8/10/2019 digested cases spec pro.doc
1/39
Page 1of 39
Special Proceedings Recent Digested Cases (2010-
2011)
CONTENTS
1! Settle"ent o# Estate o# Deceased Person
a! Probate of the will in the foreign country where the
alien deceased resides condition sine qua non for
Reprobate of the will in the Philippines
IN RE: In the Matter of the Petition to approve the
will of Ruperta Palaganas with prayer for theappointment of Special Administrator, Manuel Miguel
Palaganas and en!amin Palaganas vs" Ernesto
Palaganas, G.R. No. 169144, anuary !6, !"11
2! $%ardians&ip
a! Guardianship of #inor
#a$ales vs" #ourt of Appeal, G.R. No. 16!4!1,
$ugust %1, !""&
'! $ppoint'ent of a Guardian( )ourt $uthority Required
People vs" %lores, G.R. No. 1**%1+, $ugust !+,
!"1"
c! iduciary unds -hall Re'ain ith )ourt
Posted &anuary '(, )*((+ y Anna atrina M"
Martine- .S# /e$site0
3! egal $%ardian &en one o# t&e spo%se is
incapacitated * Sole +d"inistration
&ose 1y vs" #ourt of Appeals, GR No. 1"9++&,
No/e'ber !9, !"""
a! Guardian o/er 0nco'petent Person( ho is an
inco'petent person
ernande2, et"al" vs" San &uan2Santos, G.R. Nos.
1664&" and 169!1&, $ugust &, !""9
,! Esc&eat
8/10/2019 digested cases spec pro.doc
2/39
Page 2of 39
a! 3scheat Proceeding( Proper Party and )iti2enship of the
owner of the property to be escheated.
alais2Ma$anag vs" Registry of 3eeds of 4ue-on
#ity, G.R. No. 1+%14!, #arch !9, !"1"! +doption
a! alidity of $doption when the -ur/i/ing -pouse
re'arries
IN RE: Petition for Adoption 5% Michael &ude P" 6im,
G.R. Nos. 16*99!59%, #ay !1, !""9
'! $doption under $rticle %%, New )i/il )ode and -) )ir.No.1!( decree of $doption cannot be 'ade solely bycase study reports made by a social welfare officer of the court
3S/3 vs" &udge Antonio M" elen, $.#. No. R5965
1%6! uly 1*, 199&
c! Penalty for a public o7cer for si'ulating birth
certi8cate( $pplication of the )i/il -er/ice Rules
Anonymous vs" Emma #uramen, $.#. No. P5"*5!+49, une 1*, !"1"
.! /a'eas Corp%s
a! Grant of rit of abeas )orpus ancillary to a )ri'inal
)ase( is'issal of the latter rendered 'oot and
acade'ic of the for'er
So vs" 7on" Este$an A" 8acla, &r", G.R. No. 19"1"*, 19
:ctober !"1"'! rit of abeas )orpus( Not proper pending -pecial )i/il
$ction for )ertiorari before the )ourt of $ppeals &th
i/ision.
In the matter of the Petition for 7a$eas #orpus of#E9ARI 5N9A6ES and &16I1S MESA: R5ER85 RA%AE6P16I35 vs" en" E%REN A1, et al., G.R. No. 1&"9!4,
uly 4, !""&
c! $ detention pre/iously in/alid beco'es /alid upon theapplication, issuance of the writ of abeas )orpusdenied. ;-ection 4 of Rule 1"!
8/10/2019 digested cases spec pro.doc
3/39
Page 3of 39
Ampatuan vs" &udge ;irgilio ;" Macaraig, G.R. No.1*!49&, !9 une !"1"
! rit o# +"paro and /a'eas Data
a! )o''and Responsibility
'! $'paro( Not applied to those instances other than right
to life, liberty or security ;i.e. personal property days a weeE.
0n ebruary 1999 at around 9(%" p', $$$ then 11 yrs old, was sleeping inside
the house when she felt and saw appellant touch her thighs. he following day, at
around the sa'e ti'e and while @@@ was at worE, appellant again touched $$$fro' her legs up to her breast.
wo weeEs after the incident, $$$ was already asleep when she suddenly
woEe up and saw appellant holding a Enife, then appellant was able to penetrate
her. wo days after, appellant again raped her. $$$ recounted that appellant raped
her at least % ti'es a weeE at the sa'e ti'e until :ctober 1+, !""!, when she was
14 yrs. old.
R) rendered Audg'ent 8nding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
1*1 counts of rape.)$ a7r'ed the 8nding that $$$ was raped by appellant, but did
so only on ! counts and consider the qualifying circu'stances of 'inority and
relationship.
