special proceedings recent

8/13/2019 Special Proceedings Recent

1/39

Page 1of 39

Special Proceedings Recent Digested Cases (2010-

2011)

CONTENTS

1! Settle"ent o# Estate o# Deceased Person

a. Probate of the will in the foreign country where the

alien deceased resides condition sine qua non for

Reprobate of the will in the Philippines

IN RE: In the Matter of the Petition to approve the

will of Ruperta Palaganas with prayer for theappointment of Special Administrator, Manuel Miguel

Palaganas and en!amin Palaganas vs" Ernesto

Palaganas, G.R. No. 169144, anuary !6, !"11

2! $%ardians&ip

a. Guardianship of #inor

#a$ales vs" #ourt of Appeal, G.R. No. 16!4!1,$ugust %1, !""&

b. $ppoint'ent of a Guardian( )ourt $uthority Required

People vs" %lores, G.R. No. 1**%1+, $ugust !+,

!"1"

c. iduciary unds -hall Re'ain ith )ourt

Posted &anuary '(, )*((+ y Anna atrina M"

Martine- .S# /e$site0

3! 'egal $%ardian &en one o# t&e spo%se is

incapacitated Sole *d"inistration

&ose 1y vs" #ourt of Appeals, GR No. 1"9++&,

No/e'ber !9, !"""

a. Guardian o/er 0nco'petent Person( ho is an

inco'petent person

ernande2, et"al" vs" San &uan2Santos, G.R. Nos.

1664&" and 169!1&, $ugust &, !""9

+! Esc&eat


2/39

Page 2of 39

a. 3scheat Proceeding( Proper Party and )iti2enship of the

owner of the property to be escheated.

alais2Ma$anag vs" Registry of 3eeds of 4ue-on

#ity, G.R. No. 1+%14!, #arch !9, !"1",! *doption

a. alidity of $doption when the -ur/i/ing -pouse

re'arries

IN RE: Petition for Adoption 5% Michael &ude P" 6im,

G.R. Nos. 16*99!59%, #ay !1, !""9

b.$doption under $rticle %%, New )i/il )ode and -) )ir.No.1!( decree of $doption cannot be 'ade solely bycase study reports made by a social welfare officer of the court

3S/3 vs" &udge Antonio M" elen, $.#. No. R5965

1%6! uly 1*, 199&

c. Penalty for a public officer for si'ulating birth

certificate( $pplication of the )i/il -er/ice Rules

Anonymous vs" Emma #uramen, $.#. No. P5"*5!+49, une 1*, !"1"

! .a/eas Corp%s

a. Grant of rit of abeas )orpus ancillary to a )ri'inal

)ase( 7is'issal of the latter rendered 'oot and

acade'ic of the for'er

So vs" 7on" Este$an A" 8acla, &r", G.R. No. 19"1"*, 19

8ctober !"1"b. rit of abeas )orpus( Not proper pending -pecial )i/il

$ction for )ertiorari before the )ourt of $ppeals &th

7i/ision.

In the matter of the Petition for 7a$eas #orpus of#E9ARI 5N9A6ES and &16I1S MESA: R5ER85 RA%AE6P16I35 vs" en" E%REN A1, et al., G.R. No. 1&"9!4,

uly 4, !""&

c. $ detention pre/iously in/alid beco'es /alid upon theapplication, issuance of the writ of abeas )orpusdenied. -ection 4 of Rule 1"!:


3/39

Page 3of 39

Ampatuan vs" &udge ;irgilio ;" Macaraig, G.R. No.1*!49&, !9 une !"1"

! rit o# *"paro and .a/eas Data

a. )o''and Responsibility

b. $'paro( Not applied to those instances other than right

to life, liberty or security i.e. personal property:

In the Matter of the Petition for the /rit of Amparo

and the /rit of 7a$eas 3ata in %avor of Melissa #" Ro


4/39

Page +of 39


5/39

Page ,of 39

*! SETT'E:ENT O; EST*TE O; DECE*SED PERSON

Pro/ate o# t&e S! ERNESTO P*'*$*N*S

G.R. No. 169144, anuary !6, !"11

;*CTS(

Ruperta ). Palaganas Ruperta:, a ilipino who beca'e a naturali2ed ;nited

-tates ;.-.: citi2en, died single and childless. 0n the last will and testa'ent sheeen?a'in Gregorio Palaganas >en?a'in:, nephews of Ruperta,

opposed the petition on the ground that Ruperta=s will should not be probated in the

Philippines but in the ;.-. where she e


6/39

Page of 39

testator, petition the court ha/ing ?urisdiction to ha/e the will allowed, whether the

sa'e be in his possession or not, or is lost or destroyed.

8ur rules require 'erely that the petition for the allowance of a will 'ust

show, so far as Bnown to the petitioner( a: the ?urisdictional facts@ b: the na'es,

ages, and residences of the heirs, legatees, and de/isees of the testator ordecedent@ c: the probable /alue and character of the property of the estate@ d: the

na'e of the person for who' letters are prayed@ and e: if the will has not been

deli/ered to the court, the na'e of the person ha/ing custody of it. urisdictional

facts refer to the fact of death of the decedent, his residence at the ti'e of his

death in the pro/ince where the probate court is sitting, or if he is an inhabitant of a

foreign country, the estate he left in such pro/ince. he rules do not require proof

that the foreign will has already been allowed and probated in the country of its

een?a'in ob/iously ha/e in 'ind theprocedure for the reprobate of will before ad'itting it here. >ut, reprobate or re5

authentication of a will already probated and allowed in a foreign country is

different fro' that probate where the will is presented for the first ti'e before a

co'petent court. Reprobate is specifically go/erned by Rule && of the Rules of

)ourt. )ontrary to petitioners= stance, since this latter rule applies only to

reprobate of a will, it cannot be 'ade to apply to the present case. 0n reprobate,

the local court acBnowledges as binding the findings of the foreign probate court

pro/ided its ?urisdiction o/er the 'atter can be established.

>esides, petitioners= stand is fraught with i'practically. 0f the instituted heirs

do not ha/e the 'eans to go abroad for the probate of the will, it is as good asdepri/ing the' outright of their inheritance, since our law requires that no will shall

pass either real or personal property unless the will has been pro/ed and allowed by

the proper court.

@! $*RD=*NS.=P

$%ardians&ip o# :inor *:! No! 03-02-0,-SC

NE'SON C*@*'ES and R=TO C*@*'ES 4s! CORT O; *PPE*'S7 ESS

;E'=*NO and *NNC=*NO ;E'=*NO

G.R. No. 16!4!1, $ugust %1, !""&

Puno, )..

$)-(

-o'eti'e in 1964, Rurfino )abales died lea/ing behind a parcel of land in

-outhern Aeyte to his wife, -aturnina and si< children, na'ely, >onifacio, rancisco,

$lberto, $lbino, Aenora, and Rito. 8n 19&1, the brothers and co5owners >onifacio,

$lberto and $lbino sold the property to 7r. )orro'pido with a right to repurchase

within eight *: years. 8n 19&!, prior to the rede'ption of the property, $lberto

died lea/ing behind his wife and son, Nelson, herein petitioner.

-o'eti'e later and within the rede'ption period, the said brothers and their

'other, in lieu of $lberto, tendered their pay'ent to 7r. )orro'pido. -ubsequently,

-aturnina, and her four children, >onifacio, $lbino, rancisco and Aeonora sold the


7/39

Page of 39

said land to -pouses eliano. 0t was pro/ided in the deed of sale that the shares of

Nelson and Rito, being 'inor at the ti'e of the sale, will be held in trust by the

/endee and will paid upon the' reaching the age of !1.

