and the instrumental witnesses of the
will, shall also sign, as aforesaid, each and every page thereof, except the last, on the left margin, and all
the pages shall be numbered correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of each page.
The attestation shall state the *number of pages used upon which the will is written, and *the fact that
the testator signed the will and every page thereof, or caused some other person to write his name,
under his express direction, *in the presence of the instrumental witnesses, and that *the latter
witnessed and signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one
another.
If the attestation clause is in a language not known to the witnesses, it shall be interpreted to them.
Art. 806. Every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses. The
notary public shall not be required to retain a copy of the will, or file another with the office of the Clerk
of Court.
1. On the number of pages:
Purpose: the document might easily be so prepared that the removal of a sheet would completely
change the testamentary dispositions of the will and in the absence of a statement of the total
number of sheets such removal might be effected by taking out the sheet and changing the
numbers at the top of the following sheets or pages. If, on the other hand, the total number of
sheets is stated in the attestation clause the falsification of the document will involve the inserting
of new pages and the forging of the signatures of the testator and witnesses in the margin, a
matter attended with much greater difficulty. (In re: Will of Andrada and Uy Coque v. Sioca)
16 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
Exceptions to lack of page number in the attestation clause:
Singson v. Florentino: though no # of pages in the AC, the number of pages was stated in the part
of the body of the will
Taboada v. Rosal: the notarial acknowledgment states the number of pages
2. On substantial compliance
-it should be allowed "but with sufficient safeguards and restrictions to prevent the commission of
fraud and the exercise of undue and improper pressure and influence upon the testator."
-what are allowed: limited to disregarding those defects that can be supplied by an examination of
the will itself:
-what cannot be allowed:
*the total number of pages
*whether all persons required to sign did so in the presence of each other
3. On lack of signature in the AC
-AC: memorandum of the facts attending the execution of the will required by law to be made by
the attesting witnesses, and must necessarily bear their signatures.
-signatures on the margins not enough, difference:
Signature on the margins: signify that the witnesses are aware that the page they are signing forms
part of the will
Signature to the AC: establish that they are referring to the statements contained in the AC
-pede pa if the signatures are in the AC, but no signature on the margins
4. On lack of acknowledgement before a notary public
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: act of one who has executed a deed in going before some competent
officer and and declaring it to be his act or deed.
-involves an extra step undertaken whereby the signor actually declares to the notary that the
executor of a document has attested to the notary that the same is his/her own free act and deed.
- coerces the testator and the instrumental witnesses to declare before an officer of the law that
they had executed and subscribed to the will as their own free act or deed.
5. Other defects:
*decedent failed to sign on the left-hand margins
*not numbered correlatively in letters (only in arabic numerals)
TESTATE ESTATE OF ADRIANA MALOTO V. PANFILO MALOTO
Short Summary: nieces and nephews (4) thought at first that their aunt left no will so they instituted
intestate proceedings but pending it, the lawyer found a copy of the will which gave 2 of the 4 bigger
shares plus gave devisees almost 4 years after death. Court ruled that the petition was filed out of time
and that probate proceedings should be instituted.
TESTATE ESTATE OF ADRIANA MALOTO V. COURT OF APPEALS
Short Summary: Continuation of the 1st case, this time probate proceedings instituted (?) but appellate
court (?) found that the will was revoked, it being showed by the opponents that the will was destroyed
by the 2 househelps. Court here held that the will was not destroyed because no animus revocandi, no
showing that the destruction was made under the orders and in the presence of the decedent plus no
res adjudicate, the ruling in the intestate proceedings should not bar probate proceedings.
FACTS
- Oct.20, 1963, Adriana Maloto died leaving as heirs her niece and nephews, the petitioners Aldina
Maloto-Casiano and Constancio Maloto, and the private respondents Panfilo Maloto and Felino Maloto.
Believing that the deceased did not leave behind a last will and testament, these four heirs commenced
an intestate proceeding for the settlement of their aunt's estate. However, while the case was still in
progress, the parties executed an agreement of extrajudicial settlement of Adriana's estate. The
agreement provided for the division of the estate into four equal parts among the parties. The Malotos
then presented the extrajudicial settlement agreement to the trial court for approval which the court
did.
- 3 years later, Atty. Sulpicio Palma, a former associate of Adriana's counsel (Att.Hervas), discovered a
document entitled "KATAPUSAN NGA PAGBUBULAT-AN (Testamento)," dated January 3,1940, and
purporting to be the last will and testament of Adriana. Atty. Palma claimed to have found the
testament, the original copy, while he was going through some materials inside the cabinet drawer
formerly used by Atty. Hervas.
- The document was submitted to the office of the clerk of the CFI of Iloilo. Incidentally, while Panfilo and
Felino are still named as heirs in the said will, Aldina and Constancio are bequeathed much bigger and
more valuable shares in the estate of Adriana than what they received by virtue of the agreement of
extrajudicial settlement they had earlier signed. The will likewise gives devises and legacies to other
parties, among them being the petitioners Asilo de Molo, the Roman Catholic Church of Molo, and
Purificacion Miraflor.
- Thus, Aldina and Constancio, joined by the other devisees and legatees named in the will, filed in
Special Proceeding No. 1736 a motion for reconsideration and annulment of the proceedings therein and
for the allowance of the will. When the trial court denied their motion, the petitioner came to us. We
dismissed that petition and advised that a separate proceeding for the probate of the alleged will would
be the appropriate vehicle.
- Significantly, the appellate court while finding as inconclusive the matter on WON the document or
papers allegedly burned by the househelp of Adriana, upon instructions of the testatrix, was indeed the
will, contradicted itself and found that the will had been revoked. The CA stated that the presence of
animus revocandi in the destruction of the will had, nevertheless, been sufficiently proven. The appellate
court based its finding on the facts that the document was not in the two safes in Adriana's residence, by
the testatrix going to the residence of Atty. Hervas to retrieve a copy of the will left in the latter's
possession, and, her seeking the services of Atty. Palma in order to have a new will drawn up.
ISSUES
1. WON the will was revoked by Adriana.
2. WON the case is barred by res judicata.
HELD
1. NO.
Ratio The provisions of the NCC pertinent to the issue can be found in Article 830.[1] It is clear that the
physical act of destruction of a will, like burning in this case, does not per se constitute an effective
revocation, unless the destruction is coupled with animus revocandi on the part of the testator. It is not
imperative that the physical destruction be done by the testator himself. It may be performed by
another person but under the express direction and in the presence of the testator. Of course, it goes
without saying that the document destroyed must be the will itself.
Reasoning In this case, while animus revocandi or the intention to revoke, may be conceded, for that is a
state of mind, yet that requisite alone would not suffice. Animus revocandi is only one of the necessary
elements for the effective revocation of a last will and testament. The intention to revoke must be
accompanied by the overt physical act of burning, tearing, obliterating, or cancelling the will carried out
by the testator or by another person in his presence and under his express direction. There is paucity of
evidence to show compliance with these requirements. For one, the document or papers burned by
17 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
Adriana's maid was not satisfactorily established to be a will at all, much less the will of Adriana. For
another, the burning was not proven to have been done under the express direction of Adriana. And
then, the burning was not in her presence. Both witnesses were one in stating that they were the only
ones present at the place where the stove (presumably in the kitchen) was located in which the papers
proffered as a will were burned.
- The respondent appellate court in assessing the evidence presented by the private respondents,
concluded that the testimony of the two witnesses who testified in favor of the will's revocation appear
"inconclusive." We share the same view. Nowhere in the records before us does it appear that the two
witnesses, Guadalupe and Eladio, both illiterates, were unequivocably positive that the document
burned was indeed Adriana's will.
2. NO.
The respondents claim that this bar was brought about by the petitioners' failure to appeal timely from
the order of the trial court in the intestate proceeding denying their (petitioners') motion to reopen the
case, and their prayer to annul the previous proceedings therein and to allow the last will and testament
of the late Adriana.
The doctrine of res adjudicata finds no application in the present controversy. We do not find here the
presence of all the requisites of res judicata.
There is yet, strictly speaking, no final judgment rendered insofar as the probate of Adriana Maloto's will
is concerned. Neither is it a judgment on the merits of the action for probate. There is likewise no
Identity between the cause of action in intestate proceeding and that in an action for probate.
[1] Art. 830. No will shall be revoked except in the following cases:
(1) By implication of law; or
(2) By some will, codicil, or other writing executed as provided in case of wills: or
(3) By burning, tearing, cancelling, or obliterating the will with the intention of revoking it, by the testator
himself, or by some other person in his presence, and by his express direction. If burned, torn cancelled, or
obliterated by some other person, without the express direction of the testator, the will may still be
established, and the estate distributed in accordance therewith, if its contents, and due execution, and
the fact of its unauthorized destruction, cancellation, or obliteration are established according to the
Rules of Court.
D-1. ALLOWANCE OF WI L L PROVED OUTSIDE TH E PHILIPPINES AND AD MINIST RATION
OF ESTATES THEREUNDE R
RULE 77
Section 1. Will proved outside Philippines may be allowed here. -
Wills
proved
and allowed
in a foreign country,
according to the laws of such country,
may be allowed,
filed,
and recorded
by the proper Court of First Instance in the Philippines.
Section 2. Notice of hearing for allowance. -
When a copy of
such will
and of the order or decree of the allowance thereof,
both duly authenticated, *remainder goes to brothers and sis of surviving spouse
are filed with a petition for allowance in the Philippines, -Mrs. Hodges died first. Mr. Hodges appointed as EXECUTOR
by the executor or other person interested, >in Financial Statements submitted before the court, he made statements that the estate of Mrs. Hodges
in the court having jurisdiction, is 1/2 of conjugal estate
such court shall fix a time and place for the hearing, >that he allegedly renounced his inheritance in a tax declaration in US
and cause notice thereof to be given >for 5 years before his death, he failed to make accounting, failed to acquire final adjudication of wife's
as in case of an original will presented for allowance. estate
-Charles died. Magno, initially administratrix of both spouse's estate, later replaced by PCIB for Charles'
Section 3. When will allowed, and effect thereof. - estate
If it appears at the hearing
that the will should be allowed in the Philippines, WON Action is prescribed?
the Court shall so allow it, NO. 33 appeals were timely made
and a certificate of its allowance, -Court did not pass upon its timeliness
signed by the judge,
and attested by the seal of the court, WON Certiorari and Prohibition is proper?
to which shall be attached a copy of the will, YES. Appeal insufficient remedy
shall be filed and recorded by the clerk, -many appeals, same facts, same issues = multiplicity of suits
and the will shall have the same effect as if originally proves and allowed in such court.
WON THERE IS STILL A RESIDUE FOR MRS. HODGES' HEIRS? YES
Section 4. Estate, how administered. 1. WON SPECIAL PROCEEDING FOR SETTLEMENT OF MRS. HODGES ESTATE SHOULD ALREADY BE CLOSED,
When a will is thus allowed, BASED ON THE DECEMBER 1957 COURT ORDER ALLEGEDLY ADJUDICATING MR. HODGES AS SOLE
the court shall grant letters testamentary, HEIR? NO
or letters of administration .no final distribution to all parties concerned of the estate
with the will annexed, 2. R90.1 (on RESIDUE):
and such letters testamentary after residue assigned to parties entitled to it, S.P. deemed ready for FINAL CLOSURE:
or of administration, 1. Order issued for distribution/assignment of estate among those entitled
shall extend to all the estate of the testator in the Philippines. 2. Debts
Such estate, Funeral expenses
after the payment of just debts Expenses of administration
and expenses of administration, Widow allowance
shall be disposed of according to such will, Taxes
so far as such will may operate upon it; Etc.
and the residue, should be paid already
if any 3. Motion of party requesting the same (not motu proprio)
shall be disposed of as is provided by law
in cases of estates in the Philippines belonging to persons Would include distribution of residue of estate
who are inhabitants of another state or country. -Here:
a. No final distribution of residue of Linney's estate
PCIB V. ESCOLIN b. No special application made by charles/PCIB
Short Summary: Mr. and Mrs Hodges both made in their wills provisions that upon their deaths, their c. Merely allowed advance or partial payments/implementation of will before final liquidation
whole estates should be inherited by the surviving spouse and that spouse could manage and alienate d. If charles already deemed sole heir, why PCIB needed to file a motion to declare that Charles
the said lands, with the exception of the Texas property. Upon death of the latter spouse, the residue of is indeed the sole heir?
the estate inherited by the later spouse from the spouse who predeceased him would redound to the
brothers and sisters. Mrs. Hodges died first then Mr. Hodges, but since there was no liquidation of Mrs. 3. ON ALLEGED INTENTION OF MR. HODGES
Hodges estate, the brothers and sisters of Mrs. Hodges wanted to determine the extent of her estate PCIB: He intended to adjudicate whole estate to himself (Thus, no residue left, thus ulit, tapos na special
that they could inherit. (believe me, this is a short summarycase is long) proceeding)
BUT SC:
Facts 1. Whatever was intended, he can't deprive those who have rights over the estate
-Charles & Linnie Hodges, both TEXAN nationals, provided in their respective wills that 2. Order - motion filed merely for exercise of ownership pending proceeding
*bequeath remainder of estate to spouseduring lifetime 3. Mr. Hodges was aware that wife's siblings had rights:

18 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
 In FS, stated that 1/2 of conjugal estate belonged to Estate of Linney
In Petition for will's probate, he listed the bros and sis as heirs Court said that Texas law may apply, but since not proven as
Lawyer of Magno was initially lawyer of Charles when latter was still executor of Linney's estate - so Courts can't take JN
may know hwat Charles' intended should show foreign law:
Charles admitted omitting a bro of Linney As certified by person holding/having custody of such law
He even allegedly renounced his share of the estate (but was not proven) Certificate that such officer does have custody over said law
Charles had duty, as Surviving spouse, of trustee of wife's estate so had to act in GF Aznar can't be used to show what Texas law may contain, as there's a time difference between this case
and that case, thus the Texas law might have changed in between the rulings
4. ON PROPERTIES FOR SIBLINGS: since there's still a residue, can't close SP yet
>PCIB: NO LIQUIDATION OF CONJUGAL PROPERTIES YET, PCIB SHOULD SOLELY ADMINISTER EVERYTHING BUT WHATEVER HAPPENS, PCIB can't claim that the estate of Linney is not entitled to at least 1/4 of
TO DETERMINE THE SEPARATE ESTATE OF LINNEY, OVER W/C MAGNO COULD ADMINISTER conjugal property, they having argued that it is so
H: NO. both PCIB and Magno should administer
a. It was Charles' fault why no administration of estate yet
b. Admin should both be
>impartial
>extent of interest FROM SIR B, WITH LVE
c. Executor (PCIB) of Executor (Charles, over Linney's) Can't administer estate of decedent
-will executed in Texas - Oklahoma
(Linney) _ R78.6
-Charles made executor by Linney, but Charles had no executor - so administrator dapat
d. Liquidation of conjugal partnership may be done in either spouse's probate proceedings -
-as regards foreign laws:
R73.2
Should be proved as a fact
R132 on Public documents
SUCCESSION: WON THERE'S SUBSTITUTION? None
SIR: Dapat use an expert witness
1. No simple or vulgar substitution (A859, NCC)
no provision for: Prove in accordance w/rp law
Predecease of T for designated heir
Refusal
Incapacity of designated heir to accept inheritance SALUD TEODORO VDA DE PEREZ V. HON. ZOTICO TOLETE
2. No fideicomissary substitution Short Summary: Former Filipino Sps mutually made wills with the same provisions, saying that upon
no obligation on Charles to preserve the estate death of Mr. Cunanan, his wife would inherit, and in the case that the two die at the same time, the
3. There's simultaneous institution of heirs subject to resolutory condition of Charles' death presumption is that Mr. Cunanan died first. Both died with the rest of the family in a fire. Executor
-Charles was to enjoy the whole estate appointed in the will had the will probated abroad, but the mother of Mrs. Cunanan petitioned for the
-but he can't dispose of property mortis causa (because it's already subject to the will made by his wife, probate of the will here in RP w/o notice to the Cunanan heirs and w/o proving the foreign law
which he agreed in the provision of his will) applicable. The court held that the case should be remanded for the mother to show foreign law and
4. Charles didn't get mere usufruct: he exercises full ownership that notice should be given to the Cunanan heirs.
Facts:
PRIL: WON RP LAW GOVERNS LEGITIME OF CHARLES? No answer yet. Remanded -DR. JOSE CUNANAN and DR. EVELYN PEREZ-CUNANAN were former Filipino doctors who were
naturalized as US Citizens.
PCIB Magno
-DR. JOSE CUNANAN made a will which contained stipulations as ff:
Art 16,NCC: applies: law of nationality IF Art16 applies, then Texas o he bequeathed all his properties, wherever situated, to his wife.
If we apply Texas PRIL law: law should govern; Texas law o If his wife dies first, he'll bequeath all his properties to their daughters.
Personal property: law of domicile provides no legitime o If there's no way to tell who died first between his wife and him, he is presumed to have died
Real property: law of situs first
(both in RP) o His brother, DR. RAFAEL CUNANAN is made executor of the will
So renvoi to RP: -DR. EVELYN also made her will, with the same 3rd provision (that her husband is presumed to have died
RP Law provides that the Surviving Spouse, being the sole heir, first)
gets 1/2 o the conjugal property, then 1/2 goes to the estate of -THE WHOLE CUNANAN FAMILY DIED in a fire
the spouse. If 1/2 of the estate of the spouse goes to the -DR. RAFAEL had the 2 wills probated. He was appointed as executor of the estate
surviving spouse which is the sole heir, then Charles gets 1/4 of -the year after, MRS. PEREZ (mother of DR. EVELYN) filed petition for reprobate of the wills + prayed that
the whole conjugal property. she be appointed special administrator of deceased
RTC Bulacan: appointed her special administratrix

19 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
-as special administratrix, she filed the ff: 4. Foreign tribunal is a probate court
1. Petition to order Philalife to deliver to her the proceeds of the life insurance policy taken by DR. 5. Laws of the foreign country on procedure and allowance of wills
JOSE with DRA. EVELYN and Jocelyn as beneficiaries. Here: Did not prove due execution of the will in accordance w/ NY law and the laws of procedure for the
>Philamlife's manifestation: it was already delivered to her allowance of wills in NY
2. Motion to order DR. RAFAEL to deliver to her the PhilTrust Passbook and the Family Saving Bank
time deposit WON the probate of the 2 wills should be consolidated? YES
>NOTICE OF APPEARANCE for the Cunanan's: was unaware of the filing of the testate estate -R1.2: liberal interpretation of the ROC
case, requested that the hearing for the motion be deferred and to be given notice of the -what is prohibited is the making of joint wills. Here, separate wills though same provisions and concern
proceedings same conjugal properties - so practical considerations dictate their joint probate
>>counter-manifestation by MRS. PEREZ:
a. Cunanan collaterals are not heirs nor creditors of DR. JOSE so no legal interest WON Mrs. Perez is the sole heir of the estate, and thus the Cunanans are strangers to the proceedings
b.Wills of Dr. Jose and Dr. evelyn executed in accordance w/NY laws and had effects in this and are not entitled to notice? NO
jurisdiction (both are US Citizens) -R77 provides that the will (probated abroad) should be treated as if it were an "original will" or a will
c. under the wills it was presumed that Dr. Jose died first that is presented for probate proceedings - so should follow R76 on publication and notice by mail or
d. the Cunanan collaterals were not heirs, distributees personally to the "known heirs, legatees and devisees of the testator resident in the Philippines and to
PROBATE COURT: granted Motion of Mrs. Perez that the said accounts be delivered to her the executor if he is not the petitioner.
>Motion to nullify proceedings filed by Cunanans: -court is of the opinion that the Cunanans are known heirs
1. They were deliberately excluded based on misrepresentation of Mrs. Perez that she was the sole
heir Disposition:
2. Dr. Rafael was the named executor of the estate who was not notified of the proceedings before 1. Perez submit evidence of NY law
the Bulacan court 2. Notice should be given to the Cunanans
3. Mrs. Perez unfit to be an administrator because of her misrepresentation and concealment
4. Dr. Rafael was authorized by Dr. Rafael, Sr. (Father of Dr. Jose) as his atty-in-fact
5. Dr. Rafael, Sr. is qualified to be a regular administrator of practically all the estate in the D-2. LETTERS TESTAME NTARY AND OF ADMINIS TRATION, WHEN AND T O WHOM
Philippines (probably Dr. Rafael lives in RP) ISSUED R78
>also filed MOTION to require Mrs. Perez to render an accounting of all monies received by her in trust
for the estate RULE 78
-opposition by Mrs. Perez: Section 1. Who are incompetent to serve as executors or administrators.
1. She was the sole heir of her daughter, and thus the Cunanans were complete strangers to the No person
proceedings - not entitled notice incompetent to serve as executor or administrator who:
2. She could not conceal Dr. Rafael because he was named the executor of the will (a) Is a minor;
3. That in accordance with R77, no notice required to be given to the executor, who is in fact the (b) Is not a resident of the Philippines; and
one who was supposed to have filed the ancillary proceedings in RP (c) Is in the opinion of the court
4. If the Bulacan estate came from Dr. Jose, he already gave all his properties to his wife unfit to execute the duties of the trust
5. Dr. Rafael unlawfully disbursed money belonging to the estate by reason of
>reply: There was already a settlement between Mrs. Perez and the Cunanan heirs and that R77 still drunkenness,
requires notice to be given improvidence,
blah blah blah or want of understanding
-basta there was a ruling wherein the probate decree was duly proven but still no NY law shown so the or integrity,
Perez's wanted to show NY law. or by reason of conviction of an offense involving moral turpitude.
-now before SC
Perez: presented evidence to show that the wills were authenticated, admitted for probatein NY court Section 2. Executor of executor not to administer estate. -
The executor of an executor shall not,
WON the wills were valid in accordance w/NY law, thus, could be admitted for probate? NO evidence as such,
yet administer the estate of the first testator.
-Will valid in RP if will valid in accordance w/ law of nationality
-evidence necessary for the reprobate or allowance of wills which have been probated outside RP: Section 3. Married women may serve. -
1. Due execution of the will in accordance w/ foreign law A married woman
2. Testator has his domicile in the foreign country may serve as executrix or administratrix,
3. Will was admitted to probate in such country and the marriage of a single woman shall not affect her authority so to serve
under a previous appointment.

20 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
 it may be granted to one or more of the principal creditors,
Section 4. Letters testamentary issued when will allowed. - if competent
When a will has been proved and allowed, and willing to serve;
the court shall issue letters testamentary thereon
to the person named as executor therein, (c) If there is no such creditor competent and willing to serve,
if he is competent, it may be granted to such other person as the court may select.
accepts the trust,
and gives bond as required by these rules. D-3. OPPOSING ISSUAN CE OF LETTERS TESTAM ENTARY, PETITION AND CON TEST OF
LETTERS OF ADMINISTR ATION
Section 5. Where some coexecutors disqualified others may act. -
When all of the executors named in a will RULE 79
cannot act because of Section 1. Opposition to issuance of letters testamentary. Simultaneous petition for administration. -
incompetency, Any person
refusal to accept the trust, interested in a will
or failure to give bond, may state in writing
on the part of one or more of them, the grounds why letters testamentary should not issue
letters testamentary may issue to such of them to the persons named therein as executors,
as are competent, or any of them,
accept and give bond, and the court,
and they may perform the duties and discharge the trust required by the will. after hearing upon notice,
shall pass upon the sufficiency of such grounds.
Section 6. When and to whom letters of administration granted. A petition may,
If no executor is named in the will, at the time,
or the executor or executors are be filed for letters of administration with the will annexed.
incompetent,
refuse the trust, Section 2. Contents of petition for letters of administration. -
or fail to give bond, A petition for letters of administration
or a person dies intestate, must be filed by an interested person
administration shall be granted: and must show,
(a) To the surviving husband or wife, so far as known to the petitioner:
as the case may be, (a) The jurisdictional facts;
or next of kin, (b) The names,
or both, in the discretion of the court, ages,
or to such person as such and residences of the heirs,
surviving husband or wife, and the names
or next of kin, and residences of the creditors,
requests to have appointed, of the decedent;
if competent (c) The probable value
and willing to serve; and character
of the property of the estate;
(b) If such surviving husband or wife, (d) The name of the person for whom letters of administration are prayed.
as the case may be, But no defect in the petition shall render void the issuance of letters of administration.
or next of kin,
or the person selected by them, Section 3. Court to set time for hearing. Notice thereof. -
be incompetent or unwilling, When a petition for letters of administration
or if the husband or widow, is filed in the court having jurisdiction,
or next of kin, such court shall fix a time and place for hearing the petition,
neglects for thirty (30) days after the death of the person and shall cause notice thereof to be given to the known heirs and creditors of the decedent,
to apply for administration and to any other persons believed to have an interest in the estate,
or to request that administration be granted to some other person, in the manner provided in sections 3 and 4 of Rule 76.

21 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
 -they appealed via certiorari to this court
Section 4. Opposition to petition for administration. -
Any interested person may, WON earnest efforts towards a compromise between family members required to be made (WON this
by filing a written opposition, involves an ordinary civil action)? NO
contest the petition DETERMINE FIRST WON ORDINARY CIVIL ACTION OR SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION:
on the ground of the -depends on:
incompetency of the person for whom letters are prayed therein, *averments
or on the ground of the contestant's own right to the administration, *character of the relief sought
and may pray that letters issue to himself, in the complaint or petition
or to any competent person or person named in the opposition. -here:
a. Petition contains sufficient jurisdictional facts required in petition for settlement of estate (fact of
Section 5. Hearing and order for letters to issue. - death, residence of decedent at the time of death - foundation facts upon which all the subsequent
At the hearing of the petition, proceedings in the administration of estate rest)
it must first be shown that notice has been given as hereinabove required, b. Enumerate the names of the heirs, tentative list of properties left by the deceased sought to be
and thereafter the court shall hear the proofs of the parties settled in the probate proceedings
in support of their respective allegations, c. Reliefs seek judicial settlement of the estate of deceased father
and if satisfied that the decedent left no will, -allegedly, there are certain features which makes the petition a complaint, and thus their opposition is
or that there is no competent and willing executor, merely an answer with special affirmative defenses
it shall order the issuance of letters of administration to the party best entitled thereto. -here, clearly a special civil action: the trial court, sitting, as a probate court, has limited and special
jurisdiction and cannot hear and dispose of collateral matters and issues which may be properly
Section 6. When letters of administration granted to any applicant. - threshed out only in an ordinary civil action. In addition, the rule has always been to the effect that the
Letters of administration may be granted jurisdiction of a court, as well as the concomitant nature of an action, is determined by the averments in
to any qualified applicant, the complaint and not by the defenses contained in the answer. If it were otherwise, it would not be too
though it appears that there are other competent persons having better right to the administration, difficult to have a case either thrown out of court or its proceedings unduly delayed by simple strategem.
if such persons -on Art222, NCC: the said rule is applicable only to ordinary civil actions. "suit" (as used in the provision)
fail to appear when notified refers to an action by one person or persons against another or others in a court of justice in which the
and claim the issuance of letters to themselves. plaintiff pursues the remedy which the law affords him for the redress of an injury or the enforcement of
a right, whether at law or in equity.
VDA DE MANALO V. COURT OF APPEALS -why not adversary proceedings:
Short Summary: No effort to reach settlement between relatives. Court held that Article 222 is a. Oppositors not being sued for any COA, no defendant impleaded.
applicable only in ordinary civil actions but here, oppositors are not being sued. This is an ordinary civil b. Petition for issuance of letters of administration, settlement and distribution of estate is a
proceeding wherein only establish the status as heirs of the decedent. special proceeding; it is a remedy whereby the petitioners seek to establish
*facts: fact of death of father
Longer Short summary: the decedent left 11 heirs, 8 of them initiating probate proceedings of his *status as heirs of their father
intestate estate. The remaining 3 heirs filed their opposition, which was denied even until court of
appeals. The only point they raised on their appeal to the SC is WON the case should have dismissed
based on failure to comply with a condition precedent - the absence of earnest efforts toward SUMILANG V. ROMAGOSA
compromise among the members of the same family, as required by Art222, NCC. Court held that that Short Summary: In Tagalog, the will of the decedent made Sumilang the sole heir. But allegedly, the
requirement is merely for ORDINARY CIVIL ACTIONS, AND NOT FOR SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS SUCH AS THE decedent already sold to the oppositors the property to be inherited by Sumilang. Court held that the
PROBATE OF A WILL. Inquirty into the intrinsic validity of the will (that there was already a sale of the property) is not
governed by probate proceedings, citing Nuguid vs. Nuguid.
FACTS:
-Troadio Manalo died INTESTATE Facts:
-he left 11 children and a wife -Hilarion Ramagosa died
-he left properties in Tarlac, Manila, QC and Valenzuela -he allegedly made a will in Tagalog, making Mariano Sumilang the sole heir of Hilarion
-8 of his children filed a petition for judicial settlement of the estate of Troadio, -2 sets of oppositors opposed the petition for probate, alleging that it was made under duress and was
-the remaining 3 heirs filed an opposition, which was allowed, but their affirmative defenses were not not intended to be the will of the decedent:
allowed to be heard for being irrelevant 1. Instead of Mariano, they were entitled to inherit the estate of the decedent
-they appealed via certiorari the denial of a preliminary hearing of their affirmative defenses to CA 2. Next of kin, just prayed for the disallowance of the will
CA: denied

22 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
-the oppositors moved for the dismissal of the will: NO JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE WILL WAS ...However, there's also a motion to dismiss filed by the Canonoy administrator based on the lack of
ALLEGEDLY REVOKED ALREADY through the sale to some of the oppositors of the properties covered by jurisdiction of the court - that Gonzales was not the "interested person" contemplated in R79.2. court
the estate of the deceased which is sought to be disposed granted this motion to dismiss and apparently this is the reason why Pilipinas Shell is appealing. The
at time of decedent's death, the titles to the properties were already transferred to oppositors latter set of facts also appears to be the main topic of this case.
>>>DENIED!
the allegations goes into the intrinsic validity of the will WON the petition was correctly dismissed on the ground that Gonzales was not an "interested
person"?
WON the court properly dismissed the motion to dismiss (WON the court properly ignored grounds for WON interest in the probate proceedings is a jurisdictional requirement?
dismissal which goes to the intrinsic validity of the will)? YES
1. Should focus on EXTRINSIC VALIDITY OF THE WILL 1. What does R79.2 contain:
-what are the extrinsic validity of the will (NUGUID v. NUGUID): Contents of the petition for letters of administration
Testator's testamentary capacity A. Jurisdictional facts:
Compliance w/ formal requisites or solemnities prescribed by law Death of testator
if INTRINSIC VALIDITY: premature Residence of the testator at the time of death
Efficacy of the provisions of the will If resident of a foreign country: that he left his estate in the province where the court sits
Legality of any device or legacy >>>the following facts were sufficiently showed in Gonzales' petition.
>>>the allegation that a petitioner for letters of administration should be an INTERESTED PERSON is not
WON REVOCATION MATTERS? NO a jurisdictional fact which is required to be shown for the court to acquire jurisdiction
-Probate is one thing; validity of the testamentary provisions is another.
2. Wrong ground: should have filed MTD based on lack of legal capacity to sue (as the provision
PROBATE VALIDITY OF TESTAMENTARY PROVISIONS
requires that the petition for letters of administration be filed by an "interested person")
-GR: Saguinsin v. Lindayag: INTERESTED PERSON DEFINED: one who would be benefited by the estate,
Decides Decides
such as an heir, or one who has a claim against the estate, such as a creditor; this interest must be
*execution of the document *descent
material and direct, not merely indirect or contingent.
*testamentary capacity of testator *distribution of estate
-X: if barred by waiver or estoppel
here, there's waiver of ground: the respondents filed an Opposition instead of a motion to dismiss,
WON they could oppose the proceedings, they being not w/n the 5th degree as provided by law? NO. merely opposing the issuance of letters of administration in favor of Gonzales who was a stranger to the
should be interested parties to be allowed to intervene estate. Failure to raise the objection timely is a waiver, in accordance w/ R15.8
lack of capacity to sue, however, cannot be used as an affirmative defense
PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION VS. DUMLAO
Short Summary: Interest of Petitioner was assailed as supposed to be part of the jurisdictional facts to WON the court acquired jurisdiction over them? YES
be indicated in the application for probate. Court held that interest of a party/witness involves the
intrinsic validity of the will, and is not covered by probate, need not be alleged. Interest of the Petitioner
who was sought to be made the administrator is irrelevant as to jurisdictional facts.
FROM SIR B, WITH LVE
Facts Probate Proceedings should also include Testamentary Capacity of the
-Ricardo Gonzales, an employee of Shell Phlippines, filed a petition for a Letter of Administration for the Testator (understanding of the nature of acts, understands for whom the
Intestate Estate of Regino Canonoy property is being given, the object of the bounty)
-The heirs of Regino Canonoy filed an opposition, saying that Gonzales was a complete stranger to the Who would you choose to be a witness to the execution of your will?
intestate estate: >DOCTOR: to attest to the soundness of your mind
Not an heir >LAWYER: to guide you in the formalities required by law
Not a creditor
Not a resident of Butuan, where most of the properties of the estate are located
He is an employee of Shell Philippines, one of the creditors of the estate so he would not be -the administrator (see, Bonifacio Canonoy was indeed made an administrator!) and the other
able to properly and effectively protect the interest of the estate respondents invoked jurisdiction by praying for relies and remedies in their favor in their oppositions
they also prayed that one of the decedent's sons be appointed as administrator (in accordance with the -court acquired jurisdiction over them by voluntary appearance
preference in R78.6)
---malabo ung proceedings sa gitna. I thought the suggested person to be the administrator was indeed D-4. SPECIAL ADMINIS TRATOR RULE 8 0 SECTI ONS 1 -3
appointed, and Shell made their claim.
Section 1. Appointment of special administrator. -

23 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
When there is delay Manolito died in Makati, as a resident of Makati
in granting letters testamentary or of administration Left properties which were acquired after the marriage of Manolito and Elaine (thus Conjugal property)
by any cause including an appeal from the allowance or disallowance of a will, Possible creditors
the court may appoint a special administrator Copulsory heirs: Elaine (SS), 2 minor Children
to take possession Manolito died intestate (w/o a will)
and charge of the estate of the deceased Elaine most qualified to be the administrator
until the questions causing the delay are decided
and executors or administrators appointed. + filed motion for writ of possession over 5 of Manolito's vehicles (who were in the possession of
Manolito's father - Pedro de Guzman - the petitioner): granted!
Section 2. Powers and duties of special adminsitrator. -
Such special administrator shall -Petitioner made appearance, sought for extension to file opposition to the Motion for writ of possession
take possession and charge of the
goods, -Elaine filed EX-Parte Motion to be Appoint as the Special Administatrix. Motion set for hearing, all
chattels, parties directed to be notified (BUT NO NOTICE GIVEN TO THE PETITIONER!!!)
rights, - RTC granted:
credits, * made Elaine the special administratrix
and estate of the deceased * Granted motion for assistance of some military men and/or policemen to assist Elaine in preserving the
and preserve the same for the executors or administrator afterwards appointed, estate of Manolito
and for that purpose -Elaine tried to enforce order. Pedro de Guzman (petitioner) resisted, resulting in a "near shoot-out
may commence and maintain suits as administrator. between members of the Makati Police and CAPCOM soldiers which was diffused by the arrival of Mayor
He may sell only such Binay and the agreement that the bulldozer sought to be taken be placed in Mayor Binay's custody while
perishable the parties sought for clarification
and other property as the court orders sold. -CLARIFICATION: the order only covers properties of the estate, not those claimed by 3P
A special administrator shall not be liable to pay any debts of the deceased -Pedro then filed motion, giving list of properties he claimed he owns; also filed this petition to annul the
unless so ordered by the court. orders given

Section 3. When powers of special administrator cease. Transfer of effects. Pending suits. -
When letters testamentary or of administration are granted on the estate of the deceased,
the powers of the special administrator shall cease,
and he shall forthwith deliver to the executor or administrator the
goods,
chattels,
money,
and estate of the deceased in his hands.
The executor or administrator may prosecute to final judgment
suits commenced by such special administrator.
DE GUZMAN V. ANGELES
Short summary: This is a dispute between the surviving spouse (appointed special adminsitratrix) and
the father in law as to the properties allegedly belonging to the estate of the deceased but was being
claimed by, and was in the possession of, the father in law. Father in law now assails the appointment of
daughter in law as special administratrix, as well as the order for writ of possession, even before notice
was given to him. Court held that NOTICE is needed, even for the appointment of a special administrator,
as it is a position of trust and confidence which needs notice (to inform interested parties) and hearing
where the petitioner who seeks to be appointed proves his qualifications, and the oppositors contests it.
Facts:
-Manolito de Guzman died intestate.
-Elaine de Guzman (surviving spouse) filed petition for settlement of intestate estate of the decedent
before RTC Makati, alleging the following:
WON a probate court may appoint a special administratrix and issue a writ of possession of alleged
properties of a decedent for the preservation of the estate in a petition for the settlement of the
intestate estate of the said deceased person even before the probate court causes notice to be served
upon all interested parties pursuant to section 3, Rule 79 of the Revised Rules of Court?
DISTINGUISH BETWEEN JURISDICTION OF THE PROBATE COURT OVER THE PROCEEDINGS vs.
JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSONS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE SETTLEMENT OF THE ESTATE
The probate court, in accordance w/ R79.3, must first cause notice through publication of petition!
-purpose: bring all interested persons w/n the court's jurisdiction so that the judgment therein becomes
binding on all the world
-if no notice:
proceeding for settlement of estate is void and should be annulled. OR else, may deprive a person of his
property w/o due process of law
The court orders affecting other persons subsequent to the petition filed are void and subject to
annulment
-here: no notice before the court:
acted on the motion of Elaine to be the Special Administratrix
Issued a writ of possession of alleged properties of the deceased person
Granted the motion for assistance to preserve the estate of Manolito
-if notice was given, then the creditors and other interested persons could have participated in the
proceedings, especially because Elaine immediately filed a motion to have herself appointed as
administratrix; Pedro appears to be the biggest creditor of the estate who has the largest interest in it

24 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
Special administrator: representative of decedent appointed by the probate court to care for and
preserve his estate until an executor or general administrator is appointed.
WON the orders could have been issued w/o notice: ONLY if there's urgency
-Here: no necessity/urgency for the issuance of the said orders w/o first giving notice to interested
persons; no avoidable delay
-emergency situations threatening the dissipation of the assets of an estate justify a court's immediately
taking some kind of temporary action even without the required notice
So GR: give notice
X: emergency situations
Why give notice even for appointment of special administrator:
"The position of special administrator, by the very nature of the powers granted thereby, is one of trust
and confidence. It is a fiduciary position and, therefore, requires a comprehensive determination of the
suitability of the applicant to such position. Hence, under Philippine jurisprudence, it has been settled
that the same fundamental and legal principles governing the choice of a regular administrator should be
taken in choosing the special administrator (Francisco, Vol. VB, page 46 citing the cases of Ozaeta v.
Pecson, Ibid. and Roxas v. Pecson, Ibid.)
"In order to fully and correctly ascertain the suitability of the applicant to the trust, a hearing is obviously
necessary wherein the applicant can prove his qualifications and at the same time affording oppositors,
given notice of such hearing and application, the opportunity to oppose or contest such application.
ON inhibition of judge: Judge voluntarily inhibited himself so moot
DE GUZMAN VS. GUADIZ
Short summary: the alleged sole universal heir of a will filed a petition for letters testamentary, he also
being appointed as the executor in the will. Persons were claiming that they owned the properties
through a donation made by the decedent during his lifetime, and at the same time are in possession of
the properties, opposed. Petitioner filed for determination of the validity of the donation, at the same
time filed for petition to be appointed as the special administrator which the lower court denied since
the oppositors were already administering the property. SC held that there are sufficient grounds for
appointing a special administrator, as there was delay in the probate of the will and the appointment of
the executor. Should distinguish between neutral possession and partisan possession
Facts:
-Feliciano de Guzman filed petition for probate of a will alleged to have been executed by Catalina
Bajacan
-the will instituted Feliciano as Catalina's sole and universal heir
-the will also named Feliciano as the executor
-Respondents filed MTD/Opposition: All properties of Catalina were now owned by them y virtue of a
Donation inter vivos executed by Arcadia and Catalina Bajacan in their favor
-decision on motion to dismiss deferred until presentation of evidence
-Feliciano filed a motion to be appointed as the special administrator (delay in the probate of the will
and appointment of executor if MTD unresolved)
-that the property of the decedent consists of rice land which would yield P50k worth of rice twice a year
so somebody must represent the estate pending the probate of the will
RTC: denied the motion for appointment of a special administrator
25 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
---the properties are in the custody of the oppositors who claim they own the property so no need to
appoint special administrator to take care of the properties where there is a considerable delay
WON a special administrator should have been issued to administer the properties allegedly of the
estate when the oppositors who claim ownership over the property are in possession of the same?
YES!!!
*Look at R80.1*
-under R80.1, the probate court may appoint a special administrator when:
There is delay in granting letters testamentary/administration
Irrelevant whatever caused the delay
For period: until the cause of delay is decided and executors or administrators are appointed
-the appointment of a special administrator lies in the DISCRETION OF THE COURT - which must be
sound: not whimsical, not contrary to reason, justice, equity or legal principle
*What types of delays usually considered/sufficient grounds for granting special administration:
Where a contest as to the will is being carried on in the same or in another court
Where there is an appeal pending as to the proceeding on the removal of an executor/administrator
Where the parties cannot agree among themselves
When general administration cannot be immediately granted
*reasons why appoint a special administrator:
*"The reason for the practice of appointing a special administrator rests in the fact that estates of
decedents frequently become involved in protracted litigation, thereby being exposed to great waste
and losses if there is no authorized agent to collect the debts and preserve the assets in the interim. The
occasion for such an appointment usually arises where, for some cause, such as a pendency of a suit
concerning the proof of the will, regular administration is delayed. No temporary administration can be
granted where there is an executor in being capable of acting, however."
*"Principal object of appointment of temporary administrator is to preserve estate until it can pass into
hands of person fully authorized to administer it for benefit of creditors and heirs." 23
Here, what are the causes of delay:
The oppositors claimed that they own the properties of the estate through a donation allegedly made by
the decedent. The petitioner thus filed a civil case for the annulment of the deed of donation pending
the hearing of the probate of the will. The same judge was the judge in the civil case, and ruled that
petitioner had no personality to sue, the will from which he claims interest in the property not yet being
probated
The hearings for the probate of the will has been postponed several times
And upon filing of this petition, the judge postponed the hearing of the probate of the will pending the
outcome of this case
ON THE POSSESSION OF THE OPPOSITORS OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION: should have differentiated
between partisan possession vs. neutral possession
-when appointed, a special administrator is regarded, not as a representative of the agent of the parties
suggesting the appointment, but as the administrator in charge of the estate, an officer of the court.
REYNOSO V. SANTIAGO
Short summary: Initially an intestate proceeding, the father and son now wants a testate proceeding to
be held for the probate of the will of the decedent, it being held by the CA as a valid will. They also
wanted father to be appointed as regular administrator, and the special administrator to render an
accounting. Court held that it is w/n the discretion of the judge to decide WON a probate proceeding
would be initiated separately or in the same proceedings and as to the appointment of an administrator,
a regular administrator should be appointed but not necessarily the father.
 command the court below to appoint a regular administrator, but it is not proper to tell it whom to
Facts: appoint.
-Salvadora Obispo died
1st proceeding (SP no. 2914): Leoncio Cadiz and other heirs of Salvadora applied for the administration D-5. BOND OF EXECUTO RS AN D ADMINISTRATOR S
of the property of the deceased - they alleged that the decedent died intestate
>>>OPPOSITION by the surviving spouse (Victorio) and the eldest son (Juan): there's a will, then counter-
petitioned for the probate of the will. RULE 81
TC: rejected the opposition: the will was forged! Section 1. Bond to be given issuance of letters. Amount. Conditions. -
>>>Appointed Meliton Palabrica as Special Administrator Before an executor or administrator enters upon the execution of his trust,
CA: will was authentic and drawn w/ all the formalities of law; appoint albacea and letters testamentary or administration issue,
-in accordance with the CA decision, the father and son tandem filed 2 petitions: he shall give a bond,
Petition to order Special administrator Meliton Palabrica to in such sum as the court directs, conditioned as follows:
turn over the properties of the deceased (a) To make and return to the court,
Turn over the proceeds of the products on the properties to Victorio, the surviving spouse within three (3) months,
To render an accounting w/n reasonable time a true and complete inventory of all
and for the closing of the special proceedings for the Intestate estate ...goods,
Petition for probate of the testate estate of deceased Salvadora Obispo ...chattels,
prayed that Victorio be appointed as executor of Salvadora's estate ...rights,
also contained prayer in the 1st petition ...credits,
...and estate of the deceased
-the 2 petitions were both heard by the same judge, but decided separately. which shall come to his possession
The action on the petition should be w/held for the time being, because of the pendency on appeal of a or knowledge
case in which the special administrator is plaintiff and Juan and Victorio are defendants and appellants or to the possession of any other person for him;
(WON the coconut land is conjugal property or exclusive property of the husband). Thus, in accordance
w/R87.8, the surviving spouse cannot be appointed as administrator because he has a claim against the (b) To administer
estate. according to these rules,
Not necessary to open another expediente. Could have the probate of the testate estate in the same and, if an executor,
proceeding according to the will of the testator,
all
WON a separate special proceeding for the probate of the will of Salvadora necessary? It depends on ...goods,
the judge. ...chattels,
-Whether the intestate proceeding already commenced should be discontinued and a new proceeding ...rights,
under a separate number and title should be constituted is entirely a matter of form and lies within the ...credits,
sound discretion of the court. In no manner does it prejudice the substantial rights of any heirs or ...and estate
creditors. Amor propio is perhaps the only thing is at stake on this phase of the controversy. which shall at any time come to his possession
or to the possession of any other person for him,
WON a regular administrator should be appointed by the court? YES, but not automatically the and from the proceeds to pay
husband. The lower court would determine it based on the rules and discharge all
-since the CA already found the will valid and it already decreed the appointment of an albacea, a regular ...debts,
administrator should now be already appointed. ...legacies,
-appointment of a special administrator justified only when THERE IS DELAY IN GRANTING LETTERS ...and charges on the same,
TESTAMENTARY OR OF ADMINISTRATION OCCASIONED BY AN APPEAL FROM THE ALLOWANCE OR ...or such dividends thereon as shall be decreed by the court;
DISALLOWANCE OF A WILL OR SOME OTHER CAUSE
-The appointment of a regular administrator is necessary for the prompt settlement and distribution of (c) To render a true and just account of his administration to the court
the estate. There are important duties devolving on a regular administrator which a special administrator within one (1) years,
can not perform, and there are many actions to be taken by the court which could not be accomplished and at any other time
before a regular administrator is appointed. ...when required by the court;
-WHO SHOULD BE APPOINTED AS ADMINISTRATOR? While surviving spouse is entitled to preference
(R79.6), circumstances might warrant his rejection and the appointment of someone else. It is proper to (d) To perform all orders of the court by him to be performed.

Section 2. Bond of executor where directed in will. When further bond required. -

26 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
If the testator debts are paid, the administrator's job is not yet done, thus, the bond still subsists and the administrator
in his will is still liable to pay the surety.
directs that the executors
...serve without bond, Facts:
...or with only his individual bond, -Luzon Surety Company entered into an indemnity agreement w/ Pastor Quebar:
he may be allowed by the court to give bond Luzon Surety Company would issue 2 administrator's bond, P15k each, for 2 Special proceedings
...in such sum Quebar and Kilayco would pay Luzon Surety P300 in advance as premium for every 12 months.or
...and with such surety renewed by them
as the court approves Quebar and Kilayco also agrees to indemnify Luzon Surety for all damages, losses.expenses
conditioned only to pay the debts of the testator; -Quebar paid for the first year, P304.50 each
but the court may require of the executor a further bond -Quebar submitted a Project Partition and Accounts
in case of >>>CFI approved it
...a change in his circumstance, -when Luzon Surety demanded payment of premiums and documentary stamps for the years after the
...or for other sufficient case, first.
with the conditions named in the last preceding section. -Quebar and Kilayco filed a MOTION FOR CANCELLATION AND/OR REDUCTION OF EXECUTOR'S BOND:
heirs already received their shares (so tapos na dapat trabaho nila, di na kelangan ng bond)
Section 3. Bonds of joint executors and administrators. - >>>CFI: cancelled bonds. - As a result, Kilayco and Quebar refused to pay the amount demanded by
When two or more persons are appointed executors or administrators Luzon Surety (which amounted to almost P2.5k each ~ P5k)
the court may take -Luzon Surety filed for collection.
...a separate bond from each, CFI: allowed Luzon Surety to recover: defendants liable under terms of the Indemnity Agreements, even
...or a joint bond from all. if they did not renew it, because they were still in force and effect until cancelled by Court order. -
Quebar and Kilayco appealed
Section 4. Bond of special administrator. - CA: referred case to SC, questions of law involved
A special administrator
before entering upon the duties of his trust HELD: With the payment of the premium for the first year, the surety already assumed the risk involved,
shall give a bond, that is, in case defendant-appellant Pastor T. Quebrar defaults in his administrative duties. The surety
in such sum as the court directs, became liable under the bond for the faithful administration of the estate by the administrator/executor.
conditioned that Hence, for as long as defendant-appellant Pastor T. Quebrar was administrator of the estates, the bond
...he will make and return a true inventory of the was held liable and inevitably, the plaintiff-appellee's liability subsists since the liability of the sureties is
...goods, co-extensive with that of the administrator
...chattels,
...rights, HOW TO INTERPRET LIABILITY FOR THE BOND: Look on the language of the bond itself
...credits, -HERE: the bond is practically the same as R81.1, ROC
and estate of the deceased -The statute which requires the giving of a bond becomes a part of the bond and imparts into the bond
which come to his possession or knowledge, any condition prescribed by statute
...and that he will truly account for such -PURPOSE OF BOND: indemnify creditors, heirs, legatees and the estate, conditioned upon the faithful
as are received by him performance of the administrator's trust
when required by the court, - the surety is then liable under the administrator's bond, for as long as the administrator has duties to
.and will deliver the same do as such administrator/executor. Since the liability of the sureties is co-extensive with that of the
to the person appointed executor or administrator, administrator and embraces the performance of every duty he is called upon to perform in the course of
or to such other person as may be authorized to receive them. administration (Deobold vs. Oppermann, 111 NY 531, 19 NE 94), it follows that the administrator is still
duty bound to respect the indemnity agreements entered into by him in consideration of the suretyship.
LUZON SURETY VS. QUEBAR -EFFECT OF APROVAL OF PROJECT OF PARTITION: NONE
Short summary: Surety company entered into an indemnity agreements wherein they agreed to become ...liquidation: the determination of all the assets of the estate and payment of all the debts and expenses
sureties to 2 administrator's bond in favor of Pastor Quebar, and the latter agreed to pay them. Quebar - here, not all expenses were paid yet
submitted a project of partition and accounts which was approved by the court, so Quebar argues that project partition: estate may be partitioned even before the termination of the administration
the bond should now be cancelled (thus, not paying anything more to the surety). Surety sues the proceedings. Even w/ the approval of the partition, the CFI could still exercise jurisidction over the
administrator for amounts due to it. Court held that the administrators bond still exists, coterminous administration proceedings
with the probate proceedings. And even if there's already a project of partition, as long as not all of the WHEN SURETY LIABLE: as long as probate proceedings are ongoing

27 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
The sureties of an administration bond are liable only as a rule, for matters occurring during the term
covered by the bond. And the term of a bond does not usually expire until the administration has been
closed and terminated in the manner directed by law
-As long as the probate court retains jurisdiction of the estate, the bond contemplates a continuing
liability (Deobold vs. Oppermann, supra) notwithstanding the non-renewal of the bond by the
defendants-appellants.
CAN'T INTERPRET THE TWO BONDS SEPARATELY: the terms of the bond makes them jointly and
severally liable
-so 1 can't claim that the bond and the indemnity agreement failed to have effect since
approval of the project partition
nonpayment of stated premiums
WON PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS AND DST ARE CONDITION PRECEDENT TO EFFECTIVITY OF BONDS? NO
-no provision or condition in the bond to the effect that it will terminate at the end of the first year if the
premium for continuation thereafter is not paid. And there is no clause by which its obligation is avoided
or even suspended by the failure of the obligee to pay an annual premium
-Even on a failure to pay an annual premium, the contract ran on until affirmative action was taken to
avoid it. The obligation of the bond was therefore continuous
-The payment of the annual premium is to be enforced as part of the consideration, and not as a
condition
-"the one-year period mentioned therein refers not to the duration or lifetime of the bond, but merely to
the payment of premiums, and, consequently, does not affect at all the effectivity or efficacy of such
bond. But such non-payment alone of the premiums for the succeeding years . . . does not necessarily
extinguish or terminate the effectivity of the counter-bond in the absence of an express stipulation in the
contract making such non-payment of premiums a cause for the extinguishment or termination of the
undertaking. . . . There is no necessity for an extension or renewal of the agreement because by specific
provision thereof, the duration of the counter-bond was made dependent upon the existence of the
original bond."
CORPORATE SURETY: Suretyship became regarded as insurance
-no need to interpret the contract because NO AMBIGUITY
RODRIGUEZ V. SILVA
Short summary: The intestate estate of the decedent sues one of the former administrator for allegedly
excessive compensation for his services and for allegedly invalidly having the administrator's bond
cancelled when he had a liability during his service as administrator. As to the allegedly excessive
compensation, Court held that it is w/n the discretion of the court to raise the compensation if the
estate is big and there's difficulty in managing it, and it was shown that the efforts exerted by the
administrator was commensurate to the compensation given. As to the bond, it was held that if ever he
was liable for misappropriating a land allegedly of the estate, the bond would not cover it but it would
instead be a personal liability of the administrator.
Facts:
-Pablo M. Silva, together with Victorio Rodriguez, were appointed as administrators of the intestate
estate of HONOFRE LEYSON.
-through Silva's initiative:
The holdings of the estate was earning P1,300 from P900 a month
The 2 parcels of land located in Rizal were paid for in full, corresponding certificates of title secured
He was instrumental in gathering decedent's personal effects
He filed a motion whereby Margarita Leyson Laurente (one of the appellants) was NOT authorized to
w/draw advance payment of her share of the inheritance, thereby able to stop an improvident
disbursement of a substantial amount w/o having to employ legal help at an additional expense
28 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
-Silva filed a motion to resign.
COURT:
Cancelled his bond
Authorized him to collect P600 (note: this was 1952) as administrator's fees
-Appellants contested the order:
A few months before the order granting the resignation of Silva, he was able to cancel TCT of Cubao
property in the name of the decedent in his name, in a doubtful manner
The P600 charge to the estate is unreasonable, and granting that it is reasonable, it should be
apportioned between the 2 administrators, and the P100 already received by Silva should be deducted
WON COURT MAY FIX AN ADMINISTRATOR'S FEE IN EXCESS OF THE FEES PRESCRIBED IN R86.7:
SEC. 7. What expenses and fees allowed executor or administrator. Not to charge for services as
attorney. Compensation provided by will controls unless renounced. An executor or administrator shall be
allowed the necessary expenses in the care, management, and settlement of the estate, and for his
services, four pesos per day for the time actually and necessarily employed, or a commission upon the
value of so much of the estate as comes into his possession and is finally disposed of by him in the
payment of debts, expenses, legacies, or distributive shares, or by delivery to heirs or devises, of two per
centum of the first five thousand pesos of such value, one per centum of so much of such value as exceeds
five thousand pesos and does not exceed thirty thousand pesos, one-half per centum of so much of such
value as exceeds thirty thousand pesos and does not exceed one hundred thousand pesos, and one-
quarter per centum of so much of such value as exceeds one hundred thousand pesos. But in any special
case, where the estate is large, and the settlement has been attended with great difficulty, and has
required a high degree of capacity on the part of the executor or administrator, a greater sum may be
allowed. If objection to the fees allowed be taken, the allowance may be reexamined on appeal.
If there are two or more executors or administrators, the compensation shall be apportioned among
them by the court according to the services actually rendered by them respectively.
When the executor or administrator is an attorney he shall not charge against the estate any professional
fees for legal services rendered by him.
When the deceased by will makes some other provision for the compensation of his executor, that
provision shall be a full satisfaction for his services unless by a written instrument filed in the court he
renounces all claim to the compensation provided by the will
-Court can grant greater sum:
*In special cases
where estate is large
and settlement attended w/ great difficulty
and has required a high degree of capacity on part of executor
-it is largely in the discretion of the probate court
HERE:
Appraised value of the estate is P22,116.46
The efforts of Silva mentioned in the facts merit his work
*On the basis of the services thus specified, coupled with the fact that the appellee worked as co-
administrator for about two years, we do not think that the probate court committed an abuse of
discretion in granting him P600.00 or P700.00 as fee independent of the fee that might be allowed the
other administrator.
WON CANCELLATION OF THE BOND WAS PROPER? administration may be to any suitable person.
Appellants argue that De Silva was guilty of misappropriation/ acts of commission or ommission for
which bond could be held liable Section 3. Acts before revocation, resignation, or removal to be valid. -
NO. The lawful acts of an executor or administrator
The alleged illegal transfer was argued by De Silva as being sold to him even before he was administrator before the revocation
of the estate - it was in his possession before he became administrator ...of his letters testamentary or
land did not come to his hands pursuance or in the course of administration ...of administration,
it was not included in the inventory prepared by De Silva or before his resignation
If ever he had no valid title, are not chargeable for it on the bond. De Silva's liability is personal and or removal,
exclusive of the sureties who are the parties mostly affected by the third assignment of error. shall have the like validity
as if there had been no such
D-6. REVOCATION OF A DMINIS TRATION, DEATH , RESIGNATION, AND R EMOVAL OF ...revocation,
EXECUTORS OR AD MINIS TRATORS ...resignation,
...or removal.

