SIGNIFICANT DOCTRINES IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS JURISDICTION JURISDICTION OF PROBATE COURT Well - settled is the rule that a probat probate e court court has the jurisd jurisdict iction ion to dete determ rmin ine e all all the the prop proper erti ties es of the the deceased, to determine whether they should or should not be included in the inve invent ntor ory y or list list of prop proper erti ties es to be administered. The said court is primarily concerned with the administration, liquidation and distribution of the estate. (Union Bank of the Phi Philip lippin pines es vs. Santi Santiba banez nez,, et al., G.R. 149926, February 23, 2005)
The The gene genera rall rule rule is that that the the jurisdic jurisdiction tion of the trial court court either either as an intestate or a probate court relates only to matters having to do with the settlement of the estate and probate of will will of deceas deceased ed person persons s but does not not exte extend nd to the the dete determ rmin inat atio ion n of ques questi tion ons s of owne owners rshi hip p that that aris arise e during during the proce proceedi edings ngs.. The patent patent rationale for this rule is that such court exercises special and limited jurisdiction. A well-recognized deviation to the rule is the principle that an intestate or a prob probat ate e cour courtt may may hear hear and and pass pass upon questions of ownership when its purpose is to determine whether or not a proper property ty should should be includ included ed in the inve invent ntor ory. y. In such such situa ituati tion ons s the the adjudica adjudication tion is merely merely incident incidental al and provisional. Thus, in Past Pastor or,, Jr. Jr. vs. vs. Cour Courtt of Ap Appe peal als, s, we held: “x x x As a rule, the question of owne owners rshi hip p is an extr extran aneo eous us matt matter er which the probate court cannot resolve with finality. Thus, for the purpose of determining whether a certain prop proper erty ty shou hould or shoul ould not not be incl includ uded ed in the the inve invent ntor ory y of esta estate te properties, the probate court may pass upon the title thereto, but such dete determ rmin inat atio ion n is prov provis isio iona nal, l, not not conclusive, and is subj subjec ectt to the the fina finall deci ecision sion in a sepa separa rate te acti action on to reso resolv lve e titl title. e.” ” (Pacioles, Jr. vs. Chuatoco-Ching, G.R. 127920, August 9, 2005) It is well-settled in this jurisdiction, sanctioned and reiterated reiterated in a long line of decisions, that when a ques questi tion on aris arises es as to owne owners rshi hip p of proper property ty allege alleged d to be a part part of the esta estate te of the the dece deceas ased ed pers person on,, but but claime claimed d by some some other other person person to be his property, not by virtue of any right of inheritance from the deceased but by title adverse to that of the deceased and his estate, such question cannot be determined in the course of
an intestat intestate e or probate probate proceedi proceedings. ngs. The intestate or probate court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such contentions, which must be submitted to the the cour courtt in the the exer exerci cise se of its its general jurisdiction as a regional trial court. Jurisprudence teaches us that: “A prob probat ate e cour courtt or one one in char charge ge of proce oceedi edings ngs whet whethe herr testa estatte or intestate cannot adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed to be a part of the estate and which are claimed claimed to belong belong to outside outside parties. parties. All All that that the the said said cour courtt coul could d do as regards said properties is to determine whether they should or should not be incl includ uded ed in the the inve invent ntor ory y or list list of properti properties es to be administered administered by the admin administ istrat rator. or. If there there is no dis disput pute, e, well and good, but if there is, then the part partie ies, s, the the admi admini nist stra rato tor, r, and and the the opposing parties have to resort to an ordinary action for a final determination of the conflicting claims of titl title e beca becaus use e the the prob probat ate e cour courtt canno cannott do so." so." Hence, Hence, respo responde ndent’ nt’s s recour recourse se is to file file a separ separate ate actio action n with with a court court of genera generall jurisd jurisdict iction ion.. (Pacioles, Jr. vs. Chuatoco-Ching, G.R. 127920, August 9, 2005) ESTATE OF DECEASED PERSONS In our jurisd jurisdict iction ion,, the rule is that that there there can be no valid valid parti partitio tion n among the heirs until after the will has been probated.