0n 19*6, Rito recei/ed the su' of 1,14% pesos fro' the -pouses eliano

representing his share fro' the proceeds of the sale of the property. 0t was only in19**, that Nelson learned of the sale fro' his uncle, Rito. e signified his intention

to redee' the property in 199% but it was only in 199+ that he filed a co'plaint for

rede'ption against the -pouses eliano. he respondent -pouses a/erred that the

petitioners are estopped fro' denying the sale since( 1: Rito already recei/ed his

share@ and !: Nelson, failed to tender the total a'ount of the rede'ption price.

he Regional rial )ourt ruled in fa/our of -pouses eliano on the ground that

Nelson was no longer entitled to the property since, his right was subrogated by

-aturnina upon the death of his father, $lberto. 0t also alleged that Rito had no 'ore

right to redee' since -aturnina, being his legal guardian at the ti'e of the sale was

properly /ested with the right to alienate the sa'e.

he )ourt of $ppeals 'odified the decision of the trial court stating that the

sale 'ade by -aturnina in behalf of Rito and Nelson were unenforceable.

0--;3(

hether or not the sale 'ade by a legal guardian -aturnina: in behalf of the

'inors were binding upon the'.

3A7(

ith regard to the share of Rito, the contract of sale was /alid. ;nder-ection 1, Rule 96 C$ guardian shall ha/e the care and custody of the person of his

ward, and the 'anage'ent of his estate, or the 'anage'ent of the estate only. < >, since she was ?ust a few 'onths

old. >>> is 'arried to appellant, who was worBing abroad for si< years. $ppellant


8/39

Page of 39

ca'e ho'e in 199& and li/ed with $$$ and >>>. >>> was worBing as a restaurant

super/isor fro' 4p' to !a' for si< days a weeB.

0n ebruary 1999 at around 9(%" p', $$$ then 11 yrs old, was sleeping inside

the house when she felt and saw appellant touch her thighs. he following day, at

around the sa'e ti'e and while >>> was at worB, appellant again touched $$$fro' her legs up to her breast.

wo weeBs after the incident, $$$ was already asleep when she suddenly

woBe up and saw appellant holding a Bnife, then appellant was able to penetrate

her. wo days after, appellant again raped her. $$$ recounted that appellant raped

her at least % ti'es a weeB at the sa'e ti'e until 8ctober 1+, !""!, when she was

14 yrs. old.

R) rendered ?udg'ent finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of

1*1 counts of rape.)$ affir'ed the finding that $$$ was raped by appellant, but did

so only on ! counts and consider the qualifying circu'stances of 'inority and

relationship.

0--;3(

hether or not appellant should be consider as a guardian of the /icti' e/en

without court authority

hether that the qualifyingEaggra/ating circu'stances of relationship is applicable.

3A7(

o ?ustify the death penalty, the prosecution 'ust specifically allege in theinfor'ation and pro/e during the trial the qualifying circu'stances of 'inority of

the /icti' and her relationship to the offender.

urisprudence dictates that the guardian 'ust be a person who has a legal

relationship with his ward. he theory that a guardian 'ust be legally appointed

was first enunciated in the early case of People /s. 7ela )ru2 which held that the

guardian referred to in the law is either a legal or ?udicial guardian as understood in

the rules on )i/il Procedure.

he law requires a legal or ?udicial guardian since it is the consanguineous

relation or the sole'nity of ?udicial appoint'ent which i'presses upon the guardian

the lofty purpose of his office and nor'ally deters hi' fro' /iolating its ob?ecti/es.

he appellant cannot be considered as the guardian falling within the a'bit of the

a'endatory pro/ision introduced by R$ &6+9.-ince both logic and fact con?ointly

de'onstrate that he is actually only a custodian, that is, a 'ere caretaBer of the

children o/er who' he ee that as it 'ay, this qualifying circu'stance of being a guardian was not

e/en 'entioned in the 0nfor'ation. hat was clearly stated was that appellant was

the Cadopting fatherD of $$$, which the prosecution nonetheless failed to establish.

or failure of the prosecution to pro/e the qualifying circu'stance of

relationship, appellant could only be con/icted for two counts of si'ple rape, and

not qualified rape.


9/39

Page 9of 39

;id%ciar ;%nds S&all Re"ain it& Co%rt

Posted anuary %1 , !"11@ >y $nna Fatrina #. #artine2

he deposit of the udiciary=s iduciary unds, a'ounting to 'ore than

PhP4.* billion, and all subsequent collections of trust and other receipts with the

>ureau of reasury Chas no legal basis,D and the re'ittance of interests of the

iduciary unds to the national go/ern'ent Cis erroneous and 'ust be

discontinued.D

hus said the -upre'e )ourt as it ruled that iduciary unds in custodialegis

shall re'ain under the custody and control of the courts, to be deposited and

disposed of as the courts 'ay direct in the eureau

of reasury, regardless of inco'e source, while the !""* G$$ directs go/ern'ent

agencies to booB trust and other receipts Cwhich ha/e been recei/ed as guaranty

for the fulfil'ent of an obligationD with the National reasury. oint )ircular No. 159&, on the other hand, requires that all National Go/ern'ent cash balances be

deposited with the National reasury.

0n an 3n >anc Resolution, the -upre'e )ourt clarified whether the deposits in

its iduciary unds and in those of the lower courts as well as the Philippine

#ediation )enter should be re'itted to the National reasury, as suggested by

)8$.

he )ourt said while funds that properly accrue to the General und 'ust be

turned o/er to the >ureau of reasury, which is under the 3


10/39

Page 10of 39

1949:, which established the 7 Cfor the benefit of the 'e'bers and personnel of

the udiciary to help ensure and guarantee the independence of the udiciary.D

P7 1949 pro/ides that the )hief ustice shall ad'inister and allocate the 7

and shall ha/e the sole e


11/39

Page 11of 39

7ays later, Gilda filed a petition for the declaration of incapacity of 7r.

ardele2a, ad'inistration of con?ugal properties, and authority of sell the sa'e. 0n

the said petition, she prayed for such reliefs because of the increasing hospital bills

due to the fact that 7r. ardele2a is confined in an intensi/e care unit 0);:.

;pon the finding of the petition to be in for', the R) issued a notice forhearing, which happened few days after. 8n the sa'e date of the hearing, the R),

upon hearing the witnesses presented by Gilda, granted such petition. eodoro

filed an 8pposition contending that he was unaware that the case was already

decided. e also filed a #otion for Reconsideration contending that the proper

re'edy in the case is not the petition filed by his 'other, but the petition for

guardianship proceedings. $s such, the case cannot be heard under the rules of

su''ary proceedings as conte'plated in $rticle !+% of the a'ily )ode. e also

noted that the pro/isions on su''ary proceedings, found in )hapter ! of the

a'ily )ode, co'es under the heading on C-eparation in act >etween usband

and ifeD which conte'plates of a situation where both spouses are of disposing

'ind. hus, he argued that were one spouse is Cco'atose without 'otor and'ental faculties,D the said pro/isions cannot be 'ade to apply.

0ssue( hether the pro/ision of $rticle 1!4 of the a'ily )ode applies in this case

when one of the spose is incapacitated to gi/e his consentL

eld(

No. $rticle 1!4 of the a'ily )ode pro/ides as follows(

C$R. 1!4. he ad'inistration and en?oy'ent of the con?ugal partnership property

shall belong to both spouses ?ointly. 0n case of disagree'ent, the husband=s

decision shall pre/ail, sub?ect to recourse to the court by the wife for a proper

re'edy which 'ust be a/ailed of within fi/e years fro' the date of the contract

i'ple'enting such decision.

