Consolidated Spec. Pro. Cases

CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
1. FELIPE MADRINAN v. FRANCISCA MADRINAN

GR NO. 159374
FACTS
Felipe and Francisca were married on July 7, 1993 and their union was blessed with three sons and a
daughter namely Ronnick, born on Jan. 30, 1994; Phillip, born on Nov. 19, 1996; Francis Angelo, born
on May 12, 1998 and Krizia Ann, born on Dec.12, 2000.
After a bitter quarrel on May 18, 2002, Felipe, the petitioner, allegedly left their home and took their
three sons with him to Ligao City, Albay and subsequently to Sta. Rosa, Laguna.
With that, Francisca, the respondent, sought the help of her parents and parents-in-law to patch
things up between her and petitioner but to no avail. So, she then brought the matter to the Lupong
Tagapamayapa in their barangay but this
too proved futile.
Thus, she filed a petition for habeas corpus of her three sons in the Court of Appeals alleging that
the petitioners act of leaving disrupted the education of their children and deprived them of their
mothers care and prayed that petitioner be ordered to appear and produce their sons before the
court and to explain why they should not be returned to her custody.
On Oct. 21, 2002, the CA rendered a decision asserting its authority to take cognizance of the petition,
and ruled that, under Art.213 of the FC, respondent was entitled to the custody of Phillip and Francis
Angelo who were at that time aged six and four, respectively, subject to the visitation rights of the
petitioner.
Now, the Petitioner challenges the jurisdiction of the CA over the petition of habeas corpus and insists
that jurisdiction over the case is lodged in the family courts under section 5 (b) RA 8369:
Section 5. Jurisdiction of the Family Courts.- The Family Courts shall have exclusive original
jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases:
Xxx
xxx
xxx
b) Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus in relation to the latter;
xxx
xxx
xxx
ISSUE
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS JURISDICTION OVER PETITIONS FOR HABEAS
CORPUS?
RULING:
Yes, the CA has jurisdiction over petitions for habeas corpus, and the contention of the petitioner is
misplaced.
This case cited the case of Thornton v. Thornton which resolved the CAs jurisdiction to issue writs of
habeas corpus in cases involving custody of minors in the light of the provision in RA 8369 giving
family courts exclusive original jurisdiction over such petitions:
The Court of Appeals should take cognizance of the case since there is nothing in RA
8369 that revoked its jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus involving the custody of
minors.
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 1
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
The Court in this case ruled that RA 8369 did not divest the Court of Appeals and the
Supreme Court of their jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases involving the custody of
minors.
The provisions of RA 8369 reveal no manifest intent to revoke the jurisdiction of the
Court of Appeals and Supreme Court to issue writs of habeas corpus relating to the custody
of minors. Further, it cannot be said that the provisions of RA 8369, RA 7092 (An Act
Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals) and BP 129 ( The Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980) are absolutely incompatible since RA 8369 does not prohibit the
Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court from issuing writs of habeas corpus in cases
involving the custody of minors. Thus, the provisions of RA 8369 must be read in harmony
with RA 7029 and BP 129- the family courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of
Appeals and the Supreme Court in petitions for habeas corpus where the custody of minors
is at issue.
In addition, the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over petitions for habeas corpus was further
affirmed by A.M. No. 03-03-04-SC (April 22, 2004) in Re: Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ
of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors:
In any case, whatever uncertainty there was has been settled with the
adoption of A.M. No. 03-03-04-SC Re: Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of
Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors. Section 20 of the rule provides
that:
Section 20. Petition for writ of habeas corpus. A verified
petition for a writ of habeas corpus involving custody of minors shall be
filed with the Family Court. The writ shall be enforceable within its
judicial region to which the Family Court belongs.
xxx
xxx
xxx
The petition may likewise be filed with the Supreme
Court, Court of Appeals, or with any of its members and, if so
granted, the writ shall be enforceable anywhere in the
Philippines. The writ may be made returnable to a Family Court or to
any regular court within the region where the petitioner resides or
where the minor may be found for hearing and decision on the merits.
From the foregoing, there is no doubt that the Court of Appeals and
Supreme Court have concurrent jurisdiction with family courts in habeas
corpus cases where the custody of minors is involved.
We note that after petitioner moved out of their Paraaque residence on May 18, 2002, he twice
transferred his sons to provinces covered by different judicial regions. This situation is what
the Thornton interpretation of RA 8369s provision on jurisdiction precisely addressed:
[The reasoning that by giving family courts exclusive jurisdiction over habeas
corpus cases, the lawmakers intended them to be the sole courts which can issue writs
ofhabeas corpus] will result in an iniquitous situation, leaving individuals like
[respondent] without legal recourse in obtaining custody of their children. Individuals
who do not know the whereabouts of minors they are looking for would be helpless
since they cannot seek redress from family courts whose writs are enforceable only in
their respective territorial jurisdictions. Thus, if a minor is being transferred from
one place to another, which seems to be the case here, the petitioner in
a habeas corpus case will be left without legal remedy. This lack of recourse
could not have been the intention of the lawmakers when they passed [RA
8369]
Harvey Marie I. Diapana
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 2
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
2. IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE HABEAS CORPUS OF ATTY. FERNANDO
ARGUELLES, JR., ATTY. REYNALDO GERONIMO, ET.AL., Petitioners,
vs.
MAJ. GEN. JOSE BALAJADIA, JR., In his capacity as Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 167211 March 14, 2006
AZCUNA, J.:
FACTS: On March 15, 2005, petitioners filed a petition for habeas corpus because they were detained
in a room at the Senate pursuant to an Order dated March 15, 2005 issued to respondent by the
Senate Committee on Banks, Financial Institutions and Currencies (Senate Committee).
The Senate Committee scheduled a hearing on March 15, 2005 at 10:30 a.m. to conduct an
investigation, in aid of legislation, regarding the alleged illegal sale of unregistered and high risk
securities by the Standard Chartered Bank. At the hearing, Atty. Fernando Arguelles, Jr. and Atty.
Reynaldo Geronimo were present as their counsel of the Standard Chartered Bank.
The minutes of the hearing show that Standard Chartered Banks counsel provided the Senate
Committee with a copy of the petition for prohibition. The banks counsel also filed an urgent motion
to suspend or defer the proceedings of the Senate Committee apparently to await the action of the
Court on the petition for prohibition.
During the hearing, Senator Juan Ponce Enrile declared that "there is one portion of the petition for
prohibition that casts a slur on this Committee and the proceedings of the Committee." Senator Juan
Ponce Enrile moved to cite the officers of Standard Chartered Bank and their counsel, Atty. Fernando
Arguelles, Jr. and Atty. Reynaldo Geronimo, for contempt for making the allegation.
Senator Edgardo Angara, chairperson of the Senate Committee, issued an Order directing respondent
Major General Jose Balajadia, Jr., sergeant-at-arms of the Senate, to detain for direct contempt of the
Committee the officers of Standard Chartered Bank and their counsel, Atty. Fernando Arguelles, Jr.
and Atty. Reynaldo Geronimo, for a period of not more than six hours.
The persons who were detained in a room at the Senate then filed this petition for habeas corpus,
alleging that the Committee acted in violation of the Constitution and without jurisdiction, for the
following reason: that petitioners are being illegally deprived of their liberty at the Senate building.
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 3
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
Petitioners prayed that respondent be directed to appear before this Court to produce their bodies
and to explain why they should not be set at liberty without delay.
On March 18, 2005, petitioners filed a Manifestation and Motion stating that they were released from
the custody of the Senate by the Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms on March 15, 2005 at 5:56 p.m.
Notwithstanding their release, petitioners submitted that it is imperative that the issues involved in
this case be resolved, because they are of unprecedented and transcendental importance and they
involve the impact of the exercise of the powers of Congress upon human rights.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for habeas corpus has become moot.
HELD: YES
The petition has become moot.
A writ of habeas corpus extends 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 to it. Its essential object and purpose is to inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint and
to relieve a person from it if such restraint is illegal.
The singular function of a petition for habeas corpus is to protect and secure the basic freedom of
physical liberty. Petitioners have been released. While the issues raised by petitioners are important, it
is not appropriate to resolve them now in these proceedings. This is all the more so considering that
the only respondent here is Maj. Gen. Jose Balajadia, Jr., the Senate sergeant-at-arms, impleaded in
that capacity for holding petitioners in custody. The Senate Committee itself has not been made a
respondent and, therefore, has not been given the opportunity to be heard on the issues sought to be
resolved.
Alexis Enriquez
3. Camara vs Pagayatan, GR No. 176563, April 2, 2007; 520 SCRA 182

(Special Proceedings Habeas Corpus, contempt)
Facts:
Petitioner Assistant Vice-President and Head of the Land Compensation Division of the Land Bank of
the Philippines (LBP) was detained under a warrant of arrest respondent judge issued from a
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 4
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
contempt citation against the former for LBPs failure to deposit the preliminary compensation in Civil
Case No. R-1390 as provided under the trial courts order. LBP was directed to deposit the preliminary
compensation, in cash and bonds, in the total amount of P71,634,027.30 with the LBP, Manila, within
7 days from receipt of this order, and to notify the Court of compliance within such period.
LBP then complied with this order by depositing the said amount in its head office in cash under its
account in trust for, and in bond payable to, the trial courts clerk of court. However the respondent
judge found LBPs compliance insufficient and ordered LBP to place the deposit in the name of
Josefina Lubrica as payee, in the form that is readily withdrawable.
Respondent judge ordered Camara to remain in detention until LBP complies with such order. Hence,
petitioner filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Issue: WON a respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess
of his jurisdiction when he refused to release Camara from detention despite LBPs compliance.
Held: Yes. Under section 4, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, a writ of habeas corpus does not lie if it
appears that the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in custody of an officer under process
issued by a court or judge, and that the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the process. Petitioner
does not question the trial courts jurisdiction to issue the Order citing petitioner in contempt. What
petitioner assails is respondent judges refusal to release Camara from detention despite LBPs
compliance of the full amount of the preliminary compensation.
This is grave abuse of respondent judges contempt powers, amounting to lack or excess of his
jurisdiction.
Ramon A. Taghoy II
4. IN RE: PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF DAVID CRUZ y GONZAGA

MARIA CRUZ y GONZAGA and DAVID CRUZ y GONZAGA, petitioners, vs. COURT OF
APPEALS, SUPERINTENDENT OF THE NATIONAL PENITENTIARY, DIRECTOR OF THE
BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS, respondents.
FACTS:
Maria Cruzs filed a petition for habeas corpus. Her son, David, was tried and convicted by the trial
court for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (RA 6425). He was convicted on September 27,
1993 and sentenced to life imprisonment. He was committed to the National Penitentiary on October
13, 1993. On December 31, 1993, R.A. No. 769 took effect. This law amended provisions of several
penal laws, including the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.
The penalty for the illegal sale of marijuana under the old law was life imprisonment to death.
Under R.A. 7659, the penalty depended on the quantity of the drug. The sale of 750 grams or more of
Indian hemp or marijuana became punishable by reclusion perpetua, to death. The penalty for the
sale of less than 750 grams of marijuana was reduced to a range from prision
correccional to reclusion perpetua, depending upon the quantity of the drug.
The amount of marijuana for which David Cruz was convicted is 2.70 grams. The imposable penalty
for this amount under the Simon ruling is prision correctional which has a duration of six (6) months
and one (1) day to six (6) years. Presently, David Cruz has already served six (6) years and three (3)
months of his sentence which is way beyond the last day of prision correccional. The continued
detention of Cruz at, the National Penitentiary has been admitted by the Solicitor General as already
illegal.
ISSUE:
WON a petition for a writ of habeas corpus be granted. YES
HELD:
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 5
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
The writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person
is deprived of his liberty. An application for the writ of habeas corpus is made upon verified petition
setting forth: (1) that the person in whose behalf the application is made is imprisoned or restrained
of his liberty; (2) the officer or name of the person by whom he is imprisoned or restrained; (3) the
place where he is imprisoned or restrained of his liberty; and (4) a copy of the commitment or cause of
detention of such person.
DON NICO G. SANCHEZ
5. NORBERTO FERIA Y PACQUING, petitioner,

vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS,
DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS, MUNTINLUPA,
METRO MANILA (IN PLACE OF THE JAIL WARDEN OF THE MANILA CITY JAIL),
THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH II, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, and
THE CITY PROSECUTOR, CITY OF MANILA, respondents.
The mere loss or destruction of the records of a criminal case subsequent to conviction of the accused
will not render the judgment of conviction void, nor will it warrant the release of the convict by virtue
of a writ of habeas corpus
FACTS:
Petitioner Feria has been under detention since May 21, 1981 up to the present by reason of his
conviction of the crime of Robbery with Homicide for the jeepney hold-up and killing of US Peace
Corps Volunteer Carmona
June 9, 1993 Petitioner sought to be transferred from the Manila City Jail to the Bureau of
Corrections in Muntinlupa City but the jail warden of Manila informed the Judge that the transfer
cannot be effected without the submission of the following requirements:
1. Commitment order or mittimus
2. Decision, and
3. Information
It was then discovered that the entire records of the case, including the copy of the judgment were
missing
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 6
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
The entire records appear to have been lost or destroyed in the fire which occurred on November 3,
1986
October 3, 1994 Petitioner filed a Petition for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus against the:
1. jail warden
2. city prosecutor
praying for his discharge from confinement on the ground that this continued detention without any
valid judgment is illegal and violative of his constitutional right to due process
ISSUE: W/N THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS THE PROPER REMEDY NO
RULING:
Writ of habeas corpus was devised and exists as a speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons
from unlawful restraint, and as the best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom.
It secures to a prisoner the right to have the cause of his detention examined and determined by a
court of justice, and to have the issue ascertained as to whether he is held under lawful authority.
The writ may also be availed of where, as a consequence of a judicial proceeding,
(a) there has been a deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the restraint of a person,
(b) the court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence, or
(c) an excessive penalty has been imposed, as such sentence is void as to such excess
Petitioner's claim is anchored on the first ground considering, as he claims, that his continued
detention, notwithstanding the lack of a copy of a valid judgment of conviction, is violative of his
constitutional right to due process.
There is sufficient evidence on record to establish the fact of conviction of petitioner which serves as
the legal basis for his detention. Petitioner made judicial admissions, both verbal and written, that he
was charged with and convicted of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, and sentenced to suffer
imprisonment "habang buhay".
As a general rule, the burden of proving illegal restraint by the respondent rests on the petitioner
who attacks such restraint. In other words, where the return is not subject to exception, that is, where
it sets forth process which on its face shows good ground for the detention of the prisoner, it is
incumbent on petitioner to allege and prove new matter that tends to invalidate the apparent effect of
such process.
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 7
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
If the detention of the prisoner is by reason of lawful public authority, the return is considered prima
facie evidence of the validity of the restraint and the petitioner has the burden of proof to show that
the restraint is illegal based on Section 13 of Rule 102 of the Rules of Court
Public respondents having sufficiently shown good ground for the detention, petitioner's release
from confinement is not warranted under Section 4 of Rule 102 of the Rules of Court
In the present case, there is also no showing that petitioner duly appealed his conviction of the
crime of Robbery with Homicide, hence for all intents and purposes, such judgment has already
become final and executory.
When a court has jurisdiction of the offense charged and of the party who is so charged, its
judgment, order, or decree is not subject to collateral attack by habeas corpus. Put another way, in
order that a judgment may be subject to collateral attack by habeas corpus, it must be void for lack of
jurisdiction.
Petitioner's invocation of Ordoez v. Director of Prisons, 235 SCRA 152 (1994), is misplaced since
the grant of the petition for habeas corpus therein was premised on the loss of records prior to the
filing of Informations against the prisoners, and therefore "[t]he government has failed to show that
their continued detention is supported by a valid conviction or by the pendency of charges against
them or by any legitimate cause whatsoever."
In this case, the records were lost after petitioner, by his own admission, was already convicted by
the trial court of the offense charged.
Further, the same incident which gave rise to the filing of the Information for Robbery with
Homicide also gave rise to another case for Illegal Possession of Firearm, the records of which could
be of assistance in the reconstitution of the present case.
Kaye Stephanie M. Sorrosa

