Page 1 of 39

Special Proceedings Recent Digested Cases (2010-

2011)
CONTENTS
1! Settle"ent o# Estate o# Deceased Person
a. Probate of the w n the foregn country where the
aen deceased resdes condton sne qua non for
Reprobate of the w n the Phppnes
IN RE: In the Matter of the Petition to approve the
will of Ruperta Palaganas with prayer for the
appointment of Special Administrator, Manuel Miguel
Palaganas and en!amin Palaganas vs" Ernesto
Palaganas, G.R. No. 169144, |anuary 26, 2011
2! $%ardians&ip
a. Guardanshp of Mnor
#a$ales vs" #ourt of Appeal, G.R. No. 162421,
August 31, 2007
b. Appontment of a Guardan: Court Authorty Requred
People vs" %lores, G.R. No. 188315, August 25,
2010
c. Fducary Funds Sha Reman Wth Court
Posted &anuary '(, )*((+ y Anna ,atrina M"
Martine- .S# /e$site0
3! 'egal $%ardian (&en one o# t&e spo%se is
incapacitated ) Sole *d"inistration
&ose 1y vs" #ourt of Appeals, GR No. 109557,
November 29, 2000
a. Guardan over Incompetent Person: Who s an
ncompetent person
Hernandez, et"al" vs" San &uan2Santos, G.R. Nos.
166470 and 169217, August 7, 2009
+! Esc&eat
Page 2 of 39
a. Escheat Proceedng: Proper Party and Ctzenshp of the
owner of the property to be escheated.
alais2Ma$anag vs" Registry of 3eeds of 4ue-on
#ity, G.R. No. 153142, March 29, 2010
,! *doption
a. Vadty of Adopton when the Survvng Spouse
remarres
IN RE: Petition for Adoption 5% Michael &ude P" 6im,
G.R. Nos. 168992-93, May 21, 2009
b. Adopton under Artce 33, New Cv Code and SC Cr.
No.12: decree of Adopton cannot be made soey by
case study reports made by a social welfare officer of the court
3S/3 vs" &udge Antonio M" elen, A.M. No. RT|-96-
1362 |uy 18, 1997
c. Penaty for a pubc offcer for smuatng brth
certfcate: Appcaton of the Cv Servce Rues
Anonymous vs" Emma #uramen, A.M. No. P-08-
2549, |une 18, 2010
-! .a/eas Corp%s
a. Grant of Wrt of Habeas Corpus ancary to a Crmna
Case: Dsmssa of the atter rendered moot and
academc of the former
So vs" 7on" Este$an A" 8acla, &r", G.R. No. 190108, 19
October 2010
b. Wrt of Habeas Corpus: Not proper pendng Speca Cv
Acton for Certorar before the Court of Appeas 7th
Dvson.
In the matter of the Petition for 7a$eas #orpus of
#E9ARI :5N9A6ES and &16I1S MESA: R5ER85 RA%AE6
P16I35 vs" :en" E%REN A1, et a., G.R. No. 170924,
|uy 4, 2007
c. A detenton prevousy nvad becomes vad upon the
appcaton, ssuance of the wrt of Habeas Corpus
dened. (Secton 4 of Rue 102)
Page 3 of 39
Ampatuan vs" &udge ;irgilio ;" Macaraig, G.R. No.
182497, 29 |une 2010
0! (rit o# *"paro and .a/eas Data
a. Command Responsbty
b. Amparo: Not apped to those nstances other than rght
to fe, berty or securty (.e. persona property)
In the Matter of the Petition for the /rit of Amparo
and the /rit of 7a$eas 3ata in %avor of Melissa #" Ro<as,
G. R. No. 189155 September 7, 2010
1! R%le 103 C&ange o# Na"e 2%risdiction and
S%##icienc3 o# E4idence
Repu$lic vs" Roselie Eloisa ringas olante a"="a"
MARIA E65ISA RIN:AS 56AN8E, :"R" No" (>*?@A,
&uly )*, )**>
9! R%le 101
a! *%t&orit3 o# t&e trial co%rts to "a5e 6%dicial
corrections o# entries in t&e ci4il registr3!
RE: %INA6 REP5R8 5N 87E &13I#IA6 A13I8
#5N31#8E3 A8 87E R8# RAN#7 >A, PANI41I, 8AR6A#,
A"M"No"*>2A2B(B2R8#, 5cto$er (@, )**A
/! (&en ci4il stat%s a##ects t&e c&anges in t&e entr3
in ci4il registr37 ad4ersarial proceedings applied )
2%risdictional and Notice are essential
Repubc vs" &ulian Edward Emerson #oseteng2
Magpayo .A","A" &16IAN E3/AR3 EMERS5N MAR41E92
6IM #5SE8EN:0, G.R. No. 189476, February 2, 2011
c! C&ange o# Stat%s *lien Spo%se #ailed to co"pl3
on t&e 2%risdictional Re8%ire"ent
#orpu- vs" Sto" 8omas, G.R. No. 186571, August 11,
2010
10! R9'E 1037 101 and R* 90+1 Disting%is&ed
Repu$lic vs" Mercadera, G.R. No. 186027, December
8, 2010
Page + of 39
Page , of 39
*! SETT'E:ENT O; EST*TE O; DECE*SED PERSON
Pro/ate o# t&e <ill in t&e #oreign co%ntr3 <&ere t&e alien
deceased resides condition sine 8%a non #or Repro/ate o#
t&e <ill in t&e P&ilippines
=N RE =N T.E :*TTER O; T.E PET=T=ON TO *PPRO>E T.E (='' O;
R9PERT* P*'*$*N*S (=T. PR*?ER ;OR T.E *PPO=NT:ENT O; SPEC=*'
*D:=N=STR*TOR7 :*N9E' :=$9E' P*'*$*N*S *ND @EN2*:=N $RE$OR=O
P*'*$*N*S >S! ERNESTO P*'*$*N*S
G.R. No. 169144, |anuary 26, 2011
;*CTS:
Ruperta C. Paaganas (Ruperta), a Fpno who became a naturazed Unted
States (U.S.) ctzen, ded snge and chdess. In the ast w and testament she
executed n Caforna, she desgnated her brother, Sergo C. Paaganas (Sergo), as
the executor of her w for she had eft propertes n the Phppnes and n the U.S.

Respondent Ernesto C. Paaganas (Ernesto), another brother of Ruperta, fed
wth the a petton for the probate of Rupertas w and for hs appontment as
speca admnstrator of her estate. However, pettoners Manue Mgue Paaganas
(Manue) and Ben|amn Gregoro Paaganas (Ben|amn), nephews of Ruperta,
opposed the petton on the ground that Rupertas w shoud not be probated n the
Phppnes but n the U.S. where she executed t
The RTC ssued an order: (a) admttng to probate Rupertas ast w; (b)
appontng respondent Ernesto as speca admnstrator at the request of Sergo, the
U.S.-based executor desgnated n the w; and (c) ssung the Letters of Speca
Admnstraton to Ernesto.
Manue and Ben|amn appeaed to the Court of Appeas (CA), argung that an
unprobated w executed by an Amercan ctzen n the U.S. cannot be probated for
the frst tme n the Phppnes.
The CA affrmed order of the RTC, hodng that the RTC propery aowed the
probate of the w. The CA ponted out that Secton 2, Rue 76 of the Rues of Court
does not requre pror probate and aowance of the w n the country of ts
executon, before t can be probated n the Phppnes. The present case s dfferent
from reprobate, whch refers to a w aready probated and aowed abroad.
Reprobate s governed by dfferent rues or procedures.
=SS9E
Whether or not a w executed by a foregner abroad may be probated n the
Phppnes athough t has not been prevousy probated and aowed n the country
where t was executed.
.E'D:
Secton 1, Rue 73 of the 1997 Rues of Cv Procedure provdes that f the
decedent s an nhabtant of a foregn country, the RTC of the provnce where he
has an estate may take cognzance of the settement of such estate. Sectons 1 and
2 of Rue 76 further state that the executor, devsee, or egatee named n the w,
or any other person nterested n the estate, may, at any tme after the death of the
Page - of 39
testator, petton the court havng |ursdcton to have the w aowed, whether the
same be n hs possesson or not, or s ost or destroyed.
Our rues requre merey that the petton for the aowance of a w must
show, so far as known to the pettoner: (a) the |ursdctona facts; (b) the names,
ages, and resdences of the hers, egatees, and devsees of the testator or
decedent; (c) the probabe vaue and character of the property of the estate; (d) the
name of the person for whom etters are prayed; and (e) f the w has not been
devered to the court, the name of the person havng custody of t. |ursdctona
facts refer to the fact of death of the decedent, hs resdence at the tme of hs
death n the provnce where the probate court s sttng, or f he s an nhabtant of a
foregn country, the estate he eft n such provnce. The rues do not requre proof
that the foregn w has aready been aowed and probated n the country of ts
executon.
In nsstng that Rupertas w shoud have been frst probated and aowed by
the court of Caforna, pettoners Manue and Ben|amn obvousy have n mnd the
procedure for the reprobate of w before admttng t here. But, reprobate or re-
authentcaton of a w aready probated and aowed n a foregn country s
dfferent from that probate where the w s presented for the frst tme before a
competent court. Reprobate s specfcay governed by Rue 77 of the Rues of
Court. Contrary to pettoners stance, snce ths atter rue appes ony to
reprobate of a w, t cannot be made to appy to the present case. In reprobate,
the oca court acknowedges as bndng the fndngs of the foregn probate court
provded ts |ursdcton over the matter can be estabshed.
Besdes, pettoners stand s fraught wth mpractcay. If the nsttuted hers
do not have the means to go abroad for the probate of the w, t s as good as
deprvng them outrght of ther nhertance, snce our aw requres that no w sha
pass ether rea or persona property uness the w has been proved and aowed by
the proper court.
@! $9*RD=*NS.=P
$%ardians&ip o# :inor *:! No! 03-02-0,-SC
NE'SON C*@*'ES and R=TO C*@*'ES 4s! CO9RT O; *PPE*'S7 2ES9S
;E'=*NO and *N9NC=*NO ;E'=*NO
G.R. No. 162421, August 31, 2007
Puno, C.|.
FACTS:
Sometme n 1964, Rurfno Cabaes ded eavng behnd a parce of and n
Southern Leyte to hs wfe, Saturnna and sx chdren, namey, Bonfaco, Francsco,
Aberto, Abno, Lenora, and Rto. On 1971, the brothers and co-owners Bonfaco,
Aberto and Abno sod the property to Dr. Corrompdo wth a rght to repurchase
wthn eght (8) years. On 1972, pror to the redempton of the property, Aberto
ded eavng behnd hs wfe and son, Neson, heren pettoner.
Sometme ater and wthn the redempton perod, the sad brothers and ther
mother, n eu of Aberto, tendered ther payment to Dr. Corrompdo. Subsequenty,
Saturnna, and her four chdren, Bonfaco, Abno, Francsco and Leonora sod the
Page 0 of 39
sad and to Spouses Feano. It was provded n the deed of sae that the shares of
Neson and Rto, beng mnor at the tme of the sae, w be hed n trust by the
vendee and w pad upon them reachng the age of 21.
In 1986, Rto receved the sum of 1,143 pesos from the Spouses Feano
representng hs share from the proceeds of the sae of the property. It was ony n
1988, that Neson earned of the sae from hs unce, Rto. He sgnfed hs ntenton
to redeem the property n 1993 but t was ony n 1995 that he fed a compant for
redempton aganst the Spouses Feano. The respondent Spouses averred that the
pettoners are estopped from denyng the sae snce: (1) Rto aready receved hs
share; and (2) Neson, faed to tender the tota amount of the redempton prce.
The Regona Tra Court rued n favour of Spouses Feano on the ground that
Neson was no onger entted to the property snce, hs rght was subrogated by
Saturnna upon the death of hs father, Aberto. It aso aeged that Rto had no more
rght to redeem snce Saturnna, beng hs ega guardan at the tme of the sae was
propery vested wth the rght to aenate the same.
The Court of Appeas modfed the decson of the tra court statng that the
sae made by Saturnna n behaf of Rto and Neson were unenforceabe.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the sae made by a ega guardan (Saturnna) n behaf of the
mnors were bndng upon them.
HELD:
Wth regard to the share of Rto, the contract of sae was vad. Under
Secton 1, Rue 96 "A guardan sha have the care and custody of the person of hs
ward, and the management of hs estate, or the management of the estate ony. x x
x" Indeed, the ega guardan ony has the penary power of admnstraton of the
mnors property. It does not ncude the power of aenaton whch needs |udca
authorty. Thus, when Saturnna, as ega guardan of pettoner Rto, sod the
atters pro ndvso share n sub|ect and, she dd not have the ega authorty to do
so. Accordngy, the contract as to the share of Rto was unenforceabe. However,
when he receved the proceeds of the sae, he effectvey ratfed t. Ths act of
ratfcaton rendered the sae vad and bndng as to hm.
Wth respect to pettoner Neson, the contract of sae was vod. He was a
mnor at the tme of the sae. Saturnna or any and a the other co-owners were not
hs ega guardans; rather t was hs mother who f duy authorzed by the courts,
coud vady se hs share n the property. Consequenty, pettoner Neson retaned
ownershp over ther undvded share n the sad property. However, Neson can no
onger redeem the property snce the thrty day redempton perod has expred and
thus he remans as co-owner of the property wth the Spouses Feano.