C0n the e/ent that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in

the ad'inistration of the con?ugal properties, the other spouse 'ay assu'e sole

powers of ad'inistration. hese powers do not include the powers of disposition or

encu'brance which 'ust ha/e the authority of the court or the written consent of

the other spouse. 0n the absence of such authority or consent, the disposition or

encu'brance shall be /oid. owe/er, the transaction shall be construed as a

continuing offer on the part of the consenting spouse and the third person, and 'aybe perfected as a binding contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or

authori2ation by the court before the offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors.

16+a:.D

0n regular 'anner, the rules on su''ary ?udicial proceedings under the

a'ily )ode go/ern the proceedings under $rticle 1!4 of the a'ily )ode. he

situation conte'plated is one where the spouse is absent, or separated in fact or

has abandoned the other or consent is withheld or cannot be obtained. -uch rules

do not apply to cases where the non5consenting spouse is incapacitated or

inco'petent to gi/e consent. 0n this case, the trial court found that the sub?ect

spouse Mis an inco'petentM who was in co'atose or se'i5co'atose condition, a/icti' of stroBe, cerebro/ascular accident, without 'otor and 'ental faculties, and

with a diagnosis of brain ste' infarct. 0n such case, the proper re'edy is a ?udicial

guardianship proceedings under Rule 9% of the 1964 Re/ised Rules of )ourt.

3/en assu'ing that the rules of su''ary ?udicial proceedings under the

a'ily )ode 'ay apply to the wifes ad'inistration of the con?ugal property, the law


12/39

Page 12of 39

pro/ides that the wife who assu'es sole powers of ad'inistration has the sa'e

powers and duties as a guardian under the Rules of )ourt.

)onsequently, a spouse who desires to sell real property as such

ad'inistrator of the con?ugal property 'ust obser/e the procedure for the sale of

the ward=s estate required of ?udicial guardians under Rule 9+, 1964 Re/ised Rulesof )ourt, not the su''ary ?udicial proceedings under the a'ily )ode.

0n the case at bar, the trial court did not co'ply with the procedure under the

Re/ised Rules of )ourt. 0ndeed, the trial court did not e/en obser/e the

require'ents of the su''ary ?udicial proceedings under the a'ily )ode. hus, the

trial court did not ser/e notice of the petition to the incapacitated spouse@ it did not

require hi' to show cause why the petition should not be granted.

$%ardians&ip o4er =nco"petent Person &o is an

=nco"petent PersonB

CEC='=O C! .ERN*NDE7 :*! >=CTOR=* C! .ERN*NDE-S*$N7 TERES* C!

.ERN*NDE->=''* *@R=''E and N*T=>=D*DCR-.ERN*NDE 4s! O>=T*

S*N *N-S*NTOS

G.R. No. 1664&" and G.R. No. 169!1& $ugust &, !""9

$)-(

#aria Aourdes -an uan ernande2 or Aulu: was born on ebruary 14, 194&

to the spouses eli< ernande2 and #aria -an uan ernande2. ;nfortunately, the

latter died due to co'plications during childbirth. $fter #arias death, eli< left Auluin the care of her 'aternal uncle, -otero ). -an uan. 8n 7ece'ber 16, 19+1, elilg. 1*+.

D! *DOPT=ON

>alidit o# *doption in case t&e s%r4i4ing spo%se

re"arries

=N RE PET=T=ON ;OR *DOPT=ON O; :=C.*E' DE P! '=:

G.R. Nos. 16*99!59%, #ay !1, !""9

)$RP08, .(

acts

8n !% une 19&4, Petitioner #onina P. Ai' 'arried Pri'o Ai'. hey were

childless. -ubsequently, 'inor children, whose parents were unBnown, were

entrusted to the' by a certain Aucia $yuban. >eing so eager to ha/e a child of theirown, #onina and Pri'o registered the children to 'aBe it appear that they were the

children=s parents. he children were na'ed #ichelle P. Ai' and #ichael ude P.

Ai'. he spouses reared and cared for the children as if they were their own. hey

sent the children to e


15/39

Page 1,of 39

hereafter, petitioner decided to adopt the children by a/ailing of the

a'nesty gi/en under Republic $ct No. *++! R$ *++!: to those indi/iduals who

si'ulated the birth of a child. hus, on !4 $pril !""!, petitioner filed separate

petitions for the adoption of #ichelle and #ichael, who was already !+ years old

and already 'arried and 1* years and se/en 'onths, before the trial court.

#ichelle, together with her husband and #ichael, ga/e their consent to the

adoption as e/idenced by their $ffida/its of )onsent. #onina=s husband $ngel

liBewise e


16/39

Page 1of 39

i: a for'er ilipino citi2en who seeBs to adopt a relati/e within the fourth 4th:

degree of consanguinity or affinity@ or

ii: one who seeBs to adopt the legiti'ate sonEdaughter of hisEher ilipino spouse@ or

iii: one who is 'arried to a ilipino citi2en and seeBs to adopt ?ointly with hisEher

spouse a relati/e within the fourth 4th: degree of consanguinity or affinity of the

ilipino spouses@ or

c: he guardian with respect to the ward after the ter'ination of the guardianship

and clearance of hisEher financial accountabilities.

usband and wife shall ?ointly adopt, e


17/39

Page 1of 39

!: dee' the adoptee as a legiti'ate child of the adopter@ and

%: gi/e adopter and adoptee reciprocal rights and obligations arising fro' the

relationship of parent and child, including but not li'ited to(

i: the right of the adopter to choose the na'e the child is to be Bnown@ and

ii: the right of the adopter and adoptee to be legal and co'pulsory heirs of

each other.

herefore, e/en if e'ancipation ter'inates parental authority, the adoptee is

still considered a legiti'ate child of the adopter with all the rights of a legiti'ate

child such as( 1: to bear the surna'e of the father and the 'other@ !: to recei/e

support fro' their parents@ and %: to be entitled to the legiti'e and other

successional rights. )on/ersely, the adopti/e parents shall, with respect to the

adopted child, en?oy all the benefits to which biological parents are entitled such as

support and successional rights.

Petitioner, in her #e'orandu', insists that subsequent e/ents would show

that ?oint adoption could no longer be possible because $ngel 8lario has filed a case

for dissolution of his 'arriage to petitioner in the Aos $ngeles -uperior )ourt.

e disagree. he filing of a case for dissolution of the 'arriage between

petitioner and $ngel 8lario is of no 'o'ent. ;ntil and unless there is a ?udicial

decree for the dissolution of the 'arriage between petitioner and $ngel 8lario, the

'arriage still subsists. hat being the case, ?oint adoption by the husband and the

wife is required. e reiterate our ruling abo/e that since, at the ti'e the petitions

for adoption were filed, petitioner was 'arried to 8lario, ?oint adoption is

'andatory.

*doption %nder *rticle 337 Ne< Ci4il Code and SC Cir!

No!12 Decree o# *doption cannot /e "ade solel / casestudy reports made by a social welfare officer of the court

DEP*RT:ENT O; SOC=*' E';*RE *ND DE>E'OP:ENT 4s! D$E

*NTON=O :! @E'EN

$.#. No. R59651%6!, uly 1*, 199&

$)-(

-pouses 7esiderio -oriano and $urora >ernardo5-oriano, both of who' are

naturali2ed $'erican citi2ens, filed a /erified petition for adoption of their niece, the

'inor Qhedell >ernardo 0bea. Respondent udge >elen granted the petition after

finding that petitioner spouses were highly qualified to adopt the child as their own,

basing his decree pri'arily on the Mfindings and reco''endation of the 7-7 that

the adopting parents on the one hand and the adoptee on the other hand ha/e

already de/eloped lo/e and e'otional attach'ent and parenting rules ha/e been

de'onstrated to the 'inor.M 8n these considerations, respondent ?udge decided

and proceeded to dispense with trial custody. e asserted that the 7-7 findings

and reco''endations are contained in the M$dopti/e o'e -tudy ReportM and

M)hild -tudy ReportM prepared by the local office of the 7-7 through respondent

3l'a P. edaa.

owe/er, when the 'inor Qhedell >ernardo 0bea sought to obtain the

requisite tra/el clearance fro' the 7-7 in order to ?oin her adopti/e parents in


18/39

Page 1of 39

the ;nited -tates, the 7-7 found that it did not ha/e any record in its files

regarding the adoption and that there was ne/er any order fro' respondent ?udge

for the 7-7 to conduct a Mo'e and )hild -tudy ReportM in the case.

urther'ore, there was no directi/e fro' respondent ?udge for the social welfare

officer of the lower court to coordinate with the 7-7 on the 'atter of the required

reports for said 'inors adoption.