6. MONCUPA vs. ENRILE
G.R. No. L-63345
January 30, 1986
FACTS:
Petitioners were arrested and detained on the allegation that they were members of a subversive
organization. They filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Two separate information were filed against the petitioner, one, for illegal possession of firearms
before the Court of First Instance of Rizal and the other for violation of P.D. 33 before the City Court
of Quezon City.
The respondents, in their return of the writ justified the validity of petitioner's detention on the
ground that the privilege of the writ had been suspended as to the petitioner. However, on August 30,
1983, the respondents filed a motion to dismiss stating that on May 11, 1983, the petitioner was
temporarily released from detention on orders of the Minister temporary of National Defense with the
approval of the President. The respondents stated that since the petitioner is free and no longer under
the custody of the respondents, the present petition for habeas corpus may be deemed moot and
academic as in similar cases.
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 8
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
ISSUE:
Whether or not a petition for a writ of habeas corpus becomes moot and academic in view of the
detained persons release with restrictions.
RULING:
NO.
Restraints attached to temporary release of a detained person warrant the Supreme Courts inquiry
into the nature of the involuntary restraint and relieving him of such restraints may be illegal.
Temporary release of detainee from detention with involuntary restraints does not render the petition
for writ of habeas corpus moot and academic. It is available where a person continue to be unlawfully
denied of one or more of his constitutional freedom, where there is denial of due process, where the
restraints are not merely involuntary but are necessary, and where a deprivation of freedom originally
valid has later become arbitrary.
EDRIANNE BETH M. JASO
7. FRED M. HARDEN vs. THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS
G.R. No. L-2349
October 22, 1948
Facts: Fred Harden was imprisoned for contempt of court for failing to comply with the October 7,
1947, and March 27, 1948 Orders of the trial court, containing among others, an order for Harden to
return 368,553 shares of the Balatoc Mining Co., and the amount of P1,000,608.66 to the Philippines
and to redeposit the same with the accounts of the Plaza Lunch at the Manila Branch of the Chartered
Bank of India, Australia and China. These Orders originated from a civil case instituted by Mrs.
Harden against Fred Harden involving the administration of a conjugal partnership, payment of
alimony, and accounting. Said orders were issued with the understanding that upon failure to comply
with this order he will be declared in contempt of court.
On July 28, 1947, Mrs. Harden complained that her husband failed to comply with the above orders
and prayed that he be ordered to show cause why he should not be declared in contempt. On January
7, 1948, the receiver informed the court that, notwithstanding the expiration of Harden's extended
time to comply with the Orders, the records of the Balatoc Mining Co. showed that the certificate had
not been registered (nor the money deposited in the Philippines). At this stage of the case, Fred
Harden was committed to jail.
Issue: Whether or not a writ of Habeas Corpus may lie against the court? NO.
Ruling: The imprisonment of Fred Harden was by virtue of a courts lawful holding of petitioner in
contempt for his non-compliance of its Orders.
The grounds for relief by habeas corpus are only (1) deprivation of any fundamental or constitutional
rights, (2) lack of jurisdiction of the court to impose the sentence, or (3) excessive penalty.
(1) AS TO DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS: The order of commitment expressly gives non-compliance
with the lower courts Orders of October 7, 1947, and March 27, 1948, as the grounds for the warrant
of commitment, and thus by reference makes them part of it, in turn clearly specify the acts with the
petitioner was commanded to fulfill. It is equally clear from these orders that in the opinion of the
court that Harden is in a position to bring back to the Philippines from Hongkong part of the cash and
the Balatoc shares he had remitted to that colony.
(2) AS TO LACK OF JURISDICTION: The failure of the order of commitment to state that the acts
which the contemner (a person held in contempt by the court) fails to do are still in his power to
perform, does not void the order of imprisonment. While a court cannot give its receiver authority to
act in another state without the assistance of the courts thereof, yet it may act directly upon the
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 9
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
parties before it with respect to property beyond the territorial limits of its jurisdiction, and hold them
in contempt if they resist the court's orders with reference to its custody or disposition. SC did not
agree with the fact that if the property is in a foreign country, it would deprive the court of
jurisdiction, the remedy in such case being, as contended by petitioner, ancillary receivership.
Whether the property was removed before or after the appointment of the receiver is likewise
immaterial.
(3) AS TO EXCESSIVE PENALTY: The punishment meted out to HARDEN is not excessive. It is
suitable and adapted to its objective; and it accords with section 7, Rule 64, of the Rules of Court
which provides that "when the contempt consists in the omission to do an act which is yet in the
power of the accused to perform, he may be imprisoned by order of a superior court until he performs
it. Citing American jurisprudence, SC held that, In a civil contempt the proceeding is remedial, it is
a step in the case the object of which is to coerce one party for the benefit of the other party to do or
to refrain from doing some act specified in the order of the court. Hence, if imprisonment be ordered,
it is remedial in purpose and coercive in character, and to that end must relate to something to be
done by the defendant by the doing of which he many discharge himself. As quaintly expressed, the
imprisoned man "carries the keys to his prison in his own pocket."
Whether or not in truth the court's findings are supported by sufficient evidence is a different matter;
it is a matter of fact which cannot be reviewed by habeas corpus. In a long line of decisions, this Court
has steadfastly held that habeas corpus does not lie to correct errors of fact or law. When a court has
jurisdiction of the offense charged and of the party who is so charged, its judgment, order or decree is
not subject to collateral attack by habeas corpus. The writ of habeas corpus cannot be made to
perform the function of a writ of error; and this holds true even if the judgment, orders or decree was
erroneous, provided it is within the jurisdiction of the court which rendered such judgment or issued
such an order or decree. So whether the act charged has been committed or can still be performed is
conclusively determined by the order or judgment of the trial court in the proceeding wherein the
petitioner for habeas corpus is adjudged in contempt.
Lourdes Angelie Edig
8. Olaguer vs. Military Comm
G.R. No. L-54558, May 22, 1987
FACTS: In 1979, Olaguer and some others who were all civilians, were detained by military personnel
at Camp Bagong Diwa. Petitioners were charged with
(1) unlawful possession of explosives and incendiary devices;
(2) conspiracy to assassinate President and Mrs. Marcos;
(3) conspiracy to assassinate cabinet members Juan Ponce Enrile, Francisco Tatad and Vicente
Paterno;
(4) conspiracy to assassinate Messrs. Arturo Tangco, Jose Roo and Onofre Corpus;
(5) arson of nine buildings;
(6) attempted murder of Messrs. Leonardo Perez, Teodoro Valencia and Generals Romeo Espino and
Fabian Ver; and
(7) conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, and inciting to rebellion.
The Chief-of- Staff of the AFP created a military tribunal, named Military Commission No. 34.
Petitioners were then convicted and have been imposed a penalty of death.
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 10
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
On August 19, 1980, the petitioners went to the SC and filed the instant Petition for prohibition and
habeas corpus.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for habeas corpus is proper.
HELD: The petition for habeas corpus is moot and academic by the time the case reached the SC.
Peritioners have already been released from military confinement.
When the release of the persons in whose behalf the application for a writ of habeas corpus was filed
is effected, the Petition for the issuance of the writ becomes moot and academic. The instant Petitions
for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed for having become moot and
academic. But the military court created to try the case of Olaguer (and the decision it rendered) still
continues to subsist.
ISSUE: Whether or not the military tribunal had jurisdiction to try civilians as opposed to the civil
courts.
HELD: The SC ruled on the lack of jurisdiction of the military tribunals and all decisions rendered by
it during the period of martial law in all cases involving civilian defendants. A military commission or
tribunal cannot try and exercise jurisdiction, even during the period of martial law, over civilians for
offenses allegedly committed by them as long as the civil courts are open and functioning. Judgment
rendered by such body relating to a civilian is null and void for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the
military tribunal concerned.
Missy Ansaldo
9. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MARTIN SIMON y SUNGA, G.R. No. 93028
FACTS:
Martin Simon was convicted by the trial court for violation of Section 4, Article II of R.A. No.
6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as amended, in December 4, 1989. However, while this case was
pending on appeal before the Supreme Court, R.A. No. 6425 was further amended by Republic Act No.
7659 effective December 31, 1993, which supervenience necessarily affects the original disposition of
this case and entails additional questions of law.
HELD:
The provisions of the aforesaid amendatory law, pertinent to the adjudication of the case at bar,
are to this effect:
Sec. 13. Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 of Art. II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended,
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, are hereby amended to read as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
Sec. 4. Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of
Prohibited Drugs. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine
ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be
imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell,
administer, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or
transport any prohibited drug, or shall act as a broker in any of such
transactions.
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 11
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
xxx xxx xxx

Sec. 17. Section 20, Article IV of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, known as the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 20. Application of Penalties, Confiscation and Forfeiture of the
Proceeds or Instrument of the Crime. The penalties for offenses under
Sections 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of Article II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15 and 16 of
Article III of this Act shall be applied if the dangerous drugs involved is in
any of the following quantities:
xxx xxx xxx
5. 750 grams or more of indian hemp or marijuana
xxx xxx xxx
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities,
the
penalty
shall
range
from prision
correccional to reclusion
perpetua depending upon the quantity.
Considering that herein appellant is being prosecuted for the sale of four tea bags of marijuana with a
total weight of only 3.8 grams and, in fact, stands to be convicted for the sale of only two of those tea
bags, the initial inquiry would be whether the patently favorable provisions of Republic Act No. 7659
should be given retroactive effect to entitle him to the lesser penalty provided thereunder, pursuant to
Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code.
Although Republic Act No. 6425 was enacted as a special law, albeit originally amendatory and in
substitution of the previous Articles 190 to 194 of the Revised Penal Code, it has long been settled
that by force of Article 10 of said Code the beneficient provisions of Article 22 thereof applies to and
shall be given retrospective effect to crimes punished by special laws. The execution in said article
would not apply to those convicted of drug offenses since habitual delinquency refers to convictions
for the third time or more of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa
or falsification.
Since, obviously, the favorable provisions of Republic Act No. 7659 could neither have then been
involved nor invoked in the present case, a corollary question would be whether this court, at the
present
stage,
can
sua sponte apply the provisions of said Article 22 to reduce the penalty to be imposed on appellant.
That issue has likewise been resolved in the cited case of People vs. Moran, et al., ante., thus:
. . . . The plain precept contained in article 22 of the Penal Code, declaring the
retroactivity of penal laws in so far as they are favorable to persons accused of a felony,
would be useless and nugatory if the courts of justice were not under obligation to fulfill
such duty, irrespective of whether or not the accused has applied for it, just as would
also all provisions relating to the prescription of the crime and the penalty.
If the judgment which could be affected and modified by the reduced penalties provided in Republic
Act No. 7659 has already become final and executory or the accused is serving sentence thereunder,
then practice, procedure and pragmatic considerations would warrant and necessitate the matter
being brought to the judicial authorities for relief under a writ of habeas corpus.
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 12
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
Anthony L. Yap
10. ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO, petitioner,
vs.
ERLINDA I. BILDNER and SYLVIA K. ILUSORIO, JOHN DOE and JANE DOE, respondents.
GR No. 139808 May 12, 2000
POTENCIO ILUSORIO, MA. ERLINDA I. BILDNER and SYLVIA K. ILUSORIO, petitioners,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS and ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO, respondents
FACTS:
Erlinda Kalaw Ilusorio (ERLINDA) is the wife of lawyaer Potenciano Ilusorio (POTENCIANO).
ERLINDA and POTENCIANO contracted matrimony and lived together for a period of 30 years. In
1972, they separated from bed and board for undisclosed reasons. POTENCIANO lived in Makati or in
Baguio City, while ERLINDA lived in Antipolo City.
Out of their marriages, the spouses produced six children, to wit:
Ramon Ilusorio
Erlinda Ilusorio Bildner
Maximo
Sylvia
Marietta
Shereen
On 12/30/1997, POTENCIANO stayed with ERLINDA for about 5 months in Antipolo City. The
children, alleged that during this time, their mother gave POTENCIANO an overdose of Zoloft, an
antidepressant which led to the deterioration of the latters health.
On 5/31/1998, POTENCIANO after attending a meeting, did not return to Antipolo City and instead
lived in Makati City, which prompted ERLINDA to file for a petition for habeas corpus.
She alleged that respondents refused petitioners demands to see and visit her husband and
prohibited POTENCIANO from returning to Antipolo City.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a wife may secure a writ of habeas corpus to compel her husband to live with her in
conjugal bliss?
RULING:
No, the wife cannot secure a writ of habeas corpus to compel her husband to live with her.
Marital rights including coverture and living in conjugal dwelling may not be enforced by the extraordinary writ of habeas corpus.
Habeas corpus is a writ directed to the person detaining another, commanding him to produce the
body of the prisoner at a designated time and place, with the day and cause of his capture and
detention, to do, submit to, and receive whatsoever the court or judge awarding the writ shall
consider in that behalf.
A writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention, or by which the
rightful custody of a person is withheld from the one entitled thereto.
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 13
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
The essential object and purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into all manner of
involuntary restraint, and to relieve a person therefrom if such restraint is illegal.
To justify the grant of the petition, the following must be present:
The restraint of liberty must be illegal

There is involuntary deprivation of freedom of action
The illegal restraint of liberty must be actual and effective, not merely nominal or moral.
In the above case, evidence concludes that there was no actual and effective detention or deprivation
of lawyer POTENCIANO ILUSORIOs liberty that would justify the issuance of the writ. The fact that
POTENCIANO is in his primary years and under medication does not necessarily render him mentally
incapacitated.
Being of sound mind, he is thus possessed with the capacity to make choices. In the case at bar, the
crucial choice revolve on his residence and the people he opts to see or live with. He made it clear
before the Court of Appeals that he was not prevented from leaving his house or seeing people.
With that declaration, and absent any true restraint on his liberty, the petition for habeas corpus
should be denied.
ARBIE MAE R. MAGALE
11. ZACARIAS VILLAVICENCIO, ET AL. vs.
JUSTO LUKBAN, ET AL
Facts: The Mayor of the city of Manila, Justo Lukban, to exterminate vice, ordered the segregated
district for women(170) of ill repute/ prostitutes, which had been permitted for a number of years in
the city of Manila, closed. The women were kept confined to their houses in the district by the police.
Presumably, during this period, the city authorities quietly perfected arrangements with the Bureau of
Labor for sending the women to Davao, Mindanao, as laborers; with some government office for the
use of the coastguard cutters Corregidor and Negros, and with the Constabulary for a guard of
soldiers.
The attorney for the relatives and friends of a considerable number of the deportees presented an
application for habeas corpus to a member of the Supreme Court. The writ was granted.
Issue: WON HC is the proper remedy?
Held: NO
The writ of habeas corpus was devised and exists as a speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons
from unlawful restraint, and as the best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom. Any further
rights of the parties are left untouched by decision on the writ, whose principal purpose is to set the
individual at liberty.
The persons in question are not restrained of their liberty.
When the writ was prayed for, says counsel, the parties in whose behalf it was asked were under no
restraint; the women, it is claimed, were free in Davao. Others h
A prime specification of an application for a writ of habeas corpus is restraint of liberty. The essential
object and purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint
as distinguished from voluntary, and to relieve a person therefrom if such restraint is illegal. Any
restraint which will preclude freedom of action is sufficient. The forcible taking of these women from
Manila by officials of that city, who handed them over to other parties, who deposited them in a
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 14
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
distant region, deprived these women of freedom of locomotion just as effectively as if they had been
imprisoned.
NOTE: The writ has already been granted, and since SC find a substantial compliance with it, nothing
further in this connection remains to be done.
Alfie Luzana Omega
12. In Re: Azucena L. Garcia G.R. No. 141443, August 30, 2000
Facts: Garcia was charged with three counts of falsification of public documents in three separate
criminal informations, the first being for falsification of technical description of land and other two
being for falsification of Declarations of Real Property.
In its decision, the trial court found Garcia guilty. On appeal, CA and SC affirmed Garcias conviction
and entry of judgment was made.
In the instant petition, Garcia questions the validity of the judgment rendered in the criminal case.
She contends that where the proceedings were attended by violations of the constitutional rights of
the accused, the judgment of conviction is void thereby warranting relief by the extraordinary legal
remedy of habeas corpus.
Issue: WON the writ of habeas corpus can be availed of.
Held: No. The high prerogative writ of habeas corpus was devised and exists as a speedy and
effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint. Its object is to inquire into the legality of
ones detention, and if found illegal, to order the release of the detainee.
However, it is equally well-settled that the writ will not issue where the person in whose behalf the
writ is sought is out on bail, or 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
issued the process, render the judgment, or make the order.
In the case at bar, therefore, Garcia can no longer seek relief via a petition for habeas corpus having
been convicted by final judgment of the crime of falsification of public document and use thereof. Said
judgment is already final and executory.
Madel Malone-Cervantes
13. Tijing vs. CA
G.R. No. 125901 March 8, 2001
Facts:
Edgardo and Bienvenida Tijing filed a petition for habeas corpus in order to recover their youngest
child, Edgardo Jr., from Angela Diamante. Diamante took the spouses' son four years earlier and
raised him as her own son. The trial court granted the petition and ordered Angelita Diamante to
immediately release the child, now named John Thomas D. Lopez, and turn him over to his parents. CA
reversed and set aside the decision rendered by the lower court.
Issue: Whether or not habeas corpus is the proper remedy?
Ruling: Yes.
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 15
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
The Court that the writ of habeas corpus extends 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. Thus, it is the proper legal remedy to enable parents to regain the
custody of a minor child even if the latter be in the custody of a third person of his own free will. It
may even be said that in custody cases involving minors, the question of illegal and involuntary
restraint of liberty is not the underlying rationale for the availability of the writ as a remedy. Rather, it
is prosecuted for the purpose of determining the right of custody over a child. It must be stressed too
that in habeas corpus proceedings, the question of identity is relevant and material, subject to the
usual presumptions including those as to identity of the person.
In the case at bar, the minor's identity is crucial in determining the propriety of the writ sought. Thus,
the Court resolved first who between Bienvenida and Angelita is the minor's biological mother.
A close scrutiny of the records of this case reveals that the evidence presented by Bienvenida is
sufficient to establish that John Thomas Lopez is actually her missing son, Edgardo Tijing, Jr. The
court ruled that the trial court was correct in its judgment based on the evidence established by the
parents and by the witness who is the brother of the late common-law husband of Angelita.
Furthermore, there are no clinical records, log book or discharge from the clinic where John Thomas
was allegedly born were presented. Strong evidence directly proves that Thomas Lopez, Angela's
"husband", was not capable of siring a child.
Also, the birth certificate of John Thomas Lopez were attended by irregularities. It was filed by
Thomas Lopez, the alleged father. Under Sec. 4, Act No. 3753 (Civil Register Law), the attending
physician or midwife in attendance of the birth should cause the registration of such birth. Only in
default of the physician or midwife, can the parent register the birth of his child. Certificate must be
filed with the LCR within 30 days after the birth.
Trial court also observed several times that when the child and Bienvenida were both in court, the two
had strong similarities in their faces. Resemblance between a minor and his alleged parent is
competent and material evidence to establish parentage. Lastly, the spouses presented clinical
records and testimony of the midwife who attended Bienvenida's childbirth.
Thus, the writ of habeas corpus is proper to regain custody of said child.
Lizette Tuballa
14. Andal vs. People, GR No.138268-69, May 26, 1999
Facts: Petitioners convicted of rape with homicide seek a writ of habeas corpus on the basis of a claim
of mistrial and/or that the decision if the RTC was void. The petitioners argue that the trial court was
ousted of jurisdiction to try their case since the pre-trial identification of the accused was made
without the assistance of counsel and without a valid waiver from the accused.
Issue: WON a writ of habeas corpus should be granted.
Held: No. The extraordinary writ of habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy to inquire into questions
of violation of the petitioners constitutional rights and that this court has jurisdiction to entertain this
review. The jurisdiction of this court has been expanded to determine whether or not there has been a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the government.
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 16
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
In this case findings show that there was no violation of the constitutional rights of the accused and a
resultant deprivation of liberty or due process of law. The accused were sentenced to the supreme
penalty of death as a result of a valid jurisdiction, after a fair and equitable trial.
RA BANDALA
15. Roxas v. Macapagal-Arroyo
G.R. No. 189155
07 September 2010
PONENTE: Perez, J.
PARTIES:
PETITIONER: MELISSA ROXAS
RESPONDENTS: PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, GILBERT TEODORO, GEN. VICTOR
IBRADO, P/DIR. GEN. JESUS AME VERZOSA, LT. GEN. DELFIN BANGIT, PC/SIPT/ LEON NILO DELA
CRUZ, MAJ.GEN. RALPH VILLANUEVA, PS/SUPT. RUDY GAMIDO LACADIN, DEX, RC, and ROSE
NATURE: Petition for Review on Certiorari
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND:
Supreme Court: Petition for the issuance of Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data
Court of Appeals: Upon order of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals summarily heard the
Original Action for Petition of Amparo. Thereafter, the Court of Appeals issued a judgment which is
the subject of the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.
FACTS:
Melissa Roxas, an American citizen of Filipino descent, while in the United States, enrolled in an
exposure program to the Philippines with the group Bagong Alyansang Makabayan-United States of
America (BAYAN- USA) of which she is a member.
On 19 May 2009, after doing survey work in Tarlac, Roxas and her companions rested in the house of
Mr. Jesus Paolo in Sitio Bagong Sikat. While Roxas and her companions were resting, 15 heavily
armed men in civilian clothes forcibly entered the house and dragged them inside a van. When they
alighted from the van, she was informed that she is being detained for being a member of Communist
Party of the Philippines-New Peoples Army (CPP-NPA). She was then separated from her companions
and was brought to a room, from where she could hear sounds of gunfire, noise of planes taking off
and landing, and some construction bustle.
She was interrogated and tortured for 5 straight days to convince her to abandon her communist
beliefs. She was informed by a person named RC that those who tortured her came from the
Special Operations Group and that she was abducted because her name is included in the Order of
Battle.
On 25 May 2009, Roxas was finally released and was given a cellular phone with a sim card. She was
sternly warned not to report the incident to the group Karapatan or something untoward will happen
to her and her family. After her release, Roxas continued to receive calls from RC thru the cell phone
given to her. Out of apprehension, she threw the phone and the sim card.
Hence, on 01 June 2009, Roxas filed a petition for the issuance of Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data
before the Supreme Court, impleading the high-ranking officials of military and Philippine National
Police (PNP), on the belief that it was the government agents who were behind her abduction and
torture.
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 17
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
On 09 June 2009, the Supreme Court issued the writs and referred the case to the Court of Appeals
for hearing, reception of evidence and appropriate action. The Court of Appeals granted the privilege
of writs of amparo and habeas data. However, the court a quo absolved the respondents because it
was not convinced that the respondents were responsible for the abduction and torture of Roxas.
Aggrieved, Roxas filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.
PERTINENT ISSUES:
Whether or not the doctrine of command responsibility is applicable in an amparo petition.
Whether or not circumstantial evidence with regard to the identity and affiliation of the perpetrators
is enough ground for the issuance of the privilege of the writ of amparo.
Whether or not substantial evidence to prove actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in
life, liberty or security of the victim is necessary before the privilege of the writ may be extended.
ANSWERS:
No.
It depends. Direct evidence of identity, when obtainable must be preferred over mere circumstantial
evidence.
Yes.
SUPREME COURT RULINGS:
1.
DOCTRINE OF COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY AND THE WRIT OF AMPARO
Command responsibility as justification in impleading respondents is legally inaccurate The use of

