Special Proceedings Outlne

Rule 72
Action v Special Proceeding
Pacific Banking v CA 242 S 493
Rule 73
Roberto v Leonidas 129 S 33
Testate v Intestate
Cuenco v CA 53 S 360
Rodriguez v Borja 17 S 418
Where estate settled if resident v non-resident
-meaning of residence (intent to return or intent to remain)
-residence pertains to venue only, not jurisdiction, hence waivable
Cayetano v Leonides 129 S 522
Garcia Fule v CA 74 S 189
Jurisdiction limited to adjudication and settlement of properties of deceased
Uy v Dizon-Capulong 221 S 87
Jimenez v CA 184 S 367
Pia Barreto v CA 131 S 606
Ramos v CA 180 S 635
Pastor v CA 122 S 885
Exceptions:
Trinidad v CA 202 S 106
Valera v Inserto 149 S 533
Death (fact or presumed) is jurisdictional
Rule 74
General rule is judicial administration, except
-where no will and no debts
a) extrajudicial among heirs or adjudication of sole heir
b) partition, if heirs cannot agree
-where there are debts but estate small, summary settlement of estate

Resort to judicial administration even if estate has no debt only for good reason
Liability of distributes
How enforced?
Yap v CA 274 S 676
Rule 75
Probate needed
Authority of probate court
Pastor v Ca, supra
2 stages of probate
i)
probate proper- deals with extrinsic validity of the will
ii)
2nd phase- intrinsic validity and distribution
Substantial compliance with formal requirements
Alvarado v Gaviola 226 S 347
Rule is that probate court will look only into extrinsic validity of will
When intrinsic validity may be passed upon, even before probate
Nepomuceno v CA 139 S 206
Ajero v Ca, 236 S 988
Rule 76
Who may ask for probate
Interest in estate (heir, creditor)
Who may oppose
Acain v Iac 155 S 100
Jurisdiction when acquired
-upon petition
-upon delivery
jurisdictional facts
De Guzman v Angeles 162 S 347
Notice by publication (in rem) v personal notice

Probate of holographic will

Proof of notarial will v holographic will
Proof of lost/destroyed notarial will v holographic will
When terminated
a) approval by probate court of partition
b) granting of petition to close the proceedings
c) consequent issuance of order of partition
Rule 77
Requisites for reprobate
Perez v Tolete 232 S 722
Need for ancillary administrator
Foreign-appointed administrator v ancillary administrator
Rule 78
What are letters testamentary and of administration
When and to whom issued
- executor v administrator
Order of preference (reason behind preference?)
Ventura v Ventura 160 S 810
Criterion in selection of administrator
-extent of interest in estate (why?)
Role of administrator is to represent everyone concerned with the estate of
deceased
Rule 79
Opposition to issuance of letters testamentary
Who can petition for administration (any interested person)

Notice required
De Guzman v Angeles, supra
Opposition to petition for administration
Letters of administration to go to any competent applicant
Rule 80
Special administrator; why and when needed
De Guzman v Guadiz 96 S 938
De Guzman v Angeles, supra
Role and function of special administrator
Corona v CA 116 S 316
Regular v special administrator
Liwanag v Reyes 12 S 43
No order of preference in special administrator
Rule 82
When administration revoked
Effect of revocation
Removal of administrator/executor
Mendiola v CA 190 S 421
Gabriel v Ca 212 S 413
Validity of prior acts
Vda de Bacaling v Laguda 54 S 243

Rule 83
Question of ownership, how treated
Munsayac-de Villa v CA 414 S 436
Heirs of Miguel Franco v CA 418 S 60
De leon v CA 386 S 216

Provisional support
Santero v CFI 153 S 728
Ruiz v CA 252 S 541
Rule 84
What constitutes administration
Caro v CA 113 S 10
Mananquil v Villegas 189 S 335
Estate of Olave v Reyes 123 S 767
Administration v Dominion
Rule 85
Accountability of executor/administrator
Liability of adm/exec v liability of estate
Necessary expenses
Compensation
Attorneys fees, when chargeable to estate, exec/adm
Pascual v CA 300 S 214
Accounting by exec/adm (notice to interested parties)
Rule 86
Estate liable to all creditors
Court to issue notice
Periods to file claim
How claims presented/prosecuted
Ignacio v Pampanga Bus 20 S 126
Sec 5

Claims allowed
Money claims
Expenses
Judgment debts
P v Bayotas 236 S 239 (optional reading only)
Procedure on claims
Rule 87
Actions that survive
Melgar v Buenviaje 179 S 196
Right of heir inchoate
Right to compel 3rd persons to examination and right to recover property
Chua v Absolute Management Corporation 413 S 547
Right of creditor to file if exec/adm refuses
Rule 88
Sale or mortgage (like in execution sale)
Contingent liability
Prescriptive periods on right to reach distributes
De Bautista v de Guzman 125 S 676
Liability of heirs/distributes
Pastor v CA, supra
Preference in credit applied
Local v foreign creditors
Rule 89
Sale must be with court approval and notice
Probate court to approve sale, also to nullify unauthorized sale
Acebedo v Abesamis 217 S 186

Right of heirs to dispose of right in estate

Heirs of Pedro Escanlar v CA 281 S 176
Rule 90
When proceedings closed
When probate court loses jurisdiction
Motion for execution to deliver distributees share v separate action
Heirs of the late Fran v Salas 210 S 303
When distribution proper
After payment of obligation (liquidation)
Declaration of heirs (before or after liquidation)
Kilayko v Tengco 207 S 600
Partition
Solivio v CA 182 S 119
Final decree of partition
ESCHEAT
Rule 91
Cases:
1.
2.