0--;3(

#ay a decree of adoption be granted on the basis of case study reports 'ade

by a social welfare officer of the courtL

R;A0NG(

No. $rticle %% of the )hild and outh elfare )ode pro/ides in no uncertain

ter's that(

No petition for adoption shall be granted unless the 7epart'ent of -ocial elfare,or the -ocial orB and )ounseling 7i/ision, in case of u/enile and 7o'estic

Relations )ourts, has 'ade a case study of the child to be adopted, his natural

parents as well as the prospecti/e adopting parents, and has sub'itted its report

and reco''endations on the 'atter to the court hearing such petition. he

7epart'ent of -ocial elfare shall inter/ene on behalf of the child if it finds, after

such case study, that the petition should be denied.

)ircular No. 1!, as a co'ple'entary 'easure, was issued by this )ourt

precisely to ob/iate the 'ishandling of adoption cases by ?udges, particularly in

respect to the afore'entioned case study to be conducted in accordance with

$rticle %% of Presidential 7ecree No. 6"% by the 7-7 itself and in/ol/ing the childto be adopted, its natural parents, and the adopting parents. 0t definiti/ely directs

Regional rial )ourts hearing adoption cases(

1: to N80 the #inistry of -ocial -er/ices and 7e/elop'ent, thru its local agency,

of the filing of adoption cases or the pendency thereof with respect to those cases

already filed@

!: to strictly )8#PA with the require'ent in $rticle %% of the aforesaid decree . . .


19/39

Page 19of 39

>y respondents failure to do so, he 'ay well ha/e wittingly or unwittingly

placed in ?eopardy the welfare and future of the child whose adoption was under

consideration. $doption, after all, is in a large 'easure a legal de/ice by which a

better future 'ay be accorded an unfortunate child liBe Qhedell >ernardo 0bea in

this case. reading on equally sensiti/e legal terrain, the social welfare officer

concerned, respondent 3l'a P. edaa, arrogated unto herself a 'atter thatpertained eelen of the Regional rial )ourt, >ranch %*, of Aingayen, Pangasinan is hereby

)3N-;R37 for /iolating $rticle %% of Presidential 7ecree No. 6"% and )ircular No.

1! of this )ourt@ and respondent 3l'a P. edaa, -ocial elfare 8fficer 00 of the

8ffice of the )lerB of )ourt, Regional rial )ourt of Aingayen, Pangasinan, is

R3PR0#$N737 for /iolating )ircular No. 1!.

Si"%lation o# @irt& Penalt o# a p%/lic o##icer == o# Do"estic *doption *ct R%les on

Ci4il Ser4ice *pplied

*non"o%s 4s! E""a C%ra"en

$.#. No. P5"*5!+49, une 1*, !"1"

acts(

his is an ad'inistrati/e case against 3''a >aldonado )ura'en, )ourt

0nterpreter 0 in the #unicipal rial )ourt of Ri2al in Nue/a 3ci?a, for dishonesty and

falsification of a public docu'ent.

8n 6 #arch !""&, the 8ffice of the )ourt $d'inistrator 8)$: recei/ed an

anony'ous co'plaint charging respondent with falsification of a public docu'ent

and si'ulation of birth.

he co'plaint alleged that respondent registered the birth of a child

supposedly na'ed Rica #ae >aldonado )ura'en in the local ci/il registry of Ri2al,

Nue/a 3ci?a. )o'plainant sub'itted the child=s purported birth certificate to

show respondent 'isrepresented that she was the child=s biological 'other and her

husband, Ricardo )ura'en, was the biological father. )o'plainant clai'ed

respondent was, in fact, the child=s 'aternal grand'other. )o'plainant sub'itted

the child=s original birth certificate to show that the child=s real na'e was Rinea

#ae )ura'en $quino and that her parents were spouses 8lga #ae >aldonado

)ura'en $quino and un $quino. $ccording to co'plainant, respondent included

the child as additional dependent in her inco'e ta< declaration.

0n his Report, 3ranch !4: of )abanatuan )ity /erified that Rinea #ae )ura'en $quino and Rica

#ae >aldonado )ura'en were the sa'e child. udge )aspillo confir'ed that the

child was, in fact, respondent=s granddaughter. he child=s real 'other, 8lga, was

one of respondent=s children.


20/39

Page 20of 39

udge )aspillo /erified that on %1 #arch !""6, respondent eut in the interest of substantial ?ustice, we 'ay appreciate the

'itigating circu'stance in the i'position of penalty, e/en if not raised by

respondent.

e thus i'pose on respondent the penalty ne


21/39

Page 21of 39

confined at the N)#, the go/ern'ent hospital ordered by the R) #andaluyong)ity to ascertain the actual psychological state of Guisande, who was being chargedwith a non5bailable offense.

he case arose fro' the following facts. Prior to the institution of the cri'inalproceedings, Guisande was co''itted by -o for psychiatric treat'ent and care atthe #aBati #edical )enter ##):. hus, the return of the warrant for the arrest of

Guisande, issued by udge acla which states that the for'er was confined at ##)for >ipolar #ood 7isorder and that she was Mnot ready for dischargeM. udge aclaordered Guisande=s referral to the N)# for an independent forensic assess'ent ofGuisande=s 'ental health to deter'ine if she would be able to stand arraign'entand undergo trial for Oualified heft. -ubsequently, udge acla, upon 'otion of theN)#, ordered that accused Guisande be physically brought to the N)# to ha/ete'porary legal custody of the accused, and thereafter, udge acla would issue thecorresponding order of confine'ent of Guisande in a regular ?ail facility upon theN)#s deter'ination that she was ready for trial.

3/entually, clai'ing Mlife5threateningM circu'stances surrounding herconfine'ent at the N)# which supposedly worsened her 'ental condition and/iolated her constitutional rights against solitary detention and assistance of

counsel, accused Guisande and her father filed a #otion for Relief fro' -olitary)onfine'ent and the present petition for the issuance of the writs of habeas corpusand a'paro.

he court granted the #otion for Relief. 8n the petition for habeas corpus anda'paro, the court resol/ed to issue a ?oint writ of habeas corpus and a'paro andrefer the petition to the )ourt of $ppeals for decision. #eanwhile, N)# sub'ittedits 3/aluation Report according to which, Guisande is co'petent to stand the rigorsof court trial.

ence, the petition for re/iew on certiorari.7uring the pendency of these consolidated cases, /arious e/ents occurred

which ulti'ately led to the incident before this )ourt. Public respondent udgeordered the dis'issal of )ri'inal )ase for Oualified heft against Guisande. 0n /iewof such dis'issal, udge acla contends that the cases for issuance of the writs ofhabeas corpus and a'paro and the petition for re/iew on certiorari should bedis'issed for ha/ing been rendered 'oot and acade'ic.

