G.R. No. 12345, January 1, 2019 Digest By: DIMLABS: (Special Proceedings - Atty. Tantuico)

[ SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS | ATTY.
TANTUICO ] 1
1. IN RE: ESCHEATS PROCEEDINGS OF ANNE FALLON MURPHY  The court, after hearing denied the petition for escheat of the
G.R. No. 12345, January 1, 2019 properties of the deceased Anne Fallon Murphy and Thomas Fallon,
Digest by: DIMLABS for the reason that Thomas Fallon died with an heir his wife Julia
Fallon, and Anne Fallon Murphy, for her part, died leaving a will, in
TOPIC: Escheats which she disposed of all her properties.
 As to prayers contained in the opposition asking that the oppositors
DOCTRINE: be declared heirs of the deceased Thomas Fallon and Anne Fallon
The jurisdiction acquired can not be converted into one for the distribution Murphy, the court declared that the evidence submitted was not
of the properties of the said decedents. For such proceedings (for the competent or sufficient to sustain the claim of the oppositors and,
distribution of the estate of the decedents) to be instituted, the proper therefore denied said prayers.
parties must be presented and the proceedings should comply with the  The oppositors appealed claiming that the lower court erred in not
requirements of the Rule. declaring them heirs of the decedents Anne Fallon Murphy and
Thomas Fallon.
FACTS:
ISSUE/S: Whether or not an escheat proceeding can be converted into a
 Escheat proceedings were instituted by three municipalities in the special proceeding
province of Negros Occidental, in the Court of First Instance of that
province praying that the estates of the deceased Anne Fallon HELD: No. While it is possible for the estates of the deceased Anne Fallon
Murphy and Thomas Fallon be escheated in their favor, Murphy and Thomas Fallon, who at the time of their death were residents
respectively, wherever the real estates are situated. of San Francisco, California, to be settled here, or more especially in
 Finding that the petition was in order, the judge of the court Negros Occidental where they had properties, these proceedings were
ordered the publication of the petition and set the same for instituted as escheat proceedings and not for the settlement of the estate
hearing. of deceased persons.
 Opposition to the petition for escheat was filed by Bezore,
Knickerbocker and McCormick. The court acquired jurisdiction to hear the petition for escheat by virtue of
 Bezore claims that he is the a nephew of the decedents because his the publication of the petition for escheat. The jurisdiction acquired can
mother was their sister. Knickerbocker also claims to be the sole not be converted into one for the distribution of the properties of the said
legatee of his wife Loreta Knickerbocker, who in turn, was the decedents. For such proceedings (for the distribution of the estate of the
residuary legatee of Anne Fallon Murphy. decedents) to be instituted, the proper parties must be presented and the
 Mary Irene Murphy McCormick likewise claims that she is the niece proceedings should comply with the requirements of the Rule.
of the decedents as her father was a brother of said decedents.
 Conformably to their petitions, all the oppositors pray that the DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING: WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from
petition for escheat be dismissed and that the properties of the should be, as it hereby is, affirmed, without costs.
decedents be distributed among them.
(GO2) 2018 - 2019

[ SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS | ATTY. TANTUICO ] 2
2. DIVINO v. HILARIO  Notice of trial by the respondent judge be published in the newspaper El
G.R. No. 44658, January 24, 1936 Magindanaw, published in Davao, once a week for three consecutive
Digest by: MARGALLO weeks. It does not appear that the notice was actually published.
 Petitioner, Tan Kui Sing, as guardian of deceased’s minor nephews and
TOPIC: Escheats – Rule 91; Arts. 1011 to 1014, Civil Code niece set a motion to set aside decree escheating and adjudicate share
the sum of the 5,000 pesos.
DOCTRINE:
The court shall thereupon appointment a time and place of hearing, and ISSUE/S:
deciding on such petition, and cause a notice thereof to be published in WON the court acquired jurisdiction making the escheat proceeding proper?
some newspaper of general circulation in the province of which the - NO
deceased was last an inhabitant, if within the Philippine Islands, and if not,
in some newspaper of general circulation in the province in which he had HELD:
estate to acquire jurisdiction in escheat proceedings.  Section 750 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides:
"SEC. 750. Procedure when person dies intestate without heirs. — When
RECIT-READY SUMMARY: a person dies intestate, seized of real or personal property in the
Deceased Tan Chay left an estate worth 5,000 pesos and declared the escheat Philippine Islands, leaving no heir or person by law entitled to the same,
of said funds to the municipality of Guianga, Davao. Petitioner Tan Kui Sing, the president and municipal council of the municipality where the
as guardian of deceased’s minor nephews and niece set a motion to set aside deceased last resided, if he was an inhabitant of these Islands, or of the
decree escheating and adjudicate share the sum of the 5,000 pesos. Court municipality in which he had estate, if he resided out of the Islands, may,
never acquired jurisdiction because no petition was filed either by the on behalf of the municipality, file a petition with the Court of First
municipal president or municipal council in accordance with Section 750 of Instance of the province for an inquisition in the premises; the court shall
the Code of Civil Procedure. Only petition conferred jurisdiction was of thereupon appointment a time and place of hearing, and deciding on
petitioner’s and therefore adjudication of share of estate of the deceased was such petition, and cause a notice thereof to be published in some
granted to the minors. newspaper of general circulation in the province of which the deceased
was last an inhabitant, if within the Philippine Islands, and if not, in some
FACTS: newspaper of general circulation in the province in which he had estate.
 Petitioner, Tan Kui Sing, began the intestate of the deceased Tan Chay. x. x. x”
Special administrator filed an inventory and declared deceased left  No petition was filed either by the municipal president or by the
P5,000 in cash. municipal council, nor was the required publication made which was the
 Tan Chay, had died intestate, that he left no legal heirs, that he left as his essential step which should have conferred jurisdiction.
only estate the sum of P5,000 deposited with the Philippine Foreign  As we have seen, the only petition which conferred jurisdiction over the
Trading & Company, and declared the escheat of said funds to the estate of the deceased Tan Chay was that filed by Tan Kui Sing.
municipality of Guianga, Province of Davao. Thereafter the municipal
president of Guianga took charge of the funds. DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING:
In view of the foregoing, the petition is granted, and the order of August 24,
1935 as well as the resolution of October 21 of the same year are set aside.
(GO2) 2018 - 2019
THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF SAN PEDRO, LAGUNA, vs. COLEGIO DE SAN Escheat is a proceeding whereby the real and personal property of a deceased person
JOSE, INC become the property of the State upon his death without leaving any will or legal heirs.
G.R. No. 45460. February 25, 1938 It is not an ordinary action but a special proceeding. The proceeding should be
Ponente: Imperial commenced by a petition and not by a complaint.
Digest by: LAURENTE
TOPIC: Escheat In a special proceeding for Escheat under section 750 to 752 the petitioner is not the
sole and exclusive interested party. Any person alleging to have a direct right or Interest
DOCTRINE: When a petition for escheat does not state facts which entitle the petitioner in the property sought to be escheated
to the remedy prayed for, and even admitting them hypothetically it is clear that there is likewise an interested and necessary party and may appear and oppose the petition
are no grounds for the court to proceed to the inquisition provided by law, we see no for escheat.
reason to disallow an interested party from ling a motion to dismiss the petition which
is untenable from all standpoints. And when the motion to dismiss is entertained upon When a petition for escheat does not state facts which entitle the petitioner to the
this ground, the petition may be dismissed unconditionally and the petitioner is not remedy prayed for and even admitting them hypothetically, it is clear that there is no
entitled, as in the case of a demurrer, to be afforded an opportunity to amend his ground for the court to proceed to the Inquisition provided by law, an interested party
petition. should not be disallowed from filing a motion to dismiss the petition which is untenable
from all standpoint. And when the motion to dismiss is entertained upon this ground the
FACTS: The Municipality of San Pedro, Laguna filed in the CFI a petition claiming the petition may be dismissed unconditionally.
Hacienda de San Pedro Tunasan by the right of Escheat. Colegio de San Jose,
claiming to be the exclusive owner of the said hacienda, assailed the petition upon the In this case, Colegio de San Jose and Carlos Young had a right to intervene as an
grounds that the petition does not allege sufficient facts to entitle the applicants to the alleged exclusive owner and a lessee of the property respectively. The Municipal base
remedy prayed for. Carlos Young, claiming to be a lessee of the hacienda under a its right to escheat on the fact that the Hacienda de San Pedro Tunasan, temporal
contract legally entered with Colegio de San Jose, also intervened in the case. property of the Father of the Society of Jesus, were confiscated by the order of the King
Municipal Council of San Pedro, Laguna objected to the appearance and intervention of Spain. From the moment it was confiscated, it became the property of the
of CDSJ and Carlos Young but such objection was overruled. Furthermore the lower commonwealth of the Philippines. Given this fact, it is evident that the Municipality
court dismissed the petition filed for by Municipal Council of San Pedro. cannot claim that the same be escheated to them, because it is no longer the case of
real property owned by a deceased person who has not left any person which may
ISSUE/S: WON the petition for escheats should be dismissed? legally claim it (2nd requirement lacking).
HELD: YES. According to Sec. 750 of the Code of Civil Procedure (now Sec 1 of Rule
91), the essential facts which should be alleged in the petition, which are jurisdictional
because they confer jurisdiction upon the CFI are:
1. That a person died intestate or without leaving any will,

2. That he has left real or personal property and he was the owner thereof,
3. That he has not left any heir or person by law entitled to the property, and
4. That the one who applies for the escheat is the municipality where deceased has his
last residence or in case he should have no residence in the country, the municipality
where the property is situated.
Sec. 751 (now Sec 3 of Rule 91) provides that after the publications and trial, if the
court finds that the deceased is in fact the owner of real and personal property situated
in the country and has not left any heir or other person entitled there to, it may order,
after payment of debts and other legal expenses, the escheat and in such case, it shall
adjudicate the personal property to the municipality where the deceased had his last
residence and the real property to the municipality where they are situated.
(GO2) 2018 - 2019

4. REPUBLIC v. CA and SOLANO  Later on, Solano found the deeds and filed a petition for annulment
G.R. No. 143483, Janury 31, 2002 of judgment with the CA.
J. BELLOSILLO  She claims that the property could not have been escheated
because they are not part of the estate of Hapkins.
TOPIC: Escheats  CA gave due course to the petition and set the date for trial.
DOCTRINE: ISSUE/S:
Section 4, Rule 91 of the Revised Rules of Court expressly provides that a WON the annulment of judgment was proper- No
person entitled to the estate must file his claim with the court a quo within
five (5) years from the date of said judgment. HELD: The CA resolution giving due course to the annulment of judgment is
set aside. (republic won)
RECIT-READY SUMMARY: RULE: A claimant to an escheated property must file his claim "within five
Amada Solano was the helper of the late Hapkins. Due to Solano’s service (5) years from the date of such judgment, such person shall have possession
for over 3 decades, Hapkins donated 2 parcels of land to Solano. However, of and title to the same, or if sold, the municipality or city shall be
the deeds went missing and the government commenced escheat accountable to him for the proceeds, after deducting the estate; but a claim
proceedings. The lower court escheated the estate in favor of the Republic not made shall be barred forever." The 5-year period is not a device
of PH and the TCT was placed in the name of Pasay. Years later, Solano filed capriciously conjured by the state to defraud any claimant; on the contrary,
a petition to annul judgment claiming that she already found the deeds of it is decidedly prescribed to encourage would-be claimants to be punctilious
donation. The CA gave due course to the petition. The issue in this case is in asserting their claims, otherwise they may lose them forever in a final
whether it was proper to give due course to the annulment of judgment judgment.
because the 5 year period has already lapsed. The court held that Solano
can no longer annul the judgment because she failed to file the claim within
the 5-year period. The decision has already attained finality. IN THIS CASE:
 Escheat is a proceeding, unlike that of succession or assignment,
FACTS: whereby the state, by virtue of its sovereignty, steps in and claims
 Amada Solano was a faithful domestic helper to the late Elizabeth the real or personal property of a person who dies intestate leaving
Hapkins. She worked for Hapkins for three decades. no heir. In the absence of a lawful owner, a property is claimed by
 Due to Solano’s service, Hapkins donated 2 parcels of land to the state to forestall an open "invitation to self-service by the first
Solano, which were embodied in 2 deeds of donation. comers." Since escheat is one of the incidents of sovereignty, the
 The deeds however went missing and the Republic filed a petition state may, and usually does, prescribe the conditions and limits the
for escheat of Hapkin’s estate. time within which a claim to such property may be made. The
 Solano and her husband filed a motion to intervene but it was procedure by which the escheated property may be recovered is
denied for failure to show a valid claim since the deeds are still generally prescribed by statue, and a time limit is imposed within
missing. which such action must be brought.
 The lower court escheated the estate in favor of the Republic.
(GO2) 2018 - 2019
 A judgment in escheat proceedings when rendered by a court of o The surviving heirs of Lee Liong extrajudicially settled the estate of the
competent jurisdiction is conclusive against all persons with actual deceased and partitioned among themselves Lot No. 398.
or constructive notice, but not against those who are not parties or o When the sons died, Lot No. 398 was transferred by succession to their
respective wives, Elizabeth and Pacita.
privies thereto.
 1956 Dinglasan v. Lee Bun Ting: Court held that even if the sale of Lot No. 398
 With the lapse of the 5-year period therefore, private respondent
was null and void for violating the constitutional prohibition on the sale of land
has irretrievably lost her right to claim and the supposed "discovery to an alien, still the doctrine of in pari delicto barred the sellers from recovering
of the deeds of donation" is not enough justification to nullify the the title to the property.
escheat judgment which has long attained finality.  1967 Lee Bun Ting v. Judge Aligaen: Court ordered the trial court to dismiss the
 complaint of the Dinglasans for the recovery of Lot No. 398 on the ground of
res judicata.
 1993 - Elizabeth and Pacita filed a petition for reconstitution of title of Lot No.
5. REPUBLIC V REGISTRAR OF DEEDS of Roxas City 398 because the records of the Register of Deeds were burned during the war.
G.R. No. 158230; July 16, 2008  2001 - Court held that the trial court’s order of reconstitution was void for lack
Digest by: RAMOS of factual support because it was based merely on the plan and technical
description approved by the Land Registration Authority.
TOPIC: Other Actions for Escheat  1995 - Republic of the Philippines filed with the RTC a Complaint for Reversion
of Title praying that (1) the sale of Lot No. 398 to Lee Liong be set aside for
DOCTRINE: being null and void ab initio; and (2) Lot No. 398 be reverted to the public
Where a Filipino citizen sells land to an alien who later sells the land to a Filipino, domain for the State’s disposal in accordance with law.
the invalidity of the first transfer is corrected by the subsequent sale to a citizen.  Private respondents invoked as affirmative defenses: (1) prescription; (2)
Similarly, where the alien who buys the land subsequently acquires Philippine private ownership; and (3) Lee Liong’s being a buyer in good faith and for value.
citizenship, the sale was validated since the purpose of the constitutional ban to o As Filipino citizens, they are qualified to acquire Lot No. 398 by succession.
limit land ownership to Filipinos has been achieved. In short, the law disregards the
constitutional disqualification of the buyer to hold land if the land is subsequently ISSUE/S:
transferred to a qualified party, or the buyer himself becomes a qualified party. WON the property should be reverted to the state.
Chavez v. PEA-Amari, 403 SCRA 1 (2003)
HELD: No.
RECIT-READY SUMMARY: Lee v. Republic of the Philippines, 366 SCRA 524 (2001), involving Lot No. 398: The
Lee Liong (Chinese citizen) bought Lot No. 398 from the Dinglasans (Filipinos). Lee OSG may initiate an action for reversion or escheat of lands which were sold to
Liong died and his widow and two sons extrajudicially settled his estate, including aliens disqualified from acquiring lands under the Constitution. HOWEVER, in the
Lot No. 398. When the two sons died, Lot No. 398 was transferred by succession to case of Lot No. 398, the fact that it was already transferred to Filipinos militates
their respective spouses who are Filipino citizens. Republic of the Philippines wants against escheat proceedings. Since Lot No. 398 has already been transferred to
Lot No. 398 to be reverted to the public domain for the State’s disposal. Filipino citizens, the flaw in the original transaction is considered cured.
FACTS: (see Doctrine)

 1936 - Lee Liong, a Chinese citizen, bought Lot No. 398 from the Dinglasans.
 1944 - Lee Liong died intestate and was survived by his widow Ang Chia and Clearly, since Lot No. 398 has already been transferred to private respondents who
sons. are Filipino citizens, the prior invalid sale to Lee Liong can no longer be assailed.
(GO2) 2018 - 2019

Hence, reversion proceedings will no longer prosper since the land is now in the registered hence another one was executed to confirm the earlier deed of
hands of Filipino citizens. quitclaim as well as to add all her other properties in the Philippines.
5. In 1989, David executed a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) in favor of Atty.
Abela, granting the latter to sell or otherwise dispose of the lots.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING: 6. In 1994, a certain Atty. Batongbacal wrote to the OSG claiming that David’s
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the Decision dated 12 July 2002 ownership of the estate was defective.
and the Resolution dated 9 May 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 7. The Republic (thru the OSG), believing that David had could not have acquired
53890. ownership of the ½ share of Helen pursuant to the Quitclaim deed, filed a
petition for escheat claiming that the government had the right to the ½ share.
06) Republic vs. Guzman 8. RTC: Ruled that the 2 deeds of quitclaim executed by Helen had no legal force
and effect so that the ownership of the property subject thereof remained with
G.R. No. 132964; February 18, 2000
Helen.
Petitioners: Republic of the Philippines
9. CA: Affirmed RTC.
Respondents: David Guzman
10. The Republic appealed the case on the grounds that:
Emergency Recit: (Sample) o 1) The only instances when a foreigner can acquire private land in
the Philippines is through (A) Hereditary succession or (B) if he was
Simeon, a naturalized American, died leaving behind real property in Bulacan. He was
formerly a natural-born Filipino citizen who had lost his Philipppine
survived by his wife, an American citizen and only son, a natural born American. The
two of them executed a deed of extrajudicial settlement of divided the properties of citizenship.
Simeon. Subsequently, the wife, in wanting to pass her share of the estate to the son, o 2) The deeds of quitclaim were in reality donations inter vivos; that
the SPA represented acceptance on the part of David; said donation
executed a quitclaim deed in favor of David. This was opposed by the OSG who said
was prohibited according to the constitution; hence the Republic had
that the transfer was constitutionally prohibited. It also claimed that the property now
belonged to the state. Thus, they filed escheat proceedings before the Court. The main acquired a right to the ½ share.
issue in this case is whether or not escheat proceedings were proper. The court ruled 11. Helen and David argued that there was no donation because there was no
acceptance considering that none was ever recorded with the Registry of
in the negative. The quitclaim need was void because a foreigner could only acquire
Deeds. Neither did the SPA constitutive of acceptance. Primarily, they argued
property through succession. However, the property reverts back to Helen and the state
does not acquire any right over the property. The escheat proceedings filed by the OSG that Helen never intended to donate but rather to repudiate her share in the
are therefore improper. inheritance.
Doctrine/s: Issue/s:
- WON the government had acquired a right to the property – NO.
The nullity of an invalid repudiation does not convert the parcels of land into res nullius
Held:
to be escheated by the government. The effect of such nullity operates to revert the
property back to the private owner who intended to repudiate his/her share.
1. As regards the government’s claim that the deeds were in fact a donation, the
Facts: court ruled that there was no donation because there was no acceptance. As
1. David Guzman, a natural-born American citizen, is the only child of spouses provided for by the Civil Code, the acceptance by the done must be recorded
Simeon, a naturalized American and Helen, an American citizen. in the registry of deeds either in the same document or in another document.
2. In 1968, Simeon died leaving behind real property in Bulacan. In this case, there was no record of any acceptance.
3. Helen and David thus executed a Deed of Extrajudical Settlement of the 2. This notwithstanding, the inexistence of a donation does not render the
Estate of Simeon Guzman dividing and adjudication to themselves all the repudiation made by Helen in favor of David valid. Helen’s defense of
repudiation is likewise invalid because she had already accepted her share of
property belonging to the estate of Simeon. This extrajudicial settlement was
registered the Registry of Deeds. the inheritance when she executed the deed of extrajudicial settlement before
the deeds of quitclaim. Once acceptance or repudiation of an inheritance
4. In 1981, Helen executed a Quitclaim Deed assigning, transferring and
is made, it is no longer irrevocable. The repudiation, thus, has no legal
conveying to her son David her undivided ½ interest on all the parcels of land
effect and the parcels of land should revert back to its original private owner.
pursuant to the Deed of extrajudicial settlement. This deed was never
(GO2) 2018 - 2019

3. In this case, the ½ share of Helen reverts back to her because notwithstanding to be reconstituted but cancellation of the 1st title (Manotok title) should be sought
the fact that she was a foreigner, she had acquired the same through in a court of competent jurisdiction.
succession. She could not transfer her ½ share to David through a deed of  LRA denied MR (Manotok) and Barque’s prayer for immediate reconstitution. Both
quitclaim; The Constitution only allows foreigners to receive real property appealed to CA.
through succession.  COURT OF APPEALS: Felicitas Manahan filed a motion to intervene and sought
4. The property is therefore not res nullius and cannot be escheated in favor of dismissal of the cases and claimed ownership of the LOT.
the state.
o 2 separate divisions of CA both directed cancellation of Manotok’s title and
to reconstitute the Barques’ title.
 Manotok filed the present separate petitions which were ordered consolidated.
 SC FIRST DIVISION: affirmed decisions of CA.
7. MANOTOK V BARQUE o MR of Manotok (denied) Second MR filed (denied). An entry of judgement
G.R. No. 162335 & 162605, Aug 24, 2010 was made.
Digest by: PAHUDPOD o Barques filed for execution of judgment
o Manotok filed Urgent Motion to Refer Motion for Possession to the SC En
TOPIC: ESCHEATS Bank (Case was referred to the En Banc)
 SC EN BANC:
DOCTRINE: Sale of Friar Lands shall be valid only if approved by Sec. of the Interior, later o Manahans filed motion to intervene claiming their predecessor- in-
known as the Sec. of Agriculture and Commerce. Sale certificate produced by Manotoks only interest was issued a Sale Certificate covering LOT 823 and attached NBI
contained the sign of Director of Lands. They even belatedly secured from Nat’l archives a findings that documents of Manotoks were not as old as they were
certified copy of Deed of Conveyance which lacked the approval of Sec. of Agriculture and purported to be.
Natural Resources. o Oral arguments were held.
 EN BANK DECISION: (1) SET ASIDE (SC first division decision and entry of judgement;
(2) CA amended decisions were reversed and set aside; (3) Remand of case to CA.
RECIT-READY SUMMARY:
 CA ISSUE and Findings: WON the there was valid alienation by the Government of
8 years apart Manotoks and Barques filed a petition for reconstitution of title of LOT 823 which
LOR 823 which was a Friar Land to the Manotoks.
was a part of FRIAR LAND. LRA found that Manotok’s was fraudulent hence ordered
o None of the parties was able to prove there was valid alienation of LOT 823
reconstitution of Barques’ title. In SC Manahans sought to intervene. Manotoks claim their
according to Friar Lands Act. Deed of Conveyance of Manotok lacked the
grandfather bought the LOT from Government in 1919 and since then they’ve occupied the
approval of Sec. of Agriculture and Commerce (Required by Sec 18 of Friar
land nd built their houses and buildings. Barques claimed that their father bought from a
land act). The voluminous documentary evidence offered by parties of the
certain Setosta who had a TCT under his name. Manahans claim that the lot originally belonged
purchase of their predecessor-in-interest reveals badges of fraud and
to his parent and subsequently bought by his wife.
irregularities.
FACTS:
 Lot no. 823 is a part of Piedad Estate(FRIAR LAND) Located in QC. ISSUE/S:
 Phil. Government, acquired the Piedad Estate pursuant to Friar Lands Act. A cert. of Who has the better right over LOT 823? Belongs to National Government.
title was issued in the name of Gov’t.
 Quezon City Hall caught on fire  destroyed the records of Office of Register of HELD:
Deeds.  Sale of Friar Lands shall be valid only if approved by Sec. of the Interior, later know
 Manotoks filed a petition with LRA for administrative reconstitution covering LOT as the Sec. of Agriculture and Commerce.
823. (Granted, TCT issued). After 8 years Barques filed with the LRA for o Sale certificate produced by Manotoks only contained the sign of Director
administrative reconstitution covering the same lot and submitted copies of owner’s of Lands. They even belatedly secured from Nat’l archives a certified copy
duplicate, real estate tax and tax declarations, and plans. Manotok opposed. of Deed of Conveyance which lacked the approval of Sec. of Agriculture
(petition of Barques Denied, MR denied appeal to LRA reversed decision) LRA and Natural Resources.
found out reconstitution of Manotoks was fraudulent hence ordered the Barque title
(GO2) 2018 - 2019

