1.

Pulido vs Abu Writ of Habeas Corpus: Not proper pending Special CivilAction for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals 7thDivision. n the !atter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of C"#A$ %&N#A'"S and ()' )S *"SA:$&+"$,& $A-A"' P)' D& vs. %en. "-$"N A+). as Chief of Staff of the Ar!ed -orces of the Philippines and all persons acting in his stead andunder his authorit/. and %"N. "$N"S,& D" '"&N. in his capacit/ as the -lag &fficer in Co!!and of the Philippine Nav/. and all persons acting inhis stead and under his authorit/. respondents. %.$. No. 170123. (ul/ 3. 2007 -acts: n l i n e 4 i t h t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e 5 & a 6 4 o o d * u t i n / 7 t h a t l e d t o P r e s . %loria *acapagal Arro/o8s issuance of Procla!ation No. 327 declaring the countr/ to be under a 9state of rebellion7 and %eneral &rder No. 3 directing the A-P and thePNP to carr/ out all reasonable !easures. giving due regard to constitutional rights. to suppress and :uell the 9rebellion.9. petitioners 4ere ta6en into custod/ b/ their Service Co!!ander. %on;ales and *esa 4ere not charged before a court !artial 4 i t h v i o l a t i o n o f t h e A r t i c l e s o f W a r . , h e / 4 e r e . h o 4 e v e r . a ! o n g t h e s o l d i e r s charged before +ranch <1 of the $egional ,rial Court =$,C> of *a6ati Cit/. 4ith the cri!e of Coup D8 etat as defined under Article 1?3@A of the $evised Penal Code. , h e / 4 e r e c o n s e : u e n t l / d e t a i n e d i n - o r t + o n i f a c i o u n d e r t h e c u s t o d / o f t h e Philippine *arines. A petition for bail 4as filed b/ the accused soldiers 4hich the $,C subse:uentl/ granted. Despite of the order and the service thereof. petitioner 4ere not released. As a response. the People of the Philippines !oved for partial reconsideration of the order granting bail. W ith the denial of the *otion for Partial $econsideration. the People filed 4ith the Court of Appeals on 3 -ebruar/ 200A a special civil action for certiorari under $ule <A of the $ules of Court 4ith urgent pra/er for ,e!porar/ $estraining &rder =,$&> andBor Writ of Preli!inar/ nCunction. *oreover. since %on;ales and *esa continued to be in d e t e n t i o n . a P e t i t i o n for Habeas Corpus 4as filed b/ petitioner P u l i d o o n t h e i r b e h a l f . n r e s p o n s e . $espondents pra/ed that the Petition for Habeas Corpus be dis!issed pri!aril/ on t4o grounds: =1> the continued detention of %on;ales and *esa is Custified because o f t h e p e n d e n c / o f t h e P e t i t i o n f o r C e r t i o r a r i : u e s t i o n i n g t h e o r d e r d a t e d D ( u l / 2003 of the $,C granting bail to %on;ales and *esa before the 7th Division of the Court of Appeals and =2> petitioner is guilt/ of foru! shopping because of his failure to state in the petition that the order granting bail has been elevated to the Court of Appeals and pending before its 7th Division. ,hus. 4e have this case. ssue: Whether or not the petition for habeas corpus 4as proper d e s p i t e o f t h e pending special civil action for certiorari before the Court of Appeals 7th Division. Held: No. ,hat the present petition has direct and inti!ate lin6s 4ith the certiorari case is be/ond doubt as the/ involve t4o sides of the sa!e coin. ,he certiorari case filed b/ the People see6s to prevent the release of %on;ales and *esa b/ annulling the lo4er court8s grant of bail. ,he present petition. on the other hand. 4as filed in behalf of %on;ales and *esa to secure their i!!ediate release because the orderg ranting bail is alread/ eEecutor/. n effect. the petitioner

see6s to i!ple!ent hrough a petition for habeas corpus the provisional release fro! detention that the lo4er court has ordered. ,he :uestion this i!!ediatel/ raises is: can this be done through a petition for habeas corpus 4hen the validit/ of the grant of bail and the release under bail are live :uestions before another Division of this CourtF W e b e l i e v e a n d s o h o l d t h a t h i s c a n n o t a n d s h o u l d n o t b e d o n e a s t h i s i s precisel/ the reason 4h/ the rule against foru! shopping has been put in place. ,he re!edies sought being t4o sides of the sa!e coin =i.e.. the release of %on;ales and *esa>. the/ cannot be secured through separatel/@ filed cases 4here issues of Curisdiction !a/ arise and 4hose rulings !a/ conflict 4ith one another. ,o be sure. 4 e c l e a r l / h e a r d t h e petitioner sa/ that there can be no conflict because the effectiveness of our ruling in this petition 4ill depend on the nature and tenor of the ruling in the certiorari caseG there is no basis for a release on habeas corpus if this sa!e Court 4ill rule in the certiorari case that the grant of bail is i!proper. -or this ver/ sa!e reason. 4e should not entertain the present petition as the !atter before us is alread/ before another co@e:ual bod/ 4hose ruling 4ill be finall/ deter!inative of the issue of %on;ales8 and *esa8s release. ,he Decision of the Seventh Division of this Court. heretofore footnoted. ordering the release on bail of %on;ales and *esa drives ho!e this point.HHH HHH HHH W hen the release of the persons in 4hose behalf the application for a W rit o f H a b e a s C o r p u s 4 a s f i l e d i s e f f e c t e d . t h e Petition for the issuance of the 4rit beco!es !oot and acade!ic. With the release of both *esa and %on;ales. the Petition for Habeas C o r p u s h a s . i n d e e d . b e e n r e n d e r e d ! o o t . C o u r t s o f C u s t i c e constituted to pass upon substantial rights 4ill not consider :uestions 4here no a c t u a l interests are involved. ,hus. the 4ell@settled rule that courts 4 i l l n o t deter!ine a !oot :uestion. W here the issues have beco!e !oot and acade!ic. there ceases to be an/ Custiciable controvers/. thus rendering the resolution of the sa!e of no practical value. ,his Court 4ill therefore abstain fro! eEpressing its opinion in a case 4here no legal relief is needed or called for.