In testate testate successi succession, on, there there can be no valid partition among the heirs until after the will has been probated. The law enjoins the probate of a will and and the the publ public ic requ requir ires es it, it, beca becaus use e unless unless a will will is proba probated ted and and notice notice thereof given to the whole world, the righ rightt of a pers person on to disp dispos ose e of his his prop proper erty ty by will will may may be rend render ered ed nugatory. (Union Bank of the Philippines vs. Santibanez, et al., G.R. 149926, February 23, 2005) Settled is the rule in this jurisdiction that when an order authorizing the sale or encumbrance encumbrance of real property was issued by the testate or inte intest stat ate e cour courtt with withou outt prev previo ious us noti notice ce to the the heir heirs, s, devi devise sees es and and legatees as required by the Rules, it is not only the contract itself which is null and void but also the order of the court authorizi authorizing ng the same. same. (Pahamotang, et al. vs. Philippine National Bank, et al., G.R. 156403, March 31, 2005)
Where special proceedings had been been ins instit titute uted d but had been been finall finally y closed and terminated, however, or if a putative heir has lost the right to have himself declared in the special proceedings as co-heir and he can no longer ask for its re-opening, then an ordinary civil action can be filed for his declar declarati ation on as heir heir in order order to bring bring about the annulment of the partition or dis distri tributi bution on or adjudi judica cati tion on of a property or properties belonging to the estate estate of the deceased. deceased. (Portugal, et al. vs. Portugal Portugal-Belt -Beltran ran,, G.R. G.R. 155555, 155555, August 16, 2005)
No law requires partition among heirs to be in writing and be registered in order to be valid. The requirement in Sec. 1, Rule 74 of the Revised Rules of Court that a partition be put in a public docume document nt and regis register tered, ed, has has for its purpose the protection of creditors and the the heir heirs s them themse selv lves es agai agains nstt tard tardy y claims. The object of registration is to serve as constructive notice to others. It follows then that the intrinsic validity of part partit itio ion n not not exec execut uted ed with with the the prescribed formalities is not undermined when no creditors to take into consideration, it is competent for the heirs of an estate to enter into an agreement for distribution thereof in a manner and upon a plan different from thos those e prov provid ided ed by the the rule rules s from from which, in the first place, nothing can be infe inferr rred ed that that a writ writte ten n or othe otherr formality is essential for the partition to be valid. The partition of inherited property need not be embodied in a public document so as to be effective as regards the heirs that participated ther therei ein. n. The The requ requir irem emen entt of Arti Articl cle e 1358 of the Civil Code that acts which have have for for thei theirr obje object ct the the crea creati tion on,, transmission, modification or exting extinguis uishme hments nts of real real rights rights over over immovable property, must appear in a public instrument, is only for conv conven enie ienc nce, e, nonnon-co comp mpli lian ance ce with with which which does does not affect affect the valid validity ity of enforceability of the acts of the parties as amon among g them themse selv lves es.. An And d neit neithe herr does does the the Stat Statut ute e of Frau Frauds ds unde underr Arti Articl cle e 1403 1403 of the the New New Civi Civill Code Code apply because partition among heirs is not legall legally y deemed deemed a convey conveyan ance ce of real real prop proper erty ty,, cons consid ider erin ing g that that it invo involv lves es not not a tran transf sfer er of prop proper erty ty from from one one to the the othe otherr but but rath rather er,, a confirma confirmation tion or ratifica ratification tion of title title or right of property that an heir is reno renoun unci cing ng in favo favorr of anot anothe herr heir heir who accepts and receives the inheritance. (Spouses Castro, et. al. vs. Miat, G.R. 143297, February 11, 2003)
ADMINISTRATORS ADMINISTRATORS AND EXECUTORS It should be noted that on the the matter tter of appoi pointme ntment nt of admi admini nist stra rato torr of the the esta estate te of the the dece deceas ased ed,, the the surv surviv ivin ing g spou spouse se is preferred over the next of kin of the decede decedent. nt. When When the law law speaks speaks of of “next of kin”, the reference is to those who are entitled, under the statute of distribution, on, to the decedent’s prope property rty;; one whose whose relati relations onship hip is such that he is entitled to share in the estate estate as distributed, distributed, or, in short, an heir. In resolving, therefore, the issue of whether an applicant for letters of administration is a next of kin or an heir of the decedent, the probate court perfor perforce ce has has to determ determine ine and pass pass upon the issue of filiation. A separate action will only result in a multiplicity of suits. suits. Upon this consider consideratio ation, n, the trial court acted within bounds when it looked into and pass upon the claimed relationship of respondent to the late Franci Francisco sco An Angel geles. es. (Ang (Angel eles es vs. vs. Angeles Angeles,, G.R. G.R. 153798, 153798, September September 2, 2005)