 Manotoks argue presumption of regularity of performance of RD issuing the TCT in Felicitas B. Manahan, are all hereby declared NULL and VOID. The Register of Deeds of
their name. Caloocan City and/or Quezon City are hereby ordered to CANCEL the said titles. The Court
o Photocopy of their Deed of conveyance showed a poorly imprinted words hereby DECLARES that Lot 823 of the Piedad Estate, Quezon City, legally belongs to the
Secretary of Agri. And Nat’l Resources and its stamp. NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, without prejudice to the
o SC said- absence of approval of Sec of Agriculture and Commerce in the institution of REVERSION proceedings by the State through the Office of the Solicitor General.
sale certificate and assignment of sale certificate shall make the sale NULL
and VOID
 DENR Memorandum Order no 16, invoked by Manotoks and Manahans which states 8. Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals
that Deeds of Conveyance on record of field offices of LMB that doesn’t have sign of
Secretary despite full payment for the Friar Land is deemed signed or otherwise
G.R. No. 95533, November 20, 2000
ratified by Memo.
o NO. Manotoks cannot benefit from above as it only makes reference to TOPIC: ESCHEATS
those deeds of conveyance on file with the records of DENR field offices.
Manotoks copy came from National Archives. DOCTRINE:
 Manotok claims that Sec 15 of Friar Lands Act states that the Government ceases its
reservation of its title once the buyer fully paid the price.
The publication of the list of unclaimed balances is intended to safeguard
o There’s new jurisprudence in the case of Pugeda v Trias- the execution of the right of the depositors, their heirs and successors to due process.20 This
the contract to sell and delivery of certificate of sale vests title and was made clear by the lower court in its assailed Order.
ownership. Still the said certificate MUST BE SIGNED by Sec of Agriculture
and Natural Resources.
FACTS:
 Manotoks could not have acquired the LOT:
o No valid certificate of sale (their certificate is not signed)  A complaint for escheat was filed by petitioner, Republic of
o Even if they paid real property taxes and constructed buildings. the Philippines, with the Regional Trial Court of Davao City
o Failed to prove existence of title issued in the name of Severino Manotok against several banks, which had branches within the
(predecessor- in- interest) jurisdiction of the said court.
o No explanation why only copy of TCT was torn in half and there’s no record
in RD.  The complaint alleged that pursuant to Act No. 3936 as
 Manahans: amended by P.D. 679,3 the respective managers of the
o No copy of Sale Certificate in records of DENR-NCR or national archives. defendant banks submitted to the Treasurer of the Republic
o OSG submitted a certified copy of Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 511 of the Philippines separate statements prepared under oath
allegedly executed by Valentin Manahan in favor of Hilaria de Guzman,
which listed all deposits and credits held by them in favor of
there is no competent evidence to show that the claimant Valentin
Manahan or his successors-in-interest actually occupied Lot 823, declared depositors or creditors either known to be dead, have not
the land for tax purposes, or paid the taxes due thereon. been heard from, or have not made depositors or
o Even assuming arguendo the existence and validity of the alleged Sale withdrawals for ten years or more since December 31,
Certificate No. 511 and Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 511 presented 1970.
by the Manahans, the CA correctly observed that the claim had become
stale after the lapse of 86 years from the date of its alleged issuance.  The complaint prayed that after due notice to the
defendant banks, and after hearing, judgment be rendered
DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING: WHEREFORE, the petitions filed by the Manotoks under Rule declaring that the deposits, credits and unpaid balances in
45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, as well as the petition-in-intervention of question be escheated to petitioner, commanding
the Manahans, are DENIED. The petition for reconstitution of title filed by the Barques is
likewise DENIED. TCT No. RT-22481 (372302) in the name of Severino Manotok IV, et al., TCT
defendant banks to forthwith deposit the same with the
No. 210177 in the name of Homer L. Barque and Deed of Conveyance No. V-200022 issued to Treasurer of the Philippines.
(GO2) 2018 - 2019
 On April 12, 1989, the lower court issued an order directing due process. As declared by the trial court in its Order dated August
petitioner to show cause why the complaint should not be 1, 1989, the dismissal of the petition for escheat is without
dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. According to prejudice. In other words, the State can refile the said petition,
the order, the complaint contained no allegation that notwithstanding the lapse of time. Prescription of action does not
defendant banks have complied with two of the conditions run against the government.
in Section 2 of Act No. 3936,5 compliance with the
requirements being necessary for the complaint to prosper.
 Petitioner submitted its manifestation and motion to allow 9. RCBC vs. Hi-Tri Development Corp and Luz Bakunawa
amendment of the petition to allege compliance with the G.R. No. 192413, June 13, 2012
Digest by: Intia
conditions set forth in Section 2 of Act. No. 3936 as
amended by P.D. 679 ("Unclaimed Balances Law"). TOPIC: Escheats
ISSUE/S: DOCTRINE:
Whether or not respondent RTC judge committed grave abuse of discretion
tantamount to lack of jurisdiction in ordering the publication of the list of
unclaimed balances listed under annexes "A" to "P" of the complaint?
FACTS:
 Millan paid the Sps Bakunawa P 1,019,514.29 Mn as down payment for
HELD: the purchase of 6 lots with the Spouses Bakunawa giving Millan the
Owner’s Copies of TCTs of said lots.
 NO! The petition failed to show that the trial court committed grave  Due to some obstacles, the sale did not push through; so Spouses
abuse of discretion or want or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the Bakunawa rescinded the sale and offered to return to Millan her down.
assailed Order dismissing the complaint. If at all, any mistake  However, Millan refused to accept back the down payment.
therein was an error of judgment or procedure, which is correctible Consequently, the Spouses Bakunawa, through their company, Hi-Tri
in an ordinary appeal filed in due time. took out on October 28, 1991, a Manager’s Check from RCBC-Ermita in
the amount of P 1,019,514.29 Mn, payable to Millan’s company Rosmil
 The publication of the list of unclaimed balances is intended to and used this as one of their basis for a complaint against Millan.
safeguard the right of the depositors, their heirs and successors to  The Sps Bakunawa retained custody of RCBC Manager’s Check and
due process. This was made clear by the lower court in its assailed refrained from cancelling or negotiating it.
Order.  Millan was also informed that the Manager’s Check was available for
 Moreover, how would other persons who may have an interest in her withdrawal, she being the payee.
any of the unclaimed balances know what this case is all about and  Later, without the knowledge of Spouses Bakunawa, RCBC reported the
whether they have an interest in this case if the amended complaint P 1,019,514.29 credit existing in favor of Rosmil to the Bureau of
Treasury as among its "unclaimed balances" as of January 31, 2003. On
and list of unclaimed balances are not published? Such other
December 14, 2006, the Republic, through the OSG, filed with the RTC
persons may be heirs of the bank depositors named in the list of the action for Escheat.
unclaimed balances.  Later, Spouses Bakunawa settled amicably their dispute with Millan.
 The fact that the government is in a tight financial situation is not a Spouses Bakunawa tried to recover the P1,019,514.29 under Manager’s
justification for this Court to dispense with the elementary rule of
(GO2) 2018 - 2019
Check but they were informed that the amount was already subject of o Ordinarily, the check becomes the primary obligation of the
the escheat proceedings before the RTC. issuing bank and constitutes its written promise to pay upon
demand.
RTC: It ordered the deposit of the escheated balances with the Treasurer and Nevertheless, the mere issuance of a manager’s check does not ipso facto
credited in favor of the Republic. Sps Bakunawa claim that they were not able to work as an automatic transfer of funds to the account of the payee.
participate in the trial, as they were not informed of the ongoing escheat  In case the procurer of the manager’s or cashier’s check retains custody
proceedings. of the instrument, does not tender it to the intended payee, or fails to
make an effective delivery, we find the following provision on
CA: Reversed the RTC ruling. undelivered instruments under the Negotiable Instruments Law
 CA pronounced that RTC Clerk of Court failed to issue individual notices applicable:
directed to all persons claiming interest in the unclaimed balances. o Sec. 16. Delivery; when effectual; when presumed. – Every
 CA held that the Decision and Order of the RTC were void for want of contract on a negotiable instrument is incomplete and
jurisdiction. revocable until delivery of the instrument for the purpose of
giving effect thereto.
ISSUE/S: o As between immediate parties and as regards a remote party
 WON the allocated funds may be escheated in favor of the Republic other than a holder in due course, the delivery, in order to be
effectual, must be made either by or under the authority of the
party making, drawing, accepting, or indorsing, as the case may
HELD: NO be; and, in such case, the delivery may be shown to have been
 There are sufficient grounds to affirm the CA on the exclusion of the conditional, or for a special purpose only, and not for the
funds allocated for the payment of the Manager’s Check in the escheat purpose of transferring the property in the instrument.
proceedings. o But where the instrument is in the hands of a holder in due
 An ordinary check refers to a bill of exchange drawn by a depositor course, a valid delivery thereof by all parties prior to him so as
(drawer) on a bank (drawee), requesting the latter to pay a person to make them liable to him is conclusively presumed.
named therein (payee) or to the order of the payee or to the bearer, a o And where the instrument is no longer in the possession of a
named sum of money. party whose signature appears thereon, a valid and intentional
 The issuance of the check does not of itself operate as an assignment of delivery by him is presumed until the contrary is proved.
any part of the funds in the bank to the credit of the drawer. Here, the  Petitioner acknowledges that the Manager’s Check was procured by
bank becomes liable only after it accepts or certifies the check. After the respondents, and that the amount to be paid for the check would be
check is accepted for payment, the bank would then debit the amount sourced from the deposit account of Hi-Tri.
to be paid to the holder of the check from the account of the depositor-  When Rosmil did not accept the Manager’s Check offered by
drawer. respondents, the latter retained custody of the instrument instead of
 There are checks of a special type called manager’s or cashier’s checks. cancelling it. As the Manager’s Check neither went to the hands of
These are bills of exchange drawn by the bank’s manager or cashier, in Rosmil nor was it further negotiated to other persons, the instrument
the name of the bank, against the bank itself. remained undelivered.
o Typically, a manager’s or a cashier’s check is procured from the  Petitioner does not dispute the fact that respondents retained custody
bank by allocating a particular amount of funds to be debited of the instrument.
from the depositor’s account or by directly paying or Since there was no delivery, presentment of the check to the bank for
depositing to the bank the value of the check to be drawn. payment did not occur.
o Since the bank issues the check in its name, with itself as the  An order to debit the account of respondents was never made. In fact,
drawee, the check is deemed accepted in advance. petitioner confirms that the Manager’s Check was never negotiated or
(GO2) 2018 - 2019

presented for payment to its Ermita Branch, and that the allocated fund action; and, that (b) the cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations,
is still held by the bank. being filed beyond the 5-yr limitation provided under Sec. 4 Rule 91 ROC.
 As a result, the assigned fund is deemed to remain part of the account of
Hi-Tri, which procured the Manager’s Check. The doctrine that the The CA ruled in favor of Solano ruling that she is not claiming anything from
deposit represented by a manager’s check automatically passes to the the estate within the purview of Sec 91 Sec 4, but rather she is claiming
payee is inapplicable, because the instrument – although accepted in ownership over the disputed properties and reconveyance thereof. As such,
advance – remains undelivered. her claim was properly filed within the 10-yr prescriptive period under the Civil
 Hence, respondents should have been informed that the deposit had Code, not under the ROC. Hence, this appeal.
been left inactive for more than 10 years, and that it may be subjected
to escheat proceedings if left unclaimed. ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Solano is a claimant within Sec 91? —YES
10. Republic vs CA 2. Whether or not the allegedly donated properties may be validly escheated
G.R. No. 143483 in favor of the Republic? — YES
21 January 2002
Ponente: Bellosillo, J.
Aldaba
TOPIC: Escheats - Sec. 4, Rule 91 HELD:

1. Any person alleging to have a direct right or interest in the property sought
FACTS: to be escheated is likewise an interested party and may appear and oppose
In recognition of Amada Solano’s faithful and dedicated service as her the petition for escheat.
personal domestic helper, the late Ms. Hankins donated two parcels of land to
Solano. 2. In the mind of this Court the subject properties were owned by the decedent
during the time that the escheat proceedings were being conducted and the
The deeds of donation evidencing the above however were alleged to be
missing and nowhere to be found. lower court was not divested of its jurisdiction to escheat them in favor of
Pasay City notwithstanding an allegation that they had been previously
The Republic then initiated escheat proceedings concerning the parcels of donated. We recall that a motion for intervention was earlier denied by the
land in which Solano filed a motion to intervene. Said motion was denied.
escheat court for failure to show "valid claim or right to the properties in
Since it was established that there were no known heirs and persons entitled question." Where a person comes into an escheat proceeding as a
to the properties of decedent Hankins, the lower court escheated the estate of claimant, the burden is on such intervenor to establish his title to the property
the decedent in favor of the Republic of the Philippines.
and his right to intervene. A fortiori, the certificates of title covering the
Seven (7) years after the finality of the escheat proceedings, Solano claimed subject properties were in the name of the decedent indicating that no
that she accidentally found the deeds of donation and, filed a petition before transfer of ownership involving the disputed properties was ever made by
the CA for the annulment of the lower court’s decision, alleging, among others, the deceased during her lifetime. In the absence therefore of any clear and
that: Having been donated to her, the properties in dispute did not and could
not form part of Ms. Hankins estate. Hence, could not be validly escheated. convincing proof showing that the subject lands had been conveyed by
Republic, in its answer, invoked (a) lack of jurisdiction over the nature of the Hankins to private respondent Solano, the same still remained, at least
(GO2) 2018 - 2019

before the escheat, part of the estate of the decedent and the lower court Republic, in its answer, invoked (a) lack of jurisdiction over the nature of the
action; and, that (b) the cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations,
was right not to assume otherwise. The Court of Appeals therefore cannot being filed beyond the 5-yr limitation provided under Sec. 4 Rule 91 ROC.
perfunctorily presuppose that the subject properties were no longer part of
the decedent’s estate at the time the lower court handed down its decision The CA ruled in favor of Solano ruling that she is not claiming anything from
the estate within the purview of Sec 91 Sec 4, but rather she is claiming
on the strength of a belated allegation that the same had previously been
ownership over the disputed properties and reconveyance thereof. As such,
disposed of by the owner. It is settled that courts decide only after a close her claim was properly filed within the 10-yr prescriptive period under the Civil
scrutiny of every piece of evidence and analyze each case with deliberate Code, not under the ROC. Hence, this appeal.
precision and unadulterated thoroughness, the judgment not being diluted
ISSUE:
by speculations, conjectures and unsubstantiated assertions.
1. Whether or not Solano is a claimant within Sec 91? —YES
10. Republic vs CA 2. Whether or not the allegedly donated properties may be validly escheated
G.R. No. 143483 in favor of the Republic? — YES
21 January 2002
Ponente: Bellosillo, J.
Aldaba
HELD:
TOPIC: Escheats - Sec. 4, Rule 91 1. Any person alleging to have a direct right or interest in the property sought
to be escheated is likewise an interested party and may appear and oppose
FACTS: the petition for escheat.
In recognition of Amada Solano’s faithful and dedicated service as her
personal domestic helper, the late Ms. Hankins donated two parcels of land to
Solano. 2. In the mind of this Court the subject properties were owned by the decedent
during the time that the escheat proceedings were being conducted and the
The deeds of donation evidencing the above however were alleged to be lower court was not divested of its jurisdiction to escheat them in favor of
missing and nowhere to be found.
Pasay City notwithstanding an allegation that they had been previously
The Republic then initiated escheat proceedings concerning the parcels of donated. We recall that a motion for intervention was earlier denied by the
land in which Solano filed a motion to intervene. Said motion was denied. escheat court for failure to show "valid claim or right to the properties in
question." Where a person comes into an escheat proceeding as a
Since it was established that there were no known heirs and persons entitled
to the properties of decedent Hankins, the lower court escheated the estate of claimant, the burden is on such intervenor to establish his title to the property
the decedent in favor of the Republic of the Philippines. and his right to intervene. A fortiori, the certificates of title covering the
subject properties were in the name of the decedent indicating that no
Seven (7) years after the finality of the escheat proceedings, Solano claimed
that she accidentally found the deeds of donation and, filed a petition before transfer of ownership involving the disputed properties was ever made by
the CA for the annulment of the lower court’s decision, alleging, among others, the deceased during her lifetime. In the absence therefore of any clear and
that: Having been donated to her, the properties in dispute did not and could convincing proof showing that the subject lands had been conveyed by
not form part of Ms. Hankins estate. Hence, could not be validly escheated.
Hankins to private respondent Solano, the same still remained, at least
(GO2) 2018 - 2019
before the escheat, part of the estate of the decedent and the lower court On the other hand, constructive trusts are created by the construction of
was right not to assume otherwise. The Court of Appeals therefore cannot equity in order to satisfy the demands of justice and prevent unjust
enrichment. They arise contrary to intention against one who, by fraud,
perfunctorily presuppose that the subject properties were no longer part of
duress or abuse of confidence, obtains or holds the legal right to property
the decedent’s estate at the time the lower court handed down its decision
which he ought not, in equity and good conscience, to hold.
on the strength of a belated allegation that the same had previously been
disposed of by the owner. It is settled that courts decide only after a close Prescription of implied or constructive trust is 10 years
scrutiny of every piece of evidence and analyze each case with deliberate
precision and unadulterated thoroughness, the judgment not being diluted
by speculations, conjectures and unsubstantiated assertions. RECIT-READY SUMMARY:
A case was filed against petitioner-spouses O’Laco and Luna for allegedly
11. O’LACO v. CO CHO CHIT selling a parcel of land in favor of the Archbishop of Manila. Co Cho Chit
G.R. No. 58010 March 31, 1993 argued that petitioner-spouses had no right to sell such property because
Digest by: Santos she is merely a trustee of the respondents. The Supreme Court held that
there was indeed a trust relationship between O’Laco and Co Cho Chit, the
TOPIC: Trustees former being the trustee of the latter. Despite being titled in favor of
O’Laco, it was proven that Co Cho Chit had possession of the property for 17
DOCTRINE: years and that O’Laco herself confirmed the existence of the trust
Express trusts are those which are created by the direct and positive acts of relationship in open court.
the parties, by some writing or deed, or will, or by words evincing an
intention to create a trust. FACTS:
 Philippine Sugar Estate sold a parcel of land to O’Laco and Luna
Implied trusts are those which, without being express, are deducible from (petitioner-spouse) a subsequent TCT was issued in the latter’s
the nature of the transaction as matters of intent, or which are favor in 1943
superinduced on the transaction by operation of law as matters of equity,  May 1960, Respondents herein discovered that O’Laco sold the
independently of the particular intention of the parties. Implied trusts may subject property to the Archbishop of Manila for Php 230,000
either be resulting or constructive trusts, both coming into being by  Respondents filed a case to recover the purchase price, they argued
operation of law. that O’Laco merely held the property in trust, and that she had no
right to sell such property because such property was only placed
Resulting trusts are based on the equitable doctrine that valuable under her name
consideration and not legal title determines the equitable title or interest  O’Laco and her spouse denied such trust further arguing that she,
and are presumed always to have been contemplated by the parties. They herself, bought the property from PH Sugar Estate
arise from the nature or circumstances of the consideration involved in a  Trial Court: Dismissed the complaint filed by respondents
transaction whereby one person thereby becomes invested with legal title  CA: Set aside the decision of the Trial Court
but is obligated in equity to hold his legal title for the benefit of another.  Petitioner’s arguments before the SC:
o No trust relation between them
(GO2) 2018 - 2019
o Even assuming ex argumenti that there is such a relation, never objected to this evidence; nor did they attempt to controvert
petitioners further argue, respondents are already barred it.
by laches.  O’Laco was not financially capable of purchasing the subject
property at the time it was named under her
ISSUE/S:  On PRESCRIPTION: the prescriptive period did not run until subject
1. WON there exists a trust relation between petitioner-spouses and property was sold to the Archbishop of Manila (act of repudiation of
Co Cho Chit trust); the respondents were well within the 10 year prescriptive
period because they immediately filed a case right after petitioner-
spouses sold the subject property.
HELD:
 YES
 We find that there is. By definition, trust relations between parties
may either be express or implied. DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING:
 In this case, there can be no persuasive rationalization for the WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Decision
possession of these documents of ownership by respondent- of the Court of Appeals of 9 April 1981, which reversed the trial court, is
spouses for seventeen (17) years after the Oroquieta property was AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
purchased in 1943 than that of precluding its possible sale,
alienation or conveyance by Emilia O'Laco, absent any machination
or fraud. This continued possession of the documents, together with 12. Heirs of Lorenzo Yap v. Court of Appeals
other corroborating evidence spread on record, strongly suggests G.R. No. 133047. August 17, 1999
that Emilia O'Laco merely held the Oroquieta property in trust for Digest by: NEPOMUCENO
respondent-spouses.
 It may be worth to mention that before buying the Oroquieta TOPIC: Trustees
property, respondent-spouses purchased another property situated
in Kusang-Loob, Sta. Cruz, Manila, where the certificate of title was DOCTRINE:
placed in the name of Ambrosio O'Laco, older brother of Emilia, One basic distinction between an implied trust and an express trust is that
under similar or identical circumstances while the former may be established by parol evidence, the latter cannot.
 Until the sale of the Oroquieta property to the Roman Catholic Even then, in order to establish an implied trust in real property by parol
Archbishop of Manila, petitioner Emilia O'Laco actually recognized evidence, the proof should be as fully convincing as if the acts giving rise to
the trust. Specifically, when respondent spouses learned that Emilia the trust obligation are proven by an authentic document. An implied trust,
was getting married to Hugo, O Lay Kia asked her to have the title to in fine, cannot be established upon vague and inconclusive proof
the property already transferred to her and her husband Valentin,
and Emilia assured her that "would be arranged (maaayos na)" after FACTS:
her wedding. Her answer was an express recognition of the trust,  In 1966 the spouses Carlos and Josefina Nery offered to sell the
otherwise, she would have refused the request outright. Petitioners disputed parcel of land to their predecessor-in-interest, Lorenzo
Yap, for the sum of P15,000.00.
(GO2) 2018 - 2019
 Since Lorenzo and his wife Sally Yap were at that time Chinese years later from the Nery spouses. Upon the other hand, Ramon Yap was by
citizens, Lorenzo requested his brother Ramon to allow the use of then an accountant with apparent means to buy the property himself.
the latter’s name in the purchase, registration, and declaration for
tax purposes of the subject lot to which Ramon Yap consented. Not to be dismissed, furthermore, is the long standing and broad doctrine of
 It was agreed that the property would remain registered in the clean hands that will not allow the creation or the use of a juridical relation,
name of Ramon Yap until such time as Lorenzo would have acquired a trust whether express or implied included, to perpetrate fraud or tolerate
Philippine citizenship but that, should Lorenzo predecease, the lot bad faith nor to subvert, directly or indirectly, the law. The trust agreement
would then be transferred to Lorenzo’s heirs upon the latter’s between Ramon and Lorenzo, if indeed extant, would have been in
naturalization. contravention of then Section 5, Article XIII, of the 1935 Constitution has
 Petitioner’s contended that it was Lorenzo who had caused the provided that —
construction of the 3-door apartment on the property, merely "Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private agricultural land shall be
entrusting the money therefor to Ramon Yap. transferred or assigned except to individuals, corporations, or associations
 The death of Lorenzo in 1970 prompted petitioners to move in and qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain in the Philippines."
occupy the apartment and lot, without any objection from Ramon
and Benjamin, although the latter were allowed to stay in the
premises since they had no other place to live in.
 In 1991, petitioners acquired Philippine citizenship and, forthwith, 12. Heirs of Lorenzo Yap v. Court of Appeals
they requested Ramon Yap to have the title to the lot transferred to G.R. No. 133047. August 17, 1999
their names but to their chagrin they discovered that Ramon had Digest by: NEPOMUCENO
sold the lot to his co-respondent Benjamin.
 RTC ruled in favor of Ramon Yap and Benjamin Yap, respondents TOPIC: Trustees
 CA affirmed the decision.
DOCTRINE:
One basic distinction between an implied trust and an express trust is that
ISSUE/S: while the former may be established by parol evidence, the latter cannot.
2. WON Ramon Yap impliedly held in trust the property in favor of Even then, in order to establish an implied trust in real property by parol
Lorenzo Yap, who at the time was not a Filipino citizen? evidence, the proof should be as fully convincing as if the acts giving rise to
the trust obligation are proven by an authentic document. An implied trust,
HELD: in fine, cannot be established upon vague and inconclusive proof
The RTC did not err when it granted the Change of Name under Rule 103:
FACTS:
The Court of Appeals, has found the evidence submitted by petitioners to be  In 1966 the spouses Carlos and Josefina Nery offered to sell the
utterly wanting, consisting mainly of the self-serving testimony of Sally Yap. disputed parcel of land to their predecessor-in-interest, Lorenzo
She herself admitted that the business establishment of her husband Yap, for the sum of P15,000.00.
Lorenzo was razed by fire in 1964 that would somehow place to doubt the  Since Lorenzo and his wife Sally Yap were at that time Chinese
claim that he indeed had the means to purchase the subject land about two citizens, Lorenzo requested his brother Ramon to allow the use of
(GO2) 2018 - 2019
the latter’s name in the purchase, registration, and declaration for