0--;3( /7E87ER 87E PE8I8I5N %5R 7AEAS #5RP1S S75163 E 3ISMISSE3 %5R7A;IN EEN REN3ERE3 M558 AN3 A#A3EMI#

3A7(he petition should be dis'issed. he petition for the writs of habeas corpus

and a'paro was based on the cri'inal case for Oualified heft against petitioner-os daughter, Guisande.

here is no affir'ation of petitioner -o=s clai' that the confine'ent ofaccused Guisande at the N)# was illegal. Neither were the respecti/e actsperfor'ed by respondents udge acla and 7r. icente in ascertaining the 'entalcondition of accused Guisande to withstand trial declared unlawful. 8n the contrary,the N)#, a well5reputed go/ern'ent forensic facility, albeit not held in high regardby petitioner -os and accused Guisandes fa'ily, had assessed Guisande fit for trial.

he Rules on the rits of abeas )orpus and $'paro are clear@ the act oro'ission or the threatened act or o'ission co'plained of 5 confine'ent andcustody for habeas corpus and /iolations of, or threat to /iolate, a persons life,liberty, and security for a'paro cases 5 should be illegal or unlawful.

he 'ost basic criterion for the issuance of the writ, therefore, is that theindi/idual seeBing such relief is illegally depri/ed of his freedo' of 'o/e'ent orplace under so'e for' of illegal restraint. 0f an indi/idual=s liberty is restrained /iaso'e legal process, the writ of habeas corpus is una/ailing. unda'entally, in orderto ?ustify the grant of the writ of habeas corpus, the restraint of liberty 'ust be inthe nature of an illegal and in/oluntary depri/ation of freedo' of action.

hile habeas corpus is a writ of right, it will not issue as a 'atter of course oras a 'ere perfunctory operation on the filing of the petition. udicial discretion iscalled for in its issuance and it 'ust be clear to the ?udge to who' the petition ispresented that, pri'a facie, the petitioner is entitled to the writ. 0t is only if the


22/39

Page 22of 39

court is satisfied that a person is being unlawfully restrained of his liberty will thepetition for habeas corpus be granted. 0f the respondents are not detaining orrestraining the applicant of the person in whose behalf the petition is filed, thepetition should be dis'issed.

0n the cases at bar, the question before the )$ was correctly li'ited to whichhospital, the N)# or a 'edical facility of accused=s own choosing, accused

Guisande should be referred for treat'ent of a supposed 'ental condition. 0naddition, it was procedurally proper for the R) to asB the N)# for a separateopinion on accused=s 'ental fitness to be arraigned and stand trial.

)ertainly, with the dis'issal of the non5bailable case against accusedGuisande, she is no longer under peril to be confined in a ?ail facility, 'uch less atthe N)#. 3ffecti/ely, accused Guisande=s person, and treat'ent of any 'edicaland 'ental 'alady she 'ay or 'ay not ha/e, can no longer be sub?ected to thelawful processes of the R) #andaluyong )ity. 0n short, the cases ha/e now beenrendered 'oot and acade'ic which, in the often cited David v. Macapagal-

Arroyo, is defined as Mone that ceases to present a ?usticiable contro/ersy by /irtueof super/ening e/ents, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or/alue.M

rit o# .a/eas Corp%s Not proper pending Special Ci4il

*ction #or Certiorari /e#ore t&e Co%rt o# *ppeals t&

Di4ision!

=n t&e "atter o# t&e Petition #or .a/eas Corp%s o# CE*R= $ON*'ES and

'=S :ES*

RO@ERTO R*;*E' P'=DO 4s! $en! E;REN *@7 as C&ie# o# Sta## o# t&e

*r"ed ;orces o# t&e P&ilippines and all persons acting in &is stead and

%nder &is a%t&orit7 and $EN! ERNESTO DE 'EON7 in &is capacit as t&e

;lag O##icer in Co""and o# t&e P&ilippine Na47 and all persons acting in&is stead and %nder &is a%t&orit7 respondents!

G.R. No. 1&"9!4, uly 4, !""&

acts(

0n line with their participation in the C8aBwood #utinyD that led to Pres.

Gloria #acapagal $rroyo=s issuance of Procla'ation No. 4!& declaring the country

to be under a Mstate of rebellionD and General 8rder No. 4 directing the $P and the

PNP to carry out all reasonable 'easures, gi/ing due regard to constitutional rights,

to suppress and quell the Mrebellion.M, petitioners were taBen into custody by their

-er/ice )o''ander. Gon2ales and #esa were not charged before a court 'artialwith /iolation of the $rticles of ar. hey were, howe/er, a'ong the soldiers

charged before >ranch 61 of the Regional rial )ourt R): of #aBati )ity, with the

cri'e of )oup 7=etat as defined under $rticle 1%45$ of the Re/ised Penal )ode.

hey were consequently detained in ort >onifacio under the custody of the

Philippine #arines. $ petition for bail was filed by the accused soldiers which the

R) subsequently granted. 7espite of the order and the ser/ice thereof, petitioners

were not released. $s a response, the People of the Philippines 'o/ed for partial

reconsideration of the order granting bail. ith the denial of the #otion for Partial

Reconsideration, the People filed with the )ourt of $ppeals on 4 ebruary !""+ a

special ci/il action for certiorari under Rule 6+ of the Rules of )ourt with urgent

prayer for e'porary Restraining 8rder R8: andEor rit of Preli'inary 0n?unction.

#oreo/er, since Gon2ales and #esa continued to be in detention, a Petition

for abeas )orpus was filed by petitioner Pulido on their behalf. 0n response,

Respondents prayed that the Petition for abeas )orpus be dis'issed pri'arily on

two grounds( 1: the continued detention of Gon2ales and #esa is ?ustified because

of the pendency of the Petition for )ertiorari questioning the order dated * uly


23/39

Page 23of 39

!""4 of the R) granting bail to Gon2ales and #esa before the &th 7i/ision of the

)ourt of $ppeals and !: petitioner is guilty of foru' shopping because of his failure

to state in the petition that the order granting bail has been ele/ated to the )ourt of

$ppeals and pending before its &th 7i/ision. hus, we ha/e this case.

0ssue( hether or not the petition for habeas corpus was proper despite of thepending special ci/il action for certiorari before the )ourt of $ppeals &th 7i/ision.

eld(

No. hat the present petition has direct and inti'ate linBs with the certiorari

case is beyond doubt as they in/ol/e two sides of the sa'e coin. he certiorari case

filed by the People seeBs to pre/ent the release of Gon2ales and #esa by annulling

the lower court=s grant of bail. he present petition, on the other hand, was filed in

behalf of Gon2ales and #esa to secure their i''ediate release because the order

granting bail is already e


24/39

Page 2+of 39

NR.=D* .R= *:P*T*N 4s! D$E >=R$='=O >! :*C*R*=$

G.R. No. 1*!49&, !9 une !"1"

P3R3Q, .(

$)-(

$tty. $lioden 7. 7alaig, ead of the )8#3A3) Aegal 7epart'ent, was Billedat the corner of #. . 7el Pilar and Pedro Gil -treets, 3r'ita, #anila. 0n/estigationconducted by the #anila Police 7istrict o'icide -ection yielded the identity of the'ale perpetrator as P81 $'patuan. )onsequently, P81 $'patuan was co''andedto the #P7 7istrict 7irector for proper disposition. AiBewise, inquest proceedingswere conducted by the #anila Prosecutor=s 8ffice.

On 1 *pril 2007Police -enior -uperintendent Guinto, rendered his Pre5)harge 3/aluation Report against P81 $'patuan, finding probable cause to chargeP81 $'patuan with Gra/e #isconduct #urder: and reco''ending that said P81$'patuan be sub?ected to su''ary hearing.

:ean


25/39

Page 2,of 39

assure the PNP authorities that the police officers concerned are always accountedfor.