the doctrine of command responsibility as justification in impleading the respondents in her amparo
petition, is legally inaccurate, if not incorrect. Such doctrine is a rule of substantive law that
establishes liability and, by this account, cannot be a proper legal basis to implead a party-respondent
in an amparo petition.
The Writ of Amparo as a protective remedy As held in the case of Rubrico v. Arroyo, the writ of
amparo is a protective remedy aimed at providing judicial relief consisting of the appropriate remedial
measures and directives that may be crafted by the court, in order to address specific violations or
threats of violation of the constitutional rights to life, liberty or security. It does not fix liability for
such disappearance, killing or threats, whether that may be criminal, civil or administrative under the
applicable substantive law. Since the application of command responsibility presupposes an
imputation of individual liability, it is more aptly invoked in a full-blown criminal or administrative
case rather than in a summary amparo proceeding. However, the inapplicability of the doctrine of
command responsibility does not preclude impleading military or police commanders on the ground
that the complained acts in the petition were committed with their direct or indirect acquiescence. In
which case, commanders may be impleaded not actually on the basis of command responsibility
but rather on the ground of their responsibility, or at least accountability.
2.
EVIDENCE REQUIRED IN AMPARO PROCEEDINGS
In amparo proceedings, direct evidence of identity must be preferred over mere circumstantial
evidence In amparo proceedings, the weight that may be accorded to parallel circumstances as
evidence of military involvement depends largely on the availability or non-availability of other pieces
of evidence that has the potential of directly proving the identity and affiliation of the perpetrators.
Direct evidence of identity, when obtainable, must be preferred over mere circumstantial evidence
based on patterns and similarity, because the former indubitably offers greater certainty as to the true
identity and affiliation of the perpetrators.
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 18
CASE
3.
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
EVIDENCE REQURED IN HABEAS DATA PROCEEDINGS
Substantial evidence of an actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or
security of the victim is an indispensable requirement before the privilege of the writ may be extended
An indispensable requirement before the privilege of the writ may be extended is the showing, at
least by substantial evidence, of an actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty
or security of the victim. In the case at bar, Roxas failed to show that there is an actual or threatened
violation of such right. Hence, until such time that any of the respondents were found to be actually
responsible for the abduction and torture of Roxas, any inference regarding the existence of reports
being kept in violation of the petitioners right to privacy becomes farfetched, and premature. The
Court must, at least in the meantime, strike down the grant of the privilege of the writ of habeas data.
DISPOSITIVE:
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. However, it modified the directive
of the Court of the Appeals for further investigation, as follows:
Appointing the CHR as the lead agency tasked with conducting further investigation regarding the
abduction and torture of the petitioner. Accordingly, the CHR shall, under the norm of extraordinary
diligence, take or continue to take the necessary steps: (a) to identify the persons described in the
cartographic sketches submitted by the petitioner, as well as their whereabouts; and (b) to pursue any
other leads relevant to petitioners abduction and torture.
Directing the incumbent Chief of the Philippine National Police (PNP), or his successor, and the
incumbent Chief of Staff of the AFP, or his successor, to extend assistance to the ongoing investigation
of the CHR, including but not limited to furnishing the latter a copy of its personnel records circa the
time of the petitioners abduction and torture, subject to reasonable regulations consistent with the
Constitution and existing laws.
Further directing the incumbent Chief of the PNP, or his successor, to furnish to this Court, the Court
of Appeals, and the petitioner or her representative, a copy of the reports of its investigations and
their recommendations, other than those that are already part of the records of this case, within
ninety (90) days from receipt of this decision.
Further directing the CHR to (a) furnish to the Court of Appeals within ninety (90) days from receipt
of this decision, a copy of the reports on its investigation and its corresponding recommendations; and
to (b) provide or continue to provide protection to the petitioner during her stay or visit to the
Philippines, until such time as may hereinafter be determined by this Court.
The Supreme Court likewise referred the case back to the Court of Appeals, for the purposes of
monitoring compliance with the above directives and determining whether, in light of any recent
reports or recommendations, there would already be sufficient evidence to hold any of the public
respondents responsible or, at least, accountable. After making such determination, the Court of
Appeals shall submit its own report with recommendation to the Supreme Court for its consideration.
It was declared that the Court of Appeals will continue to have jurisdiction over this case in order to
accomplish its tasks under this decision.
Edwin Gutierez
16. PHILIP SIGFRID A. FORTUN and ALBERT LEE G. ANGELES
vs.
GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO
Facts:
Heavily armed men, believed led by the ruling Ampatuan family, gunned down and buried under
shoveled dirt 57 innocent civilians. In response to this carnage, President Arroyo issued Presidential
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 19
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
Proclamation 1946, declaring a state of emergency in Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat, and Cotabato
City to prevent and suppress similar lawless violence in Central Mindanao.
Believing that she needed greater authority to put order in Maguindanao and secure it from large
groups of persons that have taken up arms against the constituted authorities in the province,
President Arroyo issued Presidential Proclamation 1959 declaring martial law and suspending the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in that province except for identified areas of the Moro Islamic
Liberation Front.
Two days later President Arroyo submitted her report to Congress in accordance with Section 18,
Article VII of the 1987 Constitution which required her, within 48 hours from the proclamation of
martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, to submit to that body a
report in person or in writing of her action.
Congress, in joint session, convened pursuant to Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution to
review the validity of the Presidents action. before Congress could act, the President issued
Presidential Proclamation 1963, lifting martial law and restoring the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus .
Petitioners Philip Sigfrid A. Fortun and the other petitioners brought the present actions to challenge
the constitutionality of President Arroyos Proclamation 1959.
Issue:
Whether or not the constitutionality of Proclamation 1959 unavoidable?
Ruling:
The issue of the constitutionality of Proclamation 1959 is not unavoidable for two reasons:
One. President Arroyo withdrew her proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus before the joint houses of Congress could fulfill their automatic duty to review
and validate or invalidate the same.
Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution state:
The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it
becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence,
invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a
period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the
Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of
martial law or the suspension of the privilege of writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a
report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a
majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension,
which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the
Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be
determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or
suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without any need of a call.
Although the above vests in the President the power to proclaim martial law or suspend the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus, he shares such power with the Congress. Thus:
1. The Presidents proclamation or suspension is temporary, good for only 60 days;
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 20
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
2. He must, within 48 hours of the proclamation or suspension, report his action in person or in
writing to Congress;
3. Both houses of Congress, if not in session must jointly convene within 24 hours of the proclamation
or suspension for the purpose of reviewing its validity; and
4. The Congress, voting jointly, may revoke or affirm the Presidents proclamation or suspension, allow
their limited effectivity to lapse, or extend the same if Congress deems warranted.
It is evident that under the 1987 Constitution the President and the Congress act in tandem in
exercising the power to proclaim martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
They exercise the power, not only sequentially, but in a sense jointly since, after the President has
initiated the proclamation or the suspension, only the Congress can maintain the same based on its
own evaluation of the situation on the ground, a power that the President does not have.
Consequently, although the Constitution reserves to the Supreme Court the power to review the
sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation or suspension in a proper suit, it is implicit that the
Court must allow Congress to exercise its own review powers, which is automatic rather than
initiated. Only when Congress defaults in its express duty to defend the Constitution through such
review should the Supreme Court step in as its final rampart. The constitutional validity of the
Presidents proclamation of martial law or suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is first a political
question in the hands of Congress before it becomes a justiciable one in the hands of the Court.
President Arroyo withdrew Proclamation 1959 before the joint houses of Congress, which had in fact
convened, could act on the same. Consequently, the petitions in these cases have become moot and
the Court has nothing to review. The lifting of martial law and restoration of the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus in Maguindanao was a supervening event that obliterated any justiciable
controversy.2
Two. Since President Arroyo withdrew her proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus in just eight days, they have not been meaningfully implemented. The
military did not take over the operation and control of local government units in Maguindanao. The
President did not issue any law or decree affecting Maguindanao that should ordinarily be enacted by
Congress. No indiscriminate mass arrest had been reported. Those who were arrested during the
period were either released or promptly charged in court. Indeed, no petition for habeas corpus had
been filed with the Court respecting arrests made in those eight days.
In the present case, the Court has not bothered to examine the evidence upon which President Arroyo
acted in issuing Proclamation 1959, precisely because it felt no need to, the proclamation having been
withdrawn within a few days of its issuance.
Justice Antonio T. Carpio points out in his dissenting opinion the finding of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Quezon City that no probable cause exist that the accused before it committed rebellion in
Maguindanao since the prosecution failed to establish the elements of the crime. But the Court cannot
use such finding as basis for striking down the Presidents proclamation and suspension. For, firstly,
the Court did not delegate and could not delegate to the RTC of Quezon City its power to determine
the factual basis for the presidential proclamation and suspension. Secondly, there is no showing that
the RTC of Quezon City passed upon the same evidence that the President, as Commander-in-Chief of
the Armed Forces, had in her possession when she issued the proclamation and suspension.
Notably, under Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, the Court has only 30 days from the
filing of an appropriate proceeding to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of
martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Thus
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of
the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 21
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
habeas corpus or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days
from its filing. (Emphasis supplied)
Justice Carpio of course points out that should the Court regard the powers of the President and
Congress respecting the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus as sequential or joint, it would be impossible for the Court to exercise its power of
review within the 30 days given it.
But those 30 days, fixed by the Constitution, should be enough for the Court to fulfill its duty without
pre-empting congressional action. Section 18, Article VII, requires the President to report his actions
to Congress, in person or in writing, within 48 hours of such proclamation or suspension. In turn, the
Congress is required to convene without need of a call within 24 hours following the Presidents
proclamation or suspension.
If the Congress procrastinates or altogether fails to fulfill its duty respecting the proclamation or
suspension within the short time expected of it, then the Court can step in, hear the petitions
challenging the Presidents action, and ascertain if it has a factual basis. If the Court finds none, then
it can annul the proclamation or the suspension. The 30-day period does not operate to divest this
Court of its jurisdiction over the case.
The problem in this case is that the President aborted the proclamation of martial law and the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Maguindanao in just eight days. The
proclamation and the suspension never took off. The Congress itself adjourned without touching the
matter, it having become moot and academic.
The present cases do not present sufficient basis for the exercise of the power of judicial review.
Olan Dave L. Lachica
17. DE LIMA v. GATDULA
FACTS
What happened in this case was that, on Feb 12, 2012, Magtanggol B. Gatdula, the respondent herein
filed a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo in the RTC of Manila. It was docketed as In the
Matter of the Petition for Issuance of Writ of Amparo of Atty. Magtanggol B. Gatdula, SP no. 12127405 and was raffled to the sala of Judge Silvino T. Pampilo.
The Amparo was directed against petitioners Justice Secretary Leila De Lima, Director Rojas and
Deputy Director Esmeralda of the NBI. The respondent wanted De Lima, et. al. to cease and desist
from framing up Gatdula for the fake ambush incident by filing bogus charges of Frustrated Murder
against him in relation to the alleged ambush incident.
Now, instead of deciding on whether to issue a Writ of Amparo, the judge issued summons and
ordered De Lima, et al. to file an Answer. During the hearing, counsel for De Lima, et al manifested
that a Return, not an Answer, is appropriate for Amparo cases.
In an order dated March 2, 2012, Judge Pampilo insisted that since no writ has been issued, return is
not the required pleading but answer. The judge also noted that the Rules of Court apply suppletorily
in Amparo Cases. He opined that the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure applies and thus required
an Answer.
Judge Pampilo proceeded to conduct a hearing on the main case. Even without a Return or an Answer,
he ordered the parties to file their respective memoranda within five (5) working days after that
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 22
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
hearing. Since the period to file an Answer had not yet lapsed by then, the judge also decided that the
memorandum of De Lima, et al would be filed in lieu of their Answer.
On March 20, 2012, the RTC rendered a decision granting the issuance of the writ of Amparo. The
RTC also granted the interim reliefs prayed for, namely: temporary protection, production and
inspection orders.
On October 8, 2012, the RTC denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by De Lima, et al
And so, De Lima, et al came to this Court assailing the RTC decision through a Petition for Review on
Certiorari via Rule 45, as enunciated in Section 19 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo:
Section 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. x x x
ISSUE
WHETHER OR NOT PETITION FOR ON CERTIORARI under RULE 45 IS THE PROPER REMEDY TO
ASSAIL THE DECISION DATED MARCH 20, 2012
RULING
The Court ruled that a Petition for Review under Rule 45 may not yet be the proper remedy at this
time for the reason that the decision dated March 20, 2012 granting the writ of Amparo is not the
judgment or final order contemplated under this rule.
Reason:
The "Decision" dated 20 March 2012 assailed by the petitioners could not be the judgment or final
order that is appealable under Section 19 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. This is clear from the
tenor of the dispositive portion of the "Decision", to wit:
The Branch Clerk of Court of Court [sic] is hereby DIRECTED to issue the Writ of Amparo.
Likewise, the Branch Clerk of Court is hereby DIRECTED to effect the service of the Writ of Amparo in
an expeditious manner upon all concerned, and for this purpose may call upon the assistance of any
military or civilian agency of the government.
This "Decision" pertained to the issuance of the writ under Section 6 of the Rule on the Writ
of Amparo, not thejudgment under Section 18. The "Decision" is thus an interlocutory order, as
suggested by the fact that temporary protection, production and inspection orders were
given together with the decision. The temporary protection, production and inspection
orders are interim reliefs that may be granted by the court upon filing of the petition
butbefore final judgment is rendered.
The confusion of the parties arose due to the procedural irregularities in the RTC.
First, the insistence on filing of an Answer was inappropriate. It is the Return that serves as the
responsive pleading for petitions for the issuance of Writs of Amparo. The requirement to file an
Answer is contrary to the intention of the Court to provide a speedy remedy to those whose right to
life, liberty and security are violated or are threatened to be violated. In utter disregard of the Rule on
the Writ of Amparo, Judge Pampilo insisted on issuing summons and requiring an Answer.
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 23
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
It is clear from this rule that this type of summary procedure only applies to MTC/MTCC/MCTCs. It is
mind-boggling how this rule could possibly apply to proceedings in an RTC. Aside from that, this Court
limited the application of summary procedure to certain civil and criminal cases. A writ of Amparo is
a special proceeding. It is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right or particular
fact.34 It is not a civil nor a criminal action, hence, the application of the Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure is seriously misplaced.
The second irregularity was the holding of a hearing on the main case prior to the issuance of the writ
and the filing of a Return. Without a Return, the issues could not have been properly joined.
Worse, is the trial courts third irregularity: it required a memorandum in lieu of a responsive pleading
(Answer) of De Lima, et al.
The Return in Amparo cases allows the respondents to frame the issues subject to a hearing. Hence, it
should be done prior to the hearing, not after. A memorandum, on the other hand, is a synthesis of the
claims of the party litigants and is a final pleading usually required before the case is submitted for
decision. One cannot substitute for the other since these submissions have different functions in
facilitating the suit.
More importantly, a memorandum is a prohibited pleading under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo.35
The fourth irregularity was in the "Decision" dated 20 March 2012 itself. In the body of its decision,
the RTC stated:
"Accordingly this court GRANTS the privilege of the writ and the interim reliefs prayed for by the
petitioner." (Emphasis supplied).
This gives the impression that the decision was the judgment since the phraseology is similar to
Section 18 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo:
"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." (Emphasis supplied).
The privilege of the Writ of Amparo should be distinguished from the actual order called the Writ
of Amparo. The privilege includes availment of the entire procedure outlined in A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC,
the Rule on the Writ ofAmparo. After examining the petition and its attached affidavits, the Return and
the evidence presented in the summary hearing, the judgment should detail the required acts from
the respondents that will mitigate, if not totally eradicate, the violation of or the threat to the
petitioner's life, liberty or security.
A judgment which simply grants "the privilege of the writ" cannot be executed.1wphi1 It is
tantamount to a failure of the judge to intervene and grant judicial succor to the petitioner. Petitions
filed to avail of the privilege of the Writ ofAmparo arise out of very real and concrete circumstances.
Judicial responses cannot be as tragically symbolic or ritualistic as "granting the privilege of the Writ
of Amparo."
The procedural irregularities in the RTC affected the mode of appeal that petitioners used in elevating
the matter to this Court.
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 24
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
It is the responsibility of counsels for the parties to raise issues using the proper procedure at the
right time. Procedural rules are meant to assist the parties and courts efficiently deal with the
substantive issues pertaining to a case. When it is the judge himself who disregards the rules of
procedure, delay and confusion result.
The Petition for Review is not the proper remedy to assail the interlocutory order denominated
as "Decision" dated 20 March 2012. A Petition for Certiorari, on the other hand, is prohibited. 36 Simply
dismissing the present petition, however, will cause grave injustice to the parties involved. It
undermines the salutary purposes for which the Rule on the Writ of Amparo were promulgated.
In many instances, the Court adopted a policy of liberally construing its rules in order to promote a
just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. 37 The rules can be suspended
on the following grounds: (1) matters of life, liberty, honor or property, (2) the existence of special or
compelling circumstances, (3) the merits of the case, (4) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault
or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules, (5) a lack of any showing that the
review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory, and (6) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced
thereby.38
18. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,
vs.
TRINIDAD R.A. CAPOTE, Respondent.
G.R. No. 157043 February 2, 2007
CORONA, J.:
FACTS: Respondent Trinidad R. A. Capote, Giovannis guardian ad litem, filed a petition for change of
name of her ward from Giovanni N. Gallamaso to Giovanni Nadores on September 9, 1998.
She averred in her petition that Giovanni N. Gallamaso is a Filipino Citizen, 16 years old, minor. As
guardian ad litem, authorizing her to file in court a petition for change of name of said minor in
accordance with the desire of his mother, who is residing and working abroad
Minor GIOVANNI N. GALLAMASO is the illegitimate natural child of Corazon P. Nadores and Diosdado
Gallamaso. He was born on July 9, 1982, prior to the effectivity of the New Family Code and as such,
his mother used the surname of the natural father despite the absence of marriage between them; and
Giovanni has been known by that name since birth as per his birth certificate registered at the Local
Civil Register of San Juan, Southern Leyte.
The father, Diosdado Gallamaso, from the time Giovanni was born and up to the present, failed to take
up his responsibilities [to him] on matters of financial, physical, emotional and spiritual concerns. That
Giovannis mother might eventually petition him to join her in the United States and his continued use
of the surname Gallamaso, the surname of his natural father, may complicate his status as natural
child.
Publication of the petition in a newspaper of general circulation in the province of Southern Leyte
once a week for three consecutive weeks was likewise ordered. The trial court also directed that the
local civil registrar be notified and that the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) be sent a copy of the
petition and order.
Since there was no opposition to the petition, respondent moved for leave of court to present her
evidence ex parte before a court-appointed commissioner. The OSG, acting through the Provincial
Prosecutor, did not object; hence, the lower court granted the motion.
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 25
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
RTC: After the reception of evidence, the trial court rendered a decision ordering the change of
name from Giovanni N. Gallamaso to Giovanni Nadores.
From this decision, petitioner Republic of the Philippines, through the OSG, filed an appeal with a lone
assignment of error: the court a quo erred in granting the petition in a summary proceeding.
CA: the CA affirmed the RTC decision ordering the change of name.
ISSUE: Whether or not the apellee Capote guardian ad litem availed of the proper remedy on
the change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court.
HELD: YES
The law and facts obtaining here favor Giovannis petition. Giovanni availed of the proper remedy, a
petition for change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, and complied with all the
procedural requirements. After hearing, the trial court found (and the appellate court
affirmed) that the evidence presented during the hearing of Giovannis petition sufficiently
established that, under Art. 176 of the Civil Code:
According to the Family Code which repealed, among others, Article 366 of the Civil Code:
Art. 176. Illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the parental authority of
their mother, and shall be entitled to support in conformity with this Code. xxx xxx xxx (emphasis
ours)
Giovanni is entitled to change his name as he was never recognized by his father while his
mother has always recognized him as her child. A change of name will erase the impression that
he was ever recognized by his father. It is also to his best interest as it will facilitate his mothers
intended petition to have him join her in the United States. This Court will not stand in the way of the
reunification of mother and son.
ISSUE: Whether or not a petition for change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court
must be heard in an adversarial proceeding.
HELD: YES
The issue of non-joinder of alleged indispensable parties in the action before the court a quo is
intertwined with the nature of the proceedings there. The point is whether the proceedings were
sufficiently adversarial.
While the OSG is correct in its stance that the proceedings for change of name should be adversarial,
the OSG cannot void the proceedings in the trial court on account of its own failure to participate
therein. As the CA correctly ruled:
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 26
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
The OSG is correct in stating that a petition for change of name must be heard in an
adversarial proceeding. Unlike petitions for the cancellation or correction of clerical errors in
entries in the civil registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, a petition for change of
name under Rule 103 cannot be decided through a summary proceeding. There is no
doubt that this petition does not fall under Rule 108 for it is not alleged that the entry in the
civil registry suffers from clerical or typographical errors. The relief sought clearly goes
beyond correcting erroneous entries in the civil registry, although by granting the petition, the
result is the same in that a corresponding change in the entry is also required to reflect the
change in name.
In this regard, [appellee] Capote complied with the requirement for an adversarial
proceeding by posting in a newspaper of general circulation notice of the filing of the
petition. The lower court also furnished the OSG a copy thereof. Despite the notice, no one
came forward to oppose the petition including the OSG. The fact that no one opposed the
petition did not deprive the court of its jurisdiction to hear the same nor does it make the
proceeding less adversarial in nature. The lower court is still expected to exercise its judgment to
determine whether the petition is meritorious or not and not merely accept as true the arguments
propounded. Considering that the OSG neither opposed the petition nor the motion to present its
evidence ex parte when it had the opportunity to do so, it cannot now complain that the proceedings
in the lower court were not adversarial enough. (emphasis supplied)
A proceeding is adversarial where the party seeking relief has given legal warning to the
other party and afforded the latter an opportunity to contest it. Respondent gave notice of the
petition through publication as required by the rules. With this, all interested parties were deemed
notified and the whole world considered bound by the judgment therein. In addition, the trial court
gave due notice to the OSG by serving a copy of the petition on it. Thus, all the requirements to make
a proceeding adversarial were satisfied when all interested parties, including petitioner as
represented by the OSG, were afforded the opportunity to contest the petition.
Alexis Enriquez
19. ROMMEL JACINTO DANTES SILVERIO
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESG.R. No. 174689, October 22, 2007
Facts:
Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio, born and registered as a male, underwent sex reassignment in
Bangkok, Thailand, the fact of which was certified here in the Philippines by virtue of a medical
certificate issued by one Dr. Marcelino Reysio-Cruz. He then lived his life as a woman. On November
26, 2002, Rommel filed a petition for the change of his first name and sex before the RTC of Manila.
The
court
having
underwent
the jurisdictional requirements, and there having no opposition, the court proceeded with the hearing
where Rommel presented his American Fiance as witness. RTC gave due course to his petition, ruling
based on equity, that petitioners misfortune to be trapped in amans body is not his own doing and
should not be taken against him and that no harm, injury or prejudice will be caused to anybody if
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 27
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
the petition were to be granted. His name was thus changed to Mely, and sex to female. Republic
filed a petition for certiorari in the CA. The appellate court reversed the decision of the RTC.
Petitioners claim/ Issue:
Petitioner essentially claims that the change of his name and sex in his birth certificate is allowed
under Articles407 to 413 of the Civil Code, Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court and RA 9048.
Held:
Petitioner, your contention is not meritorious.
Ratio decidendi:
1.) Change of Name, primarily Administrative in nature:
Section 1 of RA 9048 provides in essence that no entry in a civil register shall be changed or
corrected without a judicial order, except for clerical or typographical errors, which can be changed
by concerned city or municipal civil registrar or consul general . The jurisdiction therefore is primarily
lodged with these officers. The intent and effect of the law is to exclude the change of first name from
the coverage of Rules 103 (Change of Name) and 108(Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil
Registry) of the Rules of Court, until and unless an administrative petition for change of name is first
filed and subsequently denied. In sum, the remedy and the proceedings regulating change of first
name are primarily administrative in nature, not judicial. Hence, the venue to which petitioner filed is
improper.
2.) Grounds for change of name:
RA 9048 provides the grounds for which change of first name may be allowed: 1) 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 that first name or nickname in the community; or 3) The
change will avoid confusion. From these grounds, it can be gleaned that RA 9048 does not sanction a
change of first name on the ground of sex reassignment. Rather than avoiding confusion, changing
petitioners name for his declared purpose may only create grave complications. Before a person can
legally change his given name, he must present proper or reasonable cause or any compelling reason
justifying such change. In addition, he must show that he will be prejudiced by the use of his true and
official name. In this case, he failed to show, or even allege, any prejudice that he might suffer as a
result of using his true and official name.
3.) No Law Allows The Change of Entry In The Birth Certificate As To Sex On the Ground of
Sex Reassignment: By virtue of RA 9048, Rule 108 now applies only to substantial changes
and corrections in entries in the civil register , excluding the clerical or typographical error. Section 2
of RA9048 provides expressly that no correction must involve the change of nationality, age,
status or sex of the petitioner.
Ramon A. Taghoy II
20. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.
ROSELIE ELOISA BRINGAS BOLANTE a.k.a. MARIA ELOISA BRINGAS
BOLANTE, respondent.
FACTS:
Respondent filed a petition for change of name before the RTC. She alleged that her registered name
(birth certificate) is Roselie Eloisa Bringas Bolante which she did not use but instead the name Maria
Eloisa Bringas Bolante appears in all her school as well as in her other public and private records.
The RTC upon finding that the petition is sufficient in form and substance ordered respondent to
comply with the jurisdictional requirements of notice and publication, and set the hearing on Feb. 20,
2001. At the scheduled Feb. 20 initial hearing the RTC ordered the respondent to file a written formal
offer of evidence.
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 28
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
The Clerk of Court acting on courts express directive for a resetting issued another notice for a
hearing and a second resetting was made after notice was given scheduled on September 25, 2001
and actually held.
On the Sept. 25 hearing, respondent presented several documents without any objection on the part
of petitioner, represented by the OSG. She also took the witness to state the purpose of her petition
which was to have her registered name changed to that which she had actually been using thru the
years. She testified that she wanted to secure a passport issued with her correct name and to avoid
any complication on her records upon her retirement.
The RTC granted the petition and the appellate court affirmed the same, hence; the current case.
Petitioner argued that the jurisdictional facts were not complied with as prescribed by Rule 103
Section 3 in which xxx the date set for hearing shall not be within 30 days prior to an election nor
within 4 months after the last publication of the notice. Petitioner argued that the notices were
published on these dates: Nov. 23, 30 and December 7 and the hearing was set on Feb. 20 which is
within the prohibited period of 4 months. Petitioner also argued that the reasons given by respondent
is not sufficient to grant the request for change of name.
ISSUE:
WON the jurisdictional facts were not complied with (that the hearing was made within the 4 months
prohibited period), thus; the petition should be dismissed. NO
HELD:
The Jurisdictional requirements were complied with. The notice of hearing was published in the Nov.
23, 30 and Dec. 7, counted from the last day of publication of the order, the initial hearing scheduled
on Feb 20 is indeed within the 4-month prohibited period prescribed under the RoC. However, the
RTC upon realizing the error, lost no time in rectifying its mistake by rescheduling, with due notice to
all concerned, the initial hearing for several times, finally settling for Sept 25, 2001.
In a petition for change of name being a proceeding in rem, any person may appear at the hearing and
oppose the petition. The OSG shall appear on behalf of the government. In the present case the
republic was fully apprised of the new dates of the initial hearing therefore, there is no need for a
republication of notice. The Sept. 25 hearing was already outside the 4-month prohibited period, thus
the jurisdictional requirement of publication was complied with.
DON NICO G. SANCHEZ
21. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner
vs.
HON. FELICIANO BELMONTE, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Baguio and Benguet
ANITA PO alias VERONICA PAO, assisted by her mof her HELEN POA, respondents.
FACTS:
Private respondent Anita Po filed a Petition for the change of her name from Anita Po to Veronica
Pao
She also sought to have her birth records corrected in that:
1. her fathers name appearing as Po Yu be corrected to Pao Yu and
2. her mof hers name recorded as Pakiat Chan be changed to Helen Chan
Petitioner was a 16-year old minor then; thus, she was assisted by her mof her in the case
Petitioner alleged that:
1. maiden name of her mof her is Helen Chan and that the given name Pakiat written on her
birth certificate is actually the given name of her maternal grandmof her
2. name of her father is Pao Yu and not Po Yu as erroneously written in her birth certificate and
as such her real surname is Pao
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 29
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
3. she had been baptized by a Catholic priest and that she was christened as Veronica Pao, the
first being her Christian given name and the latter being the correct spelling of her surname
4. since her childhood up to the present, she had always been known and referred to as
Veronica Pao and not Anita Po
OSG opposed and sought the dismissal of the same on the ground that the remedies prayed for by
the petitioner cannot be allowed by the mere submission of the said petition
Among the written arguments in the opposition are as follows:
Rule 103 and Rule 108 are distinct and separate from each of her and each provides for
different requirements that must be satisfied in order that a person may avail of any one of
them
The present petition satisfies the requirements of Rule 103 on change of name but fails
on the request for correction of certain entries because the civil registrar and the of her
parties affected by the corrections have not been included in the petition as required by
section 3 of Rule 108
ISSUE: W/N A PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF NAME & THE CORRECTION OF CERTAIN
ENTRIES IN THE CIVIL REGISTRY BE JOINED IN THE SAME PROCEEDING NO
RULING:
Private respondents claim to the supposed correct name of Veronica Pao is predicated on the
assumption that the correct name of her father is Pao Yu and not Po Yu as recited in her own birth
certificate
The assumption is baseless, absent any proof that the name of her father in her birth certificate was
entered erroneously, as correctly observed by the Office of the Solicitor General - until the name of
her father is shown to have been registered in her birth certificate erroneously, there is no
justification for allowing the petitioner to use the surname Pao
The corrections sought by the petitioner involve the very Identity of her parents; thus, the propriety
of such corrections should first be determined in a different proceeding more adversary in character
than the summary case instituted by the petitioner with the trial court
Aside from the change of her name, the petitioner seeks a correction of entries in the civil registry
for the benefit of her parents --- this she may not do through a summary proceeding
The summary procedure for correction of the civil register under Rule 108 is confined to innocuous
or clerical errors and not to a material change in the spelling of a surname as prayed for by the
petitioner
A clerical error must be apparent on the face of the record and should be capable of being corrected
by reference to the record alone. Here, the petitioner seeks more than just the correction of a clerical
error.
Under Section 3 of Rule 108, when cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register is
sought, the civil registrar and all persons who have or who claim any interest which would be affected
thereby should be made parties to the proceeding.
- Here, the local civil registrar concerned was never made a party to the proceeding
- Said civil registrar being an indispensable party, a final determination of the case cannot be
made
The procedure in Rule 103 regarding change of name and in Rule 108 concerning the cancellation
or correction of entries in the civil registry are separate and distinct.
- They may not be substituted one for the other for the sole purpose of expediency
- To hold of otherwise would render nugatory the provisions of the Rules of Court allowing the
change of one's name or the correction of entries in the civil registry only upon meritorious grounds.
If both reliefs are to be sought in the same proceedings, all the requirements of Rules 103 and 108
must be complied with.
Thus, the petition filed with the trial court is not sufficient in form and substance and should have
been dismissed by the trial court for lack of merit.
22. HAW LIONG vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. L-21194
April 29, 1966
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 30
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
FACTS:
Petitioner seeks to change his name from Haw Liong to Alfonso Lantin in a petition filed before the
Court of First Instance of Leyte.
He testified that he wants to change his name to Alfonso Lantin because he is called by his Filipino
friends as Alfonso and the name of his father is Placido Lantin; that he wants to have a Filipino name
because he will soon be a Filipino citizen; that he came to the Philippines in 1925 and since then his
Filipino friends have been calling him Alfonso. After hearing, the court a quo allowed petitioner to
change his name from Haw Liong to Alfonso Lantin. The government has appealed.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for change of name may be granted.
RULING:
NO.
This Court has already had occasion to state the view that the State has an interest in the names
borne by individuals for purposes of identification and that a change of name is a privilege and not a
matter of right. So that before a person can be authorized to change the name given him either in his
certificate of birth or civil registry he must show proper or reasonable cause or any compelling reason
which may justify such change. Otherwise, the request should be denied. The following may be
considered, among others, as proper or reasonable causes that may warrant the grant of a petitioner
for change of name: (1) when the name is ridiculous, tainted with dishonor, or is extremely difficult to
write or pronounce; (2) when the request for change is a consequence of a change of status, such as
when a natural child is acknowledged or legitimated; and (3) when the change is necessary to avoid
confusion.
Petitioner has not shown any proper or compelling reason that may justify the request for a change of
name other than his desire to adopt the name Alfonso for the reason that he has always been known
by that name by his Filipino friends and associates and because that is the family name of his father
which he desires to follow to conform with the customs and traditions in the Philippines. But this
claim which is merely supported by his own testimony cannot overcome the fact that the name given
him from the very beginning as Haw Liong as in fact this is the name that appears in his landing
certificate. The fact that he claims to be the son of one Placido Lantin, a Filipino is of no moment
because if the same were true it is strange that the name that was given him upon birth is Haw Liong
and he had to file a petition for naturalization to become a Filipino citizen. This indirectly belies his
claim that the name that should be given him is Alfonso Lantin because that is the family name of his
father "to conform with the customs and traditions and also for sentimental reasons."
The true situation however is, as was disclosed in his cross examination, that in his business dealings
with other people he always signed as Haw Liong and never used the name Alfonso Lantin; that he
came to be called Alfonso by his friends only when during the Japanese occupation his Filipino friends
asked him how he was called and he told them that his name was Alfonso, and since then they started
calling him by that name; and that he is known in Tacloban City as Haw Liong and has not contracted
with any person under the name of Alfonso Lantin. We find, therefore, no proper or compelling reason
that may justify the change of name desired by petitioner for his petition does not come under any of
the cases above adverted to.
23. IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME OF MARIA ESTRELLA
VERONICA PRIMITIVA DUTERTE, ESTRELLA S. ALFON vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. L-51201
May 29, 1980
Facts: This is a verified petition filed by petitioner praying that her name be changed from Maria
Estrella Veronica Primitiva Duterte to Estrella S. Alfon.
Petitioner was born on May 15, 1952 and was registered at the local Civil Registrar's Office as Maria
Estrella Veronica Primitiva Duterte. She was baptized with the same name in church. Her parents
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 31
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
Filomeno Duterte and Estrella Veronica Primitiva Duterte has been taken cared of by Mr. and Mrs.
Hector Alfon. Petitioner and her uncle, Hector Alfon, has been residing at 728 J.R. Yulo Street corner
Ideal Street, Mandaluyong, Metro Manila for twenty-three (23) years. She attended her first grade up
to fourth year high school at Stella Maris College using the name Estrella S. Alfon. Her scholastic
records from elementary to college show that she was registered by the name of Estrella S. Alfon.
Petitioner has advanced the following reasons for filing the petition:
1. She has been using the name Estrella Alfon since her childhood;
2. She has been enrolled in the grade school and in college using the same name;
3. She has continuously used the name Estrella S. Alfon since her infancy and all her friends and
acquaintances know her by this name;
4. She has exercised her right of suffrage under the same name.
The trial court granted the petition insofar as the first name is granted but denied with respect to the
surname. TC rationized that petitoner is authorized to change her name from Maria Estrella Veronica
Primitiva Duterte to Estrella Alfon Duterte. Further, that her birth certificate clearly shows that the
father of petitioner is Filomeno Duterte ad to allow petitioner to change her surname from Duterte to
Alfon is equivalent to allowing her to use her mother's surname, and citing Article 364 of the Civil
Code which provides that, Legitimate and legitimated children shall principally use the surname of
the father. Lower court further discussed that, if another purpose of the petitioner is to carry the
surname of Alfon because her uncle who reared her since childhood has the surname "Alfon" then the
remedy is not a petition for change of name.
Issue: Whether or not the full change of name should be granted? YES.
Ruling: Petitioner is allowed to change not only her first name but also her surname so as to be
known as ESTRELLA S. ALFON.
SC cited the case of Haw Liong vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-21194, which ruled that:
The following may be considered, among others, as proper or reasonable causes that may warrant
the grant of a petitioner for change of name; (1) when the name is ridiculous, tainted with dishonor, or
is extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (2) when the request for change is a consequence of a
change of' status, such as when a natural child is acknowledged or legitimated; and (3) when the
change is necessary to avoid confusion.
The only reason why the lower court denied the petitioner's prayer to change her surname is that as
the legitimate child of Filomeno Duterte and Estrella Alfon, she should principally use the surname of
her father invoking Art. 364 of the Civil Code. But the word "principally" as used in the codal provision
is not equivalent to "exclusively" so that there is no legal obstacle if a legitimate or legitimated child
should choose to use the surname of its mother to which it is equally entitled.
In the case at bar, it has been shown that petitioner has, since childhood, borne the name Estrella S.
Alfon, although her birth records and baptismal certificate show otherwise; she was enrolled in the
schools from the grades up to college under the name Estrella S. Alfon; all her friends call her by this
name; she finished her course in Nursing in college and was graduated and given a diploma under this
name; and she exercised the right of suffrage likewise under this name. There is therefore ample
justification to grant fully her petition which is not whimsical but on the contrary is based on a solid
and reasonable ground, i.e. to avoid confusion.
24. Ang Chay vs. Republic
G.R. No. L-28507 July 31, 1970
FACTS: Josefina Ang Chay and Mercedita Ang Chay petitioned for the change of their names to
Josefina Hernandez and Mercedita Hernandez, alledging they were of legal age, single and residents
of San Francisco del Monte.
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 32
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
They elected Philippine citizenship on 7 February 1966, and would like to use their Filipino surnames
"Ang Chay" changed to "Hernandez", the surname that they have been using from the time they
started schooling until they finished their studies and used even in employment, resulting to them
being known by everbody as such.
Hernandez was the surname of their mothers first husband but the two petitioners were daughters of
the former by her second marriage to a certain Alejandro Ang Chay.
ISSUE: WON petitioners be granted the use of the surname Hernandez.
HELD: There is valid reason to the continued use of the names by which they have been known, and
have always conducted, in good faith, their various social and business activities. Petitioners had no
knowledge that their father was Chinese and that their surnames should have been Ang Chay.
Petitioners have been using "Hernandez" and finished their schooling, got employments, voted in the
local and national elections, and paid their income taxes, under that surname.
"Ang Chay at this time would cause no little amount of confusion and trouble in the lives of these girls,
who do not appear to have any hand at all in creating the situation they now find themselves in.
Besides there is nothing on the record to intimate that herein petitioners' use of the surname
"Hernandez" would cause damage or prejudice, either to the government or to any other private party,
including their mother's children by the first marriage. For, as this Court has succinctly declared, a
mere change of name would not cause a change in one's existing family relations, nor create new
family rights and duties where none exists before. Neither would it affect a person's legal capacity,
civil status or citizenship. What would only be altered is the word or group of words by which he is
identified and distinguished from the rest of his fellow men.
Missy Ansaldo
25. CANDIDO UY alias RICARDO UY vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. L-22712
FACTS:
Candido Uy wanted to change his family name from Uy to Baluyot because, according to him,
he is frequently mistaken for and identified as a Chinese citizen to his chagrin, embarrassment and
disappointment. He filed a petition for change of name. However, the Republic appeared to oppose the
petition on the ground that there was no sufficient showing that petitioner will be prejudiced by the
continued use of his present name.
ISSUE:
The only issue is whether petitioner has shown a "proper and reasonable cause" to warrant his
change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court.
HELD:
In granting or denying petition for change of name, the question of "proper and reasonable
cause" is left to the sound discretion of the court. The evidence presented need only be satisfactory to
the Court and not all best evidence available.
In the present case the trial
desire to do away with all traces of
a Filipino. Such desire is in line
naturalization should fully embrace
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
court found to its satisfaction that petitioner was in earnest in his

