Special Proceedings Case Digests Monday Class, 7:30-9:30 Atty. Victor Carlo Antonio Cayco
Rule 72-90 Canonizado, Edwin Jr. Rodolfo San Luis vs Felicidad Sagalongos-San Luis !" SCR# 29" F#C$S% During his lifetime, elicisimo !an "uis #$odolfo !an "uis%s dad& contracted three marriages. 'is first marriage (as (ith Virginia Virginia !ulit on March )7, )9*+ out of (hich (ere orn si children. n August )), )9/3, Virginia Virginia redeceased elicisimo. i1e years later, on May ), )9/2, elicisimo married Merry Merr y "ee Cor(in, (ith (hom he had a son, oias. 'o(e1er, on ctoer )4, )97), Merry "ee, an American citi5en, filed a Comlaint for Di1orce efore the amily Court of the irst Circuit, !tate of 'a(aii, (hich issued a Decree 6ranting Asolute Di1orce and A(arding A(arding Child Custody on Decemer )*, )973. n une +0, )97*, elicisimo married elicidad !an "uis, then surnamed !agalongos. 'e had no children (ith elicidad ut li1ed (ith her for )2 years from the time of their marriage u to his death on Decemer )2, )99+. 8on death of his dad, $odolfo sought the dissolution of their elicisimo%s conugal artnershi assets and the settlement of elicisimo%s estate. n Decemer )7, )993, elicidad filed a etition for letters of administration efore the $egional rial rial Court of Maati City. $odolfo claimed that elicidad has no legal ersonality to file the etition ecause she (as only a mistress of elicisimo since the latter, at the time of his death, (as still legally married to Merry "ee. elicidad resented the decree of asolute di1orce issued y the amily Court of the irst Circuit, !tate of 'a(aii to ro1e that the marriage of elicisimo to Merry "ee had already een dissol1ed. hus, she claimed that elicisimo had the legal caacity to marry her y 1irtue of aragrah + Article +/ of the amily Code. $odolfo asserted that aragrah +, Article +/ of the amily Code cannot e gi1en retroacti1e effect to 1alidate elicidad%s igamous marriage (ith elicisimo ecause this (ould imair 1ested rights in derogation of Article +4/.
&SS'E% ;hether or not elicidad may ma y file for letters of administration o1er elicisimo%s estate.
(EL)% he di1orce decree allegedly otained y Merry Merr y "ee (hich asolutely allo(ed elicisimo to remarry, (ould ha1e 1ested elicidad (ith the legal ersonality to file the resent etition as elicisimo%s elicisimo%s sur1i1ing souse. 'o(e1er, the the records sho( that there is insufficient e1idence to ro1e the 1alidity of the di1orce otained y Merry "ee as (ell
as the marriage of elicidad and elicisimo under the la(s of the 8.!.A.
)e Leon, Rowel $.
*.R. +o. !77099
June , 20!!
E)'#R) *. #*$#R#, =etitioner, 1s.
SE/#S$&#+ #*$#R#, JSE( #*$#R#, $ERES# #*$#R#, #L$ER )E S#+$S, and #/EL#R) )#*R, $esondents. F#C$S% oa>uin Agtara died intestate lea1ing + arcels of lands and imro1ements in =asay City, oa>uin contracted + marriages during his lifetime, ?duardo, his son in his second marriage, (as named y the $C as administrator for the (hole estate of the "and.
$C $C issued the order of artition in fa1or of the heirs of oa>uin of (hich ?duardo (as also included, ho(e1er ?duardo filed a motion for reconsideration, and an aeal after(ards, oth them alleging that the Court erred in declaring that the ul of the realties suect of this case elong to the first marriage of oa>uin to "ucia and not to the marriage (ith his manager as a conse>uence thereof the 'eirs of the ) st Marriage (as a(arded (ith more roerty. 'e also alleged that the $C, acting as an intestate court (ith limited urisdiction, (as not 1ested (ith the o(er and authority to determine >uestions of o(nershi, (hich roerly elongs to another court (ith general urisdiction. urisdiction.
&SSE'% ;hether or not $C as an intestate court, had urisdiction to r esol1e the same
(EL)% @es $C had urisdiction to resol1e the same. he general rule is that the urisdiction of the trial court, either as a roate or an intestate court, relates only to matters ha1ing to do (ith the roate of the (ill andor settlement of the estate of deceased ersons, ut does not etend to the determination of >uestions of o(nershi that arise during the roceedings. 'o(e1er, this general rule is suect to ecetions as ustified y eediency and con1enience. irst, the roate court may ro1isionally ass uon in an intestate or a testate roceeding the >uestion of inclusion in, or eclusion from, the in1entory of a iece of roerty (ithout reudice to the final determination of o(nershi in a searate action. !econd, if the interested arties are all heirs to the estate, or the >uestion is one of collation or ad1ancement, or the arties consent to the assumtion of urisdiction y the roate court and the rights of third arties are are not imaired, then the roate court is cometent to resol1e issues on o(nershi. !C held that the general rule does not aly to the instant case considering that the arties are all heirs of oa>uin and that no rights of third arties (ill e imaired y the resolution of the o(nershi issue. More imortantly, the determination of (hether the suect roerties are conugal is ut collateral to the roate court%s urisdiction to settle the estate of oa>uin.
)iwa, Leonardo && /. 20!"-021 Suna3 &&& vs. Co4uanco-Suna3 5*. R. +o. !101, co6er !0, 20!2, erez J.
Facs% Cristina Aguinaldo-!untay #Cristina& died intestate on * une )990. Cristina (as sur1i1ed y her souse, Dr. ederico !untay #ederico& and fi1e grandchildren: three legitimate grandchildren, including herein resondent,
uently, ?milio <<< filed an osition-uied than resondent to administer and manage the estate of the decedent, Cristina. ederico died. Almost a year thereafter or on 9 o1emer +00), the trial court rendered a decision aointing ?milio <<< as administrator of decedent%s intestate estate. n aeal y certiorari, the !ureme Court in an earlier case re1ersed and set aside the ruling of the aellate court.
&ssue% ;hether ?milio <<< is etter >ualified to act as administrator of the estate than
(eld% o. ualified to act as administrator of the estate than ?milio <<<. he general rule in the aointment of administrator of the estate of a decedent is laid do(n in !ection /, $ule 72 of the $ules of Court: !?C. /. ;hen and to (hom letters of administration granted, uests to ha1e aointed, if cometent and (illing to ser1eB #&
of in, neglects for thirty #30& days after the death of the erson to aly for administration or to re>uest that administration e granted to some other erson, it may e granted to one or more of the rincial creditors, if cometent and (illing to ser1eB #c& uence to e oser1ed, an order of reference, in the aointment of an administrator. his order of reference, (hich categorically sees out the sur1i1ing souse, the net of in and the creditors in the aointment of an administrator, has een reinforced in urisrudence. he aramount consideration in the aointment of an administrator o1er the estate of a decedent is the rosecti1e administrator%s interest in the estate. his is the same consideration (hich !ection /, $ule 72 taes into account in estalishing the order of reference in the aointment of administrator for the estate. he rationale ehind the rule is that those (ho (ill rea the enefit of a (ise, seedy and economical administration of the estate, or, in the alternati1e, suffer the conse>uences of (aste, imro1idence or mismanagement, ha1e the highest interest and most influential moti1e to administer the estate correctly. ualing among the heirs nor ad1erse interests necessitate the discounting of the order of reference set forth in !ection /, $ule 72.
administrator of the suect estate in +00), he has not looed after the (elfare of the suect estate and has actually acted to the damage and reudice thereof.
+a*.R. +o. !"?00?>Fe6ruar3 21, 200">J. Corona Facs% Dr. u1encio =. rtaEe5 incororated the =hiliine
&ssue% ;hether or not the sale of the shares of stoc of =hilinterlife is 1oid. Ruling% @?!. ur urisrudence is clear that: #)& any disosition of estate roerty y an administrator or rosecti1e heir ending final adudication re>uires court aro1al and #+& any unauthori5ed disosition of estate roerty can e annulled y the roate court, there eing no need for a searate action to annul the unauthori5ed disosition.
G An heir can sell his right, interest, or articiation in the roerty under administration under CC 433 (hich ro1ides that ossession of hereditary roerty is deemed transmitted to the heir (ithout interrution from the moment of death of the decedent. (owever, an :eir can onl3 alienae suc: @orion of :e esae :a
alloed o :i< in :e division of :e esae 63 :e @ro6ae or inesae cour afer final ad4udicaion, that is, after all detors shall ha1e een aid or the de1isees or legatees shall ha1e een gi1en their shares. his means that an :eir
Rolan Jeff #. Lancion
A*.R. +o. !"992?. Fe6ruar3 21, 200B '+&+ /#+ F $(E (&L&&+ES, petitioner, vs. E)D'+) S#+$&/#E and FLRE+CE S#+$&/#E #R&L#, respondents. )EC&S&+ C#LLEJ, SR., J .% Facs% n May 3), )920, the irst Countryside Credit Cororation #CCC& and ?fraim M. !antiae5 entered into a loan agreement. he amount (as intended for the ayment of the urchase rice of one #)& unit ord //00 Agricultural All-=urose Diesel ractor. !ometime in eruary )92), ?fraim died, lea1ing a holograhic (ill. During the endency of the testate roceedings, the sur1i1ing heirs, ?dmund and his sister lorence !antiae5 Ariola, eecuted a oint Agreement dated ul y ++, )92), (herein they agreed to di1ide et(een themsel1es and tae ossession of the three #3& tractors.
A Deed of Assignment (ith Assumtion of "iailities (as eecuted y and et(een CCC and 8nion !a1ings and Mortgage an, (herein the CCC as the assignor, among others, assigned all its assets and liailities to 8nion !a1ings and Mortgage an. he trial court found that the claim of the etitioner should ha1e een filed (ith the roate court efore (hich the testate estate of the late ?fraim !antiae5 (as ending, as the sum of money eing claimed (as an oligation incurred y the said decedent. CA affirmed the decision of the $C.
&ssue% ; the oligations of the deceased (ere transmitted to the heirs, thus no need for the roate court to aro1e the oint agreement on the ground that the heirs artitioned the tractors o(ned y the deceased and assumed the oligations related thereto.
(eld A roate court has the urisdiction to determine all the roerties of the deceased, to determine (hether they should or should not e included in the in1entory or list of roerties to e administered.
E)*#R) S. D&D# JR. RCEE)&+*S 20!-0!9"
SEC&#L
ERL&+)# &L#&L and (E&RS F )+#$# R$& /R&+ES na
na
F#C$S F $(E C#SE =etitioners (ere the heirs of the late Donata rti5-riones (hile resondents (ere the heirs of the late Maimino riones. Maimino married Donata ut their union did not roduce any children. ;hen Maimino died in )94+, Donata instituted intestate roceedings to settle her husandHs estate in C< Ceu City. he court issued "etters of Administration aointing Donata as the administratri of MaiminoHs roerties. !use>uently, C< also issued an order a(arding o(nershi of real estate roerties to Donata (hich she filed at the $egistry of Deeds. hus, ne( CHs (ere issued co1ering the real estate roerties in her name. ;hen Donata died on )977, ?rlinda, one of her nieces, instituted (ith the $C a etition for the administration of the intestate estate of Donata. ?rlinda and her husand (as aointed as administrators of DonataHs intestate estate. n )924, !il1erio riones, nehe( of Maimino, filed a etition (ith the $C for letters of Administration for the
$C ruled in fa1or of the heirs of Maimino and ordered ?rlinda to recon1ey the real estate roerties to the heirs of Maimino. he heirs of Donata aealed the case to the CA ut the Aellate Court affirmed the ruling made y the $C. !C re1ersed the decision rendered y the CA and the $C. hus, $esondents mo1ed for the reconsideration of the decision rendered y the !ureme Court. he main contention of resondents (as that since the C< rder (as ased on DonataHs fraudulent misreresentation that she (as MaiminoHs sole heir, it eing 1oid, such order does not roduce any legal effect.
&SS'E F $(E C#SE ; the C< order declaring Donata to e the sole heir of Maimino (as 1alid desite DonataHs alleged misreresentation. ES
R'L&+* F $(E C#SE he heirs of Maimino failed to ro1e y clear and con1incing e1idence that Donata managed, through fraud, to ha1e the real roerties, elonging to the intestate estate of Maimino, registered in her name. uirement of the notice in ne(saers is recisely for the urose of informing all interested arties in the estate of the deceased of the eistence of
the settlement roceedings, most esecially those (ho (ere not named as heirs or creditors in the etition, regardless of (hether such omission (as 1oluntarily or in1oluntarily made. his Court cannot stress enough that the C< rder (as the result of the intestate roceedings instituted y Donata efore the trial court. As this Court ointed out in its earlier Decision, the manner y (hich the C< udge conducted the roceedings enoys the resumtion of regularity, and encomassed in such resumtion is the order of ulication of the notice of the intestate roceedings. A re1ie( of the records fails to sho( any allegation or concrete roof that the C< also failed to order the ulication in ne(saers of the notice of the intestate roceedings and to re>uire roof from Donata of comliance there(ith. either can this Court find any reason or elanation as to (hy Maiminos silings could ha1e missed the ulished notice of the intestate roceedings of their rother. Moreo1er, e1en if DonataHs allegation that she (as Maiminos sole heir does constitute fraud, it is insufficient to ustify aandonment of the C< rder, dated )4 anuary )9/0, considering the nature of intestate roceedings as eing in rem and the disutale resumtions of the regular erformance of official duty and la(ful eercise of urisdiction y the C< in rendering the >uestioned rder, dated )4 anuary )9/0, in !ecial =roceedings o. 9+2-$.