*ppoint"ent o# $%ardian Co%rt a%t&orit3 re8%ired
PEOP'E O; T.E P.='=PP=NES 4s! =S=DRO ;'ORES 3 '*$9*
G.R. No. 188315, August 25, 2010
FACTS:
AAA ved wth her adoptve mother, BBB, snce she was |ust a few months
od. BBB s marred to appeant, who was workng abroad for sx years. Appeant
Page 1 of 39
came home n 1997 and ved wth AAA and BBB. BBB was workng as a restaurant
supervsor from 4pm to 2am for sx days a week.
In February 1999 at around 9:30 pm, AAA then 11 yrs od, was seepng nsde
the house when she fet and saw appeant touch her thghs. The foowng day, at
around the same tme and whe BBB was at work, appeant agan touched AAA
from her egs up to her breast.
Two weeks after the ncdent, AAA was aready aseep when she suddeny
woke up and saw appeant hodng a knfe, then appeant was abe to penetrate
her. Two days after, appeant agan raped her. AAA recounted that appeant raped
her at east 3 tmes a week at the same tme unt October 15, 2002, when she was
14 yrs. od.
RTC rendered |udgment fndng appeant guty beyond reasonabe doubt of
181 counts of rape.CA affrmed the fndng that AAA was raped by appeant, but dd
so ony on 2 counts and consder the quafyng crcumstances of mnorty and
reatonshp.
ISSUE:
Whether or not appeant shoud be consder as a guardan of the vctm even
wthout court authorty
Whether that the quafyng/aggravatng crcumstances of reatonshp s appcabe.
HELD:
To |ustfy the death penaty, the prosecuton must specfcay aege n the
nformaton and prove durng the tra the quafyng crcumstances of mnorty of
the vctm and her reatonshp to the offender.
|ursprudence dctates that the guardan must be a person who has a ega
reatonshp wth hs ward. The theory that a guardan must be egay apponted
was frst enuncated n the eary case of Peope vs. Dea Cruz whch hed that the
guardan referred to n the aw s ether a ega or |udca guardan as understood n
the rues on Cv Procedure.
The aw requres a ega or |udca guardan snce t s the consanguneous
reaton or the soemnty of |udca appontment whch mpresses upon the guardan
the ofty purpose of hs offce and normay deters hm from voatng ts ob|ectves.
The appeant cannot be consdered as the guardan fang wthn the ambt of the
amendatory provson ntroduced by RA 7659.Snce both ogc and fact con|onty
demonstrate that he s actuay ony a custodan, that s, a mere caretaker of the
chdren over whom he exercses a mted degree of authorty for a temporary
perod, we cannot mpose death penaty contempated for a rea guardan under RA
7659, snce he does not ft nto that category.
Be that as t may, ths quafyng crcumstance of beng a guardan was not
even mentoned n the Informaton. What was ceary stated was that appeant was
the "adoptng father" of AAA, whch the prosecuton nonetheess faed to estabsh.
For faure of the prosecuton to prove the quafyng crcumstance of
reatonshp, appeant coud ony be convcted for two counts of smpe rape, and
not quafed rape.
Page 9 of 39
;id%ciar3 ;%nds S&all Re"ain (it& Co%rt
Posted |anuary 31 , 2011; By Anna Katrna M. Martnez
The depost of the |udcarys Fducary Funds, amountng to more than
PhP4.8 bon, and a subsequent coectons of trust and other recepts wth the
Bureau of Treasury "has no ega bass," and the remttance of nterests of the
Fducary Funds to the natona government "s erroneous and must be
dscontnued."
Thus sad the Supreme Court as t rued that Fducary Funds n custodaegs
sha reman under the custody and contro of the courts, to be deposted and
dsposed of as the courts may drect n the exercse of ther |udca functons, whe
Fducary Funds deposted wth the Court n ts admnstratve capacty, and not n
custodaegs, sha be remtted to the Natona Treasury.
In ts 2008 Annua Audt Report, the COA recommended that the Court
depost the amount of P4,838,976,011.86 "and a subsequent coectons of trust
and other recepts wth the Bureau of Treasury" n conformty wth Executve Order
338 (EO 338), Sectons 7 and 8 of the Genera Provsons of the Genera
Appropratons Act for Fsca Year 2008 (2008 GAA), and COA-DOF-DBM |ont
Crcuar No. 1-97.
EO 338 drects government offces and agences to mmedatey transfer a
pubc moneys deposted wth depostory banks and other nsttutons to the Bureau
of Treasury, regardess of ncome source, whe the 2008 GAA drects government
agences to book trust and other recepts "whch have been receved as guaranty
for the fufment of an obgaton" wth the Natona Treasury. |ont Crcuar No. 1-
97, on the other hand, requres that a Natona Government cash baances be
deposted wth the Natona Treasury.
In an En Banc Resouton, the Supreme Court carfed whether the deposts n
ts Fducary Funds and n those of the ower courts as we as the Phppne
Medaton Center shoud be remtted to the Natona Treasury, as suggested by
COA.
The Court sad whe funds that propery accrue to the Genera Fund must be
turned over to the Bureau of Treasury, whch s under the Executve branch, the
custody and dsposton of any fund of whatever nature that s n custoda egs
(custody of the aw) s under the excusve contro of the courts n the exercse of
ther |udca functons.
"The contro of funds n custoda egs s an exercse of |udca power, and
under the Consttuton, |T|he |udca power s vested n one Supreme Court and n
such ower courts as may be estabshed by aw," sad the Court. "Nether the
Executve nor Legsatve branch can encroach on the power of the courts to contro
custody or dsposton of funds n custoda egs," addng that upon termnaton of
the case, or earer as the courts may drect, the funds n custoda egs w be
returned to ther rghtfu owners, sub|ect to a servce fee of 10% per annum of the
nterests earned, whch sha accrue to the |udcary Deveopment Fund (|DF).
The Hgh Court sad that whe Batas Pambansa Bg. 325 provdes that, uness
otherwse provded, a coectons from fees and charges of government agences,
ncudng the Supreme Court, sha accrue to the Genera Fund of the Natona
Government, an exempton s provded under Presdenta Decree No. 1949 (PD
Page 10 of 39
1949), whch estabshed the |DF "for the beneft of the members and personne of
the |udcary to hep ensure and guarantee the ndependence of the |udcary."
PD 1949 provdes that the Chef |ustce sha admnster and aocate the |DF
and sha have the soe excusve power and duty to approve the authorzed
dsbursement and expendtures of the Fund. "Thus, the |DF, athough derved from
ega fees and charges, does not accrue to the Genera Fund by express provson of
PD 1949," sad the Court.
The Hgh Court added that Fducary Funds aso do not accrue to the Genera
Fund as these are not "coectons from fees and charges" but are funds that are
deposted n court whch are hed n trust for the partes and tgants.
The Court aso rued that ts own practce of remttng the nterests of the
Fducary Funds to the natona government s erroneous and must be dscontnued.
"Foowng the rght of accesson conferred on the owner of the property
under Artce 440 of the Cv Code, the nterests on these fducary funds aso
beong to the partes who own the prncpa amount. Upon termnaton of the case,
the nterests shoud be returned to the partes together wth the prncpa. The
nterests shoud not accrue to the Genera Fund because t s tantamount to takng
prvate property for pubc use wthout |ust compensaton," the Court hed. It added
that nterests on deposts of the |DF accrue to the |DF for the beneft of the
members and personne of the |udcary.
The Court, however, rued that forfeted cash deposts made to guarantee
undertakngs n favor of the government, and the nterests thereon, are ncome of
the government and sha be remtted to the Natona Treasury and that uncamed
fducary funds of prvate partes, ncudng nterests, sha reman wth the courts
unt a aw s passed authorzng the escheat or forfeture of such uncamed funds n
favor of the State.
Fnay, the Supreme Court rued that the amounts t prevousy remtted to
the Natona Treasury representng nterest earned on the Fducary Fund and
forfeted/confscated bonds coverng the perod from 2004 to 2007, under the
staggered payments proposed by retred Chef |ustce Reynato S. Puno to the COA
n 2009, sha be credted to whatever amounts the Court s requred to remt to the
Natona Treasury. (Mn. Res., AM No. 05-3-35-SC, Re: Audt Observaton
Memorandum; Mn. Res., AM No. 10-8-3-SC, Re: Fducary Fund Deposts Not
Remtted to the Bureau of Treasury, |anuary 18, 2011)
'egal $%ardian (&en one o# t&e spo%se is incapacitated )
Sole *d"inistration
2ose 93 4s! Co%rt o# *ppeals and Teodoro 2ardeleAa
GR No. 109557. November 29, 2000
Facts:
Dr. |ardeeza suffered a stroke whch eft hm comatose and deprvng hm of
hs menta and physca capabty to act. Upon earnng that the rea property he
owned s about to be sod, Teodoro fed a petton for the ssuance of the etter of
guardanshp of hs father. In the petton, he prayed for the ssuance of the etters
of guardanshp n favor of hs mother and pettoner, Gda.
Page 11 of 39
Days ater, Gda fed a petton for the decaraton of ncapacty of Dr.
|ardeeza, admnstraton of con|uga propertes, and authorty of se the same. In
the sad petton, she prayed for such reefs because of the ncreasng hospta bs
due to the fact that Dr. |ardeeza s confned n an ntensve care unt (ICU).
Upon the fndng of the petton to be n form, the RTC ssued a notce for
hearng, whch happened few days after. On the same date of the hearng, the RTC,
upon hearng the wtnesses presented by Gda, granted such petton. Teodoro
fed an Opposton contendng that he was unaware that the case was aready
decded. He aso fed a Moton for Reconsderaton contendng that the proper
remedy n the case s not the petton fed by hs mother, but the petton for
guardanshp proceedngs. As such, the case cannot be heard under the rues of
summary proceedngs as contempated n Artce 253 of the Famy Code. He aso
noted that the provsons on summary proceedngs, found n Chapter 2 of the
Famy Code, comes under the headng on "Separaton n Fact Between Husband
and Wfe" whch contempates of a stuaton where both spouses are of dsposng
mnd. Thus, he argued that were one spouse s "comatose wthout motor and
menta facutes," the sad provsons cannot be made to appy.
Issue: Whether the provson of Artce 124 of the Famy Code appes n ths case
when one of the spose s ncapactated to gve hs consent?
Hed:
No. Artce 124 of the Famy Code provdes as foows:
"ART. 124. The admnstraton and en|oyment of the con|uga partnershp property
sha beong to both spouses |onty. In case of dsagreement, the husbands
decson sha preva, sub|ect to recourse to the court by the wfe for a proper
remedy whch must be avaed of wthn fve years from the date of the contract
mpementng such decson.
"In the event that one spouse s ncapactated or otherwse unabe to partcpate n
the admnstraton of the con|uga propertes, the other spouse may assume soe
powers of admnstraton. These powers do not ncude the powers of dsposton or
encumbrance whch must have the authorty of the court or the wrtten consent of
the other spouse. In the absence of such authorty or consent, the dsposton or
encumbrance sha be vod. However, the transacton sha be construed as a
contnung offer on the part of the consentng spouse and the thrd person, and may
be perfected as a bndng contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or
authorzaton by the court before the offer s wthdrawn by ether or both offerors.
(165a)."
In reguar manner, the rues on summary |udca proceedngs under the
Famy Code govern the proceedngs under Artce 124 of the Famy Code. The
stuaton contempated s one where the spouse s absent, or separated n fact or
has abandoned the other or consent s wthhed or cannot be obtaned. Such rues
do not appy to cases where the non-consentng spouse s ncapactated or
ncompetent to gve consent. In ths case, the tra court found that the sub|ect
spouse "s an ncompetent" who was n comatose or sem-comatose condton, a
vctm of stroke, cerebrovascuar accdent, wthout motor and menta facutes, and
wth a dagnoss of bran stem nfarct. In such case, the proper remedy s a |udca
guardanshp proceedngs under Rue 93 of the 1964 Revsed Rues of Court.
Even assumng that the rues of summary |udca proceedngs under the
Famy Code may appy to the wfe's admnstraton of the con|uga property, the aw
Page 12 of 39
provdes that the wfe who assumes soe powers of admnstraton has the same
powers and dutes as a guardan under the Rues of Court.
Consequenty, a spouse who desres to se rea property as such
admnstrator of the con|uga property must observe the procedure for the sae of
the wards estate requred of |udca guardans under Rue 95, 1964 Revsed Rues
of Court, not the summary |udca proceedngs under the Famy Code.
In the case at bar, the tra court dd not compy wth the procedure under the
Revsed Rues of Court. Indeed, the tra court dd not even observe the
requrements of the summary |udca proceedngs under the Famy Code. Thus, the
tra court dd not serve notce of the petton to the ncapactated spouse; t dd not
requre hm to show cause why the petton shoud not be granted.
$%ardians&ip o4er =nco"petent Person (&o is an
=nco"petent PersonB
CEC='=O C! .ERN*NDEC7 :*! >=CTOR=* C! .ERN*NDEC-S*$9N7 TERES* C!