his former Chinese nationality and henceforth to be recognized as
with the policy of our naturalization laws that applicants for
Filipino customs and traditions and socially mingle with Filipinos.
Page 33
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
It is true, as appellant points out, that the surname Uy is used by native born Filipinos
prominent in government and prosperous in business. The fact remains that it is basically Chinese.
And in the community where petitioner resides said surname has been shown to be the source of his
being taken for a Chinese in view of his ancestry. So much so that his business suffers from time lost
in having to explain in his dealings, especially with government agencies, that he is naturalized
Filipino. Similarly, it has proved a social liability, causing much difficulty for him in entering civil
organizations, such as the Lions Club.
It has not been shown that petitioner has any fraudulent intent in seeking a change of name.
No criminal, civil, tax or any other liability on his part, which he may avoid by the change of name, has
been suggested. Nothing has been presented to show any prejudice to the Government or to any
individual should the petition be granted. In the absence of prejudice to the State or any individual, a
sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of a former alien nationality which unduly
hamper social and business life, is a proper and reasonable cause for a change of name. It is not
trivial, whimsical or capricious.
Anthony L. Yap
26. ELISA LAPERAL, petitioner
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor
FACTS:
Elisea Laperal married Enrique R. Santamaria on March 4, 1939. On January 18, 1958 a final decree
of legal separation was given by the Court to Enrique Santamaria and Elisea Laperal.
During the subsistence of their marriage, Elisea Laperal used the name Elisea L. Santamaria. Upon
the grant of the legal separation, Elisea on May 10, 1960, filed in the Court of First Instance a petition
to allow her to change her name and/or permit her to resume using her maiden name in accordance to
Rule 103 of the Rules of Court..
The court, at first, denied that petition. However, after petitioners motion, the court treating the
petition as one for change of name, reconsidered its decision and granted the petition on the ground
that to allow petitioner, who is a businesswoman decreed legally separated from her husband, to
continue using her married named would give rise to confusion.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the wife, after the legal separation has been decreed, may petition to change
her name and surname?
2. Whether or not Rule 103 of the Rules of Court prevails over the specific provisions of Art. 372
of the New Civil Code?
RULING:
ISSUE NO. 1
No. The wife cannot petition to change her name and surname on the ground of legal separation.
Under Article 372 of the New Civil Code which reads:
Art. 372. When legal separation has been granted, the wife shall continue using her name and
surnames employed before the legal separation.
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 34
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
Note that the language of the statute is mandatory that the wife, even after the legal separation has
been decreed, shall continue using her name and surname employed before the legal separation.
The marriage status is unaffected by the separation, there being no severance of the vinculum.
ISSUE NO. 2
Even applying Rule 103 to this case, the fact of legal separation alone, being the basis for the petition
at bar, is not a sufficient ground to justify a change of name, for it would tantamount to provide for an
easy circumvention of the mandatory provisions of Art. 372.
Arbie Mae R. Magale
27. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs. COURT OF APPEALS and MAXIMO WONG
Facts: Respondent Maximo Wong is the legitimate son of Maximo Alcala, Sr. and Segundina Y. Alcala.
When he was but two and a half years old and then known as Maximo Alcala, Jr., and his sister
Margaret Alcala, was then nine years old, they were, with the consent of their natural parents and by
order of the court adopted by spouses Hoong Wong and Concepcion Ty Wong, both naturalized
Filipinos.
Hoong Wong, now deceased, was an insurance agent while Concepcion Ty Wong was a high school
teacher. They decided to adopt the children as they remained childless after fifteen years of marriage.
The couples showered their adopted children with parental love and reared them as their own
children.
Upon reaching the age of twenty-two, herein private respondent, by then married and a junior
Engineering student at Notre Dame University, Cotabato City, filed a petition to change his name to
Maximo Alcala, Jr. It was averred that his use of the surname Wong embarrassed and isolated him
from his relatives and friends, as the same suggests a Chinese ancestry when in truth and in fact he is
a Muslim Filipino residing in a Muslim community, and he wants to erase any implication whatsoever
of alien nationality; that he is being ridiculed for carrying a Chinese surname, thus hampering his
business and social life; and that his adoptive mother does not oppose his desire to revert to his
former surname.
Petitioner's prayer to change his name from Maximo Wong to Maximo Alcala, Jr. was granted. 5 On
appeal to respondent court, and over the opposition of petitioner Republic through the Solicitor
General, the decision of the court below was affirmed in full, hence, this petition for review on
certiorari.
ISSUE: whether or not the reasons given by private respondent in his petition for change of name are
valid, sufficient and proper to warrant the granting of said petition.
Held: YES.
Title XIII, Book I of the Civil Code, in Articles 364 to 380, provides the substantive rules which
regulate the use of surnames. Considering the subject and personalities involved in this present
review, particular attention must be called to Article 365 which mandates that "(a)n adopted child
shall bear the surname of the adopter," in correlation with Article 341 on the effects of adoption,
among which is to"(e)ntitle the adopted person to use the adopter's surname." This same entitlement
of an adopted child is maintained in Article 39(3), Title II of Presidential Decree No. 603, otherwise
known as the Child and Youth Welfare Code. More recently, Executive Order No. 209, as amended by
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 35
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
Executive Order No. 227, or the Family Code, echoes the same statutory right of an adopted child to
use the surname of the adopter.
A change of name is a special proceeding to establish the status of a person involving his relation with
others, that is, his legal position in, or with regard to, the rest of the community. It is a proceeding in
rem 14 and, as such, strict compliance with all jurisdictional requirements, particularly on publication,
is essential in order to vest the court with jurisdiction thereover.
The purpose of the law an allowing of change of name as contemplated by the provisions of Rule 103
of the Rules of Court is to give a person an opportunity to improve his personality and to provide his
best interest. (Calderon vs. Republic, 19 SCRA 721).
It bears stressing at this point that to justify a request for change of name, petitioner must show not
only some proper or compelling reason therefor but also that he will be prejudiced by the use of his
true and official name. 24 Among the grounds for change of name which have been held valid
are: (a) When the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (b)
When the change results as a legal consequence, as in legitimation; (c) When the change will avoid
confusion; 25 (d) Having continuously used and been known since childhood by a Filipino name,
unaware of her alien parentage; 26 (e) A sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of
former alienage, all in good faith and without prejudicing anybody; 27 and (f) When the surname
causes embarrassment and there is no showing that the desired change of name was for a fraudulent
purpose or that the change of name would prejudice public interest.
While it is true that the statutory fiat under Article 365 of the Civil Code is to the effect that an
adopted child shall bear the surname of the adopter, it must nevertheless be borne in mind that the
change of the surname of the adopted child is more an incident rather than the object of adoption
proceedings.
While we appreciate the Solicitor General's apprehensions and concern, we find the same to be
unfounded. We do not believe that by reverting to his old name, private respondent would then be
using a name which he is prohibited by law from using. True, the law prescribes the surname that a
person may employ; but the law does not go so far as to unqualifiedly prohibit the use of any other
surname, and only subjects such recourse to the abstention of the requisite judicial sanction. What the
law does not prohibit, it permits.
A petition for change of name is a remedy allowed under our law only by way of exception to the
mandatory provisions of the Civil Code on the use of surna
Alfie Omega
28. Ng Yao Siong vs. Republic G.R. No. L-20306 March 31, 1966
Facts: Petitioner, a Chinese resident of Dumaguete City, bears a number of names:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Jesus Ng, in his birth certificate and certificate of residence,