tax purposes of the subject lot to which Ramon Yap consented. Not to be dismissed, furthermore, is the long standing and broad doctrine of
 It was agreed that the property would remain registered in the clean hands that will not allow the creation or the use of a juridical relation,
name of Ramon Yap until such time as Lorenzo would have acquired a trust whether express or implied included, to perpetrate fraud or tolerate
Philippine citizenship but that, should Lorenzo predecease, the lot bad faith nor to subvert, directly or indirectly, the law. The trust agreement
would then be transferred to Lorenzo’s heirs upon the latter’s between Ramon and Lorenzo, if indeed extant, would have been in
naturalization. contravention of then Section 5, Article XIII, of the 1935 Constitution has
 Petitioner’s contended that it was Lorenzo who had caused the provided that —
construction of the 3-door apartment on the property, merely "Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private agricultural land shall be
entrusting the money therefor to Ramon Yap. transferred or assigned except to individuals, corporations, or associations
 The death of Lorenzo in 1970 prompted petitioners to move in and qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain in the Philippines."
occupy the apartment and lot, without any objection from Ramon
and Benjamin, although the latter were allowed to stay in the
premises since they had no other place to live in.
 In 1991, petitioners acquired Philippine citizenship and, forthwith, 13. TESTATE ESTATE OF PETRONA FRANCISCO v. PROCESO FRANCISCO
they requested Ramon Yap to have the title to the lot transferred to G.R. No. 46390 September 30, 1939
their names but to their chagrin they discovered that Ramon had Digest by: POBE
sold the lot to his co-respondent Benjamin.
 RTC ruled in favor of Ramon Yap and Benjamin Yap, respondents TOPIC: Trustees
 CA affirmed the decision.
DOCTRINE: The power to appoint a trustee is discretionary with the court
before whom application is made, and this court will decline to interfere
ISSUE/S: except in case of clear abuse.
3. WON Ramon Yap impliedly held in trust the property in favor of
Lorenzo Yap, who at the time was not a Filipino citizen?
FACTS:
HELD:
The RTC did not err when it granted the Change of Name under Rule 103:  Petrona Francisco provided in her last will that the income derived
from the one-half portion of her fishpond in the barrio of Gasak,
The Court of Appeals, has found the evidence submitted by petitioners to be Navotas, Rizal, shall be devoted to the celebration of the "Flores de
utterly wanting, consisting mainly of the self-serving testimony of Sally Yap. Mayo" in Malabon, Rizal, and for other religious activities mentioned
She herself admitted that the business establishment of her husband in the will.
Lorenzo was razed by fire in 1964 that would somehow place to doubt the  Upon probate of the will the Court of First Instance of Rizal appointed
claim that he indeed had the means to purchase the subject land about two Casimiro Tiangco as trustee.
years later from the Nery spouses. Upon the other hand, Ramon Yap was by
then an accountant with apparent means to buy the property himself.
(GO2) 2018 - 2019
 Shortly afterwards, on March 16, 1922, Maria Tiangco was also  The appellants themselves did not have anything to do with the trust
appointed co-trustee to act with Casimiro Tiangco in supervising the until their appointment by the lower court, and they were so
affairs of the trust. commissioned not because of any beneficial interest they had in the
 The records of the case disclose that from the beginning the estate but t because their selection was approved by the lower court
submission of annual reports to the court was very irregular. in the belief that they would faithfully perform their obligations.
 When the accounts for the year 1935 were submitted, Proceso  The same court found later that they "have not faithfully discharged
Francisco, the herein oppositor-appellee, filed an opposition. their duties and that their continuance in office would cause further
 COURT: appointed the clerk of court as commissioner to make a prejudice to the estate under trusteeship," and we cannot, on appeal,
detailed examination of the accounts already submitted, and override the action of the lower court by reversing its finding, and
declared its order of January 30, 1937, approving the said accounts indirectly sanction the violation of an unquestioned and legally
over the objection of Proceso Francisco, of no legal force and effect. existing trust.
 The trustees entered an opposition to this decree.  It is also contended that the order appealed from does not contain a
 Upon the other hand, the oppositor-appellee, requested for the finding of facts, as required by section 133 of the Code of Civil
temporary substitution of the trustees. Procedure, and for this reason, the order is ineffectual. We find that
 The report for the year 1936 having been filed on April 13, 1937, an the order read in conjunction with the report of the clerk of court as
order for the joint hearing of the two annual accounts was issued. commissioner, exhibits a finding upon all the evidence presented
 Again, Proceso Francisco made several objections to the accounts for during the trial, and is sufficient compliance with the requirements of
the year 1936 with reference to certain items. In the meantime, the the law. (Aringo vs. Arena, 14 Phil., 263, 266.)
clerk of court submitted his report.  The appellants likewise contend that the trial court committed grave
 COURT: issued an order requiring the resignation of the trustees abuse of discretion in ordering the resignation of the trustees-
within ten days, and appointed Father L.R. Arcaira as temporary appellants.
trustee.  The power to appoint a trustee is discretionary with the court before
 The court provided that the said trustees have not faithfully whom application is made, and this court will decline to interfere
discharged their duties and that their continuance in office would except in case of clear abuse.
cause further prejudice to the estate under trusteeship, they are  Thereafter, upon proper showing that the interests of justice would
hereby given ten days within which to submit their resignation. be adequately served with the removal of the incumbent trustees, it
is likewise within its discretion to do so (section 587, Code of Civil
Procedure), and this court will refuse to interfere in the absence of a
ISSUE: W/N it is within the court’s discretion to appoint a trustee YES showing of grave abuse or whimsical and capricious exercise of that
discretion.
HELD: DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING:

 The will of the deceased, Petrona Francisco, created a continuing
trust, but no particular persons were named as beneficiaries. The order appealed from is confirmed, with costs against the appellants. So
ordered.
(GO2) 2018 - 2019

In the same month, Ricardo L. Manotoc, Jr. and Teodoro M. Kalaw filed a
Land Bank of the Philippines v. The Hon. Court of Appeals, petition with SEC for the rehabilitation of MSI and the appointment of a
Mamerta B. Rodriguez Management Committee for the said corporation "to avoid an imminent
G.R. No. 129368. August 25, 2003 danger of paralyzation of its business operations brought about by serious
CALLEJO, SR., J. financial problems."
TOPIC: Trustees On December 20, 1979 and January 11, 1980, the SEC issued orders placing
MSI under rehabilitation.
FACTS:
Manotoc Securities, Inc. (MSI) was a duly licensed broker and dealer in On April 18, 1982, the private respondents, through counsel, wrote the LBP,
securities. The Insular Bank of Asia and America (IBAA) and the Land Bank of requesting the latter to return their investments with the MSI.
the Philippines (LBP) are private commercial banking corporations duly
authorized to operate as trust companies. The LBP referred the letter of the private respondents to the Management
IBAA and MSI offered and sold securities to the public. Among the Committee which on May 28, 1982 rejected the demands of the private
purchasers were private respondents Mamerta B. Rodriguez et al. As respondents.
evidence of their purchases, the private respondents executed individual
investment agreements with MSI. On June 1, 1982, the LBP wrote the private respondents that it could not
Under the said agreements, MSI undertook to invest funds primarily in a possibly comply with their demands
portfolio of certain specified securities for fixed periods of time, and to
return upon maturity the funds of the investors and their corresponding Fearing that their investments were in serious jeopardy due to the
share in the income of the same. abovementioned developments, private respondents Mamerto B. Rodriguez
As security for compliance of its undertaking with private respondents, MSI, and Spouses Armando and Zenaida Sta. Ana filed a petition with the RTC of
as the investment agent of the private respondents, delivered qualified Makati under Rule 98 of the Revised Rules of Court, seeking the removal of
securities to the IBAA. IBAA as trustee and the appointment of a substitute trustee.
Thus, on August 19, 1976, MSI and IBAA executed a custodianship
agreement in which the latter was constituted as custodian bank of the The private respondents prayed that after due proceedings, judgment be
investment portfolio/collateral pool of securities of the private respondents rendered in their favor (a) ordering the removal of IBAA and LBP as trustee
MSI executed in favor of IBAA, conformably to the said custodianship and substitute trustee of the investment portfolio of the private
agreement, deeds of assignment, respondents; (b) appointing Prudential Bank as trustee in substitute of IBAA
and LBP; (c) declaring as of no force and effect with respect to them the
On December 12, 1979, MSI as trustor and LBP as trustee executed a "Substitution of Trustee with Assumption of Liabilities" executed by LBP and
contract denominated as "Substitution of Trustee with Assumption of MSI;
Liabilities" in which LBP substituted and succeeded IBAA as custodian bank
of the collateral pool of securities under the custodianship agreement, and Both IBAA and LBP moved to dismiss/suspend the said petitions on the
thus assumed the previous duties and responsibilities of IBAA as custodian ground that it was the SEC, and not the RTC, which had jurisdiction over the
and safekeeper of qualified securities for the benefit of the investors
(GO2) 2018 - 2019
subject matter of the cases, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 902-A as

amended by P.D. Nos. 1653 and 1799. (e) only those actions for claims against the distressed corporation are
suspended, but the petition for the dissolution of the trusteeship for IBAA
The petitioner asserts that since it is not a trustee but a mere custodian, and the petitioner LBP to render an accounting of their stewardship of the
Section 8, Rule 98 of the Rules of Court is clearly inapplicable. Consequently, investment portfolios, and to pay damages on account of their mishandling
the trial court does not have jurisdiction over the petitions filed by the and/or defalcation of the same, are not suspended but may proceed until
private respondents for the removal of LBP as trustee. Instead, the the petitions are finally resolved;
petitioner asserts, it is the SEC who rightly has jurisdiction over the
petitions. (f) the principle of primary administrative jurisdiction does not apply in the
instant case.
ISSUE/S:
WON the CA committed a grave abuse of its discretion amounting to lack or DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING:
excess of jurisdiction in ruling that the petitioner was a trustee of the
portfolio of the private respondents and that the RTC had jurisdiction over IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Petition is DISMISSED. The Decision of
the petitions of the latter. the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV Nos. 12533-35 is AFFIRMED. Costs
against the petitioner.
HELD:
SO ORDERED.
NO. The CA had jurisdiction over the appeals of the private respondents
from the order of the trial court. The decision of the CA was thus rendered
by it in the proper exercise of its jurisdiction. In its decision, the CA 15. LAZATIN v. HON. CAMPOS JR.
enumerated the following findings of facts: G.R. No. L-43955-56, July 30, 1979
Digest by: QUIROZ
(a) the RTC erred in ordering the petitions archived and the proceedings in
TOPIC: WHAT IS ADOPTION; HOW TO PROVE ADOPTION
said petitions suspended simply because of the pendency of SEC Cases Nos.
1826 and 1835 and of the appointment of Management Committee as DOCTRINE:
interim receiver;  To establish the relation, the statutory requirements must be strictly
carried out, otherwise, the adoption is an absolute nullity.
(b) based on the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record, the  The fact of adoption is never presumed, but must be affirmatively proved
petitioner and the IBAA were trustees of the investment portfolios; hence, by the person claiming its existence.
owners and not mere agents of MSI;
RECIT-READY SUMMARY:
(c) the investment portfolios are not assets of MSI; During probate proceedings of Margarita de Asis, Renato Lazatin filed a motion to
intervene claiming to be the adopted child of Margarita de Asis and Dr. Mariano
(d) the SEC had no jurisdiction over the investment portfolios held in trust Lazatin. SC finds that there is no valid adoption because Renato Lazatin failed to
show that a specific court of competent jurisdiction rendered in an adoption
by the petitioner and IBAA;
(GO2) 2018 - 2019
proceeding initiated by the late spouses an order approving his adoption as a child AS TO THE MAIN ISSUE: NO. There is no valid adoption.
of the late spouses.  Petitioner's proofs do not show or tend to show that at one time or
another a specific court of competent jurisdiction rendered in an adoption
FACTS: proceeding initiated by the late spouses an order approving his adoption as
 Dr. Mariano M. Lazatin died intestate. Margarita de Asis commenced an a child of the latter.
intestate proceeding before the CFI.  No judicial records of such adoption or copies thereof are presented or
 Margarita de Asis also died, leaving a holographic will. A petition to attempted to be presented.
probate the will of the late Margarita de Asis was subsequently filed.  The absence of proof of such order of adoption by the court, as provided
 Seven months after the death of Margarita de Asis, petitioner Renato by the statute, cannot be substituted by parol evidence that a child has
Lazatin intervened for the first time in the proceedings to settle the estate lived with a person, not his parent, and has been treated as a child to
of the late Dr. Mariano M. Lazatin as an admitted illegitimate (not natural) establish such adoption.
child.  As a necessary consequence, petitioner Renato Lazatin cannot properly
 Subsequently, Renato Lazatin filed a motion to intervene in the estate of intervene in the settlement of the estate of Margarita de Asis as an
Margarita de Asis as an adopted child. adopted child because of lack of proof thereof.
ISSUE/S: DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING:

4. WON there is a valid adoption. NO ACCORDINGLY, the petition is dismissed and the questioned orders denying
petitioner's petition below "to declare as established in this proceeding the fact of
HELD: [his] adoption" are hereby affirmed.
WHAT IS ADOPTION:
 Adoption is a juridical act, a proceeding in rem which creates between two
persons a relationship similar to that which results from legitimate 83. Lazatin v. Hon. Campos, Jr., Nora L. De Leon
paternity and filiation. G.R. No. L-43955-56 July 30, 1979
 Only an adoption made through the court, or in pursuance with the Digest by: BACINA
procedure laid down under Rule 99 of the Rules of Court is valid in this
jurisdiction. It is not of natural law at all, but is wholly and entirely artificial. TOPIC: Adoption
HOW TO ESTABLISH A VALID ADOPTION:
 To establish the relation, the statutory requirements must be strictly DOCTRINE: Adoption is a juridical act, a proceeding which creates between two
carried out, otherwise, the adoption is an absolute nullity. persons a relationship similar to that which results from legitimate paternity and
 The fact of adoption is never presumed, but must be affirmatively proved filiation. Only an adoption made through the court, or in pursuance with the
by the person claiming its existence. procedure laid down under Rule 99 of the Rules of Court is valid in this jurisdiction.
 The destruction by fire of a public building in which the adoption papers The fact of adoption is never presumed, but must be affirmatively proved by the
would have been filed if existent does not give rise to a presumption of person claiming its existence.
adoption nor is the destruction of the records of an adoption proceeding to
be presumed. On the contrary, the absence of a record of adoption has RECIT-READY SUMMARY: Margarita de Asis died, leaving a holographic will providing
been said to evolve a presumption of its non-existence. among others a legacy of education to Ramon Sta. Clara, son of petitioner Renato
 Where, under the provisions of the statute, an adoption is effected by a Lazatin. Respondents filed a petition to probate (establish the validity) the will.
court order, the records of such court constitute the evidence by which Petitioner Renato Lazatin alias Renato Sta. Clara filed a motion to intervene in the
such adoption may be established. estate of Margarita de Asis as an adopted child. During the hearing, Renato presented
(GO2) 2018 - 2019

no decree of adoption in his favor. Instead, photographs were intended to be he had recognized the deceased spouses as his parents; he had been
presented by petitioner. The Court held that Renato was not able to establish his supported by them until their death; formerly he was known as "Renato
status as an adopted child. Adoption is a juridical act, a proceeding which creates Lazatin" but was compelled to change his surname to "Sta. Clara" when the
between two persons a relationship similar to that which results from legitimate deceased spouses refused to give consent to his marriage to his present
paternity and filiation. Only an adoption made through the court, or in pursuance wife; that at first, he and his wife stayed at the residence of Engracio de Asis,
with the procedure laid down under Rule 99 of the Rules of Court is valid in this father of Margarita, but a few months later, they transferred to the Mercy
jurisdiction. The fact of adoption is never presumed, but must be affirmatively proved Hospital at Taft Avenue, Manila, owned by the deceased spouses, where
by the person claiming its existence. they continuously resided up to the present.
FACTS:  Photographs were also intended to be presented by petitioner, e.g.,

 Margarita de Asis died, leaving a holographic will providing for a legacy of photograph of Irma Veloso where she addressed herself as sister of
cash, jewelry, and stocks to respondent Arlene de Leon, a granddaughter; a petitioner; photograph of deceased Margarita de Asis and petitioner when
legacy of support to Rodolfo Gallardo, a son of her late sister; and a legacy he was a boy; document showing that petitioners real name is "Renato
of education to Ramon Sta. Clara, son of petitioner Renato Lazatin. Lazatin."
 During her lifetime, Margarita de Asis kept a safety deposit box at the bank  Respondent court first reserved its ruling when petitioner could not present
which either she or respondent Nora de Leon (adopted daughter) could evidence on the issue of his alleged legal adoption, respondent court
open. 5 days after her death, Nora opened the safety deposit box and discontinued the hearing and gave the parties time to file memoranda on
removed its contents: (a) shares of stock; (b) her adoption papers and those the question of the admissibility of the evidence sought to be introduced by
of her sister, respondent Irma L. Veloso; and (c) jewelry belonging to her and petitioner.
to her mother. Nora claims that she opened the safety deposit box in good
faith, believing that it was held jointly by her and her deceased mother. ISSUE/S:
Whether or not renato has established his status as an adopted child.– NO
 Respondents filed a petition to probate (establish the validity) the will. After
having learned that the safety box was opened, petitioner's son, Ramon Sta. HELD:
Clara, filed a motion in the probate court, claiming that the deceased had • Adoption is a juridical act, a proceeding which creates between two persons
executed a will subsequent to that submitted for probate and demanding its a relationship similar to that which results from legitimate paternity and filiation.
production. Only an adoption made through the court, or in pursuance with the procedure laid
down under Rule 99 of the Rules of Court is valid in this jurisdiction. The fact of
 Petitioner Renato Lazatin alias Renato Sta. Clara filed a motion to intervene adoption is never presumed, but must be affirmatively proved by the person claiming
in the estate of Margarita de Asis as an adopted child, on the basis of an its existence.
affidavit executed by Benjamin Lazatin (brother of the deceased Dr. Mariano
M. Lazatin), the petitioner was an "illegitimate son" of Dr. Lazatin and was • On the contrary, the absence of a record of adoption has been said to evolve
later adopted by him. This affidavit was later modified to state that a presumption of its non-existence. The absence of proof of such order of adoption
petitioner was adopted by both Mariano M. Lazatin and his wife Margarita by the court, as provided by the statute, cannot be substituted by parol evidence that
de Asis. a child has lived with a person, not his parent, and has been treated as a child to
establish such adoption.
 During the hearing, Renato presented no decree of adoption in his favor.
Instead, he attempted to prove, over private respondents' objections, that • Secondary evidence is nonetheless admissible where the records of
adoption proceedings were actually lost or destroyed. But, prior to the introduction
(GO2) 2018 - 2019
of such secondary evidence, the proponent must establish the former existence of  Simplicio Santos filed a petition for the settlement of the intestate estate of the
the instrument. former, stating among other things that the surviving heirs of the deceased are: he,
Paulina Santos and Aurora Santos. He also asked that he be appointed administrator
• The correct order of proof is as follows: Existence; execution; loss; contents; of the estate.
 Gregoria Aranzanso, alleging to be the first cousin of the deceased, filed an
although this order may be changed if necessary in the discretion of the court.
opposition to the petition for appointment of administrator, asserting among others
that the adoption of Paulina and Aurora Santos is void ab initio for want of the
• As earlier pointed out, petitioner failed to establish the former existence of written consent of their parents, who were then living and had not abandoned them.
the adoption paper and its subsequent loss or destruction. Secondary proof may only  Demetria Ventura, alleging likewise to be the first cousin of the deceased and mother
be introduced if it has first been established that such adoption paper really existed of Paulina opposed also the petition of Simplicio and adopted the pleadings filed by
and was lost. Aranzanso.
 The Court of Appeals sustained respondent-oppositors right to make a collateral
attack against the adoption decree on the ground of failure to obtain the consent of
17. PAULINA SANTOS AND AURORA SANTOS v. GREGORIA ARANZANSO the natural parents was a jurisdictional defect rendering the adoption void ab initio.
G.R. No. L-23828, February 28, 1966
Digest by: SUMANGA ISSUE/S:
1. WON a decree of adoption could be assailed collaterally in a settlement proceeding.
TOPIC: Adoption
HELD:
DOCTRINE: No. Firstly, consent of the parents is not an absolute requisite if child was abandoned, consent
In adoption proceedings, abandonment imports “any conduct on the part of the parent which by the guardian ad litem suffices.
evinces a settled purpose to forgo all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims to the
child.” It means neglect or refusal to perform the natural and legal obligations of care and Second, in adoption proceedings, abandonment imports “any conduct on the part of the
support which parents owe to their children. parent which evinces a settled purpose to forgo all parental duties and relinquish all parental
claims to the child.” It means neglect or refusal to perform the natural and legal obligations of
RECIT-READY SUMMARY: care and support which parents owe to their children.”
A petition for adoption of Paulina and Aurora was filed by Simplicio and Juliana in the CFI. They
were alleging that both of the parents of the minors have abandoned them. The adoption was Third, the settled rule is that even when the jurisdiction of an inferior tribunal depends upon
subsequently granted. However, 8 years later, Juliana died intestate so Simplicio filed for the the existence of a fact to be established before it, the determination of that fact by the tribunal
settlement of intestate estate of Juliana. Aranzanso and Venture opposed claiming that they cannot be questioned in a collateral attack upon its order. Hence, the CA erred in reviewing
were first cousins of Juliana. Court held that a decree of adoption cannot be assailed under a collateral attack, the determination of the adoption court that the parents of the
collaterally in a settlement proceeding. adopted children had abandoned them.
FACTS: DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING:

Wherefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is hereby reversed and the order of the
 A petition for adoption of Paulina, 17 years old and Aurora Santos, 8 years old, was
probate court a quo sustaining the adoption, dated April 6, 1959, is affirmed. Respondents
filed by Simplicio Santos and Juliana Reyes in the CFI of Manila.
Gregoria Aranzanso and Demetria Ventura as well as Consuelo and Pacita Pasion are declared
 It was alleged that both parents of the minors have long been unheard from and
without right to intervene as heirs in the settlement of the intestate estate of Juliana Reyes.
could not be found in spite of diligent efforts to locate them; that since the war said
The preliminary injunction heretofore issued is dissolved, except insofar as it enjoins the
minors have been abandoned; and that for years since their infancy, said children
intervention or allowance of withdrawals of properly from the estate by Gregoria Aranzanso,
have been continuously been in petitioners’ care and custody.
Demetria Ventura, Consuelo and Pacita Pasion, in the concept of heirs, as to which it is hereby
 The consent to the adoption has been given by the guardian ad litem appointed by
made permanent. No costs. So ordered.
the Court. After due publication and hearing, the adoption court granted the petition
for the adoption. Subsequently – 8 years later – Juliana Reyes died intestate.
(GO2) 2018 - 2019

18. Herbert Cang v. CA and Spouses Ronald and Maria Clara Clavano children while his finances were"too meager" compared to
GR No. 105308, 1998-09-25 theirs, he could not "in conscience, allow anybody to strip him
Facts: of his parental authority over his beloved children."
1. Petitioner Herbert Cang and Anna Marie Clavano were married 9. RTC Held: for Herbert. that Anna Marie relinquished custody
on January 27, 1973, had three children, namely: Keith, over the children and, should be transferred to the father,
Charmaine, and Joseph Anthony. Herbert.
2. Later, Anna discovered Herbert’s alleged illicit liaison and filed 10. Later, On March 27, 1990, RTC Held: granting the decree of
a petition for legal separation with alimony pendente lite adoption on grounds that Herbert was "morally unfit to be the
3. They agreed that Anna may enter into any contract or agreement father of his children" on account of his being "an improvident
with any person or persons, natural or juridical without the father of his family" and an "undisguised Lothario."
required written consent of the husband. 11. CA: affirmed.
4. Herbert left for the US where he sought a divorce from Anna Issues: WON the minor children be legally adopted without the written
Marie consent Herbert?
5. The court granted the divorce decree and gave sole custody of
the three minor children to Anna Marie, reserving "rights of HELD: NO
visitation at all reasonable times and places" to Herbett.  According to Article 256 of the Family Code The written
6. Later, on September 25, 1987, Respondents Ronald V. Clavano consent of the following to the adoption shall be necessary:
and Maria Clara Diago Clavano, the brother and sister-in-law of 1. The person to be adopted, if ten years of age or over;
Anna Marie, filed for the adoption of the three minor children 2. The parents by nature of the child, the legal guardian, or
7. The petition contains the signature of 14-year-old Keith the proper government instrumentality;
signifying consent to his adoption, an affidavit of consent 3. The legitimate and adopted children, ten years of age or
alleging that her husband had "evaded his legal obligation to over, of the adopting parent or parents;
support" his children and that her husband had "long forfeited 4. The illegitimate children, ten years of age or over, of the
his parental rights" over the children for the following reasons: adopting parents, if living with said parent and the latter's
 The decision in Civil Case No. JD-707 allowed her to enter spouse, if any; and
into any contract without the written consent of her husband 5. The spouse, if any, of the person adopting or to be
adopted."
 Her husband had left the Philippines to be an illegal alien in  The written consent of the natural parent is indispensable for the
the United States and had been transferring from one place validity of the decree of adoption. Nevertheless, the requirement
to another to avoid detection by Immigration authorities, and of written consent can be dispensed with if the parent has
abandoned the child or that such parent is "insane or hopelessly
 Her husband had divorced her.
intemperate."
8. Herbert filed an opposition, alleging that, although Ronald and
Maria Clara Clavano were financially capable of supporting the
(GO2) 2018 - 2019
 Here Herbert’s conduct did not manifest a settled purpose to

forego all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims over DOCTRINE:
his children as to constitute abandonment.
Herbert did not abandon his children FACTS:
1. Petitioner, who described himself as single in status, denied  Honorato Catindig filed a petition to adopt his minor illegitimate
being a womanizer and it does not countenance womanizing on child Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia.
the part of a family man, considering the baneful effects such  He prayed that the child's middle name Astorga be changed to
irresponsible act visits on his family. Garcia, her mother's surname, and that her surname Garcia be
2. Neither may the Court place a premium on the inability of a man changed to Catindig, his surname.
to distinguish between siring children... and parenting them.  He alleged therein, among others, that Stephanie was born on June
3. that petitioner carried on an affair with a paramour cannot be 26, 1994; that her mother is Gemma Astorga Garcia; that Stephanie
taken as sufficient basis for the conclusion that petitioner was has been using her mother's middle name and surname; and that he
necessarily an unfit father. "Bad" husband does not necessarily is now a widower and qualified to be her adopting parent.
make a "bad" father.  Trial court granted the petition and declared Stephanie as his
4. Petitioner has demonstrated his love and concern for his children legitimate child and heir, and pursuant to Art. 189 of the Family
when he took the trouble of sending a telegram to the lower court Code, she is now known as Stephanie Nathy Catindig.
expressing his intention to oppose the adoption immediately  Honorato filed a motion for clarification and/or reconsideration that
after learning about it. He traveled back to this country to attend Stephanie should be allowed to use the surname Garcia as her
to the case and to testify about his love for his children and his middle name.
desire to unite his family once more in the United States.  The Republic, through the OSG, agreed with Honorato for her
5. The transfer of custody over the children to Anna Marie by relationship with her natural mother should be maintained and
virtue of the decree of legal separation did not, of necessity, preserved, to prevent any confusion and hardship in the future, and
deprive petitioner of parental authority for the purpose of placing under Article 189 she remains to be an intestate heir of her mother.
the children up for adoption. 
ISSUE/S:
19. MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF STEPHANIE NATHY ASTORGA GARCIA 5. WON an illegitimate child, upon adoption by her natural father, use
HONORATO B. CATINDIG the surname of her natural mother as her middle name. - YES
G.R. No. 148311, March 31, 2005
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J. HELD:
Digest by: OBNAMIA
There is no law prohibiting an illegitimate child adopted by her natural
TOPIC: Adoption father, like Stephanie, to use, as middle name her mother’s surname, we
find no reason why she should not be allowed to do so.
(GO2) 2018 - 2019
Article 176 of the Family Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 9255, (An Section 4. Hearing. — Any interested person may appear at the hearing and
Act Allowing Illegitimate Children To Use The Surname Of Their Father) is oppose the petition. The Solicitor General or the proper provincial or city fiscal
shall appear on behalf of the Government of the Republic.
silent as to what middle name a child may use. Section 5. Judgment. — Upon satisfactory proof in open court on the date fixed
Article 365 of the CC merely provides that “an adopted child shall bear the in the order that such order has been published as directed and that the
surname of the adopter.” Article 189 of the Family Code, enumerating the allegations of the petition are true, the court shall, if proper and reasonable
legal effects of adoption, is likewise silent on the matter. cause appears for changing the name of the petitioner, adjudge that such
name be changed in accordance with the prayer of the petition.
Section 6. Service of judgment. — Judgments or orders rendered in connection
The Underlying Intent of Adoption Is In Favor of the Adopted Child. with this rule shall be furnished the civil registrar of the municipality or city where
the court issuing the same is situated, who shall forthwith enter the same in the
Adoption is defined as the process of making a child, whether related or not civil register.
to the adopter, possess in general, the rights accorded to a legitimate child RULE 108: Cancellation Or Correction Of Entries In The Civil Registry
Section 1. Who may file petition. — Any person interested in any act, event,
order or decree concerning the civil status of persons which has been recorded
Republic Act No. 8552, (Domestic Adoption Act of 1998) an legitimate child in the civil register, may file a verified petition for the cancellation or correction
by virtue of her adoption, Stephanie i and her mother. of any entry relating thereto, with the Court of First Instance of the province
where the corresponding civil registry is located.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Section 2. Entries subject to cancellation or correction. — Upon good and valid
grounds, the following entries in the civil register may be cancelled or
The assailed Decision is partly MODIFIED in the sense that Stephanie should corrected: (a) births: (b) marriage; (c) deaths; (d) legal separations; (e)
be allowed to use her mother's surname 'GARCIA as her middle name judgments of annulments of marriage; (f) judgments declaring marriages void
from the beginning; (g) legitimations; (h) adoptions; (i) acknowledgments of
natural children; (j) naturalization; (k) election, loss or recovery of citizenship; (l)
RULE 103: Change of Name civil interdiction; (m) judicial determination of filiation; (n) voluntary
Section 1. Venue. — A person desiring to change his name shall present the emancipation of a minor; and (o) changes of name.
petition to the Court of First Instance of the province in which he resides, or, in Section 3. Parties. — When cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil
the City of Manila, to the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. register is sought, the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any
Section 2. Contents of petition. — A petition for change of name shall be signed interest which would be affected thereby shall be made parties to the
and verified by the person desiring his name changed, or some other person on proceeding.
his behalf, and shall set forth: Section 4. Notice and publication. — Upon the filing of the petition, the court
(a) That the petitioner has been a bona fide resident of the province where the shall, by an order, fix the time and place for the hearing of the same, and cause
petition is filed for at least three (3) years prior to the date of such filing; reasonable notice thereof to be given to the persons named in the petition. The
(b) The cause for which the change of the petitioner's name is sought; court shall also cause the order to be published once a week for three (3)
(c) The name asked for. consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province.
Section 3. Order for hearing. — If the petition filed is sufficient in form and Section 5. Opposition. — The civil registrar and any person having or claiming
substance, the court, by an order reciting the purpose of the petition, shall fix a any interest under the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought may,
date and place for the hearing thereof, and shall direct that a copy of the order within fifteen (15) days from notice of the petition, or from the last date of
be published before the hearing at least once a week for three (3) successive publication of such notice, file his opposition thereto.
weeks in some newspaper of general circulation published in the province, as Section 6. Expediting proceedings. — The court in which the proceeding is
the court shall deem best. The date set for the hearing shall not be within thirty brought may make orders expediting the proceedings, and may also grant
(30) days prior to an election nor within four (4) month after the last publication preliminary injunction for the preservation of the rights of the parties pending
of the notice. such proceedings.
(GO2) 2018 - 2019

Section 7. Order. — After hearing, the court may either dismiss the petition or A person is considered to have direct and personal interest when he is the
issue an order granting the cancellation or correction prayed for. In either case, owner of the record, or the owner's spouse, children, parents, brothers, sisters,
a certified copy of the judgment shall be served upon the civil registrar grandparents, guardian, or any other person duly authorized by law or by the
concerned who shall annotated the same in his record. owner of the document sought to be corrected; Provided; however, that when
R.A. No. 9048 as amended by R.A. No. 10172. a person is a minor or physically or mentally incapacitated, the petition may be
Rule 1. Authority to Correct Clerical or Typographical Error filed on his/her behalf by his/her spouse, or any of his/her children, parents,
brothers; sisters; grandparents, guardians, or persons duly authorized by law.
The duly appointed C/MCR in accordance with the provisions of the existing
laws, including the Consul General, are hereby authorized to correct clerical or 3.2. For correction of a clerical or typographical error in sex:
typographical errors in the day and month (date of birth) or sex of a person in
the civil register for birth. The petitioner affected by such error shall personally file the petition with the
civil registry office where the birth certificate is registered.
Rule 2. Definition of Terms
Rule 4. Where to file the petition
As used in these rules, the following terms shall mean:
4.1. For correction of clerical and typographical error in the entry of the day
2.1. Clerical or typographical error - Refers to a mistake committed in the and/or month in the date of birth.
performance of clerical work in writing, copying, transcribing or typing an entry
in the civil register on the entry of day and month in the date of birth or the sex The verified petition may be filed with the C/MCR of the city or municipality or
of the person, which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding, and the Philippine Consulate, as the case may be, where the birth record containing
can be corrected or changed only by reference to other existing record or the day and/or month in the date of birth to be corrected is registered.
records: Provided, however, that no correction must involve the change of When the petitioner has migrated to another place within the Philippines and it
nationality, age (refers to the correction on the year of birth), or legitimacy is not practical for such party, in terms of transportation expenses, time and
status of the petitioner/document owner. effort to appear before the C/MCR of the place of birth, the petition may be
2.2. Sex – Refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define filed with the C/MCR of the place where the petitioner is residing or domiciled.
men and women. Any person whose birth record was reported abroad and presently residing in
2.3. Day and Month of Birth – Refers to the entry in the month and/or day of birth the Philippines, the petition may be filed with the C/MCR of the place of
of the petitioner/document owner which is sought to be corrected. residence following the procedures of migrant petition.
2.4. Accredited Government Physician – Refers to a licensed doctor of Any person whose birth record was registered in the Philippines, or in any
medicine who is registered with the Professional Regulations Commission (PRC) Philippine Consulate, but who is presently residing or domiciled in a foreign
and is employed in any government hospitals, health institutions, or public country, may file the petition with the nearest Philippine Consulate.
health offices. 4.2. For correction of clerical and typographical error in the entry of sex
2.5. Medical Certification – Refers to the certification issued by the accredited The verified petition shall be filed, in person, with the C/MCR of the city or
government physician attesting to the fact that the petitioner/document owner municipality or the Philippine Consulate, as the case may be, where the record
has not undergone sex change or sex transplant. containing the entry of sex in the birth certificate to be corrected is registered.
Rule 3. Who may file the petition. Rule 5. Processing of the petition
3.1. For correction of entry on the day and/or month in the date of birth: Insofar as applicable, Rule 5 of Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2001, shall
Any person of legal age, having direct and personal interest in the correction be observed.
of a clerical or typographical error in the day and/or month in the date of birth Rule 6. Form and content of the petition
of a person in the civil register for birth, may file the petition.
(GO2) 2018 - 2019

Insofar as applicable, Rule 8 of Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2001 shall City/Municipal Social Welfare Office that the petitioner/document owner is
be observed. In addition, as supporting documents to the petition, the following indigent.
shall be submitted:
In the case of a petition filed with the CG, a filing fee of one hundred fifty U.S.
6.1. Earliest school record or earliest school documents; dollars ($150.00) or its equivalent value in local currency for the correction of
6.2. Medical records; clerical or typographical error is required.
6.3. Baptismal certificate and other documents issued by religious authorities;
6.4. A clearance or a certification that the owner of the document has no In the case of a migrant petition, there shall be a service fee of one thousand
pending administrative, civil or criminal case, or no criminal record, which shall pesos (P1,000.00) to be collected by the PRCR.
be obtained from the following: When a petitioner/document owner files petition for correction of clerical error
6.4.1. Employer, if employed; under R.A. 9048, simultaneously, with a petition for correction of clerical error
6.4.2. National Bureau of Investigation; and under R.A. 10172, and the same document is involved, the petitioner/document
6.4.3. Philippine National Police. owner shall pay only the amount of P3,000.00 corresponding to the fee under
R.A. 10172.
6.5. The petition for the correction of sex and day and/or month in the date of
birth shall include the affidavit of publication from the publisher and a copy of All fees collected by the C/MCR or the consul general pursuant to this Law shall
the newspaper clipping; and accrue to the funds of the Local Civil Registry Office concerned or the Office of
6.6. In case of correction of sex, the petition shall be supported with a medical the Consul General for modernization of the office and hiring of new personnel
certification issued by an accredited government physician that the petitioner and procurement of supplies, subject to government accounting and auditing
has not undergone sex change or sex transplant. rules.
Rule 7. Posting and publication of the petition. The local legislative body shall ratify the fees herein prescribed upon effectivity
of this Order. Prior to ratification by the local legislative body, all fees collected
Insofar as applicable, Rule 9 of Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2001 shall in connection with this Order shall go to the LCRO trust fund, provided, however,
be observed. that the fees prescribed therein shall be uniform in all cities and municipalities in
the country, and in all Philippine Consulates.
Rule 8. Duties of the C/MCR
Insofar as applicable, Rule 10 of Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2001 shall Case: Wang v the Civil Registry
be observed.
In addition, the C/MCR shall issue a certification on the authenticity of the 1. Change of name is a privilege and not a right
certification issued by the accredited government physician certifying that the - The State has an interest in the names borne by individuals and entities for
petitioner/document owner has not undergone sex change or sex transplant. purposes of identification.
Rule 9. Duties and powers of the CRG - Before a person can be authorized to change his name given him either in his
certificate of birth or civil registry, he must show proper or reasonable cause, or
Insofar as applicable, Rule 11 of Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2001 shall any compelling reason which may justify such change.
be observed. 2. Valid grounds for change of name (RL-CAFÉ)
(a) when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to write or
Rule 10. Authority to collect filing and other fees pronounce;
The C/MCR is hereby authorized to collect from every petitioner three thousand (b) when the change results as a legal consequence, as in legitimation;
pesos (P3,000.00) for petition to correct the day and/or month in the date of (c) when the change will avoid confusion;
birth or sex. An indigent petitioner shall be exempt from paying the required (d) when one has continuously used and been known since childhood by a
payment, provided that the petition is supported by a certification from the Filipino name, and was unaware of alien parentage;
(e) a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of former alienage,
all in good faith and without prejudicing anybody; and
(GO2) 2018 - 2019
(f) when the surname causes embarrassment and there is no showing that the Middle names serve to identify the maternal lineage or filiation of a person as
desired change of name was for a fraudulent purpose or that the change of well as further distinguish him from others who may have the same given name
name would prejudice public interest. and surname as he has. Our laws on the use of surnames state that legitimate
3. Surname of a Legitimate and legitimated child and legitimated children shall principally use the surname of the
Right to bear the surnames of the father and the mother. father. The Family Code gives legitimate children the right to bear the surnames
- Hence a legitmate child bears the surname of his/her father and middle name of the father and the mother. Only an illegitimate child whose filiation is not
of his/her mother. recognized by the father does not have a middle name. Thus, the registered
4. Surname of an illegitimate child name of a legitimate, legitimated and recognized illegitimate child thus
Not recognized by his/her father = Surname of father or Recognized by his/her contains a given or proper name, a middle name, and a surname.
father
- Option to use surname of father or mother Here the only reason advanced by petitioner for the dropping his middle name
- Middle name of mother is convenience. This is not one of the valid grounds for petition for change of
name to be granted. In addition, petitioner is only a minor. It is best that
FACTS: The parents of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang, Anna Lisa Wang and Sing-Foe the matter of change of his name be left to his judgment and discretion when
Wang,were not yet married to each other when he was born. When his parents he reaches the age of majority. As he is of tender age, he may not yet
subsequently got married they executed a deed of legitimation of their son so understand and appreciate the value of the change of his name and granting
that the child’s name was changed from Julian Lin Carulasan to Julian Lin of the same at this point may just prejudice him in his rights under our laws.
Carulasan Wang. The parents of Julian wanted to change his name since they
intend for Julian to study in Singapore and in Singapore middle names or the
maiden surname of the mother are not carried in a person’s name. They
21. REPUBLIC v. CAPOTE
anticipated that will lead to discrimination. They also anticipated that it will lead
G.R. No. 157043, February 2, 2007
to confusion on the part of Julian since his sibling have different surnames. The
Justice Corona
RTC denied the petition. Petitioner then filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari
(Under Rule 45).
Digest by: Burn All
ISSUE: WON dropping of middle name of a minor child is allowed under
Philippine laws. TOPIC: Change of Name
HELD: NO. The State has an interest in the names borne by individuals and DOCTRINE:
entities for purposes of identification, and that a change of name is a privilege A proceeding is adversarial where the party seeking relief has given legal
and not a right, so that before a person can be authorized to change his name warning to the other party and afforded the latter an opportunity to contest it.
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. RECIT-READY: (Very very simple case, proceeding issue only)
The valid grounds for change of name are as follows: : (a) when the name is Capote sought the change of name of his ward Giovanni Gallamaso to
ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (b) when Giovanni Nadores. This is because Giovanni was never recognized by his
the change results as a legal consequence, as in legitimation; (c) when the father, and his mother, Corazon, plans to petition Giovanni to join her in the
change will avoid confusion; (d) when one has continuously used and been United States where she was working. There was no opposition and Capote
known since childhood by a Filipino name, and was unaware of alien complied with all the requirements, thus the trial court rendered a decision
parentage; (e) a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of former ordering the change of name of Giovanni. However, the OSG alleged that
alienage, all in good faith and without prejudicing anybody; and (f) when the there was an error in granting the petition in a summary proceeding, and
surname causes embarrassment and there is no showing that the desired stated that the purported parents and all other persons who may be
change of name was for a fraudulent purpose or that the change of name adversely affected by the child’s change of name should have been made
would prejudice public interest. respondents to make the proceeding adversarial. The Court ruled that
Capote complied with the requirement for an adversarial proceeding by
(GO2) 2018 - 2019

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. Thus, DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING:
all the requirements to make a proceeding adversarial were satisfied when all WHEREFORE the petition is DENIED.
interested parties, including petitioner as represented by the OSG, were
afforded the opportunity to contest the petition.
23. IN RE: BATBATAN v. OFFICE OF THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF
ISSUE/S:
WON all the requirements to make a proceeding adversarial were satisfied? PAGADIAN ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR
G.R. No. L-33724, November 26, 1982
HELD: Digest by: MARGALLO
ANSWER: YAS. TOPIC: Change of Name and Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the
Civil Registry - Rules 103, 108 & R.A. No. 9048 [including the Civil Code
RULE: (See Doctrine)
provisions discussed in the assigned cases]: Rule 108
IN THIS CASE:
In this regard, Capote complied with the requirement for an adversarial DOCTRINE:
proceeding by posting in a newspaper of general circulation notice of the Rule 108 of the Rules of Court on cancellation or correction of entries in the
filing of the petition. The lower court also furnished the OSG a copy thereof. civil registry to avoid this summary procedure from being unlawfully utilized
Despite the notice, no one came forward to oppose the petition including the
as a shortcut method to bring about a change of citizenship, paternity, status,
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 or other substantial attribute or qualification. However, where justice and
adversarial in nature. The lower court is still expected to exercise its equity dictate it and where no such change is contemplated, the Court has
judgment to determine whether the petition is meritorious or not and not also readily sustained its use.
merely accept as true the arguments propounded. Considering that the OSG
neither opposed the petition nor the motion to present its evidence ex parte FACTS:
when it had the opportunity to do so, it cannot now complain that the
 Eligia Batbatan, herein petitioner-appellant, filed before the Court of First
proceedings in the lower court were not adversarial enough.
Instance a petition for the correction of entries in the civil registry of
A proceeding is adversarial where the party seeking relief has given legal Pagadian, Zamboanga del Sur as regard the names of her two illegitimate
warning to the other party and afforded the latter an opportunity to contest it. (spurious) children, Jorge Batbatan Ang and Delia Batbatan Luy, who
Respondent gave notice of the petition through publication as required by the were clearly identified as illegitimate in their certificates of live birth and
rules. With this, all interested parties were deemed notified and the whole whose surnames, herein sought to be stricken off, were taken from the
world considered bound by the judgment therein. In addition, the trial court
name and alias of their father, Ang Kiu Chuy alias Sioma Luy, a married
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 man with whom petitioner lived in common-law relationship.
interested parties, including petitioner as represented by the OSG, were  The trial court denied the petition on the ground that the corrections
afforded the opportunity to contest the petition. sought are not clerical but substantial which should be threshed out in a
proper action. Hence this appeal.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, the requirements were complied with.
(GO2) 2018 - 2019