.ERN*NDEC->=''* *@R=''E and N*T=>=D*DCR9C-.ERN*NDEC 4s! 2O>=T*
S*N 29*N-S*NTOS
G.R. No. 166470 and G.R. No. 169217 August 7, 2009
FACTS:
Mara Lourdes San |uan Hernandez (or Luu) was born on February 14, 1947
to the spouses Fex Hernandez and Mara San |uan Hernandez. Unfortunatey, the
atter ded due to compcatons durng chdbrth. After Mara's death, Fex eft Luu
n the care of her materna unce, Sotero C. San |uan. On December 16, 1951, Fex
marred Natvdad Cruz. The unon produced three chdren, heren pettoners.
Meanwhe, as the ony chd of Mara and the soe testate her of Sotero, Luu
nherted vauabe rea propertes from the San |uan famy. In 1968, upon reachng
the age of ma|orty, Luu was gven fu contro of her estate. Nevertheess, because
Luu dd not even fnsh her eementary educaton, Fex contnued to exercse
actua admnstraton of Luus propertes. Upon Fex's death n 1993, pettoners
took over the task of admnsterng Luu's propertes.
Durng the perod of ther nforma admnstraton (from 1968 unt 1993),
Fex and pettoners undertook varous "pro|ects" nvovng Luus rea propertes. In
1974, Fex aegedy purchased one of Luus propertes for an undscosed amount
to deveop the Marou Subdvson. Thus, Luu sgned a speca power of attorney
(SPA) beevng that she was authorzng Ma. Vctora to appear n court on her
behaf when she was n fact unknowngy authorzng her haf-sster to se the sad
property to the Mana Eectrc Company for P18,206,400. In September 1998, Luu
sought the assstance of her materna frst cousn, respondent |ovta San |uan-
Santos, after earnng that pettoners had been dsspatng her estate. She confded
to |ovta that she was made to ve n the basement of pettoners home and was
recevng a measy day aowance of P400 for her food and medcaton.
Respondent was appaed as Luu was severey overweght, unkempt and
smeed of urne. She ater found out that Luu was occupyng a cramped room t by
a snge fuorescent amp wthout runnng water. Due to Luu's poor hygene,
respondent brought her to severa physcans for medca examnaton. Luu was
found to be affcted wth tubercuoss, rheumatsm and dabetes from whch she
was sufferng severa compcatons.
Page 13 of 39
On October 2, 1998, respondent fed a petton for guardanshp n the RTC of
San Mateo, Rza, Branch 76. She aeged that Luu was ncapabe of takng care of
hersef and managng her estate because she was of weak mnd. Subsequenty,
pettoners moved to ntervene n the proceedngs to oppose the same. Ceco,
Teresa and Ma. Vctora, for ther part, camed that the ssue of Luus competency
had been setted n 1968 (upon her emancpaton) when the court ordered her ega
guardan and materna unce, Craco San |uan, to dever the propertes for her to
manage. They kewse asserted that Luu was terate and, for that reason, aware of
the consequences of executng an SPA.
Durng the hearng, Luu was presented and asked to testfy on her geneaogy
and experences wth the San |uan and Hernandez fames. Luu dentfed and
descrbed her parents, stepmother, haf-sbngs and materna reatves. Medca
specasts testfed to expan the resuts of Luus examnatons whch reveaed the
aarmng state of her heath. Furthermore, they unanmousy opned that n vew of
Luus ntegence eve (whch was beow average) and frage menta state, she
woud not be abe to care for hersef and sef-admnster her medcatons.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Luu s an ncompetent and the appontment of a |udca guardan
over her person and property s necessary.
HELD:
YES. Under Secton 2, Rue 92 of the Rues of Court, persons who, though of
sound mnd but by reason of age, dsease, weak mnd or other smar causes are
ncapabe of takng care of themseves and ther property wthout outsde ad, are
consdered as ncompetents who may propery be paced under guardanshp. The
RTC and the CA both found that Luu was ncapabe of takng care of hersef and her
propertes wthout outsde ad due to her aments and weak mnd. Thus, snce
determnng whether or not Luu s n fact an ncompetent woud requre a
reexamnaton of the evdence presented n the courts a quo, t undoubtedy
nvoves questons of fact. Pettoners are furthermore ordered to render to
respondent, Luus ega guardan, an accurate and fathfu accountng of a the
propertes and funds they unawfuy approprated for themseves from the estate of
Mara Lourdes San |uan Hernandez, wthn thrty (30) days from recept of ths
decson. If warranted, the proper compants shoud aso be fed aganst them for
any crmna abty n connecton wth the dsspaton of Mara Lourdes San |uan
Hernandezs estate and her unawfu abducton from the custody of her ega
guardan.
C! ESC.E*T
Esc&eat Proceeding Proper Part3 and CitiAens&ip o# t&e
o<ner o# t&e real propert3 to /e esc&eated
C*T*'=N* @*'*=S-:*@*N*$ 4! T.E RE$=STR? O; DEEDS O; D9ECON C=T?7
CONCEPT=ON D! *'C*R*C *ND R*:ON* *'C*R*C
G.R. No. 153142, March 29, 2010
Facts:
Page 1+ of 39
The Corone brothers executed a document entted "Recept of Down
payment" n favor of Ramona Acaraz upon the recevng P50,000.00 as a down
payment for the sae of ther nherted house and ot n Ouezon Cty. In the
agreement wth Ramona, they w execute a deed of absoute sae mmedatey
upon the transfer of the TCT to the name of the brothers Corone because the same
was named to ther father. On Feb.18, 1985, they sod the same property to
pettoner heren for a hgher contract prce than that of Ramona. For ths reason,
Corone rescnded the frst agreement wth Ramona by depostng to her the down
payment of P50, 000.00. Consequenty, respondents fed a case for specfc
performance and caused the annotaton of lis pendens over the property. On |une 5,
1985, TCT 351382 was ssued n the name of pettoner heren.
RTC rued n favor of respondents heren orderng the canceaton of the TCT
n the name of pettoner. Hence, ths petton.
Issue:
Whether or not the Court of Appeas erred n sustanng the regstraton by
the Regstry of Deeds of the DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE despte the ack of ndcaton
of ctzenshp of the buyer.
Rung:
The Hgh Court rued that t shoud be ponted out that the pettoner was not
the proper party to chaenge Ramonas quafcaton to acqure and. Ony the
Government through the Soctor Genera has the personaty to fe the case
chaengng the capacty of person to acqure or own and based on non-ctzenshp.
The mtaton s based on the fact that the voaton s commtted aganst the State
and not aganst ndvdua. And that n the event that the transferee s ad|udged to
be not a Fpno ctzen, the affected property reverts to the State, not to the
prevous owner or ndvdua. It w not nure to the beneft of the pettoner, nstead
the sub|ect property w be escheated n favor of the State accordng to BP Bg. 185.
D! *DOPT=ON
>alidit3 o# *doption in case t&e s%r4i4ing spo%se
re"arries
=N RE PET=T=ON ;OR *DOPT=ON O; :=C.*E' 29DE P! '=:
G.R. Nos. 168992-93, May 21, 2009
CARPIO, |.:
Facts
On 23 |une 1974, Pettoner Monna P. Lm marred Prmo Lm. They were
chdess. Subsequenty, mnor chdren, whose parents were unknown, were
entrusted to them by a certan Luca Ayuban. Beng so eager to have a chd of ther
own, Monna and Prmo regstered the chdren to make t appear that they were the
chdrens parents. The chdren were named Mchee P. Lm and Mchae |ude P.
Lm. The spouses reared and cared for the chdren as f they were ther own. They
sent the chdren to excusve schoos. They used the surname "Lm" n a ther
schoo records and documents. Unfortunatey, on 28 November 1998, Prmo ded.
On 27 December 2000, pettoner marred Ange Oaro, an Amercan ctzen.
Page 1, of 39
Thereafter, pettoner decded to adopt the chdren by avang of the
amnesty gven under Repubc Act No. 8552 (RA 8552) to those ndvduas who
smuated the brth of a chd. Thus, on 24 Apr 2002, pettoner fed separate
pettons for the adopton of Mchee and Mchae, who was aready 25 years od
and aready marred and 18 years and seven months, before the tra court.
Mchee, together wth her husband and Mchae, gave ther consent to the
adopton as evdenced by ther Affdavts of Consent. Monnas husband Ange
kewse executed an Affdavt of Consent for the adopton of Mchee and Mchae.
On 15 September 2004, the tra court rendered |udgment dsmssng the
pettons. On the ground that snce pettoner havng remarred, shoud have fed
the petton |onty wth her new husband. The tra court rued that |ont adopton by
the husband and the wfe s mandatory ctng Secton 7(c), Artce III of RA 8552 and
Artce 185 of the Famy Code.
Pettoner fed a Moton for Reconsderaton of the decson but the moton
was dened. In denyng the moton, the tra court rued that pettoner dd not fa
under any of the exceptons under Secton 7(c), Artce III of RA 8552.
Issue:
Whether or not pettoner Monna Lm, who has remarred, can sngy adopt.
Hed:
|ont Adopton by Husband and Wfe
It s undsputed that, at the tme the pettons for adopton were fed,
pettoner had aready remarred. She fed the pettons by hersef, wthout beng
|oned by her husband Ange Oaro. We have no other recourse but to affrm the
tra courts decson denyng the pettons for adopton. Dura ex sed ex. The aw s
expct. Secton 7, Artce III of RA 8552 reads:
SEC. 7. Who May Adopt. - The foowng may adopt:
(a) Any Fpno ctzen of ega age, n possesson of fu cv capacty and ega
rghts, of good mora character, has not been convcted of any crme nvovng
mora turptude, emotonay and psychoogcay capabe of carng for chdren, at
east sxteen (16) years oder than the adoptee, and who s n a poston to support
and care for hs/her chdren n keepng wth the means of the famy. The
requrement of sxteen (16) year dfference between the age of the adopter and
adoptee may be waved when the adopter s the boogca parent of the adoptee, or
s the spouse of the adoptees parent;
(b) Any aen possessng the same quafcatons as above stated for Fpno
natonas: Provded, That hs/her country has dpomatc reatons wth the Repubc
of the Phppnes, that he/she has been vng n the Phppnes for at east three (3)
contnuous years pror to the fng of the appcaton for adopton and mantans
such resdence unt the adopton decree s entered, that he/she has been certfed
by hs/her dpomatc or consuar offce or any approprate government agency that
he/she has the ega capacty to adopt n hs/her country, and that hs/her
government aows the adoptee to enter hs/her country as hs/her adopted
son/daughter: Provded, further, That the requrements on resdency and
certfcaton of the aens quafcaton to adopt n hs/her country may be waved for
the foowng:
Page 1- of 39
() a former Fpno ctzen who seeks to adopt a reatve wthn the fourth (4th)
degree of consangunty or affnty; or
() one who seeks to adopt the egtmate son/daughter of hs/her Fpno spouse; or
() one who s marred to a Fpno ctzen and seeks to adopt |onty wth hs/her
spouse a reatve wthn the fourth (4th) degree of consangunty or affnty of the
Fpno spouses; or
(c) The guardan wth respect to the ward after the termnaton of the guardanshp
and cearance of hs/her fnanca accountabtes.
Husband and wfe sha |onty adopt, except n the foowng cases:
() f one spouse seeks to adopt the egtmate son/daughter of the other; or
() f one spouse seeks to adopt hs/her own egtmate son/daughter: Provded,
however, That the other spouse has sgnfed hs/her consent thereto; or
() f the spouses are egay separated from each other.
In case husband and wfe |onty adopt, or one spouse adopts the egtmate
son/daughter of the other, |ont parenta authorty sha be exercsed by the
spouses.
The use of the word "sha" n the above-quoted provson means that |ont
adopton by the husband and the wfe s mandatory. Ths s n consonance wth the
concept of |ont parenta authorty over the chd whch s the dea stuaton. As the
chd to be adopted s eevated to the eve of a egtmate chd, t s but natura to
requre the spouses to adopt |onty. The rue aso nsures harmony between the
spouses.
Pettoner, havng remarred at the tme the pettons for adopton were fed,
must |onty adopt. Snce the pettons for adopton were fed ony by pettoner
hersef, wthout |onng her husband, Ange Oaro, the tra court was correct n
denyng the pettons for adopton on ths ground.
Nether does pettoner fa under any of the three exceptons enumerated n
Secton 7.
Effects of Adopton
Pettoner contenton that |ont parenta authorty s not anymore necessary
snce the chdren have been emancpated havng reached the age of ma|orty s
untenabe.
It s true that when the chd reaches the age of emancpaton - that s, when
he attans the age of ma|orty or 18 years of age - emancpaton termnates
parenta authorty over the person and property of the chd, who sha then be
quafed and responsbe for a acts of cv fe. However, parenta authorty s
merey |ust one of the effects of ega adopton. Artce V of RA 8552 enumerates the
effects of adopton, thus:
|ont adopton of the husband and wfe may not be dspensed. Adopton has,
thus, the foowng effects:
(1) sever a ega tes between the boogca parent(s) and the adoptee, except
when the boogca parent s the spouse of the adopter;
Page 10 of 39
(2) deem the adoptee as a egtmate chd of the adopter; and
(3) gve adopter and adoptee recproca rghts and obgatons arsng from the
reatonshp of parent and chd, ncudng but not mted to:
() the rght of the adopter to choose the name the chd s to be known; and
() the rght of the adopter and adoptee to be ega and compusory hers of
each other.