Jesus Uy, Keng Lee, in his school records,
Uy Keng Lee Jesus, also in his school records,
Keng Lee Uy, to his friends and to the general public,
Uy Keng Lee, in his income tax returns, and
Jesus Ng Yao Siong, in his alien certificate of registration.
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 36
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
These diverse names, his petition avers, "had caused much confusion in his school records and
unnecessary delay and embarrassment to him in his dealing with the public". To obviate all these,
petitioner would want to be known only by one name Keng Lee Uy and accordingly petitioned
that the court authorize the change of all the other names to Keng Lee Uy. The city attorney of
Dumaguete opposed the petition, alleged that there is no necessity for the change of name and that
petitioner is guilty of a violation of the laws regarding the use of names and surnames. The court
ruled in favor of petitioner. The Republic filed an appeal.
Issue: WON the petition can be granted.
Held: No.
1. Change of name is a judicial proceeding in rem. Jurisdiction to hear and determine a petition, by
law, is acquired after publication of the "order reciting the purpose of the petition" and the "date and
place for the hearing thereof" for three (3) successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation.
Publication is notice to the whole world that the proceeding has for its object "to bar indifferently all
who might be minded to make an objection of any sort against the right sought to be established".
But, for that publication to be effective, it must give a correct information. To inform, the publication
should recite, amongst others, the following facts:
(1) the name or names of the applicant,
(2) the cause for which the change of name is sought, and
(3) the new name asked for.
Change of name is a matter of public interest. Petitioner might be in the gallery of wanted criminals;
he could be in hiding to avoid service of sentence or compliance with a judgment in a criminal case;
he could have escaped a penal institution into which he had been confined. If an alien, he might have
given cause for deportation or might be one against whom an order of deportation had actually been
issued. And again the new name petitioner desires to adopt may be similar to that of a respectable
person. The latter may have evidence that petitioner is with unsavory reputation. Naturally, it is to the
interest of the person actually enjoying the good name to protect it against possible mistaken
reference to him as the petitioner.
Change of name is not a right. It is a privilege. The court may give or withhold its consent.
In a proceeding for a change of name, the name in the civil register, for legal purposes, is his real
name because the civil register is an official record of the civil status of persons. A name given to a
person in the church records or elsewhere or by which he is known in the community when at
variance with that entered in the civil register is unofficial and cannot be recognized as his real
name. The only name that may be changed is the true or official name recorded in the civil register.
With the foregoing guidelines, let us now examine petitioner's application, and the order of
publication and the actual publication thereof. The order of publication herein based on the petition
was published in "The Negros Time", a weekly newspaper in Dumaguete City. The title of this case
was there printed as follows:
"In the matter of the change of name of Jesus Ng Yao Siong, Jesus Ng Yao Siong, petitioner."
But Jesus Ng Yao Siong the name appearing in the petition, the order of publication, and the
publication itself, is not the true name of petitioner. As heretofore stated, his name appearing in the
civil register is merely "Jesus Ng" without the Yao Siong. The name is to be changed, if any, Jesus Ng
not Jesus Ng Yao Siong. It thus results that there is no name to be changed in the petition.
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 37
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
It is our view that this failure in the heading of the application to give the true name sought to be
changed is fundamental; such failure is non-compliance with the strict requirements of publication; it
is fatal; and the court did not acquire jurisdiction to hear the case.
2. Petitioner's other names are recited in the body of the order of publication. Petitioner himself
admits that he is known by all these names. This gives rise to the necessity of including his aliases in
the title of the petition not only in the body thereof. So that, the title of this petition should read
"In the matter of the change of name of Jesus Ng, otherwise known as Jesus Ng Yao Siong, Jesus Uy
Keng Lee, Uy Keng Lee Jesus, Keng Lee Uy and Uy Keng Lee" (this last being the name he uses in his
income tax returns).
The reason for this is obvious. Notices in the newspapers, like the one under consideration, usually
appear in the back pages. The reader, as is to be expected, merely glances at the title of the petition.
It is only after he has satisfied himself that the title interests him, that he proceeds to read down
further. The probability is that the portions in the publication heretofore quoted will escape the
reader's notice. The purpose of which the publication is made, that is, to inform, may thus be
unserved.
We accordingly hold that for a publication of a petition for a change of name to be valid, the title
thereof should include, first, his real name, and second, his aliases, if any.
3. The admitted fact that petitioner had been using aliases ushers us to another problem: Can a court
of justice lawfully grant an application for a change of name where he has violated a law regarding
the use of aliases? This poser comes to the fore, because petitioner was never authorized to use an
alias by a competent court pursuant to the provisions of Commonwealth Act 142, entitled "An act to
regulate the use of aliases". With reference to the name Uy Keng Jesus or Jesus Uy Keng Lee which he
has used in school, or Keng Lee Uy by which he is known to his friends and the general public, or Uy
Keng Lee which he uses in his income tax returns, or Jesus Ng Yao Siong which appears in his alien
certificate of registration, none of these names is a "pseudonym for literary purposes", or a name "by
which he had been known since his childhood" or "authorized by a competent court". This use is
prohibited by that law. Neither did he use these other names as "pen names" or "stage names"; and
another statute prohibits him from using the same. To grant the petition here is to sanction an
unlawful act which might reach the proportions of a crime.
4. The touchstone for the grant of a change of name is that there be "proper and reasonable cause" for
which the change is sought.
The petition and petitioner's testimony are one in the claim that his various names caused much
confusion in the school records and unnecessary delay and embarrassment to him in his dealings with
the public. This does not constitute proper and reasonable justification to legally authorize a change of
name for him. For indeed he had been using these names all along. And that use naturally facilitates
his transactions with others who knew him by the one name or the other. Again we say that the
petition not being supported by weighty reasons, the condition for the grant thereof is non-existent;
and, nothing is left for the court but to dismiss the petition.
29. Secon Kok vs. Republic
G.R. No. L-27621
August 30, 1973
Facts:
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 38
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
Secon Kok used three names: Cua Kian Kok, his real name; Secan Kok, the name reflected in his ACR;
and Antonio Cua, the name he was baptized with. He then filed a petition to change his name and
that of his daughter Marilyn Se respectively to Antonio Cuakok and Gloria Cuakok. Finding the
petition meritorious, the court granted the names as prayed for. Thereafter, he filed a motion for
supplemental judgment, alleging that the Bureau of Immigration refused to change the surname of his
wife Lucia O. Tee and their aforesaid six (6) minor children to Cuakok who were then registered in the
Bureau of Immigration with the surname of Cua. The motion for supplemental judgment of was
granted thereby authorizing appellee's legal wife Lucia O. Tee and their minor children namely,
Perfecto, Romeo, Tomas, Daniel and Antonio, Jr., to bear his newly granted surname Cuakok.
Issue: Whether or not there is a need for the wife of Secon Kok to file a separate petition to change
her name.
Ruling: Yes.
The Court ruled that the rules are very explicit. Section 2 of Rule 103 of the Revised Rules of Court
provides that a petition for a change of name shall be signed and verified by the person desiring his
name to be changed, or some other person in his behalf. There is need therefore for a separate
petition to be filed by the wife Lucia O. Tee, who is already of age, in her own behalf and in behalf of
her minor children.
To allow the change of name of the wife and other minor children of petitioner-appellee, upon a mere
motion as an incident in the proceedings for the change of name of petitioner-appellee, will not only
deprive the government of the required filing fees therefor but will also dispense with the essential
requirements respecting the recitals in the title of the petition and the publication to apprise persons,
who may be in possession of adverse information or evidence against the grant of the petition, so that
they will come forward with such information or evidence in order to protect public interest as well as
the interest of private individuals who may be prejudiced by the change of name of the petitioner.
The court held that to confer jurisdiction on the court, strict compliance with the requirements is
essential, namely, that such verified petition should be published for three (3) successive weeks in
some newspapers of general circulation in the province; and that both the title or caption of the
petition and its body shall recite (1) the name or names or aliases of the applicant; (2) the cause for
which the change of name is sought; and (3) the name or names or aliases of the applicant; (4) the
cause for which the change of name is sought; and (5) the new name asked for. The reason for these
requirements is that a change of name is a matter of public interest. Being a privilege and not a right,
a change of name lies within the discretion of the court give or withhold. Failure to comply with these
jurisdictional requirements, renders the proceedings a nullity.
The court also ruled that as far as the petitioner-appellee's own petition is concerned, the publication
of the same did not include all his names and aliases, the new name he desires to bear as well as those
of his minor daughter Marilyn Se, thus, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over his petition
and the decision granting his petition is void ab initio and could be attacked collaterally, vitiated as it
was by a fatal flaw lack of jurisdiction.
Lizette Tuballa
30. G.R. No. L-27298 March 4, 1976
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME MARIO PABELLAR, petitionerappellee, vs.REPUBLIC OF THE PHILLIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS:
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 39
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
MARIO PABELLAR was an illegitimate child of Teofila Pabellar and Esteban Carandang, who is
married to Rufina Marasigan.
For more than three decades Mario Pabellar uses the surname Carandang as appeared in his
school and official records records except in his Baptismal Certificate wherein the name Mario
Pabellar was indicated with mother Teofila Pabellar and unknown father.
For this reason, a petition for the change of name was filed.
The City Fiscal opposed the petition on the grounds that the change of name was not justified
and that since the petitioner is an illegitimate child he has no right to use his father's surname.
ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME IS PROPER IN ORDER TO