ISSUE/S: nature. If all procedural requirements [under Rule 108] have been followed, a
WON the court erred in holding the corrections sought in the petition are not petition for correction and/or cancellation of entries in the record of birth [can] no
allowable? - YES longer be described as "summary". When an opposition to the petition is filed
either by the Civil Registrar or any person having or claiming any interest in the
entries sought to be cancelled and/or corrected and the opposition is actively
HELD:
prosecuted, the proceedings become adversary.
 The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the appealed judgment
holding that the petition to strike out the surnames Ang and Luy should RECIT-READY SUMMARY:
have been granted since the said entries are contrary to Article 368 of Leonor Valencia, for and in behalf of her minor children, filed with the CFI a petition
the Civil Code which requires that spurious or adulterous children for the cancellation and/or correction of the entries of birth in the Civil Registry.
should bear the mother's surname. She wants to change their nationality from Chinese to Filipino, and status from
 Rule 108 of the Rules of Court on cancellation or correction of entries in Legitimate to Illegitimate. OSG opposition: correction of entry pursuant to NCC 412
the civil registry to avoid this summary procedure from being unlawfully in relation to ROC Rule 108 contemplates a summary proceeding and correction of
utilized as a shortcut method to bring about a change of citizenship, mere clerical harmless errors; and not changes involving nationality or civil status.
RULING: Not allowed in summary proceeding. Petition denied. (See Doctrine).
paternity, status, or other substantial attribute or qualification. However,
where justice and equity dictate it and where no such change is FACTS:
contemplated, the Court has also readily sustained its use.  Leonor Valencia, for and in behalf of her minor children, Bernardo Go and
 Judgment appealed from reversed and set aside. Petition is granted, and Jessica Go, filed with the CFI of Cebu a petition for the cancellation and/or
the local civil registrar of Pagadian, Zamboanga del Sur is directed to correction of their entries of birth in the Civil Registry.
correct the records of birth of petitioner's children so as to read Jorge o She wants to change their nationality from Chinese to Filipino, and status
Batbatan and Delia Batbatan. from Legitimate to Illegitimate.
 OSG opposition: correction of entry pursuant to NCC 412 in relation to ROC
DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING: Rule 108 contemplates a summary proceeding and correction of mere clerical
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed and set aside. harmless errors; and not changes involving nationality or civil status.
The petition is granted and the local civil registrar of Pagadian, Zamboanga  Valencia alleged that substantial changes in the civil registry records involving
the civil status of parents, their nationality or citizenship may be allowed if --
del Sur is directed to correct the records of birth of Jorge Batbatan Ang and
(1) the proper suit is filed, and (2) evidence is submitted, either to support the
Delia Batbatan Luy to make their names read as Jorge Batbatan and Delia allegations of the petition or to disprove the same;
Batbatan, respectively. o that respondents have complied with these requirements by filing the
present special proceeding for cancellation or correction of entries in the
civil registry pursuant to Rule 108 and
24. REPUBLIC V. VALENCIA o that they have caused reasonable notice to be given to the persons named
G.R. No. L-32181 | 1986-March-05 in the petition and have also caused the order for the hearings of their
Digest by: RAMOS petition to be published for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of
general circulation in the province.
TOPIC: Change of Name and Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the  Local Civil Registrar filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that since the
Civil Registry – Rule 108 petition seeks to change the nationality or citizenship of Bernardo Go and
Jessica Go from “Chinese” to “Filipino” and their status from “Legitimate” to
DOCTRINE: Correction of substantial entries under Rule 108 are adversarial in
(GO2) 2018 - 2019
Illegitimate”, and changing also the status of the mother from “married” to “summary”. There can be no doubt that when an opposition to the petition is filed either
“single” the corrections sought are not merely clerical but substantial, involving by the Civil Registrar or any person having or claiming any interest in the entries sought
to be cancelled and/or corrected and the opposition is actively prosecuted, the
as they do the citizenship and status of the petitioning minors and the status of
proceedings thereon become adversary proceedings.” (Underscoring supplied.)
their mother.
Facts:
ISSUE/S:
1. The private respondents are the children of Lee Tek Sheng and his lawful
WON a change in the record of birth in a civil registry, involving the nationality or
wife, KehShiok Cheng. The petitionersare children of Lee Tek Sheng and
citizenship of a person, may be granted in a summary procedure. his concubine, Tiu Chuan.
2. Private Respondents—Rita K. Lee, Leoncio Lee Tek Sheng, Rosa K. Lee-
HELD: No. Vanderlek, Melody K. Lee-Chin, Lucia K. Lee Tek Sheng-Ong, Julian K. Lee,
Corrections involving the nationality or citizenship of a person were substantial Henry K. Lee, Martin K. Lee, Victoriano K. Lee, NatividadK. Lee-Miguel and
and could not be effected except in adversarial proceedings. Thomas K. Lee, filed two (2) separate petitions for the cancellation and/or
correction of entries in the records of birth of the petitioners—Marcelo Lee,
Albina Lee-Young, Mariano Lee, Pablo Lee, Helen Lee, Catalino K. Lee,
Substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected and the true facts established Eusebio Lee, and Emma Lee.
provided the parties aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the appropriate 3. Acase was filed against all petitioners, except Emma Lee, before RTC Manila
adversary proceedings. Rule 108 of the Revise Rules of Court now provides for such assigned to respondent Judge Lorenzo B. Veneracion. A similar petition
a procedure which should be limited solely to the implementation of Article 412, against Emma Lee was filed before the RTC of Kalookanand assigned to the
sala of respondent Judge Jaime T. Hamoy.
the substantive law on the matter of correcting entries in the civil register. Rule
4. Both petitions sought to cancel and/or correct the false and erroneous
108, lay all the other provisions of the Rules of Court, was promulgated by the entries in all pertinent records of birth of petitioners by deleting and/or
Supreme Court pursuant to its rule- making authority under Sec. 13 of Art. VIII of canceling therein the name of “KehShiok Cheng” as their mother, and
the Constitution, which directs that such rules of court ‘shall not diminish or by substituting the same with the name “Tiu Chuan”, who is allegedly
increase or modify substantive rights.’ the petitioners’ true birth mother.
5. The private respondents alleged in their petitions that they are the legitimate
children of spouses Lee Tek Sheng and KehShiok Cheng who were legally
If Rule 108 were to be extended beyond innocuous or harmless changes or married in China.
corrections of errors which are visible to the eye or obvious to the understanding, 6. Tiu Chuan was introduced by Lee Tek Sheng to his family as their new
xxx said Rule 108 would thereby become unconstitutional for it would be increasing housemaid but immediately became his mistress. As a result of their illicit
or modifying substantive rights, which changes are not authorized under Article 412 relations, Tiu Chuan gave birth to petitioners.
of the New Civil Code. 7. Unknown to KehShiok Cheng and private respondents, every time Tiu Chuan
gave birth to each of the petitioners, their father, falsified the entries in the
records of birth of petitioners by making it appear that petitioners’ mother was
Thus, a petition for substantial correction or change of entries in the civil registry KehShiok Cheng.
should have as respondents the civil registrar, as well as all other persons who have 8. Since the birth of petitioners, it was Tiu Chuan who took care of the
or claim any interest that would be affected thereby. It mandates that a full hearing petitioners. They all lived in the same compound KehShiok Cheng and
be conducted. private respondents were residing in. All was well, therefore, before private
respondents’ discovery of the dishonesty and fraud perpetrated by their
father, Lee Tek Sheng.
9. When KehShiok Cheng died, Lee Tek Sheng insisted that the names of all
25) Lee, et al v. CA, et al his children, including those of petitioners’, be included in the obituary notice
G. R. No. 118387 - October 11, 2001 of the former’s death that was to be published in the newspapers.
10. The private respondents requested the NBI to conduct an investigation. After
Doctrine/s: “If all these procedural requirements have been followed, a petition for investigation, the NBI prepared a report that the false entries in the records
correction and/or cancellation of entries in the record of birth even if filed and conducted of birth of petitioners made it appear that the latter were legitimate children of
under Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court can no longer be described as
(GO2) 2018 - 2019
KekShiok Cheng.It was this report that prompted private respondents to file “Thus, the persons who must be made parties to a proceeding concerning the
the petitions for cancellation and/or correction of entries in petitioners’ records cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register are - (1) the civil registrar, and
of birth with the lower courts. (2) all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby. Upon
11. The petitioners filed a motion to dismiss both petitions on the grounds that: the filing of the petition, it becomes the duty of the court to - (1) issue an order fixing
(1) resort to Rule 108 is improper where the ultimate objective is to assail the the time and place for the hearing of the petition, and (2) cause the order for hearing
legitimacy and filiation of petitioners; (2) the petition, which is essentially an to be published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of
action to impugn legitimacy was filed prematurely; and (3) the action to general circulation in the province. The following are likewise entitled to oppose the
impugn has already prescribed. petition: - (1) the civil registrar, and (2) any person having or claiming any interest
under the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought.
Issue/s: WON Whether or not resort to Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court is
proper – YES.
Held: We hold that the petitions filed by the private respondents in the courts 26. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CARLITO I. KHO et al.
below by way of a special proceeding for cancellation and/or correction of entries G.R. No. 170340, June 29, 2007
in the civil registers with the requisite parties, notices and publications could Digest by: PAHUDPOD
very well be regarded as that proper suit or appropriate action
TOPIC: Change of name and Cancellation or Correction
The proceedings are simply aimed at establishing a particular fact, status and/or
right. The thrust of said proceedings was to establish the factual truth regarding the DOCTRINE:
occurrence of certain events which created or affected the status of persons and/or Correction that doesn’t only involve clerical errors should be in an adversarial proceeding.
otherwise deprived said persons of rights. Substantial corrections to civil status of persons recorded in civil registry may be effected
through filing of a petition under Rule 108 ROC. When all the procedural requirements under
Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court establishes the status or right of a party, Rule 108 are followed the appropriate adversary proceeding necessary to effect substantial
or a particular fact. The petitions filed by private respondents for the correction of corrections to the entries of the civil register is satisfied.
entries in the petitioners’ records of birth were intended to establish that for physical
and/or biological reasons it was impossible for KehShiok Cheng to have conceived and
given birth to the petitioners as shown in their birth records. RECIT-READY SUMMARY:
Carlito et al. filed a petition in RTC for correction of entries in the civil registry for changes in
Contrary to petitioners’ contention that the petitions before the lower courts were his Birth Certificate (BC) and marriage certificate. His siblings also sought the correction in their
actually actions to impugn legitimacy, the prayer therein is not to declare that petitioners
Birth Certificates. Carlito filed on behalf of his minor children to correct clerical errors in their
are illegitimate children of KehShiok Cheng, but to establish that the former are not the
birth certificate as well. His petition was opposed by City Prosecutor. SC held that change
latter’s children. There is nothing to impugn as there is no blood relation at all between
KehShiok Cheng and petitioners. petitioned in BCs requires adversarial proceedings and failure to implead Marivel and his
parents is cured by Publication.
In Republic vs. Valencia, this Court, held that even substantial errors in a civil
register may be corrected and the true facts established provided the parties aggrieved
by the error avail themselves of the appropriate adversary proceeding.A proceeding FACTS:
for correction and/or cancellation of entries in the civil register under Rule 108 ceases  Carlito et al petition:
to be summary in nature and takes on the characteristics of an appropriate adversary o Carlito- to correct citizenship of his mother from Chinese to Filipino and to
proceeding when all the procedural requirements under Rule 108 are complied with. delete the word “married” because his parents Juan Kho and Epifania are
not legally married.
“Provided the trial court has conducted proceedings where all relevant facts have o Carlito’s siblings- deletion of the “married” status of their parents.
been fully and properly developed, where opposing counsel have been given o Carlito’s minor children BCs- date of his marriage with his wife to be
opportunity to demolish the opposite party’s case, and where the evidence has been corrected from April 27, 1989 to Jan 21, 2000 (date in their marriage
thoroughly weighed and considered, the suit or proceeding is ‘appropriate.’ certificate)
(GO2) 2018 - 2019

 Carlito et al. filed an amended petition to add a prayer that Carlito’s second name  SC held the changes requested in this case should be in an adversarial proceeding
“John” be deleted from his BC and correction in his marriage certificate, the name because the correction doesn’t merely involve clerical errors. RA 9048 was enacted
and citizenship of his father from John Kho to Juan Kho and Filipino to Chinese “An Act Authorizing the City or Municipal Civil Registrar or the Consul General to
respectively. Correct a Clerical or Typographical Error in an Entry and/or Change of First Name or
 Petition was published for 3 weeks in Mindanao Daily Patrol-CARAGA (newspaper of Nickname in the Civil Register Without Need of Judicial Order” that lend legislative
gen. circulation) affirmation that substantial corrections to civil status of persons recorded in civil
 OSG authorized the city prosecutor of Butuan City to appear on behalf and assist registry may be effected through filing of a petition under Rule 108 ROC.
OSG. o When all the procedural requirements under Rule 108 are followed the
 During Trial- Additionally requested the correction in BCs of Carlito’s children the appropriate adversary proceeding necessary to effect substantial
first name of their mother from Maribel to Marivel. corrections to the entries of the civil register is satisfied. In this case TC
 TC- Ordered the corrections: (1) change citizenship of Mother; (2) delete John; (3) ordered setting the petition for hearing and posted the notice and notices
delete status “married”. 3rd correction also ordered in BC’s of Carlito’s siblings. (4) were served to OSG, prosecutor and local civil registrar.
Correction of the BCs of Carlito’s children- date of marriage and name of mother; (5)
correction of marriage certificate of Carlito and Marivel- name of Carlito’s father and
citizenship. Republic of the Philippines (RP) appealed RTC Decision. On the issue of failure to implead Marivel and Carlito’s Parents:
 CA- RP contested (1) the correction of documents despite Carlito et al. failed to Publication cured the defect of failing to implead an indispensable party. (Sec 4, Rule 108) A
implead his wife Marivel as an indispensable party and the evidence concerning the Petition for correction is an action in rem. Decision binds the whole world. Also it was highly
change of his parent’s status of “married” to not in Carlito’s BC and his siblings’ BCs; improbable that Marivel was unaware of the proceedings since the notices and decisions were
(2) the deletion of “John”. CA denied appeal and affirmed RTC decision and Rule 108 all sent to their house.
of ROC was observed in the case.
 SC- In the present petition RP argues: (1) changes sought by Carlito et al. are SC Ruling in each Correction petitioned:
substantial in nature and could only be granted in an adversarial proceeding; (2)
jurisdictional requirements to change Carlito’s name under Sec 2 Rule 103 of ROC  Correction of date in Carlito and Marivel’s Marriage Certificate (Granted)- they were
were not satisfied because Amended Petition failed to state his prior 3 year bona married on Jan 21, 2000. The children are illegitimate because they were born when
fide residence in Butuan City; (3) title of petition did not state Carlito’s aliases and they were not yet married. Correction would not bring about change at all in the
his true name.; (4) same jurisdictional defects attach to the change of name of children’s filiation.
Carlito’s father.  Deletion of the status of “married” (Granted)- since no record was in the registrar
that they were married. Only a certification from Parish Priest that they were living
as common law couple since 1935 and never got married.
ISSUE/S:
6. WON Kho’s request for the change in the details of their birth certificate requires an  Deletion of “John in Carlito’s name (Granted) - complied with Rule 108 and granted
adversarial proceeding? - YES in letter (o) of Section 2, Rule 108. Carlito’s official transcript of record from the
7. WON the failure to implead Marivel and Carlito’s parents rendered the trial short of Urious College in Butuan City, certificate of eligibility from the Civil Service
the required adversary proceeding and the trial court’s judgment void? -NO Commission, and voter registration record satisfactorily show that he has been
known by his first name only.
HELD:  Jurisdictional requirements of Rule 103- were not complied with however
On the Issue of requiring an adversarial proceeding: observance of Rule 108 suffices to affect the corrections sought for.
 The changes entail substantial and controversial amendments. Change of nationality  Correction of Mother’s citizenship (Granted) - In Carlito’s birth record was also
Carlito’s Mother has bearing and effect on the citizenship and nationality in their proper. City Prosecutor failed to question Epifania’s citizenship during cross
children. The deletion of the status “married” alters their filiation from legitimate to examination. Such failure to oppose the correction prayed for, which certainly was
illegitimate which has significant implications in their successional and other rights. not respondents’ fault, does not in any way change the adversarial nature of the
(GO2) 2018 - 2019

proceedings. Also in the BCs of Carlito’s siblings the citizenship of their mother is surname. Respondent ran and was elected as Quezon City’s
Filipino Councilor using the name "JULIAN M.L. COSETENG."
 Correction of Maribel to Marivel (Granted) - it was clearly indicated that this is a
clerical/typographical error The RTC granted the petition and ordered the Civil Registrar to:
1. Delete the entry “date and place of marriage” (of parents) in

DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING: PETITION DENIED. SC AFFIRMED CA.
respondent’s live birth certificate
2. Change entry of “Last name” from Magpayo to Coseteng
Republic v. Coseteng-Magpayo 3. Delete entry of Coseteng from “Middle name”
G.R. No. 95533, February 13, 1989 4. Delete entry of Fulvio Miranda Magpayo Jr in the entry for "Father".
J. Gutierez
Republic appealed contending that deletion of the entry on the date and
TOPIC: IX. CHANGE OF NAME AND CANCELLATION OR CORRECTION place of marriage of respondents parents from his birth certificate has the
effect of changing his civil status from legitimate to illegitimate, hence, any
change in civil status of a person must be effected through an appropriate
DOCTRINE: adversary proceeding.
• The present petition must be differentiated from Alfon v. Republic
of the Philippines. In Alfon, the Court allowed the therein petitioner, Estrella ISSUE/S: Was there a valid ground for changing respondent's name?
Alfon, to use the name that she had been known since childhood in order to
avoid confusion. Alfon did not deny her legitimacy. HELD:
FACTS:  The petition is impressed with merit. A person can effect a change
 Respondent Julian Edward Emerson was born in Makati City to of name under Rule 103 (CHANGE OF NAME) using valid and
Fulvio M. Magpayo Jr. and Anna Dominique Marquez-Lim Coseteng meritorious grounds including (a) when the name is ridiculous,
who, as respondent’s certificate of live birth shows, contracted dishonorable or extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (b) when
marriage on March 26, 1972. the change results as a legal consequence such as legitimation; (c)
when the change will avoid confusion; (d) when one has
 Claiming, however, that his parents were never legally married,
continuously used and been known since childhood by a Filipino
respondent filed before RTC of Quezon City a petition to change his
name, and was unaware of alien parentage; (e) a sincere desire to
name to Julian Edward Emerson Marquez-Lim Coseteng. In support
adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of former alienage, all in good
of his petition, respondent submitted a certification from the NSO
faith and without prejudicing anybody; and (f) when the surname
stating that his mother Anna Dominique does not appear in its
causes embarrassment and there is no showing that the desired
National Indices of Marriage.
change of name was for a fraudulent purpose or that the change of
 Respondent also submitted his academic records from elementary
name would prejudice public interest. Respondent’s reason for
up to college showing that he carried the surname "Coseteng," and
changing his name cannot be considered as one of, or analogous to,
the birth certificate of his child where "Coseteng" appears as his
recognized grounds, however.
(GO2) 2018 - 2019

 The present petition must be differentiated from Alfon v. Republic  Copies of the order were sent to the OSG and the civil registrar of Manila.
of the Philippines. In Alfon, the Court allowed the therein petitioner,  On the scheduled initial hearing, jurisdictional requirements were
Estrella Alfon, to use the name that she had been known since established. No opposition to the petition was made.
childhood in order to avoid confusion. Alfon did not deny her  RTC: In favor of Silverio; OSG appealed to the CA
 CA: Reversed RTC – lack of legal basis
legitimacy, however. She merely sought to use the surname of her
mother which she had been using since childhood. Ruling in her
favor, the Court held that she was lawfully entitled to use her ISSUE/S:
mother’s surname, adding that the avoidance of confusion was  WON Rommel can legally change his name and sex in his birth certificate
justification enough to allow her to do so. In the present case, on the ground of sex reassignment
however, respondent denies his legitimacy.
HELD: NO, he cannot legally change his name and sex in his birth certificate on
the ground of sex reassignment.
28. SILVERIO v REPUBLIC
G.R. No. 174689, October 19, 2007 RATIO: SC gave 3 reasons: (1) A person's first name cannot be changed on the
Digest by: Intia ground of sex reassignment; (2) No law allows the change of entry in the birth
certificate as to sex on the ground of sex reassignment; and (3) Neither may
TOPIC: Change of name and cancellation or correction entries in the birth certificate as to first name or sex be changed on the ground
of equity.
FACTS:
 November 26, 2002, Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio filed a petition for 1. A Person's First Name Cannot Be Changed On The Ground Of Sex
the change of his first name and sex in his birth certificate in the RTC Reassignment
 Rommel was born in Manila to the Sps Melecio Silverio and Anita Dantes  The State has an interest in the names borne by individuals and
on April 4, 1962. entities for purposes of identification. A change of name is a privilege,
o His name was registered as "Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio" not a right.
in his birth certificate. His sex was registered as "male."  RA 9048 does not sanction a change of first name on the ground of
 Rommel, according to him, is a male transsexual; that is, "anatomically sex reassignment. Rather than avoiding confusion, changing
male but feels, thinks and acts as a female" and that he had always petitioner's first name for his declared purpose may only create grave
identified himself with girls since childhood. complications in the civil registry and the public interest. (See the
grounds allowed by RA 9048; sex reassignment is not one of them).
 January 27, 2001: he underwent sex reassignment surgery in Bangkok,
Thailand.
2. No Law Allows The Change Of Entry In The Birth Certificate As To
o He was thereafter examined by Dr. Marcelino Reysio-Cruz, Jr., a
Sex On The Ground Of Sex Reassignment
plastic and reconstruction surgeon in the Philippines, who
issued a medical certificate attesting that he had in fact  RA 9048: Clerical or typographical errors are allowed to be corrected
undergone the procedure. (See RA 9048 for the provision). A correction in the civil registry
involving the change of sex is not a mere clerical or typographical
 From then on, he lived as a female and was in fact engaged to be married.
error. It is a substantial change for which the applicable procedure is
He then sought to have his name in his birth certificate changed from
Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
"Rommel Jacinto" to "Mely," and his sex from "male" to "female."
 The entries foreseen in Article 412 of the Civil Code and correctable
 An order setting the case for initial hearing was published in the People's
under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court are those provided in Articles
Journal Tonight, for three consecutive weeks.
(GO2) 2018 - 2019