Di
AdministratriI&, aro1ed the offer uon the court%s oser1ation that the occuants of the suect lots Iha1e not manifested their desire to urchase the lots they are occuying u to this date and considering time restraint and considering further, that the sales in fa1or of the offerors are most eneficial to the estate I. Conse>uently the title of the lot (as transferred to the resondent. "ater on a (rit of demolition (as issued y the roate court in fa1or of resondent and against all ad1erse occuants of "ot )).
&ssue% ;hether or not the resondent is rohiited to urchase the roerty suect of roate.
(eld% . or the rohiition to aly, the sale or assignment of the roerty must tae lace during the endency of the litigation in1ol1ing the roerty.3* ;here the roerty is ac>uired after the termination of the case, no 1iolation of aragrah 4, Article )*9) of the Ci1il Code attaches.
his not(ithstanding, (e hold that the sale of "ot )) in fa1or of resondent did not 1iolate the rule on dis>ualification to urchase roerty ecause !. =roc. o. )/7+ (as then ending efore another court #$C& and not MCC (here he (as Cler of Court.
++#$, eer E
#ranas vs Dercado, *.R. +o. !?"07, Januar3 !, 20!"
Facs% ?migdio Mercado died intestate and sur1i1ed y his second (ife, eresita V. Mercado, and their fi1e children. 'e inherited and ac>uired real roerties during his lifetime. 'e o(ned cororate shares in Mer1ir $ealty Cororation. 'e assigned his real roerties in echange for cororate stocs of Mer1ir $ealty, and sold his real roerty to such cororation. helma, his daughter, filed in the $egional rial Court in Ceu City a etition for the aointment of eresita, his second (ife, as the administrator of ?migdio%s estate. eresita sumitted an in1entory of the estate of ?migdio. Claiming that ?migdio had o(ned other roerties that (ere ecluded from the in1entory, helma mo1ed that the $C direct eresita to amend the in1entory. eresita, oined y other heirs of ?migdio, contended that one of the real roerties had already een sold and came into the ossession to Mer1ir $ealty. 'ence, such roerty should not e included in the in1entory.
&ssue% ;hether or not, the other roerties (hich (ere sold to the cororation should e included in the in1entory.
Ruling% @es, the roerty sold to the cororation should e included in the in1entory. he $ules of Court ro1ides that (ithin three months after his aointment, e1ery eecutor or administrator shall return to the court a true in1entory and araisal of all the real and ersonal estate of the deceased (hich has come into his ossession or no(ledge. or the hrase true inventory imlies that no roerties aearing to elong to the decedent can e ecluded from the in1entory, regardless of their eing in the
ossession of another erson or entity, (hich is the cororation in the gi1en facts. urthermore, (hile it is true that the roate Court does not ha1e the urisdiction to resol1e issue of o(nershi ecause it has limited urisdiction only (ith resect to settlement of estate, it can resol1e the >uestion of o(nershi only for in1entory urose.
$e, Dar #n:on3 E. S'SES D#R&# /'$&+* v. D#. *R#C&# R&I# L# *.R. +o. !72" #ugus 0, 20! Facs% n o1emer )/, )929, =edro ". $iEo5a died intestate, lea1ing se1eral heirs, including his children (ith his first (ife, resondents Ma. 6racia $. =la5o and Ma. e Alaras, as (ell as se1eral roerties including a resort co1ered y ransfer Certificates of itle #C& oth located in asugu, atangas. $esondents alleged that sometime in March )99), they disco1ered that their coheirs, =edroHs second (ife, enita enorio and other children, had sold the suect roerties to etitioners, souses rancisco Villafria and Maria utiong, (ho are no( deceased and sustituted y their son, Dr. $uel . Villafria, (ithout their no(ledge and consent. ;hen confronted aout the sale, enita acno(ledged the same, sho(ing resondents a document she elie1ed e1idenced receit of her share in the sale, (hich, ho(e1er, did not refer to any sort of sale ut to a re1ious loan otained y =edro and enita from a an. ;hen resondents (ent to the suect roerties, they disco1ered that * out of the 2 cottages in the resort had een demolished. !use>uently, resondents learned that on uly )2, )99), a notice of an etra udicial settlement of estate of their late father (as ulished in a taloid called alita. hey filed their comlaint raying, among others, for the annulment of all documents con1eying the suect roerties to the etitioners and certificates of title issued ursuant thereto.
n ctoer ), +00), the trial court nullified the transfer of the suect roerties to etitioners and souses ondoc due to irregularities and the ?tra-udicial !ettlement (as notari5ed y a notary ulic (ho (as not duly commissioned as such on the date it (as eecuted. he Deed of !ale (as undated, the date of the acno(ledgment therein (as left lan, and the tye(ritten name I=edro $iEo5a, 'usandI on the left side of the document (as not signed he trial court also oser1ed that oth documents (ere ne1er resented to the ffice of the $egister of Deeds for registration and that the titles to the suect roerties (ere still in the names of =edro and his second (ife enita.
&ssue% ;hether or not the nature and etent of the interests of the arties thereon, may fall under an action for settlement of estate.
Ruling% =etitioner is mistaen. uired y the $ules of Court, then the decedentHs estate shall e udicially administered and the cometent court shall aoint a >ualified administrator in the order estalished in !ection / of $ule 72 of the $ules of Court.+9 An ecetion to this rule, ho(e1er, is found in the afore>uoted !ection ) of $ule 7* (herein the heirs of a decedent, (ho left no (ill and no dets due from his estate, may di1ide the estate either etraudicially or in an ordinary action for artition (ithout sumitting the same for udicial administration nor alying for the aointment of an administrator y the court.30 he reason is that (here the deceased dies (ithout ending oligations, there is no necessity for the aointment of an administrator to administer the estate for them and to deri1e the real o(ners of their ossession to (hich they are immediately entitled.3)redarcla(
Rule 9! Gio, Dic:ael #llan oe C.
S@ecial roceedings
!tudent o. +0)*-0009
Monday Class 7:30-9:30 m
Casorio #lvarico vs. #
*.R. +o. !191.
June ?, 2002
=onente: Kuisuming, .
Facs% ureau of "ands aro1ed and granted the Miscellaneous !ales Alication #M!A& of land in fa1or of ermina "oe5. "oe5 then eecuted a Deed of !elf-Adudication and ransfer of $ights o1er the land in fa1or of Amelita !ola.
ossession u to the resent. 'e also claimed that !ola (as in ad faith ecause he (as first in material ossession in good faith. $C rendered a decision in fa1or of Al1arico declaring he la(fully o(ned the land and the defendant, !ola, (as directed to recon1ey the same to the former. Court of Aeals re1ersed the decision of the $C.
&ssue% ;ho et(een Al1arico and !ola has a etter claim to the landL
Ruling% !ola has a etter tile to the land. he eecution of ulic documents, Affida1its of Adudication, is entitled to the resumtion of regularity, hence con1incing e1idence is re>uired to assail and contro1ert them. uires more than are allegation to defeat the itle (hich on its face enoys the legal resumtion of regularity of issuance. A orrens title, once registered, ser1es as notice to the (hole (orld. ?1en assuming that !ola ac>uired title to the disuted land in ad faith, only the !tate can institute re1ersion roceedings under !ec. )0) of the =ulic "and Act. Al1arico has no standing at all to >uestion the 1alidity of !ola%s title.
*L#ES#+ #)R&#+ *.R. +o. !72720, SE$ED/ER !", 20! EL&SE D#L$S #+) RS&$# . D#L$S, petitioners, v. (E&RS F E'SE/& /RRDE, respondents +E+$E% LE+E+, J. AC! n eruary )3, )979, ?useio orromeo (as issued ree =atent o. 42//2) o1er a iece of agricultural land located in !an rancisco, Agusan del !ur, co1ered y riginal Certificate of itle o. =-9043. n une )4, )923, (ell (ithin the fi1e-year rohiitory
eriod, ?useio orromeo sold the land to ?liseo Maltos. ?useio orromeo died on anuary )/, )99). 'is heirs claimed that rior to his death, he allegedly told his (ife, orerta orromeo,3 and his children to nullify the sale made to ?liseo Maltos and ha1e the ransfer Certificate of itle o. -4*77 cancelled ecause the sale (as (ithin the fi1e-year rohiitory eriod. n une +3, )993, orerta orromeo and her children #heirs of orromeo& filed a Comlaint for ullity of itle and $econ1eyance of itle against ?liseo Maltos, $osita Maltos, and the $egister of Deeds of Agusan del !ur. he case (as doceted as Ci1il Case o. 9*/. ?liseo Maltos and $osita Maltos #Maltos !ouses& filed their Ans(er, arguing that the sale (as made in good faith and that in urchasing the roerty, they relied on ?useio orromeoHs title. urther, the arties (ere in ari delicto. !ince the sale (as made during the fi1e-year rohiitory eriod, the land (ould re1ert to the ulic domain and the roer arty to institute re1ersion roceedings (as the ffice of the !olicitor 6eneral. he $egister of Deeds of Agusan del !ur also filed an Ans(er, arguing that the deed of sale (as resented for $egistration after the fi1e-year rohiitory eriod, thus, it (as ministerial on its art to register the deed. he heirs of orromeo countered that good faith (as not a 1alid defense ecause the rohiitory eriod aeared on the face of the title of the roerty.
he main urose in the grant of a fre> atent of homestead is to reser1e and ee in the family of the homesteader that ortion of ulic land (hich the !tate has gi1en to him so he may ha1e a lace to li1e (ith his family and ecome a hay citi5en and a useful memer of the society.
01 *hen the faut is on the part of both contractin! parties, neither may recover hat he has !iven by virtue of the contract, or "eman" the performance of the other2s un"erta#in!&craaaibrary 0- *hen ony one of the contractin! parties is at faut, he cannot recover hat he has !iven by reason of the contract, or as# for the fufiment of hat has been promise" him. The other, ho is not at faut, may "eman" the return of hat he has !iven ithout any obi!ation to compy ith his promise. he case under consideration comes (ithin the ecetion ao1e ad1erted to. 'ere aellee desires to nullify a transaction (hich (as done in 1iolation of the la(. rdinarily the rincile of ari delicto (ould aly to her ecause her redecessor-ininterest has carried out the sale (ith the resumed no(ledge of its illegality, ut ecause the suect of the transaction is a iece of ulic land, ulic olicy re>uires that she, as heir, e not re1ented from re-ac>uiring it ecause it (as gi1en y la( to her family for her home and culti1ation. his is the olicy on (hich our homestead la( is redicated. his right cannot e (ai1ed. Iuestion no( arises as to (ho et(een the arties ha1e a etter right to ossess the suect arcel of land. his issue (as addressed in !antos: ;hat is imortant to consider no( is (ho of the arties is the etter entitled to the ossession of the land (hile the go1ernment does not tae stes to assert its title to the homestead. 8on annulment of the sale, the urchaserHs claim is reduced to the urchase rice and its interest. As against the 1endor or his heirs, the urchaser is no more entitled to ee the land than any intruder. !uch is the situation of the aellants. heir right to remain in ossession of the land is no etter than that of aellee and, therefore, they should not e allo(ed to remain in it to the reudice of aellee during and until the go1ernment taes stes to(ard its re1ersion to the !tate. 'ence, the Court of Aeals did not err in ruling that (hile there is yet no action for re1ersion filed y the ffice of the !olicitor 6eneral, the roerty should e con1eyed y etitioners to resondents. ;ith resect to AelleesH claim for the reimursement of the imro1ements on the land in >uestion, they are herey declared to ha1e lost and forfeited the 1alue of the necessary imro1ements that they made thereon in the same manner that Aellants should lose the 1alue of the roducts gathered y the Aellees from the said land. ;e are constrained to hold that the heirs of the homesteader should e declared to ha1e lost and forfeited the
1alue of the roducts gathered from the land, and so should the defendants lose the 1alue of the necessary imro1ements that they ha1e made thereon. $e1ersion is a remedy ro1ided under !ection )0) of the =ulic "and Act: SECTION 131. ' actions for the reversion to the Government of an"s of the pubic "omain or improvements thereon sha be institute" by the Soicitor4Genera or the officer actin! in his stea", in the proper courts, in the name of Commoneath of the hiippines. he urose of re1ersion is Ito restore ulic land fraudulently a(arded and disosed of to ri1ate indi1iduals or cororations to the mass of ulic domain. he general rule is that re1ersion of lands to the state is not automatic, and the ffice of the !olicitor 6eneral is the roer arty to file an action for re1ersion. he oecti1e of an action for re1ersion of ulic land is the cancellation of the certificate of title anl the resulting re1ersion of the land co1ered y the title to the !tate his is (hy an action for re1ersion is oftentimes designated as an annulment suit or a cancellation suit. !ince an action for re1ersion resuoses that the roerty in disute is o(ned y the state, it is roer that the action e filed y the ffice of the !olicitor 6eneral, eing the real arty-in-interest. here is, ho(e1er, an ecetion to the rule that re1ersion is not automatic. !ection +9 of the =ulic "and Act ro1ides: SECTION -5. 'fter the cutivation of the an" has be!un, the purchaser, ith the approva of the Secretary of '!ricuture an" Commerce, may convey or encumber his ri!hts to any person, corporation, or association e!ay $uaifie" un"er this 'ct to purchase a!ricutura pubic an"s, provi"e" such conveyance or encumbrance "oes not affect any ri!ht or interest of the Government in the an"/ 'n" provi"e", further, That the transferee is not "ein$uent in the payment of any instament "ue an" payabe. 'ny sae an" encumbrance ma"e ithout the previous approva of the Secretary of '!ricuture an" Commerce sha be nu an" voi" an" sha pro"uce the effect of annuin! the ac$uisition an" revertin! the property an" a ri!hts to the State, an" a payments on the purchase price theretofore ma"e to the Government sha be forfeite". 'fter the sae has been approve", the ven"or sha not ose his ri!ht to ac$uire a!ricutura pubic an"s un"er the provisions of this 'ct, provi"e" he has the necessary $uaifications.