PROBATE PROCEEDINGS
Unde Underr the the Rule Rules s of Cour Court, t, any any exec execut utor or,, devi devise see, e, or legatee named in a will, or any other person interested in the estate may, at any time after the death of the test testat ator or,, peti petiti tion on the the cour courtt havi having ng juris jurisdic dictio tion n to have have the will will allow allowed. ed. Noti otice of the the time ime and plac lace for proving the will must be published for thre three e (3) (3) cons consec ecut utiv ive e week weeks, s, in a newspaper of general circulation in the provi province nce,, as well well as furnis furnished hed to the desi design gnat ated ed or othe otherr know known n heir heirs, s, legatees, and devisees of the testator. Thus, it has been held that a proceeding for the probate of a will is one in rem, such that with the corr corres espo pond ndin ing g publ public icat atio ion n of the the petition the court’s jurisdiction extends to all persons interested in said will or in the settlement of the estate of the decedent. Publication is notice notice to the whole whole world world that the proceedin proceeding g has for its object to bar indefinitely all who might be minded to make an objection of any sort against the right sought to be established. It is the publication of such such notice notice that brings brings in the whole world as a party in the case and vests the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it. Thus, even though petitioners were not mentioned in the petition petition for probate, probate, they eventual eventually ly became parties thereto as a consequence of the publication of the
notice of hearing. (Alaban, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. 156021, September 23, 2005) Acco Accord rdin ing g to the the Rule Rules, s, noti notice ce is requ requir ired ed to be pers person onal ally ly give given n to known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the the test testat ator or.. A peru perusa sall of the the will will shows that respondent was instituted as the sol sole heir heir of the deced eceden ent. t. Petitioners, as nephews and nieces of the decedent, are neither compulsory nor testate heirs who are entitled to be notifi notified ed of the proba probate te proce proceedi edings ngs under under the Rules Rules.. Respo Responde ndent nt had no legal obligation to mention petitioners in the the peti petiti tion on for for prob proba ate, te, or to person personal ally ly notify notify them them of the same. same. Besi Beside des, s, assu assumi ming ng argu arguen endo do that that pet petiti itione oners are enti entitl tled ed to be so noti notifi fied ed,, the the purp purpor orte ted d infi infirm rmit ity y is cured by the publication of the notice. Afte Afterr all, all, pers person onal al noti notice ce upon upon the the heirs is a matter of procedural conven convenien ience ce and not a jurisd jurisdict iction ional al requ requis isit ite. e. The The nonnon-in incl clus usio ion n of petitioners’ names in the petition and the alleged failure to personally notify them of the proceedings do not constitute constitute extrinsi extrinsic c fraud. fraud. Petitione Petitioners rs were not denied their day in court, as they were not prevented from partic participa ipatin ting g in the procee proceedin dings gs and pres presen enti tin ng their heir case befor efore e the the probate court. (Alaban, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, Appeals, G.R. 156021, 156021, Septembe September r 23, 2005) GUARDIAN AD LITEM
In resolv resolving ing whethe whetherr to appo appoin intt a guar guardi dian an ad lite litem m for for the the resp respon ond dent, ent, the the appell pella ate cour ourt needed only to determine whether the indivi individua duall for whom whom a guardi guardian an was proposed was so incapable of handling pers person onal al and and fina financ ncia iall affa affair irs s as to warrant the need for the appointment of a tem tempora orary gua guardian dian.. It only only needed to make a finding that, based on clear and convincing evidence, the respondent is incompetent and that it is more likely than not that his welfare requires the immediate appointment of a temporar temporary y guardian guardian.. A finding finding that the the pers person on for for whom whom a guar guardi dian an ad lit litem is propo ropos sed is inca incap pable of man managin aging g his own own pers ersona onal and financial affairs by reason of his mental illness is enough.