RULE 82 Section 4. Powers of new executor or administrator. Renewal of license to sell real estate. -
Section 1. Administration revoked if will discovered. Proceedings thereupon. - The person to whom letters testamentary or of administration are granted
If after letters of administration have been granted on the estate of a decedent after the revocation of former letters,
as if he had died intestate, or the death,
his will is proved resignation,
and allowed by the court, or removal of a former executor or administrator,
the letters of administration shall be revoked shall have the like powers
and all powers thereunder cease, ...to collect
and the administrator shall forthwith ...and settle
...surrender the letters to the court, the estate not administered
and render his account with such time as the court directs. that the former executor or administrator had,
Proceeding for the issuance of letters testamentary ...and may prosecute or defend actions
or of administration under the will commenced by or against the former executor or administrator,
shall be as hereinbefore provided. ...and have execution on judgments recovered in the name of such former executor or administrator.
An authority granted by the court to the former executor or administrator
Section 2. Court may be remove or accept resignation of executor or administrator. Proceeding upon for the sale or mortgage of real estate
death, resignation, or removal. - may be renewed in favor of such person
If an executor or administrator without further notice or hearing.
...neglects to render his account
...and settle the estate according to law, URIARTE V. CFI
...or to perform an Short summary: alleged natural child of the deceased filed petition for settlement of INTESTATE estate
order of Don Juan Uriarte y Goite in Negros Occidental Court. PNB was even appointed as special
or judgment of the court, administrator, but PNB failed to qualified. MTD filed by nephew of Don Juan, alleging that while he was
or a duty expressly provided by these rules, in Spain, the deceased made a will AND that petitioner had doubtful interest (proceeding for his
...or absconds, recognition as a natural child not yet done). Pending this, the nephews instituted a petition for probate
...or becomes insane, of the will of Don Juan in Manila. Alleged natural son opposed, contending that Negros courts already
...or otherwise incapable or insuitable to discharge the trust, had exclusive jurisdiction of the case.But Negros court dismissed the special proceeding, and the Manila
the court may remove him, court proceeded to probate the will. Petitioner contested it. Court held that since the decedent was a
or in its discretion, may permit him to resign. non-resident, both Manila and Negros courts may be proper venues for the proceedings. But since
When an executor or administrator probate proceedings enjoy priority over intestate proceedings, action by Manila court proper. Even if the
...dies, venue was improper, petitioner considered to have waived the defect by laches. Lastly, the court held
...resign, that if ever recognized as the natural child of the decedent, he could opt to intervene in the probate
...or is removed proceedings, or to have it opened if already finished.
the remaining executor or administrator may administer the the trust alone,
unless the court grants letters to someone to act with him. Facts:
If there is no remaining executor or administrator,

29 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
-Don Juan Uriarte y Goite died in Spain, left properties both in Manila and Negros Short summary: Intestate proceedings already commenced and was about to be closed (there already
-The alleged natural son of Don Juan, VICENTE URIARTE, filed petition for settlement of INTESTATE been a project of partition) when testate proceedings initiated. The decedent left 2 wills which the
ESTATE of Don Juan before the Negros Occidental court. Note that during that time, the proceedings for petitioners for the intestate proceedings knew. Court held that probate proceedings are proper and
compulsory acknowledgment as the natural son of Don Juan was still pending intestate proceedings should be consolidated with the testate proceedings.
-PNB also was appointed as special administrator of the estate, but PNB failed to qualify
-OPPOSITION TO PETITION by HIGINIO URIARTE (nephew of Don Juan): Facts:
Don Juan left a will, executed in Spain, duly authenticated - submitted before Negros court -Edward Grimm died in Makati Med
ViCENTE's capacity and interest are questionable -Heirs
-JUAN URIARTE ZAMACONA (di ko alam how related) commenced SPECPRO for PROBATE OF LAST WILL 1st marriage (ended in divorce) children:
OF DON JUAN before Manila courts + MTD in Negros Courts Juanita Grimm Morris
Since there's a will, no need for intestate proceedings before Negros Courts Ethel Grimm Roberts (McFadden)
Vicente had no legal personality to sue 2nd marriage
>>>OPPOSED by VICENTE: Negros Courts first took cognizance, it had acquired exclusive jurisdiction over 2nd wife MAXINE
the same Son Edward Miller Grimm II (Pete)
NEGROS COURT: DISMISS proceedings before it Daughter Linda Grimm
-VICENTE filed OMNIBUS MOTION in Manila Court for leave to intervene + dismissal of petition for -he left 2 wills: 1 for his properties in RP (conjugal property w/ 2nd wife), the other for his estate outside
probate + annulment of proceedings - DENIED RP wherein the daughters in the 1st marriage were intentionally not given anything
-Manila court admitted to probate the last will -43 days after decedent's death, ETHEL filed Intestate proceedings, was named special administrator
>>>Maxine (2nd wife/stepmom) filed OPPOSITION + MTD:
WON NEGROS COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE INTESTATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE IT? NO. there's Utah proceedings for the probate of will
Decedent is an inhabitant of a foreign country (Spain) during the time of his death, so the courts in the Prayed that she be appointed special administratrix
province s where he left property may take cognizance of settlement of his estate >>>w/drawn by Maxine
-here, decedent left properties both in Manila and in Negros INTESTATE COURT: since the parties wanted it, Maxine, Pete and Ethel were all appointed as joint
Even if Negros court first took cognizance of the case, still has to give way to Manila court administrators (Intestate court already knew there was a will but did not do anything about it)
special proceeding intended to effect the distribution of the estate of a deceased person, whether in -Administrators submitted an inventory
accordance with the law on intestate succession or in accordance with his will, is a "probate matter" or a -Palawan Pearl Project (business owned by deceased) sold to Makiling Management Co (owned by Ethel
proceeding for the settlement of his estate. and husband and lawyer), acquiesced by Linda (daughter in 2nd marriage) and Juanita (other daughter in
BUT testate proceedings, for the settlement of the estate of a deceased person take precedence over 1st marriage)
intestate proceedings for the same purpose. -PROJECT PARTITION APPROVED BY INTESTATE COURT
So even pending Intestate proceedings, if it is found it hat the decedent had left a last will, -Ethel filed MOTION for accounting so that Estate properties can be partitioned among heirs and
proceedings for the probate of the latter should replace the intestate proceedings even if at that stage intestate estate be closed.
an administrator had already been appointed, the latter being required to render final account and TESTATE COURT: filed 2 years after intestate proceedings
turn over the estate in his possession to the executor subsequently appointed. -sought to set aside the 1979 partition approved by intestate court
If will rejected or disproved, proceedings shall continue as intestacy -Ethel filed MTD - denied for lack of merit
VICENTE already waived procedural defect of VENUE IMPROPERLY LAID
-He knew that there was a will when a MTD was filed in Negros court, so he should have filed a MTD in WON THE TESTATE COURT SHOULD HAVE DISMISSED THE PETITION FOR PROBATE? NO
Manila court earlier: Manila court already -A testate proceeding is proper in this case because Grimm died with two wills and "no will shall pass
*appointed an administrator either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed" (Art. 838, Civil Code; sec. 1, Rule 75,
*admitted the will to probate more than 5 months earlier Rules of Court).
-court would not annul proceedings regularly had in a lower court even if the latter was not the proper -The probate of the will is mandatory. It is anomalous that the estate of a person who died testate
venue therefor, if the net result would be to have the same proceedings repeated in some other court of should be settled in an intestate proceeding. Therefore, the intestate case should be consolidated with
similar jurisdiction the testate proceeding and the judge assigned to the testate proceeding should continue hearing the
As to interest of Vicente in the case two cases.
-two alternatives for an acknowledged natural child to prove his status and interest in the estate of the -so dismissed Ethel's petition for certiorari
deceased parent:
(1) to intervene in the probate proceeding if it is still open; and ADVINCULA V. TEODORO (1956)
(2) to ask for its reopening if it has already been closed. Short summary: brothers of the deceased wanted to oust surviving spouse/brother in law as
administrator of their sister's estate, after ss/bil already appointed as such and after intestate
ROBERTS V. LEONIDAS proceedings already commenced, by showing will allegedly appointing one of them as executor. Court

30 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
held that until the will is probated, the provision in the will making one of them the executor of the
estate is not effective.
Facts
-Josefa Lacson Advincula allegedly died intestate and so her husband Emilio initiated specpro for the
settlement of her intestate estate and was appointed regular administrator.
-After such, brothers of deceased submitted an alleged will of Josefa and petitioned for the probate of
the said will
>>>Emilio contested alleging that the will was a forgery. -Enrique Lacson, one of the brothers, filed
motion that he be appointed administrator of the estate, he being appointed the executor in the will,
and that petitioner is "incompetent, incapable and unsuitable to the discharge of the trust, he being
foreign to the estate, and without changing or removing him as such would be disastrous to the estate
and to the heirs named in the will of the decedent"
>>>Lawyers of Emilio filed OPPOSITION to the motion, but on the date of hearing:
the main counsel of Emilio was not present, the motion for postponement of the hearing was denied
Enrique Lacson was appointed as administrator, they're allegations as to competence of Emilio "well-
founded"
WON THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED BY EMILIO FOR GADALEJ SHOULD BE GRANTED? YES
-Although Enrique was appointed in the alleged will as executor, it is not sufficient ground to annul
Emilio's appointment as administrator as the provision in the will cannot be enforced until the said
document has been allowed probate [R79.4: "When a will has been proved and allowed, the court shall
issue letters testamentary thereon to the person named as executor therein, if he is competent, accepts
the trusts, and gives bond as required by these rules."]
-the discovery of a document purporting to be the last will and testament of a deceased, after the
appointment of an administrator of the estate of the latter, upon the assumption that he or she had died
intestate, does not ipso facto nullify the letters of administration already issued or even authorize the
revocation thereof, until the alleged will has been "proved and allowed by the court."
R83.1: "If after letters of administration have been granted on the estate of a decedent as if he had died
intestate, his will is proved and allowed by the court, the letters of administration shall be revoked and
all powers thereunder cease, and the administrator shall forthwith surrender the letters to the court,
end render his account within such time as the court directs. Proceedings for the issuance of letters
testamentary or of administration under the will shall be as hereinbefore provided."
-ON ALLEGATION IN THE MOTION OF ENRIQUE LACSON: It is untenable from the viewpoint of logic and
experience, because a stranger to deceased may be competent, capable and fit to administer her estate,
in much the same as a member of her immediate family could be incompetent, incapable and unfit to do
so.
he is prima facie entitled to one-half of all property subject to the authority of the administrator of said
estate, apart from his share of the other half thereof, as heir of the deceased, for "all property of the
marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership" - of which he is its administrator (Article
165, Civil Code of the Philippines) - "unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to
the wife" (See Articles 160 and 185, Civil Code of the Philippines)
...Advincula has not been found guilty of any specific act or omission constituting one of the legal
grounds, enumerated in Rule 83, section 2, of the Rules of Court, for the removal of an executor or
administrator.
VIUDA DE BACALING V. LAGUDA
Short summary: The lessees of the land were sought to be evicted but since they put up a residential
house on the property, they refused to do so. The lessee, who was also the judicial administratrix of her
husband co-lesee, entered into an amicable settlement w/ the owner of the property wherein she
31 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
agreed to leave the property. She was however replaced as judicial administratrix so she now claims that
the amicable settlement cannot be enforced against her. Court held that her acts bound the next
administrator of the estate, thus, they should leave the property.
Facts:
-Hector Laguda owned a residential lot in La Paz, Iloilo
-He allowed Dr. Ramon Bacaling and her wife Nelita to build a residential house on a portion of the lot,
upon payment of monthly rentals
-since the spouses were unable to pay the rentals, an action for ejectment was filed against Nelita (Dr.
Ramon already died) as the judicial administratrix of the estate of her husband
-suffering many legal setbacks and unable to have the action for ejectment dismissed, she entered (as
the judicial administratrix) an compromise agreement w/ Hector where she agreed to pay the accrued
rents and vacate the premises and demolish the house.
-Compromise agreement approved by the courts
-Nelia refused to comply with the agreement
-Hector moved for execution of the compromise agreement
-pending this, Nelia was discharged as the judicial administrator of her husband's estate so she was
claiming in a motion to quash that the settlement was not binding on the new administrator - denied
-Alias writ of execution issued by court
-to stop the demolition of the house, Nelia filed certiorari proceedings w/ TRO before SC
WON ACTS OF NELIA AS JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATRIX PRIOR TO HER DISCHARGE OR REMOVAL ARE
VALID AND BINDING UPON HER SUCCESSOR? YES
-Under Section 3, Rule 82 of the Rules of Court, petitioner's lawful acts before the revocation of her
letters of administration or before her removal shall have the same validity as if there was no such
revocation or removal. It is elementary that the effect of revocation of letters testamentary or of
administration is to terminate the authority of the executor or administrator, but the acts of the
executor or administrator, done in good faith prior to the revocation of the letters, will be protected, and
a similar protection will be extended to rights acquired under a previous grant of administration.
WON NELIA WAS A BUILDER IN GF? NO
-Lessees, like petitioner, are not possessors in good faith, because they knew that their occupancy of the
premises continues only during the life of the lease, and they cannot as a matter of right, recover the
value of their improvements from the lessor, much less retain the premises until they are reimbursed.
Their rights are governed by Article 1678 of the Civil Code which allows reimbursement of lessees up to
one-half of the value of their improvements if the lessor so elects.
WON THERE WAS DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS FOR FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM OF THE
MINOR CHILDREN OF THE DECEASED OF THE MOTION FOR EXECUTION? NO
-there was evidence that the guardian ad litem has been duly apprised, as shown by the certification of
the counsel for Nelia at the foot of her opposition to the motion for execution
D-7. INVENTORY AND A PPRAIS AL. PROVISI ON FOR SUPPORT OF FAMILY
RULE 83. Inventory and Appraisal. Provision for Support of Family
Section 1. Inventory and appraisal to be returned within three months. -
Within three (3) months after his appointment
every executor or administrator shall return to the court
a true inventory and appraisal
of all
...real (4) Parents and natural children by legal fiction and the legitimate and illegitimate descendants of the
and latter;
...personal estate of the deceased (5) Parents and illegitimate children who are not natural.
which has come into his possession or knowledge. Brothers and sisters owe their legitimate and natural brothers and sisters, although they are only of the
In the appraisement of such estate, half-blood, the necessaries for life,
the court may order one or more of the inheritance tax appraisers when by a physical or mental defect,
to give his or their assistance. or any other cause not imputable to the recipients,
the latter cannot secure their subsistence.
Section 2. Certain article not to be inventoried. - This assistance includes, in a proper case,
The wearing apparel of the surviving husband or wife and minor children, expenses necessary for elementary education
the marriage bed and bedding, and for professional or vocational training. (143a)
and such provisions and other articles
as will necessarily be consumed in the subsistence of the family of the deceased, Art. 292. During the proceedings for legal separation,
under the direction of the court, or for annulment of marriage,
shall not be considered as assets, the spouses and children, shall be supported from the conjugal partnership property.
nor administered as such, After the final judgment of legal separation,
and shall not be included in the inventory. or of annulment of marriage,
the obligation of mutual support between the spouses ceases.
Section 3. Allowance to widow and family. - However, in case of legal separation,
The widow the court may order that the guilty spouse
and minor or incapacitated children shall give support to the innocent one,
of a deceased person, the judgment specifying the terms of such order. (n)
during the settlement of the estate,
shall receive therefrom, Art. 293. In an action for legal separation
under the direction of the court, or annulment of marriage,
such allowance as are provided by law. attorney's fees
and expenses for litigation
shall be charged to the conjugal partnership property,
Title IX. - SUPPORT (NCC)
unless the action fails. (n)
Art. 290. Support is everything
that is indispensable for
Art. 294. The claim for support,
...sustenance,
when proper and two or more persons are obliged to give it,
...dwelling,
shall be made in the following order:
...clothing and
...medical attendance,
(1) From the spouse;
according to the social position of the family.
(2) From the descendants of the nearest degree;
(3) From the ascendants, also of the nearest degree;
Support also includes the
(4) From the brothers and sisters.
education of the person entitled to be supported
Among descendants and ascendants
until he completes his education or training for some
the order in which they are called to the intestate succession of the person
...profession,
who has a right to claim support shall be observed. (144)
...trade or
...vocation,
Art. 295. When the obligation to give support
even beyond the age of majority. (124a)
falls upon two or more persons,
the payment of the same shall be divided between them
Art. 291. The following are obliged to support each other
in proportion to the resources of each.
to the whole extent set forth in the preceding article:
(1) The spouses;
However, in case of
(2) Legitimate ascendants and descendants;
...urgent need and
(3) Parents and acknowledged natural children and the legitimate or illegitimate descendants of the
...by special circumstances,
latter;

32 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
the judge may order only one of them to furnish the support provisionally, is subject to attachment or execution. (n)
without prejudice to his right to claim from the other obligors the share due from them.
Art. 303. The obligation to give support shall also cease:
When two or more recipients at the same time (1) Upon the death of the recipient;
claim support from one and the same person legally obliged to give it, (2) When the resources of the obligor have been reduced to the point
and the latter should not have sufficient means to satisfy all, where he cannot give the support
the order established in the preceding article shall be followed, without neglecting his own needs
unless the concurrent obligees should be the spouse and a child subject to parental authority, and those of his family;
in which case the latter shall be preferred. (145) (3) When the recipient may engage in a
...trade,
Art. 296. The amount of support, ...profession,
in the cases referred to in the five numbers of article 291, ...or industry,
shall be in proportion to the resources or has obtained work,
or means of the giver and to the necessities of the recipient. (146a) or has improved his fortune in such a way
...that he no longer needs the allowance for his subsistence;
Art. 297. Support in the cases referred to in the preceding article (4) When the recipient,
shall be reduced or increased proportionately, be he a forced heir or not,
according to the reduction or increase of the needs of the recipient has committed some act which gives rise to disinheritance;
and the resources of the person obliged to furnish the same. (147) (5) When the recipient is
...a descendant,
Art. 298. The obligation to give support shall be demandable ...brother
from the time the person who has a right to receive the same needs it for maintenance, ...or sister of the obligor
but it shall not be paid and the need for support is caused
except from the date it is extrajudicially demanded. ...by his or her bad conduct or
...by the lack of application to work,
Payment shall be made monthly in advance, so long as this cause subsists. (152a)
and when the recipient dies,
his heirs shall not be obliged to return what he has received in advance. (148a) Art. 304. The foregoing provisions shall be applicable to other cases where,
in virtue of this Code
Art. 299. The person obliged to give support may, or of any other law,
at his option, by will,
fulfill his obligation either or by stipulation
...by paying the allowance fixed, or there is a right to receive support,
...by receiving and maintaining in his house the person who has a right to receive support. save what is stipulated,
The latter alternative cannot be availed of in case there is a moral or legal obstacle thereto. (149a) ordered by the testator
or provided by law for the special case. (153a)
Art. 300. The obligation to furnish support ceases
upon the death of the obligor, SEBIAL VS. SEBIAL (1975)
even if he may be bound to give it in compliance with a final judgment. (150) On R83.1: The 3-month period provided is not mandatory and the court retains jurisdiction even if the
inventory is filed after said period, but such delay, if not satisfactorily explained, may be a ground for the
Art. 301. The right to receive support cannot be renounced; removal of the administrator under R82.2
nor can it be transmitted to a third person. Short summary: child from decedent's second family filed for settlement of estate of her dad and prayed
Neither can it be compensated with what the recipient owes the obligor. that she be made the administratrix 17 years after death of dad. Child from 1st marriage opposed, saying
that the estate was already partitioned among heirs and that they had already disposed of the said
However, support in arrears may be compensated and renounced, properties in favor of 3P and that the estate's value was small that it can be settled amicably. CFI ruled in
and the right to demand the same may be transmitted by onerous or gratuitous title. (151) favor of the petitioner 2nd family child making her the administratrix, even ordering that the 3P and the
children of the 1st marriage to deliver the property to the administratrix appointed. Court held that 1st,
Art. 302. Neither the right to receive legal support even if the appointed administratrix filed the inventory more than 3 months from appointment, the
nor any money or property obtained as such support court still had jurisdiction. 2nd, it ruled that the trial court should first determine the value of the estate,
or any pension or gratuity from the government receiving evidence for it, and the ownership of the said properties covered by the estate, it being argued

33 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
that 3P already own it. It being unsure of WON the properties still belonged to the heirs of the decedent, OPPOSITORS: registered opposition to inventory: 7 parcels of land enumerated NO LONGER formed part
it was improper for the TC to order the delivery of said properties to the administratrix. of decedent's estate

Facts: MAY 1961: administratrix filed MOTION to require Rematado, Demetrio Camillo and Roberta Sebial and
Intestate decedent: Gelacio Sebial (1943) spouse to deliver some of the parcels of land covered in the inventory
-2 wives
1st marriage: w/ Leoncia Manikis (died 1919) JUNE 1961: PROBATE court suspended action for possibility of amicable settlement, ordered parties to
-Had 3 children: submit own inventories
Roberta
Balbina NOV 1961: OPPOSITORS filed own inventory
-Gelacio and Leoncia (1st wife) acquired 2 parcels of land in 1912 and 1915
Juliano -the conjugal estate of Gelacio and Dolores consisted only of 1 parcel of land of 7 hectares, and this
2nd marriage: w/ Dolores Enad (allegedly married, 1927)
-had 6 children: property was even bought from the conjugal assets of the 1st marriage. This land was also already
bought by Cortado
Benjamina -2 parcels of land already partitioned among children: 3/4 to children of 1st marriage while 1/4 to
Valentina children of 2nd marriage
Ciriaco -3P already bought some of the portions of land in the estate
Gregoria
Esperanza -TC required administratrix to submit new inventory NOVEMBER 17, 1961
Luciano >>>amended inventory: included 2 houses allegedly valued at P8k - approved: prima facie evidence that
7 parcels of land and the 2 houses belonged to the decedent's estate then later ordered the delivery of
1960: BENJAMINA filed verified petition for settlement of Gelacio's estate certain parcels of land to the administratrix and the claimants should not disturb her in possession and
-prayed that she be made Administratrix administration of the same
>>ROBERTA OPPOSED:
1. Gelacio's estate already partitioned -the oppositors filed a motion for revision of partition but was not granted
2. If ever administration proceedings necessary, Roberta was qualified and not Benjamina
-ROBERTA filed for MR:
Roberta Benjamina 1. Court had NO JURISDICTION: inventory filed beyond 3-m period fixed in R84.1
2. Inventory is not supported by documentary evidence
1st family 2nd family
3. The 2 houses included in the amended inventory were already demolished during the Japanese
invasion and the materials for it were already appropriated by the children of 2nd marriage
Resident of Guimbawian, remote town of Housemade working at Talisay,
4. Valuation in the inventory was fake (it should be P3,080 instead of P17k)
Pinamungajan where the decedent's estate was Cebu (70km from Pinamungajan)
5. Since value of estate is small, it should be settled summarily as provided in R74.2
supposedly located
6. Ordinary action to recover lands in possession of 3P should be resorted to by child of 2nd marriage
3. Benjamina's only remedy was to rescind the partition but w/o waiting for resolution of the MR, they filed a notice of appeal w/ CA
TC: appointed BENJAMINA (so granted the petition of Benjamina)
1. Decedent left an estate consisting of lands21 ha, valued at more than P6k CA: certified case to SC because it involves legal issues
2. The alleged partition was invalid and ineffective
>>>letters of administration issued to BENJAMINA (January 19, 1961) 1. WON COURT LOST ITS JURISDICTION TO APPROVE THE INVENTORY WHICH WAS FILED MORE
>>>notice to creditors issued THAN 3 MONTHS FROM DATE OF APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATRIX? NO
>>>Roberta et. Al filed MR: -here: 2nd inventory was filed November 17 but administratrix appointed January 19.
1. Estate already partitioned on August 1945 *The three-month period prescribed in section 1, Rule 83 (formerly Rule 84) of the Rules of Court
2. Action to rescind the partition already prescribed is not mandatory. After the filing of a petition for the issuance of letters of administration and the
>>>MR denied publication of the notice of hearing, the proper Court of First Instance acquires jurisdiction over a
-Roberta filed MOTION TO TERMINATE ADMIN PROCEEDING decedent's estate and retains that jurisdiction until the proceeding is closed. The fact that an
1. Estate valued at less than P6k inventory was filed after the three-month period would not deprive the probate court of
2. Estate already partitioned so no necessity for administration proceeding jurisdiction to approve it. However, an administrator's unexplained delay in filing the inventory
may be a ground for his removal (Sec. 2, Rule 82, Rules of Court).
APRIL 27, 1961: BENJAMINA filed inventory and appraisal of decedent's estate
-7 unregistered parcels of land w/ total value of P9k, all located in Guimbawian, Pinamungajan

34 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
2. WON THE SETTLEMENT OF THE ESTATE SHOULD BE DONE SUMMARILY IN ACCORDANCE W/
Same parties Same parties
R74.2? Not yet sure
Same COA Same issue actually and directly passed
-here, the lower court FAILED TO ASCERTAIN by preponderance of evidence THE ACTUAL VALUE
Same issues which was heard on the merits upon and determined by a competent
OF THE ESTATE, and if there is still an estate to be administered
court
approval of the amended inventory is not such administration: such a determination is only
Even if COA are totally different
PROVISIONAL in character and w/o prejudice to a judgment in a separate action on the issue of
title or ownership
Absolute bar to a subsequent action, not only as to Estoppel only as to those matters in
probate court should proceed summarily and expeditiously to terminate the proceedings -
matters offered and received but also as to any other issue or points controverted upon the
should strive for an AMICABLE SETTLEMENT (using Article 222, NCC: note however that in the case
admissible matter which might have been offered for determination of wich the finding or
of Vda de Manalo vs. CA, it was held that there was no need for effort to settle in settlement of
that purpose judgment was rendered
estate because said condition precedent was only needed for ordinary civil actions

3. WON THE ORDER TO DELIVER PROPERTIES IN QUESTION TO ADMINISTRATRIX WAS PROPER? NO
-lower court did not receive evidence to determine who really owns the properties in question!
*GR: if parties are ALL HEIRS, optional to submit to probate question of ownership and so probate
may pass judgment on said question
X: if 3P would be prejudiced
-if fraudulent conveyance: these 3P may be examined under oat as to how they came into
possession BUT still, a separate action would be necessary to recover said assets
here, there are 3P who allegedly already bought the said parcels of land
HERE:
(1) While there is no identity between the plaintiff in the former case and the plaintiffs in the present
case, there is the relation of representation between them;
(2) there is identity of cause of action;
(3) there is identity of subject matter; and
(4) there is identity of issue, upon which depends the granting or denial of the relief sought in each of
said cases, and this issue has been impliedly decided in the former case. Therefore, all the elements of
res judicata in accordance with the aforecited legal provisions are present.

CHUA TAN V. DEL ROSARIO (1932)

1st case 2nd case
Short summary: there are 2 cases involved, the first being a suit by the administratrix of the father
against the administratrix of the adoptive son for the accounting of certain funds alleged to have been Identity of Plaintiff: Benedicta Santa Juana Plaintiff: Presumptive heirs of Chua
delivered IN TRUST to the adopted sun, and the 2nd suit by the presumptive heirs of the father against parties (judicial administratrix of intestate Piaco
the same administratrix of the adoptive son for partition of the same funds. SC held that since there was estate of Chua Piaco) Defendant: Lucia del Rosario (same
substantial identity of parties, identity of subject matter and COA, there was res judicata so the second Defendant: Lucia del Rosario capacity)
proceeding was alredy barred. (administratrix of intestate estate of
Chua Toco)
Facts:
-allegedly, Chua Piaco (father) delivered in trust to the adoptive son Chua Toco, funds. These funds were Identity of Rendering of an accounting of Partition of the SAME FUNDS AND
allegedly used by the adoptive son to purchase a land in Antonio Rivera Street w/c Manila Railroad Co Subject Matter certain FUNDS ALLEGED TO HAVE FRUITS
expropriated. BEEN DELIVERED IN TRUST by the
father to the adopted son
FIRST CASE
-apparently the adoptive son died first so that during the settlement of the estate of the father, the Identity of COA Allegation of trust Allegation of trust
administratrix was being impleaded to account for the funds allegedly belonging partly to the father.
-1st case held that the funds were exclusively owned by the adoptive son. Relief sought Render an accounting Partition

SECOND CASE
-now the PRESUMPTIVE HEIRS of the father, the surviving spouse and other heirs of Chua Piaco, sues the -As to identity of parties: Court held that since the administratrix of the estate of Chua Piaco was the
administratrix of the adoptive son for partition of the funds, arguing that the same set of funds were legal representative not only of the estate but also of its creditors and heirs, and that the 1st case was
partly of the estate of the father. The court dismissed it based on res judicata. rendered against her, the said judgment is binding upon the heirs who are suing in the 2nd case
-presumptive heirs appealed the case. It is the duty of the administrator of the testate or intestate estate of a deceased to present an inventory
of the real estate of a deceased to present an inventory of the real estate and all goods, chattels, rights,
WON THERE WAS RES JUDICATA HERE? YES and credits of the deceased which have come into his possession or knowledge, in accordance with the
BAR BY PRIOR JUDGMENT VS. RES JUDICATA provisions of section 668 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and to manage them according to section 643 of
the same Code; and in order that he may have in his power and under his custody all such property,
Res judicata Bar by prior judgment section 702 of the aforesaid Code authorizes him to bring such actions for the purpose as he may deem
necessary. Section 642 in providing for the appointment of an administrator where there is no will or the
will does not name an executor, seeks to protect not only the estate of the deceased but also the rights

35 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
of the creditors in order that they may be able to collect their credits, and of the heirs and legatees in
order that they may receive the portion of the inheritance or legacy appertaining to them after all the
debts and expenses chargeable against the deceased's estate have been paid. Under the provisions of
the law, therefore, the judicial administrator is the legal representative not only of the testate or
intestate estate, but also of the creditors, and heirs and legatees, inasmuch as he represents their
interest in the estate of the deceased.
-As to identity of subject matter: same
- As to identity of COA: Same, predicted on one and the same alleged right to action arising out of an
alleged trust, and the same general denial and special defense.
-As to difference in relief sought: the relief sought in the 2nd proceeding necessarily involves the main
question of ownership of the funds and its fruits, which , in the first case, was already ruled to be the
property of the adoptive son
DE LEON VS. CA (2002)
Short summary: One of the children of the decedent contests the inventory made by his sister who is
also the administratrix of the estate, saying that some properties of the decedent were excluded from
the inventory and should thus be collated. The TC ordered the collation of said properties, but the
owners (the administratrix and other siblings) contested, saying that these properties were sold to them
by their father during the latter's lifetime for a consideration. CA held that the order of including these
properties in the collation is already final and unappealable. SC held that the said order was merely an
interlocutory order, which does not touch upon the issue of ownership of the said properties, and thus,
collation is still premature. The said order is merely an order for inclusion in the inventory of the
decedent's estate of the properties in question and not the final order contemplated in R90.2.
Facts:
Father: Rafael (+)
Mother: Salud (+)
Children:
*Teresita de leon (administratrix of estate of father, Rafael)
*Estrellita Vizconde
*Antonio Nicolas (+) - represented by surviving spouse Zenaida Nicolas and the heirs)
*RAMON NICOLAS: oppositor
-RAMON filed MOTION FOR COLLATION: Rafael Nicolas given some of the properties to his children
(including him) during his lifetime by gratuitous title and administratrix Teresita failed to include it in the
inventory
>RTC: ORDER directing Ramon to submit pertinent documents of the alleged transfer , set his motion for
hearing w/ notice to present registered owners to show cause why their properties should not be
included in the collation
-Ramon filed amended motion for collation, adding several other lands that were allegedly not included
in the inventory (additional lots allegedly received by Antonio)
>RTC (Nov11, 1994 order): granted that some of the properties be included in the collation and the
inventory
>>Teresita filed MR: Properties subject to the Order were already titled in the names of the children a
few years ago (for a consideration) and may not be collaterally attacked in a motion for collation
>>>DENIED
>>>Teresita filed MR of the denial, opposed by Ramon
>>>TC: ordered Ramon to prove that the disposition made by Rafael during his lifetime was
gratuitously made and not for consideration
-TC ordered (Nov4, 1996 Order) Teresita's removal as administratrix: CONFLICT of INTEREST
36 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
-Teresita contested order:
a. Prayed that she be maintained as administratrix
b. Properties that Ramon wanted for collation be declared as exclusive properties of registered
owners and not subject to collation
>>>TC denied; appealed to CA
CA: Affirmed
WON THE NOVEMBER 11, 1994 ORDER ORDERING THE INCLUSION OF THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION
IN THE INVENTORY OF THE ADMINISTRATRIX IS FINAL? NO
-it's merely an interlocutory order, not final and ultimate in nature as to ownership of said properties;
Any aggrieved party, or a third person for that matter, may bring an ordinary action for a final
determination of the conflicting claims
-Garcia vs. Garcia: The court which acquires jurisdiction over the properties of a deceased person
through the filing of the corresponding proceedings, has supervision and control over the said
properties, and under the said power, it is its inherent duty to see that the inventory submitted by the
administrator appointed by it contains all the properties, rights and credits which the law requires the
administrator to set out in his inventory. In compliance with this duty the court has also inherent power
to determine what properties, rights and credits of the deceased should be included in or excluded from
the inventory. Should an heir or person interested in the properties of a deceased person duly call the
courts attention to the fact that certain properties, rights or credits have been left out in the inventory,
it is likewise the courts duty to hear the observations, with power to determine if such observations
should be attended to or not and if the properties referred to therein belong prima facie to the intestate,
but no such determination is final and ultimate in nature as to the ownership of the said properties
-Probate court can only pass upon questions of title provisionally, because:
(1) limited jurisdiction
(2) questions of title or ownership, which result in inclusion or exclusion from the inventory of the
property, can only be settled in a separate action
-JIMENEZ V. CA: All that the said court could do as regards said properties is determine whether they
should or should not be included in the inventory or list of properties to be administered by the
administrator. If there is a dispute as to the ownership, then the opposing parties and the administrator
have to resort to an ordinary action for a final determination of the conflicting claims of title because the
probate court cannot do so.
WON R90.2 MAKES THE DETERMINATION OF THE COURT AS TO ADVANCEMENTS MADE BINDING ON
PERSON RAISING THE QUESTION AND ON THE HEIR? The order involved here is merely an interlocutory
order so merely provisional. The order merely includes subject properties to the inventory
-VDA DE RODRIGUEZ VS. CA: the order of exclusion (or inclusion) is not a final order; that it is
interlocutory in the sense that it did not settle once and for all the title to the subject lots; that the
prevailing rule is that for the purpose of determining whether a certain property should or should not be
included in the inventory, the probate court may pass upon the title thereto but such determination is
not conclusive and is subject to the final decision in a separate action regarding ownership which may be
instituted by the parties. Ruling on inclusion or exclusion in the inventory is not the same as collation,
which is premature at that time
-R90.2 should be interpreted in context of R90.1
-the order allegedly including properties for collation is merely an ORDER OF INCLUSION IN THE
INVENTORY OF THE ESTATE which is merely an interlocutory order
-issue on collation still premature: no indication that the debts of the decedents spouses have been paid
and the net remainder of the conjugal estate have already been determined, and the estates of the
deceased spouses at the time filing of the motion for collation were ready for partition and distribution.
EVEN GRANTING THAT THE ORDER WAS FOR COLLATION, IS IT STILL APPEALABLE FOR FAILING TO pending this, the Valle Verde house bequethed to the daughters of Edmond were leased by Edmond to
STATE THE LAW AND THE FACTS UPON WHICH IT WAS BASED? YES 3Ps
-Consti (ArtVIII.14) provides that the decision should be rendered expressly stating the law and the facts -PROBATE COURT JAN 19, 1993 ORDER: Edmond deposit rental deposit and payments for 1 yr lease of
upon which it was based. Since the decision here did not comply with the consti provision, it should be Valle Verde property (worth P540k)
appeable >>>Edmond turned over only P348,583.56 (deducted expenses for repair and maintenance)
-what TC forgot: -Edmond moved for RELEASE OF P50k to pay the REAL ESTATE TAX - approved only P7,722
No reasons for ordering collation -Edmond w/drew Opposition to probate of will
Did not declare the properties enumerated were given gratuitously to the children
Even if Ramon presented his witnesses, their testimonies were not even mentioned in the assailed order MAY 18, 1993 ORDER:
-making it unappealable is a violation of DUE PROCESS: A void judgment is not entitled to the respect 1. WILL ADMITTED TO PROBATE
accorded to a valid judgment, but may be entirely disregarded or declared inoperative by any tribunal in 2. Edmond Ruiz issued letters testamentary (finally issued June 23, 1993), conditioned upon filing of
which effect is sought to be given to it. Petitioner would have been deprived of due process as they P50k bond
would be divested of the opportunity of being able to point out in a motion for reconsideration or on
appeal, any errors of facts and/or law considering that there were no facts or laws cited in support of the EX-PARTE MOTION FOR RELEASE OF FUNDS filed by Testate Estate of Hilario Ruiz, w/ Edmond as
assailed Order of collation. executor: prayed for release of rent payments deposited w/ Branch Clerk
>>>OPPOSED by Montes (adopted daughter); filed MOTION FOR RELEASE OF FUNDS TO CERTAIN HEIRS +
WON THE ORDER REMOVING TERESITA AS ADMINISTRATRIX IS APPEALABLE? YES MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF ALLOWANCE OF PROBATE WILL: prayed for
-in fact CA ordered TC to give due course to the notice of appeal 1. Release of rent payments to the daughters of Edmond (note: the property rented out by Edmond
was bequeathed to his daughters)
WON IT IS PROPER TO ELEVATE THE RECORDS OF THE SPECPRO TO CA FOR APPEAL FROM ORDER 2. Distribution of testator's properties in accordance w/ the holographic will
REMOVING THE ADMINSITRATRIX IS NECESSARY? No *PROBATE COURT:
-unnecessary where a record on appeal is allowed under the Rules of Court. The court a quo loses 1. Denied Edmond's motion for release of rent payments
jurisdiction over the subject of the appeal upon the approval of the record on appeal and the expiration 2. Granted Montes' motion for release of the rent to the daughters instead
of the time to appeal of the other parties; but retains jurisdiction over the remaining subject matter not 3. Granted the delivery of the titles to and possession of the Valle Verde and Blue Ridge properties to
covered by the appeal. the 3 granddaughters and to Montes, upon filing of P50k bond
>>>MR by Edmond
RUIZ VS. CA (1996)
Short Summary: Hilario Ruiz left a holographic will wherein he named as his heirs his only son, his PROBATE COURT (DEC 22, 1993 ORDER):
adoptive daughter and his grandchildren from his only son. His only son was also named executor of the 1. Release funds to Edmond only as may be necessary to cover the expenses of administration and
will. Upon his death, the only son did not petition for the probate of said will, and even opposed the allowances for support of the testator's 3 granddaughters, subject to collation and deductible from
probate of the will. The probate court ordered that support be given to the grandchildren, and that the their share in the inheritance
titles to the two apartments being rented out be released to the heirs. Court held that as to the support 2. Release of titles to respondents held in abeyance until lapse of 6 months from date of first
to be given, the rules of court provides that ONLY CHILDREN of the deceased (as well as the surviving publication of notice to creditors
spouse) are entitled to support, not the grandchildren. As to the release of the titles, court held that it >>>Edmond filed MR for GADALEJ
was too early to release the titles yet as the estate has not yet been inventoried and appraised, the CA: dismissed petition, affirmed Probate court
charges upon the estate has not yet been paid, and there is still an issue as to the intrinsic validity of the
will which the court should proceed to determine first. Finally, court held that right to possession of 1. WON IT WAS PROPER FOR THE PROBATE COURT TO GRANT ALLOWANCE FROM THE FUNDS OF
Executor is not absolute, only as it is necessary for the payment of debts and expenses of administration. THE ESTATE FOR THE SUPPORT OF THE TESTATOR'S GRANDCHILDREN? NO
-R83.3 (see CODAL)
Facts: -Edmond argues:
Hilario Ruiz left holographic will making the ff his heirs: a. Provision only gives the WIDOW and MINOR or INCAPACITATED CHILDREN of deceased
Edmond Ruiz (ONLY SON) - also named executor the right to receive allowances for support
Maria Pilar Ruiz Montes (adopted daughter) b. 3 GRANDCHILDREN does not qualify
i. Not incapacitated
Maria Cathryn (Edmond's daughter) ii. Not minors: of legal age, married, and gainfully employed
Candice Albertine (Edmond's daughter) iii. Not the "children" stated in the provision
Maria Angeline (Edmond's daughter) -HELD:
-Hilario died. Cash component of the estate distributed among the heirs in accordance with the will a. Children in R83.3 not limited to MINOR or INCAPACITATED CHILDREN, following A188,
-4 years after Hilario's death, Maria Pilar filed petition for probate and approval of Hilario's will + NCC: during the liquidation of the conjugal partnership, the deceased's legitimate
issuance of letters testamentary to Edmond spouse and children, regardless of their age, civil status or gainful employment, are
>>>EDMOND OPPOSED: will was executed under undue influence

37 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
 entitled to provisional support from the funds of the estate. The law is rooted on the Section 1. Executor or administrator to have access to partnership books and property. How right
fact that the right and duty to support, especially the right to education, subsist even enforced. -
beyond the age of majority. The executor or administrator of the estate of a deceased partner
b. GRANDCHILDREN are not entitled to provisional support from the funds of decedent's shall
estate. Law is clear. at all times
2. WON IT WAS PROPER FOR PROBATE COURT TO ORDER THE RELEASE OF THE TITLES TO ...have access to,
CERTAIN HEIRS? NO ...and may examine
-order releasing titles to properties of the estate = advance distribution of the estate ...and take copies of,
-when advance distribution of estate's properties allowed: books and papers relating to the partnership business,
(1) after all the debts, funeral charges, expenses of administration, allowance to the widow, and ...and may examine
estate tax have been paid; or ...and make invoices of the property belonging to such partnership;
(2) before payment of said obligations only if the distributees or any of them gives a bond in a and the surviving partner or partners,
sum fixed by the court conditioned upon the payment of said obligations within such time as the on request,
court directs, or when provision is made to meet those obligations. shall exhibit to him all such books, papers, and property in their hands or control.
-HERE: On the written application of such executor or administrator,
probate court only gave NOTICE to creditors, not payment of debts and obligations the court having jurisdiction of the estate
Estate tax not yet paid, much less ascertained may order any such surviving partner or partners
...to freely permit the exercise of the rights, and
Estate has not yet been inventoried and appraised ...to exhibit the books, papers, and property, as in this section provided,
Though will was already probated (and the probate of the will is conclusive as to its due and may punish any partner failing to do so for contempt.
execution, extrinsic validity, and capacity of testator to make a will, questions as to
intrinsic validity and efficacy of the provisions of the will, legality of any devise or legacy
Section 2. Executor or administrator to keep buildings in repair. -
may still be raised so it's too early to order the release of the titles. Here, Edmond
An executor or administrator
contests the distributive shares of the devisees and legatees as his father's will included
shall maintain in tenantable repair
estate of his mother, allegedly impairing his legitime as intestate heir of mother. So
the houses
probate court could proceed to hear and decide the same as in ordinary cases
and other structures
3. WON THE ORDER OF THE COURT DEPRIVED HIM OF HIS RIGHT TO TAKE POSSESSION AND
and fences
MANAGEMENT OF ALL PROPERTIES OF THE ESTATE AS THE EXECUTOR OF THE WILL? NO
belonging to the estate,
-The right of an executor or administrator to the possession and management of the real and
and deliver the same in such repair
personal properties of the deceased is not absolute and can only be exercised "so long as it is
to the heirs or devisees
necessary for the payment of the debts and expenses of administration (R84.3)
when directed so to do by the court.
-he should first submit an accounting of the necessary expenses for administration before he be
released any more money:
Section 3. Executor or administrator to retain whole estate to pay debts, and to administer estate not
he was already granted release of funds for the repair and maintenance expenses and willed. -
payment of real estate taxes, w/o rendering accounting for the same. An executor or administrator
He only deposited a portion of 1-year rental income from the Valle Verde property, but shall have the right to the
not the succeeding rents. Also no accounting of such funds possession
-Petitioner must be reminded that his right of ownership over the properties of his father is and management of the
merely inchoate as long as the estate has not been fully settled and partitioned. ...real as well as the
*As executor, he is a mere trustee of his father's estate. The funds of the estate in his hands are ...personal estate of the deceased
trust funds and he is held to the duties and responsibilities of a trustee of the highest order. so long as it is necessary for the payment of
*He cannot unilaterally assign to himself and possess all his parents' properties and the fruits ...the debts and
thereof without first submitting an inventory and appraisal of all real and personal properties of ...the expenses of administration.
the deceased, rendering a true account of his administration, the expenses of administration,
the amount of the obligations and estate tax, all of which are subject to a determination by the INTESTATE ESTATE OF FELIPE BUENAVENTURA VS. ILOG AGRICULTURAL CORPORATION
court as to their veracity, propriety and justness. Short Summary: The encargado of the estate (the Administratrix assigned to him the administration of
the estate) authorized the swapping of the lot already assigned to an heir to another lot, without the
D-8. GENERAL P OWERS AND D UTIES OF EXECUT ORS AND ADMINISTRATO RS latters consent. The court held that the heir was not bound by the decision of the encargado.
RULE 84 General Powers and Duties of Executors and Administrators
Facts

38 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
-FELIPE BUENAVENTURA died Lot 1871-B went to IAC
-he left 20 parcels of land located in Negros Occidental and a building of strong materials -NICASIA OBJETED, with BEETHOVEN as counsel, to the swapping of the 2 lots (originally owned by IAC):
-having married 2x, he also left 2 sets of children: 1. That during the hearing for the approval of the original physical partition plan, MICHAEL
1st marriage FRANCISCO manifested that her (NICASIA's) share which was w/n Lot 1871-B was to be swapped
1. Pedro Buenaventura to the WHOLE Lot 2194
2. Nicasia Buenaventura 2. When the swapping was brought to her attention, she vehemently denied that she was ever
3. Flora Buenaventura consented or ever authorized MICHAEL FRANCICO to swap her share. She wants LOT 1871-B
4. Anacor[e[ta Buenaventura-FRANCISCO (which went to IAC)
5. Luz Buenaventura TC: set another conference: noted that the parties agreed to the earlier partition (the last revision)
6. Emilia Buenaventura except for the share of NICASIA. Later held in abeyance the distribution of Lot 1871-B and a portion of
7. Simon Buenaventura, Sr. - deceased, so represented by wife and children Lot 2194
2nd marriage -NICASIA manifested that she would agree to the swapping of lot 1871-B if IAC would lease her a portion
1. Purisima Buenaventura of the said lot
2. Rodolfo Buenaventura -TC: disposed disputed share (based substantially on the testimony of MICHAEL FRANCISCO):
3. Thelma Buenaventura o Lot 1871-B = IAC
4. Phoebe Buenaventura o Entire share of NICASIA in Lot 1871 = ANACORETA
5. Jose Buenaventura o Lot 2194 = NICASIA
6. Antonio Buenaventura -NICASIA Appealed, alleging that she did not authorize MICHAEL Francisco to represent her and she was
7. Sally Buenaventura not consulted of the swapping, and just knew about it after the revised partition
-ANACORETA was appointed as Judicial Administratrix. She left the administration of the estate to her CA: ifo NICASIA (would own Lot 1871-B)
ENCARGADO, her son MICHAEL FRANCISCO -ANACORETA filed petition for review (she was the JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATRIX)
-some of the heirs sol their share in the estate, one of the vendees being ILOG AGRICULTURAL CORP
(IAC) = got 18/29 including LOTS 2194 and 2380. Assignee of IAC intervened WON MICHAEL FRANCISCO COULD BIND NICASIA TO THE PARTITION? NO
-JOINT SPECIAL ADMINISTRATORS: Arnulfo Nono and Angel Gabriel -petitioner heirs failed to prove that NICASIA knew, through BEETHOVEN (her brother) and MICHAEL
>submitted project of partition: Approved Project of Partition FRANCISCO that Lot 1871-B (already assigned to her) was to be swapped with a portion of Lot 2194
-to prepare the physical partition of the estate, the ff were appointed as COMMISSIONERS/SPECIAL -NO evidence that NICASIA authorized MICHAEL FRANCISCO nor BEETHOVEN to agree in her behalf to
ADMINISTRATORS: the swapping
1. Michael Francisco -Michael Francisco was merely the encargado of the administratrix, a member of the Joint
2. Atty. Beethoven Buenaventura Commissioners tasked to effect a physical partition of the estate. Any recommendation made in such
3. Atty. Nilo Sorbito for AIC capacity is still subject to the action of the court after due notice to the heirs; unless and until all the
-the Commissioners recommended the Physical partition of the estate which Micheal did not sign parties are notified of any report/recommendation, thereafter duly heard by the court, the heirs cannot
although he actively participated in the preparation of the plan. The proposal gave NICASIA Lot No. 1871- thereby be bound.
B. Court took JN that he did participate -NICASIA is not bound by BEETHOVEN's agreement to the revised partition, as he was acting as the heir
-Michael objected to the proposed partition on the ground that it was incomplete and erroneous: of the deceased and not for NICASIA
IAC already occupied Lot. 2194 before the approval of the project of partition, already harvested -as to MICHAEL FRANCISCO's testimony: only said that NICASIA went to him to ask for amounts as an
the produce therefrom advance of her inheritance for the death anniversary of the decedent, and that he only agreed to give
BUT IAC agreed to cede the lots it bought (Lot 2194 and 2380) ifo ANACORETA and BEETHOVERN NICASIA a portion of what she was asking
in exchange for LOT 1863-B >MICHAEL also, in opposing to the proposed physical partition, did not oppose to the allocation of Lot
-so ATTYs. BEETHOVEN and NILO made a new parcellary map 1871-B to NICASIA
-Conference was held wherein Michael manifested that the share of NICASIA in Lot 1871-B was to be so affirm CA. NICASIA would own Lot 1871-B
swapped with LOT 2194 which IAC assigned to ANACORETA and BEETHOVEN. So what was agreed upon:
Lot 1871-A (originally to NICASIA): swapped to equivalent area in Lot 2194 (which was originally CARO VS. CA (1982)
assigned to ANACORETA and BEETHOVEN by IAC) Short Summary: Property was co-owned by 3 brothers, one of which predeceased the others. His estate
Portion of Lot 1871-A and residue of LOT 2194 allotted to ATTY. BEETHOVEN was administered by the surviving wife and his father. One of the co-owners sold his 1/3 undivided
Lot 1871-B to IAC portion to a RP. Although the other co-owners did not want to redeem the property, the widow of the
-but revised it again: deceased co-owner (who was also 1 of the administrators of his estate) wanted to exercise such right.
Court held that an administrator cannot exercise the right of legal redemption.
NICASIA was given portions of Lot 2194 and 2380 (which was assigned originally to ANACORETA
and BEETHOVEN)
Facts:
The rest of Lot 2194 to BEETHOVEN -Sorsogon property (2 parcels of land) co-owned by:

