V.

Ernie filed a petition for guardianship over the person and properties of his since it would be a waste of time to continue hearing the case if upon the facts
and the law, guardianship would not be proper.
father, Ernesto. Upon receipt of the notice of hearing, Ernesto filed an opposition

to the petition. Ernie, before the hearing of the petition, filed a motion to order
Ernesto to submit himself for mental and physical examination which the court
granted.
After Ernie's lawyer completed the presentation of evidence in support of
the petition and the court's ruling on the formal offer of evidence, Ernesto's
lawyer
filed a demurrer to evidence.
Ernie's lawyer objected on the ground that a demurrer to evidence is not
proper in a special proceeding.
a.) Was Ernie's counsel's objection proper? (2%)
b.) If Ernesto defies the court's order directing him to submit to physical
and mental examinations, can the court order his arrest? (2%)
b) No, the court cannot order Ernesto’s arrest.
Under Section 3(d) of Rule 29, a court cannot direct the arrest of a party for
disobeying an order to submit to a physical or mental examination. The court
may impose other penalties such as rendering judgment by default or issuing an
order that the physical or mental condition of the disobedient party shall be
taken as established in accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the
order.
X. Hades, an American citizen, through a dating website, got acquainted with
Persephone, a Filipina. Hades came to the Philippines and proceeded to Baguio
City where Persephone resides. Hades and Persephone contracted marriage,
solemnized by the Metropolitan Trial Court judge of Makati City. After the
wedding, Hades flew back to California, United States of America, to wind up his
business affairs. On his return to the Philippines, Hades discovered that
Persephone had an illicit affair with Phanes. Immediately, Hades returned to the

United States and was able to obtain a valid divorce decree from the Superior
ANSWERS:
Court of the County of San Mateo, California, a court of competent jurisdiction