407 and 408 of the Civil Code (See the following provisions, they are o she alleged that she was born on January 13, 1981 and was
provided by the case). registered as a female in the Certificate of Live Birth but
while growing up, she developed secondary male
3. Neither May Entries In The Birth Certificate As To First Name Or Sex
characteristics and was diagnosed to have Congenital
Be Changed On The Ground Of Equity
 The changes sought by petitioner will have serious and wide-ranging Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) which is a condition where
legal and public policy consequences. persons thus afflicted possess both male and female
o This is the first step of Rommel for marriage with Edel – sacred characteristics.
social institution between a man and a woman. o She further alleged that she was diagnosed to have clitoral
o Laws which are generally in favor of or particularly apply to hyperthropy in her early years and at age six, underwent an
women (the Labor Code on employment of women, certain ultrasound where it was discovered that she has small
felonies under the Revised Penal Code, etc.) will be
ovaries. At age thirteen, tests revealed that her ovarian
substantially altered if the grant will be given.
structures had minimized, she has stopped growing and she
RULING: Petition is DENIED. has no breast or menstrual development.
o She then alleged that for all interests and appearances as
well as in mind and emotion, she has become a male
29. Republic v. Cagandahan person.
G.R. No. 166676, September 8, 2012  Thus, she prayed that her birth certificate be corrected such that
Digest by: NEPOMUCENO her gender be changed from female to male and her first name be
changed from Jennifer to Jeff.
TOPIC: Change of Name and Cancellation or Correction
DOCTRINE: ISSUE/S:
In deciding this case, we consider the compassionate calls for recognition of 8. WON the trial court erred in ordering the correction of entries in the
the various degrees of intersex as variations which should not be subject to birth certificate of respondent to change her sex or gender, from
outright denial. "It has been suggested that there is some middle ground female to male, on the ground of her medical condition known as
between the sexes, a ‘no-man’s land’ for those individuals who are neither CAH, and her name from "Jennifer" to "Jeff," under Rules 103 and
truly ‘male’ nor truly ‘female’ 108 of the Rules of Court?
HELD:
FACTS: The RTC did not err when it granted the Change of Name under Rule 103:
 On December 11, 2003, respondent Jennifer Cagandahan filed a
Petition for Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate before the RTC, As for respondent’s change of name under Rule 103, this Court has held that
Branch 33 of Siniloan, Laguna. a change of name is not a matter of right but of judicial discretion, to be
exercised in the light of the reasons adduced and the consequences that will
 In her petition, follow. The trial court’s grant of respondent’s change of name from Jennifer
to Jeff implies a change of a feminine name to a masculine name.
(GO2) 2018 - 2019
Considering the consequence that respondent’s change of name merely

recognizes his preferred gender, we find merit in respondent’s change of DOCTRINE:
name. Such a change will conform with the change of the entry in his birth
certificate from female to male. The powers of the courts and the Director of Health are complementary each
with the other. As a practical observation, it may further be said that it is well
On CAH: to adopt all reasonable precautions to ascertain if a person confined in an
 CAH is one of many conditions that involve intersex anatomy. asylum as insane should be permitted to leave the asylum, and this can best
Biologically, nature endowed respondent with a mixed (neither be accomplished through the joint efforts of the courts and the Director of
consistently and categorically female nor consistently and Health in proper cases.
categorically male) composition. Respondent has female (XX)
chromosomes. However, respondent’s body system naturally FACTS:
produces high levels of male hormones (androgen). As a result,
respondent has ambiguous genitalia and the phenotypic features of  On November 15, 1927, one Chan Sam (alias Chin Ah Woo), was
a male. charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with the murder of
 Ultimately, we are of the view that where the person is biologically Chin Ah Kim.
or naturally intersex the determining factor in his gender  Thereafter, the trial judge rendered judgment declaring the accused
classification would be what the individual, like respondent, having not responsible for the crime, and dismissing the case, but requiring
reached the age of majority, with good reason thinks of his/her sex. the reclusion of the accused for treatment in San Lazaro Hospital, in
Respondent here thinks of himself as a male and considering that accordance with article 8 of the Penal Code, with the admonition that
his body produces high levels of male hormones (androgen) there is the accused be not permitted to leave the said institution without
preponderant biological support for considering him as being male. first obtaining the permission of the court.
Sexual development in cases of intersex persons makes the gender  In compliance with this order, Chan Sam was confined for
classification at birth inconclusive. It is at maturity that the gender approximately two years in San Lazaro Hospital. During this period,
of such persons, like respondent, is fixed. efforts to obtain his release were made induced by the desire of his
 Respondent here has simply let nature take its course and has not wife and father-in-law to have him proceed to Hongkong.
taken unnatural steps to arrest or interfere with what he was born  Opposition to the allowance of the motions came from the wife and
with. And accordingly, he has already ordered his life to that of a children of the murdered man, who contended that Chan Sam was
male. still insane, and that he had made threats that if he ever obtained his
liberty he would kill the wife and the children of the deceased and
probably other members of his own family who were living in
30. Chin Ah Foo , et. al. v. Concepcion et. al. Hongkong.
G.R. No. L-33281 March 31, 1930  These various legal proceedings culminated in Doctors Domingo and
Digest by: POBE De los Angeles being delegated to examine and certify the mental
condition of Chan Sam, which they did.
TOPIC: Hospitalization of Insane Person  After this report had been submitted, counsel for the oppositors
challenged the jurisdiction of the court.
(GO2) 2018 - 2019
 However, the respondent judge sustained the court's right to make  Various defenses were interposed by the respondents to the petition,
an order in the premises and allowed Chan Sam to leave the San but we have not been impressed with any of them except the ones
Lazaro Hospital to be turned over to the attorney-in-fact of his wife which go to the merits. After thorough discussion, our view is that
so that he might be taken to Hongkong to join his wife in that city. while the respondent Judge acted patiently and cautiously in the
matters which came before him, yet he exceeded his authority when
ISSUE: W/N a judge who ordered the confinement of an insane person in an he issued his orders of December 26, 1929, and March 17, 1930,
asylum subsequently permit the insane person to leave the asylum without without first having before him the opinion of the Director of Health.
the acquiescence of the Director of Health NO
DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING:
HELD:
 Article 8 of the Penal Code has not been impliedly repealed by section DE BORJA v TAN and DE BORJA
1048 of the Administrative Code. Article 8 of the Penal Code and G.R. No. L-6108| May 25, 1953
section 1048 of the Administrative Code can be construed so that J. Labrador
Asuncion
both can stand together.
 Considering article 8 of the Penal Code as in force and construing this FACTS:
article and section 1048 of the Administrative Code, we think that the PARTIES INVOLVED:
Attorney-General was right in expressing the opinion that the  FRANCISCO de BORJA: Appointed executor of the will of his deceased
Director of Health was without power to release, without proper spouse
judicial authority, any person confined by order of the court in an  JOSEFA TANGCO: Deceased; wife of Francisco
asylum pursuant to the provisions of article 8 of the Penal Code.  CRISANTO, MATILDE, CAYETANO, JOSE: children of Francisco and Josefa
 We think also that the converse proposition is equally tenable, and is
that any person confined by order of the court in an asylum in HOW THE CASE STARTED:
accordance with article 8 of the Penal Code cannot be discharged  Francisco was appointed as executor of his wife’s estate. With this, Letters
from custody in an insane asylum until the views of the Director of Testamentary was issued in his favor
Health have been ascertained as to whether or not the person is  In 1951, Matilde submitted a letter to the Probate Court informing them
that:
temporarily or permanently cured or may be released without
- her father weak due to his old age
danger. - for many months cannot see nor recognize persons, cannot read nor
 In other words, the powers of the courts and the Director of Health write, can not raise up and move about, nor do his personal
are complementary each with the other. As a practical observation, necessities alone without the aid or help of someone
it may further be said that it is well to adopt all reasonable - Practically, the estate is being managed by their step-mother who has
precautions to ascertain if a person confined in an asylum as insane nothing to do with the said properties
should be permitted to leave the asylum, and this can best be  Admitting the letter submitted by Matilde, Crisanto was appointed by the
accomplished through the joint efforts of the courts and the Director court as co-administrator.
of Health in proper cases.  However, in 1951, all children of Francisco, including Crisanto, filed a
petition ex parte praying that the appointment of Crisanto de Borja as co-
(GO2) 2018 - 2019

administrator be set aside (WAS NOT ACTED UPON BY THE COURT - With this, the Court found that the qualification of Jose De Borja as co-
IMMEDIATELY) administrator and his immediate assume of the position were fully
- GROUND: that the appointment was not to the executor's liking, and justified
that any way said Crisanto de Borja is helping him in the - Circumstances which convinced the Court to allow Jose De Borja to
administration. assume position as co-administrator without waiting for appeal:
 Later on, the Probate Court approved the ex parte petition for the removal a. the report of the administrator was made by another person.
of Crisanto and expressly directs the newly appointed co-administrator b. The administration of one of the estates under administration was
after it observed that Francisco cannot read nor write and is weak. entrusted to an encargado, over whom the court had no direct
 Now, the order of the Probate Court appointing Jose de Borja is sought to power or authority.
be appealed from but only record on appeal was made without due notice c. The administrator, because of his old age and physical inability,
of appeal to the interested parties. had to perform his duties through others over whom the court
had no power or control.
 THUS: The probate court properly exercised its discretion in appointing a
ISSUE: co-administrator without awaiting for an appeal.
 WON the replacement of Francisco, as the executor, due to his age and
failing health is proper.
 WON filing record of appeal is sufficient to perfect an appeal. QUASHA v. LNC CONSTRUCTION
G.R. No. 174873, August 26, 2008
Ponente: CHICO-NAZARIO, J
HELD:
YES. THE REPLACEMENT OF FRANCISCO AS EXECUTOR IS PROPER. TOPIC: Appeals and other remedies
 RULE: The probate court has the power to remove an executor on the
ground of his physical inability and his consequent unsuitability to manage
FACTS:
the estate under ones administration
 IN THIS CASE: There cannot be any question as to the physical inability of  Raymond Triviere passed away on 14 December 1987
the executor Francisco de Borja to efficiently manage the estate, which is  In a proceeding of settlement of his estate, Atty. Syquia and Atty.
large. Quasha of the Quasha Law office, representing the widow and
- This fact is conclusively shown by the certificate of the physician who children of the deceased Triviere respectively, were both appointed
had him under treatment, the letter of his daughter Matilde de Borja, as administrators of the estate of the deceased
his age, and the results of the observation of the judge in the various  Both incurred expenses for the payment of real estate taxes,
occasions in which the executor personally appeared before the court. security services, and the preservation and administration of the
estate, as well as litigation expenses
NO. RECORD ON APPEAL ALONE DOES NOT PERFECT AN APPEAL
 Atty. Syquia and Atty. Quasha then filed before the RTC a Motion of
 RULE: The presentation of a record on appeal alone does not perfect an
appeal. The notice of appeal and appeal bond must also be presented Payment of their litigation expenses – denied by the RTC because
(Sec.9, Rule 41) the administrators failed to submit of an accounting of the assets
 IN THIS CASE: It does not appear that these requisites had been complied and liabilities of the estate
with.
(GO2) 2018 - 2019

 1996, Atty. Quasha passed away, Atty. Zapata (of the same law the qualification that where the executor or administrator
office) took over as counsel of the Triviere children and continued to is a lawyer, he shall not charge against the estate any
help Atty. Syquia in the administration of the estate professional fees for legal services rendered by him.
 Thereafter, Atty. Syquia and Atty. Zapata filed another Motion for Instead, the Court of Appeals held that the attorney's fees
Payment – asked for Php200,000 attorney’s fees and litigation due Atty. Syquia and the Quasha Law Offices should be
expenses for the Quasha Law Offices: borne by their clients, the widow and children of the late
o That Administrator Syquia, who is a lawyer, is entitled to Raymond Triviere, respectively.
additional Administrator's fees since, as provided in  Argument of the petitioners before the SC:
Section 7, Rule 85 of the Revised Rules of Court: ". . . where o Petitioner Quasha Law Office asserts that it is not within the
the estate is large, and the settlement has been attended purview of Section 7, Rule 85 of the Revised Rules of Court
with great difficulty, and has required a high degree of since it is not an appointed administrator of the estate.
capacity on the part of the executor or administrator, a
greater sum may be allowed. . ." ISSUE/S: WON the award in favor of the heirs of the late Raymond Triviere
o In addition, Atty. Zapata has also been present in all the is already a distribution of the residue of the estate
years of this case. In addition, they have spent for all the
costs of litigation especially the transcripts, as out-of-pocket
expenses. HELD: YES.
 Respondent LCN, the only remaining claimant against the estate of o While the awards in favor of petitioner children and widow made in
Raymond Triviere filed a comment/opposition the RTC Order dated 12 June 2003 was not yet a distribution of the
 LCN argued that (among other things): residue of the estate, given that there was still a pending claim
o Contrary to what was stated in the second Motion for against the estate, still, they did constitute a partial and advance
Payment, Section 7, Rule 85 of the Revised Rules of Court distribution of the estate.
was inapplicable, since the administrators failed to establish o Virtually, the petitioner children and widow were already being
that the estate was large, or that its settlement was awarded shares in the estate, although not all of its obligations had
attended with great difficulty, or required a high degree of been paid or provided for.
capacity on the part of the administrators. o In sum, although it is within the discretion of the RTC whether or
 RTC: Granted the Motion for Payment not to permit the advance distribution of the estate, its exercise of
 CA: REVERSED the decision of the RTC; reasoning of the CA: such discretion should be qualified by the following: [1] only part of
o While the Court of Appeals conceded that Atty. Syquia and the estate that is not affected by any pending controversy or appeal
the Quasha Law Office, as the administrators of the estate may be the subject of advance distribution (Section 2, Rule 109);
of the late Raymond Triviere, were entitled to and [2] the distributees must post a bond, fixed by the court,
administrator's fees and litigation expenses, they could not conditioned for the payment of outstanding obligations of the
claim the same from the funds of the estate. Referring to estate (second paragraph of Section 1, Rule 90).
Section 7, Rule 85 of the Revised Rules of Court, the o There is no showing that the RTC, in awarding to the petitioner
appellate court reasoned that the award of expenses and children and widow their shares in the estate prior to the
fees in favor of executors and administrators is subject to settlement of all its obligations, complied with these two
(GO2) 2018 - 2019
requirements or, at the very least, took the same into consideration. the heirs or legatees, upon compliance with the conditions set forth in Rule 90 of
Its Order of 12 June 2003 is completely silent on these matters. these rules.”
o It justified its grant of the award in a single sentence which stated
that petitioner children and widow had not yet received their RECIT-READY SUMMARY:
Settlement proceedings over property of Cesario and Bienvenida. Conflict regarding
respective shares from the estate after all these years.
what properties pertain to the second marriage between Victorina and Cesario.
When Bienvenida died, conjugal partnership was dissolved which resulted to 1/2 of
DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING: Bienvenida’s estate going to her children as inheritance, the other 1/2 to Cesario.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is When Cesario married Victorina, the 1/2 that Cesario received from Bienvenida’s
hereby PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated 11 May 2006 and Resolution death now formed part of the conjugal property between Cesario and Victorina.
dated 22 September 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 81296 Second issue pertains to whether advance distribution of inheritance which is
are AFFIRMED, with the following MODIFICATIONS: allowed as long as Rule 109 Sec. 2 and Rule 90 are followed.
1) Petitioner Quasha Law Office is entitled to attorney's fees of ONE
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000.00), for legal services FACTS:
rendered for the Triviere children in the settlement of the estate of  Victorina Durana died intestate.
their deceased father, the same to be paid by the Triviere children  Cesario Cabutihan was first married to Bienvenida Durana, whom he had
five children.
in the manner herein discussed; and
 Upon the death of his first wife, Cesario contracted a second marriage with
his former wife's sister Victorina Durana.
2) Attorneys Enrique P. Syquia and William H. Quasha are entitled to  During the second marriage of Cesario and Victorina, they were engaged in
the payment of their corresponding administrators' fees, to be a copra business and a public transportation business, with Victorina
determined by the RTC handling Special Proceedings Case No. M- managing the former.
1678, Branch 63 of the Makati RTC, the same to be chargeable to  Private respondents are the children of Cesario and Bienvenida.
the estate of Raymond Trieviere.  After the demise of Cesario, Victorina and the private respondents entered
into an extrajudicial settlement of his estate. Part of the properties
adjudicated to Victorina included the copra business as well as some of the
34. DAEL v. IAC vehicles used in the transportation business. The vehicles were
G.R. No. L-68873, March 31, 1989 subsequently transferred to the private respondents by virtue of a deed of
Digest by: QUIROZ (ps. I tried to shorten but mahirap intindihin yung case if maiksi sale.
yung digest)  Private respondents filed a settlement proceeding over the property of
their deceased parents (Cesario and Bienvenida).
TOPIC: Appeals in Special Proceedings – Rule 109  CFI rendered a decision holding that:
a. Victorina Durana had no personal property which she brought to her
DOCTRINE: marriage with Cesario Cabutihan;
Rule 109, Section 2 provides that "notwithstanding a pending controversy or appeal b. The copra business was not her own nor was part of the conjugal
in proceedings to settle the estate of a decedent, the court may, in its discretion partnership with her husband Cesario.
and upon such terms as it may deem proper and just, permit that such part of the c. Hence, the extent of the Estate of Victorina Durana shall consist only
estate as may not be affected by the controversy or appeal, be distributed among of her share in the inheritance of the Estate of Cesario Cabutihan.
(GO2) 2018 - 2019

d. Private respondents appealed to the IAC. They also filed a “motion for SECOND ISSUE: NO.
authority to withdraw funds."  Rule 109, Section 2 provides that "notwithstanding a pending controversy
 IAC affirmed the decision of the CFI. IAC granted the “motion for authority or appeal in proceedings to settle the estate of a decedent, the court may,
to withdraw funds." in its discretion and upon such terms as it may deem proper and just,
permit that such part of the estate as may not be affected by the
ISSUE/S: controversy or appeal, be distributed among the heirs or legatees, upon
9. WON CFI and IAC erred in ruling that the copra business and other compliance with the conditions set forth in Rule 90 of these rules.”
properties and assets related thereto that were acquired during the  Said Rule 90 provides in part that "no distribution shall be allowed until the
second marriage do not belong to the second marriage. YES payment of the obligations above mentioned has been made or provided
 WON the IAC erred when it granted the “motion for authority to withdraw for, unless the distributees or any of them, give a bond, in a sum to be
funds." NO (related to syllabus) fixed by the court, conditioned for the payment of said obligations within
such time as the court directs."
HELD:  It is true that "partial distribution of the decedent's estate pending the
FIRST ISSUE: YES. CFI and IAC erred. final termination of the testate or intestate proceedings should as much as
A. Legal Effects of Bienvenida’s Death possible be discouraged by the courts and, unless in extreme cases, such
 When Bienvenida Durana died, the first conjugal partnership was form of advances of inheritance should not be countenanced. The reason
automatically dissolved. That conjugal partnership was then converted into for this strict rule is obvious courts should guard with utmost zeal and
an implied ordinary co-ownership. jealousy the estate of the decedent to the end that the creditors thereof
 It was also at this point in time that the inheritance was transmitted to the be adequately protected and all the rightful heirs assured of their shares in
heirs of Bienvenida who are the children of Cesario and Bienvenida (private the inheritance.
respondents).  Nevertheless, after duly considering the foregoing rules, SC sustains the
 Private respondents acquired rights over 1/2 of the conjugal partnership validity of the IAC’s order. IAC held that "if oppositors would stand to share
property which pertained to Bienvinida (The other 1/2 pertained to more in the inheritance than what was fixed for them in the appealed
Cesario). judgment, we believe the estate has sufficient assets to ensure an
 Consequently, whatever fruits or income that may thereafter be derived equitable distribution of the inheritance in accordance with law and final
from the properties (including the copra business) would no longer be judgment in the proceedings."
conjugal but would belong in part to the heirs in proportion to their  Also, it does not appear that there are unpaid obligations, as contemplated
respective shares. The fruits and income of the other half of the property in Rule 90, for which provisions should have been made or a bond
of the conjugal partnership would exclusively belong to Cesario. required. It is clear that the provisions of the Rules of Court, as well as the
B. Legal Effects of Cesario’s Second Marriage with Victorina jurisprudence thereon, were followed in this particular incident.
 From that moment on, the fruits or income of the separate properties of
the spouses Cesario and Victorina would be conjugal, including those DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING:
acquired through their industry. Long and irrelevant. Just read discussion above of relevant issues.
 Hence, the fruits and income of Cesario's share in the inheritance from
Bienvenida and of his conjugal share in the property of the first conjugal
partnership would form part of the conjugal partnership properties of the
second marriage. The fruits and income derived or acquired through these
last-mentioned properties would likewise be conjugal in nature.
(GO2) 2018 - 2019