Therefore, even f emancpaton termnates parenta authorty, the adoptee s
st consdered a egtmate chd of the adopter wth a the rghts of a egtmate
chd such as: (1) to bear the surname of the father and the mother; (2) to receve
support from ther parents; and (3) to be entted to the egtme and other
successona rghts. Conversey, the adoptve parents sha, wth respect to the
adopted chd, en|oy a the benefts to whch boogca parents are entted such as
support and successona rghts.
Pettoner, n her Memorandum, nssts that subsequent events woud show
that |ont adopton coud no onger be possbe because Ange Oaro has fed a case
for dssouton of hs marrage to pettoner n the Los Angees Superor Court.
We dsagree. The fng of a case for dssouton of the marrage between
pettoner and Ange Oaro s of no moment. Unt and uness there s a |udca
decree for the dssouton of the marrage between pettoner and Ange Oaro, the
marrage st subssts. That beng the case, |ont adopton by the husband and the
wfe s requred. We reterate our rung above that snce, at the tme the pettons
for adopton were fed, pettoner was marred to Oaro, |ont adopton s
mandatory.
*doption %nder *rticle 337 Ne< Ci4il Code and SC Cir!
No!12 Decree o# *doption cannot /e "ade solel3 /3 case
study reports made by a social welfare officer of the court
DEP*RT:ENT O; SOC=*' (E';*RE *ND DE>E'OP:ENT 4s! 29D$E
*NTON=O :! @E'EN
A.M. No. RT|-96-1362, |uy 18, 1997
FACTS:
Spouses Desdero Sorano and Aurora Bernardo-Sorano, both of whom are
naturazed Amercan ctzens, fed a verfed petton for adopton of ther nece, the
mnor Zhede Bernardo Ibea. Respondent |udge Been granted the petton after
fndng that pettoner spouses were hghy quafed to adopt the chd as ther own,
basng hs decree prmary on the "fndngs and recommendaton of the DSWD that
the adoptng parents on the one hand and the adoptee on the other hand have
aready deveoped ove and emotona attachment and parentng rues have been
demonstrated to the mnor." On these consderatons, respondent |udge decded
and proceeded to dspense wth tra custody. He asserted that the DSWD fndngs
and recommendatons are contaned n the "Adoptve Home Study Report" and
"Chd Study Report" prepared by the oca offce of the DSWD through respondent
Ema P. Vedaa.
However, when the mnor Zhede Bernardo Ibea sought to obtan the
requste trave cearance from the DSWD n order to |on her adoptve parents n
Page 11 of 39
the Unted States, the DSWD found that t dd not have any record n ts fes
regardng the adopton and that there was never any order from respondent |udge
for the DSWD to conduct a "Home and Chd Study Report" n the case.
Furthermore, there was no drectve from respondent |udge for the soca wefare
offcer of the ower court to coordnate wth the DSWD on the matter of the requred
reports for sad mnor's adopton.
ISSUE:
May a decree of adopton be granted on the bass of case study reports made
by a soca wefare offcer of the court?
RULING:
No. Artce 33 of the Chd and Youth Wefare Code provdes n no uncertan
terms that:
No petton for adopton sha be granted uness the Department of Soca Wefare,
or the Soca Work and Counseng Dvson, n case of |uvene and Domestc
Reatons Courts, has made a case study of the chd to be adopted, hs natura
parents as we as the prospectve adoptng parents, and has submtted ts report
and recommendatons on the matter to the court hearng such petton. The
Department of Soca Wefare sha ntervene on behaf of the chd f t fnds, after
such case study, that the petton shoud be dened.
Crcuar No. 12, as a compementary measure, was ssued by ths Court
precsey to obvate the mshandng of adopton cases by |udges, partcuary n
respect to the aforementoned case study to be conducted n accordance wth
Artce 33 of Presdenta Decree No. 603 by the DSWD tsef and nvovng the chd
to be adopted, ts natura parents, and the adoptng parents. It defntvey drects
Regona Tra Courts hearng adopton cases:
(1) to NOTIFY the Mnstry of Soca Servces and Deveopment, thru ts oca agency,
of the fng of adopton cases or the pendency thereof wth respect to those cases
aready fed;
(2) to strcty COMPLY wth the requrement n Artce 33 of the aforesad decree . . .
xxx xxx xxx
The Staff Assstant V. (Soca Worker) of the Regona Tra Courts, f any, sha
coordnate wth the Mnstry of Soca Servces and Deveopment representatves n
the preparaton and submtta of such case study. . . .
The error on the part of both respondent |udge and soca worker s thus a
too evdent. Pursuant to Crcuar No. 12, the proper course that respondent |udge
shoud have taken was to notfy the DSWD at the outset about the commencement
of Speca Proceedng No. 5830 so that the correspondng case study coud have
been accordngy conducted by sad department whch undoubtedy has the
necessary competence, more than that possessed by the court soca wefare
offcer, to make the proper recommendaton. Moreover, respondent |udge shoud
never have merey presumed that t was routnary for the soca wefare offcer to
coordnate wth the DSWD regardng the adopton proceedngs. It was hs duty to
exercse cauton and to see to t that such coordnaton was observed n the
adopton proceedngs, together wth a the other requrements of the aw.
Page 19 of 39
By respondent's faure to do so, he may we have wttngy or unwttngy
paced n |eopardy the wefare and future of the chd whose adopton was under
consderaton. Adopton, after a, s n a arge measure a ega devce by whch a
better future may be accorded an unfortunate chd ke Zhede Bernardo Ibea n
ths case. Treadng on equay senstve ega terran, the soca wefare offcer
concerned, respondent Ema P. Vedaa, arrogated unto hersef a matter that
pertaned excusvey to the DSWD, her task beng to coordnate wth the DSWD n
the preparaton and submsson of the reevant case study reports, and not to make
the same and recommend by hersef the facts on whch the court was to act.
ACCORDINGLY, wth a stern warnng that a repetton of the same or smar acts n
the future sha be deat wth more severey by ths Court, respondent |udge Antono
M. Been of the Regona Tra Court, Branch 38, of Lngayen, Pangasnan s hereby
CENSURED for voatng Artce 33 of Presdenta Decree No. 603 and Crcuar No.
12 of ths Court; and respondent Ema P. Vedaa, Soca Wefare Offcer II of the
Offce of the Cerk of Court, Regona Tra Court of Lngayen, Pangasnan, s
REPRIMANDED for voatng Crcuar No. 12.
Si"%lation o# @irt& Penalt3 o# a p%/lic o##icer <&o
registers a c&ild to t&e Ci4il Registr3 not o# t&e c&ildEs
/iological parents!
Sec! 217 *rticle >== o# Do"estic *doption *ct R%les on
Ci4il Ser4ice *pplied
*non3"o%s 4s! E""a C%ra"en
A.M. No. P-08-2549, |une 18, 2010
Facts:
Ths s an admnstratve case aganst Emma Badonado Curamen, Court
Interpreter I n the Muncpa Tra Court of Rza n Nueva Ec|a, for dshonesty and
fasfcaton of a pubc document.
On 6 March 2007, the Offce of the Court Admnstrator (OCA) receved an
anonymous compant chargng respondent wth fasfcaton of a pubc document
and smuaton of brth.
The compant aeged that respondent regstered the brth of a chd
supposedy named Rca Mae Badonado Curamen n the oca cv regstry of Rza,
Nueva Ec|a. Companant submtted the chds purported brth certfcate to
show respondent msrepresented that she was the chds boogca mother and her
husband, Rcardo Curamen, was the boogca father. Companant camed
respondent was, n fact, the chds materna grandmother. Companant submtted
the chds orgna brth certfcate to show that the chds rea name was Rnea
Mae Curamen Aquno and that her parents were spouses Oga Mae Badonado
Curamen Aquno and |un Aquno. Accordng to companant, respondent ncuded
the chd as addtona dependent n her ncome tax decaraton.
In hs Report, Executve |udge Rodrgo S. Caspo of the Regona Tra Court
(Branch 24) of Cabanatuan Cty verfed that Rnea Mae Curamen Aquno and Rca
Mae Badonado Curamen were the same chd. |udge Caspo confrmed that the
chd was, n fact, respondents granddaughter. The chds rea mother, Oga, was
one of respondents chdren.
Page 20 of 39
|udge Caspo verfed that on 31 March 2006, respondent executed an
affdavt for deayed regstraton of the aeged brth of her chd. Respondent
camed that her supposed chd, Rca Mae Badonado Curamen, was born on 30
November 2005. Respondents appcaton was gven due course and the supposed
brth of Rca Mae Badonado Curamen was regstered n the Cv Regstry of Rza,
Nueva Ec|a under Regstry No. 2006-507. Ths second brth certfcate of the chd
ndcated that the chds parents were respondent and her husband.
Issue: Whether Curamen s abe for smuaton of brth by fasfcaton.
Hed:
Wth respect to the aeged fasfcaton of the chds brth certfcate, we fnd
respondent guty of dshonesty and fasfcaton of a pubc document. A brth
certfcate, beng a pubc document, serves as prma face evdence of faton.
The makng of a fase statement theren consttutes dshonesty and fasfcaton of a
pubc document.
Respondent cannot escape abty by camng that she dd not have any
ntenton to concea the dentty of the chd nor cause the oss of any trace as to the
chds true faton to the chds pre|udce. When pubc documents are fasfed,
the ntent to n|ure a thrd person need not be present because the prncpa thng
punshed s the voaton of the pubc fath and the destructon of the truth the
document procams.
However, the extreme penaty of dsmssa s not automatcay mposed,
especay where mtgatng crcumstances exst. Athough under the schedue of
penates adopted by the Cv Servce, dshonesty and fasfcaton of a pubc
document are cassfed as grave offenses punshabe by dsmssa, the fact that ths
s respondents frst offense may be consdered a mtgatng crcumstance n her
favor. The aw requres that the mtgatng crcumstance must frst be peaded by
the proper party. But n the nterest of substanta |ustce, we may apprecate the
mtgatng crcumstance n the mposton of penaty, even f not rased by
respondent.
We thus mpose on respondent the penaty next ower n degree, whch s
suspenson for sx months and one day wthout pay wth a stern warnng that a
repetton of the same or smar acts n the future sha be deat wth more severey.
E! (R=T O; .*@E*S CORP9S
$rant o# (rit o# .a/eas Corp%s ancillar3 to a Cri"inal
Case Dis"issal o# t&e latter rendered "oot and acade"ic
o# t&e #or"er
D*>=D E! SO v" .ON! ESTE@*N *! T*C'*7 2R!
G.R. No. 190108, 19 October 2010
N*C.9R*7 J.:
;*CTS
Pettoner Davd E. So (So) fed the petton for the wrts of habeas corpus
and amparo on behaf of hs daughter, Ma. Eena So Gusande (Gusande), accused
of Ouafed Theft n the crmna case pendng before |udge Taca. Pettoner So
aeged, among others, that Gusande was under a fe-threatenng stuaton whe
Page 21 of 39
confned at the NCMH, the government hospta ordered by the RTC Mandauyong
Cty to ascertan the actua psychoogca state of Gusande, who was beng charged
wth a non-baabe offense.
The case arose from the foowng facts. Pror to the nsttuton of the crmna
proceedngs, Gusande was commtted by So for psychatrc treatment and care at
the Makat Medca Center (MMC). Thus, the return of the warrant for the arrest of
Gusande, ssued by |udge Taca whch states that the former was confned at MMC
for Bpoar Mood Dsorder and that she was "not ready for dscharge". |udge Taca
ordered Gusandes referra to the NCMH for an ndependent forensc assessment of
Gusandes menta heath to determne f she woud be abe to stand arragnment
and undergo tra for Ouafed Theft. Subsequenty, |udge Taca, upon moton of the
NCMH, ordered that accused Gusande be physcay brought to the NCMH to have
temporary ega custody of the accused, and thereafter, |udge Taca woud ssue the
correspondng order of confnement of Gusande n a reguar |a facty upon the
NCMHs determnaton that she was ready for tra.
Eventuay, camng "fe-threatenng" crcumstances surroundng her
confnement at the NCMH whch supposedy worsened her menta condton and
voated her consttutona rghts aganst sotary detenton and assstance of
counse, accused Gusande and her father fed a Moton for Reef from Sotary
Confnement and the present petton for the ssuance of the wrts of habeas corpus
and amparo.
The court granted the Moton for Reef. On the petton for habeas corpus and
amparo, the court resoved to ssue a |ont wrt of habeas corpus and amparo and
refer the petton to the Court of Appeas for decson. Meanwhe, NCMH submtted
ts Evauaton Report accordng to whch, Gusande s competent to stand the rgors
of court tra.
Hence, the petton for revew on certorar.
Durng the pendency of these consodated cases, varous events occurred
whch utmatey ed to the ncdent before ths Court. Pubc respondent |udge
ordered the dsmssa of Crmna Case for Ouafed Theft aganst Gusande. In vew
of such dsmssa, |udge Taca contends that the cases for ssuance of the wrts of
habeas corpus and amparo and the petton for revew on certorar shoud be
dsmssed for havng been rendered moot and academc.