Rules 92-97 #+)##-/RJ#, C#$(ER&+E D#E /.
20!"-01!9
6. $. o. )*7)*2. anuary )3, +003 =<"A$ @. 6@?A, petitioner 1s. AM=A$ "?D?!MA-68!<", respon"ent . =onente: CA$=<-M$A"?!, 6 . acts: $esondent filed at the $C of Maati a =etition or "etters f 6uardianshi o1er the erson and roerties of her sister ulieta (ho, for the most art during the years )994 and )99/, has een a atient in the Maati Medical Center (here she is under medical attention for old age, general deility, and a mini-stroe (hich she suffered in the 8nited !tates in early )994. =etitioner, ulieta%s close friend and comanion of more than /0 years, filed an osition to the etition for letters of guardianshi. !he asserts that the etition laced factual and legal asis in that ulieta "edesma is cometent and sane and there is asolutely no need to aoint a guardian to tae charge of her ersonroerty and that resondent is not fit to e aointed as the guardian of ulieta "edesma since their interests are antagonistic. Also, etitioner has interosed her oection to the aointment of resondent as guardian ecause she thins that the latter dislies her. he trial court found ulieta incometent and incaale of taing care of herself and her roerty and aointed resondent as guardian of her erson and roerties, (hich (ere affirmed y the Court of Aeals.
$uling: o.
to tae control of ulietaHs roerties and use them for her o(n enefit is urely seculati1e and finds no suort from the records.
he claim that resondent is hostile to the est interests of ulieta also lacs merit. hat resondent remo1ed ulieta from the Maati Medical Center (here she (as confined after she suffered a stroe does not necessarily sho( her hostility to(ards ulieta, gi1en the oser1ation y the trial court, cited in the resent etition, that ulieta (as still laced under the care of doctors after she checed out and (as returned to the hosital (hen she suffered another stroe.
"ie(ise, etitioner oosed the etition for the aointment of resondent as guardian efore the trial court ecause, among other reasons, she felt she (as dislied y resondent, a ground (hich does not render resondent unsuitale for aointment as guardian.
Accordingly, for lac of merit, the etition is herey dismissed.
/a6alcon, *ee Colleen ). 20!"-0"9 Caiza vs C# *R +o. !!0"27 Fe6ruar3 2", !997
+#RG#S#, C.J.% Facs% Carmen Cai5a (as adudged incometent ecause of her ad1anced age and hysical infirmities (hich included cataracts in oth eyes and senile dementia. Amaro A. ?1angelista (as aointed legal guardian of her erson and estate. Cai5a (as the o(ner of a house and lot in Kue5on City. "ater, she commenced a suit in the Metroolitan rial Court of Kue5on City to eect the souses =edro and "eonora ?strada from said remises through her legal guardian, Amaro. ut of indness, she had allo(ed the ?strada !ouses to temorarily reside in her house, rent-free ut ecause of an urgent need of the house on account of her ad1anced age and failing health, she, through her guardian, had ased the ?stradas 1erally and in (riting to 1acate the house. 'o(e1er, they had refused to do so. he ?stradas insist that the case against them (as really not one of unla(ful detainerB they argue that since ossession of the house had not een otained y them y any Icontract, eress or imlied,I as contemlated y !ection ), $ule 70 of the $ules of Court, their occuancy of the remises could not e deemed one Iterminale uon mere demand #and hence ne1er ecame unla(ful& (ithin the contet of the la(.I either could the suit against them e deemed one of forcile entry, they add, ecause they had een occuying the roerty (ith the rior consent of the Ireal o(ner,I Carmen Cai5a, (hich Ioccuancy can e1en rien into full o(nershi once the holograhic (ill of etitioner Carmen Cai5a is admitted to roate.I hey conclude, on those ostulates, that it is eyond the o(er of Cai5aHs legal guardian to oust them from the disuted remises. Carmen Cai5a later on died and (as sustituted as laintiff y her legal guardian.
&ssue% ;hether or not Amaro as legal guardian had the authority to ring the action and to continuously reresent Cai5a e1en after her death.
Ruling% @es. !he (as aointed y a cometent court the general guardian of oth the erson and the estate of her aunt, Carmen Cai5a. y that aointment, it ecame ?1angelistaHs right and duty to get ossession of, and eercise control o1er, Cai5aHs roerty, oth real and ersonal, it eing recogni5ed rincile that the (ard has no right
to ossession or control of his roerty during her incometency.hat right to manage the (ardHs estate carries (ith it the right to tae ossession thereof and reco1er it from anyone (ho retains it, and ring and defend such actions as may e needful for this urose. ?1angelista (as merely discharging the duty to attend to Ithe comfortale and suitale maintenance of the (ardI elicitly imosed on her y !ection *, $ule 9/ of the $ules of Court, vi7 .: I!?C. *. Estate to be mana!e" fru!ay, an" procee"s appie" to maintenance of ar" . A guardian must manage the estate of his (ard frugally and (ithout (aste, and aly the income and rofits thereof, so far as maye necessary, to the comfortale and suitale maintenance of the (ard and his family, if there e anyB and if such income and rofits e insufficient for that urose, the guardian may sell or encumer the real estate, uon eing authori5ed y order to do so, and aly to such of the roceeds as may e necessary to such maintenance.I
/eruue eri, namely: aoleon, Alicia, Visminda, Douglas and $osa. hroughout the marriage of souses ?nri>ue and Anunciacion, they ac>uired se1eral homestead roerties located in !amal, Da1ao del orte. ue, in his ersonal caacity and as natural guardian of his minor children $osa and Douglas, (ith aoleon, Alicia, and Visminda eecuted an ?tra-udicial !ettlement of the ?state (ith Asolute Deed of !ale on
77)979, adudicating among themsel1es the said homestead roerties and thereafter, con1eying them to the late souses 8y for a consideration of = 20,000.00. ue filed a comlaint for annulment of sale of the homestead roerties against souses 8y efore the $C, assailing the 1alidity of the sale for ha1ing een sold (ithin the rohiited eriod. he comlaint (as later amended to include ?utroia and Victoria additional laintiffs for ha1ing een ecluded and deri1ed of their legitimes as children of Anunciacion from her first marriage. uently, they are entitled to inherit from her in e>ual shares, ursuant to Articles 979 and 920 of the Ci1il Code. uent sale of the roerties made y ?nri>ue and his children, aoleon, Alicia and Visminda, in fa1or of the souses is 1alid ut only (ith resect to their roortionate shares. ;ith resect to $osa and Douglas (ho (ere minors at the time of the eecution of the settlement and sale, their natural guardian and father, ?nri>ue, reresented them in the transaction. 'o(e1er, on the asis of the la(s re1ailing at that time, ?nri>ue (as merely clothed (ith o(ers of administration and ereft of any authority to disose of their +)/ shares in the estate of their mother. Administration includes all acts for the reser1ation of the roerty and the receit of fruits according to the natural urose of the thing. Any act of disosition or alienation, or any reduction in the sustance of the atrimony of child, eceeds the limits of administration. Corollarily, !ection 7, $ule 93 of the $ules of Court ro1ides: SEC. . arents as Guar"ians. 9 *hen the property of the chi" un"er parenta authority is orth to thousan" pesos or ess, the father or the mother, ithout the necessity of court appointment, sha be his e!a !uar"ian. *hen the property of the chi" is orth more than to thousan" pesos, the father or the mother sha be consi"ere" !uar"ian of the chi":s property, ith the "uties an" obi!ations of !uar"ians un"er these (ues, an" sha fie the petition re$uire" by Section - hereof. ;or !oo" reasons, the court may, hoever, appoint another suitabe persons.
hus, A A'?$ $ M'?$, as the natural guardian of the minor under arental authority, does not ha1e the o(er to disose or encumer the roerty of the latter. !uch o(er is granted y la( only to a udicial guardian of the (ard%s roerty and e1en then only (ith courts% rior aro1al secured in accordance (ith the roceedings set forth y the $ules of Court. Conse>uently, the disuted sale entered into y ?nri>ue in ehalf of his minor children (ithout the roer udicial authority, unless ratified y them uon reaching the age of maority, is unenforceale in accordance (ith Articles )3)7 and )*03 #)& of the Ci1il Code. 'o(e1er, records sho( that aoleon and $osa had ratified the etraudicial settlement of the estate (ith asolute deed of sale.
/R)ES, D#R-#++ C. +&L RES# vs. C&R&L RES# *.R. +o. !"2 #@ril 2, 20!2 acts:
his is a etition for re1ie( on certiorari under $ule *4 of the Decision rendered y the Court of Aeals affirming the rder of the $C in a !ecial =roceedings, (hich dismissed ilo roesa%s, etitioner, etition for guardianshi o1er the roerties of his father, resondent, Cirilo roesa. n anuary +3, +00*, the #etitioner& filed (ith the $egional rial Court of =araEa>ue City, a etition for him and a certain Ms. "ouie 6ine5 to e aointed as guardians o1er the roerty of his father, the #resondent& Cirilo roesa.
manage his roerty roerlyB that due to his age and medical condition, he cannot, (ithout outside aid, manage his roerty (isely, and has ecome an easy rey for deceit and eloitation y eole around him, articularly Ms. Ma. "uisa Agamata, his girlfriend. Cirilo roesa filed his osition to the etition for guardianshi filed y his #e1er caring and lo1ing& son. During trial, etitioner resented his e1idence, (hich consists of his, his sister, and resondent%s former nurse%s testimony. After resenting e1idence, etitioner rested his case ut failed to file his (ritten formal offer of e1idence. $esondent, thereafter, filed his mnius Motion to declare that etitioner has (ai1ed the resentation of his ffer of ?hiits and ?1idence since they (ere not formally offeredB o eunge the documents of the etitioner from recordsB and to grant lea1e to the ositor to file Demurrer to ?1idence. A suse>uent Demurrer (as filed and (as granted. Motion for reconsideration (as filed y etitioner and aealed the case to Court of aeals ut failed. 'ence this etition to the !ureme Court.
Rule 9 C#&), C#RL# ES(#/E$( .
*.R. +o. !??" June !1, 20!2 L#+) /#+ F $(E (&L&&+ES, eiioner, vs. L#D/ER$ C. ERE, +ES$R C. '+, D#. ES$EL&$# . #+*ELES#+L&L&, and +#LE+ . *#RC&#, Res@ondens. /R&+, J.: F#C$S =etitioner "and an of the =hiliines #"=& is a go1ernment financial institution and the official deository of the =hiliines. $esondents are the officers and reresentati1es of Asian Construction and De1eloment Cororation #ACDC&, a cororation incororated under =hiliine la( and engaged in the construction usiness. n se1eral occasions resondents eecuted in fa1or of "= trust receits to secure the urchase of contruction materials that they (ill nedd in their construction roects. he trust receits matured and ACDC failed to return to "= the roceeds of the construction roects or e1en the materials suect of the trust receits. After se1eral demands ACDC failed to act accordingly, conse>uently "= filed a comlaint for ?stafa or 1iolation of Art. 3)4 , ar )#& of the $=C in relation to =D ))4, against the resondent officers of ADC.
&SS'E ;hether or not the disuted transaction is a trust receit or a loanL
R'L&+* he the transaction is one of a trust receit. here are t(o oligations in a trust receit transaction. he first is co1ered y the ro1ision that refers to money under the oligation to deli1er it #entregarla& to the o(ner of the merchandise sold. he second is co1ered y the ro1ision referring to merchandise recei1ed under the oligation to return it #de1ol1era& to the o(ner. hus, under the rust $eceits "a( intent to defraud is resumed (hen #)& the entrustee fails to turn o1er the roceeds of the sale of goods co1ered y the trust receit to the entrusterB or #+& (hen the entrustee fails to return the goods under trust, if they are not disosed of in accordance (ith the terms of the trust receits.
)3 of =.D. ))4B the only oligation actually agreed uon y the arties (ould e the return of the roceeds of the sale transaction. his transaction ecomes a mere loan (here the orro(er is oligated to ay the an the amount sent for the urchase of the goods. Article )37) of the Ci1il Code ro1ides that IOiPn order to udge the intention of the contracting arties, their contemoraneous and suse>uent acts shall e rincially considered.I 8nder this ro1ision, (e can eamine the contemoraneous actions of the arties rather than rely urely on the trust receits that they signed in order to understand the transaction through their intent. ;e note in this regard that at the onset of these transactions, "= ne( that ACDC (as in the construction usiness and that the materials that it sought to uy under the letters of credit (ere to e used for the follo(ing roects: the Metro $ail ransit =roect and the Clar Centennial ?osition =roect "= had in fact authori5ed the deli1ery of the materials on the construction sites for these roects, as seen in the letters of credit it attached to its comlaint. Clearly, they (ere a(are of the fact that there (as no (ay they could reco1er the uildings or constructions for (hich the materials suect of the alleged trust receits had een used. otaly, desite the allegations in the affida1it-comlaint (herein "= sought the return of the construction materials, its demand letter dated May *, )999 sought the ayment of the alance ut failed to as, as an alternati1e, for the return of the construction materials or the uildings (here these materials had een used. he fact that "= had no(ingly authori5ed the deli1er y of construction materials to a construction site of t(o go1ernment roects, as (ell as unsecified construction sites, reudiates the idea that "= intended to e the o(ner of those construction materials. As a go1ernment financial institution, "= should ha1e een a(are that the materials (ere to e used for the construction of an immo1ale roerty, as (ell as a roerty of the ulic domain. As an immo1ale roerty, the o(nershi of (hate1er (as constructed (ith those materials (ould resumaly elong to the o(ner of the land, under Article **4 of the Ci1il Code ?1en if (e consider the 1ague ossiility that the materials, consisting of cement, olts and reinforcing steel ars, (ould e used for the construction of a mo1ale roerty, the o(nershi of these roerties (ould still ertain to the go1ernment and not remain (ith the an as they (ould e classified as roerty of the ulic domain, (hich is defined y the Ci1il Code.