35. Alaban vs Court of Appeals annulled and set aside on the ground of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction
G.R. No. 156021 on the part of the RTC.
23 September 2005
Ponente: Tinga, J. CA: Petition Dismissed. It found that there was no showing that petitioners
Aldaba failed to avail of or resort to the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition
for relief from judgment, or other appropriate remedies through no fault of their
TOPIC: Annulment of Judgements or Final Orders and Resolution - Rule own. Moreover, the CA declared as baseless petitioners claim that the
47 proceedings in the RTC was attended by extrinsic fraud.
FACTS: ISSUE:
Francisco Provido filed a petition, probate of the Last Will and Testament of Whether or not the CA erred in denying the petition for annulment of the RTC
the late Soledad Provido Elevencionado. Respondent alleged that he was the decision?
heir of the decedent and the executor of her will.
HELD:
RTC allowed the probate of the will of the decedent and directed the issuance No, the CA was correct in denying the petition for annulment of judgement.
of Letters Testamentary to Provido.
The petition for annulment of judgment must still fail for failure to comply with
Four months later, Alaban et. al. filed a motion for the reopening of the probate the substantive requisites, as the appellate court ruled.
proceedings and an opposition to the allowance of the will of the decedent, as
well as the issuance of letters testamentary to respondent, claiming that they An action for annulment of judgment is a remedy in law independent of the
are the intestate heirs of the decedent. case where the judgment sought to be annulled was rendered. The purpose
of such action is to have the final and executory judgment set aside so that
Alaban et. al.’s Contention: there will be a renewal of litigation. It is resorted to in cases where the ordinary
RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the petition due to non-payment of the remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief from judgment, or other
correct docket fees, defective publication, and lack of notice to the other heirs appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner,
and prayed that the letters testamentary issued to respondent be withdrawn and is based on only two grounds: extrinsic fraud, and lack of jurisdiction or
and the estate of the decedent disposed of under intestate succession. denial of due process. A person need not be a party to the judgment sought to
be annulled, and it is only essential that he can prove his allegation that the
RTC: Denied the motion of Alaban et. al. It held that petitioners were deemed judgment was obtained by the use of fraud and collusion and he would be
notified of the hearing by publication and that the deficiency in the payment of adversely affected thereby.
docket fees is not a ground for the outright dismissal of the petition. It merely
required respondent to pay the deficiency and that the Decision was already An action to annul a final judgment on the ground of fraud lies only if the fraud
final and executory even before petitioners filing of the motion to reopen. is extrinsic or collateral in character. Fraud is regarded as extrinsic where it
prevents a party from having a trial or from presenting his entire case to the
Alaban et. al.’s Contention in the CA : court, or where it operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself
Together with respondent, they have already discussed the matter of dividing but to the manner in which it is procured. The overriding consideration when
the estate of the decedent and opined that respondent feigned interest in extrinsic fraud is alleged is that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant
participating in the compromise agreement so that they would not suspect his prevented a party from having his day in court.
intention to secure the probate of the will. They claimed that they learnt of the
probate proceedings only in July of 2001, as a result of which they filed their To sustain their allegation of extrinsic fraud, petitioners assert that as a result
motion to reopen the proceedings and admit their opposition to the probate of of respondent’s deliberate omission or concealment of their names, ages and
the will only on 4 October 2001. They argued that the RTC Decision should be residences as the other heirs of the decedent in his petition for allowance of
(GO2) 2018 - 2019

the will, they were not notified of the proceedings, and thus they were denied The prescriptive period for annulment of judgment based on extrinsic fraud
their day in court. In addition, they claim that respondent’s offer of a false commences to run from the discovery of the fraud or fraudulent act/s.
compromise even before the filing of the petition prevented them from Respondent’s knowledge of the terms of Audrey’s will is immaterial in this
appearing and opposing the petition for probate.
case since it is not the fraud complained of. Rather, it is petitioner’s failure
The Court is not convinced. to introduce in evidence the pertinent law of the State of Maryland that is
According to the Rules, notice is required to be personally given to known the fraudulent act, or in this case, omission, alleged to have been
heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator.48 A perusal of the will shows that committed against respondent, and therefore, the four-year period should
respondent was instituted as the sole heir of the decedent. Petitioners, as be counted from the time of respondent’s discovery thereof.
nephews and nieces of the decedent, are neither compulsory nor testate
heirs49 who are entitled to be notified of the probate proceedings under the
Rules. Respondent had no legal obligation to mention petitioners in the petition FACTS:
for probate, or to personally notify them of the same.  Spouses Audrey O’Neil and W. Richard Guersey were American
Besides, assuming arguendo that petitioners are entitled to be so notified, the Citizens with an adopted daughter named Kylie Guersey Hill, and
purported infirmity is cured by the publication of the notice. After all, personal have lived in the Philippines for 30 years. Audrey died leaving a will
notice upon the heirs is a matter of procedural convenience and not a bequeathing her entire estate to Richard, who was also designated
jurisdictional requisite.50
as executor.
The non-inclusion of petitioners’ names in the petition and the alleged failure  The will was admitted probate before the Orphan’s Court of
to personally notify them of the proceedings do not constitute extrinsic fraud. Baltimore, Mary Land, U.S.A. which named James N. Philips as
Petitioners were not denied their day in court, as they were not prevented from executor due to Richard’s renunciation of his appointment. Atty.
participating in the proceedings and presenting their case before the probate Alonzo Q. Ancheta, herein petitioner, of the Quasha Asperilla
court. Ancheta Pena & Nolasco Law offices was likewise designated by the
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED
court as ancillary administrator.
 In 1981 Richard married herein respondent Candelaria Guersey-
Dalaygon with whom he has two children. Subsequently, Audrey’s
33. ANCHETA vs GUERSEY-DALAYGON will was admitted probate by then Court of First Instance of Rizal. As
G.R. No. 139868, June 08, 2006 administrator of Audrey’s estate in the Philippines, petitioner filed an
Ponente: AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. inventory and appraisal of Audrey’s properties.
Digest by: Santos  On July 20, 1984, Richard died, leaving a will, wherein he bequeathed
his entire estate to respondent, save for his rights and interests over
TOPIC: Appeals and other Remedies the A/G Interiors, Inc. shares, which he left to Kyle.
DOCTRINE:  The will was also admitted to probate by the Orphan’s Court of Ann
For fraud to become a basis for annulment of judgment, it has to be Arundel, Maryland, U.S.A, and James N. Phillips was likewise
extrinsic or actual, and must be brought within four years from the appointed as executor, who in turn, designated Atty. William Quasha
discovery of the fraud. or any member of the Quasha Asperilla Ancheta Pena & Nolasco Law
Offices, as ancillary administrator.
(GO2) 2018 - 2019

 On October 19, 1987, petitioner filed in Special Proceeding No.9625 void for want of jurisdiction or that the judgment was obtained by
before the Makati RTC, a motion to declare Richard and Kyle as heirs extrinsic fraud. For fraud to become a basis for annulment of
of Aubrey and apportioned to them ¾ and ¼ of all the estate, judgment, it has to be extrinsic or actual, and must be brought
respectively. This motion and project of partition was granted and within four years from the discovery of the fraud.
approved by the trial court in its Order dated February 12, 1988.  In the present case, respondent alleged extrinsic fraud as basis for
 This was opposed by respondent on the ground that under the law the annulment of the RTC Orders dated February 12, 1988 and April
of the State of Maryland, “a legacy passes to the legatee the entire 7, 1988. The CA found merit in respondent’s cause and found that
interest of the testator in the property subject of the legacy.” petitioner’s failure to follow the terms of Audrey’s will, despite the
Respondent argued that since Audrey devised her entire estate to latter’s declaration of good faith, amounted to extrinsic fraud. The
Richard, then it should be wholly adjudicated to him and not merely CA ruled that under Article 16 of the Civil Code, it is the national law
¾ thereof, and since Richard left his entire estate to the respondent, of the decedent that is applicable, hence, petitioner should have
except for the A/G Interior Inc. shares, then the entire property distributed Aubrey’s estate in accordance with the terms of her will.
should now pertain to respondent. The CA also found that petitioner was prompted to distribute
 The Court of Appeals annulled the trial court’s Orders in Speacial Audrey’s estate in accordance with Philippine laws in order to
Proceeding No. 9625 and later denied the appeal of the petitioner, equally benefit Audrey and Richard Guersey’s adopted daughter,
thus the petition for review on certiorari. Kyle Guersey Hill.
 Petitioner’s arguments before the SC:  Petitioner contends that respondent’s cause of action had already
o Petitioner reiterates his arguments before the CA that the prescribed because as early as 1984, respondent was already well
Orders dated February 12, 1988 and April 7, 1988 can no aware of the terms of Audrey’s will, and the complaint was filed
longer be annulled because it is a final judgment, which is only in 1993. Respondent, on the other hand, justified her lack of
"conclusive upon the administration as to all matters immediate action by saying that she had no opportunity to question
involved in such judgment or order, and will determine for all petitioner’s acts since she was not a party to Special Proceeding No.
time and in all courts, as far as the parties to the proceedings 9625, and it was only after Atty. Ancheta filed the project of
are concerned, all matters therein determined," and the partition in Special Proceeding No. M-888, reducing her inheritance
same has already been executed. in the estate of Richard that she was prompted to seek another
ISSUE/S: counsel to protect her interest.
 It should be pointed out that the prescriptive period for annulment
Whether or not the CA erred in annulling the orders of the Trial Court of judgment based on extrinsic fraud commences to run from the
discovery of the fraud or fraudulent act/s. Respondent’s knowledge
HELD: of the terms of Audrey’s will is immaterial in this case since it is not
 YES the fraud complained of. Rather, it is petitioner’s failure to
 The petition for annulment was filed before the CA on October 20, introduce in evidence the pertinent law of the State of Maryland
1993, before the issuance of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; that is the fraudulent act, or in this case, omission, alleged to have
hence, the applicable law is Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (B.P. 129) or been committed against respondent, and therefore, the four-year
the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. An annulment of judgment period should be counted from the time of respondent’s discovery
filed under B.P. 129 may be based on the ground that a judgment is thereof.
(GO2) 2018 - 2019
 Records bear the fact that the filing of the project of partition of 6/9/78 – Birth of June Salvacion, Birth Cert lists Francisco as father, Maravilla as the
Richard’s estate, the opposition thereto, and the order of the trial child‘s surname, Nadina signs the Birth Cert Nadina later on claims that the real father
court disallowing the project of partition in Special Proceeding No. is Armando Gustilo At the time of June‘s birth, Armando was married, after his wife
dies, he marries Nadina on 8/21/82
M-888 were all done in 1991.
3/12/85 – Nadina obtained judicial declaration annulling her marriage to Francisco
 Respondent cannot be faulted for letting the assailed orders to 3/17/82 – Nadina files petition to correct the Birth Cert of June. Name should be June
lapse into finality since it was only through Special Proceeding No. Gustilo and Armando is the real father Francisco confirms to the petition by signing
M-888 that she came to comprehend the ramifications of it, Armando acknowledges June as his daughter
petitioner’s acts. Obviously, respondent had no other recourse 1/7/85 – RTC Order – grants petition and orders corrections to be made
under the circumstances but to file the annulment case. Since the 12/19/86 – Armando dies, estate proceedings arise from his death.
action for annulment was filed in 1993, clearly, the same has not yet Enter Jose Vicente, an alleged biological child of Armando – he files an annulment of
prescribed. the RTC Order Enter Milagros Barco, files as the guardian of Mary Joy Ann Gustillo –
alleging that Mary Joy also has a legal interest in the annulment of the RTC Order as
DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING: the child was likewise fathered by Gustillo.
CA dismisses the petitions both Jose Vicente and Barco, hence this petition by
Milagros Barco claiming that the RTC Order of 1/7/85 lacks jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, the petition is denied. The Decision dated March 18, 1999 and Issue: WON the RTC Order had the jurisdiction to pass judgment on the original
the Resolution dated August 27, 1999 of the Court of Appeals are petition of Nadina
AFFIRMED. The SC dismissed the petition. 2 aspects of jurisdiction which are vital for the
Petitioner is ADMONISHED to be more circumspect in the performance of disposition of cases, both of which Barco claims the RTC did not have Jurisdiction over
his duties as an official of the court. the parties Jurisdiction over the nature of the subject of the petition Jurisdiction over
the parties before substantial corrections to the civil registry is allowed, facts must
be established in a proceeding Barco points out that she was not impleaded as a party
in the original petition of Nadina – Yes, Barco is indeed a party in the petition,
37. Barco v CA however, we cannot expect Nadina or any other petitioner invoking Rule 108 to know
G.R. No. 120587 January 20, 2004 all of a father‘s legitmate / illegitimate children CA correctly pointed out that through
publication (in accordance with Sec 4 of Rule 108) they ―binded the whole world‖ to
Digest by: BACINA the subsequent judgment in the petition, including Barco Jurisdiction over the nature
of the action / subject of the petition Barco asserts that the general rule is that the
TOPIC: Appeals and other remedies jurisdiction of the court in the correction of entries in the civil register is limited to
clerical mistakes This argument has already been debunked in many cases – most
DOCTRINE: A petition for correction is an action in rem, an action against a thing and notably in Lee vs CA.
not against a person. An in rem proceeding is validated essentially through
publication. It is the publication of such notice that brings in the whole world as a FACTS:
party in the case and vests the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it.  Nadina and Francisco Maravilla married in 1970.
 In February 1977, they separated.
RECIT-READY SUMMARY: Respondent Nadina marries Francisco Maravilla  In February 1978, a year after they separated, they obtained ecclesiastical
Feb 1977 – Spouses opt to live separately, the next year they obtain an ecclesiastical annulment of marriage issued by the Catholic Diocese of Bacolod City.
annulment of the marriage
(GO2) 2018 - 2019

 In June 9, 1978, Nadina gave birth to a daughter, June Salvacion. On the birth  Milagros Barco filed a motion for intervention with a complaint-in-
certificate, Francisco was listed as the father. Nadina signed it. intervention to the CA. In this, she alleged that Mary Joy, born 1977, is a
 Afterwards, Nadina claimed that the real father of June is Armando Gustilo, daughter of Gustilo and that she and Gustilo had an affair since 1967 until
a former congressman. Gustilo married Nadina.
 At the time of June’s birth, Gustilo was still married to Consuelo Caraycong  CA dismissed both Jose Vicente’s petition and Barcos’ intervention. Neither
who later died on a naval accident. established lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud.
 In 1982, Nadina and Gustilo married in the US.  Barco filed an MR. MR denied.
 In 1985, the marriage between Nadina and Francisco was annulled.  Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.
 In 1983, however, Nadina filed a petition for correction of Entries in the
Certificate of Birth of her daughter in RTC Makati. ISSUE/S:
a. Here, she alleged that she had been lawfully separated from Whether or not the extraordinary remedy of annulment of judgment (RTC Order
Francisco since 1977 and that they didn’t have sex “within the first effecting the corrections) may be granted.– NO
20 days of the 300 days preceding the birth of June.”
b. And that Gustilo is the real father of June HELD:
c. She prayed that the name would be corrected as “June Salvacion C.  Annulment of judgments is allowed only in exceptional cases.
Gustilo” and the father, Armando Gustilo.  Section 2, Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly provides
d. (Francisco signed this petition.) only two grounds for annulment of judgment, namely: extrinsic fraud and
e. (In accordance to Rule 108, the case was set for hearing and that lack of jurisdiction. This express limitation is significant since previous
the copy of the Order be published in a newspaper of general jurisprudence recognized other grounds as well. The underlying reason is
circulation.) traceable to the notion that annulling final judgments goes against the grain
 Gustilo filed a Constancia where he acknowledged June as his daughter. of finality of judgment. Litigation must end and terminate sometime and
 Nadina filed an Amended Pleading impleading Gustilo and Francisco as somewhere, and it is essential to an effective administration of justice that
respondents. once a judgment has become final the issue or cause involved therein should
 OSG filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the RTC had no jurisdiction be laid to rest. The basic rule of finality of judgment is grounded on the
over the subject matter/ nature of the suit. OSG avers that only clerical fundamental principle of public policy and sound practice that at the risk of
errors may be corrected in petition for correction of entries. occasional error, the judgment of courts and the award of quasi-judicial
 MTD was denied. MR was denied. agencies must become final at some definite date fixed by law. Even if the
 RTC granted the petition effecting the corrections. RTC considered the fact rule on annulment of judgment is grounded on equity, the relief is of an
that Nadina’s uncle was the one who prepared the birth certificate and that extraordinary character, and not as readily available as the remedies
she was in “physical discomfort” when she signed it. obtaining to a judgment that is not yet final.
 In 1986, Gustilo died. Two Estate proceedings began. His son, Jose Vicent  In this case, Barco essentially asks the SC to annul the judgment on the
filed a petition for the annulment of the RTC order which effected the ground of lack of jurisdiction, that is, jurisdiction over the nature of the
changes in the civil status of June to the CA. action or subject matter, and jurisdiction over the parties.
 Nadina filed a Comment saying that Jose Vicente hasn’t proven if he really  First, Barco asserts that RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over her person
is a child of Gustilo nor there was extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction that because there failure to implead her as a part to the petition.
annul the RTC order. o SC thinks otherwise. The petition for correction is AN ACTION IN
 There was a compromise agreement that said the only heirs of Gustilo are REM. That’s why the decision binds not only the parties thereto but
Nadina, June, Jose Vicente and Mary Joy. This compromise agreement was the WHOLE WORLD. Sec. 4, Rule 108 provides that notice of
voided on a petition filed by Jose Vicente. publication is sufficient compliance to confer jurisdiction over
(GO2) 2018 - 2019

Nadina’s cause of action. An in rem proceeding is validated 38. REPUBLIC v. CA AND AMADA SOLANO
essentially through publication. As such, Barco, regardless of G.R. No. 143483, January 31, 20O2
whether or not she was impleaded as a party, is bound to the Digest by: SUMANGA
decision of the RTC since the action is an in rem action.
o Second, Barco questions the RTC judgment granting the correction
TOPIC: Appeals and other remedies;
since in correction of entries, the jurisdiction of the court is limited
to innocuous and clerical errors. What is being changed in the DOCTRINE:
petition are substantial errors, that is, change in the civil status of In this jurisdiction, a claimant to an escheated property must file his claim "within five (5) years
June. from the date of such judgment, such person shall have possession of and title to the same, or
o SC disagrees. In a 1986 ruling, Rep. v. Valencia, the Court has if sold, the municipality or city shall be accountable to him for the proceeds, after deducting
repeatedly ruled that even substantial errors in a civil registry may the estate; but a claim not made shall be barred forever." The 5-year period is not a device
be corrected through a petition filed under Rule 108, with the true capriciously conjured by the state to defraud any claimant; on the contrary, it is decidedly
prescribed to encourage would-be claimants to be punctilious in asserting their claims,
facts established and the parties aggrieved by the error availing
otherwise they may lose them forever in a final judgment.
themselves of the appropriate adversarial proceeding.
o Also, Republic Act No. 9048, enacted in 2001, has effectively FACTS:
changed the nature of a proceeding under Rule 108. Under this new  In recognition of Amada Solano’s faithful and dedicated service as her personal
law, "clerical or typographical errors and change of first name or domestic helper, the late Ms. Hankins donated two parcels of land to Solano.
nickname" may now be corrected or changed by the concerned city  The deeds of donation evidencing the above however were alleged to be missing and
or municipal registrar or consul general, without need of any nowhere to be found
judicial order. The obvious effect is to remove from the ambit of  The Republic then initiated escheat proceedings concerning the parcels of land in
Rule 108 the correction or changing of such errors in entries of the which Solano filed a motion to intervene. Said motion was denied.
civil register. Hence, what is left for the scope of operation of Rule  Since it was established that there were no known heirs and persons entitled to the
108 are substantial changes and corrections in entries of the civil properties of decedent Hankins, the lower court escheated the estate of the
decedent in favor of the Republic of the Philippines.
register.
 Seven (7) years after the finality of the escheat proceedings, Solano claimed that
 Third, Barco argues that the petition for correction filed by Nadia is in fact a she accidentally found the deeds of donation and, filed a petition before the CA for
petition for change of name which can only be filed by the person whose the annulment of the lower court’s decision, alleging, among others, that:
name is sought to be changed, in this case, June. Therefore, for Barco, o Having been donated to her, the properties in dispute did not and could
Nadina had no capacity to file such petition. not form part of Ms. Hankins estate. Hence, could not be validly escheated
 Even assuming that the petition for correction had prescribed, or that  Republic, in its answer, invoked (a) lack of jurisdiction over the nature of the action;
Nadina lacked the capacity to file the action which led to the change of her and, that (b) the cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations, being filed
daughter’s name, the fact that the RTC granted the Order despite the beyond the 5-yr limitation provided under Sec. 4 Rule 91 ROC.
existence of these two grounds only characterizes the decision as  The CA ruled in favor of Solano ruling that she is not claiming anything from the
erroneous. An erroneous judgment is one though rendered according to estate within the purview of Sec 91 Sec 4, but rather she is claiming ownership over
the course and practice of the court is contrary to law. It is not a void the disputed properties and reconveyance thereof. As such, her claim was properly
judgment. filed within the 10-yr prescriptive period under the Civil Code, not under the ROC.
Hence, this appeal.
DECISION: petition dismissed for lack of merit. ISSUE/S:
1. Won Solano is barred by prescription – YES
2. Won Solano is a claimant within Section 91 – YES
(GO2) 2018 - 2019

3. Won the allegedly donated properties may be validly escheated in favor of the The Court of Appeals therefore cannot perfunctorily presuppose that the subject
Republic – YES properties were no longer part of the decedent’s estate at the time the lower court
handed down its decision on the strength of a belated allegation that the same had
HELD: previously been disposed of by the owner. It is settled that courts decide only after
a close scrutiny of every piece of evidence and analyze each case with deliberate
1. In this jurisdiction, a claimant to an escheated property must file his claim "within precision and unadulterated thoroughness, the judgment not being diluted by
five (5) years from the date of such judgment, such person shall have possession of speculations, conjectures and unsubstantiated assertions.
and title to the same, or if sold, the municipality or city shall be accountable to him
for the proceeds, after deducting the estate; but a claim not made shall be barred DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING:
forever." The 5-year period is not a device capriciously conjured by the state to WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated
defraud any claimant; on the contrary, it is decidedly prescribed to encourage would- 12 November 1998 giving due course to the petition for annulment of judgment, and its
be claimants to be punctilious in asserting their claims, otherwise they may lose Resolution dated 4 May 2000 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration, are SET ASIDE.
them forever in a final judgment. Xxx The decision of the RTC-Br. 114, Pasay City, dated 27 June 1989, is REINSTATED.
In the instant petition, the escheat judgment was handed down by the lower court
as early as 27 June 1989 but it was only on 28 January 1997, more or less seven (7)
years after, when private respondent decided to contest the escheat judgment in
the guise of a petition for annulment of judgment before the Court of Appeals.
39. ROLANDO, FLORIDA MIERLY, ALFREDO, and MYRNA (all SANCHEZ) vs.
Obviously, private respondent’s belated assertion of her right over the escheated CA, ROSALIA, ARTURO, EVELYN, and ROBERTO (all LUGOD)
properties militates against recovery.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw G.R. No. 108947 ; Sept. 29, 1997
Digest by: ARQUILLO
2. (case of Municipal Council of San Pedro, Laguna v. Colegio de San Jose, Inc)  Any
person alleging to have a direct right or interest in the property sought to be
escheated is likewise an interested party and may appear and oppose the petition TOPIC: Appeals and other Remedies
for escheat.
DOCTRINE: Rule 65 is not a remedy for a lost appeal. There must be no
3. In the mind of this Court the subject properties were owned by the decedent during other ordinary, plain, speedy remedy.
the time that the escheat proceedings were being conducted and the lower court
was not divested of its jurisdiction to escheat them in favor of Pasay City
notwithstanding an allegation that they had been previously donated. We recall that RECIT-READY SUMMARY: Respondent Rosalia is the only child of Sps
a motion for intervention was earlier denied by the escheat court for failure to show Sanchez while petitioners are illegitimate children of Juan Sanchez. The
"valid claim or right to the properties in question." parties executed a compromise agreement. Respondents filed a motion to
change administratix. TC ruled that the property be divided equally and that
Where a person comes into an escheat proceeding as a claimant, the burden is on
such intervenor to establish his title to the property and his right to intervene. A
all deeds of sale executed by Sps. Sanchez in favor of Rosalia are simulated.
fortiori, the certificates of title covering the subject properties were in the name of Rosalia filed R65 certiorari arguing that the court has no authority to disturb
the decedent indicating that no transfer of ownership involving the disputed the compromise agreement. SC ruled that the petition for certiorari under
properties was ever made by the deceased during her lifetime. In the absence R65 was proper. TC, in ruling that the deeds of sale were simulated,
therefore of any clear and convincing proof showing that the subject lands had been
overstepped its jurisdiction (grave abuse) as probate court.
conveyed by Hankins to private respondent Solano, the same still remained, at least
before the escheat, part of the estate of the decedent and the lower court was right
not to assume otherwise. FACTS:
 Rosalia Lugod is the only child of Sps. Juan Sanchez and Maria
Villafranca. While other respondents are the children of Rosalia.
(GO2) 2018 - 2019
 Rolando et al., all named Sanchez, are the illegitimate children of  The probate court exercised a judicial function when it issued the
Juan Sanchez. assailed resolutions. As a rule, Rule 65 is not a remedy for a lost
 Rosalia filed a petition for letters of administration upon death of her appeal. There must be no other ordinary, plain, speedy remedy.
mother Villafranca for her mother’s estate, on Sept. 30, 1968, and also  As is in this case, TC rendered a decision declaring as simulated and
of her father’s estate who was at the time in state of senility. Before fictitious all the deeds of absolute sale which, on July 26, 1963 and
the administration proceedings were finished, his father Sanchez died. June 26, 1967, Juan C. Sanchez and Maria Villafranca executed in favor
 Heirs of Juan Sanchez filed a petition for letters of administration on of their daughter, Rosalia; and grandchildren. Citing Art 1409 (2) of
Jan. 14, 1969 over the estate of Juan Sanchez. the Civil Code, the lower court nullified said deeds of sale and
 This was opposed by the group of Rosalia determined with finality the ownership of the properties subject
 The parties executed a compromise agreement wherein they agreed thereof. In doing so, it clearly overstepped its jurisdiction as a
to divide the properties enumerated therein of Juan Sanchez. probate court.
 Over 9 years later heirs of Sanchez filed a motion to require the group  A probate court cannot adjudicate or determine title to properties
of Rosalia to submit a new inventory and to render an accounting claimed to be a part of the estate and which are claimed to belong
over properties not included in the compromise agreement. to outside parties. All that the said court could do as regards said
 Trial Court ordered Rosalia to submit a new inventory of the properties is to determine whether they should or should not be
properties under her administration. After such, heirs of Sanchez, filed included in the inventory or list of properties to be administered
a motion to change administratrix. by the administrator. If there is a dispute, the opposing parties have
 Trial Court Judge ruled that the property be divided equally being a to resort to an ordinary action for a final determination of the
conjugal property; that all of the deed of sale executed by Juan conflicting claims of title.
Sanchez and Maria Villafranca in favor of Rosalia et al., are declared  TC committed grave abuse when it disregarded the parties’
simulated and fictitious; that Rosalia is ordered to prepare a partition; compromise agreement. The Court upheld the validity of the
that Rosalia failed to render an accounting of the estate she compromise agreement and did not find any impairment of legitime
administers, among others. or fraud which would nullify the sale.
 While Rosalia filed MR, heirs of Sanchez moved for execution of the
judgment. Trial Court dismissed MR of Rosalia. Compromise Agreement Issue
 Rosalia filed CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65w/ CA. CA ruled that trial  The compromise agreement is valid.
court has no authority to disturb the compromise agreement and that  A compromise agreement is a contract whereby the parties, by
trial court arbitrarily faulted Rosalia, among others. making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one
already commenced. It is perfected upon the meeting of the minds of
ISSUE/S: the parties. Judicial approval is not required for its perfection.
1. W/N Petition for Certiorari under 65 is properly used.  The parties freely entered into a valid compromise agreement having
(important issue) YES negotiated the terms and provisions of the agreement while being
2. W/N the Compromise Agreement is valid. YES assisted adequately by a counsel. In fact, the agreement was only
perfected upon the 4th draft. Since this compromise agreement was
HELD: the result of a long drawn out process, with all the parties ably
Petition for Certiorari Issue striving to protect their respective interests and to come out with
(GO2) 2018 - 2019