against Persephone. Hades desires to marry Hestia, also a Filipina, whom he met
a) No, Ernie’s counsel’s objection was not proper.
at Baccus Grill in Pasay City.
Under the Rule on Special Proceedings, in the absence of special
provisions, the rules provided for in ordinary actions, shall be, as far as a.) As Hades' lawyer, what petition should you file in order that your client
practicable, applicable in special proceedings.
can avoid prosecution for bigamy if he desires to marry Hestia? (2%)
Here there are no special provisions on demurrer to evidence in the rules
on guardianship. Hence the provisions on demurrer to evidence in ordinary b.) In what court should you file the petition? (1 %)
actions are applicable to special proceedings. Such application is practicable
c.) What is the essential requisite that you must comply with for the purpose
of establishing jurisdictional facts before the court can hear the petition? (3%)
ANSWERS:
a) As Hade’s lawyer, I would file a petition for cancellation of entry of marriage
under Rule 108 with prayer for recognition of foreign divorce judgment.
In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court held that a foreign divorce
decree must first be recognized before it can be given effect. The Supreme Court
stated that the recognition may be prayed for in the petition for cancellation of
the marriage entry under Rule 108. (Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, 628 SCRA 266).
b) I would file the petition in the regional trial court of Makati City, where
the corresponding civil registry is located. (Section 1 of Rule 108).
c) For the Rule 108 petition, the jurisdictional facts are the following:
1. Joinder of the local civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any
interest which would be affected by petition.
2. Notice of the order of hearing to the persons named in the petition.
3. Publication of the order of hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in
the province.
XVII. Hercules was walking near a police station when a police officer signaled for
him to approach. As soon as Hercules came near, the police officer frisked him
but the latter found no contraband. The police officer told Hercules to get inside
the police station. Inside the police station, Hercules asked the police officer,
"Sir,
may problema po ba?" Instead of replying, the police officer locked up Hercules
inside the police station jail.
a.) What is the remedy available to Hercules to secure his immediate release
from detention? (2%)
b.) If Hercules filed with the Ombudsman a complaint for warrantless
search, as counsel for the police officer, what defense will you raise for the
dismissal of the complaint? (3%)
c.) If Hercules opts to file a civil action against the police officer, will he
have a cause of action? (3%)
ANSWERS:
a) The remedy available to Hercules to secure his immediate release from
detention is a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Under Rule 102, the writ of habeas corpus is available in cases of illegal
detention. Section 5 of Rule 102 provides that a court or judge authorized to
grant the writ must, when the petition therefor is presented and it appears that
the writ ought to issue, grant the same forthwith, and immediately thereupon
the clerk of court shall issue the writ or in case of emergency, the judge may
issue the writ under his own hand and may depute any officer or person to serve
it. The court or judge before whom the writ is returned must immediately
proceed to hear and examine the return. (Section 12, Rule 102).
b) I will raise the defense that the warrantless search was authorized as a “stop
and frisk.”
 “Stop and frisk” is the right of a police officer to stop a citizen on the
street, interrogate him and pat him for weapons and contraband whenever he
observes unusual conduct which leads him to conclude that criminal activity may
be afoot. (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1).
c) Yes Hercules will have a cause of action.
Under Article 32(4) of the Civil Code, any public officer who violates the
right of a person to freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention shall be liable to
the latter for damages. The action to recover damages is an independent civil
action.
Here Hercules was illegally detained as there was no probable cause to
arrest him without warrant.
XVIII. The residents of Mt. Ahohoy, headed by Masigasig, formed a
nongovernmental organization - Alyansa Laban sa Minahan sa Ahohoy (ALMA) to
protest the mining operations of Oro Negro Mining in the mountain. ALMA
members picketed daily at the entrance of the mining site blocking the ingress
and
egress of trucks and equipment of Oro Negro, hampering its operations.
Masigasig
had an altercation with Mapusok arising from the complaint of the mining
engineer
of Oro Negro that one of their trucks was destroyed by ALMA members.
Mapusok is the leader of the Association of Peace Keepers of Ahohoy (APKA), a
civilian volunteer organization serving as auxiliary force of the local police to
maintain peace and order in the area. Subsequently, Masigasig disappeared.
Mayumi, the wife of Masigasig, and the members of ALMA searched for
Masigasig, but all their efforts proved futile. Mapagmatyag, a member of ALMA,
learned from Maingay, a member of APKA, during their binge drinking that
Masigasig was abducted by other members of APKA, on order of Mapusok.
Mayumi and ALMA sought the assistance of the local police to search for
Masigasig, but they refused to extend their cooperation.
Immediately, Mayumi filed with the RTC, a petition for the issuance of the
writ of amparo against Mapusok and APKA. ALMA also filed a petition for the
issuance of the writ of amparo with the Court of Appeals against Mapusok and
APKA. Respondents Mapusok and APKA, in their Return filed with the RTC,
raised among their defenses that they are not agents of the State; hence, cannot
be
impleaded as respondents in an amparo petition.
a.) Is their defense tenable? (3%)
Respondents Mapusok and APKA, in their Return filed with the Court of
Appeals, raised as their defense that the petition should be dismissed on the
ground
that ALMA cannot file the petition because of the earlier petition filed by
Mayumi
with the RTC.
b.) Are respondents correct in raising their defense? (3%)
c.) Mayumi later filed separate criminal and civil actions against Mapusok.
How will the cases affect the amparo petition she earlier filed? (1 %)
ANSWERS:
 a) No, the defense of Mapusok and APKA that they are not agents of the
State and hence cannot be impleaded as respondents in an amparo petition is
not tenable.
The writ of amparo is available in cases where the enforced or involuntary
disappearance of a persons is with the authorization, support or acquiescence of
the State. (See Sec. 3[g] of R.A. No. 9851 and Navia v. Pardico, 19 June 2012,
e.b.).
Here Mapusok and APKA may be considered as acting with the support or
at least the acquiescence of the State since APKA serves as an auxiliary force of
the police and the police refused to assist in the search for Masigasig.
b) Yes respondents are correct in raising their defense.
Under Section 2(c) of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, the filing of a
petition by an authorized party on behalf of the aggrieved party suspends the
right of all others, observing the order in Section 2 of the Rule on the Writ of
Amparo.
Here the petition for writ of amparo had earlier been filed by the spouse
of the aggrieved party Masigasig. Thus it suspends the right of all others,
including ALMA, to file the petition.
c) The amparo petition shall be consolidated with the criminal action.
(Section 23, Rule on the Writ of Amparo).
Chika sued Gringo, a Venezuelan, for a sum of money. The Metropolitan Trial
Court of Manila (MeTC) rendered a decision ordering Gringo to pay Chika
P50,000.00 plus legal interest. During its pendency of the appeal before the RTC,
Gringo died of acute hemorrhagic pancreatitis. Atty. Perfecto, counsel of Gringo,
filed a manifestation attaching the death certificate of Gringo and informing the
RTC that he cannot substitute the heirs since Gringo did not disclose any
information on his family. As counsel for Chika, what remedy can you
recommend to your client so the case can move forward and she can eventually
recover her money? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The remedy I can recommend to my client Chika is to file a petition for
settlement of the estate of Gringo and for the appointment of an administrator.
Chika as a creditor is an interested person who can file the petition for
settlement of Gringo’s estate. Once the administrator is appointed, I will move
that the administrator be substituted as the defendant. I will also file my claim
against Gringo as a contingent claim in the probate proceedings pursuant to Rule
86 of the Rules of Court.
Johnny, a naturalized citizen of the United States of America (USA) but formerly a
Filipino citizen, executed a notarial will in accordance with the laws of the State
of California, USA. Johnny, at the time of his death, was survived by his niece
Anastacia, an American citizen residing at the condominium unit of Johnny
located at Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City; a younger brother, Bartolome, who
manages Johnny’s fish pond in Lingayen, Pangasinan; and a younger sister,
Christina, who manages Johnny’s rental
condominium units in Makati City. Johnny’s entire estate which he inherited
from his parents is valued at P200 million. Johnny appointed Anastacia as
executrix of his will. (4%)
(A) Can Johnny’s notarial will be probated before the proper court in the
Philippines?
(B) Is Anastacia qualified to be the executrix of Johnny’s notarial will?
ANSWERS:
(A)
Yes, the formal validity of a will is governed also by the national law of the
decedent. (Article 817, Civil Code).
A will proved and allowed in a foreign country, according to the laws of such
country, may be allowed, filed, and recorded by the proper Regional Trial Court
in the Philippines. (S1 R77).
(B)

Yes, assuming that Anastacia is of legal age, she is qualified to be an executor

although an alien because she is a resident of the Philippines. (S1 R78).

A was adopted by B and C when A was only a toddler. Later on in life, A filed with
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a petition for change of name under Rule 103 of
the Rules of Court, as he wanted to reassume the surname of his natural parents
because the surname of his adoptive parents sounded offensive and was
seriously affecting his business and social life.

The adoptive parents gave their consent to the petition for change of name. May
A file a petition for change of name? If the RTC grants the petition for change of
name, what, if any, will be the effect on the respective relations of A with his
adoptive parents and with his natural parents? Discuss. (4%)

ANSWER:

Yes, A may file a petition for change of name. Changing name on the ground that
it is offensive and seriously affects the petitioner’s business and social life is a
valid ground especially where the adoptive parents had given their consent.

The grant of the petition will not change A’s relations with his adoptive
and natural parents. The Supreme Court has held that change of name under
Rule 103 affects only the name and not the status of the petitioner. (Republic v.
CA, 21 May 1992).