Rules 99-!00 )#DCLES, D#R&E*L *. C#+* vs. C'R$ F #E#LS *R +o. !010 Se@e<6er 2, !99 Facs% his case is a etition for re1ie( on certiorari o1er the Decision of CA affirming the decree of adotion issued y the $C of Ceu for the adotion of minors Reith, Charmaine and oseh Anthony all surnamed Cang. Minors% arents are 'eert Cang #=etitioner& and Anna Marie Cla1ano. Anna Marie suse>uently filed for legal searation (hich (as granted. =etitioner then left for the 8nited !tates. =etitioner sought a di1orce decree there, and (as granted. =etitioner thereafter too an American (ife and thus ecame a naturali5ed American citi5en. "ater on, he di1orced his American (ife and ne1er remarried. ;hile in th e 8.!., =etitioner remitted money to the =hiliines for his minor children. Mean(hile, !ouses Cla1ano, here in the =hiliines, filed a !ecial =roceedings for the Adotion of the three #3& minor Cang children efore the $C of Ceu. )* year old Reith, as (ell as the mother Anna Marie, consented to the said adotion and alleged that =etitioner aandoned them and forfeited already his arental rights o1er their children. Anna Marie consented to the adotion of her children to her relati1es ecause she (ould go to 8.!. as (ell, to find a o and li1e there. 8on learning of the etition for adotion, =etitioner immediately returned to the =hiliines and filed an oosition thereto. 'e alleged that although he has only meager finance comared to !ouses Cla1ano, he cannot allo( anyody to stri him of his arental authority. =ending resolution of the etition for adotion, =etitioner mo1ed to reac>uire custody o1er his children alleging that Anna had gone to the 8! therey lea1ing custody to their children to !ouses Cla1ano #=ri1ate $esondents&. !uch etition (as granted and the rial Court ordered that the custody of the minor children should e transferred to their father. "ater on, the the =etition for Adotion (as granted.
&ssue% ;hether adotion should e grantedL
(eld% o. =hysical estrangement alone, (ithout financial and moral desertion, is not tantamount to aandonment. he 6eneral $ule under $ule 99 of the $ules of Court ro1ides that: he (ritten consent of the natural arent is indisensale for the 1alidity of the decree of adotion. he ecetion of this rule is that the re>uirement of (ritten consent can e disensed (ith if the arent has aandoned the child or that such arent is insane or hoelessly intemerate. uish all arental claims o1er his children as to constitute aandonment. ;hile admittedly, =etitioner (as hysically asent as he (as then in the 8!, he (as not remiss in his natural and legal oligations of lo1e, care and suort for his children. 'e maintained regular communication (ith his (ife and children through telehone calls and letters. 'e used to send acages y mail and catered to their (hims.
)e *uz
adotion filed y deceased Alfredo in fa1or of =edro =ilail. During the roceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased Alfredo in Case o. -*/ #entitled omasa 1da. de aco 1. ose Centenera, et al& herein defendant-aellee =edro sought to inter1ene therein claiming his share of the deceased estate as Alfredos adoted son and as his sole sur1i1ing heir. =edro >uestioned the 1alidity of the marriage et(een aellant omasa and his adoti1e father Alfredo. Aellant omasa oosed the Motion for uestioning aellees claim as the legal heir of Alfredo. he lo(er court as (ell as the Court of Aeals ruled in fa1or of the ri1ate resondent declaring that the rder dated uly )2, )9/), and the signature of the issuing udge !? ". M@A to e genuine and that the ri1ate resondent (as the legally adoted child and sole heir of deceased Alfredo and that the reconstructed Marriage Contract resented y the etitioner (as surious and non-eistent. he Motion for $econsideration filed y the
&ssue% ;hether or not =edro =ilail is the legally adoted son of Alfredo ?. aco Ruling% o. At the trial of this case at resent, t(o eert (itnesses (ere resented, one for etitioner and one for $esondent =ilail. he trial court relied mainly on resondents eert and rushed aside the Deosition of udge Moya himself. udge Moya could not recall ha1ing e1er issued the rder of Adotion. More imortantly, (hen sho(n the signature o1er his name, he ositi1ely declared that it (as not his. he fact that he had glaucoma (hen his Deosition (as taen does not discredit his statements. At the time, he could (ith medication still read the ne(saersB uon the re>uest of the defense counsel, he e1en read a document sho(n to him. he Court find no reason to disregard and the resondent has not resented any to disregard the Deosition of udge Moya. udge Moyas declaration (as suorted y the eert testimony of < Document ?aminer ien1enido Alacea, (ho declared that the >uestioned and the standard signature ose ". Moya (ere not (ritten y one and the same erson. ther considerations also cast dout on the claim of resondent. he alleged rder (as urortedly made in oen court. uestioned rder did not contain this information. urthermore, no roof (as resented that Dr. aco had treated him as an adoted child. "ie(ise, oth the ureau of $ecords Management in Manila and the ffice of the "ocal Ci1il $egistrar of igaon, Camarines !ur, issued Certifications that there (as no record that =edro =ilail had een adoted y Dr. aco. aen together, these circumstances ineoraly negate the alleged adotion of resondent. he urden of roof in estalishing adotion is uon the erson claiming such relationshi. his $esondent =ilail failed to do. Moreo1er, the e1idence
resented y etitioner sho(s that the alleged adotion is a sham. hus, the =etition is granted and the assailed Decision of the Court of Aeals (as re1ersed and set aside. he marriage et(een =etitioner omasa Vda. de aco and the deceased Alfredo ?. aco (as recogni5ed and declared 1alid and the claimed adotion of $esondent =edro =ilail is declared noneistent.
irsie Dae )ianne G. )iaz, 20!!-0! Re@u6lic vs Cour of #@@eals, *.R. +o. *.R. +o. !01?9. Darc: !, !99? DE+)#, J. Facs% n !etemer +, )922, !ouses aime . Caranto and Senaida =. Caranto filed a etition for adotion of minor Midael C. Ma5on, efore the $egional rial Court in Ca1ite City ranch TV<.
&ssue%
;hether or not change of name falls under $ule )02 #Correction of ?ntry&.
Ruling% @es. Contrary to the findings of the $C, change of name falls under $ule )02. !ection + #o& of the said rule states: I?ntries suect to cancellation or correction. Q #o& changes of name.I Clearly, $ule )02 does not only concern ci1il status of ersons ut also concern changes of name. his also means that the decision of the trial court, insofar as it granted the rayer for the correction of entry, (as 1oid. his is so ecause the "ocal Ci1il $egistrar, an indesensale arty in roceedings falling under $ule )02, (as not notified. !ection 3 of the said $ule states: N3. =arties. - ;hen cancellation or correction of an entry in the ci1il register is sought, the ci1il registrar and all ersons (ho ha1e or claim any interest (hich (ould e affected therey shall e made arties to the roceeding.J urthermore, the decision of the $C (as 1oid also on the ground that the suosed =etition for Correction of ?ntry #change of name& (as not ulished. Meaning, the $C did not ac>uire urisdiction o1er the suect matter.
&nocencio, Dar3 Frances ). +er3 v. #3. Sa<@ana 5#.C. +o.!0!9?K Se@e<6er 9,20!"K Car@io, #cing C.J.
Facs% Melody ery engaged the ser1ices of Atty. 6licerio !amana for the annulment of her marriage and for her adotion y an alien adoter. he etition for annulment (as granted and ery aid =h +00,000.00 for !amana%s ser1ices. or the adotion case, resondent ased ery if she had an aunt, (hom they could reresent as the (ife of her alien adoter. !amana also ga1e ery a lurred coy of a marriage contract, (hich they
(ould use for her adotion. hereafter, he (as aid in installment in the amount of =h )00,000.00. !amana made ery elie1e that a etition for her adotion (as filed and that the hearing (as already set. 'o(e1er, (hen ery in>uired aout the status of her etition for adotion from the court #ranch )), Malolos, ulacan&, she disco1ered that no such etition (as filed. Conse>uently, ery ased for reimursement, to (hich !amana agreed ut claimed a deduction of =h )+,000.00 for filing fees. 'o(e1er, ery claimed the full amount since no etition (as filed. A disarment comlaint (as filed. 'o(e1er, !amana denied that he misled ery as to the filing of the etition for adotion, ut after in1estigation, the <= found !amana guilty of malractice.
&ssue% #)& ;hether or not resondent is guilty of malractice. #+& ;hether or not an alien adoter can adot etitioner.
Ruling% #)& @es. Accetance of money from a client estalishes an attorney-client relationshi and gi1es rise to the duty of fidelity to the client%s cause. !amana admitted that he recei1ed Ione acage feeI for oth cases of annulment and adotion. Desite recei1ing this fee, he unustifialy failed to file the etition for adotion and fell short of his duty of due diligence and candor to his client. #+& @es. 'e suggested to ery that if the alien adoter (ould e married to her close relati1e, the intended adotion could e ossile. 8nder the Domestic Adotion Act, the alien adoter can ointly adot a relati1e (ithin the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity of hisher iliino souse, and the certification of the alien%s >ualification to adot is (ai1ed. 'a1ing no 1alid reason not to file the etition for adotion, !amana misinformed ery of the status of the etition. 'e then conceded that the annulment case o1ershado(ed the etition for adotion. Verily, !amana neglected the legal matter entrusted to him. 'e
e1en et the money gi1en him, in 1iolation of the Code%s mandate to deli1er the client%s funds uon demand. hus, the Court susended Atty. !amana from the ractice of la( for 3 years.
Languno,Raisa Casro vs *regorio *R +o.!0! ! co6er 20!" acts: his is a etition for re1ie( on Certiorari assailing the decision of the CA (hich denied the etition for annulment of udgment filed y etitioners. he etition efore the aellate court sought to annul the udgment of the trial court that granted $s% decree of adotion. Atty. Castro (as allegedly married to $osario Castro #=etitioner&. 8nfortunately, they searated later on due to their incomatiilities and ose%s alleged homoseual tendencies. heir marriage ore t(o daughters: $ose Marie, (ho succumed to death after nine days from irth due to congenital heart disease, and oanne enedicta Charissima Castro #=etitioner&. n August +000, A etition for adotion of ose Maria ed 6regorio #ed& and Ana Maria $egina 6regorio #$egina& (as instituted y Atty. ose Castro. Atty. Castro alleged that ed and $egina (ere his illegitimate children (ith "ilieth 6regorio #$osario%s houseeeer&. After a 'ome !tudy $eort conducted y the !ocial ;elfare fficer of the C, the etition (as granted. A disarment comlaint (as filed against Atty. Castro y $osario. !he alleged that ose had een remiss in ro1iding suort to his daughter oanne for the ast 3/ yearB that she single-handedly raised and ro1ided financial suort to oanne (hile ose had een sho(ering gifts to his dri1er and allege lo1er, "arry, and e1en (ent to the etent of adoting "arry%s t(o children, ed and $egina, (ithout her and oanne no(ledge and consent. Atty. Castro denied the allegation that he had remiss his fatherly duties to oanne. 'e alleged that he al(ays offered hel ut it (as often declined. 'e also alleged that ed and $egina (ere his illegitimate children that%s (hy he adoted them. "ater on Atty. Castro died. $osario and oanne filed a etition for annulment of udgment seeing to annul the decision of the C aro1ing ed and $egina%s adotion.
=etitioner allege that $osario%s consent (as not otained and the document ur orting as $osario%s affida1it of consent (as fraudulent. = also allege that ed and $egina%s irth certificates sho(s disarity. ne set sho(s that the father to is ose, (hile another set of ! certificates sho(s the father to e "arry. = further alleged that ed and $egina are not actually ose%s illegitimate children ut the legitimate children of "ilieth and "arry (ho (ere married at the time of their irth. CA denied the etition. CA held that (hile no notice (as gi1en y the C to $osario and oanne of the adotion, it ruled that there is Nno elicit ro1ision in the rules that souses and legitimate child of the adoter. . . should e ersonally notified of the hearing.J CA also ruled that the alleged fraudulent information contained in the different sets of irth certificates re>uired the determination of the identities of the ersons stated therein and (as, therefore, eyond the scoe of the action for annulment of udgment. he alleged fraud could not e classified as etrinsic fraud, (hich is re>uired in an action for annulment of udgment. uiredL Decision: he grant of adotion o1er $ should e annulled as the trial court did not 1alidly ac>uire urisdiction o1er the roceedings, and the fa1orale decision (as otained through etrinsic fraud. ;hen fraud is emloyed y a arty recisely to re1ent the articiation of any other interested arty, as in this case, then the fraud is etrinsic, regardless of (hether the fraud (as committed through the use of forged documents or erured testimony during the trial. ose%s actions re1ented $osario and oanne from ha1ing a reasonale oortunity to contest the adotion. 'ad $osario and oanne een allo(ed to articiate, the trial court (ould ha1e hesitated to grant ose%s etition since he failed to fulfill the necessary re>uirements under the la(. here can e no other conclusion than that ecause of ose%s acts, the trial court granted the decree of adotion under fraudulent circumstances. $A 244+ re>uires that the adotion y the father of a child orn out of (edloc otain not only the consent of his (ife ut also the consent of his legitimate children. #Art. <<<, !ec.