39 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
 Alfredo Benito
Mario Benito (+)
Benjamin Benito
-Mario died. Surviving wife Basilia Lahorra and father Saturnino Benito appointed as joint administrators
of Mario's estate
-Benjamin sold through DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE of 1/3 undivided portion to LUZ CARO, for P10k.
Registered sale.
-Subdivision title issued to Luz Caro, with consent of Alfredo and Saturnino (as administrator) - both
executed affidavits
-almost 6 years after, Caro filed a pleading (not sure - as claimant/creditor? ) in the SPECPRO that she
bought 1/3 of the property co-owned. Only then did Basilia found out about it.
-Basilia offered to redeem the said share but was ignored
-Basilia then intervened in case of Rosa Amador vda De Benito vs. Luz Caro for annulment of sale and
mortgage and cancellation of the annotation of the sale and mortgage involving same parcels of land -
PRINCIPAL CASE dismissed for failure to prosecute and to pay docket fees
-Basilia then filed this independent case for legal redemption: no notice of the sale as required under
A1620 and 1623 of NCC (no notice to her as administrator of the estate of a co-owner)
>La Luz presented secondary evidence of service of written notice to possible redemptioners (written
notice sent to Alfredo and Saturnino - the best evidence - cannot be presented because they were
already dead when the complaint for legal redemption brought):
Affidavit of Benjamin Benito, ante lite motam, attesting to the fact that the possible redemptioners
were formally notified in writing of his intention to sell his undivided share
Deposition of Saturnino's widow (bale mother in law ni Basilia): testified that she received and gave
Saturnino the written notice of intended sale and Saturnino expressed disinterest in
buyingproperty
>>Complaint for legal redemption DISMISSED
a. Administratrix of co-owner does not have the power to exercise right of legal redemption
b. Seller co-owner substantially complied w/ written notice requirement to possible
redemptioners
MR denied, appealed to CA (with additional contention that Judge should have inhibited himself,
his son being an associate/member of law office of Caro's lawyer
CA: for Basilia
1. It is w/n the judge's discretion to disqualify himself, besides, no showing that Basilia asked for the
Judge's disqualification
2. Right to redeem arose after death of Mario, so it's not part of the hereditary estate but a personal
right of the heirs (which would include Basilia)
3. The deed of sale statement of the seller saying that the other co-owners declined to buy was a
unilateral statement, not a proof of notice required by law
4. Registration of deed of sale did not erase right to redeem of other heirs who did not receive notice
5. Affidavits attesting to notice would not show that there was clear notice given. Saturnino's
unilateral act as co-administrator can't bind his co-administrator who has right to redeem
personally as heir
6. Basilia can still redeem
>Caro appealed
WON RIGHT OF REDEMPTION COULD STILL BE EXERCISED WHEN THE PROPERTY SOUGHT TO BE
REDEEMED IS NOT CO-OWNED ANYMORE (on the theory that through the other co-owner and one of
the administrators of the estate of the other co-owner already agreed to subdivide the property)
1. On the theory that there is no longer co-ownership, with partition of the property:
40 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
-CARAM vs. CA - though this case refers to conveyance made after partition:Once a property is
subdivided and distributed among the co-owners, the community has terminated and there is no
reason to sustain any right of legal redemption (purpose is to reduce the number of participants
until the community is done away with
-no difference w/ respect to conveyance before partition agreement. Basta may partition na, can't
exercise right to redeem
-on allegation of fraud: fraud in securing the registration of titles to the land should be supported
by clear and convincing evidence
-since subdivision title issued, and 1 year from date of entry of subdivision of title no claim for
redemption, the Certificate of Title becomes indivisible, cannot be indirectly attacked
2. On the assumption that there is still co-ownership and right of legal redemption still exists
-as administratrix, no personality to exercise right
BUTTE vs. UY AND SONS: "While under Sec. 3, Rule 85, Rules of Court, the administrator has the
right to the possession of the real and personal estate of the deceased, so far as needed for the
payment of the expenses of administration, and the administrator may bring and defend action for
the recovery or protection of the property or right of the deceased (Sec. 2, Rule 88), such right of
possession and administration do not include the right of legal redemption of the undivided share
sold to a stranger by one of the co-owners after the death of another, because in such case, the
right of legal redemption only came into existence when the sale to the stranger was perfected
and formed no part of the estate of the deceased co-owner; hence, that right cannot be
transmitted to the heir of the deceased co-owner."
-not discuss WON she could bring action as heir of a co-owner because her pleading specifically
stated that she brought the action in her capacity as administratrix
WON action for enforcement of right of redemption already expired? Moot and academic
-Caro argues that the tender of payment w/n 30 d from written notice of sale by co-owner already
prescribed, and such being a condition precedent to file action for enforcement of right, it already
prescribed
-court did not rule on it, saying issue was already moot and academic
ESTATE OF OLAVE VS. REYES (1983)
Short Summary: Administrators of estate of decedent entered into an amicable settlement with a
creditor company who wanted to collect from the estate of the decedent in a separate proceeding. This
was done w/o prior approval of the probate court. SC held that prior approval of the probate court
needed because (1) the claim of the creditors is a claim against the estate; and (2) probate court already
acquired exclusive jurisdiction over the case, to the exclusion of the other court)
Facts
-there's already a special proceeding for the settlement of the estate of Amadeo Matute Olave in the
Manila court. There's an order from this court providing that the co-administrators should first secure
the probate court's approval before entering into any transaction involving the 17 titles of the estate
-Southwest Agricultural Marketing Corporation (SAMCO) filed Civil case for collection of debt and
attorney's fees in Davao court against the co-administrators of the estate of Amadeo Olave
-even after order from the probate court to secure first its approval, SAMCO and the co-administrators
entered into an AMICABLE SETTLEMENT wherein one of the 17 titles of the estate was ceded to SAMCO
as payment for its claim. This was done w/o notice and approval of the probate court
-DAVAO COURT: approved amicable settlement
WON SAMCO PROPERLY FILED CLAIM IN A SEPARATE PROCEEDING? NO
1. R87.1: "no action upon a claim for the recovery of money or debt or interest thereon shall be
commenced against the executor or administrator; . . ."
2. Claim of Samco could only be pursued by filing it in the administration proceedings and w/n the
prescribed period, or else barred forever
3. Why present claims in the probate court: to protect the estate of deceased persons. That way, the
executor or administrator will be able to examine each claim and determine whether it is a proper one
which should be allowed. Further, the primary object of the provisions requiring presentation is to
apprise the administrator and the probate court of the existence of the claim so that a proper and timely
arrangement may be made for its payment in full or by pro-rata portion in the due course of the
administration, inasmuch as upon the death of a person, his entire estate is burdened with the payment
of all of his debts and no creditor shall enjoy any preference or priority; all of them shall share pro-rata in
the liquidation of the estate of the deceased.
4. Manila Probate court already has exclusive jurisdiction over the proceeding and the properties claimed:
R73.1
5. The law is clear that where the estate of the deceased person is already the subject of a testate or
intestate proceeding, the administrator cannot enter into any transaction involving it without prior
approval of the probate court.
MANANQUIL V. VILLEGAS
Short Summary: Disbarment case against the lawyer of the administrator for entering into a lease
agreement with the estate he's working for, allegedly for a minimal fee and w/o court approval. Court
held that no court approval is necessary for the administrator to enter into a lease agreement. But there
is still sufficient grounds for disciplinary sanction, as he is prohibited under the civil code to enter into
any transaction regarding the property which he is supposed to litigate.
Facts:
-Felomina Zerna died. Administration proceedings initiated, w/ Felix Leong appointed as administrator .
Atty. Mananquil served as Leong's lawyer
-Lease contract was executed between Leong (administrator) and the Heirs of Jose Villegas (to which
Atty. Mananquil belonged), represented by brother in law of Atty. Mananquil involving sugar lands
-2 years after, Hijos De Jose Villegas was formed among the heirs of Jose Villegas. Another lease contract
entered between Leong and Hijos De Jose Villegas
-as representative brother in law already dead, Atty. Mananquil was appointed manager
-lease contract again renewed, but now Atty. Mananquil was the representative of the Hijos De Jose
Villegas. He signed for the partnership for at least 3 times.
1. WON ATTY. MANANQUIL SHOULD HAVE 1ST SECURED THE APPROVAL OF THE COURT IN SPECPRO
TO THE VARIOUS LEASE CONTRACTS? NO
-a judicial executor or administrator has the right to the possession and management of the real as well
as the personal estate of the deceased so long as it is necessary for the payment of the debts and the
expenses of administration. He may, therefore, exercise acts of administration without special
authority from the court having jurisdiction of the estate. For instance, it has long been settled that an
administrator has the power to enter into lease contracts involving the properties of the estate even
without prior judicial authority and approval
2. WON ATTY. MANANQUIL SHOULD STILL BE SUBJECTED TO DISCIPLINARY SANCTION? YES
-violated Art 1646, NCC and Art 1491: prohibited from leasing, either in person or through mediation of
another,
(4) Public officers and employees, the property of the State or of any subdivision thereof, or of any
government owned or controlled corporation, or institution, the administration of which has been
41 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
intrusted to them; this provision shall apply to judges and government experts who, in any manner
whatsoever, take part in the sale;
(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior courts, and other officers and
employees connected with the administration of justice, the property or rights in litigation or levied upon
on execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise their respective
functions; this prohibition includes the act of acquiring by assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with
respect to the property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part
by virtue of their profession.
-prohibited because of the fiduciary relationship involved, or the peculiar control exercised by these
individuals over the properties
-Thus, even if the parties designated as lessees in the assailed lease contracts were the "Heirs of Jose
Villegas" and the partnership HIJOS DE JOSE VILLEGAS, and respondent signed merely as an agent of the
latter, the Court rules that the lease contracts are covered by the prohibition against any acquisition or
lease by a lawyer of properties involved in litigation in which he takes part. To rule otherwise would be
to lend a stamp of judicial approval on an arrangement which, in effect, circumvents that which is
directly prohibited by law. For, piercing through the legal fiction of separate juridical personality, the
Court cannot ignore the obvious implication that respondent as one of the heirs of Jose Villegas and
partner, later manager of, in HIJOS DE JOSE VILLEGAS stands to benefit from the contractual relationship
created between his client Felix Leong and his family partnership over properties involved in the ongoing
testate proceedings.
-on alleged lack of knowledge: impossible that he would not have knowledge of transactions of his
family partnership, he even participated in some of the lease contracts
-on alleged acquiescence and consent of the heirs: even with that, still prohibited from having any
interest in the properties under litigation under Art 1491 and 1646, NCC, and as a lawyer, should uphold
the laws of the land
-on Tuason vs. Tuason (allegedly ruled that renewal of contracts do not fall w/n NCC prohibition): can't
infer from that case that contracts of sale or lease where vendee/lessee is a partnership, of which a
lawyer is a member, over a property involved in a litigation in which he takes part by virtue of his
profession, are not covered by the prohibition under Articles 1491 and 1646.
>>>SUSPENDED FOR 4 months
ESTATE OF RUIZ VS. CA, SUPRA
WON THE ORDER OF THE COURT DEPRIVED HIM OF HIS RIGHT TO TAKE POSSESSION AND
MANAGEMENT OF ALL PROPERTIES OF THE ESTATE AS THE EXECUTOR OF THE WILL? NO
-The right of an executor or administrator to the possession and management of the real and personal
properties of the deceased is not absolute and can only be exercised "so long as it is necessary for the
payment of the debts and expenses of administration (R84.3)
-he should first submit an accounting of the necessary expenses for administration before he be released
any more money:
he was already granted release of funds for the repair and maintenance expenses and payment of
real estate taxes, w/o rendering accounting for the same.
He only deposited a portion of 1-year rental income from the Valle Verde property, but not the
succeeding rents. Also no accounting of such funds
-Petitioner must be reminded that his right of ownership over the properties of his father is merely
inchoate as long as the estate has not been fully settled and partitioned.
*As executor, he is a mere trustee of his father's estate. The funds of the estate in his hands are trust
funds and he is held to the duties and responsibilities of a trustee of the highest order.
*He cannot unilaterally assign to himself and possess all his parents' properties and the fruits thereof 1. it was SEBASTIAN PICARDAL who ejected him from the property, w/ the knowledge of B.
without first submitting an inventory and appraisal of all real and personal properties of the deceased, PICARDAL
rendering a true account of his administration, the expenses of administration, the amount of the 2. He planted fruit trees on the land, and the produce was shared with B. PICARDAL 50-50
obligations and estate tax, all of which are subject to a determination by the court as to their veracity, 3. Due to the ejectment, he suffered damages
propriety and justness. >>>>ANSWER:
1. They did not eject Lladas
2. Lladas abandoned the landholding
D-9 RULE 85 CASES 3. It was only after he left when S. Picardal posted the No trespassing sign
-later amended the petition again to replace SIRA w/ ROSALIA PENPENA, the new administratrix
PICARDAL V. LLADAS
Summary: Heirs of the Estate ejected the tenant from the premises. Tenant sued for damages, the heirs CAR: for LLADAS
claim that the tenant should claim from the Estate. Court held that the Estate is not liable for damages 1. Reinstate Lladas
incurred by the heirs of the estate. 2. Pay P4515 to Lladas w/ interest
3. Further pay P645 every 4 months during the period that Lladas has not been actually
Facts: reinstated
-AUREA BURGOS died 1941 >>>MR: Denied
-her estate was under judicial administration but property was not yet partitioned among the heirs (even >>>SO NOW PICARDAL FATHER AND SON APPEALS TO THE COURT
pending this petition for review of CAR decision!)
-in 1950, BERNARDO PICARDAL (husband of Aurea) made CENON LLADAS the tenant of their conjugal 1. WON LLADAS WAS EJECTED? YES
partnership property consisting of a 7 ha coconut plantation -the findings of facts of the Court of Agrarian Relations will not be disturbed on appeal where there is
-VERBAL agreement: substantial evidence to support them, and all that this Court is called upon to do insofar as the
1/3 goes to LLADAS, 2/3 goes to PICARDAL evidence is concerned, is to find out if the conclusion of the lower court is supported by substantial
LLADAS would keep the coconut plantation clean evidence
-so Llardas entered into landholding, harvested the nuts, processed the copra and divided the harvest -Substantial evidence has been defined to be such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
after selling it accept as adequate to support a conclusion, and its absence is not shown by stressing that there is
-1959: DEMETRIO SIRA was appointed as special administrator of AUREA BURGOS' estate. He wrote to contrary evidence on record, direct or circumstantial, as petitioners herein have done in quoting the
Lladas that he should take good care of the plantation, and if he would fail to do so, the administrator contrary evidence consisting of the testimony of Sebastian Picardal, for the appellate court cannot
would bring the corresponding action in accordance w/ tenancy law substitute its own judgment or criterion for that of the trial court in determining wherein lies the
-1960: Lladas harvested coconuts, processed them into copra then sold to LIAN HONG COMPANY. weight of evidence or what evidence is entitled to belief
However, LIAN HONG COMPANY informed B. PICARDAL that the copra sold to them was mixed w/
fresh coconut meat, therefore 16% of the weight was deducted for moisture content
-the next month of the same year, LLADAS brought petition against B. PICARDAL, Cesar Montoya and PICARDALs allegation COURT
Demetrio Sira (the special administrator)
Lladas was not ejected Lladas was ejected sabi ng CAR so dapat
COA (PINAPAALIS SHA):
maniwala kami
he had been a tenant since 1948
He had already planted about 800 fruit-bearing trees on Picardal's land -S. Picardal testified that Cenon voluntarily 1. Picardals had more motive to oust Lladas
That he and Picardal had been sharing the proceeds of the copra sales abandoned the landholding w/o advise to either than Lladas to leave the plantation:
That February 1960 (about the time when Lian Hong informed B. Picardal of what Lladas was father or the special administrator ...Picardal had reason to be irked with what
doing), B. Picardal thru C. Montoya and D. Sira (special administrator) served on him notice to -Lladas left because he already had another piece of Lladas did - mixing fresh coconut meat w/
vacate 1/2 of land in favor of another tenant land dried copra
He suffered damages -Lladas also left because he was ashamed to the 2. S. Picardal put up a sign board saying:
>>>ANSWER: special adminstrator who forbid hi to harvest "It is prohibited to whoever he is to take or to
1. landholding was property of Aurea Burgos and was subject to adminstration proceedings coconuts 2x in 3 months do anything with the coconuts, especially the
(under custodia legis) squatters"
2. The administrator had no information about the notice of ejectment (never notified Lladas to 3. Lladas gets ~P1,860 a year from the
vacate the premises) plantation and spent his efforts on the plants
-May 1960: Lladas harvested coconuts, processed them into copra, which was sold by B. Picardal to in the said plantation
Lian Hong Company, from which Lladas received P645 as his share (parang wala lang a) 4. The homestead applied by Lladas was
-October: Lladas amended his petition (NAPALAYAS NA SI LLADAS): already transferred to a certain Cuidato.

42 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
 I. Expense for the improvement and renovation of the decedent's residential house.
2. WON the damages assessed should be levied against the intestate estate, as the proceeds of the 1. Construction of fence P3,082.07
estate is in the hands of the administratrix? NO 2. Renovation of bathroom P1,389.52
-at the time the petition , the entire conjugal property is under administration so the estate was the 3. Repair of terrace and
landlord of the landholding interior of house P5,928.00 P10,399.59
BUT THE FATHER AND SON SHOULD BE LIABLE (EVEN IF THERE ARE OTHER HEIRS): II. Living expenses of Librada de Guzman while occupying the family home without paying rent:
a. The estate, as the landlord, is only liable for the illegal dispossession of the tenant if the estate 1. For house helper P1,170.00
was responsible for the unlawful ejectment of the tenant. If it was a 3P (i.e. the father and 2. Light bills 227.41
son), the 3P would be liable (RA 1199 - Agricultural Tenancy Act) 3. Water bills 150.80
b. The act of the father and son was not an act of the estate. The father and son is not the 4. Gas oil, floor wax
representative of the estate - the administrator is and he is not the one who pepetrated the and switch nail 54.90 P 1,603.11
ejectment. III. Other expenses:
c. The administrator would be liable for ANY WASTE COMMITTED IN THE ESTATE THROUGH HIS 1. Lawyer's subsistence P 19.30
NEGLIGENCE (R85.5) BUT NOT THE ESTATE 2. Gratuity pay in lieu
d. The estate did not benefit from the dispossession because regardless of who the tenant was, of medical fee 144.00
the estate would receive a 2/3 share of the sales from the produce of the land. So cannot be 3. For stenographic notes 100.00
ordered to pay the damages 4. For food served on
e. On the argument that they are not the only heirs (thus, they have co-owners): A coownership decedent's first
should not suffer the consequences of the unlawful act of any of the coowners (A501, NCC) death anniversary 166.65
f. Art 20, NCC: "every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to 5. Cost of publication of
another, shall indemnify the latter for the same." - so the Picardal father and son, not the death anniversary
estate who did not do anything, should be responsible to pay for the damages! of decedent 102.00
6. Representation
DE GUZMAN V. CARILLO expenses 26.25 P558.20
Summary: some of the heirs contested some of the disbursements made by the appointed IV. Irrigation fee P1.049.58
administrator. Court allowed expenses for the renovation and improvement of the family residence, the TOTAL P13,610.48
lawyer's subsistence and gift to physician who attended the testator during his last days, and the
irrigation fees. Disallowed expenses by one of the heirs while living in the ancestral home and some WON the expenses are necessary expenses that the administrator is allowed to spend? PARTIALLY YES,
other expenses. PARTIALLY NO (look down for more specific explanation)
-An executor or administrator is allowed the necessary expenses in the care, management, and
Facts: settlement of the estate:
-Felix de Guzman of Gapan, Nueva Ecija died entitled to possess and manage the decedent's real and personal estate as long as it is necessary
-heirs (8 children): for the payment of the debts and the expenses of administration.
Victorino accountable for the whole decedent's estate which has come into his possession, with all the
Librada interest, profit, and income thereof, and with the proceeds of so much of such estate as is sold
Severino by him, at the price at which it was sold
Margarita (Sec. 3, Rule 84; Secs. 1 and 7, Rule 85, Rules of Court).
-One of the Conditions of the administrator's bond is that he should render a true and just account of
Josefina his administration to the court. The court may examine him upon oath With respect to every matter
Honorata relating to his accounting 't and shall so examine him as to the correctness of his account before the
Arsenio same is allowed, except when no objection is made to the allowance of the account and its correctness is
Crispina satisfactorily established by competent proof. The heirs, legatees, distributes, and creditors of the estate
-will was probated shall have the same privilege as the executor or administrator of being examined on oath on any matter
-letters of administration issued to his son, VICTORINO (doctor sha, baka tanungin) relating to an administration account." (Sec. 1[c] Rule 81 and secs. 8 and 9, Rule 85, Rules of Court).
-one of the properties left was the residential house located in the poblacion which was to be -HEARING: A hearing is usually held before an administrator's account is approved, especially if an
adjudicated to the 8 children in accordance w/ the project of partition interested Party raises objections to certain items in the accounting report (Sec. 10, Rule 85).
-Dr. Victorino submitted 4 accounting reports. 3 of the heirs (Crispina, Honorata, and Arsenio) contested At that hearing, the practice is for the administrator to take the witness stand, testify under oath on his
the disbursements accounts and Identify the receipts, vouchers and documents evidencing his disbursements which are
-the disbursements made were approved by the lower court, in accordance w/ its earlier order that offered as exhibits. He may be interrogated by the court and crossed by the oppositors's counsel. The
before disbursements are made, Dr. Victorino should first secure approval of the court oppositors may present proofs to rebut the ad. administrator's evidence in support of his accounts.

43 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
 Summary: Mariano was engaged by one of the heirs (Carlos) to procure the services of an administrator
I. Expenses for the renovation and improvement of the family residence for the estate of one of the other heirs (Baldomero) but Carlos died. So he now claims from the
Repair of the terrace replacement administrator for reimbursement. Court held that Mariano was should claim from the
Repair of the interior of the family home administrator of Carlos or from the estate of Baldomero through a petition to the court or through the
current administrator.
Renovation of the bathroom
Construction of fence Facts
-administration expenses: should be those which are necessary for the management of the estate, for
-Joaquin Martinez Sy-Tiongtay executed his last will
protecting it against destruction or deterioration, and, possibly, for the production of fruits.
-he was engaged in the shipping business
...expenses entailed for the preservation and productivity of the estate and its management for purposes
-heirs:
of liquidation, payment of debts, and distribution of the residue among the persons entitled thereto.
*children with Chan-Sinnin
HERE: 5 of 8 heirs consented to the use of the funds of the estate for the repair and improvement of the
family home. Carlos Pabia
WHY SPEND FOR HOUSE RENOVATION: Baldomero +
It is obvious that the expenses in question were incurred to preserve the family home and to maintain *children with Ana Cuanci
the family's social standing in the community. Felipa
Obviously, those expenses redounded to the benefit of an the co- owners. They were necessary for the Manuel
preservation and use of the family residence. As a result of those expenses, the co-owners, including the Faustina
three oppositors, would be able to use the family home in comfort, convenience and security. -Baldomero died after Joaquin died - w/o heirs
-Carlos Pabia hired Mariano Escueta - a lawyer - to procure the appointment of an administrator for
II. EXPENSES INCURRED BY LIBRADA DE GUZMAN BALDOMERO's ESTATE and to attend to the settlement of that estate in the CFI
Salaries of house helper -so Mariano incurred expenses to procure administrator and work on the settlement of the estate
Light -Carlos Pabia (the same person who contracted him) was appointed as the administrator of Baldomero's
Water bills estate
-However Carlos died. Leon Sy-Juilliong was appointed as replacement (so new administrator of
Cost of gas
Baldomero's estate)
Cost of oil
-Mariano Escueta sued the new administrator of Baldomero's estate for the services he rendered for the
Floor wax settlement of Baldomero's estate
Switch nail
TC: allowed income of estate to be used for those expenses on the theory that the occupancy of LC: dismissed complaint for recovery
the house by one heir DID NOT DEPRIVE THE OTHER 7 HEIRS FROM LIVING IN IT -the services rendered by the plaintiff were entirely unneccessary
SC: Personal expenses of an heir, incurring to her benefit, are not reasonable expenses. She
occupied the house w/o paying rent, she should use her income for her living expenses while WON the services rendered by Mariano are necessary expenses of the estate?
occupying the family residence -his services - which was rendered to procure the administrator for Baldomero's estate - were
necessary:
III. Other expenses
Baldomero left an estate of about P46k, almost all of which are interest in his father's estate
Stenographic notes expenses - disallowed
Executor refused to deliver any of the property to the administrator of the estate
Representation expenses (not explained) - disallowed
Estate has not been divided and is in the hands of the executory
Expenses during the celebration of 1st death anniversary of the deceased - disallowed:
Question as to who are the heirs of Baldomero
no connection w/ the care, management and settlement of the decedent's estate -his estate of P46k: it is extremely advisable that an administrator be appointed
Expenses for lawyer's subsistence - allowed When an estate is regularly administered in the Court of First Instance, and commissioners appointed
Cost of gift to the physician who attended the testator during his last years - allowed before whom claims must be presented within the time fixed in the order, they are by law, with some
few exceptions, barred unless so presented. This time may be limited by the court to six months. It is
IV. Irrigation Fee important to the heirs of an estate to know as soon after the death of the intestate as possible what
P1,049.58 was contested because it appeared to be a duplication of the item as claims exist against it. If they then know what demands are made against it, they have an opportunity to
irrigation fee for crop year 66-67. - allowed because it was not contested that the ascertain the facts relating to such demands when evidence concerning their validity can be easily
amount was alloted for irrigation fees to 8 tenants who cultivated the Intan Crop and it obtained. Unfounded claims in such cases can be more easily defeated than they could if they were
was indeed paid by the administrator to the Penaranda Irrigation System presented several years after the death of the intestate.

ESCUETA V. SY JUILLIONG From which estate should he claim?

44 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
From the estate of Carlos Pabia
>the claim or cause of action arose after the death of Baldomero so it was not a proper claim to be
presented to his estate
>if it was made w/ Carlos Pabia in his personal capacity: then sue him (kaya lang he's dedz na)
>if it was made w/ Carlos Pabia as the administrator of Baldomero's Estate: the contract made between
the administrator and the lawyer does not bind the estate to such an extent that the lawyer can
maintain an action against it and recover a judgment which is binding upon it.
the creditor has 2 remedies:
1. Prosecute an action against the administrator as an individual - if judgment is rendered against
the administrator and is paid by him, the administrator can include the amount paid as an
expense of administration in the final account
2. Present a petition in the proceeding relating to the settlement of the estate, asking that the
court, after notice to all persons interested, allow his claim and direct the administrator to pay it
as an expense of administration
>>>whatever course adopted, the heirs and other persons interested in the estate will have a right to
inquire into the necessity for making the contract and the value of the work performed by the attorney
SO HERE, WHAT MARIANO CAN DO:
1. claim against he person responsible therefor (the representative of Carlos Pabia)
2. Make an application in the proceeding for the settlement of the estate of Baldomero for its allowance
and payment (and not claim from the administrator of the estate who just replaced Carlos Pabia)
OCCENA V. MARQUEZ
Summary: Petitioners prayed for partial payment of their AF since the time they worked for the executor
of the estate but the respondent judge, though awarding them with AF, said that the said fees was
already the fee they're going to receive for the whole estate proceedings. The Court held that the
probate court, though the trustee of the estate, should not act whimsically to deprive due process to the
petitioners who should be allowed to present proofs of their claimed AF.
Facts:
-William Ogan died leaving more than P2M to 7 heirs
-the estate executrix, Mrs. Necitas Ogan Occena, had 2 lawyers - Atty. Jesus Occena and Atty. Samuel
Occena (husband of the executrix Necitas). They had been representing the estate since 1963
-the 7 heirs decided to enter into a compromise w/ the claimants of the estate:
o P220k in cash awarded to Atty. Isabelo Binamira (former executor?), his lawyers and his wife
-by 1966, CIR already issued a tax clearance for the estate as settled by the executrix
-In 1965, Petitioners filed a MOTION FOR PARTIAL PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY'S FEES of P30k as part of
payment of their fees as counsel of the administratrix since 1963
>>>3 of 7 heirs (Lily, William and Ruth) moved to defer consideration of the motion until after
the total amounts for the executrix's fees and attorney's fees of her counsel have been agreed
upon by all the heirs
>>>1966: 5 of 7 (Lily, Necitas, Federico, Liboria, and Nancy) manifested that they had no
objection to the release of the P30k as PARTIAL PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY'S FEES, recommend
approval of the motion
>>> motion was still unresolved
-2nd motion for payment of partial attorney's fees
>>>deferred: William and Ruth wanted all the instituted heirs to agree IN WRITING on the total
attorney's fees
>>>MR Filed
TC: Judge fixed TOTAL AF from 1963 to 1965 at P20k
>>>MR: DENIED + fixed the P20k as the AF for the whole testate proceedings
45 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
-so Petitioners here filed this petition, alleging GADALEJ on part of the judge
-defense of Judge Marquez (among others):
o it is the duty of respondent Judge not to be very liberal to the attorney representing the
executrix, who is at the same time the wife of said counsel and is herself an heir to a sizable
portion of the estate, for respondent Judge's duty is to see to it that the estate is administered
"frugally," "as economically as possible," and to avoid "that a considerable portion of the estate
is absorbed in the process of such division," in order that there may be a worthy residue for the
heirs
o since petitioners Samuel C. Occea and Jesus V. Occea are the husband and father-in-law,
respectively, of executrix Necitas Ogan Occea, the latter cannot be expected to oppose
petitioners' claims for attorney's fees, thus leaving the co-executor as the lone party to
represent and defend the interests of the estate, Atty. I. V. Binamira, who claims to be co-
executor of the Ogan estate, filed with this Court on July, 1967, a Motion for Leave to Intervene,
which was granted in a resolution of August 9, 1967 - but BINAMIRA WAS NO LONGER THE CO-
EXECUTOR.
WON the estate is liable for the AF collected by the petitioners? INDIRECTLY
-The rule is that when a lawyer has rendered legal services to the executor or administrator to assist him
in the execution of his trust, his attorney's fees may be allowed as expenses of administration.
-The estate is, however, not directly liable for his fees, the liability for payment resting primarily on the
executor or administrator. If the administrator had paid the fees, he would be entitled to
reimbursement from the estate.
-The procedure to be followed by counsel in order to collect his fees is to request the administrator to
make payment,
...and should the latter fail to pay, either to
(a) file an action against him in his personal capacity, and not as administrator, or
(b) file a petition in the testate or intestate proceedings asking the court, after notice to all the heirs and
interested parties, to direct the payment of his fees as expenses of administration.
Whichever course is adopted, the heirs and other persons interested in the estate will have the right to
inquire into the value, of the services of the lawyer and on the necessity of his employment.
HERE: Petitioners filed petition DIRECTLY to the probate court
WON Probate court's act of limiting the AF was proper (based on the records of the case)? NO
-he probate court acts as a trustee of the estate, and as such trustee it should jealously guard the estate
under administration and see to it that it is wisely and economically administered and not
dissipated. This rule, however, does not authorize the court, in the discharge of its function as trustee of
the estate, to act in a whimsical and capricious manner or to fix the amount of fees which a lawyer is
entitled to without according to the latter opportunity to prove the legitimate value of his services.
-HERE: 5 of the 7 already consented to the granting of partial payment of AF. The other 2 did not
disagree, they just wanted the payment to be recorded and agreed to in writing.
-VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS: should have allowed petitioners to adduce evidence to prove what is the
proper amount of AF
*BUT payment of partial AF not granted because there were allegations made by petitioners on the
labor, time and trouble involved in their legal undertaking which is STILL SUBJECT TO A FORMAL JUDICIAL
INQUIRY
WON ATTY. BINAMIRA SHOULD BE GUILTY OF INDIRECT CONTEMPT FOR FALSE AVERMENTS IN THE
COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION? YES.
-note that 21 instances were cited here as false averments made by Atty. Binamira
We find no rule of law or of ethics which would justify the conduct of a lawyer in any case, whether civil
or criminal, in endeavoring by dishonest means to mislead the court, even if to do so might work to the
advantage of his client. The conduct of the lawyer before the court and with other lawyers should be
characterized by candor and fairness. It is neither candid nor fair for a lawyer to knowingly make false
allegations in a judicial pleading or to misquote the contents of a document, the testimony of a witness,
the argument of opposing counsel or the contents of a decision. Before his admission to the practice of
law, he took the solemn oath that he will do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court, nor
wittingly or willingly promote or sue any false, groundless or unlawful suit, and conduct himself as a
lawyer with all good fidelity to courts as well as to his clients. We find that Atty. Binamira, in having
deliberately made these false allegations in his pleadings, has been recreant to his oath.
D-10 RULE 86 CASES
SALONGA V. PASCUAL
Summary: Salonga et al Law offices were engaged by OLIVIA PASCUAL to be her lawyer in the settlement
of the estate of DONA ADELA Pascual and agreed that the retainer fee be 3% of the WHOLE ESTATE.
Salonga et al filed for provisional recognition of their AF but Notice was ony given to OLIVIA, out of the
19 other heirs and 4 other institutions who were devicees and legatees in the will of Dona Adela. Court
held that since the claim was against the estate as an administration expense, notice and hearing should
be conducted so that the parties interested may determine the necessity and value of the services
rendered by the law firm.
Facts:
-2 estates involved:
1. Don Andres' Estate - INTESTATE
2. Dona Adela's Estate - Testate
-Don Andres and Dona died w/o children so nephews and nieces claim to be their heirs.
-Don Andres died first.
-OLIVIA and HERMES Pascual, the acknowledged natural children of ELIGIO (Don Andres' brother)
claimed to be heirs of Don Andres, and Dona Adela supported their claims. However, a compromise
agreement was entered into by the other heirs wherein 3/4 would go to Dona Adela and the other 1/4
goes to the heirs , w/o prejudice to the claims of the OLIVIA and HERMES
claims subsequently DENIED
-Dona Adela died leaving behind a will:
OLIVIA as the executrix and principal beneficiary
Other legacies and devices
-OLIVIA engaged services of petitioner law firm wherein they agreed that the professional fee would be:
"3% of the total gross estate as well as the fruits thereof based on the court approved inventory of the
estate. Fruits shall be reckoned from the time of [Olivia Pascual's] appointment as executrix of the
estate. The 3% final fee shall be payable upon approval by the court of the agreement for the
distribution of the properties to the court designated heirs of the estate."
-so petitioners in behalf of Olivia commenced a petition for probate of Dona Adela's last will which was
opposed (oppositor showed a different will)
-PROBATE allowed will showed by Olivia
-Petitioner filed a NOTICE OF ATTORNEY's LIEN w/ court
COURT: atty's lien noted as a lien that must be satisfied chargeable to the share of OLIVIA PASCUAL
>>>also ordered that notice be given, requiring all the persons having claims for money against Dona
Adela to file claims w/n 6m from Nov 1993.
-petitioner filed MOTION TO ANNOTATE ATTORNEY's LIEN
46 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
-January 1994, Intestate court approved compromise agreement on the estate of DON ANDRES, gave 1/4
to the other heirs of Don Andres then 3/4 to Dona Adela + award of AF to Atty. Jesus Santos
-Petitioner filed MOTION FOR WRIT OF EXECUTION FOR THE PARTIAL PAYMENT EXECUTION OF
ATTORNEY'S LIEN - based amount claimed from the Motion to submit project partition filed by Olivia
where alleged gross appraised value of Dona Adela was P39,936, 567 (which includes 3/4 of Don
Esteban's estate)
>>>OPPOSED by OLIVIA:
1. she should be charged, not the estate
2. NOTICE should be given to several legatees des9gnated by Dona Adela
3. Premature claim as the intestate proceedings (of Don Andres) not yet done, to the prejudice of
the other heirs of Don Andres entitled to 1/4 of the estate
PROBATE COURT: deny motion for writ of execution
>prematurely filed as proceedings for determination fo Don Andres estate not yet done
-NOV 1994: Olivia filed a MOTION TO DECLARE GENERAL DEFAULT AND DISTRIBUTION OF
TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITIONS W/ CANCELLATION OF ADMINISTRATOR'S BOND:
1. No creditors even after due notice given
2. Intestate proceedings terminated
3. Estate taxes already paid, with corresponding certificate from BIR
4. 2 of the conjugal properties of spouses already partitioned among heirs in accordance with the
compromise agreement
>>>Petitioner prayed for annotation of their lien on the properties of Dona Adela and for the
partial execution for the satisfaction of the attorney's lien
COURT: DISALLOWED LIEN: prematurely filed - no exact estate to be inventoried and re-appraised yet -
bulk has not yet been turned over tot eh executrix
>>>appealed to CA
CA: affirm LC
1. Claim should only be from Olivia's share, not the whole estate
2. The said payment shall be given upon approval of the court
WON a lawyer can claim against estate? YES, Indirectly
-restated rule in Occena
GR: it is the executor or administrator who is primarily liable for AF due to the lawyer who rendered legal
services for the executor or administrator in relation to the settlement of the estate
>>>administrator, in turn, may just seek reimbursement from the estate IF IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT THE
SERVICES OF THE LAWYER REDOUNDED TO THE BENEFIT OF THE ESTATE
X: if the executor/administrator refuses to pay
1. Claim from executor/administrator in his PERSONAL CAPACITY
2. File a petition in the testate or intestate proceedings, asking the court to direct the payment of
attorney's fees as an expense of administration WITH NOTICE TO ALL THE HEIRS AND
INTERESTED PARTIES TO BE MADE SO AS TO ENABLE THESE PERSONS TO INQUIRE INTO THE
VALUE OF THE SERVICES OF THE LAWYER AND ON THE NECESSITY OF HIS EMPLOYMENT
-AF as ADMINISTRATION EXPENSE:
Administration expenses include attorney's fees incurred in connection with the administration of the
estate. It is an expense attending the accomplishment of the purpose of administration growing out of
the contract or obligation entered into by the personal representative of the estate, and thus the claim
for reimbursement must be superior to the rights of the beneficiaries.
-when estate SHOULD NOT BE CHARGED W/ AF:
if the services of the lawyer is merely to protect the interests of particular persons/heirs and not
the estate
 If the administrator brings on litigation for the deliberate purpose of defrauding the legitimate
heirs and for his own benefit
-NOTICE to all the heirs and interested parties always needed
WON the AF should be obtained solely from share of OLIVIA? NO
-Jurisprudence provides that AF may be obtained from share of other heirs - from the estate
WON there is sufficient notice given to the heirs and interested parties? NO
- Notice of Attorney's Lien only seeks to serve notice of the pendency of the claim for attorney's fees,
and not the payment of such fees itself. On its own, the Notice of Attorney's Lien cannot serve as the
basis for the Probate Court to authorize the payment to petitioner of attorney's fees.
-The filing of the Notice of Attorney's Lien and the qualificatory character of the rulings thereon, do not
preclude the resort to the mode of recovery against the estate as authorized by jurisprudence.
-DONA ADELA has 19 other heirs designated and 4 different institutions as recipients of devices or
legacies BUT ONLY OLIVIA was served w/ a copy of the MOTION FOR WRIT OF EXECUTION
-WHY NOTICE NEEDED:
The requisite notice to the heirs, devisees, and legatees is anchored on the constitutional
principle that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law.40The fact that
these persons were designated in the will as recipients of the testamentary dispositions from the
decedent establishes their rights to the succession, which are transmitted to them from the
moment of the death of the decedent.41 The payment of such attorney's fees necessarily
diminishes the estate of the decedent, and may effectively diminish the value of the
testamentary dispositions made by the decedent. These heirs, devisees, and legatees acquire
proprietary rights by reason of the will upon the moment of the death of the decedent, incipient
or inchoate as such rights may be. Hence, notice to these interested persons of the claims for
attorney's fees is integral, so as to allow them to pose any objections or oppositions to such
claim which, after all, could lead to the reduction of their benefits from the estate
NO INTENT TO HOLD FULLBLOWN MEETING: The failure to notify the other heirs, devisees or
legatees, to the estate of Doa Adela likewise deprives these interested persons of the right to
be heard in a hearing geared towards determining whether petitioner was entitled to the
immediate payment of attorney's fees. Notably, petitioner, in filing its Motion for Writ of
Execution, had initially set the hearing on the motion on 29 April 1994, but one day prior to the
scheduled hearing, gave notice instead that the motion was being submitted for the
consideration of the Probate Court without further argument.42 Evidently, petitioner did not
intend a full-blown hearing to ensue on whether it was entitled to the payment of attorney's
fees. Yet the claim for attorney's fees is hardly incontrovertible.
That the Retainer Agreement set the attorney's fees at three percent (3%) of the gross estate
does not imply that the basis for attorney's fees is beyond controversy. Attorney's fees in this
case are in the nature of administration expenses, or necessary expenses in the first place. Any
party interested in the estate may very well, in theory, posit a myriad of objections to the
attorney's fees sought, such as for example, that these fees were not necessary expenses in the
care, management, and settlement of the estate. Whether or not such basis for valid objections
exists in this case is not evident, but the fact remains that all the parties interested in the
estate, namely the other devisees and legatees, were deprived of the opportunity to raise such
objections as they were not served notice of the Motion for Writ of Execution.
WON AF MAY ALREADY BE COLLECTED? PREMATURE
Needs:
1. Approval of the final ascertainment of the value of the gross total estate of Dona Adela
2. Approval by the Probate court of the agreement for the distribution of the properties
47 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
-ADVANTAGES OF FILING CLAIM AGAINST THE ESTATE ITSELF (as administration expenses): claim for
reimbursement is superior to the right of beneficiaries to the estate, and as such, there is need to finally
determine the respective shares of the beneficiary before AF in the nature of administration expenses
may be paid out
-DISADVANTAGE: cannot be deemed binding n the estate, and has to await for the concurrence of the
conditions of the retainer agreement to satisfy claim
So what needed: notice to the heirs, devices, legatees + hearing to focus on the value of services
rendered by the petitioner and the necessity of engaging petitioner as counsel
Disposition: mandate the Probate Court to treat the Motion for Writ of Immediate Execution as a
petition seeking a court order to direct the payment of attorney's fees as expenses of administration, but
subject to the condition that petitioner give due notice to the other designated devisees and legatees so
designated in the will of the claim prior to the requisite hearing thereon. Petitioner may as well seize
such opportunity to formally amend or reconfigure its motion to a petition to direct payment of
attorney's fees.
ESTATE OF OLAVE VS. REYES (1983)
Summary: Administrators of estate of decedent entered into an amicable settlement with a creditor
company who wanted to collect from the estate of the decedent in a separate proceeding. This was done
w/o prior approval of the probate court. SC held that prior approval of the probate court needed
because (1) the claim of the creditors is a claim against the estate; and (2) probate court already
acquired exclusive jurisdiction over the case, to the exclusion of the other court)
Facts
-there's already a special proceeding for the settlement of the estate of Amadeo Matute Olave in the
Manila court. There's an order from this court providing that the co-administrators should first secure
the probate court's approval before entering into any transaction involving the 17 titles of the estate
-Southwest Agricultural Marketing Corporation (SAMCO) filed Civil case for collection of debt and
attorney's fees in Davao court against the co-administrators of the estate of Amadeo Olave
-even after order from the probate court to secure first its approval, SAMCO and the co-administrators
entered into an AMICABLE SETTLEMENT wherein one of the 17 titles of the estate was ceded to SAMCO
as payment for its claim. This was done w/o notice and approval of the probate court
-DAVAO COURT: approved amicable settlement
WON SAMCO PROPERLY FILED CLAIM IN A SEPARATE PROCEEDING? NO
1. R87.1: "no action upon a claim for the recovery of money or debt or interest thereon shall be
commenced against the executor or administrator; . . ."
2. Claim of Samco could only be pursued by filing it in the administration proceedings and w/n the
prescribed period, or else barred forever
3. Why present claims in the probate court: to protect the estate of deceased persons. That way,
the executor or administrator will be able to examine each claim and determine whether it is a
proper one which should be allowed. Further, the primary object of the provisions requiring
presentation is to apprise the administrator and the probate court of the existence of the claim so
that a proper and timely arrangement may be made for its payment in full or by pro-rata portion in
the due course of the administration, inasmuch as upon the death of a person, his entire estate is
burdened with the payment of all of his debts and no creditor shall enjoy any preference or priority;
all of them shall share pro-rata in the liquidation of the estate of the deceased.
4. Manila Probate court already has exclusive jurisdiction over the proceeding and the properties
claimed: R73.1
"the record affirmatively shows that the Publication not sufficiently
committee did make the publication required by proven:
5. The law is clear that where the estate of the deceased person is already the subject of a testate or
intestate proceeding, the administrator cannot enter into any transaction involving it without prior
law." o No proof of
EVIDENCE: an AFFIDAVIT of the Publisher of "El posting at the main door and on 3 public places
approval of the probate court.
Imparcial" setting out that the notice to creditors
As admitted by the
attached to the affidavit and signed by PEDRO committee in their July 1908 report, the claims
SANTOS V. MANARANG
ABAD SANTOS and MARCOS TANCUACO, dated they presented were from the time of the first
Summary: The deceased, in his last will and testament, acknowledged his indebtedness to Santos so
July 1907 was published 3 weeks from July 25 to publication - from JULY 1907
Santos did not file any claim against estate until the Committee convened to hear the claims had already
August 16
rendered a report to the court. Court held that even if a claim is recognized in a will, the claim should still But this
be presented to the Court to be verified and subject to inquiry of interested parties and this should be publication does not show that
done after the period given by the lower court. NOTE DISSENT wants to allow it because the claim may be The
deemed a legacy in the will (and the will of the testator should be primordial) and that since the period newspaper was daily, biweekly
should have been counted from the time the notice requirements had been complied with and no Day of
compliance here shown then the period for Santos to file his claim has not lapsed yet (also considering the week or month when publication made
that there is no final accounting yet and the proceedings are still ongoing), and thus the probate court
The
should have allowed such claim. notice was published 3 weeks successively (once
each week for 3 successive weeks)
Facts: But the court in January 1908 re-ordered the
-Don Lucas de Ocampo died on Nov 1906 but left a will committee to give out new notices because the
-in his will, he recognized his indebtedness to ISIDRO SANTOS amounting to P7,454, to wit: first notice specifies that the claims be presented
"I also declare that I have contracted the debts detailed below, and it is my desire that they may be before the former committee member (ABAD
religiously paid by my wife and executors in the form and at the time agreed upon with my creditors." SANTOS), who is now the counsel for the estate
-will was probated in July 15, 1907. Widow was made temporary administatrix until the appointment of No proof that notices were given out pursuant to
COSME NAVAL as the executor (as named in the will) the January 1908 order; the probate court merely
-JULY 23, 1907: Committee of appraisal was constituted, with PEDRO ABAD SANTOS & MARCOS believed that such notice was made, and as such,
TANCUACO named as members. Probate court ordered that notice to creditors be published by the ordered the administratrix to present her
Committee of appraisal. inventory by August of that year, on the theory
On notice given: it provided that claims should be presented w/n 6 months from date of that by July, all the claims against the estate has
notice at the dwelling o PEDRO A. SANTOS been presented to the committee
-September 1907: NAVAL was removed as executor, replaced by LEANDRA MANARANG (wife)
-December 3: PEDRO ABAD SANTOS RESIGNED from the committee to become the attorney for the
estate, replaced by DONATO ITTURALDE WON the indebtedness acknowledged in the will is subject to the committee's authority?
-January 1908: Court formally ordered that ITTURALDE replace ABAD SANTOS and re-ordered the MAIN DECISION DISSENT
committee to post a notice at the main door of the courthouse, and in 3 public places, and publication in
"El Imparcial" YES YES but no express provision that these claims
-July 14, 1908: Committee filed a report (which states that the claims presented were those from the should be presented before the committee
date of the first publication which is July 1907
-July 1909: Isidro Santos filed an application to reopen the sessions of the committee and permit him to There is nothing in the will to indicate that any or -No statute expressly requiring the presentation of
present his claim as mentioned in the will all of the plaintiff's claims are debt already acknowledged in the will before the
TC: DENY by reason of lapse of time contingent claim committee
>MR + motion for an order to direct executor to pay the petitioner in pursuance to testator's directions claims for the possession of or title to real Provision for appointment of committee
(in the wil): DENY by reason of lapse of time property authorized to hear classes of claims does
damages for injury to a person or not require expressly that a creditor
ISSUES: property, real or personal should present his claim before it
WON there was proper publication (thus, proper notice)? For the possession of specified articles of Although there's a section which provides
personal property that if the creditor fails to present his
MAIN DECISION DISSENT
so proper to be considered by the committee claim w/n the time provided by law, then
Yes there was proper publication No proper publication it is barred, there is no express provision
requiring that the creditor file his claim

48 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a

The debt is a claim w/n the meaning of the law
It is a claim which survives against the
executors/administrator that needs to be
exhibited before the committee
WON the claim should be presented before the committee even if the will expressly acknowledges it?
(EXPOUND THE LAST ITEM ON TABLE OF #2)
MAIN DECISION
Testator cannot put on his will provisions
which are contrary to law or public policy
2 restrictions imposed by law upon the
power of the testator to dispose of his
property:
a. his estate would be liable to all obligations
b. he cannot dispose the legal portion due to
his heirs by force of law
Needs to be presented and verified to
prevent
o Alienation of part of estate by means
of a bequest under a guise of debt
o Payment of amounts which are not
due (the amount specified in the will
may be more than the actual amount
due)
o Payment of amounts which the
testator only thought he owed
(fictitious debt)
49 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
before committee
-Only certain claims need to be presented to the
committee and thus, only those certain claims are
barred if not exhibited;
committee is authorized to take jurisdiction over
those claims only which survive against the
executor or administrator but such claims are not
defined in the rules
therefore, it was the intention of the law to
restrict the jurisdiction of the committee
It is not a claim. It's a debt, period.
CLAIM: a debt in embryo, mere evidence of a debt
and must pass through the process prescribed by
law before it develops to what is properly called a
debt
DEBT: a claim which has been favorably passed
upon by the highest authority to which it can in
law be submitted and has been declared to be a
debt
The will should be paramount!
DISSENT
in giving effect to the will, the intention of
the testator as expressed in the will shall be
fully and punctually observed. If by the use of
clear and certain, his will explains itself, and
all the court can do is to give it effect.
-a will is not primarily evidence of anything; it
is the thing itself. It is not much the evidence
of what the testator did or intended to do; it
is the testator himself. - so not a PN, not an
evidence of indebtedness
Subjecting the provisions of the will to the
approval of the committee gives the
committee the power to annul an express
and mandatory provision of a will which is as
binding as a provision giving legacy
There is no defense that payment was
already made by the estate. And the claim
was not contested
There is, in effect, already an admission on
the part of the testator that he owed such an
The direction in the will for the executor to amount from SANTOS, which frees Santos
pay all just debts does not mean that he shall the burden of finding evidence to support the
pay them without probate. There is nothing alleged debt. The court therefore equates
in the will to indicate that the testator in Santos with creditors who has not a scrap of
tended that his estate should be written evidence to support his claim
administered in any other than the regular >>>The burden of the estate to show
way under the statute, which requires "all payment was made affirmatively
demands against the estates of the deceased
persons," "all such demands as may be
exhibited," etc. The statute provides the very
means for ascertaining whether the claims
against the estate or just debts.
It is not a legacy, because a legacy is an act of
pure beneficience and can only be claimed
after all the debts have been paid; here, it is
for a consideration - it is a debt
OTHER Doctrinal stuff that I don't know where to put:
On Statute of nonclaims:
It cannot be questioned that thus section supersedes the ordinary limitation of actions provided for in
chapter 3 of the Code. It is strictly confined, in its application, to claims against the estate of deceased
persons, and has been almost universally adopted as part of the probate law of the United States. It is
commonly termed the statute of nonclaims, and its purpose is to settle the affairs of the estate with
dispatch, so that residue may be delivered to the persons entitled thereto without their being
afterwards called upon to respond in actions for claims, which, under the ordinary statute of
limitations, have not yet prescribed.
The object of the law in fixing a definite period within which claims must be presented is to insure the
speedy settling of the affairs of a deceased person and the early delivery of the property of the estate
in the hands of the persons entitled to receive it. (Estate of De Dios, 24 Phil. Rep., 573.)
Due possibly to the comparative shortness of the period of limitation applying to such claims as
compared with the ordinary statute of limitations, the statute of nonclaims has not the finality of the
ordinary statute of limitations. It may be safely said that a saving provision, more or less liberal, is
annexed to the statute of nonclaims in every jurisdiction where is found. In this country its saving clause
is found in section 690, which reads as follows:
On application of a creditor who has failed to present his claim, if *made within six months after the time
previously limited, or, *if a committee fails to give the notice required by this chapter, and such
application is made before the final settlement of the estate, the court may, for cause shown, and on
such terms as are equitable, renew the commission and allow further time, not exceeding one month,
for the committee to examine such claim, in which case it shall personally notify the parties of the time
and place of hearing, and as soon as may be make the return of their doings to the court.
If the committee fails to give the notice required, that is a sufficient cause for reconvening it for further
consideration of claims which may not have been presented before its final report was submitted to the
court.
Disposition: there must be a hearing sometime before some tribunal to determine the correctness of the
debts recognized in the wills of deceased persons. This hearing, in the first instance, can not be had
before the court because the law does not authorize it. Such debtors must present their claims to the
committee, otherwise their claims will be forever barred.
D-11 ACTION BY AND A GAINST EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS
Rule 87: Actions By and Against Executors and Administrators
Section 1. Actions which may and which may not be brought against executor or administrator. -
No action upon a claim for the recovery of money or debt or interest thereon shall be commenced
against the executor or administrator; but to recover real or personal property, or an interest therein,
from the estate, or to enforce a lien thereon, and actions to recover damages for an injury to person or
property, real or personal, may be commenced against him.
Section 2. Executor or administrator may bring or defend actions which survive. -
For the recovery or protection of the property or rights of the deceased, an executor or administrator
may bring or defend, in the right of deceased, actions for causes which survive.
Section 3. Heir may not sue until shall assigned -
When an executor or administrator is appointed and assumes the trust, no action to recover the title or
possession of lands or for damages done to such lands shall be maintained against him by an heir or
devisee until there is an order of the court assigning such lands to such heir or devisee or until the time
allowed for paying debts has expired.
Section 4. Executor or administrator may compound with debtor. -
Within the approval of the court, an executor or administrator may compound with the debtor of the
deceased for a debt due, and may give a discharge of such debt on receiving a just dividend of the estate
of the debtor.
Section 5. Mortgage due estate may be foreclosed. -
A mortgage belonging to the estate of a deceased person, as mortgagee or assignee of the right or a
mortgage, may be foreclosed by the executor or administrator.
Section 6. Proceedings when property concealed, embezzled, or fraudulently conveyed. -
If an executor or administrator, heir, legatee, creditor or other individual interested in the estate of the
deceased, complains to the court having jurisdiction of the estate that a person is suspected of having
concealed, embezzled, or conveyed away any of the money, goods, or chattels of the deceased, or that
such person has in his possession or has knowledge of any deed, conveyance, bond, contract, or other
writing which contains evidence of or tends or discloses the right, title, interest, or claim of the
deceased, the court may cite such suspected person to appear before it any may examine him on oath
on the matter of such complaint; and if the person so cited refuses to appear, or to answer on such
examination or such interrogatories as are put to him, the court may punish him for contempt, and may
commit him to prison until he submits to the order of the court. The interrogatories put any such person,
and his answers thereto, shall be in writing and shall be filed in the clerk's office.
Section 7. Person entrusted with estate compelled to render account. -
The court, on complaint of an executor or administrator, may cite a person entrusted by an executor or
administrator with any part of the estate of the deceased to appear before it, and may require such
person to render a full account, on oath, of the money, goods, chattels, bonds, account, or other papers
belonging to such estate as came to his possession in trust for such executor or administrator, and of his
proceedings thereon; and if the person so cited refuses to appear to render such account, the court may
punish him for contempt as having disobeyed a lawful order of the court.
Section 8. Embezzlement before letters issued -
50 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
If a person, before the granting of letters testamentary or of administration on the estate of the
deceased, embezzles or alienates any of the money, goods, chattels, or effects of such deceased, such
person shall be liable to an action in favor of the executor or administrator of the estate for double the
value of the property sold, embezzled, or alienated, to be recovered for the benefit of such estate.
Section 9. Property fraudulently conveyed by deceased may be recovered. When executor or
administrator must bring action. -
When there is a deficiency of assets in the hands of an executor or administrator for the payment of
debts and expenses of administration, and the deceased in his lifetime had conveyed real or personal
property, or a right or interest therein, or an debt or credit, with intent to defraud his creditors or to
avoid any right, debt, or duty; or had so conveyed such property, right, interest, debt or credit that by
law the conveyance would be void as against his creditors, and the subject of the attempted conveyance
would be liable to attachment by any of them in his lifetime, the executor or administrator may
commence and prosecute to final judgment an action for the recovery of such property, right, interest,
debt, or credit for the benefit of the creditors; but he shall not be bound to commence the action unless
on application of the creditors of the deceased, not unless the creditors making the application pay such
part of the costs and expenses, or give security therefor to the executor or administrator, as the court
deems equitable.
Section 10. When creditor may bring action. Lien for costs. -
When there is such a deficiency of assets, and the deceased in his lifetime had made or attempted such a
conveyance, as is stated in the last preceding section, and the executor or administrator has not
commenced the action therein provided for, any creditor of the estate may, with the permission of the
court, commence and prosecute to final judgment, in the name of the executor or administrator, a like
action for the recovery of the subject of the conveyance or attempted conveyance for the benefit of the
creditors. But the action shall not be commenced until the creditor has filed in a court a bond executed
to the executor or administrator, in an amount approved by the judge, conditioned to indemnify the
executor or administrator against the costs and expenses incurred by reason of such action. Such
creditor shall have a lien upon any judgment recovered by him in the action for such costs and other
expenses incurred therein as the court deems equitable. Where the conveyance or attempted
conveyance had been made by the deceased in his lifetime in favor of the executor or administrator, the
action which a credit may bring shall be in the name of all the creditors, and permission of the court and
filing of bond as above prescribed, are not necessary.
PAULA V. ECSAY
Summary: Lessee of Hacienda Puyas which was entitled too 10% of the produce from the Hacienda
claims from the administrator. Court held that the 3P may claim against the administrator, who is under
the courts direct supervision, but administrator cant claim by mere motion against 3P.
*Claims against administrator may be presented in the Administrative proceeding but not against 3P
Facts:
-JOSE ECSAY(lessee) and RUFINA PAULA (Administratrix) entered a lease agreement wherein
Administratrix was obliged to deliver 10% of the produce of the Hacienda Puyas to Ecsay, amended to
close until 1942-1943 harvest. This was approved by the court.
-ECSAY claimed from the Administratrix 10%
-Administratrix PAULA opposed:
1. it cannot be presented as a claim because the administration proceedings were commenced since
1932 and the claim (made 1954) cannot be presented under R87.5
2. The probate court has no jurisdiction to entertain a claim against the adminsitratrix
TC: claim was properly filed; claim was an offshoot of a contract approved by the probate court
WON Probate court has jurisdiction over the claim? YES
- We do not have probate courts dedicated to the trial of probate cases alone; our courts of first instance
have jurisdiction of probate proceedings, such as administration and distribution and guardianship,
jointly with the civil or criminal actions, and when taking cognizance of probate cases they do not hold
court or sessions at specified places, or periods, or terms, and their power over the same is not separate
and distinct, as is the case in common law countries where the same court may at one time sit as a court
of common pleas, at another as a probate court, and still at another as a court of claims.
- the practice has been for demands against administrators (not by those against third parties) to be
presented in the court of first instance where the special proceeding of administration is pending, if the
demand has relation to an act of administration and in the ordinary course thereof.
- administration is under the direct supervision of the court and the administrator is subject to its
authority.
-When the demand is in favor of the administrator and the party against whom it is enforced is a third
party, not under the court's jurisdiction, the demand can not be by mere motion by the administrator,
but by an independent action against the third person. For obvious reasons, the demand can not be
made because third persons not under the jurisdiction of the court are involved.
-HERE:
1. Lease contract was entered by the Administratrix w/ court approval in the ordinary coure of
administration
2. the purpose of the claim is to make the Administratrix comply with the obligations contracted in the
course of administration w/ the courts consent and approval
3. court has jurisdiction of the administrator so far as the property and the contract are concerned
4. court acquired jurisdiction over 3P when he submitted himself to the court and filed the claim
-though he could file an independent action, not prohibited from doing so
5. Estate would only be responsible for the amount which the Administratrix is legally entitled to receive
as rentals; not for the excess of the amount collected over and above rentals due under the lease
Administratrix would be liable for the excess
BAYOT V. ZURBITO
Summary: the decedent in whose behalf the parties here are acting had dealt with each other during
their lifetime. The plaintiff in this case filed a claim against the defendant, and defendant filed a claim for
setoff. The commission disallowed the claim of defendant, and also of the plaintiff saying it had no
jurisdiction over the claims. Court held that executor can independently commence an action to recover
any COA which accrued to decedent during his lifetime.
Facts:
-FRANCISCO BAYOT during his lifetime, made business contracts with LUCAS ZURBITO during their
lifetime.
-ZURBITO allegedly owed BAYOT a debt worth almost P10k. Bayots Administratrix filed a claim against
ZURBITOs estate, which was allowed
-ZURBITOs estate now wants to claim against BAYOT for alleged amounts belonging to ZURBITO when
BAYOT acted as manager for ZURBITOs ranch. The committee on claims of the Bayot estate disallowed
the same, was appealed by Zurbito but SC denied it with finality.
-Since the Zurbito claim was denied, counterclaim (this is weird, di ko alam san ung counterclaim) by
BAYOT estate against ZURBITO was denied by the committee in the estate of Bayot also disallowed.
BAYOTs Administratrix did not appeal the decision so it was deemed final
WON the committee on appraisal of the estate of BAYOT had jurisdiction over counterclaim? YES
- A creditor who presents a claim against an estate submits himself to the jurisdiction of the committee,
51 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
and the circumstance that his claim is found to be without merit in no wise defeats the authority of the
committee to allow the set-off against him.
WON the claim by Estate of Bayot is barred by res judicata? NO
-decision does not exhibit the requisites essential to create the bar of res judicata: not judgment on the
merits
- The action of the committee on claims in the estate of Francisco Bayot was expressly based upon the
idea that the jurisdiction of the committee to allow the set-off in favor of said estate was destroyed by
the disallowance of the principal claim presented by Zurbito against the Bayot estate; and the Court of
First Instance merely held, as this court also held, that the claim could not be allowed in the Court of First
Instance because no appeal had been taken. In neither tribunal was any consideration paid to the
merits of the claim; and no court has ever passed upon this point.
ON the correct interpretation of Section 696, NCC:
"Claims in favor of the estate and against a creditor who presents a claim for allowance against the
estate shall be barred, unless so presented by the executor or administrator as an offset."
- by failing to appeal from the action of the committee, the plaintiff was precluded from relying on this
claim as an offset in the Court of First Instance in that proceeding. The court was not called upon to
decide whether an independent action could be maintained.
"SEC. 701. An Executor or Administrator may sue. - Nothing in this chapter shall prevent an executor or
administrator from commencing and prosecuting an action commenced by the deceased in his lifetime,
for the recovery of a debt or claim, to final judgment, . .
-evidently recognizes the right of an executor or administrator, not only to continue the prosecution of
an action already begun, but also to institute an action upon a cause which accrued in the lifetime of the
deceased but which had not been made the subject of action by him. This of course supposes that the
cause of action is such as to have survived to the estate.
- Section 701 supplies general authority for the institution of an action by an executor or administrator
upon any claim, in the nature of a debt, which accrued in the lifetime of the decedent; and the exception
made in the opening words of Section 701 is such as to give absolute precedence to the rule therein
expressed over anything to the contrary in Section 696 or any other part of chapter 38. In other words
the provisions of Section 701 necessarily overrule so much of section 696 as purports to bar absolutely
all claims in favor of an estate which are not made effective as offsets.
- the claim on which this action is based is not barred by the failure of the plaintiff to prosecute it with
effect as an offset in the former proceeding; and inasmuch as the judgment entered in that proceeding
cannot, for reasons already stated, be considered binding as res judicata, the result is that the plaintiff is
entitled to be heard on the merits in this action.
CABUYAO V. CAGBAG
Summary: the lone compulsory heir of the decedent spouses adjudicated upon himself the estate of
his parents but since the title to the land (and occupation to some of it) were still with his uncle and
cousins, he filed case against them. The defense of his uncles and cousins is that he has no legal capacity
to use, he having been not yet declared as the sole heir. Court held that no need for judicial declaration
in order for him to exercise the COA.
An allged heir has right to assert COA, though not yet judicially declared as an heir.
Facts:
-PRUDENCIO and DOMINGA died (though not the same time) and left 11 parcels of land
-their alleged only son, DAMASO adjudicated the 11 parcels to himself pursuant to R74.1 (had affidavit of
extrajudicial adjudication in his favor)
-however, the corresponding TCTs of the 11 parcels cannot be issued because the original owners
duplicate certificates were with his uncle, who was, with his cousins, unlawfully occupying the said
property
-he filed case against uncle cousins
-MTD: no capacity to sue, not having been judicially declared lone compulsory heir
-granted by lower court
WON a judicial declaration as lone compulsory heir is required for the plaintiff to have COA to recover
properties in dispute and to quiet his alleged title thereto? NO
-R74.1
-requisites under R74.1:
1. decedents left no debts
2. that the heirs and legatees are all of age, or the minors are represented by their judicial guardians
*if no creditors claim 2 years after the death of the decedents, then presumed that no debts
- the title to property owned by a person who dies intestate passes at once to his heirs. Such
transmission is, under the present law, subject to the claim of administration and the property may be
taken from the heirs for the purposes of paying debts and expenses, but this does not prevent the
immediate passage of the title, upon the death of the intestate, from himself to his heirs.
- There is no legal precept or established rule which imposes the necessity of a previous legal declaration
regarding their status as heirs to an intestate estate on those who, being of age and with legal capacity,
consider themselves the legal heirs of a person, in order that they may maintain an action arising out of a
right which belonged to their ancestor
MARABILES V. QUITO
Summary: Plaintiff filed case against the heirs of the deceased (who was named as the transferee of the
title claimed by the plaintiff) but as a defense, the defendants argued that they were not yet declared as
the heirs of the deceased, thus cannot be sued. Court held that no judicial declaration of heirship
necessary to be made liable
Facts:
-Severina Marabilles (probably the wife of Patricio) filed a complaint for recovery of a parcel of land in
Camarines Sur against Alejandro Quito and Aida Quito (father and daughter of deceased who was named
the transferee of the property in question).
-allegations: the title which was originally ifo Patricio Marabilles was fraudulently issued in the name of
Guadalupe Saralde (wife and mother of defendants) by Alejandro Quito (defendant) and had it
registered in the formers name
-MTD: 1) plaintiffs had no capacity to sue; 2) no COA; 3) prescription
-TC: granted MTD:
1) lack of judicial declaration of heirship ifo Severina (Patricio died, no judicial declaration that she and
her children were the heirs) = lack of capacity to sue
2) no COA: Alejandro and Aida were also not yet declared as the heirs of Guadalupe in whose favor the
title was transferred
3) prescription: the action already prescribed: registration was notice to the whole world, started
counting from date of registration
WON the TC erred in ruling ifo Quitos? NO
1. The plaintiffs had legal capacity to sue
-The right to assert a cause of action as an heir, although he has not been judicially declared to be so, if
duly proven, is well settled in this jurisdiction.
- the property of a deceased person, both real and personal, becomes the property of the heir by the
mere fact of death of his predecessor in interest, and as such he can deal with it in precisely the same
52 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
way in which the deceased could have dealt, subject only to the limitations which by law or by contract
may be imposed upon the deceased himself
-There is no legal precept or established rule which imposes the necessity of a previous legal declaration
regarding their status as heirs to an intestate on those who, being of age and with legal capacity,
consider themselves the legal heirs of a person, in order that they may maintain an action arising out of a
right which belonged to their ancestor
2. There is COA against defendants though not yet judicially declared as heirs
-to determine the sufficiency of a cause of action on a motion to dismiss, only the facts alleged in the
complaint should be considered
- it appears in the complaint that Guadalupe Saralde is the wife of Alejandro Quito, the defendant, and
as said Guadalupe has already died, under the law, the husband and his daughter Aida are the legal
heirs. We have already said that in order that an heir may assert his right to the property of a deceased,
no previous judicial declaration of heirship is necessary.
3. NO PRESCRIPTION YET
- While legally the registration of real property serves as a constructive notice on which an action based
on fraud may be predicated, however, this cannot be invoked in the present case, for there is an
averment in the complaint that the issuance of such title has been accomplished by defendant Alejandro
Quito through fraud, deceit and misrepresentation and not through a valid and voluntary transfer.
- when a person through fraud succeeds in registering the property in his name, the law creates what is
called "constructive trust" in favor of the defrauded party and grants to the latter a right to vindicate the
property regardless of the lapse of time.
ASSIGNMENT N. 6: PAY MENT OF THE DEBITS O F THE ESTATE
Rule 88
Payment of the Debts of the Estate
Section 1. Debts paid in full if estate sufficient. - If, after hearing all the money claims against the
estate, and after ascertaining the amount of such claims, it appears that there are sufficient assets to pay
the debts, the executor or administrator pay the same within the time limited for that purpose.
Section 2. Part of estate from which debt paid when provision made by will. - If the testator makes
provision by his will, or designates the estate to be appropriated for the payment of his debts, the
expenses of administration, or the family expenses, they shall be paid according to the provisions of the
will; but if the provision made by the will or the estate appropriated, is not sufficient for that purpose,
such part of the estate of the testator, real or personal, as is not disposed of by will, if any shall be
appropriated for that purpose.
Section 3. Personalty first chargeable for debts, then realty. - The personal estate of the deceased not
disposed of by will shall be first chargeable with the payment of debts and expenses; and if said personal
estate is not sufficient for tat purpose, or its sale would redound to the detriment of the participants for
the estate, the whole of the real estate not dispose of by will, or so much thereof as is necessary, may be
sold, mortgaged, or otherwise encumbered for that purpose by the executor or administrator, after
obtaining the authority of the court therefor. Any deficiency shall be met by contributions in accordance
with the provisions of section 6 of this rule.
Section 4. Estate to be retained to meet contingent claims. - If the court is satisfied that a contingent
claim duly filed is valid, it may order the executor or administrator to retain in his hands sufficient estate
to pay such contingent claim when the same becomes absolute, or if the estate is insolvent, sufficient to
pay a portion equal to the dividend of the other creditors.