0--=3(
hether or not appellant should be consider as a guardian of the /icti' e/en
without court authority
hether that the qualifyingHaggra/ating circu'stances of relationship is applicable.
3C(
o Austify the death penalty, the prosecution 'ust speci8cally allege in theinfor'ation and pro/e during the trial the qualifying circu'stances of 'inority of
the /icti' and her relationship to the oDender.
urisprudence dictates that the guardian 'ust be a person who has a legal
relationship with his ward. he theory that a guardian 'ust be legally appointed
was 8rst enunciated in the early case of People /s. ela )ru2 which held that the
guardian referred to in the law is either a legal or Audicial guardian as understood in
the rules on )i/il Procedure.
he law requires a legal or Audicial guardian since it is the consanguineous
relation or the sole'nity of Audicial appoint'ent which i'presses upon the guardian
the lofty purpose of his o7ce and nor'ally deters hi' fro' /iolating its obAecti/es.
he appellant cannot be considered as the guardian falling within the a'bit of the
a'endatory pro/ision introduced by R$ &6+9.-ince both logic and fact conAointly
de'onstrate that he is actually only a custodian, that is, a 'ere caretaEer of the
children o/er who' he e>ercises a li'ited degree of authority for a te'porary
period, we cannot i'pose death penalty conte'plated for a real guardian under R$
&6+9, since he does not 8t into that category.
@e that as it 'ay, this qualifying circu'stance of being a guardian was not
e/en 'entioned in the 0nfor'ation. hat was clearly stated was that appellant was
the Fadopting father of $$$, which the prosecution nonetheless failed to establish.
or failure of the prosecution to pro/e the qualifying circu'stance of
relationship, appellant could only be con/icted for two counts of si'ple rape, and
not quali8ed rape.
8/10/2019 digested cases spec pro.doc
9/39
Page 9of 39
=id%ciar4 =%nds S&all Re"ain it& Co%rt
Posted anuary %1 , !"11B @y $nna Iatrina #. #artine2
he deposit of the udiciary?s iduciary unds, a'ounting to 'ore than PhP4.*
billion, and all subsequent collections of trust and other receipts with the @ureau of
reasury Fhas no legal basis, and the re'ittance of interests of the iduciary unds
to the national go/ern'ent Fis erroneous and 'ust be discontinued.
hus said the -upre'e )ourt as it ruled that iduciary unds in custodialegis
shall re'ain under the custody and control of the courts, to be deposited and
disposed of as the courts 'ay direct in the e>ercise of their Audicial functions, while
iduciary unds deposited with the )ourt in its ad'inistrati/e capacity, and not in
custodialegis, shall be re'itted to the National reasury.
0n its !""* $nnual $udit Report, the ):$ reco''ended that the )ourt
deposit the a'ount of P4,*%*,9&6,"11.*6 Fand all subsequent collections of trust
and other receipts with the @ureau of reasury in confor'ity with 3>ecuti/e :rder
%%* ;3: %%*e'ption is pro/ided under Presidential ecree No. 1949 ;P
1949
8/10/2019 digested cases spec pro.doc
10/39
Page 10of 39
P 1949 pro/ides that the )hief ustice shall ad'inister and allocate the
and shall ha/e the sole e>clusi/e power and duty to appro/e the authori2ed
disburse'ent and e>penditures of the und. Fhus, the , although deri/ed fro'
legal fees and charges, does not accrue to the General und by e>press pro/ision of
P 1949, said the )ourt.
he igh )ourt added that iduciary unds also do not accrue to the General
und as these are not Fcollections fro' fees and charges but are funds that are
deposited in court which are held in trust for the parties and litigants.
he )ourt also ruled that its own practice of re'itting the interests of the
iduciary unds to the national go/ern'ent is erroneous and 'ust be discontinued.
Following the right of accession conferred on the owner of the property
under $rticle 44" of the )i/il )ode, the interests on these 8duciary funds also
belong to the parties who own the principal a'ount. =pon ter'ination of the case,
the interests should be returned to the parties together with the principal. he
interests should not accrue to the General und because it is tanta'ount to taEing
pri/ate property for public use without Aust co'pensation, the )ourt held. 0t added
that interests on deposits of the accrue to the for the bene8t of the
'e'bers and personnel of the udiciary.
he )ourt, howe/er, ruled that forfeited cash deposits 'ade to guarantee
undertaEings in fa/or of the go/ern'ent, and the interests thereon, are inco'e of
the go/ern'ent and shall be re'itted to the National reasury and that unclai'ed
8duciary funds of pri/ate parties, including interests, shall re'ain with the courts
until a law is passed authori2ing the escheat or forfeiture of such unclai'ed funds in
fa/or of the -tate.