7, $A 244+& As a rule, the husand and (ife must file a oint etition for adotion. he la(, ho(e1er, ro1ides for se1eral ecetions to the general rule, as in a situation (here a souse sees to adot his or her o(n children orn out of (edloc. uires the (ritten consent of the adoter%s children if they are )0 years old or older #A$. <<<, !ec. 9, $A 244+&. or the adotion to e 1alid, etitioners% consent (as re>uired y $eulic Act o. 244+. =ersonal ser1ice of summons should ha1e een effected on the souse and all legitimate children to ensure that their sustanti1e rights are rotected. uired urisdiction.
Linda, aren Claudine D. /arolo
therefore ernardina cannot e considered as ohn%s eneficiary ecause she is not the deceased%s legitimate arent. Cornelio Colcol, ho(e1er, already died on ctoer +/, )927, less than three years since the decree of ohn%s adotion ecame final. ualifies as a deendent arent not(ithstanding her sonHs adotion y someone else. '?"D: ). o. he term NarentsJ in the hrase Ndeendent arentsJ in the afore>uoted Article )/7#& of the "aor Code is used and ought to e taen in its general sense and cannot e unduly limited to Nlegitimate arentsJ as (hat the ?CC did. he hrase Ndeendent arentsJ should, therefore, include all arents, (hether legitimate or illegitimate and (hether y nature or y adotion. ;hen the la( does not distinguish, one should not distinguish. =lainly, Ndeendent arentsJ are arents, (hether legitimate or illegitimate, iological or y adotion, (ho are in need of suort or assistance. o(here in the la( nor in the rules does it say that Nlegitimate arentsJ ertain to those (ho eercise arental authority o1er the emloyee enrolled under the ?C=. ualification (as made. uated legitimacy to arental authority, etitioner can still >ualify as ohn%s secondary eneficiary. rue, (hen Cornelio, in )924, adoted ohn, then aout t(o #+& years old, etitioner%s arental authority o1er ohn (as se1ered. 'o(e1er, lest it e o1erlooed, one ey detail the ?CC missed, aside from Cornelio%s death, (as that (hen the adoti1e arent died less than three #3& years after the adotion decree, ohn (as still a minor, at aout four #*& years of age. ohn%s minority at the time of his adoter%s death is a significant factor in the case at ar. 8nder such circumstance, arental authority should e deemed to ha1e re1erted in fa1or of the iological arents. ther(ise, taing into account ur consistent ruling that adotion is a ersonal relationshi and that there are no collateral relati1es y 1irtue of adotion, (ho (as then left to care for the minor adoted child if the adoter assed a(ayL
+. @es.
of the iological arents and those y adotion 1is-U-1is the right to recei1e enefits from the adoted. uality of life might ha1e een etter off not eing adoted at all if he (ould only find himself orhaned in the end. hus, ;e hold that Cornelio%s death at the time of ohn%s minority resulted in the restoration of etitioner%s arental authority o1er the adoted child.
Rule !02 Daria Crisina Lo@ez 20!2-0!!2 &lusorio vs. /ildner *R +o. !1979, Da3 !2, 2000 F#C$S% =otenciano
=otenciano due to the latter%s ad1anced age, frail health, oor eyesight and imaired udgment.
&SS'E% ;hether or not the etitioned (rit of haeas corus should e issued. (EL)% A (rit of habeas corpus etends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention, or y (hich the rightful custody of a erson is (ithheld from the one entitled thereto. o ustify the grant for such etition, the restraint of lierty must an illegal and in1oluntary deri1ation of freedom of action. he illegal restraint of lierty must e actual and effecti1e not merely nominal or moral. ?1idence sho(ed that there (as no actual and effecti1e detention or deri1ation of =otenciano%s lierty that (ould ustify issuance of the (rit. he fact that the latter (as 2/ years of age and under medication does not necessarily render him mentally incaacitated. 'e still has the caacity to discern his actions. ;ith his full mental caacity ha1ing the right of choice, he may not e the suect of 1isitation rights against his free choice. ther(ise, he (ill e deri1ed of his right to ri1acy. he case at ar does not in1ol1e the right of a arent to 1isit a minor child ut the right of a (ife to 1isit a husand.
RL&+)# *. L'D#+L#+ *.R. +o. !""?
Januar3 2, 2001
#3. Edward Sera@io v. Sandigan6a3an 51rd )ivision
Facs% Atty. ?d(ard !eraio #etitioner& filed t(o etitions in the !CB these are: ). A etition for certiorari assailing the resolutions of the hird di1ision of the !andiganayan denying his etition for ail, motion for rein1estigation and motion to >uashB +. =etition for 'aeas Corus. =etitioner (as charged (ith the crime of lunder together (ith ormer =resident oseh ?strada and son inggoy ?strada among others. =etitioner (as a memer of the oard of rustees and legal counsel of ?ra Muslim @outh oundation. 'e allegedly recei1ed, on ehalf of the said foundation, millions of esos coming from illegal acti1ities. he mudsman recommended the filing of a case against him efore the !andiganayan. A (arrant for his arrest (as issued. 8on learning of the said (arrant he 1oluntarily surrendered to the ==. =etitioner, thereafter, file an 8rgent Motion for ail ut such motion is oosed y the rosecution for the reason that etitioner should e arraign first efore he can a1ail of ail. "ater on =etitioner simultaneously filed a motion to >uash. he ail hearing (as reset se1eral times due to 1arious leadings filed y etitioner and the rosecution. Due to this, etitioner filed a etition for haeas corus for the reason that the rosecution ha1e (ai1ed their right to resent e1idence in oosition to his etition for ailB the rosecution launched an endless arrage of ostructi1e and dilatory mo1es to re1ent the conduct of the ail hearingsB and, on the failure of the =eole to adduce strong e1idence of his guilt. or the said reasons, he is still eing deri1ed of his lierty. =etitioner also cited +oncupa vs. Enrie, (hich in such case the Court held that haeas corus etends to instances (here detention, (hile 1alid from its incetion, has later ecome aritrary.
&ssue% ;hether or not the etition for habeas corpus should e grantedL
Ruling% o. !C finds no asis for the issuance of the (rit of haeas corus. 6eneral rule alies.
N etition for habeas corpus is not the appropriate reme"y for assertin! ones ri!ht to bai. It cannot be avaie" of here accuse" is entite" to bai not as a matter of ri!ht but on the "iscretion of the court an" the atter has not abuse" such "iscretion in refusin! to !rant bai, or has not even exercise" sai" "iscretion. The proper recourse is to fie an appication for bai ith the court here the crimina case is pen"in! an" to ao hearin!s thereon to procee".J Moncua 1s ?nrile does not aly in this case ecause etitioner%s restraint of lierty did not ecome aritrary. 'is alication for ail has yet to commence #to e heard&. he delay in the hearing of his etition for ail cannot e inned solely to the !andiganayan or on the rosecution ecause he himself is artly to e lamed #his actions caused delay too. As a general rule, the (rit of haeas corus (ill not issue (here the erson alleged to e restrained of his lierty in custody of an officer under a rocess issued y the court (hich urisdiction to do so.
&+E)#, #le8is #nne ' D#. (#EL&+# #. $'J#+-D&L&$#+$E v. R#='EL D. C#)#-)E#ER# *.R. +o. 2!0?1?K Jul3 2, 20!" FACTS: $a>uel filed efore the $C-Caloocan a 1erified etition for (rit of haeas corus directing etitioner 'a5elina to roduce efore the court resondentHs iological daughter, minor Criselda, and to return to her the custody o1er the child (hich (as granted y the court. ut, desite diligent efforts and se1eral attemts, the !heriff (as unsuccessful in ersonally ser1ing etitioner coies of the haeas corus etition and of the (rit. Mean(hile, etitioner filed a =etition for 6uardianshi o1er the erson of Criselda efore the $C-Kue5on City ut (as dismissed due to the endency of the haeas corus
etition efore $C-Caloocan. hereafter, resondent filed a criminal case for idnaing against etitioner and her counsel. $a>uel mo1ed for the e arte issuance of an alias (rit of haeas corus efore the $CCaloocan, (hich (as granted. he Alias ;rit (as ser1ed uon etitioner at the ffice of the Assistant City =rosecutor of Kue5on City during the reliminary in1estigation of the idnaing case. ISSUES: ;hether or not the $C Caloocan has urisdiction o1er the haeas corus etition filed y resondent. ;hether the (rit issued y $C-Caloocan in Kue5on City (here etitioner (as ser1ed a coy is enforceale. ;hether or not $C-Caloocan 1alidly ac>uired urisdiction o1er etitioner and the erson of Criselda. HELD: @?!, the $C-Caloocan has urisdiction o1er the haeas corus roceeding. A 1erified etition for a (rit of haeas corus in1ol1ing custody of minors shall e filed (ith the amily Court. 'o(e1er, the etition may e filed (ith the regular court in the asence of the residing udge of the amily Court, ro1ided, ho(e1er, that the regular court shall refer the case to the amily Court as soon as its residing udge returns to duty. he etition may also e filed (ith the aroriate regular courts in laces (here there are no amily Courts. @?!. he (rit issued y the amily Court or the regular court shall e enforceale in the udicial region (here they elong. uired in a haeas corus etition. As held in !aulo 1. Cru5, a (rit of haeas corus lays a role some(hat comarale to a summons, in ordinary ci1il actions, in that, y ser1ice of said (rit, the court ac>uires urisdiction o1er the erson of the resondent
ua, Da. #ngelie Eria G. &n $:e Daer f $:e eiion For (a6eas Cor@us f )auan Dalang Sali6o, )auan Dalang Sali6o v.
arden, =uezon Ci3 Jail #nne8, /JD /uilding, Ca<@ /agong )iwa, $aguig Ci3 #nd #ll :er ersons #cing n (is /e:alf #nd>r (aving Cusod3 f )auan Dalang Sali6o *.R. +o. !9797
#@ril , 20!
F#C$S% utuan !. Malang, one of the accused in the Maguindanao massacre, had a ending (arrant of arrest issued y the trial court in eope vs 'mpatuan 6r. et. a . ;hen Datuan Malang !alio learned that the olice officers of Datu 'ofer =olice !tation in Maguindanao susected him to e utuan !. Malang, he resented himself to clear his name. !alio resented to the olice ertinent ortions of his assort, oarding asses and other documents tending to ro1e that a certain Datuan Malang !alio (as in !audi Araia (hen the massacre haened. he authorities, ho(e1er, arehended and detained him. 'e >uestioned the legality of his detention 1ia 8rgent =etition for 'aeas Corus efore the CA, maintaining that he is not the accused atuan !. Malang. he CA issued the (rit, maing it returnale to the udge of $C aguig. After hearing of the $eturn, the trial court granted !alio%s etition and ordered his immediate release from detention. n aeal y the ;arden, the CA re1ersed the $C ruling. he CA held that e1en assuming !alio (as not the atuan !. Malang named in the Alias ;arrant of Arrest, orderly course of trial must e ursued and the usual remedies ehausted efore the (rit of haeas corus may e in1oed. !alio%s roer remedy, according to the CA, should ha1e een a motion to >uash information andor (arrant of arrest. n the other hand, !alio elie1es that the ;arden erred in aealing the $C decision efore the CA. !alio argued that although the CA delegated to the $C the authority to hear the ;arden%s $eturn, the $C%s ruling should e deemed as the CA ruling, and hence, it should ha1e een aealed directly efore the !C.
&SS'E% ;hether or not !alio roerly a1ailed the remedy of a etition for (rit of haeas corus.
(EL)% @es, haeas corus is the remedy for a erson deri1ed of lierty due to mista#en i"entity.
(. C:ange of +a Cancellaion of Enries, as a
&ssue% ;hether changes or corrections (hich are sustantial may e suect of a udicial roceeding.
)ecision% @es, Court find merit in the etition. $ule )02 of the $e1ised $ules of Court ro1ides the rocedure for cancellation or correction of entries in the ci1il registry. he roceedings under said rule may either e summary or ad1ersary in nature. uirements under $ule )02 #otice and ulication OeseciallyP& #ote: Ad1ersarial& ha1e een follo(ed, it (as therefore error f or the trial court to dismiss the etition motu roio (ithout allo(ing the etitioner to resent e1idence to suort her etition #and all the other ersons (ho ha1e an interest o1er the matter to oose the same&.
D#R&#+E J C. S#*S#*#$ RE'/L&C F $(E (&L&&+ES vs. C#RL&$ &. (, E$. #L *.R +o. !701"0, J'+E 29,2007 C#R& DR#LES, J. F#C$S% Carlito Rho and his family alied for the correction of 1arious details in their irth certificate. Carlito etitioned for )& change of citi5enshi of his mother from NChineseJ to NiliinoJB +& delete NohnJ from his nameB 3& delete the (ord NmarriedJ oosite the date of marriage of his arents. he last correction (as ordered to e effected lie(ise in the irth certificates of resondents Michael, Mercy, ona and 'eddy Moira. he etition from a non-ad1ersarial nature of the change is remised on $A 90*2, (hich allo(s first name and nicname in the irth certificates (ithout udicial order. he Municial officer aro1ed the change. he !olicitor 6eneral oected to the correction
on the ground that the correction is not merely clerical ut re>uires an ad1ersarial roceeding. he Court of Aeals fa1ored (ith Rho.