0n su', petitioner is unable to discharge the burden of showing that she isentitled to the issuance of the writ prayed for in behalf of her husband, P81$'patuan. he petition fails to show on its face that the latter is unlawfullydepri/ed of his liberty guaranteed and enshrined in the )onstitution.

;! R=T O; *:P*RO *ND .*@E*S D*T*

=n t&e :atter o# t&e Petition #or t&e rit o# *"paro and t&e rit o# .a/eas

Data in ;a4or o# :elissa C! RoFas

:elissa C! RoFas 4s! $loria :acapagal-*rroo7 et al!

G. R. No. 1*91++, -epte'ber &, !"1",

3n >anc

Pere2, .

$)-(

Roagong

$lyansang #aBabayan5 ;nited -tates of $'erica >$$N5;-$: of which she is a

'e'ber. 7uring the course of her i''ersion, Ro$$N5arlac in conducting an initial health sur/ey in Aa Pa2, arlac for a future

'edical 'ission.

$fter doing sur/ey worB on 19 #ay !""9, Roagong -iBat,

>arangay FapaniBian, Aa Pa2, arlac. $t around 1(%" in the afternoon, howe/er,

Ro


26/39

Page 2of 39

Ro


27/39

Page 2of 39

and affiliation of the perpetrators. 7irect e/idence of identity, when

obtainable, 'ust be preferred o/er 'ere circu'stantial e/idence based on

patterns and si'ilarity, because the for'er indubitably offers greater

certainty as to the true identity and affiliation of the perpetrators. $n a'paro

court cannot si'ply lea/e to re'ote and ha2y inference what it could

otherwise clearly and directly ascertain. 0n the case at bench, petitioner was,in fact, able to include in her 8ffer of 3


28/39

Page 2of 39

inspection order cannot issue on the basis of allegations that are, in

the'sel/es, unreliable and doubtful.

e. he writ of habeas data was conceptuali2ed as a ?udicial re'edy enforcing

the right to pri/acy, 'ost especially the right to infor'ational pri/acy of

indi/iduals. he writ operates to protect a person=s right to controlinfor'ation regarding hi'self, particularly in the instances where such

infor'ation is being collected through unlawful 'eans in order to achie/e

unlawful ends. Needless to state, an indispensable require'ent before the

pri/ilege of the writ 'ay be e. >olanteand Paula >. >ringas and a resident since birth of >angued, $bra@

!. hat per records in the 8ffice of the #unicipal )i/il Registrar, >angued, $bra, her

registered na'e is Roselie 3loisa >ringas >olante which na'e, as far as she can

re'e'ber, she did not use but instead the na'e #aria 3loisa >ringas >olante@


29/39

Page 29of 39

%. hat the na'e #aria 3loisa appears in all her school as well as in her other public

and pri/ate records@ and

4. hat her 'arried na'e is #aria 3loisa >. >olante5#arbella.

hus, to pre/ent confusion, #s. >olante prayed that her registered na'e be

changed to confor' to the na'e she has always carried and used.

he trial court ordered respondent, as petitioner, to co'ply with the

?urisdictional require'ents of notice and publication, and set the hearing on

ebruary !", !""1.

$t the scheduled ebruary !", !""1 initial hearing, the trial court issued an

8rder gi/ing respondent fi/e +: days within which to file a written for'al offer of

e/idence to establish ?urisdictional facts and set the presentation of e/idence

proper on #arch !6, !""1.

8n une +, !""1, the branch clerB of court, acting upon the trial courtse-$N0$A )8#PA0$N)3 0 -3). %,

R;A3 1"% 8 3 R;A3- 8 )8;R 0- -;0)03N 8 3- 3 R0$A )8;R 0

;R0-70)08N 8 $F3 )8GN0Q$N)3 8 3 P3008N $ O;8.

00. 33R 8R N8 R3-P8N73N- >$R3 3-0#8N, ;N-;PP8R37 >

$N 83R 3073N)3, 0- -;0)03N 8 PR83 $ 3 )$NG3 8 3R N$#3

0- N8 R3-8R37 8R 0AA3G$A P;RP8-3-.

R;A0NG(

0. 3-. here is a substantial co'pliance with -ec. %, Rule 1"% of the rules of

court with respect to the ?urisdictional require'ents of notice and publication in

Petition for )hange of Na'e.


30/39

Page 30of 39

-ections ! and %, Rule 1"% of the Rules of )ourt prescribe the procedural and

?urisdictional require'ents for a change of na'e. 0n Republic /. on. udge of

>ranch 000 of the )0 of )ebu, citing pertinent ?urisprudence, non5co'pliance with

these require'ents would be fatal to the ?urisdiction of the lower court to hear and

deter'ine a petition for change of na'e.

-3). !. )ontents of petition. 5 $ petition for change of na'e shall be signed

and /erified by the person desiring his na'e changed, or so'e other person on his

behalf, and shall set forth(

a: hat the petitioner has been a bona fide resident of the pro/ince where

the petition is filed for at least three %: years prior to the date of such filing@

b: he cause for which the change of the petitioners na'e is sought@

c: he na'e asBed for.

-3). %. 8rder for hearing. 5 0f the petition filed is sufficient in for' and

substance, the court, by an order reciting the purpose of the petition, shall fi< a

date and place for the hearing thereof, and shall direct that a copy of the order be

published before the hearing at least once a weeB for three %: successi/e weeBs in

so'e newspaper of general circulation published in the pro/ince, U. he date set

for the hearing shall not be within thirty %": days prior to an election nor within

four 4: 'onths after the last publication of the notice. ;nderscoring added.:

$s gleaned fro' the records, the basic petition for change of na'e was filed

on 8ctober 1*, !""" and set for hearing on ebruary !", !""1. he notice ofhearing was published in the No/e'ber !%, and %", !""" and 7ece'ber &, !"""

issues of the Norlu2onian )ourier. )ounted fro' the last day, 7ece'ber &, !""", of

publication of the 8rder, the initial hearing scheduled on ebruary !", !""1 is

indeed within the four5'onth prohibited period prescribed under -ection %, Rule

1"% of the Rules. he )ourt, as did the )$, 'ust e'phasi2e, howe/er, that the trial

court, e/idently upon reali2ing the error co''itted respecting the 45'onth

li'itation, lost no ti'e in rectifying its 'istaBe by rescheduling, with due notice to

all concerned, the initial hearing for se/eral ti'es, finally settling for -epte'ber !+,

!""1.

0n the conte


31/39

Page 31of 39

$ccordingly, there was no actual need for a republication of the initial notice of the

hearing.

urther'ore, during the -epte'ber !+, !""1 initial hearing which, to

reiterate is already outside the 45'onth li'itation prescribed by the Rules, the

pro/incial prosecutor of $bra interposed no ob?ection as to the genuineness,authenticity, rele/ancy or sufficiency of the eut beyond practicalities, si'ple ?ustice dictates that e/ery person shall be

allowed to a/ail hi'self of any opportunity to i'pro/e his social standing, pro/ided

he does so without causing pre?udice or in?ury to the interests of the -tate or of

other people.

he 8-Gs argu'ent that respondents bare testi'ony is insufficient to show

that the requested na'e is not sought for any illegal purpose andEor in a/oidance of

any entangle'ent with the law deser/es scant consideration. -urely, the issuance

of a police and N>0 clearance or liBe certification, while perhaps apropos,cannot, as

the 8-G suggests, be a con/incing nor' of ones good 'oral character or

co'pelling e/idence to pro/e that the change of na'e is not sought for any e/il


32/39

Page 32of 39

'oti/e or fraudulent intent. Respondents open court testi'ony, gi/en under pain of

per?ury and for which she was cross5eranch 6&, then presided by udge )esar #. -otero

who co'pulsorily retired on !% ebruary !""6.

he audit tea' noticed that there were no special proceedings case records

presented. ;pon inquiry, the )lerB of )ourt Paulino -aguyod asserted that 'ost of

these cases are for Petitions for )orrection of 3ntries in the )i/il Registry and ga/e

the audit tea' copies of the decisions.

he audit tea' obser/ed that al'ost all of the petitions ha/e no hearings

conducted and that the date of filing indicated in the docBet booBs and the date of

the decision was so near that it will be i'probable to co'ply with the publication

require'ent under the Rules of )ourt.