inally, the -upre'e )ourt ruled that the a'ounts it pre/iously re'itted to
the National reasury representing interest earned on the iduciary und and
forfeitedHcon8scated bonds co/ering the period fro' !""4 to !""&, under the
staggered pay'ents proposed by retired )hief ustice Reynato -. Puno to the ):$ in
!""9, shall be credited to whate/er a'ounts the )ourt is required to re'it to the
National reasury. ;#in. Res., $# No. "+5%5%+5-), Re( $udit :bser/ation
#e'orandu'B #in. Res., $# No. 1"5*5%5-), Re( iduciary und eposits Not
Re'itted to the @ureau of reasury, anuary 1*, !"11ecuting an -P$.
uring the hearing, Culu was presented and asEed to testify on her genealogy
and e>periences with the -an uan and ernande2 fa'ilies. Culu identi8ed and
described her parents, step'other, half5siblings and 'aternal relati/es. #edical
specialists testi8ed to e>plain the results of Culu?s e>a'inations which re/ealed the
alar'ing state of her health. urther'ore, they unani'ously opined that in /iew of
Culu?s intelligence le/el ;which was below a/erage< and fragile 'ental state, she
would not be able to care for herself and self5ad'inister her 'edications.
0--=3(
hether or not Culu is an inco'petent and the appoint'ent of a Audicial guardian
o/er her person and property is necessary.
3C(
J3-. =nder -ection !, Rule 9! of the Rules of )ourt, persons who, though of
sound 'ind but by reason of age, disease, weaE 'ind or other si'ilar causes are
incapable of taEing care of the'sel/es and their property without outside aid, are
considered as inco'petents who 'ay properly be placed under guardianship. he
R) and the )$ both found that Culu was incapable of taEing care of herself and her
properties without outside aid due to her ail'ents and weaE 'ind. hus, since
deter'ining whether or not Culu is in fact an inco'petent would require a
ree>a'ination of the e/idence presented in the courts a quo, it undoubtedly
in/ol/es questions of fact. Petitioners are further'ore ordered to render to
respondent, Culu?s legal guardian, an accurate and faithful accounting of all the
properties and funds they unlawfully appropriated for the'sel/es fro' the estate of
#aria Courdes -an uan ernande2, within thirty ;%"< days fro' receipt of this
decision. 0f warranted, the proper co'plaints should also be 8led against the' for
any cri'inal liability in connection with the dissipation of #aria Courdes -an uan
ernande2?s estate and her unlawful abduction fro' the custody of her legal
guardian.
C! ESC/E+T
Esc&eat Proceeding Proper Part4 and Citiens&ip o# t&e
o>ner o# t&e real propert4 to 'e esc&eated
C+T+?N+ B++?S-
8/10/2019 digested cases spec pro.doc
14/39
Page 1,of 39
pay'ent for the sale of their inherited house and lot in Tue2on )ity. 0n the
agree'ent with Ra'ona, they will e>ecute a deed of absolute sale i''ediately
upon the transfer of the ) to the na'e of the brothers )oronel because the sa'e
was na'ed to their father. :n eb.1*, 19*+, they sold the sa'e property to
petitioner herein for a higher contract price than that of Ra'ona. or this reason,
)oronel rescinded the 8rst agree'ent with Ra'ona by depositing to her the downpay'ent of P+", """."". )onsequently, respondents 8led a case for speci8c
perfor'ance and caused the annotation of lispendenso/er the property. :n une +,
19*+, ) %+1%*! was issued in the na'e of petitioner herein.
R) ruled in fa/or of respondents herein ordering the cancellation of the )
in the na'e of petitioner. ence, this petition.
0ssue(
hether or not the )ourt of $ppeals erred in sustaining the registration by
the Registry of eeds of the 33 : $@-:C=3 -$C3 despite the lacE of indication
of citi2enship of the buyer.
Ruling(
he igh )ourt ruled that it should be pointed out that the petitioner was not
the proper party to challenge Ra'ona?s quali8cation to acquire land. :nly the
Go/ern'ent through the -olicitor General has the personality to 8le the case
challenging the capacity of person to acquire or own land based on non5citi2enship.
he li'itation is based on the fact that the /iolation is co''itted against the -tate
and not against indi/idual. $nd that in the e/ent that the transferee is adAudged to
be not a ilipino citi2en, the aDected property re/erts to the -tate, not to the
pre/ious owner or indi/idual. 0t will not inure to the bene8t of the petitioner, instead
the subAect property will be escheated in fa/or of the -tate according to @P @lg. 1*+.