&SS'E% ;hether or not Rho%s re>uest for change in the details of their irth certificate re>uires an ad1ersarial roceeding.
R'L&+*% uirements under $ule )02 are thus follo(ed, the aroriate ad1ersary roceeding necessary to effect sustantial corrections to the entries of the ci1il register is satisfied.
Sison, olanda C. +0)*-0)02
&+ RE% E$&$&+ FR C(#+*E F +#DE #+)>R CRREC$&+> C#+CELL#$&+ F E+$R &+ C&G&L RE*&S$R F J'L&#+ L&+ C#R'L#S#+ #+* also nown as J'L&#+ #+*, o 6e acorreced as J'L&#+ L&+ #+* vs. CE/' C&$ C&G&L RE*&S$R#R 6.$. o. )499//. 30 March +004. inga, .
Facs ulian "in Carulasan ;ang #herein referred to as ulian& (as orn out of (edloc.
&ssue ;hether the etitioner shall e allo(ed to dro his middle name anchored on grounds of con1enienceL
Ruling o. he Court affirmed affirmed the decision rendered y the trial court. he !tate has an interest in the names orne y indi1iduals and entities for uroses of identification, and that a change of name is a ri1ilege and not a rightB as such, efore a erson can e authori5ed to change his name either in his certificate of irth or ci1il registry, he must sho( reasonale cause or comelling reason reason (hich may ustify such change. ther(ise, the re>uest should e denied. uence, as in legitimationB #c& (hen the change (ill a1oid confusionB #d& (hen one has continuously used and een no(n since childhood y a iliino name, and (as una(are of alien arentageB #e& a sincere desire to adot a iliino name to erase signs of former alienage, all in good faith and (ithout reudicing anyodyB and #f& (hen the surname causes emarrassment and there is no sho(ing that the desired change of name (as for a fraudulent urose or that the change of name (ould reudice ulic interest. uestion of roer and reasonale cause is left to the sound discretion of the court. he e1idence resented need only e satisfactory to the court and not all the est e1idence a1ailale. ;hat is in1ol1ed is not a mere matter of allo(ance or disallo(ance of the re>uest, ut a udicious e1aluation of the sufficiency and roriety of the ustifications ad1anced in suort thereof, mindful of the conse>uent results in the e1ent of its grant and (ith the sole rerogati1e for maing such determination eing lodged in the courts.
#*#)#, D#'REE+ ). *.R. *.R. +o. +o. !! !!!!7". 7". )ece )ece<6e <6err ", ", 2009 2009. . D#. CR&S$&+# $RRES /R##, #L JSEF $. /R## and J#+ELLE #++ $. $. /R##, @eiioners, vs. $(E C&$ C&G&L RE*&S$R#R F (&D#D#L#+ C&$, +E*RS CC&)E+$#L,
.:
=etitioner Ma. Cristina ra5a and =alo ra5a r. (ere married. During the (ae of =alo, (ho died in a 1ehicular accident, resondent "ucille itular and her son, =atric Al1in itutar sho(ed u and introduced themsel1es as the (ife and son, resecti1ely, of =alo. !tated in =atric%s irth certificate from the "ocal Ci1il $egistrar of egros ccidental that: #)& =alo is the father of =atric ha1ing acno(ledged y the father on anuary )3, )997B and, #+& =atric (as legitimated y 1irtue 1irtue of the suse>uent marriage of his arentsB hence, his name (as changed to =atric Al1in itular itular ra5a. Cristina lie(ise otained a coy of a marriage contract sho(ing that =alo and "ucille (ere married in )992. =etitioners insist, ho(e1er, that the main cause of action is for the correction of =atric%s irth records and that the rest of the rayers rayers are merely incidental thereto. hey hey contended that =atric could not ha1e een legitimated y the suosed suse>uent marriage et(een "ucille and =alo ecause said marriage is igamous on account of a 1alid and susisting marriage et(een her #Cristina& and =alo. uestions on legitimacy in an action to correct entries in the ci1il registrarL '?"D: o. 8nder $ule )02, the trial court court has no urisdiction to nullify marriages and rule on legitimacy and filiations. he roceeding contemlated therein may generally e used only to correct clerical, selling, tyograhical and other innocuous errors in the ci1il registry. he =etitioners cause of action is actually to see the declaration of =alo = alo and "ucille%s marriage as 1oid for eing igamous and imugn =atric%s legitimacy, (hich causes of action are go1erned not y y $ule )02 ut y A.M. o. 0+-))-)0-!C (hich too effect on March )4, +003, and Art. )7))2 of the amily Code, resecti1ely, hence, the etition should e filed in a amily Court as eressly ro1ided in said Code. uestioned only in a direct action seasonaly filed y the roer arty, and not through collateral attac such as the etition filed efore the court a >uo.
*laesan #driano *.R. +. !???7?, SE$ED/ER !2, 200 RE'/L&C F $(E (&L&&+ES, petitioner GERS'S JE++&FER /. C#*#+)#(#+, respondent +E+$E% J. ='&S&D/&+* AC!:
he follo(ing facts (ere resented y the resondent to the $C: #a& !he (as orn on anuary )3, )92) and (as registered as female in the Certificate of "i1e irth. #& ;hile gro(ing u, she de1eloed secondary male characteristics ecause of CA', (hich is a condition (here ersons thus afflicted ossess oth male and female characteristics. #c& $esondent testified and resented the testimony of Dr. Michael !ion5on of the Deartment of =sychiatry, =sychiatry, 8=-=6' and the latter latter issued a medical certificate. !uch document testified resondent%s claim. hus, this etition y the ffice of the !olicitor 6eneral #!6& seeing a re1ersal of the ao1ementioned ruling had een filed. ue circumstance in this case (here nature had taen its course. As for resondentHs change of name under $ule )03, this Court has held that a change of name is not a matter of right ut of udicial discretion, to e eercised in the light of the reasons adduced and the conse>uences that (ill follo(. he trial courtHs grant of resondentHs change of name from ennifer to eff imlies a change of a feminine name to a masculine name. Considering the conse>uence that resondentHs change of name merely recogni5es his referred gender, (e find merit in resondentHs change of name. !uch a change (ill conform (ith the change of the entry in his irth certificate from female to male.
Gio, Dic:ael #llan oe C. !tudent o. +0)*-0009
S@ecial roceedings Monday Class 7:30-9:30 m
Re@u6lic of :e :ili@@ines :ili@@ ines vs. )r. +or
6.$. o. )920)0 August )+, +0)3 =onente: Diosdado M. =eralta #Associate ustice&
Facs% Dr, orma "ugsanay 8y filed a =etition for Correction of ?ntry in her Certificate of "i1e irth. !he alleged that she (as orn on eruary 2, )94+ and is the illegitimate daughter of !y on and !otera "ugsanay. "ugsanay. 'er Certificate of "i1e irth sho(s that her full name is IAnita !yI (hen in fact she is allegedly no(n to her family and friends as Iorma !. "ugsanay. !he also contended that she is a iliino citi5en and not Chinese, and all her silings ear the surname "ugsanay and are all a ll iliinos. Dr. 8y sought the correction of entries in her irth certificate, articularly those ertaining to her first name, surname and citi5enshi. !he also sought the correction allegedly to reflect the name (hich she has een no(n for since childhood, including her legal documents such as assort and school and rofessional records. $C $C issued an rder finding the etition to e sufficient in form and sustance and setting the case for hearing, (ith the directi1e that the said rder e ulished in a ne(saer of general circulation in the City of 6ingoog and the =ro1ince of Misamis riental at least once a (ee for three #3& consecuti1e (ees at the eense of resondent. CA affirmed in toto the $C rder. he CA held that resondent%s failure to imlead other indisensale arties (as cured uon the ulication of the rder setting the case for hearing in a ne(saer of general circulation for three #3& consecuti1e (ees and y ser1ing a coy of the notice to the "ocal Ci1il $egistrar, the !6 and the Ci ty =rosecutor%s ffice. $eulic of the =hiliines filed a etition on the sole ground that the etition is dismissile for failure to imlead indisensale indisensale arties.
&ssue% ;hether or not failure to imlead and notify the affected or interested arties may e cured y the ulication of the notice of hearingL
Ruling% +o. ;hen a etition for cancellation or correction of an entry in the ci1il register in1ol1es sustantial and contro1ersial alterations, including those on citi5enshi, legiti macy of
aternity or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage, a strict comliance (ith the re>uirements of $ule )02 of the $ules of Court is mandated. !ection 3 of $ule )02 states that N(hen cancellation or correction of an entry in the ci1il register is sought, the ci1il registrar and all ersons (ho ha1e or claim any interest (hich (ould e affected therey shall e made arties to the roceedingJ. he fact that the notice of hearing (as ulished in a ne(saer of general circulation and notice thereof (as ser1ed uon the !tate (ill not change the nature of the roceedings taen. !ummons must e ser1ed not for the urose of 1esting the courts (ith urisdiction ut to comly (ith the re>uirements of fair lay and due rocess to afford the erson concerned the oortunity to rotect his interest if he so chooses. he suect matter of the etition is not for the correction of clerical errors of a harmless and innocuous nature, ut one in1ol1ing nationality or citi5enshi, (hich is indisutaly sustantial as (ell as contro1erted, affirmati1e relief cannot e granted in a roceeding summary in nature. !ureme Court adheres to the rincile that sustantial errors in a ci1il registry may e corrected ro1ided the arties aggrie1ed y the error a1ail themsel1es of the aroriate ad1ersary roceeding. uence of (hich might e detrimental and far reaching.
#+)##-/RJ#, C#$(ER&+E D#E /.
20!"-01!9
*.R. +o. !97!7". Se@e<6er !0, 20!" FR#+CLER . +)E, petitioner vs. $(E FF&CE F $(E LC#L C&G&L RE*&S$R#$&+ F L#S &I#S C&$, respondent . onene% G&LL#R#D#, JR., J.
acts: =etitioner filed a etition for correction of entries in his certificate of li1e irth efore the $C and named resondent ffice of the "ocal Ci1il $egistrar of "as
=iEas City as sole resondent. =etitioner alleged that he is the illegitimate child of his arents 6uillermo A. nde and Matilde DC =aingan, ut his irth certificate stated that his arents (ere married. 'is irth certificate also stated that his motherHs first name is ely and that his first name is ranc "er. he $C dismissed the etition and ruled that the roceedings must e ad1ersarial since the first correction is sustantial in nature and (ould affect etitioner%s status as a legitimate child.
;hether the $C erred in dismissing the etition for correction of entries.
$uling: o. ;e agree (ith the $C that the first name of etitioner and his mother as aearing in his irth certificate can e corrected y the city ci1il registrar under $A 90*2.
;e also agree (ith the $C in ruling that correcting the entry on etitioner%s irth certificate that his arents (ere married to Inot marriedI is a sustantial correction re>uiring ad1ersarial roceedings. !aid correction is sustantial as it (ill affect his legitimacy and con1ert him from a legitimate child to an illegitimate one. !ustantial errors in a ci1il registry may e corrected and the true facts estalished ro1ided the arties aggrie1ed y the error a1ail themsel1es of the aroriate ad1ersary roceedings. his sustantial correction is allo(ed under $ule )02 of the $ules of Court. ;e also stress that a etition seeing a sustantial correction of an entry in a ci1il register must imlead as arties to the roceedings not only the local ci1il registrar ut also all ersons (ho ha1e or claim any interest (hich (ould e affected y the correction. his is
re>uired y !ection 3, $ule )02 of the $ules of Court. hus, in his ne( etition, etitioner should at least imlead his father and mother as arties since the sustantial correction he is seeing (ill also affect them. ;'?$?$?, (e D?@ the etition and A<$M the rders of the $C, ranch +0), "as =iEas City. he dismissal ordered y the $C is, ho(e1er, declared to e (ithout reudice.
rerogaive ris $e, Dar #n:on3 E. )aniel Dasanga3 $a@uz v. (on. Judge El
mandatory inunction uon osting of a ond. he (rit Q authori5ing the immediate imlementation of the MCC decision Q (as actually issued y resondent udge del $osario after the ri1ate resondents had comlied (ith the imosed condition. he etitioners mo1ed to reconsider the issuance of the (ritB the ri1ate resondents, on the other hand, filed a motion for demolition. he resondent udge suse>uently denied the etitioners% M$ and to Defer ?nforcement of =reliminary Mandatory
&SS'E% ; etition for certiorari (ith (rit of amaro and haeas data is roer
(EL)% o. ;e find the etitions for certiorari and issuance of a (rit of haeas data fatally defecti1e, oth in sustance and in form. he etition for the issuance of the (rit of amaro, on the other hand, is fatally defecti1e (ith resect to content and sustance. ased on the outlined material antecedents that led to the etition, that the etition for certiorari to nullify the assailed $C orders has een filed out of time. ased on the same material antecedents, (e find too that the etitioners ha1e een guilty of (illful and delierate misreresentation efore this Court and, at the 1ery least, of forum shoing.
ercei1ed lac of a1ailale and effecti1e remedies to address these etraordinary concerns. uently, the $ule on the ;rit of Amaro Q in line (ith the etraordinary character of the (rit and the reasonale certainty that its issuance demands Q re>uires that e1ery etition for the issuance of the ;rit must e suorted y ustifying allegations of fact. n the (hole, (hat is clear from these statements Q oth s(orn and uns(orn Q is the o1erriding in1ol1ement of roerty issues as the etition traces its roots to >uestions of hysical ossession of the roerty disuted y the ri1ate arties. uires as a minimum, thus rendering the etition fatally deficient. !ecifically, (e see no concrete allegations of unustified or unla(ful 1iolation of the right to ri1acy related to the right to life, lierty or security. he etition lie(ise has not alleged, much less demonstrated, any need for information under the control of olice authorities other than those it has already set forth as integral annees. he necessity or ustification for the issuance of the (rit, ased on the insufficiency of re1ious efforts made to secure information, has not also een sho(n.