Guardians ad litem are consid considere ered d offic officers ers of the court in a limite limited d sense, sense, and the office office of such such guardian is to represent the interest of the incompetent or the minor. Whether or not to appoint a guardian
ad litem for the petitioners is address addressed ed to the sound sound discreti discretion on of the court where the petition was filed, taking into account the best interest of the the inco incomp mpet eten entt or the the mino minor. r. The The court court has has dis discr creti etion on in appoi appointi nting ng a guardian ad litem that will best promo promote te the intere interest st of jus justic tice. e. The appointment of a guardian ad litem is desi design gned ed to assi assist st the the cour courtt in its its deter determin minati ation on of the incomp incompete etent’ nt’s s best interest. (Rivero, et al. vs. Court of Appeal Appeals, s, et al., al., G.R. G.R. 141273 141273,, May 17, 2005) ESCHEAT
Escheat is a proceeding, unlike that that of succ succes essi sion on or assi assign gnme ment nt,, wher whereb eby y the the stat state, e, by virt virtue ue of its its sovereignty, steps in an claims the real or personal property of a person who dies dies intest intestat ate e leavi leaving ng no heir. heir. In the absence of a lawful owner a property is claime claimed d by the state to forest forestall all an open “invitation to self service by the first service”. Since escheat is one of the incidents of sovereignty, the state may, and usually does, prescribe the condition conditions s and limits the time within which a claim to such property may be made made.. The The proc proced edur ure e by whic which h the the escheated property may be recovered is generally prescribed by statute, and a time time limit limit is impose imposed d within within which such action must be sought. In this jurisdiction a claimant to an eschea escheated ted proper property ty must must file file his claim “within 5-years from the date of such judgment, such person shall have possession of and title to the same, or if sold the municipality or city shall be accounta accountable ble to him for the proceeds, proceeds, after the deducting the estate; but a claim not made shall be barred forever.” The five-year period is not a device device capric capriciou iously sly conjur conjured ed by the state to defraud any claimant; on the contrary, it is decidedly prescribed to encour encourag age e would would be claima claimants nts to be punctilio punctilious us in assertin asserting g their their claims, claims, otherwise they may lose them forever in a final judgment. In a special proceeding for eschea escheatt under under secti sections ons 750 and 751 the the peti petiti tion oner er is not not the the sole sole and and exclusive interested party. Any person alle allegi ging ng to have have a dire direct ct righ rightt or interest in the property sought to be eschea escheated ted is likew likewise ise an inter interest ested ed party and may appear and oppose the petition for escheat. A judgment in Escheat proceedings when rendered by a court
of competent jurisdictions is conclusive agai agains nstt all all pers person ons s with with actu actual al or constr construct uctive ive notice notice,, but not again against st those those who are not parti parties es of privi privies es thereto. As held in Hamilton vs. Brown, “a judg judgme ment nt of esch eschea eatt was was held held conclu conclusiv sive e upon upon person persons s notifi notified ed by advertisements to all persons interested. Absolute lack on the part of the petitioners of any dishonest intent to deprive the appellee of any right or in any way injure him, constitute due proces process s of law, law, prope properr notice notice havin having g been observed”. (Republic vs. Court of App Appea eals ls,, G.R. G.R. 1434 143483 83,, Janu Januar ary y 31, 31, 2002)
excess. (Go, et al. vs. Dimagiba, G.R. 151876, June 21, 2005) The The reme remedy dy of habe habeas as corpus corpus has one object objective ive:: to inquir inquire e into the cause of detention of a person. The purpose of the writ is to determine whet whethe herr a pers person on is bein being g ille illega gall lly y depriv deprived ed of his libert liberty. y. If the inquir inquiry y reveals that the detention is illegal, the court orders the release of the person. If, howev however, er, the detent detention ion is prove proven n lawful, then the habeas corpus proc procee eedi ding ngs s term termin inat ate. e. The The use use of habeas corpus is thus very limited. It is not not a writ writ of erro error. r. Neit Neithe herr can can it substitute for an appeal.
HABEAS CORPUS Writ Writ of habeas habeas corpus corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, or by whic which h the the righ rightf tful ul cust custod ody y of any any pers person on is with withhe held ld from from the the pers person on entitled to it.
Th The singu ingula larr funct unctio ion n of a petition for habeas corpus is to protect and secur ecure e the the basic sic fre freedom edom of physical liberty. (In the Matter of the Petition for the Habeas Corpus of Atty. Fern Fernan ando do Argu Arguel elle les. s. Jr., Jr., et al. al. vs. vs. Balajadia, Balajadia, Jr., 484 SCRA 653, March 14, 2006) The writ of habeas corpus corpus appli applies es to all all cases cases of illega illegall conf confin inem emen entt or dete detent ntio ion n in whic which h individua individuals ls are deprived deprived of liberty. liberty. It was devised as a speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint; or, more specifically, to obtain immediate relief for those who may have been illegally confined or imprisoned without sufficient cause and thus deliver them from unlawful custody. It is therefore a writ writ of inqu inquir iry y inte intend nded ed to test test the the circumstances under which a person is detained.