Section 5. How contingent claim becoming absolute in two years allowed and paid. Action against
distributees later. - If such contingent claim becomes absolute and is presented to the court, or to the
executor or administrator, within two (2) years from the time limited for other creditors to present their
claims, it may be allowed by the court if not disputed by the executor or administrator and, if disputed, it
may be proved and allowed or disallowed by the court as the facts may warrant. If the contingent claim
is allowed, the creditor shall receive payment to the same extent as the other creditors if the estate
retained by the executor or administrator is sufficient. But if the claim is not so presented, after having
become absolute, within said two (2) years, and allowed, the assets retained in the hands of the
executor or administrator, not exhausted in the payment of claims, shall be disturbed by the order of the
court to the persons entitled to the same; but the assets so distributed may still be applied to the
payment of the claim when established, and the creditor may maintain an action against the distributees
to recover the debt, and such distributees and their estates shall be liable for the debt in proportion to
the estate they have respectively received from the property of the deceased.
Section 6. Court to fix contributive shares where devisees, legalitees, or heirs have been possession. -
Where devisees, legalitees, or heirs have entered into possession of portions of the estate before the
debts and expenses have been settled and paid, and have become liable to contribute for the payment
of such debts and expenses, the court having jurisdiction of the estate may, by order for that purpose,
after hearing, settle the amount of their several liabilities, and order how much and in what manner each
person shall contribute, and may issue execution as circumstances require.
Section 7. Order of payment if estate insolvent - If the assets which can be appropriated for the
payment of debts are not sufficient for that purpose, the executor or administrator shall pay the debts
against the estate, observing the provisions of Articles 1059 and 2239 to 2251 of the Civil Code.
Section 8. Dividends to be paid in proportion to claims. - If there are no assets sufficient to pay the
credits of any once class of creditors after paying the credits entitled to preference over it, each creditor
within such class shall be paid a dividend in proportion to his claim. No creditor of any one class shall
receive any payment until those of the preceding class are paid.
Section 9. Estate of insolvent non-resident, how disposed of. - In case administration is taken in the
Philippine of the estate of a person who was at the time of his death an inhabitant of another country,
and who died insolvent, hi estate found in the Philippines shall, as far as practicable, be so disposed of
that his creditors here and elsewhere may receive each an equal share, in proportion to their respective
credits.
Section 10. When and how claim proved outside the Philippines against insolvent resident's estate
paid. - If it appears to the court having jurisdiction that claims have been duly proven in another
country against the estate of an insolvent who was at the time of his death an inhabitant of the
Philippines, and that the executor or administrator in the Philippines had knowledge of the presentation
of such claims in such country and an opportunity to contest their allowance, the court shall receive a
certified list of such claims, when perfected in such country, and add the same to the list of claims
proved against the deceased person in the Philippines so that a just distribution of the whole estate may
be made equally among all its creditors according to their respective claims; but the benefit of this and
the preceding sections shall not be extended to the creditors in another country if the property of such
deceased person there found is not equally apportioned to the creditors residing in the Philippines and
the other creditor, according to their respective claims.
53 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
Section 11. Order for payment of debts. - Before the expiration of the time limited for the payment of
the debts, the court shall order the payment thereof, and the distribution of the assets received by the
executor or administrator for that purpose among the creditors, as the circumstances of the estate
require and in accordance with the provisions of this rule.
Section 12. Orders relating to payment of debts where appeal is taken. - If an appeal has been taken
from a decision of the court concerning a claim, the court may suspend the order for the payment of the
debts or may order the distributions among the creditors whose claims are definitely allowed, leaving in
the hands of the executor or administrator sufficient assets to pay the claim disputed and appealed.
When a disputed claim is finally settled the court having jurisdiction of the estate shall order the same to
be paid out of the assets retained to the same extent and in the same proportion with the claims of
other creditors.
Section 13. When subsequent distribution of assets ordered. - If the whole of the debts are not paid on
the first distribution, and if the whole assets are not distributed, or other assets afterwards come to the
hands of the executor or administrator, the court may from time to time make further orders for the
distributions of assets.
Section 14. Creditors to be paid in accordance with terms of order. - When an order is made for the
distribution of assets among the creditors, the executor or administration shall, as soon as the time of
payment arrives, pay the creditors the amounts of their claims, or the dividend thereon, in accordance
with the terms of such order.
Section 15. Time for paying debts and legacies fixed, or extended after notice, within what periods. -
On granting letters testamentary or administration the court shall allow to the executor or administrator
a time for disposing of the estate and paying the debts and legacies of the deceased, which shall not, in
the first instance, exceed one (1) year; but the court may, on application of the executor or administrator
and after hearing on such notice of the time and place therefor given to all persons interested as it shall
direct, extend the time as the circumstances of the estate require not exceeding six (6) months for a
single extension not so that the whole period allowed to the original executor or administrator shall
exceed two (2) years.
Section 16. Successor of dead executor or administrator may have time extended on notice within
certain period. - When an executor or administrator dies, and a new administrator of the same estate is
appointed, the court may extend the time allowed for the payment of the debts or legacies beyond the
time allowed to the original executor or administrator, not exceeding six (6) months at a time and not
exceeding six (6) months beyond the time which the court might have allowed to such original executor
or administrator; and notice shall be given of the time and place for hearing such application, as required
in the last preceding section.
PAVIA V. DELA ROSA
Summary: The former executor of the will wasted the funds of the estate then died. The guardian of the
minor heir of the estate sued the heirs of the executor for recovery of the amounts due. The court held
that the executor/administrator of the deceased executor should be sued instead.
Facts
-Pablo Linart e Iturralde died, leaving minor Carmen Linart Pavia as heir. Rafaela Pavia is the guardian of
Carmen
-Executor Jose de la Rosa, while in possession of the property of the estate, wasted the funds of the
estate. He then died
-Rafaela sued 2 of the heirs of Jose, Bibiana and Salud del a Rosa (sisters of Jose), for the amounts due to
the estate of Pablo
-Answer: not liable for damages caused by Jose no settlement of his estate yet
-Decision probably granted ifo defendants
WON the heirs of the executor could be made liable for damages incurred through the actions of the
deceased when he was still alive? NO
(note: in the previous cases, it was held that even if no judicial declaration of heirship yet, the heirs may
be made liable. Here, requires that the executor or administrator of the deceased be sued first thus
requires settlement of estate of deceased. Whats the difference? Note also that this is an older case
compared to Cabuyao and Marabiles)
- The Code of Civil Procedure now in force makes necessary the opening of a testate or intestate
succession immediately after the death of the person whose estate is to be administered, the
appointment of an executor or administrator, the taking of an inventory of the estate of the deceased,
and the appointment of two or more commissioners for the purpose of appraising the property of the
estate and deciding as to the claims against said estate (Secs. 641, 642, 656, 660, 668, 669, Code of Civil
Procedure.)
- after the death of a person the only entity which may lawfully represent a testate or intestate
succession is the executor or administrator appointed by the court charged to care for, maintain, and
administer the estate of the deceased in such of lands, or for damages done to such lands, shall be
instituted or maintained against him by an heir or devisee, until such time as there is entered s decree of
the court assigning such lands to the heir or devisee, or until the time or period allowed for paying the
debts of the estate has expired, unless the executor or administrator surrenders the possession of the
lands to the heir or devisee.
- with regard to estate or intestate succession, it is deduced that the heir lawfully succeeds the deceased
from whom he derives his inheritance only after the liquidation of the estate, the payment of the debts
of same and the adjudication of the residue of the estate of said deceased, and in the meantime the only
person in charge by law to consider all claims against the estate of the deceased and to attend to or
consider the same is the executor or administrator appointed by a competent judge or court.
Disposition: ifo of Bibiana and Salud BUT w/o prejudice to plaintiffs right to institute proper action
against executor/administrator of Jose (so would have to initiate settlement proceedings of estate of
Jose)
PASTOR VS. CA
Summary: the illegitimate child of the deceased wanted the delivery of his share (allegedly a legacy)
even before the probate proceedings have been terminated, and he wanted the shares of stock which
was alleged by his legitimate brother to be his. Court held that a legacy is not a debt which could be paid
even before the final determination of the estate of the deceased and that the determination of
ownership of properties during the probate proceedings is merely provisional.
Facts:
-ALVARO PASTOR SR. died
-he left as his heirs:
* Wife SOFIA (but died months after)
*2 legitimate children
>Alvaro Jr.
>Sofia de Midgeley
*1 illegitimate child: Quemada
-Quemada petitioned for probate the alleged holographic will of their father wherein a legacy in favor of
Quemada consisting of 30% of Alvaro Sr.s 42% sharein Atlas Consolidated Mining was given
54 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
-Quemada also prayed that he be made a special administrator of the estate
-Probate court appointed him as special administrator of the whole estate
-Since he was the special administrator, he instituted against Pastor Jr and the latters wife ACTION FOR
RECONVEYANCE allegedly because Pastor Jr. held the properties subject of his legacy
>PASTOR JR.s defense: he holds it in his own right, not as heir of PASTOR SR.
-The case was brought until SC, which remanded the case to the probate court. Probate court did not
make a ruling on it
-After remand to the probate court, QUemad filed a pleading asking for an advance payment of his
legacy and also the seizure of the shares in the property of PASTOR JR.
PROBATE COURT: Awarded the legacy to Quemada, ordered execution on the shares held by Pastor Jr.
-PASTOR JR. and his wife filed petition for certiorari before CA, but CA Affirmed. Hence, they went to SC
WON the probate court resolved the issue of ownership with finality? NO
- In a special proceeding for the probate of a will, the issue by and large is restricted to the extrinsic
validity of the will, i.e., whether the testator, being of sound mind, freely executed the will in accordance
with the formalities prescribed by law.
- for the purpose of determining whether a certain property should or should not be included in the
inventory of estate properties, the Probate Court may pass upon the title thereto, but such
determination is provisional, not conclusive, and is subject to the final decision in a separate action to
resolve title.
- Nowhere in the dispositive portion of the probate courts order is there a declaration of ownership of
specific properties. On the contrary, it is manifest therein that ownership was not resolved. For it
confined itself to the question of extrinsic validity of the will, and the need for and propriety of
appointing a special administrator.
- the issue of impairment of legitime (an aspect of intrinsic validity) was in fact not resolved.
WON Quemadas legacy could already be delivered? NO
- no basis for the Probate Court to hold in its Probate Order of 1972, which it did not, that private
respondent is entitled to the payment of the questioned legacy.
- The ordered payment of legacy would be violative of the rule requiring prior liquidation of the estate of
the deceased, i.e., the determination of the assets of the estate and payment of all debts and expenses,
before apportionment and distribution of the residue among the heirs and legatees.
-there was no liquidation of the community property of Pastor Sr. and his wife yet
-no payment of estate tax yet
- it was not possible to determine whether the legacy of QUEMADA - a fixed share in a specific property
rather than an aliquot part of the entire net estate of the deceased - would produce an impairment of
the legitime of the compulsory heirs.
-R88.6: provision clearly authorizes execution to enforce payment of debts of estate. A legacy is not a
debt of the estate; indeed, legatees are among those against whom execution is authorized to be issued
D-13. SALES, MORTGAGES, AND OTHER ENCUMBRANCES OF PROPERTY OF DECEDENT
Rule 89 - SALES, MORTGAGES, AND OTHER ENCUMBRANCES OF PROPERTY OF DECEDENT
SECTION 1. Order of sale of personalty.Upon the application of the executor or administrator, and on
written notice to the heirs and other persons interested, the court may order the whole or a part of the
personal estate to be sold, if it appears necessary for the purpose of paying debts, expenses of
administration, or legacies, or for the preservation of the property.
SEC. 2. When court may authorize sale, mortgage, or other encumbrance of realty to pay debts and
legacies through personalty not exhausted.When the personal estate of the deceased is not sufficient
to pay the debts, expenses of administration, and legacies, or where the sale of such personal estate may
injure the business or other interests of those interested in the estate, and where a testator has not
otherwise made sufficient provision for the payment of such debts, expenses and legacies, the court, on
the application of the executor or administrator and on written notice to the heirs, devisees, and
legatees residing in the Philippines, may authorize the executor or administrator to sell, mortgage, or
otherwise encumber so much as may be necessary of the real estate, in lieu of personal estate, for the
purpose of paying such debts, expenses, and legacies, if it clearly appears that such sale, mortgage, or
encumbrance would be beneficial to the persons interested; and if a part cannot be sold, mortgaged, or
otherwise encumbered without injury to those interested in the remainder, the authority may be for the
sale, mortgage, or other encumbrance of the whole of such real estate, or so much thereof as is
necessary or beneficial under the circumstances.
SEC. 3. Persons interested may prevent such sale, etc., by giving bond.No such authority to sell,
mortgage, or otherwise encumber real or personal estate shall be granted if any person interested in the
estate gives a bond, in a sum to be fixed by the court, conditioned to pay the debts, expenses of
administration, and legacies within such time as the court directs; and such bond shall be for the security
of the creditors, as well as of the executor or administrator, and may be prosecuted for the benefit of
either.
SEC. 4. When court may authorize sale of estate as beneficial to interested persons. Disposal of
proceeds.When it appears that the sale of the whole or a part of the real or personal estate, will be
beneficial to the heirs, devisees, legatees, and other interested persons, the court may, upon application
of the executor or administrator and on written notice to the heirs, devisees, and legatees who are
interested in the estate to be sold, authorize the executor or administrator to sell the whole or a part of
said estate, although not necessary to pay debts, legacies, or expenses of administration; but such
authority shall not be granted if inconsistent with the provisions of a will. In case of such sale, the
proceeds shall be assigned to the persons entitled to the estate in the proper proportions.
SEC. 5. When court may authorize sale, mortgage, or other encumbrance of estate to pay debts and
legacies in other countries. When the sale of personal estate, or the sale, mortgage, or other
encumbrance of real estate is not necessary to pay the debts, expenses of administration, or legacies in
the Philippines, but it appears from records of proceedings of a probate court in another country that
the estate of the deceased in such other country is not sufficient to pay the debts, expenses and
administration, and legacies there, the court here may authorize the executor or administrator to sell the
personal estate or to sell, mortgage, or otherwise encumber the real estate for the payment of debts or
legacies in the other country, in the same manner as for the payment of debts or legacies in the
Philippines.
SEC. 6. When court may authorize sale, mortgage, or other encumbrance of realty acquired on
execution or foreclosure.The court may authorize an executor or administrator to sell, mortgage, or
otherwise encumber real estate acquired by him on execution or foreclosure sale, under the same
circumstances and under the same regulations as prescribed in this rule for the sale, mortgage, or other
encumbrance of other real estate.
SEC. 7. Regulations for granting authority to sell, mortgage, or otherwise encumber estates.The
court having jurisdiction of the estate of the deceased may authorize the executor or administrator to
sell personal estate, or to sell, mortgage, or otherwise encumber real estate, in cases provided by these
rules and when it appears necessary or beneficial, under the following regulations:
(a) The executor or administrator shall file a written petition setting forth the debts due from the
deceased, the expenses of administration, the legacies, the value of the personal estate, the
situation of the estate to be sold, mortgaged, or otherwise encumbered, and such other
facts as show that the sale, mortgage, or other encumbrance is necessary or beneficial;
(b) The court shall thereupon fix a time and place for hearing such petition, and cause notice
stating the nature of the petition, the reason for the same, and the time and place of hearing, to
be given personally or by mail to the persons interested, and may cause such further notice to be
given, by publication or otherwise, as it shall deem proper;
55 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
(c) If the court requires it, the executor or administrator shall give an additional bond, in such sum as
the court directs, conditioned that such executor or administrator will account for the proceeds of the
sale, mortgage, or other encumbrance;
(d) If the requirements in the preceding subdivisions of this section have been complied with, the
court, by order stating such compliance, may authorize the executor or administrator to sell,
mortgage, or otherwise encumber, in proper cases, such part of the estate as is deemed necessary,
and in case of sale the court may authorize it to be public or private, as would be most beneficial to all
parties concerned. The executor or administrator shall be furnished with a certified copy of such
order;
(e) If the estate is to be sold at auction, the mode of giving notice of the time and place of the sale shall
be governed by the provisions concerning notice of execution sale;
(f) There shall be recorded in the registry of deeds of the
province in which the real estate thus sold, mortgaged, or otherwise encumbered is
situated, a certified copy of the order of the court, together with the deed of the executor or
administrator for such real estate, which shall be as valid as if the deed had been executed by the
deceased in his lifetime.
SEC. 8. When court may authorize conveyance of realty which deceased contracted to convey. Notice.
Effect of deed.Where the deceased was in his lifetime under contract, binding in law, to deed real
property, or an interest therein, the court having jurisdiction of the estate may, on application for that
purpose, authorize the executor or administrator to convey such property according to such contract, or
with such modifications as are agreed upon by the parties and approved by the court; and if the contract
is to convey real property to the executor or administrator, the clerk of the court shall execute the deed.
The deed executed by such executor, administrator, or clerk of court shall be as effectual to convey the
property as if executed by the deceased in his lifetime; but no such conveyance shall be authorized until
notice of the application for that purpose has been given personally or by mail to all persons interested,
and such further notice has been given, by publication or otherwise, as the court deems proper; nor if
the assets in the hands of the executor or administrator will thereby be reduced so as to prevent a
creditor from receiving his full debt or diminish his dividend.
SEC. 9. When court may authorize conveyance of lands which deceased held in trust.Where the
deceased in his lifetime held real property in trust for another person, the court may, after notice given
as required in the last preceding section, authorize the executor or administrator to deed such property
to the person, or his executor or administrator, for whose use and benefit it was so held; and the court
may order the execution of such trust, whether created by deed or by law.
GODOY V. ORELLANO
Summary: Administratrix negotiated the sale of decedents dredge which was under the probate courts
jurisdiction w/o the probate courts approval. The seller now wants the delivery of the dredge. The court
held that since the sale was unauthorized, it is void.
It is only the court that has the power to authorize the sale. A power of attorney executed by the heirs in
favor of the administrator gives no legal effect to the sale made without authority of the court.
Facts:
-JULIO ORELLANO died
-one of his properties is a DREDGE
-he left as heirs the ff:
DEMETRIO
JOSE
GUILLERMO
ALFREDO
PAZ
-administratrix appointed: FELISA PANGILINAN
-administratrix entered negotiation with EUSEBIO GODOY for the purchase of the DREDGE
>Eusebio entered an option to buy the dredge (consideration for the option: P1k) for P10k
>GODOY was given 20 days w/n which he could pay the dredge
>PANGILINAN can grant the option PROVIDED the coowners (heirs) ratified the option contract
>the option contract was never ratified
>so when GODOY was ready to pay, PANGILINAN cannot deliver the dredge because the co-owners
would not let her do so (apparently, there were other bidders for the dredge who were offering to buy it
for a higher price)
-GODOY now files a complaint against the co-owners and PANGILINAN
-PANGILINAN's answer:
Property belongs to the intestate estate of Julio Orellano
Plaintiff and defendants knew of that such property belonged to the intestate estate so she
thought she was authorized to enter the option agreement
Since she thought she was authorized to enter the option contract, she applied to the probate
court for permission to sell the dredge
BUT on the day of the hearing for the allowance of the option contract, her co-defendants
opposed as there were other bidders for the dredge
So she asked for authority to sell it through public auction, and it was sold through a public
auction (court authorized the public auction)
That she did not refuse to deliver the dredge, the court did not allow her to deliver it
That she wanted to tender the P1k consideration for the option but plaintiff refused to accept
the same
TC: Defendants ordered to reimburse GODOY P2k
WON the administratrix was authorized to sell the dredge? NO
-it was admitted by PANGILINAN that the dredge in question is part of intestate estate of Julio Orellano
and cannot be disposed of w/o proper authority of the court
-A sale and conveyance by executors without an order of the probate court, under a will devising
property to them in trust, but not authorizing any sale of the realty, otherwise than by a direction to pay
the debts of the testator, is void, and passes no title to the purchase. (Huse vs. Den, 85 Cal., 390.)
-A sale by an administrator of the personal property of the estate, without the authority of an order of
court, or of a will, or under an order of court which is void for want of jurisdiction, does not confer on the
purchaser a title which is available against a succeeding administrator. (Wyatt's Adm'r vs. Rambo, 29
Ala., 510.)
-Under the law, the court has exclusive jurisdiction to authorize the sale of properties like the one under
consideration and the power of attorney executed by the heirs of Orellano in favor of the administratrix,
without authority of court, has no legal effect, and this is the more so, since two of the said heirs are
under age, and the others did not ratify the option contract, as provided in the aforesaid power of
attorney.
MANECLANG V. BAUN
Summary: When the property of the intestate estate of the decedent was sold, only the surviving spouse
was given notice and the other heirs who were of legal age. No guardian ad litem was appointed to
represent the minor children. The court nullified the sale, there being no complete notice to all the heirs.
The notice, which must be in writing, must be given to the heirs, devisees, and legatees and that the
court shall fix a time and place for hearing such petition and cause notice to be given to the interested
parties. These requisites are mandatory and essential w/o them, the authority itself, as well as the sale
or encumbrance is void.
56 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
There can be no dispute that if the heirs were duly represented by counsel or by a guardian ad litem in
the case of the minors, the ntice may be given to such counsel or guardian ad litem
The reason behind this requirement is that the heirs, are the presumptive owners. Since they succeed to
all the rights and obligations of the deceased from the moment of the latters death, they are the
persons directly affected by the sale or mortgage and therefore cannot be deprived of the property
except in the manner provided by law.
Facts:
-MARGARITA SURI SANTOS died intestate
-she left as surviving heirs her husband SEVERO and 9 children, 7 of whom were all minors then.
-2 years later, the administrator of the estate asked for authority from the probate court to dispose of so
much of the estate that is necessary to meet the debts of the estate
-Court granted the administrator authority to do so w/o notice to the other heirs - only to the husband
SEVERO and to the counsel (SEPTEMBER 1949 ORDER)
-in accordance with the said order, the new administrator (now of legal age OSCAR) sold some parcels of
land belonging to the estate to the city of Dagupan, wherein the public market was built
-13 years later, the new judicial administratrix ADELAIDA (was 13 when her mother died and was 15
when the 1949 order was issued) contested the validity of the sale to Dagupan, arguing no notices were
given
TC: partial decision against City of Dagupan
>>>it was essential and mandatory that the interested parties be given notices of the application for
authority to sell the estate or any protion thereof which is pending settlement in a probate court (I just
focused here because it's the point why the case was assigned)
WON the lack of notice is a ground for nullifying the sale to the City of Dagupan? YES
-the provisions of the Civil code on which the City of Dagupan relied on (that the notice to the father
was notice to the minor heirs, being assigned as the legal representative of the minor children) was
impliedly repealed by the Code of Civil Procedure on guardianship
-it does not follow that for purposes of complying with the requirement of notice under Rule 89 of the
Rules of the Court, notice to the father is notice to the children.
-Article 320 of the present Civil Code, taken from the aforesaid Article 159, incorporates the amendment
that if the property under administration is worth more than two thousand pesos (P2,000.00), the father
or the mother shall give a bond subject to the approval of the Court of First Instance.
-Sections 2, 4 and 7 of said Rule state explicitly that the notice, which must be in be writing, must be
given to the heirs, devisees, and legatees and that the court shall fix a time and place for hearing such
petition and cause notice to be given to the interested parties.
-There can be no dispute that if the heirs were duly represented by counsel or by a guardian ad litem in
the case of the minors, the notice may be given to such counsel or guardian ad litem. In this case,
however, only the surviving spouse, Severo Maneclang, was notified through his counsel. Two of the
heirs, Hector Maneclang and Oscar Maneclang, who were then of legal age, were not represented by
counsel. The remaining seven (7) children were still minors with no guardian ad litem having been
appointed to represent them. Obviously then, the requirement of notice was not satisfied. The requisite
set forth in the aforesaid sections of Rule 89 are mandatory and essential. Without them, the authority
to sell, the sale itself and the order approving it would be null and void ab initio.
-The reason behind this requirement is that the heirs, as the presumptive owners since they succeed to
all the rights and obligations of the deceased from the moment of the latter's death, are the persons
directly affected by the sale or mortage and therefore cannot be deprived of the property except in the
manner provided by law.
LEE VS. RTC QC
Summary: The decedent left legitimate and illegitimate children as well as his surviving spouse. His first
family executed an extrajudicial partition of the estate even pending probate proceedings, w/o giving
notice to the illegitimate children. The first family sold the shares of the decedent, as they partitioned it,
to FLAG. The illegitimate children now contests the validity of the sale and the CA as well as the SC
already ruled that the sale was void. Still, the purchasers of the shares insists that they are entitled to it.
The court held that it is NULL and VOID for not giving notice to the other heirs.
The intestate court has the power to execute its order with regard to the nullity of an unauthorized sale
of estate property, otherwise its power to annul the unauthorized or fraudulent disposition of estate
property would be meaningless. In other words, enforcement is a necessary adjunct of the intestate or
probate courts power to annul unauthorized or fraudulent transactions to prevent the dissipation of
estate property before final adjudication.
Although the ROC do not specifically state that the sale of an immovable property belonging to an estate
of a decedent, in a special proceeding, should be made with the approval of the court, this authority is
necessarily included in its capacity as a probate court. Therefore, it is clear that the probate court, acted
w/n its jurisdiction in issuing the Order approving the Deed of Conditional Sale.
Facts
-JUVENCIO ORTANEZ died
-he incorporated PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and owned 90% of the shares
of the corporation at the time of his death
-he left as heirs the ff:
Surviving spouse JULIANA
3 legitimate children:
Rafael
Jose
Antonio
5 illegitimate children by Ligaya Novicio
Ma. Divina Ortanez-Enderes
Jose
Romeo
Enrico Manuel
Cesar
-Rafael filed a petition for letters of administration and was granted
-pending probate proceedings, the first family (JULIANA and her children) extrajudicially partitioned the
estate of JUVENCIO w/o notifying the illegitimate children
-claiming that she owned 1,014 shares of Philinterlife as her share in the conjugal property, JULIANA sold
the shares w/ right to repurchase ifo of Filipino Loan Assistance Group (FLAG); JOSE also sold his alleged
shares to FLAG, consisting of 1,011 shares. These figures were derived from the extra-judicial partition
they made to the exclusion of the illegitimate children
-the illegitimate children, led by Ma. Divina filed a motion for appointment of special administrator of
Philinterlife shares - granted: Ma. Divina made special administrator
-Ma. Divina, as special administrator, prayed for an urgent motion to declarevoid ab inition the MOA
wherein the shares were sold to FLAG
Probate court: the sale to FLAG was void because a sale of a property of the estate w/o prior approval fo
the probate court is void and passes no title to the purchaser. Since the sales in question were entered
w/o prior approval of the court, not binding on the estate
-later, Probate court annulled the sale to Lee. Annulment was affirmed up to SC
-still, Lee and the rest of FLAG increased the authorized capital stock of Philinterlife so that the interest
of the decedent would be diluted. Various cases arised from this in SEC but the cases are anchored on
the legality of the sale of JUANA and JOSE to FLAG
57 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
-Ma. Divina petitioned for writ of execution from probate court, which the court granted
-the sheriff tried to enforce the writ but was not allowed by the security guards of FLAG's premises. So
Lee and his lawyer were sued for contempt
WON the sale between FLAG and the legitimate family is valid? NO
-it cannot be reopened as the issue of nullity was already settled long time ago. To reopen said issue
would set a bad precedent, opening the door wide open for dissatisfied parties to relitigate unfavorable
decisions no end. This is completely inimical to the orderly and efficient administration of justice.
-What we have here is a situation where some of the heirs of the decedent without securing court
approval have appropriated as their own personal property the properties of [the] Estate, to the
exclusion and the extreme prejudice of the other claimant/heirs. In other words, these heirs, without
court approval, have distributed the asset of the estate among themselves and proceeded to dispose the
same to third parties even in the absence of an order of distribution by the Estate Court. As admitted by
petitioners counsel, there was absolutely no legal justification for this action by the heirs. There being
no legal justification, petitioner has no basis for demanding that public respondent [the intestate court]
approve the sale of the Philinterlife shares of the Estate by Juliana and Jose Ortaez in favor of the
Filipino Loan Assistance Group.
-An heir can sell his right, interest, or participation in the property under administration under Art. 533
of the Civil Code which provides that possession of hereditary property is deemed transmitted to the
heir without interruption from the moment of death of the decedent. However, an heir can only alienate
such portion of the estate that may be allotted to him in the division of the estate by the probate or
intestate court after final adjudication, that is, after all debtors shall have been paid or the devisees or
legatees shall have been given their shares. This means that an heir may only sell his ideal or undivided
share in the estate, not any specific property therein.
-Juliana Ortaez and Jose Ortaez sold specific properties of the estate, without court approval. It is well-
settled that court approval is necessary for the validity of any disposition of the decedents estate.
-when the estate of the deceased person is already the subject of a testate or intestate proceeding, the
administrator cannot enter into any transaction involving it without prior approval of the probate court.
-the probate court can declare null and void the disposition of the property under administration, made
by private respondent, the same having been effected without authority from said court. It is the
probate court that has the power to authorize and/or approve the sale
-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.
WON the probate court can execute an order nullifying an invalid sale? YES
he intestate court has the power to execute its order with regard to the nullity of an unauthorized sale of
estate property, otherwise its power to annul the unauthorized or fraudulent disposition of estate
property would be meaningless. In other words, enforcement is a necessary adjunct of the intestate or
probate courts power to annul unauthorized or fraudulent transactions to prevent the dissipation of
estate property before final adjudication.
WON determination of WON shares are included or excluded in the inventory is merely provisional?
It's not provisional, it was already determined that the shares belonged to the decedent, and was in fact
from the start included in the inventory of the properties
We are not dealing here with the issue of inclusion or exclusion of properties in the inventory of the
estate because there is no question that, from the very start, the Philinterlife shares of stock were
owned by the decedent, Dr. Juvencio Ortaez. Rather, we are concerned here with the effect of the sale
made by the decedents heirs, Juliana Ortaez and Jose Ortaez, without the required approval of the
intestate court. This being so, the contention of petitioners that the determination of the intestate court
was merely provisional and should have been threshed out in a separate proceeding is incorrect.
WON the WOE should not be executed because no notice to the defendants? NO
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.
*** and so on...
D-14 DISTRIBUTI ON AN D PARTI TION OF THE E STATE
RULE 90
SECTION 1. When order for distribution of residue made.When the debts, funeral charges, and
expenses of administration, the allowance to the widow, and inheritance tax, if any, chargeable to the
estate in accordance with law, have been paid, the court, on the application of the executor or
administrator, or of a person interested in the estate, and after hearing upon notice, shall assign the
residue of the estate to the persons entitled to the same, naming them and the proportions, or parts, to
which each is entitled, and such persons may demand and recover their respective shares from the
executor or administrator, or any other person having the same in his possession. If there is a
controversy before the court as to who are the lawful heirs of the deceased person or as to the
distributive shares to which each person is entitled under the law, the controversy shall be heard and
decided as in ordinary cases.
No distribution shall be allowed until the payment of the obligations above mentioned has been made or
provided for, unless the distributees, or any of them, give a bond, in a sum to be fixed by the court,
conditioned for the payment of said obligations within such time as the court directs.
SEC. 2. Questions as to advancement to be determined.Questions as to advancement made, or
alleged to have been made, by the deceased to any heir may be heard and determined by the court
having jurisdiction of the estate proceedings; and the final order of the court thereon shall be binding on
the person raising the questions and on the heir.
SEC. 3. By whom expenses of partition paid.If at the time of the distribution the executor or
administrator has retained sufficient effects in his hands which may lawfully be applied for the expenses
of partition of the properties distributed, such expenses of partition may be paid by such executor or
administrator when it appears equitable to the court and not inconsistent with the intention of the
testator; otherwise, they shall be paid by the parties in proportion to their respective shares or interest
in the premises, and the apportionment shall be settled and allowed by the court, and, if any person
interested in the partition does not pay his proportion or share, the court may issue an execution in the
name of the executor or administrator against the party not paying for the sum assessed.
SEC. 4. Recording the order of partition of estate.Certified copies of final orders and judgments of the
court relating to the real estate or the partition thereof shall be recorded in the registry of deeds of the
province where the property is situated.
LUZON SURETY VS. QUEBRAR
Short summary: Surety company entered into an indemnity agreements wherein they agreed to become
sureties to 2 administrator's bond in favor of Pastor Quebar, and the latter agreed to pay them. Quebar
submitted a project of partition and accounts which was approved by the court, so Quebar argues that
the bond should now be cancelled (thus, not paying anything more to the surety). Surety sues the
administrator for amounts due to it. Court held that the administrators bond still exists, coterminous
with the probate proceedings. And even if there's already a project of partition, as long as not all of the
58 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
debts are paid, the administrator's job is not yet done, thus, the bond still subsists and the administrator
is still liable to pay the surety.
Administration is for the purpose of liquidation of the estate and the distribution of the residue among
the heirs and legatees. Liquidation means the determination of all the assets of the estate and payment
of all debts and expenses.
Approval of a project of partition does not necessarily terminate administration.
Facts:
-Luzon Surety Company entered into an indemnity agreement w/ Pastor Quebar:
Luzon Surety Company would issue 2 administrator's bond, P15k each, for 2 Special proceedings
Quebar and Kilayco would pay Luzon Surety P300 in advance as premium for every 12 months.or
renewed by them
Quebar and Kilayco also agrees to indemnify Luzon Surety for all damages, losses.expenses
-Quebar paid for the first year, P304.50 each
-Quebar submitted a Project Partition and Accounts
>>>CFI approved it
-when Luzon Surety demanded payment of premiums and documentary stamps for the years after the
first.
-Quebar and Kilayco filed a MOTION FOR CANCELLATION AND/OR REDUCTION OF EXECUTOR'S BOND:
heirs already received their shares (so tapos na dapat trabaho nila, di na kelangan ng bond)
>>>CFI: cancelled bonds. - As a result, Kilayco and Quebar refused to pay the amount demanded by
Luzon Surety (which amounted to almost P2.5k each ~ P5k)
-Luzon Surety filed for collection.
CFI: allowed Luzon Surety to recover: defendants liable under terms of the Indemnity Agreements, even
if they did not renew it, because they were still in force and effect until cancelled by Court order. -
Quebar and Kilayco appealed
CA: referred case to SC, questions of law involved
HELD: With the payment of the premium for the first year, the surety already assumed the risk involved,
that is, in case defendant-appellant Pastor T. Quebrar defaults in his administrative duties. The surety
became liable under the bond for the faithful administration of the estate by the administrator/executor.
Hence, for as long as defendant-appellant Pastor T. Quebrar was administrator of the estates, the bond
was held liable and inevitably, the plaintiff-appellee's liability subsists since the liability of the sureties is
co-extensive with that of the administrator
HOW TO INTERPRET LIABILITY FOR THE BOND: Look on the language of the bond itself
-HERE: the bond is practically the same as R81.1, ROC
-The statute which requires the giving of a bond becomes a part of the bond and imparts into the bond
any condition prescribed by statute
-PURPOSE OF BOND: indemnify creditors, heirs, legatees and the estate, conditioned upon the faithful
performance of the administrator's trust
- the surety is then liable under the administrator's bond, for as long as the administrator has duties to
do as such administrator/executor. Since the liability of the sureties is co-extensive with that of the
administrator and embraces the performance of every duty he is called upon to perform in the course of
administration (Deobold vs. Oppermann, 111 NY 531, 19 NE 94), it follows that the administrator is still
duty bound to respect the indemnity agreements entered into by him in consideration of the suretyship.
-EFFECT OF APROVAL OF PROJECT OF PARTITION: NONE
...liquidation: the determination of all the assets of the estate and payment of all the debts and expenses
- here, not all expenses were paid yet
project partition: estate may be partitioned even before the termination of the administration
proceedings. Even w/ the approval of the partition, the CFI could still exercise jurisidction over the
administration proceedings
WHEN SURETY LIABLE: as long as probate proceedings are ongoing
The sureties of an administration bond are liable only as a rule, for matters occurring during the term
covered by the bond. And the term of a bond does not usually expire until the administration has been
closed and terminated in the manner directed by law
-As long as the probate court retains jurisdiction of the estate, the bond contemplates a continuing
liability (Deobold vs. Oppermann, supra) notwithstanding the non-renewal of the bond by the
defendants-appellants.
CAN'T INTERPRET THE TWO BONDS SEPARATELY: the terms of the bond makes them jointly and
severally liable
-so 1 can't claim that the bond and the indemnity agreement failed to have effect since
approval of the project partition
nonpayment of stated premiums
WON PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS AND DST ARE CONDITION PRECEDENT TO EFFECTIVITY OF BONDS? NO
-no provision or condition in the bond to the effect that it will terminate at the end of the first year if the
premium for continuation thereafter is not paid. And there is no clause by which its obligation is avoided
or even suspended by the failure of the obligee to pay an annual premium
-Even on a failure to pay an annual premium, the contract ran on until affirmative action was taken to
avoid it. The obligation of the bond was therefore continuous
-The payment of the annual premium is to be enforced as part of the consideration, and not as a
condition
-"the one-year period mentioned therein refers not to the duration or lifetime of the bond, but merely to
the payment of premiums, and, consequently, does not affect at all the effectivity or efficacy of such
bond. But such non-payment alone of the premiums for the succeeding years . . . does not necessarily
extinguish or terminate the effectivity of the counter-bond in the absence of an express stipulation in the
contract making such non-payment of premiums a cause for the extinguishment or termination of the
undertaking. . . . There is no necessity for an extension or renewal of the agreement because by specific
provision thereof, the duration of the counter-bond was made dependent upon the existence of the
original bond."
CORPORATE SURETY: Suretyship became regarded as insurance
-no need to interpret the contract because NO AMBIGUITY
TORRES VS. ENCARNACION
Summary: The heirs of property who possessed the same did not want to give up the property when the
project partition awarded it to another heir. The court held that since the property was w/n the
jurisdiction of the court, and that the parties submitted themselves to the courts power, then they
cannot assail the orders of the court and allege that another action should be instituted to recover the
property from them.
A party is precluded from attacking the validity of the partition or any part of it in the guise of a
complaint for reconveyance. A party cannot, in law and in good conscience be allowed to reap the fruite
of a partition, agreement or judgment and repudiate what does not suit him. Thus, where a piece of land
has been included in a partition and there is no allegation that the inclusion was effected through
improper means or w/o petitioners knowledge, the partition barred bay further litigation on said title
and operated to bring the property under the control and jurisdiction of the court for its proper
disposition according to the tenor of the partition.
Facts
-Marcelo de Borja died
-his property was subjected to intestate estate proceedings
59 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
-the petitioners, the surviving children of Quintin de Borja (one of the children of Marcelo - thus they
were Marcelo's grandchildren) occupied a portion of the land owned by the estate.
-the project of partition, however, awarded to another heir - to Miguel Dayco - the portion occupied by
the Quintin heirs. The latter were represented during the partition. The court approved the partition
-Probate court then ordered the Quintin heirs to deliver the parcel of land to Miguel
-Quintin heirs contend that the administrator of the Marcelo de Borja Estate was to recover the property
in an action at law and not by motion in the intestate proceedings.
WON the probate courts are authorized to order the transfer of property to another person? YES
-R91.1: the probate court, having the custody and control of the entire estate, is the most logical
authority to effectuate this provision within the same estate proceeding, said proceeding being the most
convenient one in which this power and function of the court can be exercised and performed without
the necessity if requiring the parties to undergo the inconvenience, delay and expense of having to
commence and litigate an entirely different action. There can be no question of the share to be delivered
the probate court would have jurisdiction within the same estate proceeding to order him to deliver that
possession to the person entitled thereto, and we see no reason, legal or equitable, for denying the
same power to the probate court to be exercised within the same estate proceeding if the share to be
delivered happens to be in the possession of 'any other person,' especially when 'such other person' is
one of the heirs themselves who are already under the jurisdiction of the probate court in the same
estate proceeding
-the Quintin heirs are barred by estoppel: when the administrator of their grandfather's estate refused
to deliver their father's share/their share, the Quintin children asked relief from the court
INTESTATE ESTATE OF MERCEDES CANO, TIMBOL VS. CANO
Summary:
In intestate proceedings the probate court does not lose jurisdiction of the estate until after the payment
of all the debts and the remaining estate delivered to the heirs.
The probate court loses jurisdiction of an estate under administration only after the payment of all the
debts and the remaining estate delivered to the heirs entitled to receive the same. The finality of the
approval of the project of partition by itself alone does not terminate the probate proceeding.
The better practice, however, for the heir who has not received his share, is to demand his share through
a proper motion in the same probate or administration proceedings, or for reopening of the probate or
administrative proceedings if it had already been closed, and not through an independent action, which
would be tried by another court or judge which may thus reverse a decision or order of the probate on
intestate court already final and executed and re-shuffle properties long ago distribute and disposed of.
ASSIGNMENT NO. 8 ESC HEATS
RULE 91
ESCHEATS
SECTION 1. When and by whom petition filed.When a person dies intestate, seized of real or personal
property in the Philippines, leaving no heir or person by law entitled to the same, the Solicitor General or
his representative in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, may file a petition in the Regional Trial
Court of the province where the deceased last resided or In which he had estate, if he resided out of the
Philippines, setting forth the facts, and praying that the estate of the deceased be declared escheated.
SEC. 2. Order for hearing.If the petition is sufficient in form and substance, the court, by an order
reciting the purpose of the petition, shall fix a date and place for the hearing thereof, which date shall be
not more than six (6) months after the entry of the order, and shall direct that a copy of the order be
published before the hearing at least once a week for six (6) successive weeks in some newspaper of
general circulation published in the province, as the court shall deem best.
SEC. 3. Hearing and judgment.Upon satisfactory proof in open court on the date fixed in the order
that such order has been published as directed and that the person died intestate, seized of real or
personal property in the Philippines, leaving no heir or person entitled to the same, and no sufficient
cause being shown to the contrary, the court shall adjudge that the estate of the deceased in the
Philippines, after the payment of just debts and charges, shall escheat; and shall, pursuant to law, assign
the personal estate to the municipality or city where he last resided in the Philippines, and the real
estate to the municipalities or cities, respectively, in which the same is situated. If the deceased never
resided in the Philippines, the whole estate may be assigned to the respective municipalities or cities
where the same is located. Such estate shall be for the benefit of public schools, and public charitable
institutions and centers in said municipalities or cities.
The court, at the instance of an interested party, or on its own motion, may order the establishment of a
permanent trust, so that only the income from the property shall be used.
SEC. 4. When and by whom claim to estate filed.If a devisee, legatee, heir, widow, widower, or other
person entitled to such estate appears and files a claim thereto with the court within five (5) years from
the date of such judgment such person shall have possession of and title to the same, or if sold, the
municipality or city shall be accountable to, him for the proceeds, after deducting reasonable charges for
the care of the estate; but a claim not made within said time shall be forever barred.
SEC. 5. Other actions for escheat.Until otherwise provided by law, actions for reversion or escheat of
properties alienated in violation of the Constitution or of any statute shall be governed by this rule,
except that the action shall be instituted in the province where the land lies in whole or in part.
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF SAN PEDRO, LAGUNA V. COLEGIO DE SAN JOSE
Summary:
Escheat is not an ordinary civil action but a special proceeding that should be commenced not by
complaint but by petition.
Any person alleging to have a direct right or interest in the property sought to be escheated, likewise an
interested and necessary party, may properly oppose the petition for escheat or file claim thereto with
the court within the period provided in R91.4
While the ROC provisions relative e to escheat of properties do not fall in fact authorize the filing of a
motion to dismiss the petition presented for that purpose, and the Rules permitting the interposition of
a motion to dismiss to the complaint and answer, there is no reason of a procedural nature which
prevents the filing of a motion to dismiss based upon any of the grounds provided for by law for a
motion to dismiss the complaint. In such a case, the motion to dismiss plays the role of a demurrer and
the court should resolve the legal questions raised therein.
IN RE ESTATE OF LAO SAYCO
Summary:
In order that a proceeding for escheat may prosper, the following requisites must be present: 1) that a
person died intestate; 2) that he left no heirs or persons by law entitled to the same; and 3) that the
deceased left properties.
DIVINO V. MUNICIPALITY OF GUIANGA
Summary:
In the absence of jurisdiction to order an escheat due to noncompliance with jurisdictional requirements
provided under the Rules of Court, the court has no jurisdiction to grant the remedy enabling the
devisee, legatee, heir, widow, widower, or other person entitled to the estate to appear within a specific
period from the date of the decree of escheat and file a claim to the estate.
60 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
ASSIGNMENT NO. 8 : GENERAL GUARDIANS AN D GUA RDIANSH IP
RA 8369 (FAMILY COURTS ACT OF 1997)
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8369 AN ACT ESTABLISHING FAMILY COURTS, GRANTING THEM EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION OVER CHILD AND FAMILY CASES, AMENDING BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG 129,AS
AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS ACT OF 1980, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:
Section 1. Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Family Courts Act of 1997".
Sec. 2. Statement of National Policies. - The State shall protect the rights and promote the welfare of
children in keeping with the mandate of the Constitution and the precepts of the United Nations
Convention on the rights of the Child. The State shall provide a system of adjudication for youthful
offenders which takes into account their peculiar circumstances.
The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic
autonomous social institution. The courts shall preserve the solidarity of the family, provide procedures
for the reconciliation of spouses and the amicable settlement of family controversy.
Sec. 3. Establishment of Family Courts. - There shall be established a Family Court in every province and
city in the country. In case where the city is the capital of the province, the Family Court shall be
established in the municipality which has the highest population.
Sec. 4. Qualification and Training of Family Court Judges. - Sec. 15 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as
amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 15. (a) Qualification. - No person shall be appointed Regional Trial Judge or Presiding Judge of the
Family Court unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, at least thirty-five (35) years of age,
and, for at least ten (10) years, has been engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines or has held a
public office in the Philippines requiring admission to the practice of law as indispensable requisite.
"(b) Training of Family Court Judges. - The Presiding Judge, as well as the court personnel of the Family
Courts, shall undergo training and must have the experience and demonstrated ability in dealing with
child and family cases.
"The Supreme Court shall provide a continuing education program on child and family laws, procedure
and other related disciplines to judges and personnel of such courts."
Sec. 5. Jurisdiction offamily Courts. - The Family Courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear
and decide the following cases:
a) Criminal cases where one or more of the accused is below eighteen (18) years of age but not less than
nine (9) years of age but not less than nine (9) years of age or where one or more of the victims is a
minor at the time of the commission of the offense: Provided, That if the minor is found guilty, the
court shall promulgate sentence and ascertain any civil liability which the accused may have incurred.
The sentence, however, shall be suspended without need of application pursuant to Ptesidential Decree
No. 603, otherwise known as the "Child and Youth Welfare Code";
b) Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus in relation to the latter;
c) Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation thereof;
d) Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage and those relating to marital
status and property relations of husband and wife or those living together under different status and
agreements, and petitions for dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains;
e) Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment;
f) Summary judicial proceedings brought under the provisions of Executive Order No. 209, otherwise
known as the"Family Code of the Philippines";
g) Petitions for declaration of status of children as abandoned, dependent o neglected children, petitions
for voluntary or involuntary commitment of children; the suspension, termination, or restoration of
parental authority and other cases cognizable under Presidential Decree No. 603, Executive Order No.
56, (Series of 1986), and other related laws;
h) Petitions for the constitution of the family home;
i) Cases against minors cognizable under the Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended;
j) Violations of Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as the "Special Protection of Children Against
Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act," as amended by Republic Act No. 7658; and
k) Cases of domestic violence against:
1) Women - which are acts of gender based violence that results, or are likely to result in physical,
sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women; and other forms of physical abuse such as
battering or threats and coercion which violate a woman's personhood, integrity and freedom
movement; and
2) Children - which include the commission of all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation,
violence, and discrimination and all other conditions prejudicial to their development.
If an act constitutes a criminal offense, the accused or batterer shall be subject to criminal proceedings
and the corresponding penalties.
If any question involving any of the above matters should arise as an incident in any case pending in the
regular courts, said incident shall be determined in that court.
Sec. 6. Use of Income. - All Family Courts shall be allowed the use of ten per cent (10%) of their income
derived from filing and other court fees under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court for research and other
operating expenses including capital outlay: Provided, That this benefit shall likewise be enjoyed by all
courts of justice.
The Supreme Court shall promulgate the necessary guidelines to effectively implement the provisions of
this Sec.
Sec. 7. Special Provisional Remedies. - In cases of violence among immediate family members living in the
same domicile or household, the Family Court may issue a restraining order against the accused of
defendant upon verified application by the complainant or the victim for relief from abuse.
The court may order the temporary custody of children in all civil actions for their custody. The court
may also order support pendente lite, including deduction from the salary and use of conjugal home and
other properties in all civil actions for support.
Sec. 8. Supervision of Youth Detention Homes. - The judge of the Family Court shall have direct control
and supervision of the youth detention home which the local government unit shall establish to separate
the youth offenders from adult criminals: Provided, however, That alternatives to detention and
institutional care shall be made available to the accused including counseling, recognizance, bail,
community continuum, or diversions from the justice system: Provided, further, That the human rights of
the accused are fully respected in a manner appropriate to their well-being.
61 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
Sec. 9. Social Services and Counseling Division. - Under the guidance ofthe Department of Social Welfare
and Development (DSWD), a Social Services and Counseling Division (SSCD) shall be established in each
judicial region as the Supreme Court shall deem necessary based on the number of juvenile and family
cases existing in such jurisdiction. It shall provide appropriate social services to all juvenile and family
cases filed with the court and recommend the proper social action. It shall also develop programs,
formulate uniform policies and procedures, and provide technical supervision and monitoring of all SSCD
in coordination with the judge.
Sec. 10. Social Services and Counseling Division Staff. - The SSCD shall have a staff composed of qualified
social workers and other personnel with academic preparation in behavioral sciences to carry out the
duties'of conducting intake assessment, social case studies, casework and counseling, and othersocial
services that may be needed in connection with cases filed with the court: Provided, however, That in
adoption cases and in petitions for declaration of abandonment, the case studies may be prepared by
social workers of duly licensed child caring or child placement agencies, or the DSWD. When warranted,
the division shall recommend that the court avail itself of consultative services of psychiatrists,
psychologists, and other qualified specialists presently employed in other departments of
the government in connection with its cases.
The position of Social Work Adviser shall be created under the Office of the Court Administrator, who
shall monitor and supervise the SSCD ofthe Regional Trial Court.
Sec. 11. Alternative Social Services. - In accordance with Sec. 17 of this Act, in areas where no Family
Court has been established or no Regional Trial Court was designated by the Supreme Court due to the
limited number of cases, the DSWD shall designate and assign qualified, trained, and DSWD accredited
social workers of the local government units to handle juvenile and family cases filed in the designated
Regional Trial Court of the place.
Sec. 12. Privacy and Confidentiality of Proceedings. - All hearings and conciliation of the child and family
cases shall be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child's and the family's dignity
and worth, and shall respect their privacy at all stages of the proceedings. Records of the cases shall be
dealt with utmost confidentiality and the identity of parties shall not be divulged unless necessary and
with authority of the judge.
Sec. 13. Special Rules of Procedure. - The Supreme Court shall promulgate special rules of procedure for
the transfer of cases to the new courts during the transition period and for the disposition of family
cases with the best interests of the child and the protection of the family as primary consideration taking
into account the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Sec. 14. Appeals. - Decisions and orders of the court shall be appealed in the same manner and subject to
the same conditions as appeals from the ordinary Regional Trial Courts.
Sec. 15. Appropriations. - The amount necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act shall be included
in the General Appropriations Act of the year following in its enactment into law and thereafter.
Sec. 16. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - The Supreme Court, in coordination with the DSWD, shall
formulate the necessary rules and regulations for the effective implementation of the social aspects of
this Act.
Sec. 17. Transitory Provisions. - Pending the establishment of such Family Courts, the Supreme Court
shall designate from among the branches ofthe Regional Trial Court at least one Family Court in each of
the cities of Manila, Quezon, Pasay, Caloocan, Makati, Pasig, Mandaluyong, Muntinlupa, Laoag, Baguio,
Santiago, Dagupan, Olongapo, Cabanatuan, San Jose, Angeles, Cavite, Batangas, Lucena, Naga, Iriga,
Legazpi, Roxas, Iloilo, Bacolod, Dumaguete, Tacloban, Cebu, Mandaue, Tagbilaran, Surigao, Butuan,
Cagayan de Oro, Davao, General Santos, Oroquieta, Ozamis, Dipolog, Zamboanga, Pagadian, Iligan, and
in such other places as the Supreme Court may deem necessary.
Additional cases other than those provided in Sec. 5 may be assigned to the Family Courts when their
dockets permit: Provided, That such additional cases shall not be heard on the same day family cases are
heard.
In areas where there are no Family Courts, the cases referred to in Sec. 5 of this Act shall be adjudicated
by the Regional Trial Court.
Sec. 18. Separability Clause. - In case any provision of this Act is declared unconstitutional, the other
provisions shall remain in effect.
Sec. 19. Repealing Clause. - All other laws, decrees, executive orders, rules or regulations inconsistent
herewith are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly.
Sec. 20. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in at least two (2)
national newspapers of general circulation.
Approved October 28, 1997.
[A.M. No. 03-02-05-SC 2003-05-01]
RE: PROPOSED RULE ON GUARDIANSHIP OF MINORS
RESOLUTION
Acting on the letter of the Chairman of the Committee on Revision of the Rules of Court submitting for
this Courts consideration and approval the Proposed Rule on Guardianship of Minors, the Court
Resolved to APPROVE the same.
The Rule shall take effect on May 1, 2003 following its publication in a newspaper of general circulation
not later than April 15, 2003.
April 1, 2003.
<>I>Davide, Jr. C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Moralez,Callejo Sr., Azcuna, JJ., concur
RULE ON GUARDIANSHIP OF MINORS
Section 1. Applicability of the Rule. This Rule shall apply to petitions for guardianship over the person or
property, or both, of a minor.
The father and the mother shall jointly exercise legal guardianship over the person and property of their
unemancipated common child without the necessity of a court appointment. In such case, this Rule shall
be suppletory to the provisions of the Family Code on guardianship.
62 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
Sec. 2. Who may petition for appointment of guardian. On grounds authorized by law, any relative or
other person on behalf of a minor, or the minor himself if fourteen years of age or over, may petition the
Family Court for the appointment of a general guardian over the person or property, or both, of such
minor. The petition may also be filed by the Secretary of Social Welfare and Development and by the
Secretary of Health in the case of an insane minor who needs to be hospitalized.
Sec. 3. Where to file petition. A petition for guardianship over the person or property, or both, of a
minor may be filed in the Family Court of the province or city where the minor actually resides. If he
resides in a foreign country, the petition shall be flied with the Family Court of the province or city where
his property or any part thereof is situated.
Sec. 4. Grounds of petition.-The grounds for the appointment of a guardian over the person or property,
or both, of a minor are the following:
(a) death, continued absence, or incapacity of his parents;
(b) suspension, deprivation or termination of parental authority;
(c) remarriage of his surviving parent, if the latter Is found unsuitable to exercise parental authority; or
(d) when the best interests of the minor so require.
Sec. 5. Qualifications of guardians. In appointing a guardian, the court shall consider the guardians:
(a) moral character;
(b) physical, mental and psychological condition;
(c) financial status;
(d) relationship of trust with the minor;
(e) availability to exercise the powers and duties of a guardian for the full period of the guardianship;
(f) lack of conflict of interest with the minor; and
(g) ability to manage the property of the minor.
Sec. 6. Who may be appointed guardian of the person or property, or both, of a minor. In default of
parents or a court-appointed guardian, the court may appoint a guardian of the person or property, or
both, of a minor, observing as far as practicable, the following order of preference:
(a) the surviving grandparent and In case several grandparents survive, the court shall select any of them
taking Into account all relevant considerations;
(b) the oldest brother or sister of the minor over twenty-one years of age, unless unfit or disqualified;
(c) the actual custodian of the minor over twenty-one years of age, unless unfit or disqualified; and
(d) any other person, who in the sound discretion of the court, would serve the best interests of the
minor.
Sec. 7. Contents of petition. A petition for the appointment of a general guardian must allege the
following:
(a) The jurisdictional facts;
(b) The name, age and residence of the prospective ward;
(c) The ground rendering the appointment necessary or convenient;
(d) The death of the parents of the minor or the termination, deprivation or suspension of their parental
authority;
(e) The remarriage of the minors surviving parent;
(f) The names, ages, and residences of relatives within the 4th civil degree of the minor, and of persons
having him in their care and custody;
(g) The probable value, character and location of the property of the minor; and
(h) The name, age and residence of the person for whom letters of guardianship are prayed.