Sison, olanda C. +0)*-0)02
&nfan J'L&#+ 'S# 3 C#R#D, re@resened 63 :is
Facs =etitioner Ma. Christina @usay Caram #herein referred to as Christina& had an amorous relationshi (ith 6icano Constantino <<< #herein referred to as Marcelino&, and e1entually ecame regnant (ithout the enefit of marriage. Christina mislead Marcelino into elie1ing that she had an aortionB and to a1oid lacing her family in a otentially emarrassing situation for ha1ing a second illegitimate son, she intended to ha1e the child adoted through !un and Moon 'ome for Children #!un and Moon, for re1ity&. After gi1ing irth to ay ulian, Christina surrendered him y (ay of a Deed of Voluntary Commitment to the D!;D. ot long after, Marcelino suffered heart attac and died. During the (ae, Christina disclosed to the family of Marcelino the irth of ay ulian and the fact that she ga1e him u for adotion. he said family 1o(ed to hel Christina reco1er and raise the ay. Christina (rote a letter to the D!;D asing for the susension of ay ulian%s adotion roceedings. 'o(e1er, D!;D had already issued a Certificate declaring ay ulian as N"egally A1ailale for Adotion,J he (as NmatchedJ (ith souses Vergel and ilomina MedinaB and thereafter, suer1ised trial custody commenced. he Certificate ao1ementioned had attained finality and, in effect, Christina%s arental authority (as terminated and ay ulian is effecti1ely made a (ard of the !tate. D!;D, in resonse to the letter, informed etitioner that they (ere no longer in the osition to sto the adotion rocess, and Christina lost her right to reac>uire her arental authority o1er ay ulian or halt the adotion rocess since the reglementary eriod for the said action had already lased under !ec. 7 of $A o. 94+3. Christina filed a etition for the issuance of a ;rit of Amaro, seeing to otain custody of ay ulian from resondents. Christina argues that the life, lierty and security of ay ulian is eing 1iolated or threatened y herein resondentsB that the latter IlacmailI her into surrendering custody of her child to the D!;D, and utili5ed an in1alid Certificate of A1ailaility for Adotion to misreresent that all legal re>uisites for adotion of the minor child had een comlied (ith. As such, resondents had acted eyond the scoe of their legal authority therey deri1ing her of her custodial rights and arental authority o1er him.
etition for issuance of a ;rit of Amaro, on ground that the same it is not the roer remedy to regain custody of the child. he court held that Christina should ha1e filed either #a& ci1il case for custody of her child as laid do(n in the amily Code and the $ule on Custody of MinorsB or #& =etition for the issuance of a ;rit of 'aeas Corus in $elation to Custody of Minors, in case there is etreme urgency to secure custody of a minor (ho has een illegally detained y another, either as a rincial or ancillary remedy.
&ssue ;hether a etition for a ;rit of Amaro is the roer recourse for otaining arental authority and custody of a minor childL
Ruling o. he Court held that the Amaro $ule (as intended to address the intractale rolem of Ietralegal illingsI and Ienforced disaearances,I as such, it is confined to these t(o instances or to threats thereof. uiescence of the go1ernmentB the refusal of the !tate to disclose the fate or (hereaouts of the erson concerned or a refusal to acno(ledge the deri1ation of lierty (hich laces such ersons outside the rotection of la(.
hearing. here is therefore, no Ienforced disaearanceI as used in the contet of the Amaro rule as the third and fourth elements are missing. ChristinaHs directly accusing the resondents of forcily searating her from her child and lacing the latter u for adotion, suosedly (ithout comlying (ith the necessary legal re>uisites to >ualify the child for adotion, clearly indicates that she is not searching for a lost child ut asserting her arental authority o1er the child and contesting custody o1er him. !ince it is etant from the leadings filed that (hat is in1ol1ed is the issue of child custody and the eercise of arental rights o1er a child, (ho, for all intents and uroses, has een legally considered a (ard of the !tate, the Amaro rule cannot e roerly alied
D#R&#+E J C. S#*S#*#$ &+ $(E D#$$ER F $(E E$&$&+ FR $(E R&$ F #D#R #+) $(E R&$ F (#/ES )#$# &+ F#GR F DEL&SS# C. RH#S vs. *LR&# D#C##*#L #RR, E$. #L. *R +. !9! SE$ED/ER 7, 20!0 ERE, J. F#C$S% =etitioner is an American citi5en of iliino descent. !he enrolled in an eosure rogram to the =hiliines (ith the grou A@A-8!A. =etitioner together (ith her comanions decided to rest in the house of one Mr. =aolo in "a =a5, arlac after doing sur1ey (or. )4 hea1ily armed men forcily entered and arged inside the house. he armed men (ere all in ci1ilian clothes and (earing onnets (ith the ecetion of their leader. =etitioner and her comanions (ere aducted y the armed men. =etioner (as detained for eing a memer of the Communist =arty of the =hiliines e( =eoles Army #C==-=A&. =etitioner (as escorted to a room that she elie1ed (as a cell. rom there, she could hear the sounds of gunfire, noise of lanes taing off and landing and some construction ustle. !he inferred that she (as taen to the military cam of ort Magsaysay. =etitioner (as interrogated for 4 straight days couled (ith torture. =etitioner (as finally released and returned to her uncles house in Kue5on City ut the aductors ga1e the etitioner a cellular hone (ith a !
mo1ement, etitioner filed a etition for the *rits of 'mparo an" =abeas >ata. =etitioner imleaded ulic officials occuying the uermost echelons of the military and olice hierarchy as resondents on the elief that it (as go1ernment agents (ho (ere ehind her aduction and torture.
&SS'ES% Amparo ). ;hether the doctrine of command resonsiility in1oed y the etitioner in imleading the ulic resondents is roer in her amaro etition. +. ;hether the totality of e1idence ro1es that the resondents (ere her aductors or that she (as detained in ort Magsaysay. 3. ;hether the rayer to insect ort Magsaysay is correct. Habeas Data ). ;hether or not the grant of 'aeas Data y the Court of Aeals is correct.
R'L&+*% Amparo ). o. he doctrine of command resonsiility is a rule of sustanti1e la( that estalishes liaility. Command resonsiility is Nan omission mode of indi1idual criminal liaility.J (herey the suerior is made resonsile for crimes committed y his suordinates for failing to re1ent or unish the eretrators. !ince the alication of command resonsiility resuoses an imutation of ind i1idual liaility, it is more atly in1oed in a full-lo(n criminal or administrati1e case rather than in a summary amaro roceeding. +. Direct e1idence of identity is accorded more (eight than circumstantial e1idence in amaro roceedings. 6i1en that the identities of the men in the cartograhic setches (ere not identified as elonging to the military or ulic officials, they cannot e held liale. $oas is ust a soourner in the =hiliines and not e1en a citi5en so the Court can%t rely on her inference that she (as taen to ort Magsaysay merely ecause the distance from Mr. =aolo%s house to (here they (ere taen felt lie the distance et(een the house and ort Magsaysay. 3.
ends. he indisensale element is a sho(ing, at least sustantially, that a 1iolation or threatened 1iolation of the right to ri1acy in life, lierty or security has haened (hich the etitioner has failed to do. here is no e1idence that any of the ulic resondents ha1e 1iolated or threatened a right to ri1acy of the etitioner. here (asn%t e1en e1idence that they had access to the hotos and 1ideos. he grant of haeas data y the CA has no legal asis.
)iwa, Leonardo && /. 20!"-021 /urgos vs. Es@eron 5*.R. !7"97, Fe6ruar3 ", 20!", /rion, J. acts: hese incidents stemmed from our une ++, +0)0 $esolution referring the resent case to the Commission on 'uman $ights #C=(& as the Court%s directly commissioned agency, tased (ith the continuation of the in1estigation of onas oseh . urgos% aduction (ith the oligation to reort its factual findings and recommendations to this Court. his referral (as necessary as the in1estigation y the =hiliine ational =oliceQCriminal G&, y the Armed orces of the =hiliines # '; & =ro1ost Marshal, and e1en the initial C'$ in1estigation had een less than comlete.
sec:es of wo 5one
e1idence cannot re1ail o1er Caintoy%s ositi1e identification, considering esecially the asence of any indication that he (as imelled y hatred or any imroer moti1e to testify against "t. aliaga. hus, the CA held that "t. aliaga (as resonsile and the A= and the == (ere accountale for the enforced disaearance of onas. uest for another (rit 'eld: o. the $ule on the ;rit of 'mparo accords the Court a (ide latitude in crafting remedies to address an enforced disaearance, it cannot #(ithout 1iolating the nature of the (rit of 'mparo as a summary remedy that ro1ides raid udicial relief& grant remedies that (ould comlicate and rolong rather than eedite the in1estigations already ongoing. ote that the CA has already determined (ith f inality that onas (as a 1ictim of enforced disaearance. he etitioner%s re>uest for the reissuance of the (rit and for the rehearing of the case y the CA (ould e redundant and suerfluous in light of : #)& the ongoing in1estigation eing conducted y the D through the
/eru
/'RE#', )E+R, (+. R#'L R. LEE, *GER+R, RG&+CE F SRS*+, #+$+& C. C#D, JR., G&C$R&# #. #JER, #LFRE) D. #*'&L#R, #+) J'#+ D. #*'&L#R, #+$+ES E+$ERR&SES, *L/#L S'DD&$ D&+ES )EGO$ CR., #+) $R RE REES, J.: AC!: =etitioner Maricris D. Dolot #Dolot&, together (ith the arish riest of the 'oly uefaction, ground settlement, ground susidence and landslide ha5ardB #*& after in1estigation, they learned that the mining oerators did not ha1e the re>uired ermit to oerateB #4& !orsogon 6o1ernor $aul "ee and his redecessor !ally "ee issued to the oerators a small-scale mining ermit, (hich they did not ha1e authority to issueB #/& the reresentati1es of the =residential Management !taff and the Deartment of ?n1ironment and atural $esources #D?$&, desite no(ledge, did not do an ything to rotect the interest of the eole of MatnogB and #7& the resondents 1iolated $eulic Act #$.A.& o. 707/ or the =eole%s !mall-!cale Mining Act of )99), $.A. o. 79*+ or the =hiliine Mining Act of )994, and the "ocal 6o1ernment Code. hus, they rayed for the follo(ing reliefs: #)& the issuance of a (rit commanding the resondents to immediately sto the mining oerations in the Municiality of MatnogB #+& the issuance of a temorary en1ironment rotection order or ?=B #3& the creation of an inter-agency grou to undertae the rehailitation of the mining siteB #*& a(ard of damagesB and #4& return of the iron ore, among others. he case (as referred y the ?ecuti1e udge to the $C of !orsogon, ranch 43 eing the designated en1ironmental court.
;hether the etition is dismissile on the grounds that there is no final court decree, order or decision that the ulic officials allegedly failed to act, on (hich is a condition for the issuance of the (rit of continuing mandamus. $8"<6: he concet of continuing mandamus (as first introduced in Metroolitan Manila De1eloment Authority 1. Concerned $esidents of Manila ay. o( cast in stone under $ule 2 of the $ules, the (rit of continuing mandamus enoys a distinct rocedure than that of ordinary ci1il actions for the enforcement1iolation of en1ironmental la(s, (hich are co1ered y =art << #Ci1il =rocedure&. !imilar to the rocedure under $ule /4 of the $ules of Court for secial ci1il actions for certiorari, rohiition and mandamus, !ection *, $ule 2 of the $ules re>uires that the etition filed should e sufficient in form and sustance efore a court may tae further actionB other(ise, the court may dismiss the etition outright. Courts must e cautioned, ho(e1er, that the determination to gi1e due course to the etition or dismiss it outright is an eercise of discretion that must e alied in a reasonale manner in consonance (ith the sirit of the la( and al(ays (ith the 1ie( in mind of seeing to it that ustice is ser1ed. !ufficiency in form and sustance refers to the contents of the etition filed under $ule 2, !ection ): *hen any a!ency or instrumentaity of the !overnment or officer thereof unafuy ne!ects the performance of an act hich the a specificay en%oins as a "uty resutin! from an office, trust or station in connection ith the enforcement or vioation of an environmenta a rue or re!uation or a ri!ht therein, or unafuy excu"es another from the use or en%oyment of such ri!ht an" there is no other pain, spee"y an" a"e$uate reme"y in the or"inary course of a, the person a!!rieve" thereby may fie a verifie" petition in the proper court, ae!in! the facts ith certainty, attachin! thereto supportin! evi"ence, specifyin! that the petition concerns an environmenta a, rue or re!uation, an" prayin! that %u"!ment be ren"ere" comman"in! the respon"ent to "o an act or series of acts unti the %u"!ment is fuy satisfie", an" to pay "ama!es sustaine" by the petitioner by reason of the maicious ne!ect to perform the "uties of the respon"ent, un"er the a, rues or re!uations. The petition sha aso contain a sorn certification of non4forum shoppin!. n matters of form, the etition must e 1erified and must contain suorting e1idence as (ell as a s(orn certification of non-forum shoing.
from the use or enoyment of a rightB #+& the act to e erformed y the go1ernment agency, instrumentality or its officer is secifically enoined y la( as a dutyB #3& such duty results from an office, trust or station in connection (ith the enforcement or 1iolation of an en1ironmental la(, rule or regulation or a right thereinB and #*& there is no other lain, seedy and ade>uate remedy in the course of la(. he (rit of continuing mandamus is a secial ci1il action that may e a1ailed of Ito comel the erformance of an act secifically enoined y la(.I he etition should mainly in1ol1e an en1ironmental and other related la(, rule or regulation or a right therein. he $C%s mistaen notion on the need for a final udgment, decree or order is aarently ased on the definition of the (rit of continuing mandamus under !ection *, $ule ) of the $ules, to (it: 0c Continuin! man"amus is a rit issue" by a court in an environmenta case "irectin! any a!ency or instrumentaity of the !overnment or officer thereof to perform an act or series of acts "ecree" by fina %u"!ment hich sha remain effective unti %u"!ment is fuy satisfie". he final court decree, order or decision erroneously alluded to y the $C actually ertains to the udgment or decree that a court (ould e1entually render in an en1ironmental case for continuing mandamus and (hich udgment or decree shall suse>uently ecome final. 8nder the $ules, after the court has rendered a udgment in conformity (ith $ule 2, !ection 7 and such udgment has ecome final, the issuing court still retains urisdiction o1er the case to ensure that the go1ernment agency concerned is erforming its tass as mandated y la( and to monitor the effecti1e erformance of said tass.