The The writ writ may may not be avail availed ed of when the person in custody is under a judicial process or by virtue of a valid judgment. However, as a postconviction remedy, it may be allowed when, as a consequence of a judicial proc proce eedin eding, g, any of the the foll follow owiing exceptional circumstances is attendant: (1) there has been a depriv deprivati ation on of a consti constitut tution ional al right right resulting in the restraint of a person; (2) (2) the the cour courtt had had no juri jurisd sdic icti tion on to imp impose ose the sent entence ence;; or (3) the the imposed imposed penalty penalty has been excessiv excessive, e, thus voiding the sentence as to such
Nonetheless, case law has expa expand nded ed the the writ writ’s ’s appl applic icat atio ion n to circumstances where there is deprivation of a person’s constitutional rights rights.. The writ writ is availa available ble where where a pers person on cont contin inue ues s to be unla unlawf wful ully ly denied of one or more of his constitutional freedoms, where there is deni denial al of due due proc proces ess, s, wher where e the the restrai restraints nts are not merely merely involunta involuntary ry but are also unnecessary, and where a deprivation of freedom originally valid has later become arbitrary. arbitrary. However, a mere mere alle allega gati tion on of a viol violat atio ion n of one’ one’s s con constit stitut utiiona onal right ght is not sufficie sufficient. nt. The courts will will extend extend the scop scope e of the the writ writ only if any any of the the following circumstances is present: (a) there is a deprivation of a consti constitut tution ional al right right resu resulti lting ng in the unlawful restraint of a person; (b) the court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence; or (c) an excessive penalty is imposed and such sentence is void as to the excess. excess. Whatever Whatever situatio situation n the petitione petitionerr invokes, invokes, the threshold threshold remains high. The violation of constitu constitutiona tionall right right must be sufficien sufficientt to void the entire proceedings. (Alejano, et al. vs. Cabuay, et al., G.R. 160792, August 25, 2005) As a gene genera rall rule rule,, the the writ writ of habeas habeas corpus corpus will will not iss issue ue where the person alleged to be restr estra ained ned of his liber iberty ty is in the the custody of an officer under a process issued by the court which has jurisdiction to do so. Further, the writ writ of habeas corpus should not be allow allowed ed after after the party party sought sought to be released had been charged before any court or quasi-judicial body. The term “cou “court rt” ” nece necess ssar aril ily y incl includ udes es the the General Court - Martial . (Navale (Navales, s, et al. al. vs. vs. Ab Abay aya, a, et al., al., G.R. G.R. 1623 162318 18,, October 25, 2004)
The most basic criterion for the issuance of the writ, therefore, is that that the the indi indivi vidu dual al seek seekin ing g such such reli relief ef be ille illega gall lly y depr depriv ived ed of his his freedom of movement or placed under some some form form of ille illega gall rest restra rain int. t. If an indivi individua dual’s l’s libert liberty y is restra restraine ined d via some legal process, the writ of habeas corpus corpus is unavaili unavailing. ng. Concomita Concomitant nt to this this prin princi cipl ple, e, the the writ writ of habe habeas as corp corpus us cann cannot ot be used used to dire direct ctly ly assa ssail a judg udgmen ment rende enderred by a comp compet eten entt cour courtt or trib tribun unal al whic which, h, having duly acquired jurisdiction, was not deprived or ousted of this jurisdic jurisdiction tion through through some anomaly in the the cond onduct of the proce oceedin eding gs. (Navales, et al. vs. Abaya, et al., G.R. 162318, October 25, 2004) What do you mean by the phras phrase e “habe “habeas as corpu corpus s reache reaches s the body but not the records of the case”? Habeas Corpus cannot be used to review the findings of fact long passed upon with finality. The writ writ of habeas corpus is not a writ of error and should not be, thus, used. used. The writ, writ, whereas whereas permitting a collateral challenge of the jur juris isdi dict ctio ion n of the the cour courtt or trib tribun unal al issu issuin ing g the the proc proces ess s or judg judgme ment nt by which which an individ individual ual is depriv deprived ed of his liberty, cannot be distorted by extending the inquiry to mere errors of trial trial courts courts acting acting squarely squarely within its jurisdiction. A habeas habeas corpus petition reaches the body, but not the record of the case. A record record must be be allowed allowed to remain extant, and cannot be revised, modified, modified, altered altered or amended amended by the simple expedient of resort to habeas corpus proceedings. proceedings. Clea Clearl rly, y, mere mere erro errors rs of fact fact or law, which did not have the