The petition shall be verified and accompanied by a certification against forum shopping. However, no
defect in the petition or verification shall render void the issuance of letters of guardianship.
Sec. 8. Time and notice of hearing. When a petition for the appointment of a general guardian is filed,
the court shall fix a time and place for its hearing, and shall cause reasonable notice to be given to the
persons mentioned in the petition, including the minor if he is fourteen years of age or over, and may
direct other general or special notice to be given.
Sec. 9. Case study report. The court shall order a social worker to conduct a case study of the minor and
all the prospective guardians and submit his report and recommendation to the court for its guidance
before the scheduled hearing. The social worker may intervene on behalf of the minor if he finds that the
petition for guardianship should be denied.
Sec. 10. Opposition to petition. Any interested person may contest the petition by filing a written
opposition based on such grounds as the majority of the minor or the unsuitability of the person for
whom letters are prayed, and pray that the petition be denied, or that letters of guardianship issue to
himself, or to any suitable person named in the opposition.
Sec. 11. Hearing and order for letters to issue. At the hearing of the petition, it must be shown that the
requirement of notice has been complied with. The prospective ward shall be presented to the court.
The court shall hear the evidence of the parties in support of their respective allegations. If warranted,
the court shall appoint a suitable guardian of the person or property, or both, of the minor.
At the discretion of the court, the hearing on guardianship may be closed to the public and the records of
the case shall not be released without its approval.
Sec. 12. When and how a guardian of the property for non-resident minor is appointed; notice. When
the minor resides outside the Philippines but has property in the Philippines, any relative or friend of
such minor, or any one interested in his property, in expectancy or otherwise, may petition the Family
Court for the appointment of a guardian over the property.
Notice of hearing of the petition shall be given to the minor by publication or any other means as the
court may deem proper. The court may dispense with the presence of the non-resident minor.
If after hearing the court is satisfied that such non-resident is a minor and a guardian is necessary or
convenient, it may appoint a guardian over his property.
Sec. 13. Service of final and executory judgment or order. The final and executory judgment or order
shall be served upon the Local Civil Registrar of the municipality or city where the minor resides and the
Register of Deeds of the place where his property or part thereof is situated shall annotate the same in
the corresponding title, and report to the court his compliance within fifteen days from receipt of the
order.
Sec. 14. Bond of guardian; amount; conditions.-Before he enters upon the execution of his trust, or
letters of guardianship issue, an appointed guardian may be required to post a bond in such sum as the
court shall determine and conditioned as follows:
63 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
(a) To make and return to the court, within three months after the issuance of his letters of guardianship,
a true and complete Inventory of all the property, real and personal, of his ward which shall come to his
possession or knowledge or to the possession or knowledge of any other person in his behalf;
(b) To faithfully execute the duties of his trust, to manage and dispose of the property according to this
rule for the best interests of the ward, and to provide for his proper care, custody and education;
(c) To render a true and Just account of all the property of the ward in his hands, and of all proceeds or
interest derived therefrom, and of the management and disposition of the same, at the time designated
by this rule and such other times as the court directs; and at the expiration of his trust, to settle his
accounts with the court and deliver and pay over all the property, effects, and monies remaining in his
hands, or due from him on such settlement, to the person lawfully entitled thereto; and
(d) To perform all orders of the court and such other duties as may be required by law.
Sec. 15. Where to file the bond; action thereon. The bond posted by a guardian shall be filed in the
Family Court and, In case of breach of any of its conditions, the guardian may be prosecuted in the same
proceeding for the benefit of the ward or of any other person legally interested in the property.
Whenever necessary, the court may require the guardian to post a new bond and may discharge from
further liability the sureties on the old bond after due notice to interested persons, if no injury may
result therefrom to those interested in the property.
Sec. 16. Bond of parents as guardians of property of minor. lf the market value of the property or the
annual Income of the child exceeds P50,000.00, the parent concerned shall furnish a bond In such
amount as the court may determine, but in no case less than ten per centurn of the value of such
property or annual income, to guarantee the performance of the obligations prescribed for general
guardians.
A verified petition for approval of the bond shall be flied in the Family Court of the place where the child
resides or, if the child resides in a foreign country, in the Family Court of the place where the property or
any part thereof is situated.
The petition shall be docketed as a summary special proceeding In which all incidents and issues
regarding the performance of the obligations of a general guardian shall be heard and resolved.
Sec. 17. General duties of guardian. A guardian shall have the care and custody of the person of his
ward and the management of his property, or only the management of his property. The guardian of the
property of a nonresident minor shall have the management of all his property within the Philippines.
A guardian shall perform the following duties:
(a) To pay the just debts of the ward out of the personal property and the income of the real property of
the ward, If the same is sufficient; otherwise, out of the real property of the ward upon obtaining an
order for its sale or encumbrance;
(b) To settle all accounts of his ward, and demand, sue for, receive all debts due him, or may, with the
approval of the court, compound for the same and give discharges to the debtor on receiving a fair
and just dividend of the property and effects; and to appear for and represent the ward in all actions
and special proceedings, unless another person is appointed for that purpose;
(c) To manage the property of the ward frugally and without waste, and apply the income and profits
thereon, insofar as may be necessary, to the comfortable and suitable maintenance of the ward; and
 if such income and profits be insufficient for that purpose, to sell or encumber the real or personal
property, upon being authorized by the court to do so;
(d) To consent to a partition of real or personal property owned by the ward jointly or in common with
others upon authority granted by the court after hearing, notice to relatives of the ward, and a careful
investigation as to the necessity and propriety of the proposed action;
(e) To submit to the court a verified inventory of the property of his ward within three months after his
appointment, and annually thereafter, the rendition of which may be required upon the application of
an interested person;
(f) To report to the court any property of the ward not included in the inventory which is discovered, or
succeeded to, or acquired by the ward within three months after such discovery, succession, or
acquisition; and
(g) To render to the court for its approval an accounting of the property one year from his appointment,
and every year thereafter or as often as may be required.
Sec. 18. Power and duty of the court The court may:
(a) Request the assistance of one or more commissioners in the appraisal of the property of the ward
reported in the initial and subsequent inventories;
(b) Authorize reimbursement to the guardian, other than a parent, of reasonable expenses incurred in
the execution of his trust, and allow payment of compensation for his services as the court may deem
just, not exceeding ten per centum of the net income of the ward, if any; otherwise, in such amount
the court determines to be a reasonable compensation for his services; and
(c) Upon complaint of the guardian or ward, or of any person having actual or prospective interest in the
property at the ward, require any person suspected of having embezzled, concealed, or disposed of
any money, goods or interest, or a written instrument belonging to the ward or his property to appear
for examination concerning any thereof and issue such orders as would secure the property against
such embezzlement, concealment or conveyance.
Sec. 19. Petition to sell or encumber property.-When the income of a property under guardianship is
insufficient to maintain and educate the ward, or when it is for his benefit that his personal or real
property or any part thereof be sold, mortgaged or otherwise encumbered, and the proceeds invested in
safe and productive security, or in the improvement or security of other real property, the guardian may
file a verified petition setting forth such facts, and praying that an order issue authorizing the sale or
encumbrance of the property.
Sec. 20. Order to show cause. If the sale or encumbrance is necessary or would be beneficial to the
ward, the court shall order his next of kin and all person/s interested in the property to appear at a
reasonable time and place therein specified and show cause why the petition should not be granted.
Sec. 21. Hearing on return of order; costs. At the time and place designated in the order to show cause,
the court shall hear the allegations and evidence of the petitioner and next of kin, and other persons
interested, together with their witnesses, and grant or deny the petition as the best interests of the ward
may require.
Sec. 22. Contents of order for sale or encumbrance and its duration; bond. If, after full examination, it is
necessary, or would be beneficial to the ward, to sell or encumber the property, or some portion of it,
the court shall order such sale or encumbrance the proceeds of which shall be expended for the
maintenance or the education of the ward, or invested as the circumstances may require. The order shall
specify the grounds for the sale or encumbrance and may direct that the property ordered sold be
disposed of at public sale, subject to such conditions as to the time and manner of payment, and security
where a part of the payment is deferred. The original bond of the guardian shall stand as security for the
64 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
proper appropriation of the proceeds of the sale or encumbrance, but the court may, if deemed
expedient, require an additional bond as a condition for the sale or encumbrance. The authority to sell or
encumber shall not extend beyond one year, unless renewed by the court.
Sec. 23. Court may order investment of proceeds and direct management of property. The court may
authorize and require the guardian to invest the proceeds of sales or encumbrances, and any other
money of his ward in his hands, in real or personal property, for the best interests of the ward, and may
make such other orders for the management, investment, and disposition of the property and effects, as
circumstances may warrant.
Sec. 24. Grounds for removal or resignation of guardian. When a guardian becomes insane or
otherwise incapable of discharging his trust or is found thereafter to be unsuitable, or has wasted or
mismanaged the property of the ward, or has failed to render an account or make a return for thirty days
after it is due, the court may, upon reasonable notice to the guardian, remove him as such and require
him to surrender the property of the ward to the person found to be lawfully entitled thereto.
The court may allow the guardian to resign for justifiable causes.
Upon the removal or resignation of the guardian, the court shall appoint a new one.
No motion for removal or resignation shall be granted unless the guardian has submitted the proper
accounting of the property of the ward and the court has approved the same.
Sec. 25. Ground for termination of guardianship. The court motu proprio or upon verified motion of
any person allowed to file a petition for guardianship may terminate the guardianship on the ground that
the ward has come of age or has died. The guardian shall notify the court of such fact within ten days of
its occurrence.
Sec. 26. Service of final and executory judgment or order. The final and executory judgment or order
shall be served upon the Local Civil Registrar of the municipality or city where the minor resides and the
Register of Deeds of the province or city where his property or any part thereof is situated. Both the
Local Civil Registrar and the Register of Deeds shall enter the final and executory judgment or order in
the appropriate books in their offices.
Sec. 27. Effect of the rule. This Rule amends Rules 92 to 97 inclusive of the Rules of Court on
guardianship of minors. Guardianship of incompetents who are not minors shall continue to be under
the jurisdiction of the regular courts and governed by the Rules of Court.
Sec. 28. Effectivity. - This Rule shall take effect on May 1, 2003 following its publication in a newspaper of
general circulation not later than April 15, 2003.
Rule 92 Guardianship
Venue
Sec. 1. Where to institute proceedings. - Guardianship of the person or estate of a minor or
incompetent may be instituted in the Court of First Instance of the province, or in the justice of the
peace court of the municipality, or in the municipal court of the chartered city where the minor or
incompetent person resides, and if he resides in a foreign country, in the Court of First Instance of the
province wherein his property or part thereof is situated; provided, however, that where the value of the
property of such minor or incompetent exceeds the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace or municipal
court, the proceedings shall be instituted in the Court of First Instance. In the City of Manila, the
proceedings shall be instituted in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.
Sec. 2. Meaning of word "incompetent." - Under this rule, the word "incompetent" includes persons
suffering the penalty of civil interdiction or who are hospitalized lepers, prodigals, deaf and dumb who
are unable to read and write, those who are of unsound mind, even though they have lucid intervals, and
persons not being of unsound mind, but by reason of age, disease, weak mind, and other similar causes,
cannot, without outside aid, take care of themselves and manage their property, becoming thereby an
easy prey for deceit and exploitation.
Sec. 3. Transfer of venue. - The court taking cognizance of a guardianship proceeding, may transfer the
same to the court of another province or municipality wherein the ward has acquired real property, if he
has transferred thereto his bona-fide residence, and the latter court shall have full jurisdiction to
continue the proceedings, without requiring payment of additional court fees.
Rule 93 Appointment of Guardians
Sec. 1. Who may petition for appointment of guardian for resident. - Any relative, friend, or other
person on behalf of a resident minor or incompetent who has no parent or lawful guardian, or the minor
himself if fourteen years of age or over, may petition the court having jurisdiction for the appointment of
a general guardian for the person or estate, or both, of such minor or incompetent. An officer of the
Federal Administration of the United States in the Philippines may also file a petition in favor of a ward
thereof, and the Director of Health, in favor of an insane person who should be hospitalized, or in favor
of an isolated leper.
Sec. 2. Contents of petition. - A petition for the appointment of a general guardian must show, so far as
known to the petitioner:
(a) The jurisdictional facts;
(b) The minority or incompetency rendering the appointment necessary or convenient;
(c) The names, ages, and residences of the relatives of the minor or incompetent, and of the persons
having him in their care;
(d) The probable value and character of his estate;
(e) The name of the person for whom letters of guardianship are prayed.
The petition shall be verified; but no defect in the petition or verification shall render void the issuance
of letters of guardianship.
Sec. 3. Court to set time for hearing; Notice thereof. - When a petition for the appointment of a general
guardian is filed, the court shall fix a time and place for hearing the same, and shall cause reasonable
notice thereof to be given to the persons mentioned in the petition residing in the province, including
the minor if above 14 years of age or the incompetent himself, and may direct other general or special
notice thereof to be given.
Sec. 4. Opposition to petition. - Any interested person may, by filing a written opposition, contest the
petition on the ground of majority of the alleged minor, competency of the alleged incompetent, or the
unsuitability of the person for whom letters are prayed, and may pray that the petition be dismissed, or
that letters of guardianship issue to himself, or to any suitable person named in the opposition.
Sec. 5. Hearing and order for letters to issue. - At the hearing of the petition the alleged incompetent
must be present if able to attend, and it must be shown that the required notice has been given.
Thereupon the court shall hear the evidence of the parties in support of their respective allegations, and,
if the person in question is a minor, or incompetent it shall appoint a suitable guardian of his person or
estate, or both, with the powers and duties hereinafter specified.
Sec. 6. When and how guardian for nonresident appointed; Notice. - When a person liable to be put
under guardianship resides without the Philippines but has estate therein, any relative or friend of such
person, or any one interested in his estate, in expectancy or otherwise, may petition a court having
jurisdiction for the appointment of a guardian for the estate, and if, after notice given to such person and
in such manner as the court deems proper, by publication or otherwise, and hearing, the court is
satisfied that such nonresident is a minor or incompetent rendering a guardian necessary or convenient,
it may appoint a guardian for such estate.
65 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
Sec. 7. Parents as guardians. - When the property of the child under parental authority is worth two
thousand pesos or less, the father or the mother, without the necessity of court appointment, shall be
his legal guardian. When the property of the child is worth more than two thousand pesos, the father or
the mother shall be considered guardian of the child's property, with the duties and obligations of
guardians under these rules, and shall file the petition required by section 2 thereof. For good reasons
the court may, however, appoint another suitable person.
Sec. 8. Service of judgment. - Final orders or judgments under this rule shall be served upon the civil
registrar of the municipality or city where the minor or incompetent person resides or where his
property or part thereof is situated.
FAMILY CODE
Chapter 3. Effect of Parental Authority Upon the Persons of the Children
Art. 220. The parents and those exercising parental authority shall have with the respect to
their unemancipated children or wards the following rights and duties:
(1) To keep them in their company, to support, educate and instruct them by right precept and good
example, and to provide for their upbringing in keeping with their means;
(2) To give them love and affection, advice and counsel, companionship and understanding;
(3) To provide them with moral and spiritual guidance, inculcate in them honesty, integrity, self-
discipline, self-reliance, industry and thrift, stimulate their interest in civic affairs, and inspire in them
compliance with the duties of citizenship;
(4) To furnish them with good and wholesome educational materials, supervise their activities,
recreation and association with others, protect them from bad company, and prevent them from
acquiring habits detrimental to their health, studies and morals;
(5) To represent them in all matters affecting their interests;
(6) To demand from them respect and obedience;
(7) To impose discipline on them as may be required under the circumstances; and
(8) To perform such other duties as are imposed by law upon parents and guardians. (316a)
Art. 221. Parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall be civilly liable for the injuries and
damages caused by the acts or omissions of their unemancipated children living in their company and
under their parental authority subject to the appropriate defenses provided by law. [2180(2)a and (4)a ]
Art. 222. The courts may appoint a guardian of the child's property or a guardian ad litem when the best
interests of the child so requires. (317)
Art. 223. The parents or, in their absence or incapacity, the individual, entity or institution exercising
parental authority, may petition the proper court of the place where the child resides, for an order
providing for disciplinary measures over the child. The child shall be entitled to the assistance of counsel,
either of his choice or appointed by the court, and a summary hearing shall be conducted wherein the
petitioner and the child shall be heard.
However, if in the same proceeding the court finds the petitioner at fault, irrespective of the merits of
the petition, or when the circumstances so warrant, the court may also order the deprivation or
suspension of parental authority or adopt such other measures as it may deem just and proper. (318a)
Art. 224. The measures referred to in the preceding article may include the commitment of the child for
not more than thirty days in entities or institutions engaged in child care or in children's homes duly
accredited by the proper government agency.
The parent exercising parental authority shall not interfere with the care of the child whenever
committed but shall provide for his support. Upon proper petition or at its own instance, the court may
terminate the commitment of the child whenever just and proper. (391a)
Chapter 4. Effect of Parental Authority Upon the Property of the Children
Art. 225. The father and the mother shall jointly exercise legal guardianship over the property of
the unemancipated common child without the necessity of a court appointment. In case of
disagreement, the father's decision shall prevail, unless there is a judicial order to the contrary.
Where the market value of the property or the annual income of the child exceeds P50,000, the parent
concerned shall be required to furnish a bond in such amount as the court may determine, but not less
than ten per centum (10%) of the value of the property or annual income, to guarantee the performance
of the obligations prescribed for general guardians.
A verified petition for approval of the bond shall be filed in the proper court of the place where the child
resides, or, if the child resides in a foreign country, in the proper court of the place where the property
or any part thereof is situated.
The petition shall be docketed as a summary special proceeding in which all incidents and issues
regarding the performance of the obligations referred to in the second paragraph of this Article shall be
heard and resolved.
The ordinary rules on guardianship shall be merely suppletory except when the child is under substitute
parental authority, or the guardian is a stranger, or a parent has remarried, in which case the ordinary
rules on guardianship shall apply. (320a)
Art. 226. The property of the unemancipated child earned or acquired with his work or industry or by
onerous or gratuitous title shall belong to the child in ownership and shall be devoted exclusively to the
latter's support and education, unless the title or transfer provides otherwise.
The right of the parents over the fruits and income of the child's property shall be limited primarily to the
child's support and secondarily to the collective daily needs of the family. (321a, 323a)
Art. 227. If the parents entrust the management or administration of any of their properties to
an unemancipated child, the net proceeds of such property shall belong to the owner. The child shall be
given a reasonable monthly allowance in an amount not less than that which the owner would have paid
if the administrator were a stranger, unless the owner, grants the entire proceeds to the child. In any
case, the proceeds thus given in whole or in part shall not be charged to the child's legitime.
GARCHITORENA V. SOTELO
Summary: Creditor of the wards applied that he be made their guardians, and while he was so, he
mismanaged and misappropriated the properties of the wards. Present guardian now wants to nullify
the foreclosure sale which the former guardian/creditor procured allegedly through fraud. Court ruled
ifo of wards and new guardian.
*If the interested person is a creditor and mortgagee of the estate minor, he cannot be appointed
guardian of the person and property of the latter. No man can serve two masters (Relevant to RULE 93.4)
Facts:
Cabildo St. Property:
-Originally owned by Asuncion Jarata
-Jarata mortgaged it to PERFECTO GABRIEL
to secure a loan P6k w/12%interest
2 1/2 JARATA died, left 8 minor children by her husband CELERINO GATCHALIAN
JARATA executed a will 2 days before her death
Will was prepared by PERFECTO GABRIEL
The property was devised to her 8 minor children
GABRIEL was named the guardian of the children
Husband GATCHALIAN named the executor
GABRIEL, atty for GATCHALIAN, filed will for probate
Will admitted to probate
GABRIEL presented a project of partition:
66 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
CELERINO waived usufructuary right over his wife's estate ifo children
PROBATE COURT: estate closed, GATCHALIAN relieved as executor
GATCHALIAN thereafter appointed as GUARDIAN of the minor children and their
property (upon his application)
>admitted in the application that he already received the minor's property, but did not
disclose that it was mortgaged to him
GABRIEL acted as guardian for 6 years, when he also acted as their creditor
>finances of the wards deteriorated considerably:
last accounting by Gabriel showed deficit of P3,730.10
Gabriel executed a 2nd mortgage on the property ifo Sta. Clara Monastery, of
which he was the attorney in fact, to secure payment of an additional load of
P2500, w/10% per annum. (P2500 was paid to Fernandez Hermanos on account
of a larger sum misappropriated by Gatchalian)
-PERFECTO GABRIEL foreclosed the lot, bought it in the public auction
GATCHALIAN (father of the wards) wanted to raise capital to engage in business, told Gabriel
that one NAVARRO was willing to lend him P12k on the property in question
GABRIEL told GATCHALIAN that to be able to "make a transaction", GABRIEL would sue
GATCHALIAN, bid for the property and then resell it to GATCHALIAN - scheme agreed to by
GATCHALIAN
>so GABRIEL sued GATCHALIAN for foreclosure of the mortgage as guardian of his minor
children
>pursuant to the scheme, GATCHALIAN filed an ANSWER admitting each and every allegation of
GABRIEL
>GABRIEL, as attorney for STA.CLARA filed complaint in intervention to foreclose the 2nd
mortgage; GATCHALIAN also admitted each and every allegation
TC: GATCHALIAN pay with interest plus sold mortgage property to GABRIEL as the highest bidder
of the property
-GABRIEL transferred the property to CARMEN GARCHITORENA
before the sale was approved by the court, GABRIEL agreed to sell the property to
GARCHITORENA
GARCHITORENA indorsed and delivered a check to GABRIEL of P1k on account of the purchase
price
GATCHALIAN attempted to intervene and file a motion for postponement of GABRIEL's motion
to confirm the sale
>BUT was then agreed to proceed with the sale, relying on GABRIEL's renewed promise
to resell the property to him
>In accordance with this promise, he looked for a broker and a prospective lender but
was warned that it would have been improper for GATCHITORENA to appear as the
purchaser, he being the guardian of the minors
>He then went back the next day to the law office of GABRIEL but there found
GARCHITORENA already executing a mortgage deed -all these were corroborated by
GARCHITORENA's witnesses
SALE was approved by the court
GABRIEL executed a deed conveying the property to GARCHITORENA
GARCHITORENA mortgage lot simultaneously to STA.CLARA to secure payment of a loan
w/interest.
-VICENTE SOTELO: Guardian of 8 minor children of ASUNCION JARATA (original owner)
he bought action to annul the judgment obtained by GABRIEL (foreclosure and for sale): Judgment
obtained through fraud
-GARCHITORENA transferred it to JESUS PELLON
-PELLON was able to acquire Torrens Certificate for the said land
joined PELLON as a party defendant
TC: ifo SOTELO
new title of PELLON CANCELLED and REPLACED by new one in the name of the minors
GABRIEL & GARCHITORENA appealed, PELLON did not
CA (en banc): affirmed w/ modification
New title ifo of minor children of JARATA (wards of SOTELO) subject to the alleged mortgage ifo
Santa Clara Monastery
Amount plaintiff shall have paid on account of mortgage be deducted from amounts due to
GABRIEL or ST. CLARA MONASTERY, w/ interests
GABRIEL and GARCHITORENA shall render accounting of income derived by them from date
minors were ejected until date it was placed in receivership
GARCHITORENA may sue GABRIEL in a different suit
WON THE FACTS PROVEN SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH A COLLUSION BETWEEN GABRIEL AND
GATCHALIAN IN THE FORECLOSURE SUIT INSTITUTED BY GABRIEL AGAINST GATCHALIAN? NO
1. Gabriel was the predecessor of GATCHALIAN as the guardian of the property of his wards. He
was the one who executed the STA. CLARA mortgage on behalf of the minors
-he had the duty to preserve the estate of his wards
-he was formerly the employer and legal counselor of Gatchalian (therefore, had a
Predominating influence over Gatchalian)
-elements of confindence and active good faith essential in the relation of a guardian and ward.
-he argues that the minors and Gatchalian would have no defense anyway if he sued him: court
said that if he wanted to collect his mortgage, he should have informed the court of the situation
so that the court could authorize the sale of the property to best advantage and save something
for the minors
2. Gabriel should have known that he could not serve antagonistic interests, and if the court had
been apprised that he was a creditor and mortgagee of the estate, he would not have been
appointed as guardian
3. No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will
hold to the one, and despise the other." The truth of this Divine doctrine is exemplified in the
guardianship of the Gatchalian minors, wherein Perfecto Gabriel undertook to serve two
masters; Perfecto Gabriel or the Santa Clara Monastery as mortgagee and the said minors as
mortgagors. Of course, the latter were "despised" and had to institute a series of litigations
lasting now over ten years to secure redress.
WON the minors were prejudiced by the foreclosure of the mortgage? YES
-Gabriel bought the property at P9,600 and immediately sold it to Garchitorena for P10,367, thereby
enriching himself at the expense of his former wards. Regardless of the Machuca offer to buy, or the
Navarro offer to loan on, the property in question, and assuming that the sale by Gabriel to Garchitorena
was genuine as contended by the petitioners, and not a mere scheme to frustrate the minors' recovery
of said property as contended by the respondent, Gabriel's attempt to profit, however little, at the
expense of the minors cannot be sanctioned by the Court. It was a breach of trust which the law
condemns under any and all circumstances
WON there's extrinsic or collateral fraud by reason of which the judgment rendered in the foreclosure
suit may be annulled in this separate action?
Nomahabairrelevant to guardianship
WON the sale by Gabriel to Gatchitorena was valid (WON she was a purchaser in GF)? NO
67 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
-As a matter of act, Garchitorena has completely divested herself of the title to the property in question,
which now stands in the name of Jesus Pellon, who did not appeal and thereby acquiesced in the
judgment ordering the cancellation of said title. Garchitorena's conduct in simulating the transfer of the
property in question to Jesus Pellon after the commencement of this action was inconsistent with
honesty and good faith
Disposition: judgment affirmed
ASSIGNMENT NO.9 : BONDS OF GUARDIANS
Rule 94 Bonds of Guardians
Sec. 1. Bond to be given before issuance of letters; Amount; Conditions.- Before a guardian appointed
enters upon the execution of his trust, or letters of guardianship issue, he shall give a bond, in such sum
as the court directs, conditioned as follows:
(a) To make and return to the court, within three (3) months, a true and complete inventory of all the
estate, real and personal, of his ward which shall come to his possession or knowledge or to the
possession or knowledge of any other person for him;
(b) To faithfully execute the duties of his trust, to manage and dispose of the estate according to these
rules for the best interests of the ward, and to provide for the proper care, custody, and education of
the ward;
(c) To render a true and just account of all the estate of the ward in his hands, and of all proceeds or
interest derived therefrom, and of the management and disposition of the same, at the time
designated by these rules and such other times as the court directs; and at the expiration of his trust
to settle his accounts with the court and deliver and pay over all the estate, effects, and moneys
remaining in his hands, or due from him on such settlement, to the person lawfully entitled thereto;
(d) To perform all orders of the court by him to be performed.
Sec. 2. When new bond may be required and old sureties discharged. - Whenever it is deemed
necessary, the court may require a new bond to be given by the guardian, and may discharge the
sureties on the old bond from further liability, after due notice to interested persons, when no injury can
result therefrom to those interested in the estate.
Sec. 3. Bonds to be filed; Actions thereon. - Every bond given by a guardian shall be filed in the office of
the clerk of the court, and, in case of the breach of a condition thereof, may be prosecuted in the same
proceeding or in a separate action for the use and benefit of the ward or of any other person legally
interested in the estate.
GUERRERO V. TERAN
Summary: Present guardian of the minors collects from the administrator of the estate from whom the
minors had interest. However, it appears that the former guardian of the minors took over the
management of their interests in the said estate for some time before being replaced. Court held that
the guardian, and not the administrator of the estate from whom the minors had interest, is liable for
the indebtedness collected by the present guardian of the minors, as she did give a bond and the mere
fact of removal did not relieve her from any liability.
*The bond of the guardian is a continuing one against the obligors and their estates until all of its
conditions are fulfilled. The mere fact that defendant was removed as guardian did not relieve her or her
bondsmen from liability during the time she was duly acting as such guardian (Duration of liability. R94.3)
Facts:
-Antonio Sanchez Munoz died. His estate was administrated by LEOPOLDO TERAN from SEPT 1901,
entering a bond of $10k gold for faithful compliance.
-it appears that Antonio Sanchez Munoz had the minors Maria Manuela and Maria del Carmen Sanchez
Munoz as heirs.
-March 1902: MARIA MUNOZ y GOMEZ was appointed, after paying bond for faithful compliance of
duties, as the GUARDIAN of the 2 minors
-OCT1906: MARIA MUNOZ y GOMEZ was removed as guardian because she was not a resident of the
Philippines at the time of her appointment. Felix Samson was appointed as guardian for the heirs,
executed a bond for faithful compliance.
-March 1908: SALVADOR GUERRERO, the present guardian of the minors (though no info when he was
appointed) filed action for recovery of P4,129.56 and costs from LEOPOLDO TERAN
ANSWER: only admitted P188.39 plus alleged the plaintiff owed him P482.14 so the plaintiff even owes
him P239.75
TC: TERAN liable to the plaintiff for only P3447.46 with 6%
-TERAN appealed
WON TERAN, as the administrator of the estate of Antonio Sanchez Munoz from September 1901 until
October 1906, is liable to the plaintiff for the items listed (comprised of loans made to different
persons for different accounts)? NO
-Teran was the administrator of the estate of the minors only from September 1901 when he was
appointed, until March 1902, when MARIA MUNOZ y GOMEZ was appointed as guardians for the minors
and the latter's estate.
-as such, MARIA MUNOZ y GOMEZ was the actual guardian of the minors and their estate and therefore,
is responsible to the minors for the administration of their interests in the estate
-if during this time she allowed other persons to handle the property of her wards, and if any
mismanagement or loss occurred thereby, the responsibility must fall upon her
-The mere fact that she had been removed as said guardian did not relieve her, nor her bondsmen from
liability to the minors during the time that she was duly acting as said guardian.
-MARIA MUNOZ GOMEZ may have a COA against the persons to whom she entrusted the direct
management of the estate.
-summary of liabilities (no dates when amounts were due)
TERAN liable to plaintiffs for the fruits and profits from their interests in the estate of ANTONIO
SANCHZ MUNOZ from September 1901 to March 1902 - which is only P188.39
DONA MARIA MUNOZ liable to plaintiffs for the fruits and profit resulting from the management
of the estate from MARCH 1902 until OCTOBER 1906
[OBITER] WON it was proper to remove DONA MARIA y MUNOZ as the guardian on the ground that
she was not residing in RP? YES
There is nothing in the law which requires the courts to appoint residents only as administrators or
guardians. However, notwithstanding the fact that there are no statutory requirements upon this
question, the courts, charged with the responsibilities of protecting the estates of deceased persons,
wards of the estate, etc., will find much difficulty in complying with this duty by appointing
administrators and guardians who are not personally subject to their jurisdiction. Notwithstanding that
there is no statutory requirement, the courts should not consent to the appointment of persons as
administrators and guardians who are not personally subject to the jurisdiction of our courts here.
ARROYO V. JUNGSAY
Summary: the sureties of the absconding former guardian, who is being sued for the bond he executed
upon appointment, are invoking the principle of excussion to escape liability. Court held that they must
first point out available properties first to be able to enjoy said principle
*The sureties of a guardian against whom judgment has been entered, may demand the benefit of a levy
(exclusion) of the principals property, even when judgment is rendered against both surety and
68 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
principal. But to do so, they must point out property subject to seizure in an amount sufficient to satisfy
the debt. (Right of Surety. R94.3)
Facts
-FLORENTINO HILARIO JUNGSAY was appointed as guardian of the imbecile TITO JOCSING. He executed a
bond, secured by as surety executed by the bondsmen of JUNGSAY.
-HILARIO absconded with the funds of the ward.
-so new guardian of TITO, JOSE M. A. ARROYO, sued JUNGSAY and his bondsmen for the P6k absconded,
plus interests and costs
TC: BOTH JUNGSAY and BONDSMEN liable
-bondsmen appealed: they should be afforded the benefit of excusion, thus, should be credited P4,400
(value of certain property of the absconding guardian, which is however in the exclusive possession of 3P
under claim of ownership
WON bondsmen should be credited w/ P4400 and thus benefit from the principle of excusion? NO.
-Surety has benefit of levy (excusion), even when the judgment is rendered against both the surety and
the principal. [A1834, NCC]
-BUT [A1832, NCC]: the surety must point out property of the principal creditor which can be sold and
which is sufficient to cover the amount of the debt.
-MANRESA EXPLANATION: property should be
Realizable
Situated w/n territory of the court/state - the attachment of property situated a great distance
away would be a lengthy and extremely difficult proceeding and one that, if actually not
opposed to, yet does not very well accord w/ the purpose of the bond (to insure the fulfillment
of the obligation + furnish the creditor with the means of obtaining its fulfillment w/o hindrance
or delays)
-HILL & CO v. BOURCIER and POND: plea of excusion does not stay the proceedigns but judgment will be
modified so as to require the creditor to proceed by execution against the property of the principal and
to exhaust it before resorting to the property of the surety.
-HERE: The property pointed out by the sureties is not sufficient to pay the indebtedness; it is not
salable; it is so encumbered that third parties have, as we have indicated, full possession under claim of
ownership without leaving to the absconding guardian a fractional or reversionary interest without
determining first whether the claim of one or more of the occupants is well founded.
RULE 95 SEL LING AND ENCUMBERING PROPERTY OF WARD
Sec. 1. Petition of guardian for leave to sell or encumber estate. - When the income of an estate under
guardianship is insufficient to maintain the ward and his family, or to maintain and educate the ward
when a minor, or when it appears that it is for the benefit of the ward that his real estate or some part
thereof be sold, or mortgaged or otherwise encumbered, and the proceeds thereof put out at interest,
or invested in some productive security, or in the improvement or security of other real estate of the
ward, the guardian may present a verified petition to the court by which he was appointed setting forth
such facts, and praying that an order issue authorizing the sale or encumbrance.
Sec. 2. Order to show cause thereupon. - If it seems probable that such sale or encumbrance is
necessary, or would be beneficial to the ward, the court shall make an order directing the next of kin of
the ward, and all persons interested in the estate, to appear at a reasonable time and place therein
specified to show cause why the prayer of the petition should not be granted.
Sec. 3. Hearing on return of order; Costs. - At the time and place designated in the order to show cause,
the court shall hear the proofs and allegations of the petitioner and next of kin, and other persons
interested, together with their witnesses, and grant or refuse the prayer of the petition as the best
interests of the ward require. The court shall make such order as to costs of the hearing as may be just.
Sec. 4. Contents of order for sale or encumbrance, and how long effective; Bond. - If, after full
examination, it appears that it is necessary, or would be beneficial to the ward, to sell or encumber the
estate, or some portion of it, the court shall order such sale or encumbrance and that the proceeds
thereof be expended for the maintenance of the ward and his family, or the education of the ward, if a
minor, or for the putting of the same out at interest, or the investment of the same as the circumstances
may require. The order shall specify the causes why the sale or encumbrance is necessary or beneficial,
and may direct that estate ordered sold be disposed of at either public or private sale, subject to such
conditions as to the time and manner of payment, and security where a part of the payment is deferred,
as in the discretion of the court are deemed most beneficial to the ward. The original bond of the
guardian shall stand as security for the proper appropriation of the proceeds of the sale, but the judge
may, if deemed expedient, require an additional bond as a condition for the granting of the order of sale.
No order of sale granted in pursuance of this section shall continue in force more than one (1) year after
granting the same, without a sale being had.
Sec. 5. Court may order investment of proceeds and direct management of estate. - The court may
authorize and require the guardian to invest the proceeds of sales or encumbrances, and any other of his
ward's money in his hands, in real estate or otherwise, as shall be for the best interest of all concerned,
and may make such other orders for the management, investment, and disposition of the estate and
effects, as circumstances may require.
ZABATE VS. PONCE
[R95.1 & 2]
Summary: 2nd wife of great grandfather of minor contested the orders in the guardianship proceedings
because there was no notice given to her (she alleging that she owned the said properties)
*NEXT OF KIN def (citing LOPEZ V. TEODORO)
Facts:
-Ignacia Zabate was the step-grandmother (2nd wife of minor's great grandfather).
-Minor was JOSE PONCE
-there was an ongoing guardianship proceeding of the minor JOSE PONCE. NO NOTICE was given to them
-she thus filed a MOTION FOR ANNULMENT OF PREVIOUS ORDERS:
1. Authorizing mortgage of minor's interests in 2 lots
2. Sale of the minor's interests in the 2 lots
GROUND: lack of notice
TC: Denied motion
The movant being merely the step-grandmother, not a relative, she is not entitled to notice of
the guardianship proceedings
WON a step-grand-grandmother is entitled to receive notice in a guardianship proceeding? NO.
1. only the NEXT OF KIN OF THE WARD are entitled to notice of the guardianship proceedings
-NEXT OF KIN (LOPEZ v. TEODORO): those relatives whose relationship is such that they are
entitled to share in the minor's estate as distributees
-HERE: IGNACIA is the 2nd wife of the minor's great grandfather
so ABSOLUTELY NO INTEREST - not even a remote heir in case of the minor's death (not related
by blood to the minor)
2. Even if true that the properties mortgaged and sold belonged to her and her children, she should have
filed a separate action in the court of proper jurisdiction
LOPEZ VS. TEODORO
69 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
Summary: Sister of incapacitated ward contested the sale of the only property of the ward, alleging that
there was no notice nor hearing first conducted by the court before authorizing the said sale. The court
held that she, not being an heir or a creditor prejudiced by the said sale, is not entitled to notice nor to
contest the said sale.
*NEXT OF KIN [R95.2]: not the next of kindred but those relatives who share in the estate according to
the statute of distribution, including those claiming per stripes or by representation
*Only the children have an interest in the land of their father, besides the creditors, and only they or the
creditors who may have been prejudiced by the sale have a right to object thereto. [Opposition to sale or
encumbrance, by whom filed, R95.2]
*Appeal, not certiorari or mandamus, is the proper remedy against an order of the court authorizing the
sale of the wards property [Remedy against order of the court authorizing the guardian to sell the
wards property, R96.4]
Facts:
-Eulalio Lopez, Sr. is already incapacitated. He is under the judicial guardianship of Eulalio Lopez, Jr. But
is under the actual care and custody of his sister SALVACION LOPEZ
-EL Sr. owned absolutely a hacienda in SILAY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL.
-there were claims against the estate of the ward by the Gamboas (Senen and Adelaida) which amounts
to P7,312 plus 12%. These loans were properly authorized by the court.
TC: allowed the payment of the court, and if no funds to pay the debt, guardian was ordered to take the
necessary steps for the sale of some of the property of the guardianship
*said order authorized the sale of some of the property w/o notice to the next of kin of the ward
and all persons interested in the estate
*no hearing to show cause why the sale should not be allowed
*no specification WON sale should be done privately or publicly
-pursuant to the order, EL Jr. sold the hacienda, the only property of EL Sr., to JESUS JALBUENA.
JALBUENA bound himself to pay the mortgage debt and other obligations of the said property.
-Salvacion Lopez (sister of EL Sr. and who had actual care and custody of EL Sr.) filed MR of court's order
authorizing sale: it was prejudicial to EL Sr.'s interest
>>>MR DENIED
>>>SO SALVACION filed PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND MANDAMUS
WON CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION WAS THE PROPER REMEDY FOR CONTESTING THE ORDER? NO
- Without deciding the legality or illegality of the sale, or whether this matter should be ventillated in an
ordinary action instead of in a proceeding for certiorari, it is evident that appeal and
not certiorari or mandamus is the proper remedy. Unquestionably, the court of first instance in which
the guardianship proceedings were pending had jurisdiction to order the questioned sale. The court's
jurisdiction is not disputed. Nor was there an abuse of discretion, judging from the averments in the
answers. It appears that the outstanding indebtedness of the guardianship properly and legally incurred
amounted to P36,833.66, part of which was due the petitioner for the support and maintenance of the
incapacitated.
WON the order of the court authorizing the sale w/o hearing the next of kin of the ward was proper?
YES
1. The outstanding debt of the ward at the time of sale was P36,833.66. Part of this was due to
SALVACION for support and maintenance of EL Sr.
2. SALVACION had no legal interest in her complaint.
a. She is only the ward's sister - not a forced heir so not prejudiced by the sale she seeks to
impugn
b. Even if she was a creditor, her credit was not impaired but was in fact paid