0n /iew of these obser/ations, the udge -otero and )lerB of )ourt -aguyod

were 'ade to e


33/39

Page 33of 39

7uring the deliberation, it was clear that the local ci/il registrar is gi/en the

authority to act on petitions for corrections of entries and change of first na'e or

nicBna'es, yet there was no 'ention that such petition can no longer be filed with

the regular courts. here was no intent on the part of the law'aBers to re'o/e the

authority of the trial courts to 'aBe ?udicial corrections of entries in the ci/il

registry. 0t can thus be concluded that the local ci/il registry has pri'ary, noteorn in #aBati on -epte'ber 9, 19&!, ulian 3dward 3'erson )oseteng#agpayo respondent: is the son of ul/io #. #agpayo r. and $nna 7o'inique

#arque25Ai' )oseteng who, as respondent=s certificate of li/e birth shows,

contracted 'arriage on #arch !6, 19&!.

)lai'ing, howe/er, that his parents were ne/er legally 'arried, respondent

filed on uly !!, !""* at the Regional rial )ourt R): of Oue2on )ity a Petition

to change his na'e to ulian 3dward 3'erson #arque2 Ai' )oseteng. he petition,

docBeted as -PP No. O5"*6%"+*, was entitled M0N R3 P3008N 8R )$NG3 8

N$#38 ;A0$N 37$R7 3#3R-8N )8-33NG #$GP$8 8 ;A0$N 37$R7

3#3R-8N #$RO;3Q5A0# )8-33NG.M

0n support of his petition, respondent sub'itted a certification fro' the

National -tatistics 8ffice stating that his 'other $nna 7o'inique Mdoes not appear

in IitsJ National 0ndices of #arriage.D Respondent also sub'itted his acade'ic

records fro' ele'entary up to college showing that he carried the surna'e

M)oseteng,M and the birth certificate of his child where M)osetengM appears as his


34/39

Page 3+of 39

surna'e. 0n the 199*, !""1 and !""4 3lections, respondent ran and was elected as

)ouncilor of Oue2on )ity=s %rd 7istrict using the na'e M;A0$N #.A. )8-33NG.M

8n order of >ranch && of the Oue2on )ity R), respondent a'ended his

petition by alleging therein co'pliance with the %5year residency require'ent under

-ection !, Rule 1"%J of the Rules of )ourt.

he notice setting the petition for hearing on No/e'ber !", !""* was

published in the newspaper >roadside in its issues of 8ctober %15No/e'ber 6,

!""*, No/e'ber &51%, !""*, and No/e'ber 145!", !""*. $nd a copy of the notice

was furnished the 8ffice of the -olicitor General 8-G:.

No opposition to the petition ha/ing been filed, an order of general default

was entered by the trial court which then allowed respondent to present e/idence

e< parte

>y 7ecision of anuary *, !""9, the trial court granted respondent=s petition

and directed the )i/il Registrar of#aBati )ity to(

1. 7elete the entry M#arch !6, 19&!M in 0te' !4 for M7$3 $N7 PA$)3 8 #$RR0$G3

8 P$R03-M Iin herein respondent=s )ertificate of li/e >irthJ@

!. )orrect the entry M#$GP$8M in the space for the Aast Na'e of the IrespondentJ

to M)8-33NGM@

%. 7elete the entry M)8-33NGM in the space for #iddle Na'e of the IrespondentJ@

and

4. 7elete the entry Mul/io #iranda #agpayo, r.M in the space for $3R of theIrespondentJU e'phasis and underscoring supplied@ capitali2ation in the original:

he Republic of the Philippines Republic: filed a 'otion for reconsideration

but it was denied by the trial court by 8rder of uly !, !""9, hence, it, thru the 8-G,

lodged the present petition for re/iew to the )ourt on pure question of law.

0--;3(

1. hether or not the petition for change of na'e in/ol/ing change of ci/il

status should be 'ade through appropriate ad/ersarial proceedings.

!. hether or not the trial court e


35/39

Page 3,of 39

no showing that the desired change of na'e was for a fraudulent purpose

or that the change of na'e would pre?udice public interest.

VVV Respondent=s reason for changing his na'e cannot be

considered as one of, or analogous to, recogni2ed grounds, howe/er.

he present petition 'ust be differentiated fro' $lfon /. Republic

of the Philippines. 0n $lfon, the )ourt allowed the therein petitioner,

3strella $lfon, to use the na'e that she had been Bnown since childhood

in order to a/oid confusion. $lfon did not deny her legiti'acy, howe/er.

-he 'erely sought to use the surna'e of her 'other which she had been

using since childhood. Ruling in her fa/or, the )ourt held that she was

lawfully entitled to use her 'other=s surna'e, adding that the a/oidance

of confusion was ?ustification enough to allow her to do so. 0n the present

case, howe/er, respondent denies his legiti'acy.

he change being sought in respondent=s petition goes so far as to

affect his legal status in relation to his parents. 0t seeBs to change his

legiti'acy to that of illegiti'acy. Rule 1"% then would not suffice to grant

respondent=s supplication.

Aabayo5Rowe /. Republic categorically holds that Mchanges which

'ay affect the ci/il status fro' legiti'ate to illegiti'ate . . .

are substantial and contro/ersial alterations which can only be allowed

after appropriate ad/ersary proceedings . . .M

VVVVVVVV -ince respondent=s desired change affects his ci/il status

fro' legiti'ate to illegiti'ate, Rule 1"* applies. 0t reads(

-3)08N 1. ho 'ay file petition.$ny person interested in any

act, e/ent, order or decree concerning the ci/il status of persons which

has been recorded in the ci/il register, 'ay file a /erified petition for

the cancellation or correction of any entry relating thereto, with the IR)J

of the pro/ince where the corresponding ci/il registry is located.

-3). %. Parties.hen cancellation or correction of an entry in the

ci/il register is sought, the ci/il registrar and all persons who ha/e or

clai' any interest which would be affected thereby shall be 'ade parties

to the proceeding.

-3). 4. Notice and publication. T;pon the filing of the petition, the

court shall, by an order, fi< the ti'e and place for the hearing of the

sa'e, and cause reasonable notice thereof to be gi/en to the persons

na'ed in the petition. he court shall also cause the order to be published

once a weeB for three %: consecuti/e weeBs in a newspaper of general

circulation in the pro/ince. e'phasis, italics and underscoring supplied:

!. Rule 1"* clearly directs that a petition which concerns one=s ci/il status

should be filed in the ci/il registry in which the entry is sought to be

cancelled or corrected T that of #aBati in the present case, and Mall

persons who ha/e or clai' any interest which would be affected therebyM

should be 'ade parties to the proceeding.

$s earlier stated, howe/er, the petition of respondent was filed not

in #aBati where his birth certificate was registered but in Oue2on )ity.

$nd as the abo/e5'entioned title of the petition filed by respondent


36/39

Page 3of 39

before the R) shows, neither the ci/il registrar of #aBati nor his father

and 'other were 'ade parties thereto.

Rule 1"% regarding change of na'e and in Rule 1"* concerning the

cancellation or correction of entries in the ci/il registry are separate and

distinct.