Municipal Council of San Pedro v. Castillo, 65 Phil 819 (1937)

In re Estate of Lao Sayco, 21 Phil 445 (1912)

GUARDIANSHIP
Rule 92 Venue
Cases:
1. Parco v. CA, 111 SCRA 262 (1982)
2. Paciente v. Dacuycuy et al, 114 SCRA 924 (1982)
3. Garcia Vda De Chua v. CA, 287 SCRA 33 (1998)
Rule 93 Appointment of Guardians see also FC Art. 222-227
Cases:
1. Yangco v. CFI, 29 Phil 183 (1915)
2. Guerrero v. Teran, 13 Phil 212 (1909)
3. Nery et al v. Lorenzo et al, 44 SCRA 431 (1972)

4. Zafra-Sarte v. CA, 32 SCRA 175 (1970)

Rule 94 Bond of Guardians
Rule 95 Selling and Encumbering Property of Ward
1. Pardo de Tavera v. El Hogar Filipino et al, 98 Phil 481 (1956)
Rule 96 General Powers and Duties of Guardians see also CC Art 736
Rule 97 Termination of Guardianship; see also FC Arts. 134-236, R.A. 6809
Cases:
1. Crisostomo v. Endencia, 66 Phil 1 (1938)
2. Vda de Bengson v. PNB, 3 SCRA 751 (1961)
3. In re Guardianship of Inchausti, 40 Phil 682 (1920)
*Guardianship of Minors, A.M. No. 03-02-05 SC
TRUSTEESHIP Rule 98; see also CC Arts. 1443-1446
Cases:
1. De Leon v. Molo-Peckson, 6 SCRA 978 (1962)
2. Heirs of Lorenzo Yap v. CA, 312 SCRA 603 (1999)
ADOPTION AND CUSTODY OF MINORS
A. Adoption
1. Rule on Adoption A.M. No. 02-6-02, August 22, 2002
2. R.A. 8552
3. R.A. 8043
B. Custody
1. A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC
Cases
1.
2.
3.
4.

Moncupa v. Enrile, 141 SCRA 233 (1986)

Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil 778 (1919)
In re Ashraf Kunting, 487 SCRA 602 (2006)
Burgos v. Macapagal-Arroyo et al, 621 SCRA 481 (2010)

CHANGE OF NAME (Rule 103) and CANCELLATION OR CORRECTION OF

ENTRIES IN THE CIVIL REGISTRY (Rule 108)

Laws:
1. CC Art. 376
2. R.A. 9048
3. IRR of R.A. 9048 (Admin. Order 1, Series of 2001)
Cases:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Haw Liong v. Rep., 16 SCRA 677 (1966)

Llaneta v. AGrava, 57 SCRA 29 (1994)
Secan Kok v. Republic, 52 CRA 322 (1973)
Villegas et al v. Fernando et al, 27 SCRA 119 (1969)
Rep. v. Cagandahan, 565 SCRA 72 (2008)
Braza et al v. Civil Register et al, 607 SCRA 638 (2009)
Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas et al, 628 SCRA 266 (2010)

VOLUNTARY DISSOLUTION OF CORPORATIONS

Laws:
1. Corporation Code, Secs. 117-122
2. FRIA. R.A. 10142
3. A.M. No. 00-8-10-SC, Dec. 2, 2008
4. A.M. No. 04-07-SC, Sep 14, 2004
RECOGNITION OF MINOR NATURAL CHILDREN FC Arts. 163-182

R.A. 9255
IRR of R.A. 9255 (Admin. Order Series of 2004)

Cases:
1. Taneo et al v. CA, 304 SCRA 308 (199)
2. Uyguanco et al v. CA, 178 SCRA 684 (1989)
CONSTITUTION OF FAMILY HOME FC ART 513, CC Arts. 152-162
ABSENTEES Rule 107; see also SS Arts. 381-386; FC Arts. 41-43
Cases:
1. Jones v. Hortiguela, 64 Phil 179 (1937)
2. Tol-Noquera v. Villamor et al, 211 SCRA 616 (1992)
OTHER WRITS
A. Writ of Amparo, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC
1. Tapuz v. Del Rosario, 554 SCRA 768 (2008)
2. Roxas v. Macapagal-Arroyo, 630 SCRA 210 (2010)

3.
4.
5.
6.

Rubrico v. Macapagal-Arroyo, 613 SCRA 233 (2010)

Salcedo v. Bollozos, 623 SCRA 27 (2010)
Razon et al. v. Tagitis, 606 SCRA 598 (2009)
Yano et al v. Sanchez et al, 612 SCRA 347 (2010)

B. Writ of Habeas Data, A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC

1. Castillo v. Cruz, 605 SCRA 628 (2009)
2. Roxas v. Macapagal-Arroyo, supra
3. Meralco v. Lim, 632 SCRA 195 (2010)
C. Writ of Kalikasan, Rule of Procedure for Environmental Cases, A.M. No. 09-6-8SC
1. Oposa vs. Factoran, 224 SCRA 792 (1993)
2. Hernandez v. Placer Dome Inc., G.R. No. 195482, June 21, 2011
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
*A.M. No. 07-11-08-SC, Sep. 1, 2009
APPEALS Rule 109
Cases:
1. Dais v. Garduo, 49 Phil 165 (1926)
2. Testate Estate of Vda. De Biascan, 347 SCRA 621 (2000)
3. Miranda v. CA, 71 SCRA 295 (1976)
4. Dael et al v. IAC, 171 SCRA 524 (1989)
5. Rep v. Nishina, 634 SCRA 716 (2010)
6. Rep v. Marcos, supra