ISSUE: /7E87ER 87E PE8I8I5N %5R 7AEAS #5RP1S S75163 E 3ISMISSE3 %5R
7A;IN: EEN REN3ERE3 M558 AN3 A#A3EMI#
HELD:
The petton shoud be dsmssed. The petton for the wrts of habeas corpus
and amparo was based on the crmna case for Ouafed Theft aganst pettoner
Sos daughter, Gusande.
There s no affrmaton of pettoner Sos cam that the confnement of
accused Gusande at the NCMH was ega. Nether were the respectve acts
performed by respondents |udge Taca and Dr. Vcente n ascertanng the menta
condton of accused Gusande to wthstand tra decared unawfu. On the contrary,
the NCMH, a we-reputed government forensc facty, abet not hed n hgh regard
by pettoner Sos and accused Gusandes famy, had assessed Gusande ft for tra.
The Rues on the Wrts of Habeas Corpus and Amparo are cear; the act or
omsson or the threatened act or omsson companed of - confnement and
custody for habeas corpus and voatons of, or threat to voate, a persons fe,
berty, and securty for amparo cases - shoud be ega or unawfu.
The most basc crteron for the ssuance of the wrt, therefore, s that the
ndvdua seekng such reef s egay deprved of hs freedom of movement or
pace under some form of ega restrant. If an ndvduas berty s restraned va
some ega process, the wrt of habeas corpus s unavang. Fundamentay, n order
to |ustfy the grant of the wrt of habeas corpus, the restrant of berty must be n
the nature of an ega and nvountary deprvaton of freedom of acton.
Whe habeas corpus s a wrt of rght, t w not ssue as a matter of course or
as a mere perfunctory operaton on the fng of the petton. |udca dscreton s
caed for n ts ssuance and t must be cear to the |udge to whom the petton s
presented that, prma face, the pettoner s entted to the wrt. It s ony f the
Page 22 of 39
court s satsfed that a person s beng unawfuy restraned of hs berty w the
petton for habeas corpus be granted. If the respondents are not detanng or
restranng the appcant of the person n whose behaf the petton s fed, the
petton shoud be dsmssed.
In the cases at bar, the queston before the CA was correcty mted to whch
hospta, the NCMH or a medca facty of accuseds own choosng, accused
Gusande shoud be referred for treatment of a supposed menta condton. In
addton, t was proceduray proper for the RTC to ask the NCMH for a separate
opnon on accuseds menta ftness to be arragned and stand tra.
Certany, wth the dsmssa of the non-baabe case aganst accused
Gusande, she s no onger under per to be confned n a |a facty, much ess at
the NCMH. Effectvey, accused Gusandes person, and treatment of any medca
and menta maady she may or may not have, can no onger be sub|ected to the
awfu processes of the RTC Mandauyong Cty. In short, the cases have now been
rendered moot and academc whch, n the often cted David v. Macapagal-
Arroyo, s defned as "one that ceases to present a |ustcabe controversy by vrtue
of supervenng events, so that a decaraton thereon woud be of no practca use or
vaue."
(rit o# .a/eas Corp%s Not proper pending Special Ci4il
*ction #or Certiorari /e#ore t&e Co%rt o# *ppeals 0t&
Di4ision!
=n t&e "atter o# t&e Petition #or .a/eas Corp%s o# CEC*R= $ONC*'ES and
29'=9S :ES*
RO@ERTO R*;*E' P9'=DO 4s! $en! E;REN *@97 as C&ie# o# Sta## o# t&e
*r"ed ;orces o# t&e P&ilippines and all persons acting in &is stead and
%nder &is a%t&orit37 and $EN! ERNESTO DE 'EON7 in &is capacit3 as t&e
;lag O##icer in Co""and o# t&e P&ilippine Na437 and all persons acting in
&is stead and %nder &is a%t&orit37 respondents!
G.R. No. 170924, |uy 4, 2007
Facts:
In ne wth ther partcpaton n the "Oakwood Mutny" that ed to Pres.
Gora Macapaga Arroyos ssuance of Procamaton No. 427 decarng the country
to be under a "state of rebeon" and Genera Order No. 4 drectng the AFP and the
PNP to carry out a reasonabe measures, gvng due regard to consttutona rghts,
to suppress and que the "rebeon.", pettoners were taken nto custody by ther
Servce Commander. Gonzaes and Mesa were not charged before a court marta
wth voaton of the Artces of War. They were, however, among the soders
charged before Branch 61 of the Regona Tra Court (RTC) of Makat Cty, wth the
crme of Coup Detat as defned under Artce 134-A of the Revsed Pena Code.
They were consequenty detaned n Fort Bonfaco under the custody of the
Phppne Marnes. A petton for ba was fed by the accused soders whch the
RTC subsequenty granted. Despte of the order and the servce thereof, pettoners
were not reeased. As a response, the Peope of the Phppnes moved for parta
reconsderaton of the order grantng ba. Wth the dena of the Moton for Parta
Reconsderaton, the Peope fed wth the Court of Appeas on 4 February 2005 a
speca cv acton for certorar under Rue 65 of the Rues of Court wth urgent
prayer for Temporary Restranng Order (TRO) and/or Wrt of Premnary In|uncton.
Moreover, snce Gonzaes and Mesa contnued to be n detenton, a Petton
for Habeas Corpus was fed by pettoner Pudo on ther behaf. In response,
Respondents prayed that the Petton for Habeas Corpus be dsmssed prmary on
two grounds: (1) the contnued detenton of Gonzaes and Mesa s |ustfed because
of the pendency of the Petton for Certorar questonng the order dated 8 |uy
Page 23 of 39
2004 of the RTC grantng ba to Gonzaes and Mesa before the 7th Dvson of the
Court of Appeas and (2) pettoner s guty of forum shoppng because of hs faure
to state n the petton that the order grantng ba has been eevated to the Court of
Appeas and pendng before ts 7th Dvson. Thus, we have ths case.
Issue: Whether or not the petton for habeas corpus was proper despte of the
pendng speca cv acton for certorar before the Court of Appeas 7th Dvson.
Hed:
No. That the present petton has drect and ntmate nks wth the certorar
case s beyond doubt as they nvove two sdes of the same con. The certorar case
fed by the Peope seeks to prevent the reease of Gonzaes and Mesa by annung
the ower courts grant of ba. The present petton, on the other hand, was fed n
behaf of Gonzaes and Mesa to secure ther mmedate reease because the order
grantng ba s aready executory. In effect, the pettoner seeks to mpement
through a petton for habeas corpus the provsona reease from detenton that the
ower court has ordered. The queston ths mmedatey rases s: can ths be done
through a petton for habeas corpus when the vadty of the grant of ba and the
reease under ba are ve questons before another Dvson of ths Court?
We beeve and so hod that hs cannot and shoud not be done as ths s
precsey the reason why the rue aganst forum shoppng has been put n pace.
The remedes sought beng two sdes of the same con (.e., the reease of Gonzaes
and Mesa), they cannot be secured through separatey-fed cases where ssues of
|ursdcton may arse and whose rungs may confct wth one another. To be sure,
we ceary heard the pettoner say that there can be no confct because the
effectveness of our rung n ths petton w depend on the nature and tenor of the
rung n the certorar case; there s no bass for a reease on habeas corpus f ths
same Court w rue n the certorar case that the grant of ba s mproper. For ths
very same reason, we shoud not entertan the present petton as the matter before
us s aready before another co-equa body whose rung w be fnay determnatve
of the ssue of Gonzaes and Mesas reease. The Decson of the Seventh Dvson
of ths Court, heretofore footnoted, orderng the reease on ba of Gonzaes and
Mesa drves home ths pont.
XXX XXX XXX
When the reease of the persons n whose behaf the appcaton for a Wrt
of Habeas Corpus was fed s effected, the Petton for the ssuance of the wrt
becomes moot and academc. Wth the reease of both Mesa and Gonzaes, the
Petton for Habeas Corpus has, ndeed, been rendered moot. Courts of |ustce
consttuted to pass upon substanta rghts w not consder questons where no
actua nterests are nvoved. Thus, the we-setted rue that courts w not
determne a moot queston. Where the ssues have become moot and academc,
there ceases to be any |ustcabe controversy, thus renderng the resouton of the
same of no practca vaue. Ths Court w therefore abstan from expressng ts
opnon n a case where no ega reef s needed or caed for.
(rit o# .a/eas Corp%s Section + o# R%le 102
* detention pre4io%sl3 in4alid /eco"es 4alid %pon t&e
application7 iss%ance o# t&e <rit o# .a/eas Corp%s denied!
Page 2+ of 39
N9R.=D* 29.9R= *:P*T9*N 4s! 29D$E >=R$='=O >! :*C*R*=$
G.R. No. 182497, 29 |une 2010
PEREZ, |.:
FACTS:
Atty. Aoden D. Daag, Head of the COMELEC Lega Department, was ked
at the corner of M. H. De Par and Pedro G Streets, Ermta, Mana. Investgaton
conducted by the Mana Poce Dstrct Homcde Secton yeded the dentty of the
mae perpetrator as PO1 Ampatuan. Consequenty, PO1 Ampatuan was commanded
to the MPD Dstrct Drector for proper dsposton. Lkewse, nquest proceedngs
were conducted by the Mana Prosecutors Offce.
On 11 *pril 20017 Poce Senor Superntendent Gunto, rendered hs Pre-
Charge Evauaton Report aganst PO1 Ampatuan, fndng probabe cause to charge
PO1 Ampatuan wth Grave Msconduct (Murder) and recommendng that sad PO1
Ampatuan be sub|ected to summary hearng.
:ean<&ile7 on 21 *pril 20017 the Cty Prosecutor of Mana recommended
that the case aganst PO1 Ampatuan be set for further nvestgaton and that the
atter be reeased from custody uness he s beng hed for other charges/ega
grounds
Armed wth the 21 Apr 2008 recommendaton of the Mana Ctys
Prosecuton Offce, pettoner, who s the wfe of PO1 Ampatuan, fed a Petton for
the Issuance of a Wrt of Habeas Corpus before the RTC of Mana on 22 Apr 2008.
On 24 Apr 2008, RTC ordered the ssuance of a wrt of habeas corpus
commandng theren respondents to produce the body of PO1 Ampatuan and
drectng sad respondents to show cause why they are wthhodng or restranng
the berty of PO1 Ampatuan.
Seekng the reversa of RTC, the respondents averred that the fng of the
admnstratve case aganst PO1 Ampatuan s a process done by the PNP and ths
Court has no authorty to order the reease of the sub|ect poce offcer. The
pettoner countered that the etter resgnaton of PO1 Ampatuan has rendered the
admnstratve case moot and academc. Respondent however stressed that the
resgnaton has not been acted by the approprate poce offcas of the PNP, and
that the admnstratve case was fed whe PO1 Ampatuan s st n the actve
status of the PNP. The RTC reversed and dsmssed the petton.
ISSUE: 87E RESP5N3EN8 #51R8 :RA;E6C A1SE3 I8S 3IS#RE8I5N /7EN I8
%AI6E3 85 #5NSI3ER 87A8 87E ARRES8 AN3 3E8EN8I5N 5% P5( ASSER "
AMPA81AN /AS MA3E /I87518 ANC /ARRAN8 AN3 87ERE%5RE, I66E:A6"
HELD:
The ob|ectve of the wrt s to determne whether the confnement or
detenton s vad or awfu. If t s, the wrt cannot be ssued. What s to be nqured
nto s the egaty of a person's detenton as of, at the earest, the fng of the
appcaton for the wrt of habeas corpus, for even f the detenton s at ts ncepton
ega, t may, by reason of some supervenng events, such as the nstances
mentoned n Secton 4 of Rue 102, be no onger ega at the tme of the fng of
the appcaton
In ths case, PO1 Ampatuan has been paced under Restrctve Custody.
Repubc Act No. 6975 (aso known as the Department of Interor and Loca
Government Act of 1990), as amended by Repubc Act No. 8551 (aso known as the
Phppne Natona Poce Reform and Reorganzaton Act of 1998), ceary provdes
that members of the poce force are sub|ect to the admnstratve dscpnary
machnery of the PNP.
Gven that PO1 Ampatuan has been paced under restrctve custody, such
consttutes a vad argument for hs contnued detenton. Ths Court has hed that a
restrctve custody and montorng of movements or whereabouts of poce offcers
under nvestgaton by ther superors s not a form of ega detenton or restrant of
berty.
Restrctve custody s, at best, nomna restrant whch s beyond the
ambt of ha$eas corpus. It s nether actua nor effectve restrant that woud ca for
the grant of the remedy prayed for. It s a permssbe precautonary measure to
Page 2, of 39
assure the PNP authortes that the poce offcers concerned are aways accounted
for.
In sum, pettoner s unabe to dscharge the burden of showng that she s
entted to the ssuance of the wrt prayed for n behaf of her husband, PO1
Ampatuan. The petton fas to show on ts face that the atter s unawfuy
deprved of hs berty guaranteed and enshrned n the Consttuton.
;! (R=T O; *:P*RO *ND .*@E*S D*T*
=n t&e :atter o# t&e Petition #or t&e (rit o# *"paro and t&e (rit o# .a/eas
Data in ;a4or o# :elissa C! RoFas
:elissa C! RoFas 4s! $loria :acapagal-*rro3o7 et al!
G. R. No. 189155, September 7, 2010,
En Banc
Perez, |.