CHANGE THE SURNAME APPEARING IN THE BAPTISMAL CERTIFICATE?
HELD:
NO.
RATIONALE:
It is true that as a supposed illegitimate child other than natural he should use
his mother's surname, Pabellar (Art. 368, Civil Code). But the decisive fact is that since
childhood he has been using his father's surname, Carandang, in school and official
records.
Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 142, which regulates the use of aliases, allows a
person to use a name "by which he has been known since childhood" Even legitimate
children cannot enjoin the illegitimate children of their father from using his surname.
The fact that the petitioner was christened Mario Pabellar does not justify his petition for
the change of his surname to Carandang. "The real name of a person is that given to him in
the civil register, not the name by which he was baptized in his church. The evidence
herein does not reveal petitioner's real name in the civil register.
In a petition for change of name "the only name that may be changed is the true or
official name recorded in the civil register, a name which, as already noted, was not
proven by the petitioner.
Judicial authority is required for a change of name or surname (Art. 376, Civil Code) but not
for the use of a surname which the petitioner has already been using since childhood.
Hence, the petition in this case was uncalled for. In colloquial parlance, it has no leg to
stand on.
RA BANDALA
31. Republic vs. Hernandez, GR No. 117209, February 9, 1996

Facts: The RTC granted the petition for adoption of Kevin Earl Bartolome Moran and simultaneously
granted the prayer therein for the change of the first name of said adoptee to Aaron Joseph, to
complement the surname Munson y Andrade which he acquired consequent to his adoption.
Petitioner opposed the inclusion of the relief for change of name in the same petition for adoption
objecting to the joinder of the petition for adoption and the petitions for the change of name in a
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 40
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
single proceeding, arguing that these petition should be conducted and pursued as two separate
proceedings.
Petitioner argues that a petition for adoption and a petition for change of name are two special
proceedings which, in substance and purpose, are different from and are not related to each other,
being respectively governed by distinct sets of law and rules. Petitioner further contends that what
the law allows is the change of the surname of the adoptee, as a matter of right, to conform with that
of the adopter and as a natural consequence of the adoption thus granted. If what is sought is the
change of the registered given or proper name, and since this would involve a substantial change of
ones legal name, a petition for change of name under Rule 103 should accordingly be instituted, with
the substantive and adjective requisites therefor being conformably satisfied.
Private respondents, on the contrary, admittedly filed the petition for adoption with a prayer for
change of name predicated upon Section 5, Rule 2 which allows permissive joinder of causes of action
in order to avoid multiplicity of suits and in line with the policy of discouraging protracted and
vexatious litigations. It is argued that there is no prohibition in the Rules against the joinder of
adoption and change of name being pleaded as two separate but related causes of action in a single
petition.
Issue: WON respondent judge erred in granting prayer for the change of the given or proper name if
the adoptee in a petition for adoption.
Held: No.
Par (1), Art. 189 of the Family Code provides one of the legal effect of adoption:
(1) For civil purposes, the adopted shall be deemed to be a legitimate child of the adopters and both
shall acquire the reciprocal rights and obligations arising from the relationship of parent and child,
including the right of the adopted to use the surname of the adopters;
The law allows the adoptee, as a matter of right and obligation, to bear the surname of the adopter,
upon issuance of the decree of adoption. It is the change of the adoptees surname to follow that of the
adopter which is the natural and necessary consequence of a grant of adoption and must specifically
be contained in the order of the court, in fact, even if not prayed for by petitioner.
However, the given or proper name, also known as the first or Christian name, of the adoptee must
remain as it was originally registered in the civil register. The creation of an adoptive relationship
does not confer upon the adopter a license to change the adoptees registered Christian or first name.
The automatic change thereof, premised solely upon the adoption thus granted, is beyond the purview
of a decree of adoption. Neither is it a mere incident in nor an adjunct of an adoption proceeding,
such that a prayer therefor furtively inserted in a petition for adoption, as in this case, cannot properly
be granted.
The official name of a person whose birth is registered in the civil register is the name appearing
therein. If a change in ones name is desired, this can only be done by filing and strictly complying
with the substantive and procedural requirements for a special proceeding for change of name under
Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, wherein the sufficiency of the reasons or grounds therefor can be
threshed out and accordingly determined.
A petition for change of name being a proceeding in rem, strict compliance with all the requirements
therefor is indispensable in order to vest the court with jurisdiction for its adjudication. It is an
independent and discrete special proceeding, in and by itself, governed by its own set of rules. A
fortiori, it cannot be granted by means of any other proceeding. To consider it as a mere incident or
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 41
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
an offshoot of another special proceeding would be to denigrate its role and significance as the
appropriate remedy available under our remedial law system.
Edwin Gutierrez
32. MARIA VIRGINIA V. REMO

vs.
THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Facts:
Petitioner Maria Virginia V. Remo married Filipino citizen whose Philippine passport was expiring.
Petitioner being married to Francisco R. Rallonza, the following entries appear in her passport:
"Rallonza" as her surname, "Maria Virginia" as her given name, and "Remo" as her middle name. Prior
to the expiry of the validity of her passport, petitioner, whose marriage still subsists, applied for the
renewal of her passport with DFA office in Chicago, with a request to revert to her maiden name and
surname in the replacement passport.
Petitioners request having been denied, counsel representing petitioner, wrote then Secretary of
Foreign Affairs expressing a similar request.
The DFA, through Assistant Secretary denied the request, stating thus:
It is not obligatory for a married woman to use her husbands name. Use of maiden name is allowed in
passport application only if the married name has not been used in previous application. The
Implementing Rules and Regulations for Philippine Passport Act of 1996 clearly defines the conditions
when a woman applicant may revert to her maiden name, that is, only in cases of annulment of
marriage, divorce and death of the husband. Ms. Remos case does not meet any of these conditions. 4
Issue:
Whether petitioner, who originally used her husbands surname in her expired passport, can revert to
the use of her maiden name in the replacement passport, despite the subsistence of her marriage.
Ruling:
The petition lacks merit.
Title XIII of the Civil Code governs the use of surnames. In the case of a married woman, Article 370
of the Civil Code provides:
ART. 370. A married woman may use:
(1) Her maiden first name and surname and add her husbands surname, or
(2) Her maiden first name and her husband's surname, or
(3) Her husbands full name, but prefixing a word indicating that she is his wife, such as "Mrs."
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 42
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
We agree with petitioner that the use of the word "may" in the above provision indicates that the use
of the husbands surname by the wife is permissive rather than obligatory.
A married woman has an option, but not a duty, to use the surname of the husband in any of the ways
provided by Article 370 of the Civil Code. 13 She is therefore allowed to use not only any of the three
names provided in Article 370, but also her maiden name upon marriage. She is not prohibited from
continuously using her maiden name once she is married because when a woman marries, she does
not change her name but only her civil status. 14
In the present case, petitioner, whose marriage is still subsisting and who opted to use her husbands
surname in her old passport, requested to resume her maiden name in the replacement passport
arguing that no law prohibits her from using her maiden name.
The law governing passport issuance is RA 8239 and the applicable provision in this case is Section
5(d), which states:
No passport shall be issued to an applicant unless the Secretary or his duly authorized representative
is satisfied that the applicant is a Filipino citizen who has complied with the following requirements:
(d) In case of a woman who is married, separated, divorced or widowed or whose marriage has been
annulled or declared by court as void, a copy of the certificate of marriage, court decree of separation,
divorce or annulment or certificate of death of the deceased spouse duly issued and authenticated by
the Office of the Civil Registrar General: Provided, That in case of a divorce decree, annulment or
declaration of marriage as void, the woman applicant may revert to the use of her maiden name:
Provided, further, That such divorce is recognized under existing laws of the Philippines;
The Office of the Solicitor General, on behalf of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, argues that the
highlighted proviso in Section 5(d) of RA 8239 "limits the instances when a married woman may be
allowed to revert to the use of her maiden name in her passport." These instances are death of
husband, divorce decree, annulment or nullity of marriage. Significantly, Section 1, Article 12 of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 8239 provides:
The passport can be amended only in the following cases:
a) Amendment of womans name due to marriage;
b) Amendment of womans name due to death of spouse, annulment of marriage or divorce initiated
by a foreign spouse; or
c) Change of surname of a child who is legitimated by virtue of a subsequent marriage of his parents.
Since petitioners marriage to her husband subsists, placing her case outside of the purview of
Section 5(d) of RA 8239 , she may not resume her maiden name in the replacement passport. 15
In the case of renewal of passport, a married woman may either adopt her husbands surname or
continuously use her maiden name. If she chooses to adopt her husbands surname in her new
passport, the DFA additionally requires the submission of an authenticated copy of the marriage
certificate. Otherwise, if she prefers to continue using her maiden name, she may still do so. The DFA
will not prohibit her from continuously using her maiden name. 17
However, once a married woman opted to adopt her husbands surname in her passport, she may not
revert to the use of her maiden name, except in the cases enumerated in Section 5(d) of RA 8239.
These instances are: (1) death of husband, (2) divorce, (3) annulment, or (4) nullity of marriage. Since
petitioners marriage to her husband subsists, she may not resume her maiden name in the
replacement passport. Thus, for passport issuance purposes, a married woman, such as petitioner,
whose marriage subsists, may not change her family name at will.
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 43
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
Olan Dave L. Lachica

33. REPUBLIC v. MERCADERA
FACTS
What happened in this case was that Merlyn Mercadera, represented by her sister and duly
constituted Atty-In-Fact, Evelyn M. Oga, sought the correction of her given name as it appeared in her
Certificate of Live Birth - from Marilyn L. Mercadera to Merlyn L. Mercadera before the Office of the
Local Civil Registrar of Dipolog City pursuant to Republic Act No. 9048.
Under R.A. No. 9048, the city or municipal civil registrar or consul general, as the case may be, is
now authorized to effect the change of first name or nickname and the correction of clerical or
typographical errors in civil registry entries. Under said law, jurisdiction over applications for
change of first name is now primarily lodged with administrative officers.
The Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Dipolog City, however, refused to effect the correction unless
a court order was obtained because the Civil Registrar therein is not yet equipped with a permanent
appointment before he can validly act on petitions for corrections filed before their office as mandated
by Republic Act 9048.
Mercadera was then constrained to file a Petition For Correction of Some Entries as Appearing in the
Certificate of Live Birth under Section 2 of Rule 108.
Upon the date of hearing, the testimony of Mercaderas sister established the fact that Merlyn was
born on August 19, 1970 at Dipolog City. She is the daughter of spouses Tirso U. Mercadera and
Norma C. Lacquiao. In the certification of birth dated May 9, 2005 issued by the civil registry, her
given name appears as Marilyn and not Merlyn. she was baptized according to the rites of UCCP, and
as reflected in her certificate of baptism issued, she was baptized by the name Merlyn L. Mercadera.
In addition, in her elementary, highschool, and college diploma uniformly show her name as Merlyn L.
Mercadera. Presently, she is working in UP Mindanao, and her certificate of membership issued by the
GSIS also bears his complete name as Merlyn Lacquiao Mercadera. When she secured an
authenticated copy of her certificate of live birth from the NSO, she discovered that her given name as
registered is Marilyn and not Merlyn.
The RTC ruled that the documentary evidence presented by Mercadera sufficiently supported the
circumstances alleged in her petition. Considering that she had used Merlyn as her given name
since childhood until she discovered the discrepancy in her Certificate of Live Birth, the RTC was
convinced that the correction was justified.
But the OSG timely interposed an appeal praying for the reversal and setting aside of the RTC
decision for the reason that correction in the spelling of Mercaderas given name might seem
innocuous enough to grant but it is in truth a material correction as it would modify or increase
substantive rights.
ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT MERCADERAS GIVEN NAME AS REGISTERED MARILYN BE CHANGED TO
THAT OF MERLYN UNDER 108
RULING:
YES, the petition filed by Mercadera before the RTC correctly falls under Rule 108 as it simply
sought a correction of a misspelled given name.
To correct simply means to make or set aright; to remove the faults or error from. To change
means to replace something with something else of the same kind or with something that serves as a
substitute.[36] From the allegations in her petition, Mercadera clearly prayed for the lower court to
remove the faults or error from her registered given name MARILYN, and to make or set aright
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 44
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
the same to conform to the one she grew up to, MERLYN. It does not take a complex assessment of
said petition to learn of its intention to simply correct the clerical error in spelling.
Indeed, there are decided cases involving mistakes similar to Mercaderas case which
recognize the same a harmless error. In Yu v. Republic[37] it was held that to change Sincio to
Sencio which merely involves the substitution of the first vowel i in the first name into the vowel e
amounts merely to the righting of a clerical error. InLabayo-Rowe v. Republic,[38] it was held that the
change of petitioners name from Beatriz Labayo/Beatriz Labayu to Emperatriz Labayo was a
mere innocuous alteration wherein a summary proceeding was appropriate. In Republic v. Court of
Appeals, Jaime B. Caranto and Zenaida P. Caranto, the correction involved the substitution of the
letters ch for the letter d, so that what appears as Midael as given name would read
Michael. In the latter case, this Court, with the agreement of the Solicitor General, ruled that the
error was plainly clerical, such that, changing the name of the child from Midael C. Mazon to
Michael C. Mazon cannot possibly cause any confusion, because both names can be read and
pronounced with the same rhyme (tugma) and tone (tono, tunog, himig).[39]
In this case, the use of the letter a for the letter e, and the deletion of the letter i, so that
what appears as Marilyn would read as Merlyn is patently a rectification of a name that is clearly
misspelled. The similarity between Marilyn and Merlyn may well be the object of a mix- up that
blemished Mercaderas Certificate of Live Birth until her adulthood, thus, her interest to correct the
same.
34. PABLITO TANEO, JR., JOSE TANEO, NENA T. CATUBIG and HUSBAND, CILIA T. MORING
and
HUSBAND,
petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and ABDON GILIG, respondents.
G.R. No. 108532 March 9, 1999
KAPUNAN, J.:
FACTS: As a result of a judgment in a civil case (for recovery of property) in favor of private
respondent, two (2) of petitioners' properties were levied to satisfy the judgment amount of
about P5,000.00: one was a parcel of land and the other was the family home.
The subject properties were sold at public auction on February 12, 1966 to the private respondent as
the highest bidder. Consequently, after petitioners' failure to redeem the same, a final deed of
conveyance was executed on February 9, 1968, definitely selling, transferring, and conveying said
properties to the private respondent.
To forestall such conveyance, petitioners filed an action on November 5, 1985 to declare the deed of
conveyance void and to quiet title over the land with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction.
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 45
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
Deputy Provincial Sheriff Jose V. Yasay issued a Sheriffs Deed of Conveyance in favor of the private
respondent over the subject property including their family home which was extrajudicially
constituted in accordance with law.
Petitioners aver that the house which their father constituted as family home is exempt from
execution. In a last ditch effort to save their property, petitioners invoke the benefits accorded to the
family home under the Family Code.
ISSUE: Whether or not the family home of the petitioners as constituted by their father is
exempt from execution.
HELD: NO
A family home is the dwelling place of a person and his family. It is said, however, that the family home
is a real right, which is gratuitous, inalienable and free from attachment, constituted over the dwelling
place and the land on which it is situated, which confers upon a particular family the right to enjoy
such properties, which must remain with the person constituting it and his heirs. It cannot be seized
by creditors except in certain specials cases.
Under the Civil Code (Articles 224 to 251), a family home may be constituted judicial and
extrajudicially, the former by the filing of the petition and with the approval of the proper court, and
the latter by the recording of a public instrument in the proper registry of property declaring the
establishment of the family home. The operative act then which created the family home
extrajudicially was the registration in the Registry of Property of the declaration prescribed by
Articles 240 and 241 of the Civil Code.
Under the Family Code, however. registration was no longer necessary Article 153 of the
Family Code provides that the family home is deemed constituted on a house and lot from
the time it is occupied in the family. It reads:
The family home is deemed constituted on a house and lot from the time it is occupied as
family residence. From the time of its constitution and so long as 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.
In the case of Manacop v. Court of Appeals 11 on the retroactive effect of the Family Code, particularly
on the provisions on the family home, to wit:
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 46
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
While Article 153 of the Family Code provides that the family home is deemed constituted on a
house and lot from the time it is occupied as a family residence, it does not mean that said
article has a retroactive effect such that all existing family residences, petitioner's included,
are deemed to have been constituted as family homes at the time of their occupation prior to
the effectivity of the Family Code and henceforth, are exempt from execution for the payment
of obligations incurred before the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988. Neither
does Article 162 of said Code state that the provisions of Chapter 2, Title V thereof have
retroactive effect. It simply means that all existing family residences at the time of the
effectivity of the Family Code are considered family homes and are prospectively
entitled to the benefits accorded to a family home under the Family Code.
The applicable law, therefore in the case at bar is still the Civil Code where registration of the
declaration of a family home is a prerequisite. Nonetheless, the law provides certain instances
where the family home is not exempted from execution, forced sale or attachment.
Art. 243 of the Civil Code states that: The family home extrajudicially formed shall be exempt from
execution, forced sale or attachment, except:
(2) For debts incurred before the declaration was recorded in the Registry of Property;
The trial court found that on March 7, 1964, Pablo Taneo constituted the house in question, erected on
the land of Plutarco Vacalares, as the family home.
The instrument constituting the family home was registered only on January 24, 1966. The money
judgment against Pablo Taneo was rendered on January 24, 1964. Thus, at that time when the "debt"
was incurred, the family home was not yet constituted or even registered. Clearly, petitioners' alleged
family home, as constituted by their father is not exempt as it falls under the exception of Article 243
(2).
Moreover, the constitution of the family home by Pablo Taneo is even doubtful considering
that such constitution did not comply with the requirements of the law. The trial court found
that the house was erected not on the land which the Taneos owned but on the land of one Plutarco
Vacalares. By the very definition of the law that the "family home is the dwelling house where a
person and his family resides and the land on which it is situated," 13 it is understood that the house
should be constructed on a land not belonging to another.
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 47
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
Alexis Enriquez
35. Manacop vs. CA
GR No. 104875, November 13, 1992
FACTS:
Florante Manacop and his wife Euaceli purchased on March 1972, a residential lot with a bungalow
located in Quezon City. The petitioner failed to pay the sub-contract cost pursuant to a deed of
assignment signed between petitioners corporation and private respondent herein (FF Cruz & Co).
The latter filed a complaint for the recovery for the sum of money with a prayer for preliminary
attachment against the former. Consequently, the corresponding writ for the provisional remedy was
issued which triggered the attachment of a parcel of land in Quezon City owned by the Manacop
Construction President, the petitioner. The latter insists that the attached property is a family home
having been occupied by him and his family since 1972 and is therefore exempt from attachment.
ISSUE: WON the subject property is indeed exempted from attachment.
HELD:
The residential house and lot of petitioner became a family home by operation of law under Article
153 of the Family Code. Such provision does not mean that said article has a retroactive effect such
that all existing family residences, petitioners included, are deemed to have been constituted as
family homes at the time of their occupation prior to the effectivity of the Family Code and henceforth,
are exempt from execution for the payment of obligations incurred before the effectivity of the Family
Code on August 3, 1988. Since petitioner incurred debt in 1987, it preceded the effectivity of the
Code and his property is therefore not exempt form attachment.
The petition was dismissed by SC.
Ramon Taghoy II
36. In re Instate of the deceased Marciana Escao.
ANGELITA JONES., petitioner-appellant-appellee,
vs.
FELIX HORTIGUELA, as administrator, widower and heir, oppositor-appellant-appellee
FACTS:
Marciana Escano and Arthur Jones got married in December 1914. On January 10, 1918, Jones
secured a passport to go abroad and thereafter nothing was ever heard of him. Therefore, in October,
1919, proceedings were institute in the Court of First Instance of Maasin, Leyte, at the instance of
Marciana Escao, to have her husband judicially declared an absentee
On October 25, 1919, the court declared Arthur as an absentee with the proviso that said judicial
declaration of absence would not take effect until six months after its publication in the official
newspapers pursuant to Art. 186 of the Old Civil Code.
In 23 April 1921, the court issued another order for the taking effect of the declaration of absence,
publication thereof having been made in the Official Gazette and in El Ideal.
On May 6, 1927, Marciana contracted a second marriage with Felix Hortiguela. When Marciana died
intestate, Felix was appointed as judicial administrator of the estate. Angelita Jones, Marcianas
daughter from her first marriage, filed a case and alleged that she is the only heir of her mother and
that her mothers marriage to Felix was null and void on the ground that from April 23, 1921 (when
the court issued an order for the taking effect of declaration of absence & publication thereof) to May
6, 1927 (her mother and Felixs marriage) was below the 7-year prescriptive period or only 6 years
and 14 days. With this, the marriage would be null and void and would render her as the sole heir.
ISSUE:
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 48
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
WON Arthur Jones is considered as an absentee? YES