J. ANTONIO ARANETA vs. ANTONIO PEREZ G.R. No. L-18872 July 15, 1966 -AC,S: A trust 4as established pursuant to the 4ill of the late Angela S. ,uason. (. Antonio Araneta 4as appointed trustee and he :ualified 4hen he too6 his oath of office. ,he beneficiaries of the trust are +enigno. Angela and Antonio. all surna!ed Pere; / ,uason. the last t4o being represented b/ appellant Antonio Pere;. 4ho is their father and Cudicial guardian. n the order appealed fro! the lo4er court approved. upon petition of the trustee. a deed of donation eEecuted b/ hi! in favor of the Cit/ of *anila covering a lot pertaining to the trusteeship. Such approval 4as given over the opposition of appellant Antonio Pere;. &n the lot in :uestion the trustee had been pa/ing an annual realt/ taE. Appellant does not den/ the beneficial aspects of the donation. +ut he !aintains that it is invalid on the ground that under Article 7?< of the Civil Code 9guardians and trustees cannot donate the properties entrusted to the!9.

SS)": Whether guardians and trustees cannot donate the properties entrusted to the!. $)' N%: n this case. the guardian !a/ donate the properties entrusted to hi!. Although Article 7?<. Ne4 Civil Code provides that. 9guardians and trustees cannot donate the properties entrusted to the!9. the sa!e cannot be applied considering that the aforecited provision onl/ too6 effect on August ?0. 11A0 =$ep. Act No. ?D<> and does not appl/ retroactivel/ to the testa!entar/ trust established upon the death of Angela S. ,uason on *arch 20. 113D. ,here being nothing in the old Civil Code 4hich prohibits a trustee fro! donating properties under trusteeship. and considering that the po4ers given to herein appellee as trustee are of a plenar/ character. subCect onl/ to the li!itation that the/ should be per!issible under the la4G considering further that 4hen the testatriE conferred such po4ers she !ust have had in !ind the la4 that 4as in force at the ti!eG and considering finall/ that after all a trust is created for the benefit of the cestuis :ue trust and that in this particular case the acts of the trustee are subCect to the supervision of the Court.

FELICIANO FRANCI CO vs. CO!RT OF APPEAL G.R. No. L-57"#8 J$%u$&y #1, 198" -AC,S: -eliciano -rancisco =5-eliciano7> is the dul/ appointed guardian of the inco!petent "stefania San Pedro =5"stefania7> in Special Proceedings No. A?2 of C- +ulacan presided over b/ respondent (udge. &n August ?0. 1173 Pelagio -rancisco =5Pelagio7>. clai!ing to be a first cousin of "stefania. petitioned the court for the re!oval of -eliciano and for the appoint!ent in his stead. A!ong other grounds. the petition 4as based on the failure of the guardian to sub!it an inventor/ of the estate of his 4ard and to render an accounting. ,he respondent Cudge found the clai! to be true. ordered the retire!ent on the ground of old age. Petitioner filed a !otion for reconsideration. contending that he 4as still fit to continue 4ith the !anage!ent of the estate of his 4ard but the court denied the !otion. Hence. this petition. SS)": Whether or not the trial court is correct in ordering the retire!ent of petitioner on the ground of old age.

$)' N%: I"S. n deter!ining the selection of a guardian. the court !a/ consider the financial situation. the ph/sical condition. the sound Cudg!ent. prudence and trust4orthiness. the !orals. character and conduct. and the present and past histor/ of a prospective appointee. as 4ell as the probabilit/ of his being able to eEercise the po4ers and duties of guardian for the full period during 4hich guardianship 4ill be necessar/. A guardian. once appointed !a/ be re!oved in case he beco!es insane or other4ise incapable of discharging his trust or unsuitable therefor. or has 4asted or !is!anaged the estate. or failed for thirt/ =?0> da/s after it is due to render an account or !a6e a return. ,here is need for petitioner -eliciano -rancisco to be retired fro! the guardianship over the person and propert/ of inco!petent "stefania San Pedro. As correctl/ pointed out b/ the appellate court. this finds direct support in the dela/ of the accounting and inventor/ !ade b/ petitioner. ,o sustain petitioner as guardian 4ould. therefore. be detri!ental to the 4ard. While age alone is not a controlling criterion in deter!ining a personJs fitness or :ualification to be appointed or be retained as guardian. it !a/ be a factor for consideration.