effect of depriving the trial court of its jur juris isdi dict ctio ion n over over the the case case and and the the per person of the defe efenda ndant, nt, are not not correctible in a petition for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus, if at all, these errors must be corrected on certiorari or on appeal, in the form and manner prescribed by law. The writ of habeas corpus is not to be used as a substitute for another, more proper remedy. Resort to the writ of habea habeas s corpus corpus is availa available ble only in the limited instances when a judgment is rend render ered ed by a cour courtt or trib tribun unal al devoid of jurisdiction. jurisdiction. If, for, instance, it can be demonstrated that there was a deprivation of a constitutional right, the writ can be granted even after an individual has been meted a sentence by final final judgment judgment.. (In re: the writ of
habeas habeas corpus corpus for Reynaldo Reynaldo De Vill Villa, a, G.R. 158802, November 17, 2004) A habeas corpus petition reaches the body, but not the record of the case. A record must be allowed to remain extant, and cannot be revised, modified, modified, altered altered or amended amended by the simple expedient of resort to habeas corpus proceedings. A survey rvey of our our decis ecisio ion ns in habea habeas s corpus corpus cases cases demons demonstra trates tes that that,, in gene genera ral, l, the the writ writ of habe habeas as corpus is a high prerogative writ which furnishe furnishes s an extraord extraordinar inary y remedy; remedy; it may thus hus be invo invok ked only only under nder extraordinary circumstances. We have been categorical in our pronou onoun nceme cemen nts tha that the the writ writ of habeas corpus is not to be used as a subst substitu itute te for anothe another, r, more more prope properr remedy. remedy. Resort Resort to the the writ of habea habeas s corpus is available only in the limited instances when a judgment is rendered by a court or tribunal nal devoid of jurisdiction. If, for instance, it can be demonstrated that there was a depriv deprivat ation ion of a consti constitut tution ional al right, right, the writ can be granted even after an individual has been meted a sentence by final judgment. Thus, in the the case of Chavez v. Court of Appeals, the writ of habeas corpus was held to be available where an accused was deprived of the cons consti titu tuti tion onal al righ rightt agai agains nstt self self-incrimination. A defect so pronounced as the denial of an accused’s cons consti titu tuti tion onal al righ rights ts resu result lts s in the the abse absenc nce e or loss loss of juri jurisd sdic icti tion on,, and and therefore invalidates the trial and the consequent conviction of the accused. That void judgment of conviction may be chal challe leng nged ed by coll collat ater eral al atta attack ck,, whic which h prec precis isel ely y is the the func functi tion on of habeas habeas corpus. corpus. (Naval (Navales, es, et al. al. vs. Abaya, et al., G.R. 162318, October 25, 2004)
The The writ writ of habe habeas as corp corpus us,, although not designed to interrupt the orderly orderly administ administratio ration n of justice, justice, can be invo invoke ked d by the the atte attend ndan ance ce of a spec specia iall circ circum umst stan ance ce that that requ requir ires es immediat immediate e action. action. In such situatio situations, ns, the inquiry on a writ of habeas corpus woul would d be addr addres esse sed, d, not not to erro errors rs committed by a court within its jur juris isdi dict ctio ion, n, but but to the the ques questi tion on of whether whether the proceedin proceeding g or judgment judgment under which a person has been restrai restrained ned is a comple complete te nullity. nullity. The probe may thus proceed to check on the the powe powerr and and auth author orit ity, y, itse itself lf an equivale equivalent nt test of jurisdic jurisdiction tion,, of the court or the judge to render the order that so serves as the basis of
impris imprisonm onment ent or detent detention ion.. It is the null nullit ity y of an assa assail iled ed judg judgme ment nt of conviction which makes it susceptible to collateral attack through the filing of a petition for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus. (Navales, et al. vs. Abaya, et al., G.R. 162318, October 25, 2004)
In habe habeas as corp corpus us proc procee eedi ding ng involving the welfare and custody of a chil child d of tend tender er age, age, the the para paramo moun untt concern is to resolve immediately the issue of who has legal custody of the child. Technicalities Technicalities should not stand in the the way way of givi giving ng such such chil child d of tender tender age full protec protection. tion. This rule rule has sound sound statut statutory ory basis basis in Artic Article le 213 of the Family Code, which states, “No “No chil child d unde underr seve seven n year years s of age age shall shall be separa separated ted from from the mother mother unle unless ss the the cour courtt find finds s comp compel elli ling ng reasons reasons to order order otherwi otherwise.” se.” In this this case, the child was only one year and four four months months when when taken taken away away from from the mother. (Tribiana vs. Tribiana, G.R. 137359, September 13, 2004)