FACTS:
Roxas s an Amercan ctzen of Fpno descent. Whe n the Unted States,
she s enroed n an exposure program to the Phppnes wth the group Bagong
Ayansang Makabayan- Unted States of Amerca (BAYAN-USA) of whch she s a
member. Durng the course of her mmerson, Roxas toured varous provnces and
towns n Centra Luzon and, n Apr of 2009, she vounteered to |on members of
BAYAN-Tarac n conductng an nta heath survey n La Paz, Tarac for a future
medca msson.
After dong survey work on 19 May 2009, Roxas and her companons,
Carabeo amd |andoc, decded to rest n the house of Mr. Paoo n Sto Bagong Skat,
Barangay Kapankan, La Paz, Tarac. At around 1:30 n the afternoon, however,
Roxas, her companons and Mr. Paoo were started by the oud sounds of someone
bangng at the front door and a voce demandng that they open-up. Suddeny 15
heavy armed men forcby opened the door, banged nsde, ted and bndfoded
Roxas and her companons, Carabeo and |andoc, then dragged them nsde a van
parked outsde the house. The armed men were a n cvan cothes and were
wearng bonnets to concea ther faces.
After about an hour of traveng, the van stopped. Roxas, Carabeo and
|andoc were ordered to aght. After she was nformed that she was detaned for
beng a member of the Communst Party of the Phppnes - New Peopes Army
(CPP-NPA), Roxas was separated from her companons and was escorted to a room
whch she beeved s a |a ce from the sound of the meta doors. From there she
coud hear the sounds of gunfre, the nose of panes takng off and andng and
some constructon buste. Roxas nferred that she was taken to the mtary camp
of Fort Magsaysay n Laur, Nueva Ec|a.
On May 25, 2009, Roxas was fnay reeased and returned to her unces
house n Ouezon Cty. Before beng reease, the abductors gave her a cephone
wth a sm card, a sp of paper cantanng an ema address wth password, a pastc
bag contanng bscuts and books, the handcuffs used on her, a bouse and a par of
shoes. She was aso sterny warned not to report the ncdent to the group
Karapatan or ese somethng bad w happen to her and her famy. Sometme after
her reease, Roxas contnued to receve cas from one of her abductors va the
ceuar phone gven to her. Out of apprehenson that she was beng montored and
aso fearng for the safety of her famy, Roxas threw away the cephone.
Page 2- of 39
Roxas fed a petton for wrt of amparo and wrt of habeas data.
The Court of Appeas granted her petton for wrt of amparo and wrt of
habeas data. However, the appeate court absoved the respondents from the
petton. Her prayer for the return of her persona beongngs and for the nspecton
order and producton order were dened. Roxas nvokes he doctrne of command
responsbty to mpcate the hgh-rankng cvan and mtary authortes.
ISSUES:
a. Whether or not the prncpe of command responsbty sha appy n wrt of
amparo?
b. Whether or not the respondents are abe n her abducton and torture?
c. Whether or not her prayer for the return of her persona beongngs be
granted?
d. Whether or not her prayer for nspecton order be granted?
e. Whether or not the grant of wrt of habeas data s proper?
RULING:
a. It must be stated at the outset that the use by the pettoner of the doctrne
of command responsbty as the |ustfcaton n mpeadng the pubc
respondents n her amparo petton, s egay naccurate, f not ncorrect. The
doctrne of command responsbty s a rue of substantve aw that
estabshes abty and, by ths account, cannot be a proper ega bass to
mpead a party-respondent n an amparo petton. Accordng to Fr. Bernas,
"command responsbty," n ts smpest terms, means the "responsbty of
commanders for crmes commtted by subordnate members of the armed
forces or other persons sub|ect to ther contro n nternatona wars or
domestc confct." In ths sense, command responsbty s propery a form of
crmna compcty. Snce the appcaton of command responsbty
presupposes an mputaton of ndvdua abty, t s more apty nvoked n a
fu-bown crmna or admnstratve case rather than n a summary amparo
proceedng. The obvous reason es n the nature of the wrt tsef: The wrt
of amparo s a protectve remedy amed at provdng |udca reef consstng
of the approprate remeda measures and drectves that may be crafted by
the court, n order to address specfc voatons or threats of voaton of the
consttutona rghts to fe, berty or securty. Whe the prncpa ob|ectve of
ts proceedngs s the nta determnaton of whether an enforced
dsappearance, extraega kng or threats thereof had transpred-the wrt
does not, by so dong, fx abty for such dsappearance, kng or threats,
whether that may be crmna, cv or admnstratve under the appcabe
substantve aw. It must be carfed, however, that the nappcabty of the
doctrne of command responsbty n an amparo proceedng does not, by
any measure, precude mpeadng mtary or poce commanders on the
ground that the companed acts n the petton were commtted wth ther
drect or ndrect acquescence. In whch case, commanders may be
mpeaded-not actuay on the bass of command responsbty-but rather
on the ground of ther responsbty, or at east accountabty.
b. The totaty of the evdence presented by the pettoner does not nspre
reasonabe concuson that her abductors were mtary or poce personne
and that she was detaned at Fort Magsaysay. Frst. In amparo proceedngs,
the weght that may be accorded to parae crcumstances as evdence of
mtary nvovement depends argey on the avaabty or non-avaabty of
other peces of evdence that has the potenta of drecty provng the dentty
Page 20 of 39
and affaton of the perpetrators. Drect evdence of dentty, when
obtanabe, must be preferred over mere crcumstanta evdence based on
patterns and smarty, because the former ndubtaby offers greater
certanty as to the true dentty and affaton of the perpetrators. An amparo
court cannot smpy eave to remote and hazy nference what t coud
otherwse ceary and drecty ascertan. In the case at bench, pettoner was,
n fact, abe to ncude n her Offer of Exhbts, the cartographc sketches of
severa of her abductors whose faces she managed to see. To the mnd of the
Court, these cartographc sketches have the undenabe potenta of gvng
the greatest certanty as to the true dentty and affaton of pettoners
abductors. Unfortunatey for the pettoner, ths potenta has not been
reazed n vew of the fact that the faces descrbed n such sketches reman
undentfed, much ess have been shown to be that of any mtary or poce
personne. Bunty stated, the abductors were not proven to be part of ether
the mtary or the poce chan of command. Second. The cam of the
pettoner that she was taken to Fort Magsaysay was not adequatey
estabshed by her mere estmate of the tme t took to reach the pace where
she was detaned and by the sounds that she heard whe thereat. Lke the
Court of Appeas, the Supreme Court are not ncned to take the estmate
and observatons of the pettoner as accurate on ts face-not ony because
they were made mosty whe she was n bndfods, but aso n vew of the
fact that she was a mere so|ourner n the Phppnes, whose famarty wth
Fort Magsaysay and the trave tme requred to reach t s n tsef doubtfu.
Wth nothng ese but obscure observatons to support t, pettoners cam
that she was taken to Fort Magsaysay remans a mere specuaton.
c. In an order drectng the pubc respondents to return the persona beongngs
of the pettoner s aready equvaent to a concusve pronouncement of
abty. The order tsef s a substanta reef that can ony be granted once
the abty of the pubc respondents has been fxed n a fu and exhaustve
proceedng. As aready dscussed above, matters of abty are not
determnabe n a mere summary amparo proceedng. But perhaps the more
fundamenta reason n denyng the prayer of the pettoner, es wth the fact
that a persons rght to be resttuted of hs property s aready subsumed
under the genera rubrc of property rghts-whch are no onger protected by
the wrt of amparo. Secton 1 of the Amparo Rue, whch defnes the scope
and extent of the wrt, ceary excudes the protecton of property rghts.
d. The prayer of Roxas for the grant of the nspecton order s equvaent to
sanctonng a "fshng expedton," whch was never ntended by the Amparo
Rue n provdng for the nterm reef of nspecton order. An nspecton
order s an nterm reef desgned to gve support or strengthen the cam of
a pettoner n an amparo petton, n order to ad the court before makng a
decson. A basc requrement before an amparo court may grant an
nspecton order s that the pace to be nspected s reasonaby determnabe
from the aegatons of the party seekng the order. Whe the Amparo Rue
does not requre that the pace to be nspected be dentfed wth carty and
precson, t s, nevertheess, a mnmum for the ssuance of an nspecton
order that the supportng aegatons of a party be suffcent n tsef, so as to
make a prma face case. Ths, as was shown above, pettoner faed to do.
Snce the very estmates and observatons of the pettoner are not strong
enough to make out a prma face case that she was detaned n Fort
Magsaysay, an nspecton of the mtary camp cannot be ordered. An
Page 21 of 39
nspecton order cannot ssue on the bass of aegatons that are, n
themseves, unreabe and doubtfu.
e. The wrt of habeas data was conceptuazed as a |udca remedy enforcng
the rght to prvacy, most especay the rght to nformatona prvacy of
ndvduas. The wrt operates to protect a persons rght to contro
nformaton regardng hmsef, partcuary n the nstances where such
nformaton s beng coected through unawfu means n order to acheve
unawfu ends. Needess to state, an ndspensabe requrement before the
prvege of the wrt may be extended s the showng, at east by substanta
evdence, of an actua or threatened voaton of the rght to prvacy n fe,
berty or securty of the vctm. Ths, n the case at bench, the pettoner
faed to do. The man probem behnd the rung of the Court of Appeas s
that there s actuay no evdence on record that shows that any of the pubc
respondents had voated or threatened the rght to prvacy of the pettoner.
The act ascrbed by the Court of Appeas to the pubc respondents that woud
have voated or threatened the rght to prvacy of the pettoner, .e., keepng
records of nvestgatons and other reports about the pettoners tes wth the
CPP-NPA, was not adequatey proven-consderng that the orgn of such
records were vrtuay unexpaned and ts exstence, ceary, ony nferred by
the appeate court from the vdeo and photograph reeased by
Representatves Paparan and Acover n ther press conference. No evdence
on record even shows that any of the pubc respondents had access to such
vdeo or photograph. In vew of the above consderatons, the drectve by
the Court of Appeas en|onng the pubc respondents from "dstrbutng or
causng the dstrbuton to the pubc any records n whatever form, reports,
documents or smar papers" reatve to the pettoners "aeged tes wth the
CPP-NPA," appears to be devod of any ega bass. The pubc respondents
cannot be ordered to refran from dstrbutng somethng that, n the frst
pace, t was not proven to have.
$! R%le 103 C&ange o# Na"e 2%risdiction and
S%##icienc3 o# E4idence
ROSE'=E E'O=S* @R=N$*S @O'*NTE a!5!a! :*R=* E'O=S* @R=N$*S
@O'*NTE
G.R. No. 160597, |uy 20, 2006
FACTS:
A petton for change of name was commenced by respondent Rosee Eosa
Brngas Boante aso known as Mara Eosa Brngas Boante on October 18, 2000.
In her petton before the RTC, respondent aeged, among other thngs, the
foowng:
1. That she s a Fpno, of ega age, marred, born to spouses Forano B. Boante
and Paua B. Brngas and a resdent snce brth of Bangued, Abra;
2. That per records n the Offce of the Muncpa Cv Regstrar, Bangued, Abra, her
regstered name s Rosee Eosa Brngas Boante whch name, as far as she can
remember, she dd not use but nstead the name Mara Eosa Brngas Boante;
Page 29 of 39
3. That the name Mara Eosa appears n a her schoo as we as n her other pubc
and prvate records; and
4. That her marred name s Mara Eosa B. Boante-Marbea.
Thus, to prevent confuson, Ms. Boante prayed that her regstered name be
changed to conform to the name she has aways carred and used.
The tra court ordered respondent, as pettoner, to compy wth the
|ursdctona requrements of notce and pubcaton, and set the hearng on
February 20, 2001.
At the schedued February 20, 2001 nta hearng, the tra court ssued an
Order gvng respondent fve (5) days wthn whch to fe a wrtten forma offer of
evdence to estabsh |ursdctona facts and set the presentaton of evdence
proper on March 26, 2001.
On |une 5, 2001, the branch cerk of court, actng upon the tra court's
express March 26, 2001 drectve for a resettng, ssued a notce for a |uy 18, 2001
hearng. Foowng another resettng, what actuay woud be the nta hearng was,
after notce, schedued on September 25, 2001 and actuay hed. At that sesson,
respondent presented and marked n evdence severa documents wthout any
ob|ecton on the part of pettoner Repubc, represented by the Offce of the
Soctor Genera (OSG), thru the duy deputzed provnca prosecutor of Abra.
Shorty after the tra court has decared ts acquston of |ursdcton over the
case, respondent took the wtness stand to state that the purpose of her petton
was to have her regstered name changed to that whch she had actuay been
usng thru the years. She aso categorcay stated she had not been accused of any
crme under ether her regstered name or her present correct name.
On cross she stated that the purpose of fng the petton s that, she wanted
to secure a passport and wanted that the same be ssued n her correct name and
that she woud not have fed the petton was t not for the passport. On
carfcatory queston by the Court she sad that her reason n fng the petton s
her reazaton that there w be a compcaton upon her retrement.
On |anuary 23, 2002, the tra court rendered |udgment grantng the basc
petton.
In tme, the Repubc, through the OSG, went to the Court of Appeas and the
atter affrmed the decson of the tra court.
ISSUES:
I. WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT'S SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 3,
RULE 103 OF THE RULES OF COURT IS SUFFICIENT TO VEST THE TRIAL COURT WITH
|URISDICTION TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE PETITION A OUO.
II. WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT'S BARE TESTIMONY, UNSUPPORTED BY
ANY OTHER EVIDENCE, IS SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT THE CHANGE OF HER NAME
IS NOT RESORTED FOR ILLEGAL PURPOSES.
RULING:
I. YES. There s a substanta compance wth Sec. 3, Rue 103 of the rues of
court wth respect to the |ursdctona requrements of notce and pubcaton n
Petton for Change of Name.
Page 30 of 39
Sectons 2 and 3, Rue 103 of the Rues of Court prescrbe the procedura and
|ursdctona requrements for a change of name. In Repubc v. Hon. |udge of
Branch III of the CFI of Cebu, ctng pertnent |ursprudence, non-compance wth
these requrements woud be fata to the |ursdcton of the ower court to hear and
determne a petton for change of name.
SEC. 2. Contents of petton. - A petton for change of name sha be sgned
and verfed by the person desrng hs name changed, or some other person on hs
behaf, and sha set forth:
(a) That the pettoner has been a bona fde resdent of the provnce where
the petton s fed for at east three (3) years pror to the date of such fng;
(b) The cause for whch the change of the pettoner's name s sought;
(c) The name asked for.
SEC. 3. Order for hearng. - If the petton fed s suffcent n form and
substance, the court, by an order rectng the purpose of the petton, sha fx a
date and pace for the hearng thereof, and sha drect that a copy of the order be
pubshed before the hearng at east once a week for three (3) successve weeks n
some newspaper of genera crcuaton pubshed n the provnce, .. The date set
for the hearng sha not be wthn thrty (30) days pror to an eecton nor wthn
four (4) months after the ast pubcaton of the notce. (Underscorng added.)
As geaned from the records, the basc petton for change of name was fed
on October 18, 2000 and set for hearng on February 20, 2001. The notce of
hearng was pubshed n the November 23, and 30, 2000 and December 7, 2000
ssues of the Noruzonan Courer. Counted from the ast day, December 7, 2000, of
pubcaton of the Order, the nta hearng schedued on February 20, 2001 s
ndeed wthn the four-month prohbted perod prescrbed under Secton 3, Rue
103 of the Rues. The Court, as dd the CA, must emphasze, however, that the tra
court, evdenty upon reazng the error commtted respectng the 4-month
mtaton, ost no tme n rectfyng ts mstake by reschedung, wth due notce to
a concerned, the nta hearng for severa tmes, fnay settng for September 25,
2001.
In the context of Secton 3, Rue 103 of the Rues, pubcaton s vad f the
foowng requstes concur: (1) the petton and the copy of the order ndcatng the
date and pace for the hearng must be pubshed; (2) the pubcaton must be at
east once a week for three successve weeks; and, (3) the pubcaton must be n
some newspaper of genera crcuaton pubshed n the provnce, as the court sha
deem best. Another vadatng ngredent reates to the caveat aganst the petton
beng heard wthn 30 days pror to an eecton or wthn four (4) months after the
ast pubcaton of the notce of the hearng.
It cannot be over-emphaszed that n a petton for change of name, any
nterested person may appear at the hearng and oppose the petton. Lkewse, the
Soctor Genera or hs deputy sha appear on behaf of the Government. The
government, as an agency of the peope, represents the pubc and, therefore, the
Soctor Genera, who appears on behaf of the government, effectvey represents
the pubc. In ths case, the Soctor Genera deputzed the provnca prosecutor of
Abra for the purpose of appearng n the tra on hs behaf. As t were, the provnca
prosecutor of Abra was fuy apprsed of the new dates of the nta hearng.
Page 31 of 39
Accordngy, there was no actua need for a repubcaton of the nta notce of the
hearng.
Furthermore, durng the September 25, 2001 nta hearng whch, to
reterate s aready outsde the 4-month mtaton prescrbed by the Rues, the
provnca prosecutor of Abra nterposed no ob|ecton as to the genuneness,
authentcty, reevancy or suffcency of the exhbts presented to prove the
|ursdctona requrements exacted by the Rues. In a very rea sense, therefore, the
pettoner Repubc fuy and knowngy acquesced n the |ursdcton of the tra
court. The pecuar crcumstances obtanng n ths case and the requrements of far
deang demand that we accord vadty to the proceedngs a quo.
II. YES. Respondent's bare testmony, unsupported by any other evdence,
such as NBI cearance and Poce cearance, s suffcent to grant the Petton for
change of name.
The State has an nterest n the names borne by ndvduas for purposes of
dentfcaton, and that changng one's name s a prvege and not a rght.
Accordngy, a person can be authorzed to change hs name appearng n ether hs
certfcate of brth or cv regstry upon showng not ony of reasonabe cause, or
any compeng reason whch may |ustfy such change, but aso that he w be
pre|udced by the use of hs true and offca name. |ursprudence has recognzed
certan |ustfyng grounds to warrant a change of name. Among these are: (a) when
the name s rdcuous, dshonorabe or extremey dffcut to wrte or pronounce; (b)
when the change w avod confuson; (c) when one has been contnuousy used and
been known snce chdhood by a Fpno name, and was unaware of aen
parentage; (d) when the surname causes embarrassment and there s no showng
that the desred change of name was for a frauduent purpose or that the change of
name w pre|udce pubc nterest.
The matter of grantng or denyng pettons for change of name and the
coroary ssue of what s a proper and reasonabe cause therefore rests on the
sound dscreton of the court. The evdence presented need ony be satsfactory to
the court; t need not be the best evdence avaabe.
Wth the vew we take of the case, respondent's submsson for a change of
name s wth proper and reasonabe reason. As t were, she has, snce she started
schoong, used the gven name and has been known as Mara Eosa, abet the
name Rosee Eosa s wrtten on her brth record. Her schoastc records, as we as
records n government offces, ncudng that of her drver's cense, professona
cense as a certfed pubc accountant ssued by the Professona Reguaton
Commsson, and the "Ouck Count" document of the COMELEC, a attest to her
havng used practcay a her fe the name Mara Eosa Brngas Boante.
The mperatves of avodng confuson dctate that the nstant petton s
granted. But beyond practcates, smpe |ustce dctates that every person sha be
aowed to ava hmsef of any opportunty to mprove hs soca standng, provded
he does so wthout causng pre|udce or n|ury to the nterests of the State or of
other peope.
The OSG's argument that respondent's bare testmony s nsuffcent to show
that the requested name s not sought for any ega purpose and/or n avodance of
any entangement wth the aw deserves scant consderaton. Surey, the ssuance
of a poce and NBI cearance or ke certfcaton, whe perhaps apropos,cannot, as
the OSG suggests, be a convncng norm of one's good mora character or
compeng evdence to prove that the change of name s not sought for any ev
Page 32 of 39
motve or frauduent ntent. Respondent's open court testmony, gven under pan of
per|ury and for whch she was cross-examned, that she had not been accused of
any crme under her regstered name or under her present name (name that she s
usng) had convnced the tra court of the bona fdes of her request for change of
name.
The petton s DENIED. The Decson of the Court of Appeas s AFFIRMED.
.! R9'E 101
*%t&orit3 o# t&e trial co%rts to "a5e 6%dicial corrections o#
entries in t&e ci4il registr3!
RE ;=N*' REPORT ON T.E 29D=C=*' *9D=T COND9CTED *T T.E RTC
@R*NC. -07 P*N=D9=7 T*R'*C7 A.M.No.06-7-414-RTC October 19, 2007
;acts
A |udca audt and physca nventory of cases was conducted on 20-24 |une
2005 at the RTC, Panqu, Tarac, Branch 67, then presded by |udge Cesar M. Sotero
who compusory retred on 23 February 2006.
The audt team notced that there were no speca proceedngs case records
presented. Upon nqury, the Cerk of Court Pauno Saguyod asserted that most of
these cases are for Pettons for Correcton of Entres n the Cv Regstry and gave
the audt team copes of the decsons.
The audt team observed that amost a of the pettons have no hearngs
conducted and that the date of fng ndcated n the docket books and the date of
the decson was so near that t w be mprobabe to compy wth the pubcaton
requrement under the Rues of Court.
In vew of these observatons, the |udge Sotero and Cerk of Court Saguyod
were made to expan why these pettons for change of name and/ or correcton of
entres n the cv regstry were granted wthout the requred hearng. In ther
answer, they expaned that these pettons may be covered by RA 9048 whch
authorzed cty or muncpa regstrar to correct cerca or typographca errors n
the cv regstry wthout need for a |udca order. They further averred that these
pettons were fed before the tra court because there was no ncumbent Loca
Cv Regstrar and the OIC-Cv Regstrar coud not act on these pettons. Snce RA
9048 aows correcton of entres wthout hearng and pubcaton, the tra court
consdered the same procedure. The tra court aso adopted the procedure n cv
cases where the defendant s decared n defaut and the court renders |udgment
based on the peadngs fed by the pantff.
=ss%e
Whether tra court st have |ursdcton over pettons on change of name
and correcton of entres.
Whether the summary procedure prescrbed n RA No. 9048 shoud be adopted n
cases fed before the courts, or shoud the proceedng under Rue 108 be foowed.
.eld
Page 33 of 39
Durng the deberaton, t was cear that the oca cv regstrar s gven the
authorty to act on pettons for correctons of entres and change of frst name or
ncknames, yet there was no menton that such petton can no onger be fed wth
the reguar courts. There was no ntent on the part of the awmakers to remove the
authorty of the tra courts to make |udca correctons of entres n the cv
regstry. It can thus be concuded that the oca cv regstry has prmary, not
excusve |ursdcton over such pettons for correcton of cerca errors and change
of frst name or nckname.
Snce RA 9048 refers specfcay to the admnstratve summary proceedngs
before the oca cv regstrar t woud be napproprate to appy the same procedure
to pettons for correcton of entres n the cv regstry before the courts. The
promugaton of rues of procedure for court of |ustce s the excusve doman of the
Supreme Court. Moreover, as observed by the Offce of the Court Admnstrator,
there s nothng n RA 9048 and ts Impementng Rues and Reguatons that
warrants the adopton of the procedure set theren for pettons before the court
even for purposes of expedtng the resouton of sad pettons.
Thus, there shoud be recourse to the procedure prescrbed for the courts as
f RA 9048 were not enacted at a. In other words, the procedure provded n the
Revsed Rues of Court for such pettons remans bndng and shoud be foowed by
the courts. The procedura requrements ad down n Rues 103 and 108 st have
to be comped wth.
(&en ci4il stat%s a##ects t&e c&anges in t&e entr3 in ci4il
registr37 ad4ersarial proceedings applied ) 2%risdictional
and Notice are essential
REP9@'=C O; T.E P.='=PP=NES 4s! 29'=*N ED(*RD E:ERSON COSETEN$-
:*$P*?O (*!G!*! 29'=*N ED(*RD E:ERSON :*RD9EC-'=: COSETEN$)
G.R. No. 189476, February 2, 2011
FACTS:
Born n Makat on September 9, 1972, |uan Edward Emerson Coseteng
Magpayo (respondent) s the son of Fuvo M. Magpayo |r. and Anna Domnque
Marquez-Lm Coseteng who, as respondents certfcate of ve brth shows,
contracted marrage on March 26, 1972.
Camng, however, that hs parents were never egay marred, respondent
fed on |uy 22, 2008 at the Regona Tra Court (RTC) of Ouezon Cty a Petton
to change hs name to |uan Edward Emerson Marquez Lm Coseteng. The petton,
docketed as SPP No. O-0863058, was entted "IN RE PETITION FOR CHANGE OF
NAMEOF |ULIAN EDWARD EMERSON COSETENG MAGPAYO TO |ULIAN EDWARD
EMERSON MAROUEZ-LIM COSETENG."
In support of hs petton, respondent submtted a certfcaton from the
Natona Statstcs Offce statng that hs mother Anna Domnque "does not appear
n |ts| Natona Indces of Marrage." Respondent aso submtted hs academc
records from eementary up to coege showng that he carred the surname
"Coseteng," and the brth certfcate of hs chd where "Coseteng" appears as hs
Page 3+ of 39
surname. In the 1998, 2001 and 2004 Eectons, respondent ran and was eected as
Councor of Ouezon Ctys 3rd Dstrct usng the name "|ULIAN M.L. COSETENG."
On order of Branch 77 of the Ouezon Cty RTC, respondent amended hs
petton by aegng theren compance wth the 3-year resdency requrement under
Secton 2, Rue 103| of the Rues of Court.
The notce settng the petton for hearng on November 20, 2008 was
pubshed n the newspaper Broadsde n ts ssues of October 31-November 6,
2008, November 7-13, 2008, and November 14-20, 2008. And a copy of the notce
was furnshed the Offce of the Soctor Genera (OSG).