the best they could, there can be no doubt that the parties entered When Nemesio died, he left a will in which Acain and his siblings were instituted as
heirs. The will allegedly executed by Nemesio was submitted by petitioner without
into it freely and voluntarily.
objection raised by private respondents. The will, written in Bisaya, contained
 The Court also observed that although termed as a compromise provisions on burial rites, payment of debts, and the appointment of a certain Atty.
agreement, the document in this case is essentially a deed of Ignacio Villagonzalo as the executor. Segundo, the brother of Nemesio, was initially
partition. Which is intended to put an end to indivision among co- instituted as the heir, in case Segundo pre-deceases Nemesio, Segundo’s children
would then succeed.
heirs and legatees or devisees is deemed to be a partition, although it
should purport to be a sale, exchange, compromise, or any other After the petition was set for hearing, the respondents (Virginia Fernandez, legally
transaction. adopted daughter of Nemesio, and the latter's widow, Rosa Acain) filed a motion to
 Furthermore, petitioners never questioned the validity of the dismiss on the following grounds: for the petitioner has no legal capacity to institute
these proceedings; he is merely a universal heir and the Rosa and Fernandez have
compromise agreement in the lower court as well as in the appellate been pretirited. Motion was denied.
court. They cannot now raise it belatedly in the Supreme Court.
 As to the alleged void provision, the parties agreed in the compromise After the denial, respondents filed with the SC a petition for certiorari and prohibition
to confirm and ratify said transfers. Contrary to the claim of with preliminary injunction which was subsequently referred to the IAC. The IAC
granted the private respondents' petition and ordered the TC to dismiss the petition for
petitioners, the parties waived a known and existing interest, their the probate of the will of Nemesio.
hereditary right which was already vested in them by reason of the
death of their father. Art. 777 provides that the right of succession His MR having been denied, Acain filed this present petition for the review of IAC’s
are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent. Thus, decision.
there is no obstacle to an heir’s waiver of his/her hereditary share
ISSUE: WON petitions for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction are the
even if the actual extent of such share is not determined. proper remedy/ies under the premises.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING: WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby HELD: YES. As a general rule certiorari cannot be a substitute for appeal, except
DENIED and the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. when the questioned order is an oppressive exercise of judicial authority.
So ordered. It is axiomatic that the remedies of certiorari and prohibition are not available where the
petitioner has the remedy of appeal or some other plain, speedy and adequate remedy
in the course of law. They are, however, proper remedies to correct a grave abuse of
CONSTANTINO ACAIN v. IAC discretion of the trial court in not dismissing a case where the dismissal is founded on
G.R. No. 72706, October 27, 1987 valid grounds
Ponente Paras Special Proceedings No. 591-CEB is for the probate of a will. As stated by respondent
Digest by: LAURENTE Court, the general rule is that the probate court's authority is limited only to the extrinsic
validity of the will, the due execution thereof, the testator's testamentary capacity and
the compliance with the requisites or solemnities prescribed by law. The intrinsic validity
TOPIC: Other Remedies (Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus - Rule 65) of the will normally come only after the Court has declared that the will has been duly
authenticated. Said court at this stage of the proceedings is not called upon to rule on
FACTS: the intrinsic validity or efficacy of the provisions of the will.
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of respondent Court of Appeals The rule, however, is not inflexible and absolute. Under exceptional circumstances, the
ordering the dismissal of the petition in Special Proceedings No. 591-A-CEB in denying probate court is not powerless to do what the situation constrains it to do and pass upon
respondents' motion for reconsideration. certain provisions of the will.
In Nuguid v. Nuguid the oppositors to the probate moved to dismiss on the ground of
On May 1984, Constantino Acain (petitioner hereinafter Acain) filed on the RTC of Cebu absolute preterition. The probate court acting on the motion held that the will in question
City, a petition for the probate of the will of the late Nemesio Acain and for the issuance was a complete nullity and dismissed the petition without costs
to Acain of letters testamentary docketed as Special Proceedings No. 591-A-CEB.
(GO2) 2018 - 2019
The trial court could have denied its probate outright or could have passed upon the Accounting" alleging that SOTERO appropriated five (5) lots of the
intrinsic validity of the testamentary provisions before the extrinsic validity of the will
was resolved. The remedies of certiorari and prohibition were properly availed of by
estate to the exclusion of the other heirs; that two (2) of the five
private respondents. lots were illegally sold to third persons while two (2) others were
illegally transferred in his own name; and, that the fifth lot was
leased to a third person without turning over lease rentals to the
41. PUNONGBAYAN v. PUNONGBAYAN estate.
G.R. No. 156842. December 10, 2004  Such motion was denied by the lower court. Thereafter, Danilo filed
Digest by: Santos a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the CA (GRANTED)
TOPIC: Actions By and Against Executors and Administrators (Rule 87) ISSUE/S:
1. WON a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was the proper remedy
DOCTRINE: Certiorari under Rule 65 will lie only where a grave abuse of
discretion or an act without or in excess of jurisdiction is clearly shown. The HELD:
abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion  NO
of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or  The Supreme Court held that:
to act at all in contemplation of law as where the power is exercised in an o SEE DOCTRINE
arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility. o The intestate court correctly denied respondent's motion
for accounting. It is obvious that the motion was just
Certiorari, being an equitable remedy, will not issue where the petitioner is another ploy of the respondent to delay his compliance with
in bad faith. the court's Order dated February 1, 1995 directing him to
render an accounting of his administration of the estate and
FACTS: to turn over the certificates of placement of the proceeds
 After the death of Escolastica Punongbayan-Paguio, Respondent from the sales of estate properties amounting to millions of
DANILO PUNONGBAYAN was appointed co-administrator alongside pesos, which has long become final and executory with its
with Miguel Paguio. affirmance by the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 41156 and finally by
 The intestate proceedings was left dormant for 1976 to 1993. this Court, in G.R. No. 128928.
 On August 1994, Petitioner SOTERO PUNONGBAYAN moved for the o Applying Sec. 8, Rule 85, the intestate court denied the
immediate distribution of the estate and asked DANILO for an motion on the ground that it was premature considering
accounting of the estate in the 20 years it laid dormant - GRANTED. that petitioner has been co-administrator for only one (1)
 However, DANILO renegaded on his obligations as co-administrator day at the time it was filed. With the denial, petitioner's
which led to his arrest (DANILO kept on skipping hearings after accountability as co-administrator was in no way settled as
repeatedly promising to attend them). SOTERO then moved for it did not preclude or forestall future accountings by him
appointment as co-administrator which was granted by the Court which, under said Sec. 8, he is obliged to render within one
on August 30, 2000. (1) year from receiving letters of administration, or as
 Immediately after such appointment (September 1, 2000), DANILO required by the court until the estate is settled. Neither an
filed a "Motion to Order Sotero Punongbayan to Render an accounting or an examination of petitioner under Section 7,
(GO2) 2018 - 2019
Rule 87, definitely settle the issue of his alleged illegal

transfers and lease since a proceeding under this section, FACTS:
like that under Sec. 6 of the same Rule, is merely in the 1. Betty T. Chua, wife of the deceased Jose L. Chua, was appointed as
nature of fact-finding inquiries. administratrix of the Jose’s intestate estate, and she submitted an
o The issue of petitioner's alleged illegal transfers are, in fact, inventory of all the real and personal properties of the deceased.
pending before the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan where cases for 2. One of the creditors of the deceased, Absolute Management
their annulment have been filed by respondent. Corporation, filed a motion to require Betty T. Chua to explain why she
Respondent admits that they involve the very same did not report the Ayala Sales Corporation and Ayala Construction
properties in respect to which the motion for accounting Supply, Inc shares of stocks of the deceased in the inventory.
was filed. Thus, there is no more reason for respondent to 3. Betty T. Chua answered that these shares had already been assigned and
further delay the accounting of his administration of the transferred to other parties prior to the Jose and attached the deeds of
estate for even the petition for certiorari which he filed to assignment as proofs of transfer.
question the warrant of arrest that had to be issued for his 4. Absolute, suspecting that the documents attached by Betty were
noncompliance was dismissed by the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. spurious and simulated, filed a motion for the examination of the
57754 34 wherein his "clear and contumacious" refusal to supposed transferees.
obey court processes was condemned. 5. The motion was denied by the RTC, hence Absolute filed a petition for
o Clearly, respondent was not entitled to the writ of certiorari certiorari before the CA. The CA granted the petition and ordered the
erroneously issued by the CA. Certiorari, being an equitable examination.
remedy, will not issue where the petitioner is in bad faith.
ISSUE/S:
DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING: 10. W/N the petition for certiorari before the CA was proper? YES
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated HELD:
August 9, 2002 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 63002, as well as In the present case, Absolute as a creditor of the decedent filed the petition
its Resolution dated January 14, 2003, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. after the trial court denied its Motion for examination. Absolute questioned
the ruling in favor of the administratrix and heirs of the decedent. Its Motion
for examination was intended merely to investigate and take testimony in
42. CHUA v. ABSOLUTE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION and CA preparation for an independent action. The Motion was a preparatory move
G.R. No. 144881, October 16, 2003 sanctioned by the Rules of Court. The denial of Absolute’s Motion was an
Digest by: BONIFACIO interlocutory order not subject to appeal. The order of denial may, however,
be challenged before a superior court through a petition for certiorari under
TOPIC: Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus Rule 65.
DOCTRINE: DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING:

A petition for certiorari questioning an interlocutory order is proper as an WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition for lack of merit. The Decision of the
interlocutory order is not subject to appeal. Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 57421 dated 9 May 2000 as well as the
(GO2) 2018 - 2019
Resolution dated 5 September 2000 denying the motion for reconsideration Respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss of the Testate Case on the ground that
is AFFIRMED. the assailed Holographic Will of the decedent was null and void because he
claims to be a preterited heir thus intestacy was proper citing the case of
Naguid v Naguid
43. RAFAEL MANINANG AND SOLIDAD MANINANG V. CA
G.R. No. L-57848, JUNE 19, 1982 Petitioner argued that the Probate Court’s area of inquiry during Probate
Ponente: MELENCIO-HERRERA proceedings is limited only on the extrinsic validity of the Will and not the
Digest by: CEBALLOS Intrinsic aspect of it
TOPIC: XI. APPEALS AND OTHER REMEDIES LOWER COURT: MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED
DOCTRINE: MR: Denied
The authentication of a will decides no other question than such as touch
upon the capacity of the testator and the compliance with those requisites or Appealed to the CA through Certiorary
solemnities which the law prescribes for the validity of wills. It does not CA: Affirmed , the mode should have been an appeal and not certiorari perse
determine nor even by implication prejudge the validity or efficiency (sic) of
the provisions, these may be impugned as being vicious or null,
notwithstanding its authentication. The questions relating to these points ISSUE/S:
remain entirely unaffected, and may be raised even after the will has been
authenticated WON the Probate Court is confined only to rule on the intrinsic validity of a
will?---- NO, As a general rule, Courts in Probate are limited to the extrinsic
validity of the will. However, such is not absolute since there are times where
FACTS: the will’s intrinsic validity maybe ruled upon in the said proceeding
On May 21, 1977, Clemencia Aseneta, single, died at the Manila Sanitarium
Hospital at age 81. She left a holographic will, WON certiorari is proper--yes
petitioner Soledad Maninang filed a Petition for probate of the Will of the
decedent with the Court of First Instance-Branch IV, Quezon City (TESTATE HELD:
CASE) We find that the Court a quo a quo acted in excess of its jurisdiction when it
dismissed the Testate Case. Generally, the probate of a Will is mandatory.
16 DAYS thereafter ,respondent Bernardo Aseneta, who, as the adopted son, No will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is
claims to be the sole heir of decedent Clemencia Aseneta, instituted intestate proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court. 4
proceedings with the Court of First Instance-Branch XI, Pasig (INTESTATE The law enjoins the probate of the Will and public policy requires it, because
CASE) unless the Will is probated and notice thereof given to the whole world, the
right of a person to dispose of his property by Will may be rendered
The 2 cases were then consolidated before Branch XI nugatory. 5
Normally, the probate of a Will does not look into its intrinsic validity.
(GO2) 2018 - 2019
... The authentication of a will decides no other question than The Nuguid and the Balanay cases provide the exception rather than the rule.
such as touch upon the capacity of the testator and the The intrinsic validity of the Wills in those cases was passed upon even before
compliance with those requisites or solemnities which the probate because "practical considerations" so demanded. Moreover, for the
law prescribes for the validity of wills. It does not determine parties in the Nuguid case, the "meat of the controversy" was the intrinsic
nor even by implication prejudge the validity or efficiency validity of the Will; in fact, the parties in that case "shunted aside the question
(sic) of the provisions, these may be impugned as being of whether or not the Will should be allowed probate." Not so in the case
vicious or null, notwithstanding its authentication. The before us now where the probate of the Will is insisted on by petitioners and
que0stions relating to these points remain entirely a resolution on the extrinsic validity of the Will demanded.
unaffected, and may be raised even after the will has been Moreover, in the Nuguid case, this Court ruled that the Will was intrinsically
authenticated .... 6 invalid as it completely preterited the parents of the testator. In the instant
Opposition to the intrinsic validity or legality of the provisions case, a crucial issue that calls for resolution is whether under the terms of the
of the will cannot be entertained in Probate proceeding decedent's Will, private respondent had been preterited or disinherited, and
because its only purpose is merely to determine if the will has if the latter, whether it was a valid disinheritance. Preterition and
been executed in accordance with the requirements of the disinheritance are two diverse concepts.
law. 7 (2nd issue) Coming now to the procedural aspect, suffice it to state
Respondent Bernardo, however, relies on the pronouncement in Nuguid vs. that in view of our finding that respondent Judge had acted in excess
Nuguid 8, reading: of his jurisdiction in dismissing the Testate Case, certiorari is a
In a proceeding for the probate of a will, the Court's area of proper remedy. An act done by a Probate Court in excess of its
jurisdiction may be corrected by Certiorari. 13 And even assuming the
inquiry is limited to an examination of, and resolution on, the existence of the remedy of appeal, we harken to the rule that in the
extrinsic validity of the will, the due execution thereof, the broader interests of justice, a petition for certiorari may be entertained,
testatrix's testamentary capacity and the compliance with particularly where appeal would not afford speedy and adequate relief.
the requisites or solemnities prescribed by law. The intrinsic
validity of the will normally comes only after the court has
declared that the will has been duly authenticated. However, DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING:
where practical considerations demand that the intrinsic
validity of the will be passed upon, even before it is probated, WHEREFORE, the Decision in question is set aside and the Orders of the Court
the Court should meet that issue. (Emphasis supplied) of First Instance-Branch XI, Rizal, dated September 8, 1980 and December 19,
Our ruling in Balanay vs. Hon. Martinez 9 had a similar thrust: 1980, are nullified. Special Proceeding No. Q-23304 is hereby remanded to
The trial court acted correctly in passing upon the will's said Court of First Instance-Branch XI. Rizal, therein to be reinstated and
intrinsic validity even before its formal validity had been consolidated with Special Proceeding No. 8569 for further proceedings
established. The probate of a will might become an Idle
ceremony if on its face it appears to be intrinsically void.
Where practical considerations demand that the intrinsic 44. SILVERIO, JR. v. CA
validity of the will be passed upon, even before it is probated, G.R. No. 178933, September 16, 2009
the court should meet the issue. J. Velasco
(GO2) 2018 - 2019

 Nelia Silverio-Dee filed an MR (I’m guessing Silverio Jr, Edumndo

TOPIC: Appeals and other remedies and Nelia are siblings)
 Silverio Jr. filed for filed an Urgent Motion for an Order Prohibiting
DOCTRINE: Any Person to Occupy/Stay/Use Real Estate Properties Involved in
An interlocutory order cannot be appealed, and the proper remedy is the Intestate Estate of the Late Beatriz Silverio, Without Authority
certiorari under Rule 65. from this Honorable Court
Rule 84, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Court, the administrator may only deliver RTC: issued and Omnibus Order dated May 31, 2005 denying Nelia’s MR and
properties of the estate to the heirs upon order of the Court. for Silverio Jr to exercise as administrator of the subject estate.

Rule 90, Sec. 1 of the Rules of Court, the properties of the estate shall only be  The Omnibus Order also directed Nelia S. Silverio-Dee to vacate the
distributed after the payment of the debts, funeral charges, and other property at No. 3, Intsia, Forbes Park, Makati City within fifteen (15)
expenses against the estate, except when authorized by the Court. days from receipt of the order.
 Nelia Silverio-Dee received a copy of the Omnibus Order on June 8,
2005
RECIT-READY SUMMARY:  In its order dated December 12, 2005, Silverio Sr. was reinstated as
Beatriz Silverio died and an administrator was assigned, which was Ricardo administrator; and
Sr. Ricardo Jr. opposed and the RTC then made him the new administrator  It allowed the sale of various properties of Beatriz Silverio to
of the estate. The RTC ordered Nelia ( the occupant of a lot in forbes park, partially settle estate taxes, penalties, interests and other charges
which is a part of the estate) to vacate. Nelia filed a MR and when it was due thereon.
denied almost a year later, she filed a notice of appeal and record on  Among the properties authorized to be sold was the one located
appeal. The main question in this case is whether or not the proper remedy at No. 3 Intsia Road, Forbes Park,Makati City (where Nelia Silverio-
is an appeal. The court held that the order cannot be appealed because it is Dee currently lives)
an interlocutory order and only final decisions can be appealed. It was an  Nelia filed a MR on the May 31 order and was denied. Nelia
interlocutory order because there is no final determination yet on the received notice of said denial on December 22.
ownership or distribution of the lot.
 Nelia filed a notice of appeal on January 6, 2006 and a record on
appeal on January 23, 2006. (Note that these documents were
FACTS:
antedated as January 5 and January 20, respectively)
 Beatriz Silverio died and her surviving spouse Ricardo Silverio SR.
 The appeal was denied because the record on appeal was filed 10
filed for an intestate proceeding for the settlement of her etate
days beyond the reglementary period.
 Silverio JR. filed for petition to remove Silverio Sr. as the
 CA reversed and said appeal was filed on time.
administrator
 Edmundo Silverio opposed the removal of Silverio Sr. and prayed for ISSUE/S:
an appointment of a new administraor WON appeal is the proper remedy on the May 31, 2005 order- No
 Silverio Jr. was held as the new administrator
(GO2) 2018 - 2019

HELD: The May 31, 2005 Order of the RTC Is an Interlocutory Order, Not
Subject to an Appeal.
RULE: SECTION 1 Rule 41. Subject of appeal. An appeal may be taken from a
judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a
particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable.
No appeal may be taken from:
(a) An order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration; (OF AN
INTERLOCUTORY ORDER)
IN THIS CASE:
 In the instant case, Nelia Silverio-Dee appealed the May 31, 2005
Order of the RTC on the ground that it ordered her to vacate the
premises of the property located at No. 3 Intsia Road, Forbes Park,
Makati City. On that aspect the order is not a final determination of
the case or of the issue of distribution of the shares of the heirs in
the estate or their rights therein. It must be borne in mind that until
the estate is partitioned, each heir only has an inchoate right to the
properties of the estate, such that no heir may lay claim on a
particular property.
 Nelia employed the wrong mode of appeal by filing a Notice of
Appeal with the RTC. Hence, for employing the improper mode of
appeal, the case should have been dismissed.
 The improper notice of appeal did not toll the reglementary period
for the filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, which is the
proper remedy. This means that private respondent has now lost her
remedy of appeal from the May 31, 2005 Order of the RTC.
(GO2) 2018 - 2019

G.R. No. 12345, January 1, 2019 Digest By: DIMLABS: (Special Proceedings - Atty. Tantuico)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 12345, January 1, 2019 Digest By: DIMLABS: (Special Proceedings - Atty. Tantuico)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

G.R. No. 12345, January 1, 2019 Digest By: DIMLABS: (Special Proceedings - Atty. Tantuico)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[ SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS | ATTY.

(GO2) 2018 - 2019

1. That a person died intestate or without leaving any will,

(GO2) 2018 - 2019

FACTS: (see Doctrine)

(GO2) 2018 - 2019

(GO2) 2018 - 2019

(GO2) 2018 - 2019

(GO2) 2018 - 2019

TOPIC: Escheats - Sec. 4, Rule 91 HELD:

(GO2) 2018 - 2019

the latter’s name in the purchase, registration, and declaration for

HELD: DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING:

(GO2) 2018 - 2019

subject matter of the cases, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 902-A as

ISSUE/S: DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING:

(GO2) 2018 - 2019

FACTS:  Photographs were also intended to be presented by petitioner, e.g.,

FACTS: DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING:

(GO2) 2018 - 2019

 Here Herbert’s conduct did not manifest a settled purpose to

(GO2) 2018 - 2019

(GO2) 2018 - 2019

(GO2) 2018 - 2019

posting in a newspaper of general circulation notice of the filing of the

(GO2) 2018 - 2019

(GO2) 2018 - 2019

(GO2) 2018 - 2019

1. Delete the entry “date and place of marriage” (of parents) in

(GO2) 2018 - 2019

(GO2) 2018 - 2019

Considering the consequence that respondent’s change of name merely

(GO2) 2018 - 2019

(GO2) 2018 - 2019

(GO2) 2018 - 2019

(GO2) 2018 - 2019

(GO2) 2018 - 2019

(GO2) 2018 - 2019

(GO2) 2018 - 2019

(GO2) 2018 - 2019

(GO2) 2018 - 2019

(GO2) 2018 - 2019

Rule 87, definitely settle the issue of his alleged illegal

DOCTRINE: DISPOSITIVE PORTION / RULING:

(GO2) 2018 - 2019

 Nelia Silverio-Dee filed an MR (I’m guessing Silverio Jr, Edumndo

(GO2) 2018 - 2019

(GO2) 2018 - 2019

You might also like