WON SALVACION IS A "NEXT OF KIN" WHICH IS ENTITLED TO TAKE PART IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR
THE DETERMINATION OF THE PROPERNESS OF THE SALE? NO
-NEXT OF KIN:
-relatives whose relationship is such that they are entitled to share in the estate as distributees
-not the next of kindred but those relatives who share in the estate according to the statute of
distribution including those claiming stripes or by representation
*here, sale was not opposed by the children nor the creditors. If ever there were creditors prejudiced,
they have the right to object to the sale
RULE 96 GENERAL POWE RS AND DUTIES OF GUA RDIANS
Sec. 1. To what guardianship shall extend. - A guardian appointed shall have the care and custody of the
person of his ward, and the management of his estate, or the management of the estate only, as the
case may be. The guardian of the estate of a nonresident shall have the management of all the estate of
the ward within the Philippines, and no court other than that in which such guardian was appointed shall
have jurisdiction over the guardianship.
Sec. 2. Guardian to pay debts of ward. - Every guardian must pay the ward's just debts out of his
personal estate and the income of his real estate, if sufficient; if not, then out of his real estate upon
obtaining an order for the sale or encumbrance thereof.
Sec. 3. Guardian to settle accounts, collect debts, and appear in actions for ward. - A guardian must
settle all accounts of his ward, and demand, sue for, and receive all debts due him, or may, with the
approval of the court, compound for the same and give discharges to the debtor, on receiving a fair and
just dividend of the estate and effects; and he shall appear for and represent his ward in all actions and
special proceedings, unless another person be appointed for that purpose.
Sec. 4. Estate to be managed frugally, and proceeds applied to maintenance of ward. - A guardian must
manage the estate of his ward frugally and without waste, and apply the income and profits thereon, so
far as may be necessary, to the comfortable and suitable maintenance of the ward and his family, if
there be any; and if such income and profits be insufficient for that purpose, the guardian may sell or
encumber the real estate, upon being authorized by order so to do, and apply so much of the proceeds
as may be necessary to such maintenance.
Sec. 5. Guardian may be authorized to join in partition proceedings after hearing. - The court may
authorize the guardian to join in an assent to a partition of real or personal estate held by the ward
jointly or in common with others, but such authority shall only be granted after hearing, upon such
notice to relatives of the ward as the court may direct, and a careful investigation as to the necessity and
propriety of the proposed action.
Sec. 6. Proceedings when person suspected of embezzling or concealing property of ward. - Upon
complaint of the guardian or ward, or of any person having actual or prospective interest in the estate of
the ward as creditor, heir, or otherwise, that anyone is suspected of having embezzled, concealed, or
conveyed away any money, goods, or interest, or a written instrument, belonging to the ward or his
estate, the court may cite the suspected person to appear for examination touching such money, goods,
interest, or instrument, and make such orders as will secure the estate against such embezzlement,
concealment or conveyance.
Sec. 7. Inventories and accounts of guardians, and appraisement of estates. - A guardian must render to
the court an inventory of the estate of his ward within three (3) months after his appointment, and
annually after such appointment an inventory and account, the rendition of any of which may be
compelled upon the application of an interested person. Such inventories and accounts shall be sworn to
by the guardian. All the estate of the ward described in the first inventory shall be appraised. In the
appraisement the court may request the assistance of one or more of the inheritance tax appraisers. And
70 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
whenever any property of the ward not included in an inventory already rendered is discovered, or
succeeded to, or acquired by the ward, like proceedings shall be had for securing an inventory and
appraisement thereof within three (3) months after such discovery, succession, or acquisition.
Sec. 8. When guardian's accounts presented for settlement. - Expenses and compensation allowed. Upon
the expiration of a year from the time of his appointment, and as often thereafter as may be required, a
guardian must present his account to the court for settlement and allowance. In the settlement of the
account, the guardian, other than a parent, shall be allowed the amount of his reasonable expenses
incurred in the execution of his trust and also such compensation for his services as the court deems just,
not exceeding fifteen per centum of the net income of the ward.
IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF THE MINOR ROY REGINALD LELINA. SEVERO VILORIA VS.
ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Summary: Administrator of Veteran Affairs claims that the amounts received by the ward was wrongfully
issued, so sought refund (and alleging that their finding that there was erroneous issuance was final and
conclusive). The court held that status quo should be observed, that the Administrator cannot make
their findings binding upon RP courts when they are seeking relief from it, and the claim arguing
erroneous payment should be tried separately.
*Conflicts regarding the ownership or title to the property in the hands of the guardian in his capacity as
such, should be litigated in a separate proceeding, the court in the guardianship proceeding being solely
concerned with the wards care and custody and proper administration of his properties. [questions of
title to property in the hands of the Guardian. R.96.1]
*After a guardian has been appointed by the court for the minor child of one who is alleged to have been
a member of the Armed Forces, and the guardian collects money by way of insurance benefits and
unpaid salary, he becomes the lawful possessor of the amounts paid and cannot be deprived thereof on
the sole allegation of the Veterans Administrator that the money was erroneously paid, the burden being
upon the Administrator to satisfy the court that the alleged mistake was really committed [Lawful
possession of the Wards Estate, R96.2]
Facts:
-Allegedly, CONSTANCIO LELINA served as a member of the US ARMED FORCES during the Japanese war.
-CONSTANCIO had a son named ROY REGINALD LELINA.
-When CONSTANCIO died, ROY REGINALD received the arrears pay, insurance, and other benefits from
the US VETERANS ADMINISTRATION.
-SEVERO VILORiA was appointed guardian of ROY REGINALD. The guardian was authorized to withdraw
from the estate of his ward the sum of P30 a month for ROY REGINALD's support and other
expenditures.
-in the guardianship proceedings...
...US VETERANS ADMINISTRATION filed motion to stop further payment of monthly allowances to the
minor
allegedly, they received certain letters from its central office in Washington DC to the effect
that CONSTANCIO LELINA was not engaged in guerilla or other service in the armed forces of US,
thus not entitled to payment of gratuitous National Service Life Insurance
>>>GRANTED
ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERAN AFFAIRS filed a motion for a refund of $2,879.68, the balance of
gratuitous insurance benefits allegedly wrongfully paid still in deposit with PNB
>>guardian VILORIA opposed: submitted evidence to show that CONSTANCIO was duly recognized by
both RP and US Armies
>>>DENIED
.GUARDIAN moved to be allowed to withdraw P4k from ROY REGINALD's estate to meet his needs.
>>>OPPOSED by ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERAN AFFAIRS: NO JURISDICTION: minor's rights to NATIONAL
SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE is governed exclusively by the S.S. Code Annotated, which provides that
decisions of the Administrator shall be FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE ON ALL QUESTIONS OF LAW OR FACT
AND NO OTHER OFFICIAL OF THE US, EXCEPT A JUDGE OR JUDGES OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS,
SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW SUCH DECISIONS
TC: Status quo
-the question of WON Constancio did render valid military service to justify payment to him or to
his heirs should be determined in an appropriate action
-the guardian would not be allowed to deposit any amount for the meantime
-the Administrator would not be allowed refund
-Administrator filed MR: DENIED
-now this appeal
WON theUS Code Annotated should be applied to the present case? NO (kapal face a)
-distinguish Actions against Administrator vs. Actions where Veterans Administrator seeks a remedy
from our courts. When actions are filed against the Administrator, it must be filed strictly in accordance
with the conditions imposed by the Veteran's Act, including exclusive review by US Courts.
-HERE: no law or treaty which would make the findings of the VETERANS Administrator, in actions where
he is a mere party, conclusive on our courts
this argument would deprive our tribunals of judicial discretion and render them mere subordinate
instrumentalities of the veterans Administrator
-in submitting itself to the jurisdiction of the court, it cannot put in issue the legality of its order
-the burden lies upon the Administrator to satisfy the court that the alleged mistake was really
committed
-the Philippine Court's determination of the question is as binding upon the Veteran's Administrator as
upon any other litigant
-From the time the amounts sought to be recovered were paid to the guardian, for the ward's benefit,
the latter became their lawful possessor and he cannot be deprived thereof on the sole allegation of the
Veteran's Administrator that the money was erroneously paid
WON a claim of improper payment to the ward (through the guardian) of benefits is properly filed in
the guardianship proceedings? NO
-Guardianship proceedings are solely concerned with the ward's care, custody and proper administration
and management of his properties.
-Conflicts regarding ownership or title to the property in the hands of the guardian, in his capacity as
such, should be litigated in a separate proceeding
LIM SIOK HUEY VS. LAPIZ
Summary: CHUA PUA LUN died in a Jeepney collision as a passenger. The heirs through their counsel
and the guardian ad litem appointed filed a claim for damages against the drivers of the colliding vehicles
and its owners. Court held that the claim should be dismissed, it not being shown that the plaintiffs who
are foreigners, allowed the suit to be brought.
*A guardian ad litem is any competent person appointed by the court for purposes of a particular action
or proceeding involving a minor.
Although no express authority is required to act in a representative capacity as a negotiorum getor, one
who has been appointed guardian ad litem by the court for minor heirs is not acting in that capacity and
must have some express authority from the persons he purports to represent. [Guardian ad Litem.
R96.2]
71 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
*The representation therefore, by an appointed guardian ad litem of the wards in the prosecution of a
case involving the latter w/o proper authority from them is ineffective. Such representation would not
suffice to meet the requirement of the rule, which provides that every action must be prosecuted in the
name of the real party in interest [compromise by guardian ad litem. R 96.3]
-CHUA PUA LUN was riding the JAGUAR JEEPNEY when it was hit by a KAPALARAN BUS
JAGUAR JEEPNEY driver: Alfredo Lapiz
JAGUAR JEEPNEY owner: VICTORINO SAPIN
KAPALARAN BUS driver: VICENTE REYES
KAPALARAN BUS owner: LAZARO LIMJUCO
-plaintiffs surviving spouse and four surviving children, represented by their counsel, filed an action to
recover damages amounting to P83,701.30
-the defendants all alleged that they were neither negligent and neither the owners of the vehicles
-court appointed CHUA PUA TAM (brother of deceased) as guardian ad litem to represent the 2 minor
children of CHUA PUA LUN
TC: dismissed complaint: no evidence on record to show that the plaintiffs have authorized much less
directed the commencement of the present action:
Plaintiffs are all citizens and residents of Communist China
Plaintiffs have not communicated w/ anyone in RP in connection with the filing of an action for
damages in their behalf
Brother in law of first plaintiff and uncle of the minor children testified that the plaintiffs had not
written to him nor had he communicated with them
Letters supposedly sent to Lim Ping Kok did not contain any intimation much less of
authorization for the filing of the claim for damages
WON the plaintiffs has not authorized anyone to file case? NO
the plaintiffs who are the widow and children of the deceased Chua Pua Lun are all citizens and
residents of Communist China
hey have not sent any communication to anyone in the Philippines giving authority to take
whatever action may be proper to obtain an indemnity for his death other than two letters
supposedly sent to Lim Ping Kok by his sister Lim Siok Huey and his mother, which do not contain
any intimation nor authorization for the filing of the present action.
2 letters: at most contain an inquiry w/ regard progress of the case and the administration of the
duck-raising business left by deceased
Initiated only by the counsel: while a lawyer is presumed to be properly authorized to represent
any cause in which he appears, he may however be required by the court on motion of either
party to produce his authority under which he appears
WON court erred in finding that there was no authority to fie the case when such question was not
raised in issue nor was evidence adduced on the point? NO
-the question was properly raised by counsel for the defendants as otherwise the trial court would not
have given proper attention to the matter.
-court even made this comment: "While an attorney representing a client in a case pending in Court is
presumed to be authorized for the purpose, nevertheless in the case under consideration, such
presumption had been destroyed and come by the very evidence presented by counsel himself ."
-the same was expressly raised by defendants Reyes and Limjuco not only in the course of the trial but in
their answers. Moreover, this flaw in the case of the plaintiffs was discovered by the court in the course
of the trial in view of the evidence presented by the very counsel of plaintiffs. In view of such
development, the trial court could not but take notice of the matter considering the prayer in
defendants' answer that they be given "such reliefs as this Court may deem just and equitable in the
premises.".
WON court erred in dismissing the complaint when the authority to prosecute the case stems from the
appointment of Chua Pua Tam as guardian ad litem of minors Pua Sam? NO.
-while this representation may only benefit the minors, and not the other plaintiffs, yet the same
would not suffice to meet the requirement of the rule which provides that every action must be
prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest
-should show that Chua Pua Tam was authorized by the heirs abroad to act as such in behalf of the
minors
WON court erred in dismissing the case when it could be considered prosecuted by a negotiorum
gestor? NO
-in the present case there is need of express authority on his part to represent the minors by virtue of an
express provision of our Rules of Court. In negotiorum gestio no such authority is required.
RULE 97 TERMINATION OF GUA RDIANSHIP
Sec. 1. Petition that competency of ward be adjudged, and proceedings thereupon. - A person who has
been declared incompetent for any reason, or his guardian, relative, or friend, may petition the court to
have his present competency judicially determined. The petition shall be verified by oath, and shall state
that such person is then competent. Upon receiving the petition, the court shall fix a time for hearing the
questions raised thereby, and cause reasonable notice thereof to be given to the guardian of the person,
so declared incompetent, and to the ward. On the trial, the guardian or relatives of the ward, and, in the
discretion of the court, any other person, may contest the right to the relief demanded, and witnesses
may be called and examined by the parties or by the court on its own motion. If it be found that the
person is no longer incompetent, his competency shall be adjudged and the guardianship shall cease.
Sec. 2. When guardian removed or allowed to resign; New appointment. - When a guardian becomes
insane or otherwise incapable of discharging his trust or unsuitable therefor, or has wasted or
mismanaged the estate, of failed for thirty (30) days after it is due to render an account or make a
return, the court may, upon reasonable notice to the guardian, remove him, and compel him to
surrender the estate of the ward to the person found to be lawfully entitled thereto. A guardian may
resign when it appears proper to allow the same; and upon his resignation or removal the court may
appoint another in his place.
Sec. 3. Other termination of guardianship. - The marriage or voluntary emancipation of a minor ward
terminates the guardianship of the person of the ward, and shall enable the minor to administer his
property as though he were of age, but he cannot borrow money or alienate or encumber real property
without the consent of his father or mother, or guardian. He can sue and be sued in court only with the
assistance of his father, mother or guardian. The guardian of any person may be discharged by the court
when it appears, upon the application of the ward or otherwise, that the guardianship is no longer
necessary.
Sec. 4. Record to be kept by the justice of the peace or municipal judge. - When a justice of the peace or
municipal court takes cognizance of the proceedings in pursuance of the provisions of these rules, the
record of the proceedings shall be kept as in the court of first instance.
Sec. 5. Service of judgment. - Final orders or judgments under this rule shall be served upon the civil
registrar of the municipality or city where the minor or incompetent person resides or where his
property or part thereof is situated.
Family Code on Emancipation
Title X: Emancipation and the Age of Majority
72 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
Note: Please see Republic Act 6809 which lowered the age of majority from twenty-one to eighteen
years..
Art. 234. Emancipation takes place by the attainment of majority. Unless otherwise provided, majority
commences at the age of twenty-one years.
Emancipation also takes place:
(1) By the marriage of the minor; or
(2) By the recording in the Civil Register of an agreement in a public instrument executed by the parent
exercising parental authority and the minor at least eighteen years of age. Such emancipation shall be
irrevocable. (397a, 398a, 400a, 401a)
Art. 235. The provisions governing emancipation by recorded agreement shall also apply to an orphan
minor and the person exercising parental authority but the agreement must be approved by the court
before it is recorded. (n)
Art. 236. Emancipation for any cause shall terminate parental authority over the person and property of
the child who shall then be qualified and responsible for all acts of civil life. (412a)
CELIS VS. CAFUIR
Summary: Mother of a boy now wants to recover him from the spouses who took care of him, but the
latter alleged that the mother already definitely renounced her custody and patria potestas over her
child, with the execution of 2 documents. Court held that the mother merely entrusted her son to the
foster mother because of circumstances beyond her control and that the designation of the foster
mother as a guardian does not mean that the guardian will always assume and discharge the duties of
the office or position, as guardianship is temporary. Also, the two documents contained a future
condition that the foster parents could adopt the boy, but they did not so can't argue now that they are
entitled to the boy.
* Guardianship is always or almost invariably understood to be temporary. While one is a minor or is
incompetent, a guardian is appointed; but when minority has passed or incapacity has ceased,
guardianship also terminates. [temporary nature of guardianship. R97.1]
Facts:
-ILEANA CELIS gave birth to JOEL CAFUIR
-father of JOEL seems to be an American soldier though unknown
-ILEANA's father did not want ILEANA to raise JOEL, angry and extremely displeased for the alleged
disgrace that ILEANA brought onto herself and the family for having maintained ilicit relations with a
man to whom she had not been married
-ILEANA's father also did not want her to have JOEL in their paternal home
-so ILEANA decided to give the custody of JOEL to SOLEDAD CAFUIR, executing 2 documents:
1st document: entrusts JOHN/JOEL to SOLEDAD because she did not have means to bring up the
child.
2nd document: designates SOLEDAD as the real guardian of JOHN/JOEL CAFUIR
*both documents indicate that Mrs. Soledad could claim for adoption of Joel/John
-9 days after delivery, JOEL was given to SOLEDAD
-ILEANA spent several days after giving birth in SOLEDAD's house while recuperating then returned to
her paternal home, merely visiting Joel every Saturday, giving him condensed milk, food and a little
money
-Now that ILEANA is married to AGUSTIN RIVERA, and the two are now more financially capable and
want JOEL CAFUIR back with them, they demanded that JOEL be given back. SOLEDAD refused so they
filed PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS
TC: granted Habeas Corpus

WON ILEANA RENOUNCED CUSTODY OF HER CHILD IN FAVOR OF SOLEDAD? NO
-DIAZ v. ESTRERA is not applicable because in that case, Diaz the mother completely renounced her
custody over the child (even imposing upon herself penal sanctions should she decide to claim back her
child) and custody was granted to the father of the child, though illegitimate
-HERE: SOLEDAD and husband are strangers to the child, not related in any degree by consanguinity or
affinity
-ILEANA merely entrusted her son to SOLEDAD. ENTRUSTED cannot convey the idea of definite and
permanent renunciation of the mother's custody of her child
WON ILEANA, BY MAKING SOLEDAD THE REAL GUARDIAN OF JOEL, COMPLETELY RENOUNCED CUSTODY
OVER HER SON? NO
-The designation of one as the guardian of another cannot and does not mean that said guardian will
always assume and discharge the duties of the office or position. Guardianship is always or almost
invariably understood to be temporary. While one is a minor or is incompetent, a guardian is appointed;
but when minority has passed or incapacity has ceased, guardianship also terminates.
-While petitioner Ileana was still unable to care for and support her child and because she could not
bring said child to live with her in the home of her father, she entrusted its custody and care to
respondent. Now, that she has been emancipated from the parental authority of her father and now that
she has already been married and is now in a position to care for and support her own child, this with the
consent and desire of her husband, who joins her in the petition, there can no longer be any reason for
depriving her of the custody of her boy. In her legitimate efforts, and to have her realize her natural
desire in this respect, the law and this court should give her every help.
-SOLEDAD had the option to adopt JOEL but she did not. The statement in the document envisages a
future act: that no one else may adopt JOEL except SOLEDAD.
-SOLEDAD spent for education, care, support of JOEL. She could claim in a separate proceeding for the
expenses she rendered while taking care of JOEL
DISSENTING, TUASON
-mainly argues that ILEANA intended that JOEL would have permanent possession and custody of her
son and she could not now just get the boy back
CRISOSTOMO V. ENDENCIA
Summary: Brother of a former ward was not given notice of the petition for termination of the
guardianship, which granted the termination of the guardianship after the guardian and the ward herself
testified that she can already take care of herself. Thus, the brother wanted the nullification of the order
on ground of lack of notice to him. Court held that no notice to him needed, and that the judgment he
sought to be annulled was already final and executory.
*The court, after considering the evidence offered by the parties to the petition for the termination of
guardianship and finding that the ward is no longer incompetent, shall adjudge the competency of the
ward and the guardianship shall cease. [grounds for termination of guardianship. adjudgment of
competency. R97.1]
Facts:
-PETRONA CRISOSTOMO was under guardianship f JESUS CRISOSTOMO, appointed in 1933
-when she was already released from the NATIONAL PSYCHOPATIC HOSPITAL, JESUS filed a VERIFIED
PETITION TO TERMINATE THE GUARDIANSHIP, CANCEL THE BOND FILED BY THE GUARDIAN
allegedly, PETRONA
73 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
recovered her mental faculties
Can take care of her person
Can administer her property
evidences
Verified statement of incompetent under oath: she was in good health, she had
recovered her mental faculties and was already able to take care of herself and
administer her property - this was stamped with her thumbmark and made
under oath before the notary public
2 medical certificates issued by the doctors of Petrona
TC: approved the motion in Feb 29, 1936
-9 months passed. RAMON CRISOSTOMO filed a MOTION TO ANNUL ORDER TERMINATING THE
GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDINGS:
Order null and void because it was entered w/o notice to the nearest relatives of the
incompetent + w/o hearing
PETRONA has not yet recovered her mentality
>>>OBJECTION: order sough to be annulled already became final and executory
TC: annulled order terminating the guardianship proceedings
-appealed to CA
CA: denied
WON NOTICE WAS REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN TO THE BROTHER OF THE WARD, AND LACK OF IT WOULD
NULLIFY THE ORDER TERMINATING THE GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING? NO.
1. the judge who took cognizance of and granted the petition to restore capacity had full jurisdiction
-The procedure followed by virtue of a petition for restoration of competency is neither new nor
independent; it is a continuation of the original guardianship proceedings
2.Not required that notice of the hearing be given to any other person except the guardian and the
incompetent.
-what is needed in order that a court taking cognizance of the guardianship of an incompetent may
issue a valid order restoring him to capacity:
(1) that a verified petition be presented by the incompetent, his guardian, or any relative of such person
within the third degree, or any friend of his;
(2) that said petition should allege that the incompetent has recovered his mental faculties or his legal
capacity, as the case may be; and
(3) that upon receiving the petition the court should set the same for hearing and notify the guardian
and the incompetent thereof. At the hearing, the guardian, the relatives of the incompetent, and, in the
discretion of the court, any other person may oppose the remedy sought.
3.Here, there's substantial compliance: the verified petition was signed by the guardian himself and was
supported and accompanied by the sworn statement of the incompetent. In the petition it was stated
that the incompetent had recovered her mental faculties and this allegation was corroborated by her in
her sworn statement when she stated that she had already recovered her mental faculties.
4.The brother, RAMON CRISOSTOMO, could have appeared at the hearing and opposed the petition but
this right given to him by law IS NOT ABSOLUTE THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO PERSONAL NOTICE.
His situation is like that of a person who, not being a defendant in an ordinary action and not having
been notified of the complaint, learns of the existence of the suit and discovers that he has a direct
interest in the subject matter of the litigation; there is no question that he would be entitled to take
part therein as intervener, but he cannot successfully ask for the annulment of the judgment to be
rendered on the ground that he had a right to be cited or notified and to be present at the trial
because it happened that he had an interest in the case.
5. Then order sought to be nullified already became final and executory.
The guardianship case was no longer before the court because the accounts of the guardian had been
definitely approved, his bond had been cancelled, he had been relieved of his charge, and the
incompetent had recovered her capacity before the law.
6.RAMON could have appealed the order before it became final and executory but didn't. Cannot now
file appeal for certiorari because it may be successfully invoked both in cases wherein an appeal does not
lie and in those wherein the right to appeal having been lost with or without the appellant's negligence
IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF INCOMPETENT JOSE DE INCHAUSTI
Summary: Mother petitioned to be the guardian of her son who was allegedly demented. Friend of son
instituted proceedings to terminate the guardianship and notice was given to the son who was in Spain
through cablegram. TC terminated the guardianship so mother appealed. Court held that notice needed
need not be personal, as the court already had jurisdiction over the person of the ward. Also, if the fear
of the termination of the guardianship proceeding is that the ward may be a spendthrift, then they could
institute another separate proceedings to reduce his spendings.
*the notice of hearing upon the ward and the guardian as required by Section 1, Rule 97, is not intended
as a personal service process in the sense necessary to give the court jurisdiction over the ward. It is
therefore, of no moment that the person to be notified is living in a foreign country and thus beyond the
territorial jurisdiction of the Philippine courts. Nor is the manner in which the court procured services of
the notice of any importance. It is sufficient that the notice was given. The court in which guardianship
was pending already had jurisdiction of the cause and the parties; and notification to the ward a friend
is required merely as an assurance that the individual chiefly concerned shall have cognizance of what
is being done. It at least, gives him an opportunity to advise the court in case action taken by the mover
of the petition was officious or unauthorized. [notice of hearing of petition. R97.1]
Facts:
-JOSE de INCHAUSTI allegedly became demented and incapable of properly caring for himself and his
estate (he inherited lots of money from his father) so his mother, MARIA CONSUELO RICO, VDA. DE
INCHAUSTI, filed an application to be appointed as his guardian -granted
-JOSE was brought to Barcelona, Spain upon advice of physicians
-a few months later, JOSE's friend, MANUEL SOLER, filed a petition in the guardianship proceedings to
REHABILITATE AND BRING THE GUARDIANSHIP TO AN END
>>>Opposition of MARIA CONSUELO:
(1) that the ward had not been given sufficient notice of the hearing and
How notice given: the clerk, by order of the court, sent a cablegram to the United States Consult at
Barcelona, requesting him to notify Jose R. de Inchausti that the petition for his restoration to capacity
would be heard in the Court of First Instance of Manila on October 19, 1918.
In reply to this, a cablegram was received from Barcelona on October 14, 1918, signed by the Consul
General of the United States in that city, advising that Inchausti had been duly notified according to
instructions.
(2) that it had not been satisfactorily shown that he is now capable of taking care of himself and
property.
TC: JOSE is of sound mind, so terminate guardianship. Guardian should render her account w/n 30d from
date upon which order should become final. MARIA CONSUELO appealed
74 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
WON NOTICE TO JOSE DE INCHAUSTI WAS SUFFICIENTLY GIVEN? YES
-The notification of the ward required is not intended as a personal service of process in the sense
necessary to give the court jurisdiction over the ward. It is, therefore, of no moment that the person to be
notified was living in a foreign country and thus beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Manila court.
Nor is the manner in which the court procured service of the notice of any importance. It is sufficient that
the notice was given. The court in which the guardianship was pending already had jurisdiction of the
cause and the parties; and notification to the ward where the petition to rehabilitate him is
presented by a friend is required merely as an assurance that the individual chiefly concerned shall
have cognizance of what is being done. It at least gives him an opportunity to advise the court in case
action taken by the mover of the petition was officious or unauthorized.
-SUFFICIENT NOTIFICATION: the messages were sent and received by cable, as above stated, affords
sufficient evidence, in the absence of anything to the contrary, that notification was duly effected, as
reported in the return of the Consul General.
WON TERMINATION OF GUARDIANSHIP COULD BE PROPERLY OPPOSED BASED ON THE FEAR THAT
THE WARD IS A SPENDTHRIFT? NO.
-Present mental capacity being proved, he is entitled to be discharged from tutelage.
-if he is, or should hereafter prove to be, a spendthrift, proper proceedings can be instituted to protect
him from wasteful proclivities.
ASSIGNMENT NO. 10: T RUSTEE S
RULE 98: TRUSTEES
SECTION 1. Where trustee appointed.A trustee necessary to carry into effect the provisions of a will or
written instrument shall be appointed by the Regional Trial Court in which the will was allowed, if it be a
will allowed in the Philippines, otherwise by the Regional Trial Court of the province in which the
property, or some portion thereof, affected by the trust is situated.
SEC. 2. Appointment and powers of trustee under will. Executor of former trustee need not administer
trust.If a testator has omitted in his will to appoint a trustee in the Philippines, and if such
appointment is necessary to carry into effect the provisions of the will, the proper Regional Trial Court
may, after notice to all persons interested, appoint a trustee who shall have the same rights, powers,
and duties, and in whom the estate shall vest, as if he had been appointed by the testator. No person
succeeding to a trust as executor or administrator of a former trustee shall be required to accept such
trust.
SEC. 3. Appointment and powers of new trustee under written instrument.When a trustee under a
written instrument declines, resigns, dies, or is removed before the objects of the trust are
accomplished, and no adequate provision is made in such instrument for supplying the vacancy, the
proper Regional Trial Court may, after due notice to all persons interested, appoint a new trustee to act
alone or jointly with the others, as the case may be. Such new trustee shall have and exercise the same
powers, rights, and duties as if he had been originally appointed, and the trust estate shall vest in him in
like manner as it had vested or would have vested, in the trustee in whose place he is substituted; and
the court may order such conveyance to be made by the former trustee or his representatives, or by the
other remaining trustees, as may be necessary or proper to vest the trust estate in the new trustee,
either alone or jointly with the others.
SEC. 4. Proceedings where trustee- appointed abroad. When land in the Philippines is held in trust for
persons resident here by a trustee who derives his authority from without the Philippines, such trustee
shall, on petition filed in the Regional Trial Court of the province where the land is situated, and after
due notice to all persons interested, be ordered to apply to the court for appointment as trustee; and
upon his neglect or refusal to comply with such order, the court shall declare such trust vacant, and shall
appoint a new trustee in whom the trust estate shall vest in like manner as if he had been originally
appointed by such court.
SEC. 5. Trustee must file bond.Before entering on the duties of his trust, a trustee shall file with the
clerk of the court having jurisdiction of the trust a bond in the amount fixed by the judge of said court,
payable to the Government of the Philippines and sufficient and available for the protection of any party
in interest, and a trustee who neglects to file such bond shall be considered to have declined or resigned
the trust; but the court may, until further order exempt a trustee under a will from giving a bond when
the testator has directed or requested such exemption, and may so exempt any trustee when all persons
beneficially interested in the trust, being of full age, request the exemption. Such exemption may be
cancelled by the court at any time, and the trustee required to forthwith file a bond.
SEC. 6. Conditions included in bond.The following conditions shall be deemed to be a part of the bond
whether written therein or not:
(a) That the trustee will make and return to the court, at such time as it may order, a true inventory of
all the real and personal estate belonging to him as trustee, which at the time of the making of such
inventory shall have come to his possession or knowledge;
(b) That he will manage and dispose of all such estate, and faithfully discharge his trust in relation
thereto, according to law and the will of the testator or the provisions of the instrument or order under
which he is appointed;
(c) That he will render upon oath at least once a year until his trust is fulfilled, unless he is excused
therefrom in any year by the court, a true account of the property in his hands and of the management
and disposition thereof, and will render such other accounts as the court may order;
(d) That at the expiration of his trust he will settle his accounts in court and pay over and deliver all the
estate remaining in his hands, or due from him on such settlement, to the person or persons entitled
thereto.
But when the trustee is appointed as a successor to a prior trustee, the court may dispense with the
making and return of an inventory, if one has already been filed, and in such case the condition of the
bond shall be deemed to be altered accordingly.
SEC. 7. Appraisal. Compensation of trustee.When an inventory is required to be returned by a trustee,
the estate and effects belonging to the trust shall be appraised and the court may order one or more
inheritance tax appraisers to assist in the appraisement. The compensation of the trustee shall be fixed
by the court, if it be not determined in the instrument creating the trust.
SEC. 8. Removal or resignation of trustee.The proper Regional Trial Court may, upon petition of the
parties beneficially interested and after due notice to the trustee and hearing, remove a trustee if such
removal appears essential in the interests of the petitioners. The court may also, after due notice to all
persons interested, remove a trustee who is insane or otherwise incapable of discharging his trust or
evidently unsuitable therefor. A trustee, whether appointed by the court or under a written instrument,
may resign his trust if it appears to the court proper to allow such resignation.
SEC. 9. Proceedings for sale or encumbrance of trust estate.When the sale or encumbrance of any
real or personal estate held in trust is necessary or expedient, the court having jurisdiction of the trust
may, on petition and after due notice and hearing, order such sale or encumbrance to be made, and the
reinvestment and application of the proceeds thereof in such manner as will best effect the objects of
the trust. The petition, notice, hearing, order of sale or encumbrance, and record of proceedings, shall
conform as nearly as may be to the provisions concerning the sale or encumbrance by guardians of the
property of minors or other wards.
LORENZO VS. POSADAS (1937)
Summary: CIR sues the second trustee for inheritance tax and interests which the latter paid under
protest, and is now claiming it for refund. Court held that the estate is liable for inheritance tax at the
time the estate is transferred to the trustee.
Although the will does not name a trustee, the probate court exercises sound judgment in appointing a
trustee to carry into effect the provisions of the will where a trust is actually created by the will by
75 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
provision that certain of the property shall be kept together undisposed during a fixed period and for a
stated purpose.
DE LEON VS. MOLO-PECKSON (1962)
Summary: The foster children on whom the properties in question were donated were being sued by the
person alleged to be beneficiaries of a trust constituted by the foster parents in their favor. The Court
held that there was a trust, and that the beneficiaries do not have to accept such trust to be binding.
However, the revocation of that trust needs the consent of the beneficiaries.
The fact that the beneficiaries were not notified of the existence of the trust or that the latter have not
been given an opportunity to accept it is of no importance for it is not essential to the existence of a valid
trust and to the right of the beneficiaries to enforce the same that they had knowledge thereof at the
time of its creation. Neither is it necessary that the beneficiary should consent to the creation of the
trust. In fact, in case of voluntary trust, the assent of the beneficiary is not necessary to render it valid
because the general rule acceptance by the beneficiary is presumed.
VI. ADOPTION AND CUS TODY OF MINORS: RU LE 99-100: ADOPTION (N OTE HOWEVER
THAT THIS HAS BEEN E XPRESSLY REPEALED)
SECTION 1. Venue. A person desiring to adopt another or have the custody of a minor shall present his
petition to the Regional Trial Court of the province, or the city or municipal court of the city or
municipality in which he resides.
In the City of Manila, the proceedings shall be instituted in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.
SEC. 2. Contents of petition.The petition for adoption shall contain the same allegations required in a
petition for guardianship, to wit:
(a) The jurisdictional facts;
(b) The qualifications of the adopter;
(c) That the adopter is not disqualified by law;
(d) The name, age, and residence of the person to be adopted and of his relatives or of the persons
who have him under their care;
(e) The probable value and character of the estate of the person to be adopted.
SEC. 3. Consent to adoption.There shall be filed with the petition a written consent to the adoption
signed by the child, if fourteen years of age or over and not incompetent, and by the child's spouse, if
any, and by each of its known living parents who is not insane or hopelessly intemperate or has not
abandoned such child, or if there are no such parents by the general guardian or guardian ad litem of the
child, or if the child is in the custody of an orphan asylum, children's home, or benevolent society or
person, by the proper officer or officers of such asylum, home, or society, or by such person; but if the
child is illegitimate and has not been recognized, the consent of its father to the adoption shall not be
required.
If the person to be adopted is of age, only his or her consent and that of the spouse, if any, shall be
required.
SEC. 4. Order for hearing.If the petition and consent filed are sufficient in form and substance, the
court, by an order reciting the purpose of the petition, shall fix a date and place for the hearing thereof,
which date shall not be more than six (6) months after the entry of the order, and shall direct that a copy
of the order be published before the hearing at least once a week for three (3) successive weeks in some
newspaper of general circulation published in the province, as the court shall deem best.
SEC. 5. Hearing and judgment.Upon satisfactory proof in open court on the date fixed in the order
that such order has been published as directed, that the allegations of the petition are true, and that it is
a proper case for adoption and the petitioner or petitioners are able to bring up and educate the child
properly, the court shall adjudge that thenceforth the child is freed from all legal obligations of
obedience and maintenance with respect to its natural parents, except the mother when the child is
adopted by her husband, and is, to all legal intents and purposes, the child of the petitioner or
petitioners, and that its surname is changed to that of the petitioner or petitioners. The adopted person
or child shall thereupon become the legal heir of his parents by adoption and shall also remain the legal
heir of his natural parents. In case of the death of the adopted person or child, his parents and relatives
by nature, and not by adoption, shall be his legal heirs.
SEC. 6. Proceedings as to child whose parents are separated. Appeal.When husband and wife are
divorced or living separately and apart from each other, and the question as to the care, custody, and
control of a child or children of their marriage is brought before a Regional Trial Court by petition or as
an incident to any other proceeding, the court, upon hearing the testimony as may be pertinent, shall
award the care, custody, and control of each such child as will be for its best interest, permitting the
child to choose which parent it prefers to live with it be over ten years of age, unless the parent so
chosen be unfit to take charge of the child by reason of moral depravity, habitual drunkenness,
incapacity, or poverty. If, upon such hearing, it appears that both parents are improper persons to have
the care, custody, and control of the child, the court may either designate the paternal or maternal
grandparent of the child, or his oldest brother or sister, or some reputable and discreet person to take
charge of such child, or commit it to any suitable asylum, children's home, or benevolent society. The
court may in conformity with the provisions of the Civil Code order either or both parents to support or
help support said child, irrespective of who may be its custodian, and may make any order that is just
and reasonable permitting the parent who is deprived of its care and custody to visit the child or have
temporary custody thereof. Either parent may appeal from an order made in accordance with the
provisions of this section. No child under seven years of age shall be separated from its mother, unless
the court finds there are compelling reasons therefor.
SEC. 7. Proceedings as to vagrant or abused child.When the parents of any minor child are dead, or by
reason of long absence or legal or physical disability have abandoned it, or cannot support it through
vagrancy, negligence, or misconduct, or neglect or refuse to support it, or treat it with excessive
harshness or give it corrupting orders, counsels, or examples, or cause or allow it to engage in begging,
or to Commit offenses against the law, the proper Regional Trial Court, upon petition filed by some
reputable resident of the province setting forth the facts, may issue an order requiring such parents for
show cause, or, if the parents are dead or cannot be found, requiring the fiscal of the province to show
cause, at a time and place fixed in the order, why the child should not be taken from its parents, if living;
and if upon the hearing it appears that the allegations of the petition are true, and that it is for the best
interest of the child, the court may make an order taking it from its parents, if living; and committing it
to any suitable orphan asylum, children's home, or benevolent society or person to be ultimately placed,
by adoption or otherwise, in a home found for it by such asylum, children's home, society, or person.
SEC. 8. Service of judgment.Final orders or judgments under this rule shall be served by the clerk upon
the civil registrar of the city or municipality wherein the court issuing the same is situated.
RULE 100: RESCISSION AND REVOCATION OF ADOPTION
SECTION 1. Who may file petition; grounds.A minor or other incapacitated person may, through a
guardian or guardian ad litem, petition for the rescission or revocation of his or her adoption for the
same causes that authorize the deprivation of parental authority.
The adopter may, likewise petition the court for the rescission or revocation of the adoption in any of
these cases:
(a) If the adopted person has attempted against the life of the adopter;
(b) When the adopted minor has abandoned the home of the adopter for more than three (3) years;
(c) When by other acts the adopted person has repudiated the adoption.
SEC. 2. Order to answer.The court in which the petition is filed shall issue and order requiring the
adverse party to answer the petition within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof. The order
and a copy of the petition shall be served on the adverse party in such manner as the court may direct.
76 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
SEC. 3. Judgment.If upon trial, on the day set therefor, the court finds that the allegations of the
petition are true, it shall render judgment ordering the rescission or revocation of the adoption, with or
without costs, as justice requires.
SEC. 4. Service of judgment.A certified copy of the judg ment rendered in accordance with the next
preceding section shall be served upon the civil registrar concerned; within thirty (30) days from
rendition thereof, who shall forthwith enter the action taken by the court in the register.
SEC. 5. Time within which to file petition.A minor or other incapacitated person must file the petition
for rescission or revocation of adoption within the five (5) years following his majority, or if he was
incompetent at the time of the adoption, within the five (5) years following the recovery from such
incompetency.
The adopter must also file the petition to set aside the adoption within five (5) years from the time the
cause or causes giving rise to the rescission or revocation of the same took place.
VII.RULE 101: PROCEE DINGS F OR HOSPITALIZ ATION OF INSA NE PERS ONS
SECTION 1. Venue. Petition for commitment.A petition for the commitment of a person to a hospital
or other place for the insane may be filed with the Regional Trial Court of the province where the person
alleged to be insane is found. The petition shall be filed by the Director of Health in all cases where, in his
opinion, such commitment is for the public welfare, or for the welfare of said person who, in his
judgment, is insane, and such person or the one having charge of him is opposed to his being taken to a
hospital or other place for the insane.
SEC. 2. Order for hearing.If the petition filed is sufficient in form and substance, the court, by an order
reciting the purpose of the petition, shall fix a date for the hearing thereof, and copy of such order shall
be served on the person alleged to be insane, and to the one having charge of him, or on such of his
relatives residing in the province or city as the judge may deem proper. The court shall furthermore
order the sheriff to produce the alleged insane person, if possible, on the date of the hearing.
SEC. 3. Hearing and judgment.Upon satisfactory proof, in open court on the date fixed in the order,
that the commitment applied for is for the public welfare or for the welfare of the insane person, and
that his relatives are unable for any reason to take proper custody and care of him, the court shall order
his commitment to such hospital or other place for the insane as may be recommended by the Director
of Health. The court shall make proper provisions for the custody of property or money belonging to the
insane until a guardian be properly appointed.
SEC. 4. Discharge of insane.When, in the opinion of the Director of Health, the person ordered to be
committed to a hospital or other place for the insane is temporarily or permanently cured, or may be
released without danger he may file the proper petition with the Regional Trial Court which ordered the
commit ment.
SEC. 5. Assistance of fiscal in the proceeding.It shall be the duty of the provincial fiscal or in the City of
Manila the fiscal of the city, to prepare the petition for the Director of Health and represent him in court
in all proceedings arising under the provisions of this rule.
CHIN AH FOO V. CONCEPCION (1930)
Summary: Chinese convicted of murder was absolved because of plea to insanity, was confined to a
mental institution. His wife and children petitioned that he be released from such mental institution and
be sent to HK where he lives instead. Court granted it without the director of healths recommendation.
Court held that both director of healths recommendation and the courts decision are needed to grant
the release of a hospitalized insane person.
Where the insane person was judicially committed to the hospital or asylum, the Director of Health
cannot order his release without the approval of the RTC which ordered the commitment. Also said court
cannot order his release without the recommendation of the Director of Health.
VII. HABEAS CORPUS RU LE 10 2, SECTION 1 -19
SECTION 1. To what habeas corpus extends.Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the writ
of habeas corpus shall extend to all cases 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.
SEC. 2. Who may grant the writ.The writ of habeas corpus may be granted by the Supreme Court, or
any member thereof, on any day and at any time, or by the Court of Appeals or any member thereof in
the instances authorized by law, and if so granted it shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines;
and may be made returnable before the court or any member thereof, or before a Regional Trial Court,
or any judge thereof for hearing and decision on the merits. It may also be granted by a Regional Trial
Court, or a judge thereof, on any day and at any time, and returnable before himself, enforceable only
within his judicial district.
SEC. 3. Requisites of application therefor.Application for the writ shall be by petition signed and
verified either by the party for whose relief it is intended, or by some person on his behalf, and shall set
forth:
(a) That the person in whose behalf the application is made is imprisoned or restrained of his liberty;
(b) The officer or name of the person by whom he is so imprisoned or restrained; or, if both are
unknown or uncertain, such officer or person may be described by an assumed appellation, and the
person who is served with the writ shall be deemed the person intended;
(c) The place where he is so imprisoned or restrained, if known;
(d) A copy of the commitment or cause of detention of such person, if it can be procured without
impairing the efficiency of the remedy; or, if the imprisonment or restraint is without any legal authority,
such fact shall appear.
SEC. 4. When writ not allowed or discharge authorized.If it appears that the person alleged to be
restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court or judge or by
virtue of a judgment or order of a court of record, and that the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue
the process, render the judgment, or make the order, the writ shall not be allowed; or if the jurisdiction
appears after the writ is allowed, the person shall not be discharged by reason of any informality or
defect in the process, judgment, or order. Nor shall anything in this rule be held to authorize the
discharge of a person charged with or convicted of an offense in the Philippines, or of a person suffering
imprisonment under lawful judgment.
SEC. 5. When the writ must be granted and issued.A court or judge authorized to grant the writ must,
when a petition therefor is presented and it appears that the writ ought to issue, grant the same
forthwith, and immediately thereupon the clerk of the court shall issue the writ under the seal of the
court; or in case of emergency, the judge may issue the writ under his own hand, and may depute any
officer or person to serve it.
SEC. 6. To whom writ directed, and what to require.In case of imprisonment or restraint by an officer,
the writ shall be directed to him, and shall command him to have the body of the person restrained of
his liberty before the court or judge designated in the writ at the time and place therein specified. In case
of imprisonment or restraint by a person not an officer, the writ shall be directed to an officer, and shall
command him to take and have the body of the person restrained of his liberty before the court or judge
designated in the writ at the time and place therein specified, and to summon the person by whom he is
restrained then and there to appear before said court or judge to show the cause of the imprisonment or
restraint.
SEC. 7. How prisoner designated and writ served.The person to be produced should be designated in
the writ by his name, if known, but if his name is not known he may be otherwise described or identified.
The writ may be served in any province by the sheriff or other proper officer, or by a person deputed by
the court or judge. Service of the writ shall be made by leaving the original with the person to whom it is
directed and preserving a copy on which to make return of service. If that person cannot be found, or
77 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
has not the prisoner in his custody, then the service shall be made on any other person having or
exercising such custody.
SEC. 8. How writ executed and returned.The officer to whom the writ is directed shall convey the
person so imprisoned or restrained, and named in the writ, before the judge allowing the writ, or, in case
of his absence or disability, before some other judge of the same court, on the day specified in the writ,
unless, from sickness or infirmity of the person directed to be produced, such person cannot, without
danger, be brought before the court or judge; and the officer shall make due return of the writ, together
with the day and the cause of the caption and restraint of such person according to the command
thereof.
SEC. 9. Defect of form.No writ of habeas corpus can be disobeyed for defect of form, if it sufficiently
appears therefrom in whose custody or under whose restraint the party imprisoned or restrained is held
and the court or judge before whom he is to be brought.
SEC. 10 Contents of return.When the person to be produced is imprisoned or restrained by an officer,
the person who makes the return shall state therein, and in other cases the person in whose custody the
prisoner is found shall state, in writing to the court or judge before whom the writ is returnable, plainly
and unequivocably:
(a) Whether he has or has not the party in his custody or power, or under restraint;
(b) If he has the party in his- custody or power, or under restraint, the authority and the true and whole
cause thereof, set forth at large, with a copy of the writ, order, execution, or other process, if any, upon
which the party is held;
(c) If the party is in his custody or power or is restrained by him, and is not produced, particularly the
nature and gravity of the sickness or infirmity of such party by reason of which he cannot, without
danger, be brought before the court or judge;
(d) If he has had the party in his custody or power, or under restraint, and has transferred such custody
or restraint to another, particularly to whom, at what time, for what cause, and by what authority such
transfer was made.
SEC. 11. Return to be signed and sworn to.The return or statement shall be signed by the person who
makes it; and shall also be sworn to by him if the prisoner is not produced, and in all other cases unless
the return is made and signed by a sworn public officer in his official capacity.
SEC. 12. Hearing on return. Adjournments.When the writ is returned before one judge, at a time
when the court is in session, he may forthwith adjourn the case into the court, there to be heard and
determined. The court or judge before whom the writ is returned or adjourned must immediately
proceed to hear and examine the return, and such other matters as are properly submitted for
consideration, unless for good cause shown the hearing is adjourned, in which event the court or judge
shall make such order for the safekeeping of the person imprisoned or restrained as the nature of the
case requires. If the person imprisoned or restrained is not produced because of his alleged sickness or
infirmity, the court or judge must be satisfied that it is so grave that such person cannot be produced
without danger, before proceeding to hear and dispose of the matter. On the hearing the court or judge
shall disregard matters of form and technicalities in respect to any warrant or order of commitment of a
court or officer authorized to commit by law.
SEC. 13. When the return evidence, and when only a plea. If it appears that the prisoner is in custody
under a warrant of commitment in pursuance of law, the return shall be considered prima facie evidence
of the cause of restraint; but if he is restrained of his liberty by any alleged private authority, the return
shall be considered only as a plea of the facts therein set forth, and the party claiming the custody must
prove such facts.
SEC. 14. When person lawfully imprisoned recommitted, and when let to bail.If it appears that the
prisoner was lawfully committed, and is plainly and specifically charged in the warrant of commitment
with an offense punishable by death, he shall not be released, discharged, or bailed. If he is lawfully
imprisoned or restrained on a charge of having committed an offense not so punishable, he may be
recommitted to imprisonment or admitted to bail in the discretion of the court or judge. If he be
admitted to bail, he shall forthwith file a bond in such sum as the court or judge deems reasonable,
considering the circumstances of the prisoner and the nature of the offense charged, conditioned for his
appearance before the court where the offense is properly cognizable to abide its order or judgment;
and the court or judge shall certify the proceedings, together with the bond, forthwith to the proper
court. If such bond is not so filed, the prisoner shall be recommitted to confinement.
SEC. 15. When prisoner discharged if no appeal.When the court or judge has examined into the cause
of caption and restraint of the prisoner, and is satisfied that he is unlawfully imprisoned or restrained, he
shall forthwith order his discharge from confine ment, but such discharge shall not be effective until a
copy of the order has been served on the officer or person detaining the prisoner. If the officer or person
detaining the prisoner does not desire to appeal, the prisoner shall be forthwith released.
SEC. 16. Penalty for refusing to issue writ, or for disobeying the same.A clerk of a court who refuses
to issue the writ after allowance thereof and demand therefor, or a person to whom a writ is directed,
who neglects or refuses to obey or make return of the same according to the command thereof, or
makes false return thereof, or who, upon demand made by or on behalf of the prisoner, refuses to
deliver to the person demanding, within six (6) hours after the demand therefor, a true copy of the
warrant or order of commitment, shall forfeit to the party aggrieved the sum of one thousand pesos, to
be recovered in a proper action, and may also be punished by the court or judge as for contempt.
SEC. 17. Person discharged not to be again imprisoned.A person who is set at liberty upon a writ
of habeas corpus shall not be again imprisoned for the same offense unless by the lawful order or
process of a court having jurisdiction of the cause or offense; and a person who knowingly, contrary to
the provisions of this rule, recommits or imprisons, or causes to be committed or imprisoned, for the
same offense, or pretended offense, any person so set at liberty, or knowingly aids or assists therein,
shall forfeit to the party aggrieved the sum of one thousand pesos, to be recovered in a proper action,
notwithstanding any colorable pretense or variation in the warrant of commitment, and may also be
punished by the court or judge granting the writ as for contempt.
SEC. 18. When prisoner may be removed from one custody to another.A person committed to prison,
or in custody of an officer, for any criminal matter, shall not be removed therefrom into the custody of
another officer unless by legal process, or the prisoner be delivered to an inferior officer to carry to jail
or by order of the proper court or judge, be removed from one place to another within the Philippines
for trial, or in case of fire, epidemic, insurrection, or other necessity or public calamity; and a person
who, after such commitment, makes, signs, or countersigns any order for such removal contrary to this
section, shall forfeit to the party aggrieved the sum of one thousand pesos, to be recovered in a proper
action.
SEC. 19. Record of writ, fees and costs.The proceedings upon a writ of habeas corpus shall be
recorded by the clerk of the court, and upon the final disposition of such proceedings the court or judge
shall make such order as to costs as the case requires. The fees of officers and witnesses shall be
included in the costs taxed, but no officer or person shall have the right to demand payment in advance
of any fees to which he is entitled by virtue of the proceedings. When a person confined under color of
proceedings in a criminal case is discharged, the costs shall be taxed against the Republic of the
Philippines, and paid out of its Treasury; when a person in custody by virtue or under color of
proceedings in a civil case is discharged, the costs shall be taxed against him, or against the person who
signed the application for the writ, or both, as the court shall direct.
WRIT OF AMPARO
A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC
(25 September 2007)
THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO
78 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
SECTION 1. Petition. The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right
to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a
public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.
The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.
SEC. 2. Who May File. The petition may be filed by the aggrieved party or by any qualified person or
entity in the following order:
a. Any member of the immediate family, namely: the spouse, children and parents of the aggrieved
party;
b. Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party within the fourth civil degree
of consanguinity or affinity, in default of those mentioned in the preceding paragraph; or
c. Any concerned citizen, organization, association or institution, if there is no known member of the
immediate family or relative of the aggrieved party.
The filing of a petition by the aggrieved party suspends the right of all other authorized parties to file
similar petitions. Likewise, the filing of the petition by an authorized party on behalf of the aggrieved
party suspends the right of all others, observing the order established herein.
SEC. 3. Where to File. The petition may be filed on any day and at any time with the Regional Trial
Court of the place where the threat, act or omission was committed or any of its elements occurred, or
with the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court, or any justice of such courts. The writ
shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.
When issued by a Regional Trial Court or any judge thereof, the writ shall be returnable before such
court or judge.
When issued by the Sandiganbayan or the Court of Appeals or any of their justices, it may be returnable
before such court or any justice thereof, or to any Regional Trial Court of the place where the threat, act
or omission was committed or any of its elements occurred.
When issued by the Supreme Court or any of its justices, it may be returnable before such Court or any
justice thereof, or before the Sandiganbayan or the Court of Appeals or any of their justices, or to any
Regional Trial Court of the place where the threat, act or omission was committed or any of its elements
occurred.
SEC. 4. No Docket Fees. The petitioner shall be exempted from the payment of the docket and other
lawful fees when filing the petition. The court, justice or judge shall docket the petition and act upon it
immediately.
SEC. 5. Contents of Petition. The petition shall be signed and verified and shall allege the following:
a. The personal circumstances of the petitioner;
b. The name and personal circumstances of the respondent responsible for the threat, act or
omission, or, if the name is unknown or uncertain, the respondent may be described by an assumed
appellation;
c. The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party violated or threatened with
violation by an unlawful act or omission of the respondent, and how such threat or violation is
committed with the attendant circumstances detailed in supporting affidavits;
d. The investigation conducted, if any, specifying the names, personal circumstances, and
addresses of the investigating authority or individuals, as well as the manner and conduct of the
investigation, together with any report;
e. The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to determine the fate or whereabouts of
the aggrieved party and the identity of the person responsible for the threat, act or omission; and
f. The relief prayed for.
The petition may include a general prayer for other just and equitable reliefs.
SEC. 6. Issuance of the Writ. Upon the filing of the petition, the court, justice or judge shall immediately
order the issuance of the writ if on its face it ought to issue. The clerk of court shall issue the writ under
the seal of the court; or in case of urgent necessity, the justice or the judge may issue the writ under his
or her own hand, and may deputize any officer or person to serve it.
The writ shall also set the date and time for summary hearing of the petition which shall not be later
than seven (7) days from the date of its issuance.
SEC. 7. Penalty for Refusing to Issue or Serve the Writ. A clerk of court who refuses to issue the writ
after its allowance, or a deputized person who refuses to serve the same, shall be punished by the court,
justice or judge for contempt without prejudice to other disciplinary actions.
SEC. 8. How the Writ is Served. The writ shall be served upon the respondent by a judicial officer or by
a person deputized by the court, justice or judge who shall retain a copy on which to make a return of
service. In case the writ cannot be served personally on the respondent, the rules on substituted service
shall apply.
Sec. 9. Return; Contents. - Within FIVE (5) WORKING DAYS after service of the writ, the respondent shall
file a verified written return together with supporting affidavits which shall, among other things, contain
the following:
(a) The lawful defenses to show that the respondent did not violate or threaten with violation
the right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party, through any act or omission;
(b) The steps or actions taken by the possession to determine the fate or whereabouts of the
aggrieved party and the person or persons responsible for the threat, act or omission;
(c) All relevant information in the possession of the respondent pertaining to the threat, act
or omission against the aggrieved party; and
(d) If the respondent is a public official or employee, the return shall further state the actions
that have been or will still be taken:
(i) to verify the identity of the aggrieved party;
(ii) to recover and preserve evidence related to the death or disappearance of the person
identified in the petition which may aid in the prosecution of the person or persons responsible;
(iii) to identify witnesses and obtain statements from them concerning the death or
disappearance;
(iv) to determine the cause, manner, location and time of death or disappearance as well as
any pattern or practice that may have brought about the death or disappearance;
(v) to identify and apprehend the person or persons involved in the death or disappearance;
and
(vi) to bring the suspected offenders before a competent court.
THE PERIOD TO FILE A RETURN CANNOT BE EXTENDED EXCEPT ON HIGHLY MERITORIOUS GROUND.
The return shall also state other matters relevant to the investigation, its resolution and the prosecution
of the case.
A general denial of the allegations in the petition shall not be allowed:
SEC. 10. Defenses not Pleaded Deemed Waived. All defenses shall be raised in the return, otherwise,
they shall be deemed waived.
Sec. 11. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions.- The following pleadings and motion are prohibited:
(a) Motion to dismiss;
(b) Motion for extension of time to file opposition, affidavit, position paper and other
pleadings;
(c) Dilatory motion for postponement;
(d) Motion for a bill of particulars;
(e) Counterclaim or cross-claim;
(f) Third-party complaint;
(g) Reply;
(h) Motion to declare respondent in default;
(i) Intervention;
(j) Memorandum;
79 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
(k) Motion for reconsideration of interlocutory orders or interim relief orders; and
(l) Petition for certiorari, mandamus or prohibition against any interlocutory order.
SEC. 12. Effect of Failure to File Return. In case the respondent fails to file a return, the court, justice
or judge shall proceed to hear the petition ex parte.
SEC. 13. Summary Hearing. The hearing on the petition shall be summary. However, the court, justice
or judge may call for a preliminary conference to simplify the issues and determine the possibility of
obtaining stipulations and admissions from the parties.
The hearing shall be from day to day until completed and given the same priority as petitions for habeas
corpus.
SEC. 14. Interim Reliefs. Upon filing of the petition or at anytime before final judgment, the court,
justice or judge may grant any of the following reliefs:
(a) Temporary Protection Order. The court, justice or judge, upon motion or motu proprio, may order
that the petitioner or the aggrieved party and any member of the immediate family be protected in a
government agency or by an accredited person or private institution capable of keeping and securing
their safety. If the petitioner is an organization, association or institution referred to in Section 3(c) of
this Rule, the protection may be extended to the officers involved.
The Supreme Court shall accredit the persons and private institutions that shall extend temporary
protection to the petitioner or the aggrieved party and any member of the immediate family, in
accordance with guidelines which it shall issue.
The accredited persons and private institutions shall comply with the rules and conditions that may be
imposed by the court, justice or judge.
(b) Inspection Order. The court, justice or judge, upon verified motion and after due hearing, may
order any person in possession or control of a designated land or other property, to permit entry for the
purpose of inspecting, measuring, surveying, or photographing the property or any relevant object or
operation thereon.
The motion shall state in detail the place or places to be inspected. It shall be supported by affidavits or
testimonies of witnesses having personal knowledge of the enforced disappearance or whereabouts of
the aggrieved party.
If the motion is opposed on the ground of national security or of the privileged nature of the
information, the court, justice or judge may conduct a hearing in chambers to determine the merit of the
opposition.
The movant must show that the inspection order is necessary to establish the right of the aggrieved
party alleged to be threatened or violated.
The inspection order shall specify the person or persons authorized to make the inspection and the date,
time, place and manner of making the inspection and may prescribe other conditions to protect the
constitutional rights of all parties. The order shall expire five (5) days after the date of its issuance, unless
extended for justifiable reasons.
(c) Production Order. The court, justice or judge, upon verified motion and after due hearing, may
order any person in possession, custody or control of any designated documents, papers, books,
accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things, or objects in digitized or electronic form,
which constitute or contain evidence relevant to the petition or the return, to produce and permit their
inspection, copying or photographing by or on behalf of the movant.
The motion may be opposed on the ground of national security or of the privileged nature of the
information, in which case the court, justice or judge may conduct a hearing in chambers to determine
the merit of the opposition.
The court, justice or judge shall prescribe other conditions to protect the constitutional rights of all the
parties.
(d) Witness Protection Order. The court, justice or judge, upon motion or motu proprio, may refer the
witnesses to the Department of Justice for admission to the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit
Program, pursuant to Republic Act No. 6981.
The court, justice or judge may also refer the witnesses to other government agencies, or to accredited
persons or private institutions capable of keeping and securing their safety.
SEC. 15. Availability of Interim Reliefs to Respondent. Upon verified motion of the respondent and
after due hearing, the court, justice or judge may issue an inspection order or production order under
paragraphs (b) and (c) of the preceding section.
A motion for inspection order under this section shall be supported by affidavits or testimonies of
witnesses having personal knowledge of the defenses of the respondent.
SEC. 16. Contempt. The court, justice or judge may order the respondent who refuses to make a
return, or who makes a false return, or any person who otherwise disobeys or resists a lawful process or
order of the court to be punished for contempt. The contemnor may be imprisoned or imposed a fine.
SEC. 17. Burden of Proof and Standard of Diligence Required. The parties shall establish their claims
by substantial evidence.
The respondent who is a private individual or entity must prove that ordinary diligence as required by
applicable laws, rules and regulations was observed in the performance of duty.
The respondent who is a public official or employee must prove that extraordinary diligence as required
by applicable laws, rules and regulations was observed in the performance of duty.
The respondent public official or employee cannot invoke the presumption that official duty has been
regularly performed to evade responsibility or liability.
SEC. 18. Judgment. The court shall render judgment within ten (10) days from the time the petition is
submitted for decision. If the allegations in the petition are proven by substantial evidence, the court
shall grant the privilege of the writ and such reliefs as may be proper and appropriate; otherwise, the
privilege shall be denied.
SEC. 19. Appeal. Any party may appeal from the final judgment or order to the Supreme Court under
Rule 45. The appeal may raise questions of fact or law or both.
The period of appeal shall be five (5) working days from the date of notice of the adverse judgment.
The appeal shall be given the same priority as in habeas corpus cases.
SEC. 20. Archiving and Revival of Cases. The court shall not dismiss the petition, but shall archive it, if
upon its determination it cannot proceed for a valid cause such as the failure of petitioner or witnesses
to appear due to threats on their lives.
A periodic review of the archived cases shall be made by the amparo court that shall, motu proprio or
upon motion by any party, order their revival when ready for further proceedings. The petition shall be
dismissed with prejudice upon failure to prosecute the case after the lapse of two (2) years from notice
to the petitioner of the order archiving the case.
The clerks of court shall submit to the Office of the Court Administrator a consolidated list of archived
cases under this Rule not later than the first week of January of every year.
SEC. 21. Institution of Separate Actions. This Rule shall not preclude the filing of separate criminal,
civil or administrative actions.
SEC. 22. Effect of Filing of a Criminal Action. When a criminal action has been commenced, no
separate petition for the writ shall be filed. The reliefs under the writ shall be available by motion in the
criminal case.
The procedure under this Rule shall govern the disposition of the reliefs available under the writ of
amparo.
SEC. 23. Consolidation. When a criminal action is filed subsequent to the filing of a petition for the
writ, the latter shall be consolidated with the criminal action.
When a criminal action and a separate civil action are filed subsequent to a petition for a writ of amparo,
the latter shall be consolidated with the criminal action.
After consolidation, the procedure under this Rule shall continue to apply to the disposition of the reliefs
in the petition.
SEC. 24. Substantive Rights. This Rule shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights
recognized and protected by the Constitution.
80 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
SEC. 25. Suppletory Application of the Rules of Court. The Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily
insofar as it is not inconsistent with this Rule.
SEC. 26. Applicability to Pending Cases. This Rule shall govern cases involving extralegal killings and
enforced disappearances or threats thereof pending in the trial and appellate courts.
SEC. 27. Effectivity. This Rule shall take effect on October 24, 2007, following its publication in three (3)
newspapers of general circulation.
WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
SECTION 1. Habeas Data. - The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right to
privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public
official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of
data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.
SEC. 2. Who May File. - Any aggrieved party may file a petition for the writ of habeas data. However, in
cases of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, the petition may be filed by:
(a) Any member of the immediate family of the aggrieved party, namely: the spouse, children and
parents; or
(b) Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party within the fourth civil degree
of consanguinity or affinity, in default of those mentioned in the preceding paragraph; or
SEC. 3. Where to File. - The petition may be filed with the Regional Trial Court where the petitioner or
respondent resides, or that which has jurisdiction over the place where the data or information is
gathered, collected or stored, at the option of the petitioner.
The petition may also be filed with the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals or the Sandiganbayan
when the action concerns public data files of government offices.
SEC. 4. Where Returnable; Enforceable. - When the writ is issued by a Regional Trial Court or any judge
thereof, it shall be returnable before such court or judge.
When issued by the Court of Appeals or the Sandiganbayan or any of its justices, it may be returnable
before such court or any justice thereof, or to any Regional Trial Court of the place where the petitioner
or respondent resides, or that which has jurisdiction over the place where the data or information is
gathered, collected or stored.
When issued by the Supreme Court or any of its justices, it may be returnable before such Court or any
justice thereof, or before the Court of Appeals or the Sandiganbayan or any of its justices, or to any
Regional Trial Court of the place where the petitioner or respondent resides, or that which has
jurisdiction over the place where the data or information is gathered, collected or stored.
The writ of habeas data shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.
Sec. 5. Docket Fees. - No docket and other lawful fees shall be required from an indigent petitioner. The
petition of the indigent shall be docked and acted upon immediately, without prejudice to subsequent
submission of proof of indigency not later than fifteen (15) days from the filing of the petition.
SEC. 6. Petition. - A verified written petition for a writ of habeas data should contain:
(a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner and the respondent;
(b) The manner the right to privacy is violated or threatened and how it affects the right to life, liberty or
security of the aggrieved party;
(c) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to secure the data or information;
(d) The location of the files, registers or databases, the government office, and the person in charge, in
possession or in control of the data or information, if known;
(e) The reliefs prayed for, which may include the updating, rectification, suppression or destruction of
the database or information or files kept by the respondent.
In case of threats, the relief may include a prayer for an order enjoining the act complained of; and
(f) Such other relevant reliefs as are just and equitable.
SEC. 7. Issuance of the Writ. - Upon the filing of the petition, the court, justice or judge shall immediately
order the issuance of the writ if on its face it ought to issue. The clerk of court shall issue the writ under
the seal of the court and cause it to be served within three (3) days from the issuance; or, in case of
urgent necessity, the justice or judge may issue the writ under his or her own hand, and may deputize
any officer or person serve it.
The writ shall also set the date and time for summary hearing of the petition which shall not be later
than ten (10) work days from the date of its issuance.
SEC. 8. Penalty for Refusing to Issue or Serve the Writ. - A clerk of court who refuses to issue the writ
after its allowance, or a deputized person who refuses to serve the same, shall be punished by the court,
justice or judge for contempt without prejudice to other disciplinary actions.
SEC. 9. How the Writ is Served. - The writ shall be served upon the respondent by a judicial officer or by
a person deputized by the court, justice or judge who shall retain a copy on which to make a return of
service. In case the writ cannot be served personally on the respondent, the rules on substituted service
shall apply.
SEC. 10. Return; Contents. - The respondent shall file a verified written return together with supporting
affidavits within five (5) working days from service of the writ, which period may be reasonably extended
by the Court for justifiable reasons. The return shall, among other things, contain the following:
(a) The lawful defenses such as national security, state secrets, privileged communications,
confidentiality of the source of information of media and others;
(b) In case of respondent in charge, in possession or in control of the data or information subject of the
petition;
(i) a disclosure of the data or information about the petitioner, the nature of such data or information,
and the purpose for its collection;
(ii) the steps or actions taken by the respondent to ensure the security and confidentiality of the data or
information; and,
(iii) the currency and accuracy of the data or information held; and,
(c) Other allegations relevant to the resolution of the proceeding.
A general denial of the allegations in the petition shall not be allowed.
SEC. 11. Contempt. - The court, justice or judge may punish with imprisonment or fine a respondent who
commits contempt by making a false return, or refusing to make a return; or any person who otherwise
disobeys or resist a lawful process or order of the court.
SEC. 12. When Defenses May be Heard in Chambers. - A hearing in chambers may be conducted where
the respondent invokes the defense that the release of the data or information in question shall
compromise national security or state secrets, or when the data or information cannot be divulged to
the public due to its nature or privileged character.
Sec. 13. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions. - The following pleadings and motions are prohibited:
(a) Motion to dismiss;
(b) Motion for extension of time to file return, opposition, affidavit, position paper and other pleadings;
(c) Dilatory motion for postponement;
(d) Motion for a bill of particulars;
(e) Counterclaim or cross-claim;
(f) Third-party complaint;
(g) Reply;
(h) Motion to declare respondent in default;
(i) Intervention;
(j) Memorandum;
(k) Motion for reconsideration of interlocutory orders or interim relief orders; and
(l) Petition for certiorari, mandamus or prohibition against any interlocutory order.
81 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
SEC. 14. Return; Filing. - In case the respondent fails to file a return, the court, justice or judge shall
proceed to hear the petition ex parte, granting the petitioner such relief as the petition may warrant
unless the court in its discretion requires the petitioner to submit evidence.
SEC. 15. Summary Hearing. - The hearing on the petition shall be summary. However, the court, justice
or judge may call for a preliminary conference to simplify the issues and determine the possibility of
obtaining stipulations and admissions from the parties.
SEC. 16. Judgment. - The court shall render judgment within ten (10) days from the time the petition is
submitted for decision. If the allegations in the petition are proven by substantial evidence, the court
shall enjoin the act complained of, or order the deletion, destruction, or rectification of the erroneous
data or information and grant other relevant reliefs as may be just and equitable; otherwise, the
privilege of the writ shall be denied.
Upon its finality, the judgment shall be enforced by the sheriff or any lawful officers as may be
designated by the court, justice or judge within five (5) working days.
SEC. 17. Return of Service. - The officer who executed the final judgment shall, within three (3) days
from its enforcement, make a verified return to the court. The return shall contain a full statement of the
proceedings under the writ and a complete inventory of the database or information, or documents and
articles inspected, updated, rectified, or deleted, with copies served on the petitioner and the
respondent.
The officer shall state in the return how the judgment was enforced and complied with by the
respondent, as well as all objections of the parties regarding the manner and regularity of the service of
the writ.
SEC. 18. Hearing on Officers Return. - The court shall set the return for hearing with due notice to the
parties and act accordingly.
SEC. 19. Appeal. - Any party may appeal from the final judgment or order to the Supreme Court under
Rule 45. The appeal may raise questions of fact or law or both.
The period of appeal shall be five (5) working days from the date of notice of the judgment or final order.
The appeal shall be given the same priority as in habeas corpus and amparo cases.
SEC. 20. Institution of Separate Actions. - The filing of a petition for the writ of habeas data shall not
preclude the filing of separate criminal, civil or administrative actions.
SEC. 21. Consolidation. - When a criminal action is filed subsequent to the filing of a petition for the writ,
the latter shall be consolidated with the criminal action.
When a criminal action and a separate civil action are filed subsequent to a petition for a writ of habeas
data, the petition shall be consolidated with the criminal action.
After consolidation, the procedure under this Rule shall continue to govern the disposition of the reliefs
in the petition.
SEC. 22. Effect of Filing of a Criminal Action. - When a criminal action has been commenced, no separate
petition for the writ shall be filed. The relief under the writ shall be available to an aggrieved party by
motion in the criminal case.
The procedure under this Rule shall govern the disposition of the reliefs available under the writ
of habeas data.
SEC. 23. Substantive Rights. - This Rule shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights.
SEC. 24. Suppletory Application of the Rules of Court. - The Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily
insofar as it is not inconsistent with this Rule.
SEC. 25. Effectivity. - This Rule shall take effect on February 2, 2008, following its publication in three (3)
newspapers of general circulation.
[PUBLISHED IN THE MANILA BULLETIN, THE PHILIPPINE STAR AND THE PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER ON
25 JANUARY 2008]
REPUBLIC VS. CA, SUPRA
(this case does not belong here)