No opposton to the petton havng been fed, an order of genera defaut
was entered by the tra court whch then aowed respondent to present evdence
ex parte
By Decson of |anuary 8, 2009, the tra court granted respondents petton
and drected the Cv Regstrar ofMakat Cty to:
1. Deete the entry "March 26, 1972" n Item 24 for "DATE AND PLACE OF MARRIAGE
OF PARTIES" |n heren respondents Certfcate of ve Brth|;
2. Correct the entry "MAGPAYO" n the space for the Last Name of the |respondent|
to "COSETENG";
3. Deete the entry "COSETENG" n the space for Mdde Name of the |respondent|;
and
4. Deete the entry "Fuvo Mranda Magpayo, |r." n the space for FATHER of the
|respondent|. (emphass and underscorng supped; captazaton n the orgna)
The Repubc of the Phppnes (Repubc) fed a moton for reconsderaton
but t was dened by the tra court by Order of |uy 2, 2009, hence, t, thru the OSG,
odged the present petton for revew to the Court on pure queston of aw.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the petton for change of name nvovng change of cv
status shoud be made through approprate adversara proceedngs.
2. Whether or not the tra court exceeded ts |ursdcton when t drected the
deeton of the name of respondents father from hs brth certfcate.
HELD:
The petton s mpressed wth mert. (n favor of the Repubc)
1. A person can effect a change of name under Rue 103 (CHANGE OF NAME)
usng vad and mertorous grounds ncudng (a) when the name s
rdcuous, dshonorabe or extremey dffcut to wrte or pronounce; (b)
when the change resuts as a ega consequence such as egtmaton; (c)
when the change w avod confuson; (d) when one has contnuousy used
and been known snce chdhood by a Fpno name, and was unaware of
aen parentage; (e) a sncere desre to adopt a Fpno name to erase
sgns of former aenage, a n good fath and wthout pre|udcng
anybody; and (f) when the surname causes embarrassment and there s
Page 3, of 39
no showng that the desred change of name was for a frauduent purpose
or that the change of name woud pre|udce pubc nterest.
*** Respondents reason for changng hs name cannot be
consdered as one of, or anaogous to, recognzed grounds, however.
The present petton must be dfferentated from Afon v. Repubc
of the Phppnes. In Afon, the Court aowed the theren pettoner,
Estrea Afon, to use the name that she had been known snce chdhood
n order to avod confuson. Afon dd not deny her egtmacy, however.
She merey sought to use the surname of her mother whch she had been
usng snce chdhood. Rung n her favor, the Court hed that she was
awfuy entted to use her mothers surname, addng that the avodance
of confuson was |ustfcaton enough to aow her to do so. In the present
case, however, respondent denes hs egtmacy.
The change beng sought n respondents petton goes so far as to
affect hs ega status n reaton to hs parents. It seeks to change hs
egtmacy to that of egtmacy. Rue 103 then woud not suffce to grant
respondents suppcaton.
Labayo-Rowe v. Repubc categorcay hods that "changes whch
may affect the cv status from egtmate to egtmate . . .
are substanta and controversa ateratons whch can ony be aowed
after approprate adversary proceedngs . . ."
******** Snce respondents desred change affects hs cv status
from egtmate to egtmate, Rue 108 appes. It reads:
SECTION 1. Who may fe petton.-Any person nterested n any
act, event, order or decree concernng the cv status of persons whch
has been recorded n the cv regster, may fe a verfed petton for
the canceaton or correcton of any entry reatng thereto, wth the |RTC|
of the provnce where the correspondng cv regstry s ocated.
SEC. 3. Partes.-When canceaton or correcton of an entry n the
cv regster s sought, the cv regstrar and a persons who have or
cam any nterest whch woud be affected thereby sha be made partes
to the proceedng.
SEC. 4. Notce and pubcaton. -Upon the fng of the petton, the
court sha, by an order, fx the tme and pace for the hearng of the
same, and cause reasonabe notce thereof to be gven to the persons
named n the petton. The court sha aso cause the order to be pubshed
once a week for three (3) consecutve weeks n a newspaper of genera
crcuaton n the provnce. (emphass, tacs and underscorng supped)
2. Rue 108 ceary drects that a petton whch concerns ones cv status
shoud be fed n the cv regstry n whch the entry s sought to be
canceed or corrected - that of Makat n the present case, and "a
persons who have or cam any nterest whch woud be affected thereby"
shoud be made partes to the proceedng.
As earer stated, however, the petton of respondent was fed not
n Makat where hs brth certfcate was regstered but n Ouezon Cty.
And as the above-mentoned tte of the petton fed by respondent
Page 3- of 39
before the RTC shows, nether the cv regstrar of Makat nor hs father
and mother were made partes thereto.
Rue 103 regardng change of name and n Rue 108 concernng the
canceaton or correcton of entres n the cv regstry are separate and
dstnct.
Asde from mproper venue, he faed to mpead the cv regstrar
of Makat and a affected partes as respondents n the case."A petton
for a substanta correcton or change of entres n the cv regstry shoud
have as respondents the cv regstrar, as we as a other persons who
have or cam to have any nterest that woud be affected thereby."
Rue 108 ceary mandates two sets of notces to dfferent "potenta
oppostors." The frst notce s that gven to the "persons named n the
petton" and the second (whch s through pubcaton) s that gven to
other persons who are not named n the petton but nonetheess may be
consdered nterested or affected partes, such as credtors. That two sets
of notces are mandated under the above-quoted Secton 4 s vadated by
the subsequent Secton 5, aso above-quoted, whch provdes for two
perods (for the two types of "potenta oppostors") wthn whch to fe an
opposton (15 days from notce or from the ast date of pubcaton).
The purpose precsey of Secton 4, Rue 108 s to bnd the whoe
word to the subsequent |udgment on the petton. The sweep of the
decson woud cover even partes who shoud have been mpeaded under
Secton 3, Rue 108 but were nadvertenty eft out
C&ange o# Stat%s *lien Spo%se #ailed to co"pl3 on t&e
2%risdictional Re8%ire"ent
$ER@ERT CORP9C >S! D*=S?'?N STO! TO:*S
G.R. No. 186571, August 11, 2010
FACTS:
Gerbert Corpuz was a former Fpno ctzen who acqured Canadan
ctzenshp through naturazaton on Nov. 2000. On, |an. 18 2005, he marred a
Fpna named Dasyyn Sto. Tomas. Due to work and other professona
commtments, Gerbert eft for Canada soon after ther weddng. He returned to the
Phppnes sometme n Apr 2005 to surprse her wfe but was shocked to dscover
that Dasyyn was havng an affar wth another man. Hurt and dsapponted,
Gerbert went back to Canada and fed a petton for dvorce and was granted.
Two years after, Gerbert fe n ove wth another Fpna. In hs desre to
marry hs new Fpna fance, Gerbert went to Pasg Cty Cv Regstry Offce and
regstered the Canadan dvorce decree on ther marrage certfcate. Despte ts
regstraton, an NSO offca nformed Gerbert that ther marrage st exsts under
Phppne Law; and to be enforceabe, the foregn dvorce decree must be |udcay
recognzed by a Phppne court.
Gerbert fed a petton for |udca recognton of foregn dvorce and/or
decaraton of marrage as dssoved, wth the RTC. Dasyyn offered no opposton
and requested for the same prayer.
Page 30 of 39
RTC dened Gerberts petton contendng that Art. 26 (2) appes ony to
Fpnos and not to aens. Gerbert appeaed by certorar to the Supreme Court
under Rue 45.
ISSUE:
Whether the regstraton of the foregn dvorce decree was propery made.
HELD:
Supreme Court hed n the negatve. Artce 412 of the Cv Code decares
that "no entry n a cv regster sha be changed or corrected, wthout |udca
order." The Rues of Court suppements Artce 412 of the Cv Code by specfcay
provdng for a speca remeda proceedng by whch entres n the cv regstry may
be |udcay canceed or corrected. Rue 108 of the Rues of Court sets n deta the
|ursdctona and procedura requrements that must be comped wth before a
|udgment, authorzng the canceaton or correcton, may be annotated n the cv
regstry.
=! R9'E 1037 1017 R* 90+1 Disting%is&ed
REP9@'=C O; T.E P.='=PP=NES 4s! :ER'?N :ERC*DER*
G.R. No. 186027, December 8, 2010
FACTS:
On |une 6, 2005, Meryn Mercadera (Mercadera), represented by her sster
and duy consttuted Attorney-n-Fact, Eveyn M. Oga (Oga), sought the correcton of
her gven name as t appeared n her Certfcate of Lve Brth from Maryn L.
Mercadera to Meryn L. Mercadera before the Offce of the Loca Cv Regstrar of
Dpoog Cty pursuant to Repubc Act No. 9048.
Under R.A. No. 9048, the cty or muncpa cv regstrar or consu genera s
now authorzed to effect the change of frst name or nckname and the correcton of
cerca or typographca errors n cv regstry entres. The Offce of the Loca Cv
Regstrar of Dpoog Cty, however, refused to effect the correcton uness a court
order was obtaned "because the Cv Regstrar theren s not yet equpped wth a
permanent appontment before he can vady act on pettons for correctons fed
before ther offce as mandated by R.A. No. 9048."
Mercadera then fed a Petton For Correcton of Some Entres as Appearng
n the Certfcate of Lve Brth under Rue 108 before the Regona Tra Court of
Dpoog Cty (RTC). Upon recept of the petton for correcton of entry, the RTC
ssued an order, dated |une 10, 2005, for the hearng of sad petton. The Offce of
the Soctor Genera (OSG) deputzed the Offce of the Cty Prosecutor to assst n
the case. Wthout any ob|ecton from the Cty Prosecutor, the testmony of Oga and
severa photocopes of documents were formay offered and marked as evdence to
prove that Mercadera never used the name "Maryn" n any of her pubc or prvate
transactons.
In ts September 28, 2005 Decson, the RTC granted the petton and rued
that the documentary evdence presented by Mercadera suffcenty supported the
crcumstances aeged n her petton. Consderng that she had used "Meryn" as
her gven name snce chdhood unt she dscovered the dscrepancy n her
Certfcate of Lve Brth, the RTC was convnced that the correcton was |ustfed.
Page 31 of 39
The OSG tmey appeaed prayng for the reversa and settng asde of the
RTC decson. For the OSG, the correcton n the speng of Mercaderas gven name
"s n truth a matera correcton as t woud modfy or ncrease substantve rghts",
whch woud have been proper had she fed a petton under Rue 103 and proved
any of the grounds therefor.
The CA was not persuaded. In ts December 9, 2008 Decson, the appeate
court affrmed the questoned RTC order.
On March 6, 2009, the OSG fed the present petton. On behaf of Mercadera,
the Pubc Attorneys Offce (PAO) fed ts Comment on |uy 3, 2009.
ISSUES:
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A OUESTION OF LAW IN
GRANTING THE CHANGE IN RESPONDENTS NAME UNDER RULE 103.
HELD:
Rue 103 proceduray governs |udca pettons for change of gven name or
surname, or both, pursuant to Artce 376 of the Cv Code. Ths rue provdes the
procedure for an ndependent speca proceedng n court to estabsh the status of
a person nvovng hs reatons wth others, that s, hs ega poston n, or wth
regard to, the rest of the communty. Essentay, a change of name does not defne
or effect a change of ones exstng famy reatons or n the rghts and dutes
fowng therefrom. It does not ater ones ega capacty or cv status.
Rue 108, on the other hand, mpements |udca proceedngs for the
correcton or canceaton of entres n the cv regstry pursuant to Artce 412 of
the Cv Code. Entres n the cv regster refer to "acts, events and |udca decrees
concernng the cv status of persons," aso as enumerated n Artce 408 of the
same aw.
In the case at bench, the OSG posts that the converson from "MARILYN" to
"MERLYN" s not a correcton of an nnocuous error but a matera correcton
tantamount to a change of name whch entas a modfcaton or ncrease n
substantve rghts. For the OSG, ths s a substanta error that requres compance
wth the procedure under Rue 103, and not Rue 108.
A change of ones name under Rue 103 can be granted, ony on grounds
provded by aw, there must be a proper and compeng reason for the change and
proof that the person requestng w be pre|udced by the use of hs offca name. In
pettons for correcton, ony cerca, speng, typographca and other nnocuous
errors n the cv regstry may be rased. Consderng that the enumeraton n
Secton 2, Rue 108 aso ncudes "changes of name," the correcton of a patenty
msspeed name s covered by Rue 108. Suffce t to say, not a ateratons aowed
n ones name are confned under Rue 103. Correctons for cerca errors may be
set rght under Rue 108.
Thus, the petton fed by Mercadera before the RTC correcty fas under Rue
108 as t smpy sought a correcton of a msspeed gven name. To correct smpy
means "to make or set arght; to remove the fauts or error from." To change means
"to repace somethng wth somethng ese of the same knd or wth somethng that
serves as a substtute." From the aegatons n her petton, Mercadera ceary
prayed for the ower court "to remove the fauts or error" from her regstered gven
name "MARILYN," and "to make or set arght" the same to conform to the one she
grew up to, "MERLYN." The CA dd not aow Mercadera the change of her name.
Page 39 of 39
What t dd aow was the correcton of her msspeed gven name whch she had
been usng ever snce she coud remember.
Mercadera comped wth the requrement for an adversara proceedng
before the ower court. The pubcaton and postng of the notce of hearng n a
newspaper of genera crcuaton and the notces sent to the OSG and the Loca Cv
Regstry are suffcent ndca of an adverse proceedng. Consderng that the OSG
dd not oppose the petton and the moton to present ts evdence ex parte when t
had the opportunty to do so, t cannot now compan that the proceedngs n the
ower court were proceduray defectve. Wherefore, the December 9, 2008 Decson
of the Court of Appeas s AFFIRMED.