Whether or not Felix Hortiguelas alleged marriage to Marciana Escao was celebrated?
YES
HELD:
His absence should be counted from January 10, 1918, the date on which the last news concerning
Arthur W. Jones was received and from said date to May 6, 1927, more than nine years elapsed. Said
marriage is, therefore, valid and lawful.
For the purposes of the civil marriage law, it is not necessary to have the former spouse judicially
declared an absentee. 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 believe at the time of the celebration of the
marriage.
DON NICO G. SANCHEZ
37. RE: PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF ABSENCE OF ROBERTO L. REYES. ERLINDA

REYNOSO REYES, petitioner
vs.
HON, JOSE P. ALEJANDRO, in his capacity as Judge, Court of First Instance of Cavite, Branch
II, Cavite City, respondents.
FACTS:
October 25, 1969 Erlinda Reynoso in a petition prayed for the declaration of the absence of her
husband Roberto Reyes alleging that:
1. her husband had been absent from their conjugal dwelling since April 1962 and
2. since then had not been heard from and his whereabouts unknown
3. husband left no will nor any property in his name nor any debts
The evidence established that:
1. they were married on March 20, 1960
2. in April 1962 her husband left the conjugal home due to some misunderstanding over
personal matters
- since then the petitioner has not received any news about the whereabouts of her
husband
3. they have not acquired any properties during their marriage & no outstanding obligation in
favor of anyone
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 49
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
4. her only purpose in filing the petition is to establish the absence of her husband, invoking
the provisions of:
a. Rule 107, ROC
b. Article 384, CC
Court a quo dismissed the petition on the ground that since Roberto Reyes left no properties, there
was no necessity to declare him judicially an absentee. It said:
Rule 107, ROC on absentees reveals that it is based on the provisions of Title 14 New Civil
Code (NCC) on absence
The reason and purpose of the provisions are:
(1) The interest of the person himself who has disappeared;
(2) The rights of third parties against the absentee, especially those who have rights
which would depend upon the death of the absentee; and
(3) The general interest of society which may require that property does not remain
abandoned without someone representing it and without an owner
Provisions of the NCC are concerned with absence only with reference to its effects on the
property
Article 384 NCC refers to the second period or stage of absence, and specifically indicates
the precise moment when the same may begin:
1. after the lapse of 2 years without any news about the absentee or since the receipt of
the last news, and
2. after 5 years in case the absentee has left a person in charge of the administration of
his property of the absentee
Article 381 NCC provides for provisional measures the appointment by the Court of a
person to represent the absentee in all that may be necessary when a mere presumption of his
absence arises
Article 382 enjoins the judge to take necessary measures to safeguard the rights and
interests of the absentee appointment of a representative of the absentee is for the protection of
the interest of the latter
It is not enough that a person is declared an absentee. The law requires the judge to appoint
a representative for the absentee precisely to safeguard the property or interest of the latter
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 50
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
Declaration of absence is for a specific purpose and that is the protection of the interest or
property of the absentee
Rule 107 ROC, Sections 6 and 7 make it mandatory upon the court to appoint a
representative, trustee or administrator who shall safeguard the rights and interest of the absentee
Considering that neither the petition alleges, nor the evidence shows, that Roberto Reyes has
any rights, interests or property in the Philippines, there is no point in judicially declaring him an
absentee
The need to have a person judicially declared an absentee is when:

1. he has properties which have to be taken cared of or administered by a representative
appointed by the court
2. the spouse of the absentee is asking for separation of property, or
3. his wife is asking the court that the administration of classes of property in the marriage be
transferred to her
The following petitions may be combined and adjudicated in the same proceeding:
1. Petition to declare the husband an absentee
2. Petition to place the management of the conjugal properties in the hands of the wife

38. ARMAS vs. CALISTERIO
GR No. 136467
April 6, 2000
FACTS:
Teodorico Calisterio, husband of Marietta Calisterio, the respondent, died intestate in April 1992
leaving several parcel of land estimated value of P604,750.00. He was the second husband of
Marietta who was previously married with William Bounds in January 1946. The latter disappeared
without a trace in February 1947. 11 years later from the disappearance of Bounds, Marietta and
Teodorico were married in May 1958 without Marietta securing a court declaration of Bounds
presumptive death.
Antonia Armas y Calisterio, surviving sister of Teodorico filed a petition claiming to be the sole
surviving heir of the latter and that marriage between Marietta and his brother being allegedly
bigamous is thereby null and void. She prayed that her son Sinfroniano be appointed as
administrator, without bond, of the estate of the deceased and inheritance be adjudicated to her after
all the obligations of the estate would have been settled.
ISSUE: Whether Marrieta and Teodoricos marriage was void due to the absence of the declaration of
presumptive death.
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 51
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
HELD:
NO.
The marriage between the respondent and the deceased was solemnized in May 1958 where the law
in force at that time was the Civil Code and not the Family Code which only took effect in August
1988. Article 256 of the Family Code itself limit its retroactive governance only to cases where it
thereby would not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or
other laws. Since the Civil Code provides that declaration of presumptive death is not necessary
before contracting marriage, where at least 7 consecutive years of absence of the spouse is enough to
remarry then Marrietas marriage with Teodorico is valid and therefore she has a right to claim a
portion of the estate.
39. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GREGORIO NOLASCO
G.R. No. 94053
March 17, 1993
Facts: Gregorio Nolasco, a seaman, met Janet Monica Parker in a bar in England while being in port,
and lived with her on his ship for 6 months up to the expiry of his contract. They married in Nolascos
hometown (San Jose, Antique) in 1982. Sometime in January 1983, while working overseas, Gregorio
received a letter from his mother informing him that Janet Monica had given birth to his son. The
same letter informed him that Janet Monica had left Antique. Gregorio further testified that his efforts
to look for her himself whenever his ship docked in England proved fruitless. He also stated that all
the letters he had sent to his missing spouse at No. 38 Ravena Road, Allerton, Liverpool, England, the
address of the bar where he and Janet Monica first met, were all returned to him. He also claimed that
he inquired from among friends but they too had no news of Janet Monica.
On 5 August 1988, Gregorio filed before the RTC of Antique, a petition for the declaration of
presumptive death of his wife Janet Monica Parker, invoking Art. 41 of the Family Code. The petition
prayed that respondent's wife be declared presumptively dead or, in the alternative, that the marriage
be declared null and void, which the trial court granted in his favor. The Republic appealed to the
Court of Appeals contending that the trial court erred in declaring Janet Monica Parker presumptively
dead because respondent Nolasco had failed to show that there existed a well-founded belief for such
declaration.
Issue: Whether or not Nolasco had complied with all the requirements for declaration of presumptive
death of his missing wife? NO.
Ruling: Nolasco failed to discharge the third element of presumptive death in this case, a wellfounded belief that the absentee is dead.
There are four (4) requisites for the declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family
Code: 1.That the absent spouse has been missing for four consecutive years, or two consecutive years
if the disappearance occurred where there is danger of death under the circumstances laid down in
Article 391, Civil Code; 2.That the present spouse wishes to remarry; 3.That the present spouse has a
well-founded belief that the absentee is dead; and 4.That the present spouse files a summary
proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee.
The Court believes that respondent Nolasco failed to conduct a search for his missing wife with such
diligence as to give rise to a "well-founded belief" that she is dead. The investigation allegedly
conducted by respondent in his attempt to ascertain Janet Monica Parker's whereabouts is too sketchy
to form the basis of a reasonable or well-founded belief that she was already dead. When he arrived in
San Jose, Antique after learning of Janet Monica's departure, instead of seeking the help of local
authorities or of the British Embassy, he secured another seaman's contract and went to London, a
vast city of many millions of inhabitants, to look for her there. He confused London for Liverpool and
this casts doubt on his supposed efforts to locate his wife in England. SC did not consider walking into
a major city like Liverpool or London with a simple hope of somehow bumping into one particular
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 52
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
person can be regarded as a reasonably diligent search. The Court also views respondent's claim that
Janet Monica declined to give any information as to her personal background even after she had
married respondent, too convenient an excuse to justify his failure to locate her. Neither did the SC
give much credence to respondent's bare assertion that he had inquired from their friends of her
whereabouts, considering that respondent did not identify those friends in his testimony. Respondent
failed to explain why he did not even try to get the help of the police or other authorities in London
and Liverpool in his effort to find his wife. The circumstances of Janet Monica's departure and
respondent's subsequent behavior make it very difficult to regard the claimed belief that Janet Monica
was dead a well-founded one.
The Court emphasized on this jurisdictions belief in preserving the sanctity of marriage. Spouses
should not be allowed, by the simple expedient of agreeing that one of them leave the conjugal abode
and never to return again, to circumvent the policy of the laws on marriage. The Court notes that
respondent even tried to have his marriage annulled before the trial court in the same proceeding.
While the Court understands the need of respondent's young son, Gerry Nolasco, for maternal care,
still the requirements of the law must prevail. Since respondent failed to satisfy the clear
requirements of the law, his petition for a judicial declaration of presumptive death must be denied.
The law does not view marriage like an ordinary contract.
In fine, respondent failed to establish that he had the well-founded belief required by law that his
absent wife was already dead that would sustain the issuance of a court order declaring Janet Monica
Parker presumptively dead.
40. Tol-Noquera vs. Villamor
211 SCRA 616
FACTS: Daya Maria-Tol alleged that she was the acknowledged natural child of Remigio
Tol, who had been missing since 1984. She claims that a certain Diosdado Tol had fraudulently
secured a free patent over her father's property and successfully had it titled in his name. She prays
to be appointed administrator of her father's estate and declare him an absentee so that she can
process to recover the property.
The petition was opposed by Diosdado Tol saying that Daya Maria Tol is not an acknowledged natural
child of the absentee and that the property sought to be administered was covered by an original
certificate of title already issued in his name.
RTC: DISMISSED on the ground that a collateral attack on a Torrens title is not proper for such is
deemed incontrovertible.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner should be appointed administratrix of Remigios estate
HELD: YES. Petitioner can be appointed administratrix of the estate of Remigio, provided that her
personality be established. The Supreme Court held that the RTC ruled hastily in concluding the
petition was a collateral attack on a Torrens title. The petitioner alleged there was a need to appoint
an administrator to prevent the property from being usurped, but this did not amount to a collateral
attack on the title. The alleged fraudulent issuance of title was mentioned as a justification for her
appointment as administrator.
The purpose of the rules is to protect the property of the absentee, not of the administrator. Thus,
questioning whether the administrator could inherit the property being administered is not material.
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 an administratrix of his estate.
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 53
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
Petition is GRANTED. Case is REMANDED to the court of origin for determination of the legal
personality of Daya Maria Tol to petition the declaration of Remigio Tol's absence and of her
competence to be appointed as administratrix of his estate.
Missy Ansaldo
41. RIVERO v. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 141273
FACTS:
In behalf of her minor child, Benedick Arevalo, her mother filed a complaint against defendants
for compulsory recognition as the illegitimate child of their deceased father. During trial, Mary Jane
Dy-Chiao De Guzman, one of the sisters entered a compromised agreement with plaintiff whereby she
is acknowledging the petitioner as the illegitimate son of her father and pay petitioner P6M as a share
in the estate of their deceased father. The RTC granted the compromise agreement.
Meanwhile, the Dy Chiao Brothers represented by their uncle filed for annulment
of judgment and TRO for the writ of execution of judgment and motion to dismiss. CA directed
Mary
Jane on the other hand to file a comment on the opposition of her uncle. In her reply, she
questions assailed decision of RTC since the illegitimate filiation of Benedick could not be the subject
of a compromise agreement. She further alleged that the parties thereunder did not recognize the
validity of the compromise agreement, as in fact she and the petitioners were exploring the possibility
of modifying their extrajudicial settlement.
CA ruled in favor of the defendants, hence a petition.
ISSUE:
W/N the compromise regarding filiation is valid?
Held:
NO. The ruling of RTC based on the compromise agreement executed by Mary Jane is null and
void.
Article 2035(1) of the New Civil Code provides that no compromise upon the civil status
of persons shall be valid. As such, paternity and filiation, or the lack of the same, is a relationship that
must be judicially established, and it is for the court to determine its existence or absence. It cannot
be left to the will or agreement of the parties.
Such recognition by Mary Jane, however, is ineffectual, because under the law, the recognition
must be made personally by the putative parent and not by any brother, sister or relative.
Anthony L. Yap
42.
RITA DAIS, ET AL., petitioners
vs.
HONORABLE LEONARDO GARDUNO, Judge of the Seventeenth Judicial District, and JOSE
ALTAVAS, respondents
FACTS:
This is a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent judge to admit an appeal
interposed in a probate case by the petitioners.
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 54
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
On January 14, 1924, Respondent Altavas filed a motion in the intestate proceedings of SERAPION
DAIS asking that the administrator of the estate be ordered to pay him the sum of P 5,000.00 in
settlement of his fees for legal services rendered and to be rendered in the said intestate proceedings.
Judge Salas approved the said petition. The decision indicated that the fees of respondent Altavas
were fixed at P 5,000.00 with the understanding that this amount would be considered full
compensation for his services until the termination of the case.
However, on January 20, 1925, Judge Abeto issued another order stating that although as adjudged
and fixed by the court, the amount prayed for must not be paid in its entirety as the case for intestacy
is still pending final decision. The court granted a portion of the amount prayed amounting to P
1,500.00 be paid to Altavas.
On November 28, 1925, the same judge ordered that the administrator can sell at public auction the
parcels of land involved in the intestate proceedings. The administrator is ordered to report to the
court its negotiations and seek the approval of the same court before the sale of the said goods may
be affected.
To this order the herein petitioners excepted, alleging that it was contrary to law and issued without
jurisdiction, and asked for a reconsideration and new hearing. Upon denial of their motion on January
1926, the petitioners filed an appeal. The appeal was denied on the ground that the orders of
November 1925 were merely interlocutory and not appealable.
On February 15, 1926, the parcels of land were sold by private sale and the proceeds were paid over
to respondent Altavas who now moved for the dismissal of the present proceedings on the grount that
the matters at issue had become moot and academic.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the appeal from the orders of November 28, 1925 and January 11, 1926 were
premature?
Whether or not the word Termination as employed in the order meant the termination of the whole
case?
RULING:
ISSUE No. 1
No, the orders were not premature or interlocutory in nature.
An interlocutory order is one which does not of itself definitely settle or conclude any of the rights of
the parties to the action.
ISSUE No. 2
Yes, the word termination as employed in the order meant the final determination of the litigation.
No provision was made for prepayment of fees and it can therefore not be argued that they were due
until after the services were rendered.
Notwithstanding the fact that so far there appears to have been no complete termination of the
litigation in any of the cases referred to, the respondent has nevertheless been paid practically his
entire fee, and in order to satisfy his claim the court has authorized the sale of real property
pertaining to the estate.
Arbie Mae R. Magale
43. G.R. No. 138731
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
December 11, 2000

Page 55
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
TESTATE ESTATE OF MARIA MANUEL Vda. DE BIASCAN, petitioner, vs. ROSALINA C.