MARTINEZ V. MENDOZA (2006)
Summary: A participant in the Nida Blanca murder case was allegedly abducted and was last seen by
Philip Medel at the CIDG in Camp Crama. As the alleged mastermind Martinez has been missing, his
family filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus against CIDG and PNP officers. Court held that for the
petition to be granted, the petitioner must establish by competent and convincing evidence that the
missing person, on whose behalf the Petition was filed, is under the custody of the respondents. As the
petitioners here merely relied on the statements of Philip Medel, who the court found doubtful, the
Court denied the petition.
When respondents deny custody of an allegedly detained person, petitioners have the duty of
establishing the fact of detention by competent and convincing evidence; otherwise, the writ of habeas
corpus cannot be issued. Nonetheless, when the disappearance of a person is indubitable, the law
enforcement authorities are duty-bound to investigate it with due diligence and to locate the missing
person. When the wrongdoing is attributable to the police agencies and/or their agents, the aggrieved
may secure the assistance of the Peoples Law Enforcement Board or the Commission on Human Rights.
Facts:
-MICHAEL MARTINEZ, a resident of Sun Valley, Paranaque, was reported to be abducted while on his way
to his mothers house nearby. The said abductin was reported to the authorities
-in the evening when MARTINEZ was abducted, the CIDG presented before the media PHILIP MEDEL, JR.
who allegedly named MARTINEZ as the person who introduced him to ROD LAUREN STRUNK, the
husband of Nida Blanca who was also the alleged mastermind in her killng. PHILIP MEDEL narrated that
he say MARTINEZ at the CIDG at Camp Crame.
-PHILIP MEDEL reiterated that he saw MARTINEZ to the brother of MARTINEZ, even describing the
clothes MARTINEZ was wearing when he was abducted.
-the Martinez family prayed for the release of MARTINEZ, or that they be allowed to see him, but CIDG
did not grant their request
-so Martinez family filed a petition for habeas corpus vs PNP and CIDG officials to produce MARTINEZ or
to justify the continued detention of his liberty.
-RTC set petition for hearing, directed respondents to show cause why writ should not issue
-RETURN:
* denied any participation or involvement in the alleged abduction or disappearance of Martinez
* Martinez was never confined or detained by them or in their custody
-HEARING: same stand of respondents. Petitioners presented Philip Medel: said that he even saw ESPINA
(one of the defendants) boxed Martinez in the stomach
RTC: granted the petition
CA: reversed RTC
1. Medels credibility was highly suspect: contradicted himself as to material facts
2. Espinas positive testimony that he was at home at the time when he allegedly boxed Martinez was
never controverted.
3. Presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duties.
4. CIDG was equally concerned with the safety of MARTINEZ who is a vital witness to the case.
WON THE DENIAL OF THE PETITION WAS PROPER? YES
petitioner must establish by competent and convincing evidence that the missing person, on whose
behalf the Petition was filed, is under the custody of respondents.
HERE: evidence insufficient to convince Court that the respondents have MARTINEZ in their custody
1. PROPRIETY OF HABEAS CORPUS
82 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
- cant use habeas corpus in case of disappearances: the grant of relief in a habeas corpus proceeding is
not predicated on the disappearance of a person, but on his illegal detention. Habeas corpus generally
applies to "all cases 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."
-objective of habeas corpus:
* relieve a person from unlawful restraint. It is devised as a speedy relief from unlawful restraint.
* to determine whether the person under detention is held under lawful authority/inquire into the cause
of detention of a person: determine whether a person is being illegally deprived of his liberty.
>if illegal detention: release person
>if lawful detention: HC proceedings terminate.
2. FORCIBLE TAKING AND DISAPPEARANCE
When forcible taking and disappearance -- not arrest and detention -- have been alleged, the proper
remedy is not habeas corpus proceedings, but criminal investigation and proceedings.
-even if the agency tasked with investigating crimes are suspected of being responsible for the
disappearance of a person who is the subject of HC proceedings, it will not convert the courts into -- or
authorize them through habeas corpus proceedings to be -- forefront investigators, prosecutors, judges
and executioners all at the same time.
- proceeding for habeas corpus cannot be used as a substitute for a thorough criminal investigation.
- people may refer their complaints to the PLEB (Peoples Law Enforcement Board, tasked to investigate
abuses of PNP), which should be part of their arsenal in the battle to resolve cases in which members of
the PNP are suspected of having caused the disappearance of anyone.
IN THE MATTER OF PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS, ASHRAF KUNTING (2006)
Summary: Kunting, an alleged Abu Sayyaf Group member involved in the kidnappings in Mindanao was
detained by the PNP Intelligence group but the TC in Basilan where he was charged with Kidnapping for
Ransom and Serious Illegal Detention ordered that he be turned over to the said TC as Kunting filed an
Urgent Motion for Reinvestigation with them. The said orders were not heeded by PNP-IG, alleging that
there was a pending motion for a change of venue filed as it was alleged that there would be efforts by
the ASG to recover custody of Kunting if he be brought to Basilan and that this plan may succeed, due to
the inadequate security facility in the municipal jail and its proximity to the area of operation of the ASG.
Thus, Kunting filed petition for HC. Court initially said that Kunting should not be turned over, he being
legally detained. However, as there were insufficient evidence to prove that there was a pending motion
for transfer of venue, the court granted the transfer.
"once the person detained is duly charged in court, he may no longer question his detention by a
petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus."
Facts
-Ashraf KUNTING was charged in RTC Basilan with 4 counts of Kidnapping for Ransom and Serious Illegal
Detention. Warrants of arrest were issued by RTC Basilan
-he was arrested in Malaysia for violation of Malaysian Internal Security Act, was turned over to the PNP-
IG and Task Force Salinglahi, flown to RP and brought to Camp Crame for booking and custodial
investigation
-PNP-IG requested RTC Basilan that KUNTING be temporarily detained with them due to high security
risks involved and prayed for corresponding commitment order
-RTC instead ordered that he be turned over to them due to the URGENT MOTION FOR
REINVESTIGATION filed by KUNTING
-PNP-IG wrote to Chief State Prosecutor Zuo to represent them and to file a motion for transfer of
venue on the possibility that if KUNTING would be transferred to Basilan, ASG would recover his custody
-RTC denied KUNTINGs motion for reinvestigation since PNP-IG has not turned over KUNTING, and
reiterated their order to turn over KUNTING
-with their letter to Chief Prosecutor Zuo still unheeded, PNP OIC of Legal Affairs Division filed a Motion
to defer the implementation of the Order pending the motion for the transfer of the venue.
-KUNTING filed Petition for HC w/SC:
Restrained of his liberty
Never informed of the charges filed against him until he requested his family to research in
Zamboanga that his name appeared in the list of accused in the Lamitan kidnapping incident
He never participated in the said kidnapping incident led him to file URGENT MOTION FOR
REINVESTIGATION
His detention was classified in the records as for safekeeping purposes only
WON the Petition should be granted? NO but
- The remedy of habeas corpus has one objective: to inquire into the cause of detention of a person
>if illegal: release detainee
>if legal: HC proceedings terminate
-WRIT is NOT ALLOWED Section 4
1. Person is under process issued by a court or judge + the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the
process, render the judgment or make the order
2. Jurisdiction appears after writ is allowed
3. Person is charged with or convicted of an offense in RP
4. Person is suffering imprisonment under lawful judgment
-HERE:
* Kuntings detention by the PNP-IG was under process issued by the RTC.
* Kunting was charged with 4 counts of Kidnapping for Ransom and Serious Illegal Detention
>>>so cannot be discharged since he was charged with a criminal offense
-BUT wait, theres more!
-Kunting has been detained by PNP-IG for 2 years while awaiting that DOJ make a motion for transfer of
venue
- In the absence of evidence that the DOJ has indeed filed a motion for the transfer of venue, In its
Comment, the Office of the Solicitor General stated that the PNP-IG is presently awaiting the resolution
of the Motion for Transfer of Venue it requested from the DOJ.
-so while pending action on the motion, detention of Kunting is transferred to Basilangood luck naman.

Habeas Corpus Amparo Habeas Data

Nature, scope, All cases of illegal confinement and detention which any person
function is deprived of his liberty; or rightful custody of any person is
withheld from the person entitled (102.1)
Actual violation before writ issues. Note Villavicencio v. Lukban
on applicability of the writ in case of constructive restraint
Limitations May be suspended in cases of invasion or rebellion when public
safety requires it (Consti. Art. III Sec. 15)
Who may file By a petition signed and verified
by the party for whose relief it is intended,
or by some person on his behalf (102.3)
Where filed Granted by:
SC or any member thereof, on any day and at any time
CA or any member thereof in instances authorized by law
RTC or a judge thereof, on any day and at any time, enforceable
only within his judicial district (102.2)
MTC OR FIRST LEVEL COURTS in the absence of RTC judges in a
judicial region (section 35 BP 129)
Where If SC or CA issued, anywhere in the Philippines
enforceable
If granted by the RTC or judge thereof, it is enforceable in any
part of the judicial region (Section 21, BP 129 which modified the
term judicial district in Section 2, Rule 102 into judicial region)
where the judge sits
Where If the one that granted the writ:
returnable Is the SC or CA, or a member thereof, returnable before such
court
Involves right to life, liberty and security violated or threatened
with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official
or employee or a private individual or entity
It covers extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or
threats thereof. (RWA Sec.1)
Shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights (RWA
Sec. 24)
Petition filed by the aggrieved party or by any qualified person or
entity in the following order:
a. Any member of the immediate family
b. Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the
aggrieved within the 4th civil degree of consanguinity or affinity
c. Any concerned citizen, organization, association or institution
Filing by the aggrieved or representative suspends the right of all
others (RWA Sec. 2)
Filed on any day and at any time:
SB, CA, SC, or any justice of such courts
RTC of place where the threat, act, or omission was committed or
any element occurred (RWA Sec. 3)
Writ shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines (RWA Sec.
3)
If the one that granted the writ:
SC or any of its justices: before such court or any justice thereof,
or before the SB or CA or any of their justices, or to any RTC of
Involves the right to privacy in life, liberty or security of the
aggrieved party and covers extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances (RWD Sec.1)
Shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights (RWD
Sec. 23)
Any aggrieved party may file a petition for the WHD
However, in cases of extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances, the petition may be filed by (also successive):
a. Any member of the immediate family of the aggrieved
b. Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the
aggrieved party within the 4th civil degree of consanguinity or
affinity, (RWD Sec. 2)
Petition may be filed with RTC
where the petitioner or respondent resides or
that which has jurisdiction over the place where the data or
information is gathered, collected or stored, at the option of
petitioner
If public data files of government offices, petition shall be filed
with the SC, CA, or SB (RWD Sec. 3)
Writ shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines (RWD Sec.
3)
If issued by:
The SC or any of its justices, before such Court or any justice
thereof, or CA or SB or any of its justices, or the RTC of the place

83 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
 or any member thereof the place where the threat, act or omission was committed or where the petitioner or respondent resides / has jurisdiction
or an RTC any of its elements occurred over the place where the data or information is gathered, stored
An RTC, or a judge thereof, The SB or CA or any of their justices, before such court or any or collected
returnable before himself (102.2) justice thereof, or to any RTC of the place where the threat, act, The CA or SB or any of its justices, before such court or any
or omission was committed or any of its elements occurred justice thereof, or the RTC (same with scenario: SC issued and
RTC, returnable before such court or judge (RWA Sec. 3) then returned in RTC)
RTC, returnable before such court or judge (RWD Sec. 4)
Docket Fees upon the final disposition of such proceedings the court or NONE absolutely. Petitioner shall be exempted from the None for indigent petitioner
judge shall make such order as to costs as the case requires payment of the docket and other lawful fees. Court, justice or Petition shall be docketed and acted upon immediately, w/o
(102.19) judge shall docket the petition and act upon it immediately prejudice to subsequent submission of proof of indigency not
(RWA Sec 4) later than 15 days from filing (RWD Sec. 5)
Essential Signed and verified either by the party for whose relief it is Signed and verified and shall allege: Verified and written petition shall contain:
allegations/ intended or by some person on his behalf, setting forth: *The personal circumstances of the petitioner *Personal circumstances of petitioner and respondent
Contents of *The person in whose behalf whose the application is made is *Name or appellation and circumstances of the respondent *Manner the right to privacy is violated or threatened and its
petition imprisoned or restrained of his liberty *The right to life, liberty, and security violated or threatened effects
*Name of the person detaining another or assumed appellation with violation, *Actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to secure the
*Place where he is imprisoned or restrained of his liberty *The investigation conducted, if any, plus circumstances of each data or information
*Cause of detention, or allegation that theres none (102.3) *The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner *The location of the files, registers, or databases, the
*Relief prayed for government office, and the person in charge or control
*May include a general prayer for other just and equitable reliefs *The reliefs prayed for
(RWA Sec. 5) *Such other relevant reliefs as are just and equitable (RWD Sec.
6)
When proper Court or judge must, when a petition is presented and it appears Upon the filing of the petition, the court, justice, or judge shall Upon filing of the petition, the court, justice, or judge shall
that it ought to issue, immediately order the issuance of the writ if on its face it ought immediately order the issuance of the writ if on its face it ought
grant the same and then: to issue to issue.
>the clerk of court (CoC) shall issue the writ under the seal of the >CoC shall issue the writ under the seal of the court; or >CoC shall issue the writ under the seal of the court and cause it
court; or >In case of urgent necessity, the justice or the judge may issue to be served within 3 days from issuance; or
>in case of emergency, the judge may issue the writ under his the writ under his or her own hand, >In case of urgent necessity, the justice or judge may issue the
own hand, and may depute any officer or person to serve it and may deputize any officer or person to serve it writ under his or her own hand, and may deputize any officer or
(102.5) person to serve it (RWD Sec. 7)

Also proper to be issued when the court or judge has examined

into the cause of restraint of the prisoner, and is satisfied that he
is unlawfully imprisoned (102.5)
How and who Writ may be served in any province by the (a) sheriff, (b) other The writ shall be served upon the respondent The writ shall be served upon the respondent
serves proper officer, or (c) or person deputed by the court or judge *by a judicial officer or *by a judicial officer or
Service is made by leaving the original with the person to whom *by a person deputized by the court, justice or judge who shall *by a person deputized by the court, justice or judge who shall
it is directed and preserving a copy on which to make return of retain a copy on which to make a return of service retain a copy on which to make a return of service
service (personal service) In case the writ cannot be served personally on the respondent, In case the writ cannot be served personally on the respondent,
If that person cannot be found, or has not the prisoner in his the rules on substituted service shall apply the rules on substituted service shall apply
custody, service shall be made on any other person having or (so personally, but if di pede, substituted) (so personally, but if di pede, substituted)
exercising such custody (substituted service)(102.7) (RWA Sec. 8) (RWD Sec. 9)
Respondent May or may not be an officer Respondent is a public official or employee A public official or employee
or private individual or entity or a private individual or entity engaged in gathering, collecting
or storing data
How executed The officer to whom the writ is directed shall convey the person Respondent files the return Respondent files the return
and returned so imprisoned or restrained before:
the judge allowing the writ,
or, in his absence or disability, before some other judge of the
same court

84 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
 on the day specified in the writ,
unless person directed to be produced is sick or infirm, and
cannot, without danger, be brought therein
officer shall then make due return of the writ, with the day and
cause of the caption and restraint according to the command
thereof (102.8)
When to file On the day specified on the writ
return
Contents of When the person to be produced is imprisoned or restrained by
return an officer the person who makes the return shall state, and in
other cases the person in whose custody the prisoner is found
shall state in writing to the court or judge before whom the writ
is returnable:
*Truth of custody/power over the aggrieved
*If has custody or power, or under restraint, the authority and
the cause thereof, with a copy of the writ, order, execution or
other process, if any upon which the party is held;
*If the party is in his custody or power, and is not produced,
particularly the nature and gravity of the sickness or infirmity
*If he has had the party in his custody or power, and has
transferred such custody or restraint to another, particularly to
whom, at what time, for what cause, and by what authority such
transfer was made. (102.10)
Formalities of Return or statement shall be signed and sworn to by the person
return who makes it if the prisoner is not produced,
Unless the return is made and signed by a sworn public officer in
his official capacity (102.11)
Penalties CoC who refuses to issue the writ after allowance and demand,
Or a person to whom a writ is directed, who:
For refusing to neglects/refuses to obey or make return of the same according
issue or serve to the command thereof,
or makes false return,
or upon demand made by or on behalf of the prisoner, refuses to
deliver to the person demanding, within 6 hours a true copy of
the warrant or order of commitment,
For faulty
return shall forfeit to the party aggrieved the sum of P1000,
recoverable in a proper action, and may also be punished for
contempt (102.16)
Is period of
return
extendable?
Is a general Yes. No prohibition in Rule.
denial
85 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
Within 5 working days after service of the writ
Within 5 working days after service of the writ, the respondent
shall file a verified written return together with supporting
affidavits which shall, , contain:
*Lawful defenses
*The steps or actions taken to determine the fate or
whereabouts of the aggrieved party
*All relevant information in the possession of the respondent
pertaining to the threat, act or omission against the aggrieved
party
*If the respondent is a public official or employee, the return
shall further state acts:
>To verify identity of aggrieved party
>To recover and preserve evidence
>To identify and collect witness statements
>To determine cause, manner, location, and time of death or
disappearance
>To identify and apprehend persons involved
>Bring suspected offenders before a competent court (RWA
Sec.9)
the respondent shall file a verified written return together
with supporting affidavits (RWA Sec. 9)
CoC who refuses to issue the writ after its allowance, or
a deputized person who refuses to serve the same,
shall be punished by the court, justice or judge for contempt
without prejudice to other disciplinary actions (RWA Sec. 7)
The court, justice, or judge may order the respondent who
refuses to make a return, or who makes a false return, or any
person who otherwise disobeys or resist a lawful process or
order of the court to be punished for contempt
Contemnor may be imprisoned or imposed a fine (RWA Sec. 16)
No, not even on highly meritorious grounds.
No, by virtue if A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC
Same with WA
*Lawful defenses such as national security, state secrets,
privileged communications, confidentiality of the source of
information of media etc.
*In case of respondent in charge, in possession or in control of
the data or information subject of the petition:
>A disclosure of the data or information about the petitioner,
the nature of such data or information, and the purpose for its
collection
>The steps or actions taken by the respondent to ensure the
security and confidentiality of the data or information
>The currency and accuracy of the data or information held
*Other allegations relevant to the resolution of the proceeding
(RWD Sec.10)
Respondent shall file a verified written return together with
supporting (RWD Sec. 10)
COC who refuses to issue the writ after its allowance, or
a deputized person who refuses to serve the same,
shall be punished by the court, justice, or judge for contempt
without prejudice to other disciplinary actions (RWD Sec. 8)
The court, justice, or judge may punish with imprisonment or
fine a respondent who commits contempt by:
Making a false return or
Refusing to make a return; or
Any person who otherwise disobeys or resists a lawful process or
order of the court (RWD Sec. 11)
Yes, by the court, for justifiable reasons (RWD Sec. 10)
No, by virtue of RWD Sec. 10, last sentence.
allowed?
Defenses not If not raised in return deemed waived (RWA Sec 10)
pleaded
Effect of failure Court or justice shall proceed to hear the petition ex parte (RWA Court, judge, or justice shall hear the motion ex parte, granting
to file return Sec. 12) the petitioner such reliefs as the petition may warrant
Unless the court in its discretion requires the petitioner to
submit evidence (RWD Sec. 14)
Nature of Summary. However, the court, justice, or judge may call for a Summary. With possibility of preliminary conference similar to
Hearing preliminary conference to simplify the issues and look at the writ of amparo (RWD Sec. 14)
possibility of obtaining stipulations and admissions from the Hearing on chambers may be conducted where respondent
parties. invokes the defense of national security or state secrets, or the
Hearing shall be from day to day until completed; same priority data is of public or privileged character (RWD Sec. 12)
as petitions for WHC
Date and time As specified in the writ Not later than 7 days from the issuance of the writ Not later than 10 working days from the date of issuance writ
of hearing
Prohibited Motion to dismiss Same as writ of amparo (RWD Sec. 13)
pleadings Motion for extension of time to file opposition
Affidavit
position paper and other pleadings
Dilatory motion for postponement
Motion for bill of particulars
Counterclaims or cross-claims
Third-party complaint
Reply
Motion to declare respondent in default
Intervention
Memorandum
Motion for reconsideration of interlocutory orders or interim
relief orders
petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition (RWA Sec.11)
Burden of Preponderance of evidence Establish claims by substantial evidence Substantial evidence required to prove the allegations in the
Proof if respondent is a private individual or entity, ordinary diligence petition (RWD Sec. 16)
if public official or employee, extraordinary diligence
Presumption of Yes. Consonant wit 102.13, stating that if warrant of Public official or employee cannot invoke the presumption that
Official duty commitment is in pursuance with law, serves as prima facie official duty has been regularly performed (RWA Sec. 17)
cause of restraint
Judgment The court shall render judgment within 10 days from the time Within 10 days from the time the petition is submitted for
the petition is submitted for decision (RWA Sec. 18) decision (RWD Sec. 16)
Appeals Within 48 hours from notice of the judgment of final order 5 working days from the date of notice of adverse judgment; 5 working days from the date of notice of adverse judgment;
appealed Rule 45 filed with the SC Rule 45 filed with the SC
Consolidation May be consolidated with a criminal action filed subsequent to May be consolidated with a criminal action filed subsequent to
of actions the petition (RWA Sec. 23) the petition (RWD Sec. 21)
Effect of filing No more separate petition shall be filed. Reliefs available by Same as WA
criminal action motion in the criminal case (RWA Sec. 22)
*tables from UP LAW BAROPS REVIEWER

ASSIGNMENT NO. 12 : CHANGE OF NAME RU LE 103 Section 1. Venue. - A person desiring to change his name shall present the petition to the Court of First
Instance of the province in which he resides, or, in the City of Manila, to the Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court.

86 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
Section 2. Contents of petition. - A petition for change of name shall be signed and verified by the
person desiring his name changed, or some other person on his behalf, and shall set forth:
(a) That the petitioner has been a bona fide resident of the province where the petition is filed for at
least three (3) years prior to the date of such filing;
(b) The cause for which the change of the petitioner's name is sought;
(c) The name asked for.
Section 3. Order for hearing. - If the petition filed is sufficient in form and substance, the court, by an
order reciting the purpose of the petition, shall fix a date and place for the hearing thereof, and shall
direct that a copy of the order be published before the hearing at least once a week for three (3)
successive weeks in some newspaper of general circulation published in the province, as the court shall
deem best. The date set for the hearing shall not be within thirty (30) days prior to an election nor within
four (4) month after the last publication of the notice.
Section 4. Hearing. - Any interested person may appear at the hearing and oppose the petition. The
Solicitor General or the proper provincial or city fiscal shall appear on behalf of the Government of the
Republic.
Section 5. Judgment. - Upon satisfactory proof in open court on the date fixed in the order that such
order has been published as directed and that the allegations of the petition are true, the court shall, if
proper and reasonable cause appears for changing the name of the petitioner, adjudge that such name
be changed in accordance with the prayer of the petition.
Section 6. Service of judgment. - Judgments or orders rendered in connection with this rule shall be
furnished the civil registrar of the municipality or city where the court issuing the same is situated, who
shall forthwith enter the same in the civil register.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9048
March 22, 2001
AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OR MUNICIPAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OR THE CONSUL GENERAL TO CORRECT
A CLERICAL OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN AN ENTRY AND/OR CHANGE OF FIRST NAME OR NICKNAME
IN THE CIVIL REGISTER WITHOUT NEED OF A JUDICIAL ORDER, AMENDING FOR THIS PURPOSE ARTICLES
376 AND 412 OF THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:
Section 1. Authority to Correct Clerical or Typographical Error and Change of First Name or Nickname. -
No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicial order; except for clerical or
typographical errors and change of first name or nickname which can be corrected or changed by
concerned city or municipal civil registrar or consul general in accordance with the provisions of this Act
and its implementing rules and regulations.
Sec. 2. Definitions of Terms. - As used in this Act, the following terms shall mean:
87 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
(1) "City or municipal civil registrar" refers to the head of the local civil registry office of the city or
municipality, as the case may be, who is appointed as such by the city or municipal mayor in accordance
with the provisions of existing laws.
(2) "Petitioner" refers to a natural person filing the petition and who has direct and personal interest in
the correction of a clerical or typographical error in an entry or change of first name or nickname in the
civil register.
(3) "Clerical or typographical error" refers to a mistake committed in the performance of clerical work in
writing, copying, transcribing or typing an entry in the civil register that is harmless and innocuous, such
as misspelled name or misspelled place of birth or the like, which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the
understanding, and can be corrected or changed only by reference to other existing record or records:
Provided, however, That no correction must involve the change of nationality, age, status or sex of the
petitioner.
(4) "Civil register" refers to the various registry books and related certificates and documents kept in the
archives of the local civil registry offices, Philippine Consulates and of the Office of the Civil Register
General.
(5) "Civil registrar general" refers to the administrator of the National Statistics Office which is the
agency mandated to carry out and administer the provision of laws on civil registration.
(6) "First name" refers to a name or nickname given to a person which may consist of one or more
names in addition to the middle and last names.
Sec. 3. Who may File the Petition and Where. - Any person having direct and personal interest in the
correction of a clerical or typographical error in an entry and/or change of first name or nickname in the
civil register may file, in person, a verified petition with the local civil registry office of the city or
municipality where the record being sought to be corrected or changed is kept.
In case the petitioner has already migrated to another place in the country and it would not be practical
for such party, in terms of transportation expenses, time and effort to appear in person before the local
civil registrar keeping the documents to be corrected or changed, the petition may be filed, in person,
with the local civil registrar of the place where the interested party is presently residing or domiciled.
The two (2) local civil registrars concerned will then communicate to facilitate the processing of the
petition.
Citizens of the Philippines who are presently residing or domiciled in foreign countries may file their
petition, in person, with the nearest Philippine Consulates.
The petitions filed with the city or municipal civil registrar or the consul general shall be processed in
accordance with this Act and its implementing rules and regulations.
All petitions for the correction of clerical or typographical errors and/or change of first names or
nicknames may be availed of only once.
Sec. 4. Grounds for Change of First Name or Nickname. - The petition for change of first name or
nickname may be allowed in any of the following cases:
(1) The petitioner finds the first name or nickname to be ridiculous, tainted with dishonor or extremely
difficult to write or pronounce;
(2) The new first name or nickname has been habitually and continuously used by the petitioner and he
has been publicly known by the first name or nickname in the community; or
(3) The change will avoid confusion.
Sec. 5. Form and Contents of the Petition. - The petition shall be in the form of an affidavit, subscribed
and sworn to before any person authorized by law to administer oaths. The affidavit shall set forth facts
necessary to establish the merits of the petition and shall show affirmatively that the petitioner is
competent to testify to the matters stated. The petitioner shall state the particular erroneous entry or
entries which are sought to be corrected and/or the change sought to be made.
The petition shall be supported with the following documents:
(1) A certified true machine copy of the certificate or of the page or of the registry book containing the
entry or entries sought to be corrected or changed;
(2) At least two (2) public or private documents showing the correct entry or entries upon which the
correction or change shall be based; and
(3) other documents which the petitioner or the city or municipal civil registrar, or the consul general
may consider relevant and necessary for the approval of the petition.
In case of change of first name or nickname, the petition shall likewise be supported with the documents
mentioned in the immediately preceding paragraph. In addition, the petition shall be published at least
once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation. Furthermore, the
petitioner shall submit a certification from the appropriate law enforcement agencies that he has no
pending case or no criminal record.
The petition and its supporting papers shall be filed in three (3) copies to be distributed as follows: first
copy to the concerned city or municipal civil registrar, or the consul general; second copy to the Office of
the Civil Registrar General; and the third copy to the petitioner.
Sec. 6. Duties of the City of Municipal Civil Registrar or the Consul General. - The city or municipal civil
registrar or the consul general to whom the petition is presented shall examine the petition and its
supporting documents. He shall post the petition in a conspicuous place provided for the purpose for ten
(10) consecutive days after he finds the petition and its supporting documents sufficient in form and
substance.
The city or municipal civil registrar or the consul general shall act on the petition and shall render a
decision not later than five (5) working days after the completion of the posting and/or publication
requirement. He shall transmit a copy of his decision together with the records of the proceedings to the
Office of the Civil Registrar General within five (5) working days from the date of the decision.
Sec. 7. Duties and Powers of the Civil Registrar General. - The civil registrar general shall, within ten (10)
working days from receipt of the decision granting a petition, exercise the power to impugn such
decision by way of an objection based on the following grounds:
(1) The error is not clerical or typographical;
88 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
(2) The correction of an entry or entries in the civil register is substantial or controversial as it effects the
civil status of a person; or
(3) The basis used in changing the first name or nickname of a person does not fall under Section 4.
The civil registrar general shall immediately notify the city or municipal civil registrar or the consul
general of the action taken on the decision. Upon receipt of the notice thereof, the city or municipal civil
registrar or the consul general shall notify the petitioner of such action.
The petitioner may seek reconsideration with the civil registrar general or file the appropriate petition
with the proper court.
If the civil registrar general fails to exercise his power to impugn the decision of the city or municipal
registrar or of the consul general within the period prescribed herein, such decision shall become final
and executory.
Where the petition is denied by the city or municipal civil registrar or the consul general, the petitioner
may either appeal the decision to the civil registrar general or file the appropriate petition with the
proper court.
Sec. 8. Payment of Fees. - The city or municipal civil registrar or the consul general shall be authorized to
collect reasonable fees as a condition for accepting the petition. An indigent petitioner shall be exempt
from the payment of the said fee.
Sec. 9. Penalty Clause. - A person who violates any of the provisions of this Act shall, upon conviction, be
penalized by imprisonment of not less than six (6) years but not more than twelve (12) years, or a fine of
not less than Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) but not more than One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00), or both, at the discretion of the court.
In addition, if the offender is a government official or employee, he shall suffer the penalties provided
under civil service laws, rules and regulations.
Sec. 10. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - The civil registrar general shall, in consultation with the
Department of Justice, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Office of the Supreme Court
Administrator, the University of the Philippines Law Center and the Philippine Association of Civil
Registrars, issue the necessary rules and regulations for the effective implementation of this Act not later
than three (3) months from the effectivity of this law.
Sec. 11. Retroactivity Clause. - This Act shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or
impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code and other laws.
Sec. 12. Separability Clause. - If any portion or provision of this Act is declared void or unconstitutional,
the remaining portions or provisions thereof shall not be affected by such declaration.
Sec. 13. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations, other issuances, or parts
thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
Sec. 14. Effectivitiy Clause. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in at
least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.
 The rule is clear and affords no room for interpretation. It sets forth all the requirements and Filipino
RULE 103 RA 9048 citizenship is not one of them.
Nature of Proceeding Judicial Administrative: Petition is filed before the local
civil registrar or, for non-resident citizens, the Facts
consul general JOSELITO YU, represented by guardian ad litem JUAN SY BARRERA, filed a petition for the Change of his
Scope Substantial changes in Correction of clerical or typographical errors name from JOSELITO YU to RICARDO SY
name, including surname and changes in first name or nickname -allegations:
o Minor (13 years)
Rule 108 RA 9048 o Chinese Citizen
Nature of Proceeding Judicial Administrative: Petition is filed with the local o Resident of Manila for more than 3 years prior to filing of petition
civil registrar or, for non-resident citizens, the -cause for change of name:
consul general He grew up under the care and custody of his guardian ad litem using the name "RICARDO SY"
Scope Substantial changes in Correction of clerical or typographical errors He is enrolled in school under the said name
entries in the civil registry, and changes in first name or nickname He was baptized "RICARDO SY" with his real name also stated
other than name
-JDRC: DISMISSED: Rule 103 cannot be invoked by aliens
Rule 108 RULE 103 >since the use of surnames is based on family rights, and since under Article 15 of the Civil Code laws
Nature of Proceeding Judicial Judicial relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding
Scope Substantial changes in Substantial changes in name, including surname upon citizens of the Philippines even though living abroad, the converse of the principle must be
entries in the civil registry, recognized, that is to say, the same matters in respect of an alien must be governed by the laws of his
other than name own country.
Who may File Any person interested in Person desiring to change his name or some
any act, event, order, or other person on his behalf WON the petition was correctly dismissed because the petitioner was an alien? NO. Being an Alien is
decree concerning the civil not a prerequisite.
status of persons. -Section 1 provides that "a person desiring to change his name shall present the petition to the Court of
Where and How Verified petition filed in the Petition filed in the RTC where the petitioner First Instance of the province in which he resides, or, in the City of Manila, to the Juvenile and Domestic
Filed RTC where the resides Relations Court." Here the word "person" is a generic term which is not limited to Filipino citizens, but
corresponding civil registry embraces all natural persons. The rule does not even require that the citizenship of the petitioner be
is located stated in his petition. It is enough that the petition be verified, signed by the petitioner or some other
Standing of Local Civil register concerned is Civil register is not a party to the proceeding. person in his behalf, and set forth (a) that the petitioner has been a bona fide resident of the province
Civil Register made party to the where the petition is filed for at least three (3) years prior to the date of filing; (b) the cause for which
proceeding as a respondent. the change of name is sought; and (c) the name asked for (section 2). The rule is clear and affords no
Notice requirement The court shall cause No mention of cause of notice to be sent. room for interpretation. It sets forth all the requirements, and Filipino citizenship is not one of them.
reasonable notice to be -On JDRC's ruling: a change of name as authorized under Rule 103 does not by itself define, or effect a
given to persons named in change in, one's existing family relations, or in the rights and duties flowing therefrom; nor does it create
the petition. new family rights and duties where none before were existing. It does not alter one's legal capacity, civil
*tables from UP LAW BAROPS REVIEWER status or citizenship. What is altered is only the name, which is that word or combination of words by
which a person is distinguished from others and which he bears as the label of appellation for the
YU V. REPUBLIC convenience of the world at large in addressing him, or in speaking of or dealing with him. The situation
Summary: An alien minor wants to apply for a change of name to a name by which he was baptized and is no different whether the person whose name is changed be a citizen or an alien.
by which he is known in school but the JDRC denied his petition on the sole ground that he is an alien. -purpose of petition: to determine whether there is proper and reasonable cause for the change of
name
Rule 103 does not say that only citizens of the Philippines may petition for a change of name. The word -granting of petition is discretionary: the change is not a matter of right but of judicial discretion, to be
peson is a generic term which is not limited to Filipino citizens, but embraces all natural persons. The exercised in the light of the reasons adduced and the consequences that will likely follow
rule does not even require that the citizenship of the petitioner be stated in his petition. It is enough that Disposition: Remanded
the petition be verified, signed by the petitioner or some other person in his behalf, and set forth:
(b) That the petitioner has been a bona fide resident of the province where the petition has been filed ONG PENG OAN V. REPUBLIC
for at least 3 years to the date of filing; Summary: A Chinese man, convicted twice before for gambling, wants to change his name allegedly
(c) The cause for which the change of name is sought; and because he has been using it since his arrival in the Philippines, and it is with this name that he has been
(d) The name asked for Section 2.

89 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
known. Court found that he has different aliases, and uses it whenever he pleases, so this doesnt show
that his petition was justified.
The change is not a matter of right but judicial discretion, to be exercised in the light of the reasons
adduced and the consequences that will likely follow.
A change of name is a mere privilege and not a matter of right.
A person with a criminal record will have evident interest in the use of a name other than his own, in an
attempt to obliterate an unsavory record; hence, the mere fact that the applicant has been using a
different name and has become known by it does not per se alone constitute proper and reasonable
cause, or justification, to legally authorize a change of name. There being no showing that petitioner
will be prejudiced by the continued use of his true name, for in fact he has been using it all along
together with the other names he has assumed on different occasions, we fail to see any error or abuse
of discretion on the part of the trial court in denying the petition. Where prior convictions exist, it is the
courts duty to consider carefully the consequences of the change of name, and to deny the same unless
weighty reasons are shown.
Facts
-ONG PENG OAN:
Chinese
45 years old
Married businessman
Lived in Sampaloc
-filed a petition to change his name to VICENTE CHAN BON LAY
Reasons:
He has been using that name since his arrival in the country
That is the name by which he is known in both business and social circles
TC: DISMISSED PETITION
-convicted 2x for gambling
-petitioner was not using VICENTE CHAN BON LAY because when he was convicted, his name was ONG
PIN CAN and ONG PEN OAN alias VICENTE CHAN - he changes his name whenever it suits his convenience
WON the dismissal of the petition was warranted? YES
-A person with a criminal record will have evident interest in the use of a name other than his own, in an
attempt to obliterate an unsavory record; hence, the mere fact that the applicant has been using a
different name and has become known by it does not per se alone constitute "proper and reasonable
cause", or justification, to legally authorize a change of name.
-No prejudice by the continued use of his true name
-Where prior convictions exist, it is the court's duty to consider carefully the consequences of the change
of name, and to deny the same unless weighty reasons are shown.
-the State has an interest in the names borne by individuals and entities for purposes of identification,
and that a change of name is a privilege and not a matter of right.
X. VOLUNTARY DISSOLUTION OF CORPORATIONS
RULE 104 Voluntary Dissolution of Corporations
Section 1. Where, by whom and on what showing application made. - A petition for dissolution of a
corporation shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province where the principal office of a
corporation is situated. The petition shall be signed by a majority of its board of directors or other
officers having the management of its affairs, verified by its president or secretary or one of its directors,
and shall set forth all claims and demands against it, and that its dissolution was resolved upon by a
majority of the members, or, if a stock corporation, by the affirmative vote of the stockholders holding
90 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
and representing two-thirds of all shares of stock issued or subscribed, at a meeting of its members or
stockholders called for that purpose.
Section 2. Order thereupon for filing objections. - If the petition is sufficient in form and substance, the
court by an order reciting the purpose of the petition, shall fix a date on or before which objections
thereto may be filed by any person, which date shall not be less that thirty (30) nor more than sixty (60)
days after the entry of the order. Before such date a copy of the order shall be published at least once a
week for four (4) successive weeks in some newspaper of general circulation published in the
municipality or city where the principal office of the corporation is situated, or, if there be no such
newspaper, then in some newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, and a similar copy shall be
posted for four (4) weeks in three public places in such municipality or city.
Section 3. Hearing, dissolution, and disposition of assets. Receiver. - Upon five (5) days notice given
after the date on which the right to file objections as fixed in the order expired, the court shall proceed
to hear the petition and try any issue made by objections filed; and if no such objection is sufficient, and
the material allegations of the petition are true, it shall render judgment dissolving the corporation and
directing such disposition of its assets as justice requires, and may appoint a receiver to collect such
assets and pay the debts of the corporation.
Section 4. What shall constitute record. - The petition, orders, proof of publication and posting,
objections filed, declaration of dissolution, and any evidence taken, shall constitute the record in the
case.
JUDICIAL APPROVAL OF V OLUNTARY RECOGNITI ON OF MINOR NATURAL CHILDREN
RULE 105 Judicial Approval of Voluntary Recognition of Minor Natural Children
Section 1. Venue. - Where judicial approval of a voluntary recognition of a minor natural child is
required, such child or his parents shall obtain the same by filing a petition to that effect with the Court
of First Instance of the province in which the child resides. In the City of Manila, the petition shall be filed
in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.
Section 2. Contents of petition. - The petition for judicial approval of a voluntary recognition of a minor
natural child shall contain the following allegations:
(a) The jurisdictional facts;
(b) The names and residences of the parents who acknowledged the child, or of either of them, and their
compulsory heirs, and the person or persons with whom the child lives;
(c) The fact that the recognition made by the parent or parents took place in a statement before a court
of record or in an authentic writing, copy of the statement or writing being attached to the petition.
Section 3. Order for hearing. - Upon the filing of the petition, the court, by an order reciting the
purpose of the same, shall fix the date and place for the hearing thereof, which date shall not be more
than six (6) months after the entry of the order, and shall, moreover, cause a copy of the order to be
served personally or by mail upon the interested parties, and published once a week for three (3)
consecutive weeks, in a newspaper or newspaper of general circulation in the province.
Section 4. Opposition. - Any interested party must, within fifteen (15) days from the service, or from
the last date of publication, of the order referred to in the next preceding section, file his opposition to
the petition, stating the grounds or reasons therefor.
Section 5. Judgment. - If, from the evidence presented during the hearing, the court is satisfied that the
recognition of the minor natural child was willingly and voluntarily made by he parent or parents
concerned, and that the recognition is for the best interest of the child, it shall render judgment granting
judicial approval of such recognition.
Section 6. Service of judgment upon civil registrar. - A copy of the judgment rendered in accordance
with the preceding section shall be served upon the civil registrar whose duty it shall be to enter the
same in the register.
Cf: Family Code provisions (kasi ung mga cases uses NCC)
Chapter 2. Proof of Filiation
Art. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following:
(1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or
(2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and
signed by the parent concerned.
In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be
proved by:
(1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or
(2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. (265a, 266a, 267a)
Art. 173. The action to claim legitimacy may be brought by the child during his or her lifetime and shall
be transmitted to the heirs should the child die during minority or in a state of insanity. In these cases,
the heirs shall have a period of five years within which to institute the action.
Chapter 3. Illegitimate Children
Art. 175. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same
evidence as legitimate children.
The action must be brought within the same period specified in Article 173, except when the action is
based on the second paragraph of Article 172, in which case the action may be brought during the
lifetime of the alleged parent. (289a)
BANAS V. BANAS
Summary: Raymundo Banas initially had no father, but was supported by Bibiano Banas and was treated
by the latter as his own son. It appeared that Bibianos brother Pedro was the real father of Raymundo,
and thereafter, Pedro made legal amends to documents wherein Bibiano was stated as Raymundos
father. When Bibiano died, Raymundos heirs (Raymundo also died) claimed share in the inheritance
from Bibiano, arguing that Raymundo is Bibianos natural and acknowledged child, showing documents
allegedly showing that Bibiano acknowledged to be the father of Raymundo, even showing a letter with
Su Padre. Court held that the documents presented were not enough to prove that Bibiano did
recognize Raymundo to be his child and that Raymundo should have initiated proceedings for
acknowledgment during the lifetime of his alleged father, and even after but during his lifetime.
In the Gustilo v. Gustilo, wherein the evidence submitted as proof of voluntary recognition does not only
include a letter written by the alleged father to the natural child which also ends with the complimentary
ending tu padre, but other stronger evidence tending to show voluntary recognition, the Court held
that such evidence does not prove express recognition.
*warning: long digest because long case!
Facts
-RAYMUNDO BANAS was born out of wedlock in March 15, 1894 (haha, advance happy birthday. By the
time na nadiscuss to sa class its March 13)
-mother: DOLORES CASTILLO
91 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
-father: unknown earlier in his life (but later alleged that it was PEDRO BANAS)
-RAYMUNDO'S education was shouldered by a surgeon, BIBIANO BANAS
-one day when RAYMUNDO was 13 years old, BIBIANO finding him not home yet, wrote him a
handwritten note which read:
Mundo hoy a las 10 y 45. Tu no estas en casa. No requieres tu obedecer lo que te dije que en
estas horas estudiar, descansar y ayudar con su madre. Que no veo mas otraves asi.
23/5/7
Su Padre
(Sgd.) B. Baas.
-RAYMUNDO became a teacher. BIBIANO subsequently married FAUSTINA VECINO BANAS and had
children
-When RAYMUNDO was 28 years old, he met his future wife TRINIDAD VECINO (niece of BIBIANO's wife
FAUSTINA, being the daughter of FAUSTINA's brother ANGEL)
-RAYMUNDO and FAUSTINA subsequently got married. In the marriage certificate, BIBIANO was named
as the father of RAYMUNDO and PEDRO was named a principal sponsor.
-RAYMUNDO and PEDRO executed a sworn statement wherein:
As for RAYMUNDO
RAYMUNDO declared that he was the natural child of DOLORES and an unknown father, who
he later known to be PEDRO BANAS
That he realized that his marriage certificate had an error, stating his father to be BIBIANO
instead of PEDRO
That he wanted to correct the said error
As for PEDRO
RAYMUNDO is his natural son
He found that the marriage certificate erred in stating that he is not the father of his sn
That he is executing the document to ask for correction from the Justice of Peace of Pasay who
where RAYMUNDO and TRINIDAD got married
-both sworn statements were recorded in the Notarial book of Notary Public Andres Faustino
-Both sworn statements were filed with the Office of the Justice of Peace of Pasay and the said justice of
peace issued a CONSTANCIA correcting the error (I thinkSpanish eh)
-subsequently the marriage contract was corrected, making PEDRO the father of RAYMUNDO
-PEDRO also wrote to Archibishop of Manila where he acknowledged RAYMUNDO as his natural son and
asked for the correction of the baptismal certificate of RAYMUNDO as well as those of RAYMUNDO's
children (to specify that he is the grandfather, not BIBIANO)
-BIBIANO executed a sworn statement saying that PEDRO had a child RAYMUNDO
-RAYMUNDO and his family later moved from QUIAPO to KALIMBA ST., SANTA CRUZ (owned by BIBIANO
but transferred to RAYMUNDO's name)
-BIBIANO died in 1954. At that time, RAYMUNDO was already 60 years old
-a year later, RAYMUNDO wrote to Atty. Faustino complaining bitterly about the alleged injustices done
to him by BIBIANO's wife FAUSTINA, and alleged that he had proof against Faustina
-a year after BIBIANO's death, the heirs extra-judicially settled BIBIANO's estate
-later that year, RAYMUNDO and TRINIDAD executed a mortgage over their house in KALIMBAS St. in
favor of ANGEL BANAS (son of BIBIANO with FAUSTINA) but was later cancelled.
-8 years after BIBIANO's death, RAYMUNDO died
-3 years after RAYMUNDO's death (11 years after BIBIANO's), the heirs of RAYMUNDO filed a complaint
for partition or recovery of hereditary share of RAYMUNDO in BIBIANO's estate, alleging that
RAYMUNDO is an acknowledged natural child of BIBIANO
-Evidence presented (allegedly found by TRINIDAD in RAYMUNDO's aparador after his death): *I only
included some which were discussed in the decision*
 EXHIBIT A: the handwritten note by BIBIANO to RAYMUNDO when he was 13 years old "Su WON the "Su Padre" note could be considered sufficient to apply the rule of incidental
Padre, B. Banas" acknowledgment? NO.
EXHIBITS "D" & "E": matriculation certificates of RAYMUNDO in SAN BEDA wherein it was -the plaintiffs cite DONADO v. MENENDEZ DONADO (acknowledgment made in a public orprivate
stated "RAYMUNDO BANAS is hijo de BIBIANO BANAS" document need not be direct ): the authorities cited endorse incidental acknowledgment, in cases of
voluntary recognition, if the alleged voluntary recognition were made in a PUBLIC DOCUMENT.
EXHIBITS "F"RAYMUNDO's gradeschool report card wherein BIBIANO signed as the -the authorities cited were made during the old civil code (where the voluntary recognition may be made
parent/guardian of RAYMUNDO (though attempted to be erased)
only in a record of birth, will or other public document - no private document yet!)
EXHIBIT G: Form 137 of RAYMUNDO showing that his parent-guardian is BIBIANO -the cited statement was later clarified in JAVELONA v. MONTECLARO
EXHIBITS "K" & "L": Autobiographies of RAYMUNDO -ratio why incidental acknowledgment allowed only in public documents: The father would ordinarily be
EXHIBIT H: marriage certificate of RAYMUNDO and TRINIDAD more careful about what he says in a public document than in a private writing, so that even an
-defendant's evidence (found in BIBIANO's safe): incidental mention of the child as his in a public document deserves full faith and credit ...
Duplicate copies of sworn statements made by RAYMUNDO and PEDRO (wherein they -voluntary recognition vs. express recognition:
acknowledged being father and son)
Voluntary recognition (A131) Express recognition (A135)
Duplicate copy of the sworn statement executed by BIBIANO (wherein he said that
RAYMUNDO is his brother's son)
Record of birth, will, public document Private writing may be considered as "indubitable
Duplicate copy of PEDRO's letter to the archbishop (wherein he wanted to be indicated as writing"
RAYMUNDO's father in the baptismal certificate)
TC: DISMISSED COMPLAINT natural child merely asks for a share in the compel the father or his heirs to recognize the
inheritance in virtue of his having been child
WON BIBIANO had voluntarily acknowledged RAYMUNDO BANAS as hs natural son through his acknowledged as such, not trying to compel father
handwritten note where he signed "Su padre" B. Banas? NO or his heirs to make the acknowledgment
-on authenticity of handwriting: TRINIDAD testified that the handwriting on thenote is BIBIANO's, as she
saw BIBIANO write. However, the note was written in 1907, but TRINIDAD saw BIBIANO write in 1917. acknowledgment has been formally and legally recognition is yet to be ordered by the courts
The testimony was considered unreliable, with the lapse of time. Any testimony that the writing is the accomplished because the public character of the because a private writing, lacking the stronger
handwriting of a person no the ground that the witness is familiar with the handwriting must be document makes judicial pronouncement guaranty and higher authenticity of a public
considered unreliable. unnecessary document, is not self-executory
-even granting it's authentic, it's not sufficient as proof of valid voluntary recognition:
The complimentary ending, "Su padre," taking into consideration the context of the entire letter, is not -even if treated as an "indubitable writing", no intent to recognize sufficiently apparent in the document.
an indubitable acknowledgment of paternity. It is a mere indication of paternal solicitude. It's merely an indication of paternal concern of one for the well-being of the natural son of his brother
The Filipinos are known for having very close family ties. Extended families are a common set-up among who could nto support or rear the boy.
them, sometimes to the extent that strangers are also considered as part of the family. In addition,
Filipinos are generally fond of children, so that children of relatives or even of strangers are supported if WON the other records would be sufficient to confirm the intention of Bibiano to recognize
their parents are not capable to do so. This is a manifestation of the fact that Filipinos are still living in a RAYMUNDO as his natural son? NO.
patriarchal society. -no evidence that Bibiano furnished the statements therein or had any participation in securing the
-compared to GUSTILLO v. GUSTILLO: similar evidences presented. There, the evidence presented were enrollment and the marriage certificate of Raymundo nor made representations in connections
not signed by the putative father. The note where the putative father addressed the alleged daughter therewith
"Queridas hijas: ... Conservanmas buenas que es siempre el desee de tu padre." was held to be not an -the authentic writing upon which the claim to filiation rests must, to be effective, be one made by the
unequivocal avowal that the alleged daughter was indeed such by the putative father. It is not putative father himself and that the writing must be the writing of the said alleged father
uncommon in many Filipino homes that a child who is a perfect stranger to the family but who was taken -on REPORT CARD: PEDRO, RAYMUNDO and DOLORES lived with BIBIANO when RAYMUNDO was
under similar circumstances, is regarded as a member of the family and called "hija" or "hijo " by the attending gradeschool: It would appear, therefore, that Pedro Baas was unable to support himself and
head thereof.' his wife, and it could very well be that Bibiano Baas had sort of adopted de factonotlegally or
-VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION: Article 278, NCC (taken from old civil code - Article 131) considered Raymundo, the son of his brother, to be his own "ampon" in Tagalog or Filipino, and had
...formalities: express, made in either: taken paternal solicitude for him - so he is a GUARDIAN
Record of birth If there's any acknowledgment, WON BIBIANO could validly rectify or repudiate the same by his sworn
Will statement? YES
Statement before a court of record (n) -no law prohibiting it
Any authentic writing (not public document anymore) -if there's no law, it doesn't mean that it cannot be done.
...express recognition (Estate of Pareja v. Pareja): must be precise, express and solemn - such rectification must not be arbitrary and its purpose must be to show that the acknowledged child
does not have the conditions that the law requires in order that he may be so acknowledged, or that he