A close close scruti scrutiny ny of Sectio Section n 5, Rule 102 of the Rules of Civil Proce Procedur dure e on Habea Habeas s Corpus Corpus,, shows shows that that a cour courtt may may gran grantt the the writ writ if it appe appear ars s upon upon pres presen enta tati tion on of the the peti petiti tion on that that the the writ writ ough oughtt to be issued. Thus, Section 5 states:
“When the writ must be granted and issued. — A court or judge authorized to grant the writ must, when a petition therefore is presented and it appears that the writ ought to issue, grant the same same fort forthw hwit ith, h, and and imme immedi dia ately tely thereupon the clerk of court shall issue the writ under the seal of the court; or in case of emergency, the judge may issue the writ under his own hand, and may may depute depute any office officerr or person person to serve it.” Clearly therefore, respondent jud judge ge was was well well with within in his his auth author orit ity y when he issued the writ as no hearing is requi equirred befor efore e a writ may be issued. (Charlton Tan vs. Judge Abe Abedn dneg ego o O. Ad Adre re,, 450 450 SCRA SCRA 145, 145, January 31, 2005)
As a gene genera rall rule rule,, the the writ writ of habeas corpus will not issue where the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in custody of an officer under a proce process ss iss issued ued by the court court which which has jurisdiction to do so. In exceptional circumstances, habeas corpus may be granted by the courts even when the person concerned is detained pursuant to a valid lid arrest est or his vol volunta untarry surr surren ende der, r, for for this this writ writ of libe libert rty y is reco recog gnize nized d as “the the fun fundame dament nta al instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action” due to its ability to cut through barriers of form and procedural mazes.” Thus, in a previous case case we issu issued ed the the writ writ wher where e the the depriv deprivati ation on of libert liberty, y, while while initia initially lly valid under the law, had later become invalid, and even though the persons pray prayin ing g for for its its issu issuan ance ce were ere not not completely deprived of their liberty.
Moreov Moreover, er, a petiti petition on for habeas habeas corpus is not the appropriate remedy for for asse assert rtin ing g one’ one’s s righ rightt to bail bail.. It cannot be availed of where accused is entitled to bail not as a matter of right but on the discretion of the court and the latter has not abused such discretion in refusing to grant bail, or has not even exercised said discretion. The The prop proper er recou ecourrse is to file ile an appl applic icat atio ion n for for bail bail with with the the cour courtt where the criminal case is pending and to allow hearings thereon to proceed.
Habe Habeas as corp corpus us is not not in the the nature of a writ of error; nor intended as subs substi titu tute te for for the the tria triall cour court’ t’s s functi function. on. It cannot cannot take take the place of appeal, certiorari or writ of error. (Kiani vs. Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, 482 SCRA 341)
The The writ writ cann cannot ot be used used to investig investigate ate and consider consider question questions s of error that might be raised relating to procedure or on the merits. The inquiry in a habe habeas as corp corpus us proc procee eedi ding ng is addressed to the question of whether the proceedings and the assailed order are, for any reason, null and void. The writ is not ordinarily granted where the law provides for other remedies in the regular course, and in the absence of exceptional exceptional circumstances. circumstances. Moreover, habeas corpus should not be granted in advance of trial. The orderly course of trial must be pursued and the usual remedies remedies exhausted exhausted before before resortin resorting g to the writ where exceptional circumst circumstanc ances es are extant. extant. (Caballes vs. Court of Appeals, 452 SCRA 312, February 23, 2005)
The filing of the Charge Sheet before the Bureau of Special Inquiry of the Board of Immigration and Deportation cures whatever irregula irregulariti rities es or infirmit infirmities ies that were attendant to the arrest of an alien, and his remedy is to file a motion for the dismissal of the Charge Sheet and the Miss Missio ion n Orde Orderr of the the Immi Immigr grat atio ion n Commissioner, not a petition for a writ of habeas corpus before the Regional
Tria Triall Court. Court. (Kian iani vs. vs. Bur Bureau eau of Immi Immigr grat atio ion n and and Depo Deport rtat atio ion, n, 482 482 SCRA 341)
A petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus may be filed if one is deprived of his right to a speedy disposition of the case under Article IV, Sectio Section n 16 of the 1987 1987 Consti Constitut tution ion and of his right to due process. However, the petitioner never invoked in the trial court his constitutional constitutional right to a spee speedy dy disp dispos osit itio ion n of the the case case against him. What he invoked was his right to a speedy trial under Rule 119 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure. He invoked his con constit stitu ution tiona al righ ight to a speed peedy y disposition of the case against him, for the the firs firstt time time,, only only in the the Cour Courtt of Appeals when he filed his petition for habeas corpus. (Caballes vs. Court of Appeals, 452 SCRA 312, February 23, 2005) A petition for a writ of habeas corpus is a remedy different from the special civil action of certiorari under Rule ule 65 of the the Rules ules of Cou Court, as amended. The writ of habeas corpus is a collatera collaterall attack attack on the processes, processes, orders, or judgment of the trial court, while while certio certiora rari ri is a direct direct attac attack k of said process, process, orders, orders, or judgment judgment on the groun ground d of lack lack of jurisd jurisdict iction ion or grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. A writ of certiorar certiorarii reaches reaches only jurisdic jurisdiction tional al errors. It has no other use, except to bring before the court a record material to be considered in exercising jurisdiction. A writ of certiorari reaches the record. On the other hand, a writ of habeas habeas corpus corpus reache reaches s the body body but not the record; it also reaches jur juris isdi dict ctio iona nall matt matter ers s but but does does not not reach the record.
The The revi review ew of the the peti petiti tion oner er’s ’s mate materi rial al aver averme ment nts s in his his peti petiti tion on befo before re the the CA reve reveal als s that that it was was a “petition for habeas corpus or, in the alte altern rnat ativ ive, e, a peti petiti tion on for for a writ writ of cert certio iora rari ri.” .” The The peti petiti tion oner er assa assail iled ed therei therein n the orders orders of the trial trial court court denyin denying g his petition petition for bail bail and and his motion to dismiss on the ground that he was depr depriv ived ed of his his righ ight to a speedy disposition of the case against him, him, and quest question ioned ed Judge Judge Laurea Laurea’s ’s order of inhibition. We agree with the CA that a petition for a writ of habeas corp corpus us cann cannot ot be join joined ed with with the the spec specia iall civ civil acti ction for for certior tiora ari because the two remedies are govern governed ed by a differ different ent set of rules. rules. Rule Rule 2, Sect Sectio ion n 5(b) 5(b) of the the Rule Rules s of
Cour Courtt mand mandat ates es that that the the join joinde derr of caus causes es of acti action on shal shalll not not incl includ ude e special actions or actions governed by spec specia iall rule rules, s, thus thus pros proscr crib ibin ing g the the joinder of a special proceeding with a special civil action. A writ of habeas corpus, which is regarded as a “palladium of liberty” is a prerogative writ which does not issue as a matter of right but in the sound discretion of the court or judge. It, is, howe howeve ver, r, a writ writ of righ rightt on prop proper er form formal alit itie ies s bein being g made made by proo proof. f. Resort to the writ is to inquire into the crimi criminal nal act of which which a compla complaint int is made made but but unto unto the the righ rightt of libe libert rty, y, notw notwit iths hsta tand ndin ing g the the act, act, and and the the imme immedi diat ate e purp purpos ose e to be serv served ed is relie elieff from from ill illegal gal restr estra aint. int. The The primary, if not the only object of the writ of habeas corpus ad subjuciendum is to dete determ rmin ine e the the lega legali lity ty of the the restraint under which a person is held. It bears stressing that a deci decisi sion on in a habe habeas as corp corpus us acti action on stands in no different position that with any oth other proce oceedi eding and if the the appealed decision is to be reviewed by an appellate court, the remedy is by writ of error because the error committed by the court is an error of judgment and not an error of jurisdiction. (Cab (Cabal alle les s vs. vs. Cour Courtt of Appeals, 452 SCRA 312, February 23, 2005) FALS ALSIFIED ENTRI NTRIE ES CERTIFICATE
A
IN
BIRT IRTH
peti petiti tion on alle allegi ging ng mate materi rial al entr entrie ies s in the the birt birth h cert certif ific icat ate e as havi having ng been been fals falsif ifie ied d is prop proper erly ly consid considere ered d as a speci special al proce proceedi eding ng pursuant to Section 39c), Rule 1 and Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. (Ceruila vs. Delantar, 477 SCRA 134, December 9, 2005)