Ro8as, Rose #nn Claire /. -20!2-001! Deralco v Li< 520!0 *R +o !"7?9 J. Car@io-Dorales acts:
A letter (as sent to the Meralco admin deartment in ulacan denouncing "im, an administrati1e cler. !he (as ordered to e transferred to Alaang due to concerns o1er her safety. !he comlained under the remise that the transfer (as a denial of her due rocess. !he (rote a letter stating that: N
/R)ES, D#R M #++ C. )R. J D#R*#$E LEE vs. >S'$. +ER& #. &L#*#+ *.R. +o. 2012", co6er 0, 20!" acts: uently, "ee utili5ed the said 1ideo as e1idence in filing 1arious comlaints against uo, and to roduce
dismissed ecause: #a& its filing (as only aimed at suressing the e1idence against
$uling: he etition is meritorious. As defined in !ection ) of the 'aeas Data $ule, the (rit of haeas data no( stands as Na remedy a1ailale to any erson (hose right to ri1acy in life, lierty or security is 1iolated or threatened y an unla(ful act or omission of a ulic official or emloyee, or of a ri1ate indi1idual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the erson, family, home, and corresondence of the aggrie1ed arty.J hus, in order to suort a etition for the issuance of such (rit, !ection / of the 'aeas Data $ule essentially re>uires that the etition sufficiently alleges, among others, NOtPhe manner the right to ri1acy is 1iolated or threatened and ho( it affects the right to life, lierty or security of the aggrie1ed arty.J uately sho( that there eists a neus et(een the right to ri1acy on the one hand, and the right to life, lierty or security on the other.
As the records sho(, all that uirement as rescried y the 'aeas Data $ule. his is ecause nothing therein (ould indicate that "ee actually roceeded to commit any o1ert act to(ards the end of 1iolating
ua, Da. #ngelie Eria G. DS$ REG. E)R #R&*, e. al. v. SC$$ (. S&F$, e. al. *.R. +o. 20?!0 Se@e<6er !?, 20!" Villarama, J.
F#C$S% he 8!! 6uardian is an A1enger-class mine countermeasures shi of the 8! a1y. uested dilomatic clearance for the said 1essel Nto enter and eit the territorial (aters of the =hiliines and to arri1e at the ort of !uic ay for the urose of routine shi relenishment, maintenance, and cre( lierty.J n anuary /, +0)3, the shi left !aseo, aan for !uic ay, arri1ing on anuary )3, +0)3 after a rief sto for fuel in ina(a, aan. n anuary )4, +0)3, the 8!! 6uardian dearted !uic ay for its net ort of call in Maassar, ue, Alan, 6uimaras,
ccidental, egros riental, Samoanga del orte, asilan, !ulu, and a(i-a(i, (hich e1ents 1iolate their constitutional rights to a alanced and healthful ecology.
&SS'E% ;hether or not etitioners ha1e legal standing. (EL)% @es, etitioners ha1e legal standing. As reiterated y the !ureme Court in many cases, locus standi is Na right of aearance in a court of ustice on a gi1en >uestion.J !ecifically, it is Na arty%s ersonal and sustantial interest in a case (here he has sustained or (ill sustain direct inury as a resultJ of the act eing challenged, and Ncalls for more than ust a generali5ed grie1ance.J 'o(e1er, the rule on standing is a r ocedural matter (hich !ureme Court has relaed for non-traditional laintiffs lie ordinary citi5ens, taayers and legislators (hen the ulic interest so re>uires, such as (hen the suect matter of the contro1ersy is of transcendental imortance, of o1erreaching significance to society, or of aramount ulic interest.
+aFe6ruar3 1, 20!>J. )el Casillo Facs% he Deartment of ?n1ironment and atural $esources, issued an ?n1ironmental Comliance Certificate for a roosed coal-fired o(er lant at !uic, Samales to e imlemented y $= ?nergy. 'on. eodoro Casino and a numer of legislators filed a =etition for ;rit of Raliasan against $= energy, !MA, and 'on. $amon =ae as the D?$ secretary on the ground that actual en1ironmental damage (ill occur if the o(er lant roect is imlemented and that the resondents failed to comly (ith certain la(s and rules go1erning or relating to the issuance of an ?CC and amendments thereto.
he Court of Aeals denied the etition for the ;rit of Raliasan and in1alidated the ?CC. oth the D?$ and Casino filed an aeal, the former imuting error in in1alidating the ?CC and its amendments, arguing that the determination of the 1alidity of the ?CC as (ell as its amendments is eyond the scoe of a =etition for a ;rit of #ai#asanB (hile the latter claim that it is entitled to a ;rit of Raliasan. &ssues% ;hether the arties may raise >uestions of fact on aeal on the issuance of a (rit of RaliasanB and ;hether the 1alidity of an ?CC can e challenged 1ia a (rit of Raliasan Ruling% @es, the arties may raise >uestions of fact on aeal on the issuance of a (rit of Raliasan ecause the $ules on the ;rit of #ai#asan #$ule 7, !ection )/ of the $ules of =rocedure for ?n1ironmental Cases&allo( the arties to raise, on aeal, >uestions of fact and, thus, constitutes an ecetion to $ule *4 of the $ules of Court ecause of the etraordinary nature of the circumstances surrounding the issuance of a (rit of #ai#asan. @es, the 1alidity of an ?CC can e challenged 1ia a (rit of Raliasan ecause such (rit is rincially redicated on an actual or threatened 1iolation of the constitutional right to a alanced and healthful ecology, (hich in1ol1es en1ironmental damage of a magnitude that transcends olitical and territorial oundaries. A arty, therefore, (ho in1oes the (rit ased on alleged defects or irregularities in the issuance of an ?CC must not only allege and ro1e such defects or irregularities, ut must also ro1ide a causal lin or, at least, a reasonale connection et(een the defects or irregularities in the issuance of an ?CC and the actual or threatened 1iolation of the constitutional right to a alanced and healthful ecology of the magnitude contemlated under the $ules. ther(ise, the etition should e dismissed outright and the action re-filed efore the roer forum (ith due regard to the doctrine of ehaustion of administrati1e remedies.
&+E)#, #le8is #nne '. C#SE% Residen Darine Da<
n )3 une +00+, the 6o1ernment of the =hiliines, acting through the Deartment of ?nergy #D?& entered into a 6eohysical !ur1ey and ?loration Contract-)0+ #6!?C)0+& (ith aan =etroleum ?loration Co., "td. #A=?T&. he studies included surface geology, samle analysis, and rerocessing of seismic and magnetic data. 6eohysical and satellite sur1eys as (ell as oil and gas samling in aEon !trait (as conducted. n )+ Decemer +00*, D? and A=?T con1erted 6!?C-)0+ to !er1ice Contract o. */ #!C-*/& for the eloration, de1eloment, and roduction of etroleum resources in a loc co1ering aroimately +,240 s>m. offshore the aEon !trait. rom 9-)2 May +004, A=?T conducted seismic sur1eys in and around aEon !trait, including a multi-channel su-ottom rofiling co1ering aroimately 74) ms. to determine the area%s under(ater comosition. During the +nd su-hase of the roect, A=?T committed to drill one eloration (ell. !ince the same (as to e drilled in the marine (aters of Aloguisan and =inamungaan (here the aEon !trait (as declared a rotected seascae in )922, A=?T agreed to comly (ith the ?n1ironmental uirements under =residential Decree o. )42/ #=D )42/&, entitled N?stalishing an ?n1ironmental
he ?CC otained y the resondents is in1alid ecause there is no ulic consultations and discussions rior to its issuance. !C-*/ is null and 1oid for ha1ing 1iolated !ection +, Article T<< of the )927 Constitution, considering that there is no general la( rescriing the standard or uniform terms, conditions, and re>uirements for ser1ice contracts in1ol1ing oil eloration and etraction
&SS'ES ; the case is moot and academic ; =etitioners ha1e a legal standing ; !C-*/ is unconstitutional
R'L&+* o. he Court maes clear that the Nmoot and academicJ rincile is not a magic formula that can automatically dissuade the courts in resol1ing a case. Desite the termination of !C-*/, the Court deems it necessary to resol1e the consolidated etitions as it falls (ithin the ecetions. oth etitioners allege that !C-*/ is 1iolati1e of the Constitution, the en1ironmental and li1elihood issues raised undoutedly affect the ulic%s interest, and the resondents% contested actions are caale of reetition. @es.
N!ection 4. Citi5en suit. Q #n3 Fili@ino ciizen in re@resenaion of o:ers, including
uiring all interested arties to manifest their interest to inter1ene in the case (ithin fifteen #)4& days from notice thereof. he laintiff may ulish the order once in a ne(saer of general circulation in the =hiliines or furnish all affected aragngays coies of said order. Citi5en suits filed under $.A. o. 27*9 and $.A. o. 9003 shall e go1erned y their resecti1e ro1isions. #?mhasis sulied&J Although the etition (as filed in +007, years efore the effecti1ity of the $ules of =rocedure for ?n1ironmental Cases, it has een consistently held that rules of rocedure may e retroacti1ely alied to actions ending and undetermined at the time of their assage and (ill not 1iolate any right of a erson (ho may feel that he is ad1ersely affected, inasmuch as there is no 1ested rights in rules of rocedure. Moreo1er, e1en efore the $ules of =rocedure for ?n1ironmental Cases ecame effecti1e, the !C had already taen a ermissi1e osition on the issue of ocus stan"i in en1ironmental cases.
involving ei:er ec:nical or financial assisance for large-scale e8@loraion, develo@
$:e residen s:all noif3 :e Congress of ever3 conrac enered ino in accordance wi: :is @rovision, wi:in :ir3 da3s fro< is e8ecuion.J #?mhases sulied&
he disosition, eloration, de1eloment, eloitation, and utili5ation of indigenous etroleum in the =hiliines are go1erned y =residential Decree o. 27 #=D 27& or the il ?loration and De1eloment Act of )97+. Although the Court finds that =D 27 is sufficient to satisfy the re>uirement of a general la(, the asence of the t(o other conditions, that the =resident e a signatory to !C-*/, and that the Congress e notified of such contract, renders it null and 1oid. !C-*/ aears to ha1e een entered into and signed y the D? through its then !ecretary Vicente !. =ere5, r. Moreo1er, ulic resondents ha1e neither sho(n nor alleged that Congress (as suse>uently notified of the eecution of such contract. !er1ice contracts in1ol1ing the eloitation, de1eloment, and utili5ation of our natural resources are of aramount interest to the resent and future generations. 'ence, safeguards (ere out in lace to insure that the guidelines set y la( are meticulously oser1ed and lie(ise eradicate the corrution that may easily enetrate deartments and agencies y ensuring that the =resident has authori5ed or aro1ed of the ser1ice contracts herself. ?1en under the ro1isions of =D 27, it is re>uired that the =etroleum oard, no( the D?, otain the =resident%s aro1al for the eecution of any contract under said statute. he !C lie(ise ruled on the legality of !C-*/ 1is-U-1is other ertinent la(s to ser1e as a guide for the 6o1ernment (hen eecuting ser1ice contracts. 8nder =roclamation o. +)*/, the aEon !trait is an en1ironmentally critical area, ha1ing een declared as a rotected area in )992B therefore, any acti1ity outside the scoe of its management lan may only e imlemented ursuant to an ?CC secured after undergoing an ?n1ironment uired the drilling of the eloration (ell. his means that no en1ironmental imact e1aluation (as done (hen the seismic sur1eys (ere conducted. 8nless the seismic sur1eys are art of the management lan of the aEon !trait, such sur1eys (ere done in 1iolation of !ection )+ of <=A! Act and !ection * of =residential Decree o. )42/. nd
;hile =D 27 may ser1e as the general la( uon (hich a ser1ice contract for etroleum eloration and etraction may e authori5ed, the eloitation and utili5ation of this energy resource in the resent case may e allo(ed only through a la( assed y Congress, since the aEon !trait is a <=A! area. !ince there is no such la( secifically