92 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
has not the absolute condition of being the child of the person who acknowledged him, or that such
person could not have begotten him, or that the child is the child of a third person
-BIBIANO only made the rectification after RAYMUNDO and PEDRO executed sworn statements wherein
they each recognized their filiation as father and son.
-RAYMUNDO could have nullified or formally declared as untrue the statements he made in his sworn
statements but did not: Where a party has the means in his power of rebutting and explaining the
evidence adduced against him, f it does not tend to the truth, the omission to do so furnishes a strong
inference against him
WON RAYMUNDO could have filed for COMPULSORY RECOGNITION? NO
-Raymundo should and could have filed an action for compulsory recognition during Bibiano's lifetime,
alleging continuous possession of the status of a natural child by direct acts of Bibiano or of his family,
and that he has in his favor proof that Bibiano is his father: Raymundo was already of age before his
alleged father's death. Thus, after Bibiano's death, he cannot claim compulsory recognition as the child
of Bibiano
-under the provisions for COMPULSORY RECOGNITION (A135, OCC; A283 NCC):
Art. 135. The father may be compelled to acknowledge his natural child in the following cases:
1. When an indubitable writing of his exists in which he expressly acknowledges his paternity;
2. When the child is in the uninterrupted possession of the status of a natural child of the defendant
father, justified by the conduct of the father himself or that of his family; ... (emphasis supplied).
Art. 283. In any of the following cases, the father is obliged to recognize the child as his natural
child:
xxx xxx xxx
2. When the child is in continuous possession of the status of a child of the alleged father by the
direct acts of the latter or of his family;
3. When the child was conceived during the time when the mother cohabited with the supposed
father;
4. When the child has in his favor any evidence or proof that the defendant is his father (emphasis
supplied).
-under A137, OCC; A285, NCC: action for compulsory recognition prescribes if not taken during the
lifetime of the alleged parents, unless the case falls under the exceptions which allows the filing of such
action even after the death of the alleged parents: ONE OF WHICH IS WHEN AFTER THE DEATH OF THE
PUTATIVE PARENT, A DOCUMENT APPEARS OF WHICH NOTHING HAD BEEN HEARD AND IN WHICH
PARENT RECOGNIZES THE CHILD
here, the alleged document is not unknown to RAYMUNDO nor to TRINIDAD
...Documents allegedly proving RAYMUNDO's filiation with BIBIANO were allegedly only discovered after
RAYMUNDO's death: BUT
Trinidad should have known about these documents even during the lifetime of RAYMUNDO,
as RAYMUNDO was naturally expected to share with his wife TRINIDAD his bitterness, more so
because TRINIDAD was the niece of FAUSTINA who allegedly deprived him of his share. It is
highly improbable that RAYMUNDO would hide from his wife whatever proofs he has in his
possession to support his claim to a share n estate.
It is not normal for Trinidad to not have seen RAYMUNDO's DEATH MEMENTOs which would
tend to establish his filiation to BIBIANO, it having sentimental value
TRINIDAD's testimonies conflict: in the cross, she said RAYMUNDO did not discuss with her
matters pertaining to RAYMUNDO's claim in BIBIANO's estate. However, during the re-cross,
she alleged that RAYMUNDO did discuss it with her (Raymundo and she allegedly went to
FAUSTINA to claim their share)
-RAYMUNDO was bitter because of the partition, but if he really is the natural acknowledged child, he
should have filed a claim against the estate during the 8 years between BIBIANO's death and his own
93 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
WON granting RAYMUNDO could have filed an action for compulsory recognition, upon his death his
heirs could file such action? NO
-Right to file for compulsory recognition is NOT TRANSMISSIBLE TO THE NATURAL CHILD'S HEIRS.
-the right is purely a personal one to the natural child
-It is most illogical and contrary to every rule of correct interpretation that the right of action to secure
acknowledgment by the natural child should be presumed to be transmitted, independently, as a rule, to
his heirs, while the right to claim legitimacy from his predecessor is not, as a rule, conceded to the heirs
of the legitimate child, but only relatively and as an exception. Consequently, the pretention that the
right of action no the part of the child to obtain the acknowledgment of his natural filiation is
transmitted to his descendants is altogether No legal provision exists to sustain such pretention, nor can
an argument of presumption be based no the lesser claim when there is no basis for the greater one, and
when it is only given as an exception in well-defined cases. It is placing the heirs of the natural child no a
better footing than the heirs of the legitimate one, when, as a matter of fact, the position of natural child
is not better than, nor even equal to, that of a legitimate child
UYGUANGCO V. CA
*this case explains the effect of FC on NCC provisions on proving filiation
Summary: Graciano, the alleged illegitimate child of Apolinario, filed a complaint for partition, alleging
that he has been left out of the partition by the heirs of his putative father. Defendants alleged that the
action should be dismissed, as he is collaterally establishing his illegitimate filiation to a putative father
who is already dead. Court held that even if he has shown prima facie proof that he is indeed an
illegitimate son of the decedent whose estate is being partitioned, he should have established his
filiation during the lifetime of his father to participate in the partition.
It is clear that the private respondent can no longer be allowed at this time to introduce evidence of his
open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child or prove his alleged filiation
through any of the means allowed by the Rules of Court or special laws. The simple reason is that
Apolinario Uyguangco is already dead and can no longer be heard on the claim of his alleged sons
illegitimate filiation. In her Handbook on the Family Code, of the Philippines, Justice Alicia Sempio-Dy
explains the rationale of the rule, thus: It is a truism that unlike legitimate children who are publicly
recognized, illegitimate children are usually begotten and raised in secrecy and without the legitimate
family being aware of their existence. Who then can be sure of their filiation but the parents
themselves? But suppose the child claiming to be the illegitimate child of a certain person is not really
the child of the latter? The putative parent should thus be given the opportunity to affirm or deny the
childs filiation, and this, he or she cannot do if he or she is already dead.
Facts
-APOLINARIO UYGUANGCO died
-heirs:
DOROTEA (wife)
4 legitimate children:
Virgilio
Apolinario, Jr.
Sulpicio
Dominador
.. The heirs made an extrajudicial settlement of APOLINARIO's estate
-GRACIANO BACJAO UYGUANGCO filed complaint for partition, alleging that he is an illegitimate child
who was left out of the partition made:
Born to APOLINARIO UYGUANGCO and ANASTACIO BACJAO
 At 15, moved to father's house, at urging of father and his family the child of the latter? The putative parent should thus be given the opportunity to affirm or deny the
His education was supported by father. childs filiation, and this, he or she cannot do if he or she is already dead.
-the NCC provisions on which Graciano relied on are amended by FC, thus, the said actions for
He uses the surname UYGUANGCO w/o objection from his father or his family. He even used it in
recognition are now barred
his high school diploma
-his filiation cannot be established collaterally
He was assigned, w/o objection from the rest of the family, as the storekeeper in the
Uyguangco's store, which is strictly a family business
ASSIGNMENT NO. 13
He even shares profits of the copra business of the family
He became director of the Alu and Sons Dev't Corporation, a family corporation RULE 106: Constitution of Family Home
In addendum: he was given a share in deceased father's estate Section 1. Who may constitute. - The head of a family owning a house and the land on which it is
-MTD: Graciano could not prove filiation, applying A278, NCC: situated may constitute the same into a family home by filing a verified petition to that effect with the
Graciano did not have any of the 4 documents required under NCC to prove filiation (no record Court of First Instance of the province or city where the property is located. In the City of Manila, the
of birth, will, statement before a court of record or authentic writing) petition shall be filed in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.
Graciano's action for recognition already prescribed: must have brought during the lifetime of
the putative father When there is danger that a person obliged to give support may lose his or her fortune because of grave
mismanagement or on account of riotous living, his or her spouse, if any, and a majority of those entitled
Graciano's case does not fall under the exception to the prescriptive period, as stated in A285: to be supported by him or by her may petition the Court of First Instance for the creation of the family
Not a minor at the time Apolinario died, nor are there documents unknown to them which were
home.
only found after death of Apolinario
-TC: Denied MTD
Section 2. Contents of petition. - The petition shall contain the following particulars:
-petition for review: such complaint for partition is actually an action for recognition as an illegitimate
(a) Description of the property;
child, which, being already barred, is a clear attempt to circumvent the provisions of the NCC
(b) An estimate of its actual value;
-Graciano claims that even if he did not have any of the documents required, he was"in continuous
(c) A statement that the petitioner is actually residing in the premises;
possession of the status of a child of his alleged father by the direct acts of the latter or of his family."
(d) The encumbrances thereon;
(e) The names and addresses of all the creditors of the petitioner or head of the family and of all
WON an illegitimate child should be allowed to prove such illegitimate filiation when the putative
mortgages and other persons who have an interest in the property;
father is already dead? NO
(f) The names of all the beneficiaries of the family home.
-here, FC used, which became effective August 3, 1988 (probably, the petition was filed when FC became
effective).
Section 3. Notice and publication. - The court shall notify the creditors, mortgagees and all other
-to prove filiation under FC, establish any of the ff:
persons who have an interest in the estate, of the filing of the petition, causing copies thereof to be
(1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or
served upon them, and published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general
(2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and
circulation. The petition shall, moreover, be caused to be posted in a conspicuous place in the parcel of
signed by the parent concerned.
land mentioned therein, and also in a conspicuous place of the municipal building of the municipality or
In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be proved by:
city in which the land is situated, for at least fourteen (14) days prior to the day of the hearing.
(1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or
(2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.
Section 4. Objection and date of hearing. - In the notice and publication required in the preceding
-under FC, an illegitimate child can establish a claim to filiation by "any other means allowed by the Rules
section, the court shall require the interested parties to file their objection to the petition within a period
of Court and special laws," like his baptismal certificate, a judicial admission, a family Bible in which his
of not less than thirty (30) days from receipt of notice or from the date of last publication, and shall fix
name has been entered, common reputation respecting his pedigree, admission by silence, the
the date and time of the hearing of the petition.
testimonies of witnesses, and other kinds of proof admissible under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
-HOWEVER, HIS ACTION IS NOW BARRED.
Section 5. Order. - After hearing, if the court finds that the actual value of the proposed family home
It is clear that the private respondent can no longer be allowed at this time to introduce evidence of
does not exceed twenty thousand pesos, or thirty thousand pesos in chartered cities, and that no third
his open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child or prove his alleged filiation
person is prejudiced thereby, or that creditors have given sufficient security for their credits, the petition
through any of the means allowed by the Rules of Court or special laws. The simple reason is that
shall be approved.
Apolinario Uyguangco is already dead and can no longer be heard on the claim of his alleged sons
illegitimate filiation. In her Handbook on the Family Code, of the Philippines, Justice Alicia Sempio-Dy
Section 6. Registration of order. - A certified copy of the order of the court approving the
explains the rationale of the rule, thus: It is a truism that unlike legitimate children who are publicly
establishment of the family home shall be furnished the register of deeds who shall record the same in
recognized, illegitimate children are usually begotten and raised in secrecy and without the legitimate
the registry of property.
family being aware of their existence. Who then can be sure of their filiation but the parents
themselves? But suppose the child claiming to be the illegitimate child of a certain person is not really
Family Code

94 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
Chapter 2. The Family Home
Art. 152. The family home, constituted jointly by the husband and the wife or by an unmarried head of a
family, is the dwelling house where they and their family reside, and the land on which it is situated.
(223a)
Art. 153. The family home is deemed constituted on a house and lot from the time it is occupied as a
family residence. From the time of its constitution and so long as any of its beneficiaries actually resides
therein, the family home continues to be such and is exempt from execution, forced sale or attachment
except as hereinafter provided and to the extent of the value allowed by law. (223a)
Art. 154. The beneficiaries of a family home are:
(1) The husband and wife, or an unmarried person who is the head of a family; and
(2) Their parents, ascendants, descendants, brothers and sisters, whether the relationship be legitimate
or illegitimate, who are living in the family home and who depend upon the head of the family for legal
support. (226a)
Art. 155. The family home shall be exempt from execution, forced sale or attachment except:
(1) For nonpayment of taxes;
(2) For debts incurred prior to the constitution of the family home;
(3) For debts secured by mortgages on the premises before or after such constitution; and
(4) For debts due to laborers, mechanics, architects, builders, materialmen and others who have
rendered service or furnished material for the construction of the building. (243a)
Art. 156. The family home must be part of the properties of the absolute community or the conjugal
partnership, or of the exclusive properties of either spouse with the latter's consent. It may also be
constituted by an unmarried head of a family on his or her own property.
Nevertheless, property that is the subject of a conditional sale on installments where ownership is
reserved by the vendor only to guarantee payment of the purchase price may be constituted as a family
home. (227a, 228a)
Art. 157. The actual value of the family home shall not exceed, at the time of its constitution, the amount
of the three hundred thousand pesos in urban areas, and two hundred thousand pesos in rural areas, or
such amounts as may hereafter be fixed by law.
In any event, if the value of the currency changes after the adoption of this Code, the value most
favorable for the constitution of a family home shall be the basis of evaluation.
For purposes of this Article, urban areas are deemed to include chartered cities and municipalities whose
annual income at least equals that legally required for chartered cities. All others are deemed to be rural
areas. (231a)
Art. 158. The family home may be sold, alienated, donated, assigned or encumbered by the owner or
owners thereof with the written consent of the person constituting the same, the latter's spouse, and a
majority of the beneficiaries of legal age. In case of conflict, the court shall decide. (235a)
Art. 159. The family home shall continue despite the death of one or both spouses or of the unmarried
head of the family for a period of ten years or for as long as there is a minor beneficiary, and the heirs
cannot partition the same unless the court finds compelling reasons therefor. This rule shall apply
regardless of whoever owns the property or constituted the family home. (238a)
95 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
Art. 160. When a creditor whose claims is not among those mentioned in Article 155 obtains a judgment
in his favor, and he has reasonable grounds to believe that the family home is actually worth more than
the maximum amount fixed in Article 157, he may apply to the court which rendered the judgment for
an order directing the sale of the property under execution. The court shall so order if it finds that the
actual value of the family home exceeds the maximum amount allowed by law as of the time of its
constitution. If the increased actual value exceeds the maximum allowed in Article 157 and results from
subsequent voluntary improvements introduced by the person or persons constituting the family home,
by the owner or owners of the property, or by any of the beneficiaries, the same rule and procedure
shall apply.
At the execution sale, no bid below the value allowed for a family home shall be considered. The
proceeds shall be applied first to the amount mentioned in Article 157, and then to the liabilities under
the judgment and the costs. The excess, if any, shall be delivered to the judgment debtor. (247a, 248a)
Art. 161. For purposes of availing of the benefits of a family home as provided for in this Chapter, a
person may constitute, or be the beneficiary of, only one family home. (n)
Art. 162. The provisions in this Chapter shall also govern existing family residences insofar as said
provisions are applicable. (n)
MODEQUILLO V. BREVA
Summary: Family home was being attached for enforcement of judgment awarding damages against
Modequillo for a vehicular accident which caused the death of the victim. Court held that since the
family home was not constituted in accordance to the Civil Code (which was applicable when the
Judgment became final), then the family home is not exempted from execution. Family Code provisions
not retroactive.
Under the Family Code, a family home is deemed constituted on a house and lot from the time it is
occupied as a family residence. There is no need to constitute the same judicially or extrajudicially as
required in the Civil Code. If the family actually resides in the premises, it is, therefore, a family home as
contemplated by law. Thus, the creditors should take the necessary precautions to protect their interest
before extending credit to the spouse or head of the family who owns the home.
Facts:
-Jose Modequillo and Benito Malubay were involved in a vehicular accident in March 1976, resulting to
the death of AUDIE SALINAS.
-Case was filed against them, and judgment was rendered in favor of Salinas heirs. Judgment became
final JANUARY 1988.
-Writ of execution was issued by RTC Davao.
-Sheriff levied on the ff:
RESIDENTIAL Land in Poblacion Malalag, Davao del Sur (in Modequillo's name)
AGRICULTURAL land (also in Davao del Sur in the name of Modequillo)
-Modequillo filed a MOTION TO QUASH/TO SET ASIDE LEVY OF EXECUTION:
The residential land is a family home built since 1969
So under FC, it's exempt from liabilities except those enumerated in A155 - and the
judgment sought to be enforced is not one of them
Agricultural land: land, though declared in Modequillo's name, is still public land, because
the application for transfer from a cultural minority was not approved
TC: Denied motion; MFR denied
WON the Family Home can be attached? YES
Full Arguments of Modequillo:
Residential house and lot was duly constituted was occupied since 1969 in accordance with the FC, and
not on AUG 1988 when FC became effective
Residential house and lot is exempt from payment
Vehicular mishap happened 1976 - after family home constituted by residence starting 1969
Judgment became final JANUARY 1988
The judgment is ot one of the instances enumerated under A155,FC
RULING
1. The exemption provided in A155 is effective FROM THE TIME OF CONSTITUTION OF FAMILY HOME,
LASTS AS LONG AS ANY OF ITS BENEFICIARIES ACTUALLY RESIDES THEREIN
2. HERE: Family Home not constituted judicially nor extrajudicially under NCC
3. Family home only constituted AUG 3 (not 4) 1988, 1 year after publication in Manila Chronicle
4. Interpretation of A162,FC: DOESN'T MEAN that
a. A152 AND A153 have a retroactive effect such that all existing family residences are deemed to
have been constituted as family homes at the time of their occupation prior to the effectivity of the
FC and
b. Family homes before (constituted by mere residence) are exempt from execution for payment of
obligations before effectivity of FC
-FC applies prospectively
5. SINCE both the accident and the finality of the judgment occurred BEFORE THE EFFECTIVITY OF FC, FC
not yet applicable so not exempt.
ABSENTEES -RULE 107
RULE 107: Absentees
Section 1. Appointment of representative. - When a person disappears from his domicile, his
whereabouts being unknown, and without having left an agent to administer his property, or the power
conferred upon the agent has expired, any interested party, relative or friend may petition the Court of
First Instance of the place where the absentee resided before his dis-appearance, for the appointment of
a person to represent him provisionally in all that may be necessary. In the City of Manila, the petition
shall be filed in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.
Section 2. Declaration of absence; who may petition. - After the lapse of two (2) years from his
disapperance and without any news about the absentee or since the receipt of the last news, or of five
(5) years in case the absentee has left a person in charge of the administration of his property, the
declaration of his absence and appointment of a trustee or administrative may be applied for by any of
the following:
(a) The spouse present;
(b) The heirs instituted in a will, who may present an authentic copy of the same.
(c) The relatives who would succeed by the law of intestacy; and
(d) Those who have over the property of the absentee some right subordinated to the condition of his
death.
Section 3. Contents of petition. - The petition for the appointment of a representative, or for the
declaration of absence and the appointment of a trustee or an administrator, must show the following:
(a) The jurisdictional facts;
(b) The names, ages, and residences of the heirs instituted in the will, copy of which shall be presented,
and of the relatives who would succeed by the law of intestacy;
(c) The names and residences of creditors and others who may have any adverse interest over the
property of the absentee;
96 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
(d) The probable value, location and character of the property belonging to the absentee.
Section 4. Time of hearing; notice and publication thereof. - When a petition for the appointment of a
representative, or for the declaration of absence and the appointment of a trustee or administrator, is
filed, the court shall fix a date and place for the hearing thereof where all concerned may appear to
contest the petition.
Copies of the notice of the time and place fixed for the hearing shall be served upon the known heirs,
legatees, devisees, creditors and other interested persons, at least ten (10) days before the day of the
hearing, and shall be published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks prior to the time designated
for the hearing, in a newspaper of general circulation in the province or city where the absentee resides,
as the court shall deem best.
Section 5. Opposition. - Anyone appearing to contest the petition shall state in writing his grounds
therefor, and serve a copy thereof on the petitioner and other interested parties on or before the date
designated for the hearing.
Section 6. Proof at hearing; order. - At the hearing, compliance with the provisions of section 4 of this
rule must first be shown. Upon satisfactory proof of the allegations in the petition, the court shall issue
an order granting the same and appointing the representative, trustee or administrator for the absentee.
The judge shall take the necessary measures to safeguard the rights and interests of the absentee and
shall specify the powers, obligations and remuneration of his representative, trustee or administrator,
regulating them by the rules concerning guardians.
In case of declaration of absence, the same shall not take effect until six (6) months after its publication
in a newspaper of general circulation designated by the court and in the Official Gazette.
Section 7. Who may be appointed. - In the appointment of a representative, the spouse present shall
be preferred when there is no legal separation. If the absentee left no spouse, or if the spouse present is
a minor or otherwise incompetent, any competent person may be appointed by the court.
In case of declaration of absence, the trustee or administrator of the absentee's property shall be
appointed in accordance with the preceding paragraph.
Section 8. Termination of administration. - The trusteeship or administration of the property of the
absentee shall cease upon order of the court in any of the following cases:
(a) When the absentee appears personally or by means of an agent;
(b) When the death of the absentee is proved and his testate or intestate heirs appear;
(c) When a third person appears, showing by a proper document that he has acquired the absentee's
property by purchase or other title.
In these cases the trustee or administrator shall cease in the performance of his office, and the property
shall be placed at the disposal of whose may have a right thereto.
REYES V. ALEJANDRO
Summary: Wife of absentee (after 9 years of marriage, w/o any property put up by the conjugal
partnership) wanted to have her husband declared as absent. Court held that since absentee did not
leave any property when he went missing, no point in declaring him absent (which is primarily done for
the protection of his estate)
Declaration of Absence May be Made in Administration Proceedings
It is not necessary that a declaration of absence be made in a proceeding separate from and prior to a
petition for administrator. an heir to be appointed as administrator.
Declaration of Absence is Unnecessary Where There are NO properties
The need to have a person judicially declared an absentee is when he has properties which have to be Facts:
taken care of or administered by a representative appointed by the Court; the spouse of the absentee is
asking for separation of property, or his wife is asking the Court that the administration of all classes of
property in the marriage be transferred to her. The petition to declare the husband an absentee and the
petition to place the management of the conjugal properties in the hands of the wife may be combined
and adjudicated in the same proceedings. Hence, there is no need for such declaration if there are no
properties.
Facts
-ROBERTO REYES and ERLINDA REYNOSO REYES got married in May 20, 1960
-due to some misunderstanding over personal matters, ROBERTO left ERLINDA in April 1962. Since then,
no news about whereabouts of ROBERTO was heard
-October 1969, ERLINDA filed a petition for declaration of absence of her husband. ROBERTO left no will,
nor any property in his name, nor any debts:
o They have not acquired any properties during their marriage
o They have no outstanding obligation in favor of anyone
o Filed petition just to establish the absence of her husband
TC: DISMISS: no properties left
WON Petition for declaration of absence would prosper? NO
-SC just affirmed TC's decision
o For the purposes of the civil marriage law, it is not necessary to have the former spouse judicially
declared an absentee. The declaration of absence made in accordance with the provisions of the
Civil Code has for its sole purpose to enable the taking of the necessary precautions for the
administration of the estate of the absentee.
o For the celebration of civil marriage, however, the law only requires that the former spouse has
been absent for seven consecutive years at the time of the second marriage, that the spouse
present does not know his or her former spouse to be living, that such former spouse is
generally reputed to be dead and the spouse present so believes at the time of the celebration
of the marriage (section III, paragraph 2, General Orders, No. 68)." (On page 183).
-The need to have a person judicially declared an absentee is when
o he has properties which have to be taken cared of or administered by a representative
appointed by the Court (Article 384, Civil Code);
o the spouse of the absentee is asking for separation of property (Article 191, Civil Code)
o or his wife is asking the Court that the administration of all classes of property in the marriage
be transferred to her (Article 196, Civil Code).
-The petition to declare the husband an absentee and the petition to place the management of the
conjugal properties in the hands of the wife may be combined and adjudicated in the same proceedings,
Peyer vs. Martinez, 88 Phil. 72, 80).
DAYA MARIA TOL-NOGUERA V VILLAMOR
Summary: An alleged acknowledged natural daughter wanted to petition that her putative father be
declared absent and that she be appointed as administrator of his estate, citing as justification the allged
fraudulent transfer of her putative fathers land to the name of his fathers relative. The petition was
assailed on the ground that it is a collateral attack to a Torrens Title and that she is not an acknowledged
CANCELLATION OR CORR ECTION OF ENTRIES IN THE CIVIL RE GISTRY
97 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
natural child. Court held that no collateral attack on Torrens title, and that it is not necessary that she be
-DEC 1986: DAYA MARIA-TOL filed PETITION TO declare her the administrator of her father's (REMIGIO
TOL's) properties (as well as to declare her father absent):
DAYA MARIA-TOL allegedly the acknowledged natural child of REMIGIO TOL
REMIGIO TOL has been missing since 1984
A certain DIOSDADO TOL fraudulently secured a free patent over REMIGIO's property,
obtained Torrens title in his name
TC: DENY
Collateral attack on Torrens Title
Useless to appoint administrator in view of the claim of a 3P that he was the owner of the
property
-MR denied. Appealed
DAYA MARIA DIOSDADO
No intention to collaterally attack Torrens Title DAYA Maria is claiming that she is an illegitimate child
(merely filed for administration of properties, of absentee - so under A992, prohibited from
would attack Title in a separate proceedings ) inheriting ab intestato from the relatives of her father
Even if not collateral attack on Torrens Title, cannot
now file a case to assail the title as the 1yr period to
file already lapsed.
WON DAYA MARIA's petition to be appointed administrator should be granted? REMANDED Case
1. NO COLLATERAL ATTACK ON A TORREN'S TITLE
-merely alleged the fraudulent issuance of title as justification for appointment as
administrator (there's a need to appoint an administrator to prevent the property from being
usurped)
-there's no attack in this proceeding on the title's validity: DAYA even alleged that she would
initiate a separate action to assail the validity of the Torren's title
2. DISQUALIFICATION AS AN HEIR TO SUPPOSED GRANDPARENTS DOES NOT INHIBIT HER FROM
PETITIONING FOR A DECLARATION OF ABSENCE OR TO BE APPOINTED AS AN ADMINISTRATRIX
OF THE ABSENTEE'S ESTATE
-It is not necessary that a declaration of absence be made in a proceeding separate from and
prior to a petition for administration.
-The purpose of the cited rules is the protection of the interests and property of the absentee,
not of the administrator. Thus, the question of whether the administrator may inherit the
property to be administered is not controlling.
-What is material is whether she is one of those allowed by law to seek the declaration of
absence of Remigio Tol and whether she is competent to be appointed as administratrix of his
estate.
3. ISSUE AS TO OWNERSHIP SHOULD BE RESOLVED IN ANOTHER PROCEEDING.
4. DAYA MARIA could avail of other remedies if the 1-yr period already prescribed:
Reconveyance
Complaint for damages
RULE 108: Cancellation Or Correction Of Entries In The Civil Registry
Section 1. Who may file petition. - Any person interested in any act, event, order or decree concerning
the civil status of persons which has been recorded in the civil register, may file a verified petition for the
cancellation or correction of any entry relating thereto, with the Court of First Instance of the province
where the corresponding civil registry is located.
Section 2. Entries subject to cancellation or correction. - Upon good and valid grounds, the following
entries in the civil register may be cancelled or corrected: (a) births: (b) marriage; (c) deaths; (d) legal
separations; (e) judgments of annulments of marriage; (f) judgments declaring marriages void from the
beginning; (g) legitimations; (h) adoptions; (i) acknowledgments of natural children; (j) naturalization; (k)
election, loss or recovery of citizenship; (l) civil interdiction; (m) judicial determination of filiation; (n)
voluntary emancipation of a minor; and (o) changes of name.
Section 3. Parties. - When cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register is sought, the civil
registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby shall be made
parties to the proceeding.
Section 4. Notice and publication. - Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall, by an order, fix the
time and place for the hearing of the same, and cause reasonable notice thereof to be given to the
persons named in the petition. The court shall also cause the order to be published once a week for
three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province.
Section 5. Opposition. - The civil registrar and any person having or claiming any interest under the
entry whose cancellation or correction is sought may, within fifteen (15) days from notice of the petition,
or from the last date of publication of such notice, file his opposition thereto.
Section 6. Expediting proceedings. - The court in which the proceeding is brought may make orders
expediting the proceedings, and may also grant preliminary injunction for the preservation of the rights
of the parties pending such proceedings.
Section 7. Order. - After hearing, the court may either dismiss the petition or issue an order granting
the cancellation or correction prayed for. In either case, a certified copy of the judgment shall be served
upon the civil registrar concerned who shall annotated the same in his record.
Note:
The provisions of Rule 108 may be deemed modified by RA 9048 allowing corrections in the Civil Register
without need of judicial order in an appropriate Summary Procedure.
Section 1. Authority to Correct Clerical or Typographical Error and Change of First Name or Nickname. -
No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicial order; except for clerical or
typographical errors and change of first name or nickname which can be corrected or changed by
concerned city or municipal civil registrar or consul general in accordance with the provisions of this Act
and its implementing rules and regulations.
Appropriate Summary Proceedings vs. Appropriate Adversary Proceedings.
-Clerical or typographical errors in entries of the civil register are now to be corrected and changed w/o
need of a judicial order and by the city/municipal civil registrar or consul general.
-so correction or changing of clerical or typographical errors removed from R108
If substantial changes and corrections in entries of the civil register: R108 applies
What are substantial changes:
98 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
Civil status
Citizenship
Nationality of party
CHIAO BEN LIM V. ZOSA
Summary: Petitioner filed petition to have citizenship changed in KIM JOSEPHs birth records from
Chinese to Filipino, showing evidences which would prove so. TC dismissed it, saying its a substantial
correction not allowed unde R108. Court held that, using Republic v. Valencia, substantial errors may be
corrected using R108 as long as there is a appropriate adversary proceeding.
Role of the Court in Hearing the Petition
The court's Role in hearing the petition to correct certain entries in the civil registry is to ascertain the
truth about the facts recorded therein. Under our system of administering justice, truth is best
ascertained or approximated by trial conducted under the adversary system.
It is worth emphasizing that proceedings for the correction of erroneous entry should not be considered
as establishing one's status in a legal manner conclusively beyond dispute or controversion, for as
provided by Article 410 of the Civil Code, 'the books making up the civil register and all documents
relating theretoshall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein contained.' Hence, the status as
corrected would not have a superior quality for evidentiary purpose. Moreover, the correction should
not imply a change of status but a mere rectification of error to make the matter corrected speak for the
truth. There is, therefore, no increase or diminution of substantive right, as is the basis for holding that
Rule 108 would be unconstitutional if held to allow correction of more than mere harmless and
innocuous clerical errors.
Cancellation or Correction of Substantial Errors Allowed Provided Proceeding is Adversary
Even if the subject matter of a petition is not for the correction of clerical errors of a harmless and
innocuous nature, but one involving nationality or citizenship, which is indisputably substantial as well as
controverted, affirmative relief cannot be granted in a proceeding summary in nature, since a right in law
may be enforced and a wrong may be remedied as the appropriate remedy is used, the Court adhered to
the principle that even 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
proceeding.
Facts:
-ANTONIO CHIAO BEN LIM filed a petition to have KIM JOSEPHs citizenship changed from Chinese to
Filipino in his birth records, offering the following as evidence:
* an earlier birth certificate describing KIM JOSEPH as a FILIPINO
* birth certificates of the siblings of KIM JOSEPH, all describing them a FILIPINOs
*CA decision recognizing their grandfather as FILIPINO
TC: Dismissed outright. Only clerical errors were allowed to be corrected in the summary proceeding
under R108 and A412,NCC. Substantial issues like citizenship not covered.
*A412, NCC: "No entry in the civil registry shall be changed or corrected without a judicial order."
WON the change of citizenship from Chinese to Filipino may be allowed under R108 and
A412,NCC? YES (qualified). Remand case so there would be adversary proceedings
-court said that with REPUBLIC V. VALENCIA, substantial errors such as entries as to citizenship may be
ordered changed provided there was appropriate adversary proceedings: even 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 proceeding.
-Appropriate Adversary Proceedings: 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, the suit or proceeding is
'appropriate.
-PARTIES:
(1) the civil registrar
(2) all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby.
-UPON THE FILING OF THE PETITION, IT BECOMES THE DUTY OF THE COURT TO:
(1) issue an order fixing the time and place for the hearing of the petition, and
(2) cause the order for hearing to be published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a
newspaper of general circulation in the province.
-WHO ARE ENTITLED TO OPPOSE:
(1) the civil registrar, and
(2) any persons having or claiming any interest under the entry whose cancellation or correction is
sought.
-allowing substantial changes such as that of citizenship in records of civil registry is NOT
UNCONSTITUTIONAL: Article 412 does not limit in its express terms nor by mere implication, the
correction authorized by it to that of mere clerical errors. Upon a consideration of this fact, it would be
reasonable and justified to rule that Article 412 contemplates of correction of erroneous entry of
whatever nature, procedural safeguards having only to be provided for, as was the manifest purpose of
Rule 108.
proceedings for the correction of erroneous entry should not be considered as establishing one's status
in a legal manner conclusively beyond dispute or controversion, for as provided by Article 410 of the Civil
Code, 'the books making up the civil register and all documents relating thereto . . . shall be prima facie
evidence of the facts therein contained.' Hence, the status as corrected would not have a superior
quality for evidentiary purpose. Moreover, the correction should not imply a change of status but a
mere rectification of error to make the matter corrected speak for the truth. There is, therefore, no
increase or diminution of substantive right, as is the basis for holding that Rule 108 would be
unconstitutional if held to allow correction of more than mere harmless and innocuous clerical errors.
-The Valencia ruling has in effect adopted the above-stated views insofar as it now allows changes in the
birth entry regarding a person's citizenship as long as adversary proceedings are held. Where such a
change is ordered, the Court will not be establishing a substantive right but only correcting or rectifying
an erroneous entry in the civil registry as authorized by law. In short, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court
provides only the procedure or mechanism for the proper enforcement of the substantive law
embodied in Article 412 of the Civil Code and so does not violate the Constitution.
DE JESUS V. ESTATE OF DECEDENT JUAN GAMBOA DIZON
Summary: Though born during the marriage of their mother and her husband (therefore, legitimate
children of the latter), the petitioners alleged that they are the acknowledged illegitimate children of
decedent, showing a notarized document, so that they could take part in decedents estate. Court held
that since they were born during the marriage of their mother and the father who is indicated in their
birth certificates, they cannot claim illegitimacy without first impugning their legitimacy as the legitimate
children of their father.
Impugning Legitimacy of Child Collaterally Not Allowed
The child contrary to his birth certificate as the legitimate child of the named parents cannot claim in an
action for partition that he is the illegitimate child and acknowledged as such in a notarized document of
a different father and therefore entitled to inherit from the estate of the latter.
There must be a separate action to impugn the legitimacy that is, a direct action for the purpose. The
presumption of legitimacy fixes a civil status for the child born in wedlock, and only the father, or in
exceptional circumstances the latter's heirs can contest in an appropriate ACTION TO IMPUGN THE
LEGITIMACY OF A CHILD BORN TO HIS WIFE. Thus, it is only when the legitimacy of a child has been
successfully impugned that the paternity of the husband can be rejected.
99 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
Facts:
-DANILO DE JESUS and CAROLINA AVES DE JESUS were married, and during their marriage, the 2
petitioners JACQUELINE and JINKIE CHRISTIE were born.
-However, JUAN GAMBOA DIZON acknowledged JACQUELINE and JINKIE CHRISTIE as his own illegitimate
children with CAROLINA AVES DE JESUS in a notarized document
-JUAN DIZON died intestate, with considerable assets consisting of shares of stocks and real properties
-petitioners filed COMPLAINT FOR PARTITION w/ Inventory and Accounting
-surviving spouse and legitimate children + corporations where DIZON was a SH, filed MTD: even if
PARTITION complaint, it would call for change of status of petitioners from legitimate children to
illegitimate children.
-MTD initially denied but later on granted by TC: the declaration of heirship could only be made in a
special proceeding, as they were seeking the establishment of a status or a right
-relying on DIVINAGRACIA V. BELLOSILLO, petitioners filed petition alleging that the recognition as being
illegitimate children of decedent, embodied in an authentic writing, is in itself sufficient to establish their
status as such, does not require a separate action for judicial approval.
WON the complaint for partition of the petitioners should be granted? NO
Granting it would in effect impugn their legitimacy, which should be done in a separate proceeding.
1. Filiation of illegitimate children may be made by an admission of [il]legitimate filiation in a public
document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned. The due recognition
of an illegitimate child inany authentic writing is, in itself, a consummated act of acknowledgment of
the child, and no further court action is required (voluntary recognition)
2. Attempt to establish their illegitimate filiation with decedent is in effect impugning their legitimate
status as children born during marriage of parents:
a. Children born in wedlock are presumed to be legitimate.
b. Legitimacy is conclusive presumption, provided no proof of physical impossibility of access between
spouses during the first 120 days of the 300 days w/c immediately precedes the birth of child
c. Action to impugn legitimacy of a child can only be contested by the FATHER, or HIS HEIRS under
exceptional cases.
d. Only after legitimacy successfully impugned that paternity of husband can be rejected
3. DIVINAGRACIA not applicable. Not a case of legitimate children asserting to be someone elses
illegitimate children.
4. Written acknowledgment actually irrelevant in the issue of WON petitioners are indeed acknowledged
illegitimate offsprings w/o impugning legitimacy. Legitimacy cannot be collaterally attacked.
CABATBAT-LIM V. IAC
Summary: Respondent surviving spouse and siblings of the decedent filed an action for partition of
decedents estate, alleging that the person in possession of the bijon factory was a merely an ampon
of the decedent, hence not a legal heir. TC and CA (and SC) held that the petitioner is not a legal heir.
Court held that she is indeed not an heir, with the evidence presented putting a cloud on her evidence
and that the action she initiated is inappropriate, it being an action to impugn legitimacy.
Petition under Rule 108 to Correct and/or to Cancel wrong Filiation Allowed
Petitioner's recourse to Article 263 of the New Civil Code [now Art.170 of the Family Code] is not well-
taken. This legal provision refers to an action to impugn legitimacy. It is inapplicable to this case because
this is not an action to impugn the legitimacy of a child, but an action of the private respondents to claim
their inheritance as legal heirs of their childless deceased aunt. They do not claim that petitioner Violeta
Cabatbat-Lim is an illegitimate child of the deceased, but that she is not the decedent's child at all. Being
neither legally adopted child, nor an acknowledged natural child, nor a child by legal fiction of Esperanza
Cabatbat, Violeta is not a legal heir of the deceased.
Facts:
-Dra. ESPERANZA CABATBAT died, leaving part of her estate the CALASIAO BIJON FACTORY which is in -it is inapplicable to this case because it is an action of the heirs to claim their inheritance as legal heirs of
possession of VIOLETA CABTBAT-LIM, allegedly her legitimate daughter. the childless deceased aunt.
-her husband (PROCESO), siblings and their children filed a complaint for partition of her estate (died -no claim that Violeta was an illegitimate child of the deceased, but that she is NOT A CHILD AT ALL: not
intestate w/o isuse) legally adopted, not an acknowledged natural child, not a child by legal fiction = not an heir
-they alleged that VIOLETA (who was in possession of the factory) was not the offspring of ESPERANZA
(merely an AMPON, not legally adopted), thus, not a legal heir. This was denied by VIOLETA, arguing that APPEALS IN SPECIAL P ROCEEDINGS
she is an heir.
EVIDENCE OF RESPONDENTS EVIDENCE OF VIOLETA RULE 109: Appeals in Special Proceedings
1) the absence of any record that Esperanza 1) Violeta Cabatbat's birth record which was filed Section 1. Orders or judgments from which appeals may be taken. - An interested person may appeal
Cabatbat was admitted in the hospital where on June 15, 1948 showing that she was born on in special proceedings from an order or judgment rendered by a Court of First Instance or a Juvenile and
Violeta was born and that she gave birth to Violeta May 26, 1948 at the Pangasinan Provincial Domestic Relations Court, where such order or judgment:
on the day the latter was born; Hospital and that she is a legitimate child of the (a) Allows or disallows a will;
2) the absence of the birth certificate of Violeta spouses Proceso and Esperanza Cabatbat; (b) Determines who are the lawful heirs of a deceased person, or the distributive share of the estate to
Cabatbat in the files of certificates of live births of 2) testimony of Proceso Cabatbat that Violeta is which such person is entitled;
the Pangasinan Provincial Hospital for the years his child with the deceased Esperanza Frianeza; (c) Allows or disallows, in whole or in part, any claim against the estate of a deceased person, or any
1947 and 1948, when Violeta was supposedly 3) testimony of Benita Lastimosa denying that she claim presented on behalf of the estate in offset to a claim against it;
born; delivered a child in the Pangasinan Provincial (d) Settles the account of an executor, administrator, trustee or guardian;
3) certification dated March 9, 1977, of the Civil Hospital and that Violeta Cabatbat Lim is that (e) Constitutes, in proceedings relating to the settlement of the estate of a deceased person, or the
Registry coordinator Eugenio Venal of the Office of child; administration of a trustee or guardian, a final determination in the lower court of the rights of the party
the Civil Registrar General, that his office has no 4) the marriage contract of Violeta and Lim Biak appealing, except that no appeal shall be allowed from the appointment of a special administrator; and
birth record of Violeta Cabatbat alleged to have Chiao where Esperanza appeared as the mother of (f) Is the final order or judgment rendered in the case, and affects the substantial rights of the person
been born on May 26, 1948 or 1949 in Calasiao, the bride; appealing unless it be an order granting or denying a motion for a new trial or for reconsideration.
Pangasinan; 5) Deed of Sale dated May 14, 1960, wherein the
4) certification dated June 16, 1977 of Romeo vendee Violeta Cabatbat, then a minor, was Section 2. Advance distribution in special proceedings. - Notwithstanding a pending controversy or
Gabriana, Principal II, that when Violeta studied in represented and assisted by her "mother," Dra. appeal in proceedings to settle the estate of a decedent, the court may, in its discretion and upon such
the Calasiao Pilot Central School, Proceso Esperanza Cabatbat; and terms as it may deem proper and just, permit that such part of the estate may not be affected by the
Cabatbat and Esperanza Cabatbat were listed as 6) another Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 21, controversy or appeal be distributed among the heirs or legatees, upon compliance with the conditions
her guardians only, not as her parents; 1961, wherein Violeta Cabatbat was assisted and set forth in Rule 90 of this rules.
5) testimony of Amparo Reside that she was in the represented by her "father," Proceso Cabatbat.
Pangasinan Provincial Hospital on May 21, 1948 to *period of appeals: 30 days. Record on appeal required
watch a cousin who delivered a child there and When record on appeal required:
that she became acquainted with a patient named *Appeal from an award of Attorney's fees filed in the probate case
Benita Lastimosa who gave birth on May 26, 1948 *Appeals in liquidation proceedings against insolvent corporation
to a baby girl who grew up to be known as Violeta
Cabatbat. REPUBLIC VS. COURT OF APPEALS 458 SCRA 200 (2005)
TC: not a child by nature of spouses ESPERANZA and PROCESO Facts:
CA: Affirmed TC Decision -Apolinaria Malinao Jomoc wanted a declaration of the presumptive death of her husband Clemente
Jomoc, who has been absent for 9 years, to be able to marry again.
WON Court erred in ignoring the Ancient Document Rule (R132.22)? NO -RTC: granted it, declared her husband presumptively dead
-Exhibit 5 of VIOLETA (supposed birth registry record: showing that she was born on May 26, 1948 at basis: Article 41,par2, FC: four consecutive years only required; must institute a summary proceeding
the Pangasinan Provincial Hospital, with Proceso and Esperanza as herparents) is doubtful because: for the declaration of presumptive death of absentee spouse
>REGISTRY BOOK OF ADMISSIONS of the hospital does not show that ESPERANZA was ever admitted to -Republic, through OSG, sought to appeal by filing ONLY A NOTICE OF APPEAL
the Pangasinan Provincial Hospital during the time VIOLETA was born -TC disapporved the Notice of appeal: based on Rule 41, Section 2(a), there should also be a RECORD OF
>The RECORDS OF THE HOSPITAL does show that a certain BENITA LASTIMOSA of Ilocos Sur gave birth on APPEAL filed and served as the present case was a special proceeding
May 26, 1948 to an illegitimate child named BABY GIRL LASTIMOSA -OSG filed MR: denied
>Record of Birth Certificates of Pangasinan Provincial Hospital for May 26, 1948 is that of Baby Girl -OSG filed Petition for certiorari before CA: declaration of presumptive death is NOT A SPECIAL
Lastimosa, not Violeta Cabatbat PROCEEDING or a case of multiple or separate appeals which would require a record on appeal
-CA: denied Petition for certiorari:
WON Court erred in not considering A263,NCC? No. (1) OSG failed to attach CTC of assailed order (TC's denial of MR)
-A263 is an action to impugn legitimacy (2) OSG failed to attach a copy of the order declaring Clemente Jomoc presumptively dead

100 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
---based on (1) and (2) alone + Rule 46.3: the case should have been dismissed! RULES OF COURT ON WHEN RECORD ON APPEAL REQUIRED
(3) Declaration of presumptive death is a SPECIAL PROCEEDING as it merely seeks for a declaration of the Rule 41, Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Court, on Modes of Appeal, invoked by the trial court in
trial court of the presumptive death of the absentee spouse. It does not seek enforcement or protection disapproving petitioners Notice of Appeal, provides:
of a right or the prevention or redress of a wrong. Neither does it involve a demand of a right or a COA Sec. 2. Modes of appeal. -
that can be enforced Ordinary appeal. - The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the
exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which
ISSUE: WON THE DECLARATION OF PRESUMPTIVE DEATH OF AN ABSENTEE SPOUSE IS A SPECIAL rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party.
PROCEEDIGN OR A SUMMARY PROCEEDING (IF NOT A SPECIAL PROCEEDING, DOES NOT NEED A RECORD No record on appeal shall be required except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or
ON APPEAL) separate appeals where the law or these Rules so require. In such cases, the record on appeal shall be
filed and served in like manner. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
HELD: it is NOT A SPECIAL RPOCEEDING!
By the trial courts citation of Article 41 of the Family Code, it is gathered that the petition of Apolinaria
RULE 72: SUBJECT MATTER AND APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL RULES Jomoc to have her absent spouse declared presumptively dead had for its purpose her desire to contract
Section 1. Subject matter of special proceedings. Rules of special proceedings are provided for in the a valid subsequent marriage. Ergo, the petition for that purpose is a "summary proceeding," following
following: above-quoted Art. 41, paragraph 2 of the Family Code.
a. Settlement of estate of deceased persons;
b. Escheat; Since Title XI of the Family Code, entitled SUMMARY JUDICIAL PROCEEDING IN THE FAMILY LAW,
c. Guardianship and custody of children; contains the following provision, inter alia:
d. Trustees; xxx
e. Adoption; Art. 238. Unless modified by the Supreme Court, the procedural rules in this Title shall apply in all cases
f. Rescission and revocation of adoption; provided for in this Codes requiring summary court proceedings. Such cases shall be decided in an
g. Hospitalization of insane persons; expeditious manner without regard to technical rules. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
h. Habeas corpus; x x x,
i. Change of name;
j. Voluntary dissolution of corporations; there is no doubt that the petition of Apolinaria Jomoc required, and is, therefore, a summary
k. Judicial approval of voluntary recognition of minor natural children; proceeding under the Family Code, not a special proceeding under the Revised Rules of Court appeal for
l. Constitution of family home; which calls for the filing of a Record on Appeal. It being a summary ordinary proceeding, the filing of a
m. Declaration of absence and death; Notice of Appeal from the trial courts order sufficed.
n. Cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry.
That the Family Code provision on repeal, Art. 254, provides as follows:
Sec. 2. Applicability of rules of civil actions. In the absence of special provisions, the rules provided for Art. 254. Titles III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, XI and XV of Book I of Republic Act No. 386, otherwise known as
in ordinary actions shall be, as far as practicable, applicable in special proceedings. (Underscoring the Civil Code of the Philippines, as amended, and Articles 17, 18, 19, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 39, 40, 41 and
supplied) 42 of Presidential Decree No. 603, otherwise known as the Child and Youth Welfare Code, as amended,
and all laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations rules and regulations, or parts thereof,
CIVIL CODE inconsistent therewith are hereby repealed, (Emphasis and underscoring supplied),
Art. 390. After an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives, he seals the case in petitioners favor.
shall be presumed dead for all purposes, except for those of succession.
x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) *IN SHORT, SINCE THE TRIAL COURT USED THE FAMILY CODE, AND THE FAMILY CODE DESIGNATES
SUCH CASES AS A SUMMARY PROCEEDING AND NOT A SPECIAL PROCEEDING, IT IS NOT A SPECIAL
FAMILY CODE PROCEEDING
Art. 41. A marriage contracted by any person during the subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null
and void, unless before the celebration of the subsequent marriage, the prior spouses had been absent Finally, on the alleged procedural flaw in petitioners petition before the appellate court. Petitioners
for four consecutive years and the spouse present had a well-founded belief that the absent spouses was failure to attach to his petition before the appellate court a copy of the trial courts order denying its
already dead. In case of disappearance where there is danger of death under the circumstances set forth motion for reconsideration of the disapproval of its Notice of Appeal is not necessarily fatal, for the rules
in the provisions of Article 391 of the Civil Code, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient. of procedure are not to be applied in a technical sense. Given the issue raised before it by petitioner,
For the purpose pf contracting the subsequent marriage under the preceding paragraph, the spouses what the appellate court should have done was to direct petitioner to comply with the rule.
present must institute a summary proceeding as provided in this Code for the declaration of
presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of a reappearance of the absent As for petitioners failure to submit copy of the trial courts order granting the petition for declaration of
spouse. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) presumptive death, contrary to the appellate courts observation that petitioner was also assailing it,

101 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a
petitioners 8-page petition filed in said court does not so reflect, it merely having assailed the order
disapproving the Notice of Appeal.

102 | S p e c i a l P r o c e e d i n g _ D e a n B a l b a s t r o _ b y C h a M e n d o z a