$side fro' i'proper /enue, he failed to i'plead the ci/il registrar

of #aBati and all affected parties as respondents in the case.M$ petition

for a substantial correction or change of entries in the ci/il registry should

ha/e as respondents the ci/il registrar, as well as all other persons who

ha/e or clai' to ha/e any interest that would be affected thereby.M

Rule 1"* clearly 'andates two sets of notices to different Mpotential

oppositors.M he first notice is that gi/en to the Mpersons na'ed in the

petitionM and the second which is through publication: is that gi/en to

other persons who are not na'ed in the petition but nonetheless 'ay be

considered interested or affected parties, such as creditors. hat two sets

of notices are 'andated under the abo/e5quoted -ection 4 is /alidated by

the subsequent -ection +, also abo/e5quoted, which pro/ides for two

periods for the two types of Mpotential oppositorsM: within which to file an

opposition 1+ days fro' notice or fro' the last date of publication:.

he purpose precisely of -ection 4, Rule 1"* is to bind the whole

world to the subsequent ?udg'ent on the petition. he sweep of the

decision would co/er e/en parties who should ha/e been i'pleaded under

-ection %, Rule 1"* but were inad/ertently left out

C&ange o# Stat%s *lien Spo%se #ailed to co"pl on t&e

%risdictional Re8%ire"ent

$ER@ERT CORP >S! D*=S?'?N STO! TO:*S

G.R. No. 1*6+&1, $ugust 11, !"1"

$)-(

Gerbert )orpu2 was a for'er ilipino citi2en who acquired )anadian

citi2enship through naturali2ation on No/. !""". 8n, an. 1* !""+, he 'arried a

ilipina na'ed 7aisylyn -to. o'as. 7ue to worB and other professional

co''it'ents, Gerbert left for )anada soon after their wedding. e returned to the

Philippines so'eti'e in $pril !""+ to surprise her wife but was shocBed to disco/er

that 7aisylyn was ha/ing an affair with another 'an. urt and disappointed,

Gerbert went bacB to )anada and filed a petition for di/orce and was granted.

wo years after, Gerbert fell in lo/e with another ilipina. 0n his desire to

'arry his new ilipina fiancWe, Gerbert went to Pasig )ity )i/il Registry 8ffice and

registered the )anadian di/orce decree on their 'arriage certificate. 7espite its

registration, an N-8 official infor'ed Gerbert that their 'arriage still e


37/39

Page 3of 39

R) denied Gerbert=s petition contending that $rt. !6 !: applies only to

ilipinos and not to aliens. Gerbert appealed by certiorari to the -upre'e )ourt

under Rule 4+.

0--;3(

hether the registration of the foreign di/orce decree was properly 'ade.

3A7(

-upre'e )ourt held in the negati/e. $rticle 41! of the )i/il )ode declares

that Cno entry in a ci/il register shall be changed or corrected, without ?udicial

order.D he Rules of )ourt supple'ents $rticle 41! of the )i/il )ode by specifically

pro/iding for a special re'edial proceeding by which entries in the ci/il registry 'ay

be ?udicially cancelled or corrected. Rule 1"* of the Rules of )ourt sets in detail the

?urisdictional and procedural require'ents that 'ust be co'plied with before a

?udg'ent, authori2ing the cancellation or correction, 'ay be annotated in the ci/il

registry.

=! R'E 1037 107 R* 90+ Disting%is&ed

REP@'=C O; T.E P.='=PP=NES 4s! :ER'?N :ERC*DER*

G.R. No. 1*6"!&, 7ece'ber *, !"1"

$)-(

8n une 6, !""+, #erlyn #ercadera #ercadera:, represented by her sister

and duly constituted $ttorney5in5act, 3/elyn #. 8ga 8ga:, sought the correction of

her gi/en na'e as it appeared in her )ertificate of Ai/e >irth fro' #arilyn A.

#ercadera to #erlyn A. #ercadera before the 8ffice of the Aocal )i/il Registrar of

7ipolog )ity pursuant to Republic $ct No. 9"4*.

;nder R.$. No. 9"4*, the city or 'unicipal ci/il registrar or consul general is

now authori2ed to effect the change of first na'e or nicBna'e and the correction of

clerical or typographical errors in ci/il registry entries. he 8ffice of the Aocal )i/il

Registrar of 7ipolog )ity, howe/er, refused to effect the correction unless a court

order was obtained Mbecause the )i/il Registrar therein is not yet equipped with a

per'anent appoint'ent before he can /alidly act on petitions for corrections filedbefore their office as 'andated by R.$. No. 9"4*.M

#ercadera then filed a Petition or )orrection of -o'e 3ntries as $ppearing

in the )ertificate of Ai/e >irth under Rule 1"* before the Regional rial )ourt of

7ipolog )ity R):. ;pon receipt of the petition for correction of entry, the R)

issued an order, dated une 1", !""+, for the hearing of said petition. he 8ffice of

the -olicitor General 8-G: deputi2ed the 8ffice of the )ity Prosecutor to assist in

the case. ithout any ob?ection fro' the )ity Prosecutor, the testi'ony of 8ga and

se/eral photocopies of docu'ents were for'ally offered and 'arBed as e/idence to

pro/e that #ercadera ne/er used the na'e M#arilynM in any of her public or pri/ate

transactions.

0n its -epte'ber !*, !""+ 7ecision, the R) granted the petition and ruled

that the docu'entary e/idence presented by #ercadera sufficiently supported the

circu'stances alleged in her petition. )onsidering that she had used M#erlynM as

her gi/en na'e since childhood until she disco/ered the discrepancy in her

)ertificate of Ai/e >irth, the R) was con/inced that the correction was ?ustified.


38/39

Page 3of 39

he 8-G ti'ely appealed praying for the re/ersal and setting aside of the

R) decision. or the 8-G, the correction in the spelling of #ercadera=s gi/en na'e

Mis in truth a 'aterial correction as it would 'odify or increase substanti/e rightsM,

which would ha/e been proper had she filed a petition under Rule 1"% and pro/ed

any of the grounds therefor.

he )$ was not persuaded. 0n its 7ece'ber 9, !""* 7ecision, the appellate

court affir'ed the questioned R) order.

8n #arch 6, !""9, the 8-G filed the present petition. 8n behalf of #ercadera,

the Public $ttorney=s 8ffice P$8: filed its )o''ent on uly %, !""9.

0--;3-(

33R 8R N8 3 )8;R 8 $PP3$A- 3RR37 8N $ O;3-08N 8 A$ 0N

GR$N0NG 3 )$NG3 0N R3-P8N73N=- N$#3 ;N73R R;A3 1"%.

3A7(

Rule 1"% procedurally go/erns ?udicial petitions for change of gi/en na'e or

surna'e, or both, pursuant to $rticle %&6 of the )i/il )ode. his rule pro/ides the

procedure for an independent special proceeding in court to establish the status of

a person in/ol/ing his relations with others, that is, his legal position in, or with

regard to, the rest of the co''unity. 3ssentially, a change of na'e does not define

or effect a change of one=s e


39/39

Page 39of 39

hat it did allow was the correction of her 'isspelled gi/en na'e which she had

been using e/er since she could re'e'ber.

#ercadera co'plied with the require'ent for an ad/ersarial proceeding

before the lower court. he publication and posting of the notice of hearing in a

newspaper of general circulation and the notices sent to the 8-G and the Aocal )i/ilRegistry are sufficient indicia of an ad/erse proceeding. )onsidering that the 8-G

did not oppose the petition and the 'otion to present its e/idence e< parte when it

had the opportunity to do so, it cannot now co'plain that the proceedings in the

lower court were procedurally defecti/e. herefore, the 7ece'ber 9, !""* 7ecision

of the )ourt of $ppeals is $0R#37.

special proceedings recent

Documents