BIASCAN
Facts: Respondent Rosalina J. Biascan filed a petition praying for her appointment as administratrix of
the intestate estate of Florencio Biascan and Timotea Zulueta. Respondent was appointed as regular
administratrix of the estates.
Maria Manuel Vda. De Biascan, the legal wife of Florencio Biascan entered her appearance as
Oppositor. Simultaneous with her appearance, she filed a pleading containing several motions
including a motion for intervention, a motion for the setting aside of private respondents appointment
as special administratrix and administratrix, and a motion for her appointment as administratrix of the
estate of Florencio Biascan.4
After an exchange of pleadings between the parties, CFI granted Marias intervention and set for trial
the motion to set aside the Orders appointing respondent as administratrix.
Trial court issued an Order6 resolving that: (1) Maria is the lawful wife of Florencio; (2) respondent
and her brother are the acknowledged natural children of Florencio; (3) all three are the legal heirs of
Florencio who are entitled to participate in the settlement proceedings; (4) the motion to set aside the
order appointing private respondent as administratrix is denied; and (5) the motion to approve
inventory and appraisal of private respondent be deferred. Maria, through her counsel, received a
copy of this April 2, 1981 Order on April 9, 1981.7
On June 6, 1981, or fifty-eight (58) days after he receipt of the April 2, 1981 Order, Maria filed her
motion for reconsideration8 which private respondent opposed.9
On November 15, 1981, the fourth floor of the City Hall of Manila was completely gutted by fire. The
records of the settlement proceedings were among those lost in the fire. Thus, on January 2, 1985,
private respondent filed a Petition for Reconstitution10 of the said records.
Due to the delay caused by the fire and the reconstitution of the records, it was only on April 30, 1985
that the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 4 issued an Order 11 denying Marias June 6, 1981
Motion for Reconsideration.
Sometime thereafter, Maria died and her testate estate also became the subject of settlement
proceedings.
The trial court issued an Order16 denying petitioners appeal on the ground that the appeal was filed
out of time. The trial court ruled that the April 2, 1981 Order which was the subject of the appeal
already became final as the Motion for Reconsideration thereof was filed sixty-five (65) days after
petitioner received the same. In addition, the court ruled that the notice of appeal itself was filed
manifestly late as the same was filed more than 11 years after the issuance of the June 11, 1985 Order
denying petitioners Motion for Reconsideration. The Motion for Reconsideration dated November 13,
1996 of petitioner was likewise denied by the trial court in an Order 17 dated February 12, 1997.
ISSUE: WON Appeal is still proper?
Held: NO
The ruling of the trial court that Maria, private respondent Rosalina Biascan and German Biascan
were entitled to participate in the settlement proceedings falls squarely under paragraph (b), Section
1, Rule 109 of the Rules of Court as a proper subject of appeal. By so ruling, the trial court has
effectively determined that the three persons are the lawful heirs of the deceased. As such, the same
may be the proper subject of an appeal.
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 56
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
Similarly, the ruling of the trial court denying petitioners motion to set aside the order appointing
private respondent as the regular administratrix of the estate of Florencio Bisacan is likewise a proper
subject of an appeal.
In special proceedings, such as the instant proceeding for settlement of estate, the period of appeal
from any decision or final order rendered therein is thirty (30) days, a notice of appeal and a record on
appeal being required.
Petitioner admits that Maria Manuel Vda. De Biascan, its predecessor-in-interest, received a copy of
the same of April 9, 1981. Applying these rules, Maria or her counsel had thirty (30) days or until May
9 within which to file a notice of appeal with record on appeal. She may also file a motion for
reconsideration, in which case the appeal period is deemed interrupted.
Considering that it was only June 6, 1981, or a full fifty-eight (58) days after receipt of the order, that
a motion for reconsideration was filed, it is clear that the same was filed out of time. As such, when
the said motion for reconsideration was filed, there was no more appeal period to interrupt as the
Order had already become final.
ALfie Luzana Omega
44. Miranda vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-33007 June 18, 1976
Facts: In a Special Proceedings for the settlement of the intestate estate of Hilarion Dydongco, a Philippine resident who died
in China sometime in 1941, petitioner Vicente Miranda was appointed as administrator. Dydongco was a wealthy businessman
and who owns parcels of lands and other properties in Butuan and Cebu City.
In 1962, Miranda as administrator filed Civil Case against the respondents (or their predecessors) for recovery of properties of
the decedent alleged to have been fraudulently and in bad faith and in breach of their fiduciary trust, concealed, appropriated
and converted as their own by respondents.
Petitioner-administrator prayed that "judgment be rendered declaring that said business, assets, income and other property, are
in the possession and under the management and control of said defendants as mere trustees thereof, and sentencing them to
turnover and deliver the same to him, as Administrator of the Intestate Estate of Hilarion Dydongco as well as to render
accounts and to execute the corresponding deeds of conveyance, in addition to paying damages and the costs."
After a protracted trial, Hon. Jose M. Mendoza (as presiding judge in whose court the intestate proceedings for settlement of
the decedent's estate were likewise pending) rendered a sixty-nine page decision on July 26, 1965 finding that most of
petitioneradministrator's allegations had been duly proven and sentenced respondents (as defendants) to deliver to petitioneradministrator "all properties found by the court to belong to the estate," "to render full, accurate and correct accounting of all
the fruits and proceeds of (such) properties" during their period of possession ("from 1935 until the present date") and to pay
exemplary damages to the two heiresses found to have been defrauded and attorney's fees and costs.
The case was remanded to the court of origin for the rendition of "a full, accurate and complete of all the fruits and proceeds"
of the properties declared in Judge Mendoza's decision to belong to the decedent's estate, i.e. for "the adjudications necessary
for the completion of said relief (as granted in the decision)".
This time, however, Judge Mendoza (had been promoted as associate justice of the CA and thereafter retired) no longer
presided the lower court, having been succeeded by respondent Judge Francisco S. Tantuico, Jr. as presiding judge of the lower
court.
Judge Tantuico thus altered and changed his predecessor Judge Mendoza's original decision of July 26, 1965 in his amended
decision of October 4, 1969 by excluding certain valuable properties from the estate of the decedent and absolving certain
respondents from the obligation of turning over the possession to petitioner, reversing Judge Mendoza's judgment.
Petitioner assailed in an action for certiorari, respondent judge's authority to issue such amended decision substantially
changing his predecessor's original decision (which merely awaited the rendition of accounting for completion of the relief
therein adjudicated of declaring the properties in possession of respondents to belong to the decedent's estate).
In its split resolution denying reconsideration, CA reiterated that as Judge Mendoza's original decision was "still interlocutory,"
respondent Judge Tantuico had authority to change, alter or amend the decision as he did over four year later per his amended
decision of October 4, 1969, citing a court's "inherent power to amend and control its process and orders so as to make them
conformable to law and justice."
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 57
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
Issue: WON Judge Mendoza's decision granting the recovery of the properties which were adjudged to rightfully belong to the
decedent's estate and for accounting of the fruits and proceeds thereof was "interlocutory in character" on the doctrine of
Fuentebella vs. Carrascoso and was "not appealable, until after the adjudications necessary for the completion of said relief
shall have been made".
Held: The Court holds that CA erred in holding that Judge Tantuico could change, alter and amend his predecessor's decision
on the merits for recovery of properties with accounting as if it were a mere interlocutory order or process.
It seems evident that respondent judge's error lay in his misequating Judge Mendoza's 1965 judgment on the merits with
"interlocutory orders (that) are subject to change in the discretion of the court" and that respondent appellate court fell into the
same error that Judge Mendoza's 1965 judgment "does not dispose of the action in its entirety and leaves something to be done
to complete the relief sought and that accordingly it is not appealable until after the adjudications necessary for the completion
of said relief shall have been made" it leapt to the unwarranted conclusion that this Court thereby authorized respondent judge
not merely to complete the relief granted by enforcing and resolving the accounting as an incident to the level of interlocutory
"process and orders" subject to change, revision and reversal for as long as the accounting has not been rendered and
completed.
The late Chief Justice Moran, who penned the decision in Fuentebella, stated that "(T)he test to ascertain whether or not an
order or a judgment is interlocutory or final is: Does it leave something to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of
the case? If it does, it is interlocutory; if it does not, it is final.
The key test to what is "interlocutory" is when there is something more to be done on the merits of the case. It's more reliable
test than that loosely applied in Fuentebella that the decision therein for recovery of properties with accounting is
"interlocutory in character because it does not dispose of the action in its entirely and leaves something to be done to complete
the relief sought." For strictly speaking, the only stage where nothing more can be done in the trial court to complete the relief
sought is after the judgment has been executed, and certainly, no one would contend that all judgments are interlocutory before
they are actually executed and satisfied.
The examples of interlocutory matters from our jurisprudence that Moran gives in his treatise deal therefore with interlocutory
orders, not judgments, such as orders denying motions for dismissal, for annulment of preliminary attachment or injunction, for
alimony pendente lite, for default, etc., since they deal with preliminary matters and trial has yet to be held judgment on the
merits rendered.
In Halili vs. CIR, this Court in ruling that the lower court's judgment (ordering the payment of overtime pay although the total
amount was yet undetermined and awaited the computation yet to be rendered by the Court Examiner) had already become
final and executory for failure of the losing party to appeal therefrom within the reglementary period, dismissed the contention
that the judgment was "interlocutory" and still appealable for as long as the accounting had not been completed by re-defining
the terms in this wise: "(T)he word I interlocutory is defined as 'something intervening between the commencement and the end
of a suit which decides some point or matter, but is not a final decision of the whole controversy.' As stated by Bouvier, it is
'something which is done between the commencement and the end of a suit or action which decides some point or matter
which, however, is not a final decision of the matter in issue."' and ruled that "(T)he decision, therefore, is a final adjudication
on the main issue submitted to the court and cannot be considered as interlocutory". By the same token, the original 1965
decision was and is a final adjudication on the main issue of ownership and recovery of properties disputed between the parties.
The Court's reversal of the CAs decision which upheld respondent judge's amended decision changing and amending
substantially his predecessor's judgment on the merits for recovery of properties with accounting on the main ground, inter
alia, that this Court's 1968 judgment was misread and misapplied, since the only remaining or residual authority of respondent
judge was to enforce, consider and act on the accounting ordered in the original decision for the completion of the relief therein
granted before considering private respondents' proposed appeal, suffices to dispose of the case at bar itself.
The Court, however, deems it proper for the guidance of the bench and bar to now declare as is clearly indicated from the
compelling reasons and considerations hereinabove stated:
that the Court considers the better rule to be that stated in H.E. Heacock Co. vs. American Trading Co. , to wit, that
where the primary purpose of a case is to ascertain and determine who between plaintiff and defendant is the true
owner and entitled to the exclusive use of the disputed property, "the judgment ... rendered by the lower court [is] a
judgment on the merits as to those questions, and (that) the order of the court for an accounting was based upon, and
is incidental to the judgment on the merits. That is to say, that the judgment ... (is) a final judgment ...; that in this kind
of a case an accounting is a mere incident to the judgment; that an appeal lies from the rendition of the judgment as
rendered ..." (as is widely held by a great number of judges and members of the bar, as shown by the cases so decided
and filed and still pending with the Court) for the fundamental reasons therein stated that "this is more in harmony
with the administration of justice and the spirit and intent of the [Rules]. If on appeal the judgment of the lower court
is affirmed, it would not in the least work an injustice to any of the legal rights of [appellee]. On the other hand, if for
any reason this court should reverse the judgment of the lower court, the accounting would be a waste of time and
money, and might work a material injury to the [appellant]; and
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 58
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
that accordingly, the contrary ruling in Fuentebella vs. Carrascoso which expressly reversed the Heacock case and a
line of similar decisions and ruled that such a decision for recovery of property with accounting "is not final but merely
interlocutory and therefore not appealable" and subsequent cases adhering to the same must be now in turn
abandoned and set aside.
Fuentebella adopted instead the opposite line of conflicting decisions mostly in partition proceedings and exemplified
by Ron vs. Mojica, 8 Phil. 928 (under the old Code of Civil Procedure) that an order for partition of real property is not
final and appealable until after the actual partition of the property as reported by the court-appointed commissioners
and approved by the court in its judgment accepting the report. It must be especially noted that such rule governing
partitions is now so expressly provided and spelled out in Rule 69 of the Rules of Court, with special reference to
sections 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 11, to wit, that there must first be a preliminary order for partition of the real estate (section
2) and where the parties co-owners cannot agree, the court-appointed commissioners make a plan of actual partition
which must first be passed upon and accepted by the trial court and embodied in a judgment to be rendered by it
(sections 6 and 11). In partition cases, it must be further borne in mind that Rule 69, section 1 refers to "a person
having the right to compel the partition of real estate", so that the general rule of partition that an appeal will not lie
until the partition or distribution proceedings are terminated will not apply where appellant claims exclusive
ownership of the whole property and denies the adverse party's right to any partition, as was the ruling in Villanueva
vs. Capistrano and Africa vs. Africa, supra, 55 Fuentebella's express reversal of these cases must likewise be deemed
now also abandoned in view of the Court's expressed preference for the rationale of the Heacock case.
The Court's considered opinion is that imperative considerations of public policy and of sound practice in the courts and
adherence to the constitutional mandate of simplified, just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action call for
considering such judgments for recovery of property with accounting as final judgments which are duly appealable (and would
therefore become final and executory if not appealed within the reglementary period) with the accounting as a mere incident of
the judgment to be rendered during the course of the appeal as provided in Rule 39, section 4 or to be implemented at the
execution stage upon final affirmance on appeal of the judgment (as in Court of Industrial Relations unfair labor practice cases
ordering reinstatement of the worker with accounting, computation and payment of his backwages less earnings elsewhere
during his lay-off) and that the only reason given in Fuentebella for the contrary ruling, viz, "the general harm that would follow
from throwing the door open to multiplicity of appeals in a single case" is of lesser import and consequence.
45. Lopez vs. Teodoro
G.R. No. L-3071
May 29, 1950
Facts:
Eulalio Lopez, Sr., an incapacitated under the judicial guardianship of Eulalio Lopez, Jr., was the
exclusive and absolute owner of an hacienda. On September 3, 1948, the Court of First Instance,
acting upon a motion of Senen L. Gamboa and Adelaida Gamboa filed in the proceedings for
guardianship, ordered the guardian to pay the movants P7,312 plus 12 per cent interest from August,
1944, amount which represented loans properly authorized by court. The order provided that if the
guardian did not have funds to pay those debts, he should take the necessary steps for the sale of
some of the property of the guardianship.
In pursuance of this authority, the guardian sold the above tract of land, the only property
incapacitated possessed.
the
In authorizing the sale of some of the property of the incapacitated, the court did not follow the
requirement of section 2 of Rule 96 to the effect that the court shall direct the next of kin of the ward,
and all persons interested in the estate, to appear at a reasonable time and place to be specified in the
order, to show cause why the prayer for the sale should not be granted. Nor did the court specify, as
provided by section 4 of the same Rule, whether the sale should be effected publicly or privately.
Believing that the sale was prejudicial to her brother's interest, Salvacion Lopez, the ward's sister,
filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's order authorizing said sale, and upon the motion
being denied, she brought a petition for certiorari and mandamus, contending that the sale was null
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 59
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
and void by reason of the court's failure to adhere to Rule 96, and praying that the orders of the
respondent court be corrected and the said court directed to revoke the sale
Issue: Whether or not the orders of the respondent court must be corrected and the said court be
directed to revoke the sale.
Ruling: No.
The court held that the petitioner has no legal interest in her complaint. The incapacitated has
children, all of age, one of whom is the judicial guardian, while the petitioner is only the ward's sister.
Neither is the petitioner the ward's next of kin. "Next of kin" within the meaning of Rule 96 are
relatives whose relationship is such that they are entitled to share in the estate as distributees. "Next
of kin" is also defined in Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd ed., as to mean 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.
Not being Eulalio Lopez's forced heir, she was not prejudiced by the sale she seeks to impugn.
Although she was a creditor however, she does not claim any right to be notified of the sale as such
creditor, and her credit was not impaired. On the contrary, she was benefited by the sale in that she
was paid what was due her from its proceeds. As to the other creditors, they did not appear to have
any objection to the action taken by the judicial guardian and authorized by the court. None of the
children of the incapacitated is or was opposed to the sale sought to be set aside. Only these had 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.
Lizette Tuballa
[G.R. No. 138731. December 11, 2000]
46. TESTATE ESTATE OF MARIA MANUEL Vda. DE BIASCAN, petitioner, vs. ROSALINA C.
BIASCAN, respondent.
FACTS:
Respondent Rosalina J. Biascan filed a petition at the then Court of First Instance, Branch 4,
Manila praying for her appointment as administratrix of the intestate estate of Florencio Biascan and
Timotea Zulueta which was granted by the said court. This was opposed by the legal wife of the
decedent, Maria Manuel Vda. de Biascan. She questioned and move to set asided the appointment of
Rosalina as administratrix and she prayed for her appointment as administratrix.
On April 2, 1981, the trial court issued an Order resolving that: (1) Maria is the lawful wife of
Florencio; (2) respondent and her brother are the acknowledged natural children of Florencio; (3) all
three are the legal heirs of Florencio who are entitled to participate in the settlement proceedings; (4)
the motion to set aside the order appointing private respondent as administratrix is denied; and (5)
the motion to approve inventory and appraisal of private respondent be deferred.
A copy of the order was received by Maria, through her counsel, on April 9, 1981 and filed a
Motion for Reconsideration on June 6, 1981 or fifty-eight (58) days after the receipt of the said Order.
On November 15, 1981, the fourth floor of the City Hall of Manila was completely gutted by fire
and destroyed the records of the court including that of the settlement proceedings. Due to the delay
caused by the fire and the reconstitution of the records, it was only on April 30, 1985 that the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 4 issued an Order denying Marias June 6, 1981 Motion for
Reconsideration.
Sometime thereafter, Maria died and her testate estate also became the subject of settlement
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 60
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
proceedings. Atty. Marcial F. Lopez was appointed as interim special administrator and engaged the
services of the Siguion Reyna Montecillo and Ongsiako Law Offices on Behalf of the estate.
It was only on August 21, 1996, as alleged, that the law firm made aware of and given notice of
the April 30, 1985 Order and was able to secure a certification from the Clerk of Court that there was
no proof of service of the April 30, 1985 Order.
A Notice of Appeal was filed on August 22, 1996 was filed. While the said notice of appeal was
dated April 22, 1996, the stamp of the trial court on the first page of the notice clearly indicated that
the same was received by the trial court on September 20, 1996. A Record of Appeal dated
September 20, 1996 was likewise filed by petitioner.
The trial court denied the petitioners appeal on the ground that it was filed out of time.
The CA affirmed the order of the trial court.
The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court contending that the order dated April 2, 1981 of
the trial court did not become final and executory as no opposition on its timeliness was filed and no
ruling as regards its timeliness was made.
ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT, IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS, EVEN THE LAPSE OF THE

PRESCRIBE PERIOD BUT ABSENCE OF OPPOSITION TO AND JUDICIAL RULING
ON THE TIMELINESS TO FILE AN APPEAL HAS NOT RENDER THE ORDER
FINAL AND EXECUTORY, HENCE, APPEALABLE?
RULING: NO.
In special proceedings, such as the instant proceeding for settlement of estate, the period of
appeal from any decision or final order rendered therein is thirty (30) days, a notice of appeal and a
record on appeal being required. Once the appeal period expires without an appeal or a motion for
reconsideration or new trial being perfected, the decision or order becomes final.
Maria or her counsel received the Order on April 9, therefore, they had only thirty (30) days or
until May 9 within which to file a notice of appeal with record on appeal. She may also file a motion
for reconsideration, in which case the appeal period is deemed interrupted. However, it is clear that
the motion for reconsideration was filed out of time for it was filed only on June 6, 1981 or full fiftyeight (58) days after the receipt of the said order.
It is well-settled that judgment or orders become final and executory by operation of law and not
by judicial declaration. Thus, finality of a judgment becomes a fact upon the lapse of the reglamentary
period of appeal if no appeal is perfected or motion for reconsideration or new trial is filed. The trial
court need not even pronounce the finality of the order as the same becomes final by operation of law.
Assuming that the Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner had the effect of suspending
the running of the appeal period for the April 2, 1981 Order, it is clear that petitioners notice of
appeal of the orders of the trial court was still filed out of time.
Under Section 3, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court then applicable, the time during which a motion
to set aside the judgment or order or for a new trial shall be deducted from the period from which to
make an appeal. The rule further states that where the motion was filed during office hours of the last
day of the appeal period, the appeal must be perfected within the day following that in which the
party appealing received notice of the denial of said motion.
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 61
CASE
DIGESTS
SPEC.
PRO -3
r d
Yea r
2014-2015
Giving petitioner the benefit of the doubt that it had indeed received notice of the order
denying its motion for reconsideration on August 21, 1996, it follows that petitioner only had until the
following day or on August 22, 1996 within which to perfect the appeal.
While the Notice of Appeal was ostensibly dated August 22, 1996, it is clear from the stamp of
the trial court that the same was received only on September 20, 1996.
Considering that it is clear from the records that petitioners notice of appeal was filed on
September 20, 1996, the same was clearly filed out of time as it only had until August 22, 1996 within
which to file the said pleading.
RA BANDALA
End
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
3rd Year
2014-2015
Page 62

Consolidated Spec. Pro. Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consolidated Spec. Pro. Cases

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consolidated Spec. Pro. Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE

1. FELIPE MADRINAN v. FRANCISCA MADRINAN

The petition has become moot.

3. Camara vs Pagayatan, GR No. 176563, April 2, 2007; 520 SCRA 182

4. IN RE: PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF DAVID CRUZ y GONZAGA

5. NORBERTO FERIA Y PACQUING, petitioner,

ISSUE: W/N THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS THE PROPER REMEDY NO

Kaye Stephanie M. Sorrosa

xxx xxx xxx

The restraint of liberty must be illegal

DOCTRINE OF COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY AND THE WRIT OF AMPARO

Command responsibility as justification in impleading respondents is legally inaccurate The use of

EVIDENCE REQUIRED IN AMPARO PROCEEDINGS

EVIDENCE REQURED IN HABEAS DATA PROCEEDINGS

court found to its satisfaction that petitioner was in earnest in his

Jesus Ng, in his birth certificate and certificate of residence,

August 30, 1973

WHETHER OR NOT PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME IS PROPER IN ORDER TO

31. Republic vs. Hernandez, GR No. 117209, February 9, 1996

32. MARIA VIRGINIA V. REMO

Olan Dave L. Lachica

WON Arthur Jones is considered as an absentee? YES

37. RE: PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF ABSENCE OF ROBERTO L. REYES. ERLINDA

The need to have a person judicially declared an absentee is when:

Kaye Stephanie M. Sorrosa

December 11, 2000

TESTATE ESTATE OF MARIA MANUEL Vda. DE BIASCAN, petitioner, vs. ROSALINA C.

May 29, 1950

WHETHER OR NOT, IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS, EVEN THE LAPSE OF THE

You might also like