D! +DOPT?ON
@alidit4 o# +doption in case t&e s%r5i5ing spo%se
re"arries
?N RE PET?T?ON =OR +DOPT?ON O=
8/10/2019 digested cases spec pro.doc
15/39
Page 1of 39
si'ulated the birth of a child. hus, on !4 $pril !""!, petitioner 8led separate
petitions for the adoption of #ichelle and #ichael, who was already !+ years old and
already 'arried and 1* years and se/en 'onths, before the trial court.
#ichelle, together with her husband and #ichael, ga/e their consent to the
adoption as e/idenced by their $7da/its of )onsent. #onina?s husband $ngelliEewise e>ecuted an $7da/it of )onsent for the adoption of #ichelle and #ichael.
:n 1+ -epte'ber !""4, the trial court rendered Audg'ent dis'issing the
petitions. :n the ground that since petitioner ha/ing re'arried, should ha/e 8led
the petition Aointly with her new husband. he trial court ruled that Aoint adoption by
the husband and the wife is 'andatory citing -ection &;c sed le>. he law is
e>plicit. -ection &, $rticle 000 of R$ *++! reads(
-3). &. ho #ay $dopt. 5 he following 'ay adopt(
;a< $ny ilipino citi2en of legal age, in possession of full ci/il capacity and legal
rights, of good 'oral character, has not been con/icted of any cri'e in/ol/ing
'oral turpitude, e'otionally and psychologically capable of caring for children, at
least si>teen ;16< years older than the adoptee, and who is in a position to support
and care for hisHher children in Eeeping with the 'eans of the fa'ily. he
require'ent of si>teen ;16< year diDerence between the age of the adopter and
adoptee 'ay be wai/ed when the adopter is the biological parent of the adoptee, or
is the spouse of the adoptee?s parentB
;b< $ny alien possessing the sa'e quali8cations as abo/e stated for ilipino
nationals( Pro/ided, hat hisHher country has diplo'atic relations with the Republic
of the Philippines, that heHshe has been li/ing in the Philippines for at least three ;%cept in the following cases(
;i< if one spouse seeEs to adopt the legiti'ate sonHdaughter of the otherB or
;ii< if one spouse seeEs to adopt hisHher own illegiti'ate sonHdaughter( Pro/ided,
howe/er, hat the other spouse has signi8ed hisHher consent theretoB or
;iii< if the spouses are legally separated fro' each other.
0n case husband and wife Aointly adopt, or one spouse adopts the illegiti'ate
sonHdaughter of the other, Aoint parental authority shall be e>ercised by the
spouses.
he use of the word shall in the abo/e5quoted pro/ision 'eans that Aoint
adoption by the husband and the wife is 'andatory. his is in consonance with the
concept of Aoint parental authority o/er the child which is the ideal situation. $s the
child to be adopted is ele/ated to the le/el of a legiti'ate child, it is but natural to
require the spouses to adopt Aointly. he rule also insures har'ony between the
spouses.
Petitioner, ha/ing re'arried at the ti'e the petitions for adoption were 8led,'ust Aointly adopt. -ince the petitions for adoption were 8led only by petitioner
herself, without Aoining her husband, $ngel :lario, the trial court was correct in
denying the petitions for adoption on this ground.
Neither does petitioner fall under any of the three e>ceptions enu'erated in
-ection &.
3Dects of $doption
Petitioner contention that Aoint parental authority is not any'ore necessary
since the children ha/e been e'ancipated ha/ing reached the age of 'aAority isuntenable.
0t is true that when the child reaches the age of e'ancipation U that is, when
he attains the age of 'aAority or 1* years of age U e'ancipation ter'inates
parental authority o/er the person and property of the child, who shall then be
quali8ed and responsible for all acts of ci/il life. owe/er, parental authority is
'erely Aust one of the eDects of legal adoption. $rticle of R$ *++! enu'erates the
eDects of adoption, thus(
oint adoption of the husband and wife 'ay not be dispensed. $doption has,
thus, the following eDects(
;1< se/er all legal ties between the biological parent;s< and the adoptee, e>cept
when the biological parent is the spouse of the adopterB
;!< dee' the adoptee as a legiti'ate child of the adopterB and
8/10/2019 digested cases spec pro.doc
17/39
Page 1of 39
;%< gi/e adopter and adoptee reciprocal rights and obligations arising fro' the
relationship of parent and child, including but not li'ited to(
;i< the right of the adopter to choose the na'e the child is to be EnownB and
;ii< the right of the adopter and adoptee to be legal and co'pulsory heirs of
each other.
herefore, e/en if e'ancipation ter'inates parental authority, the adoptee is
still considered a legiti'ate child of the adopter with all the rights of a legiti'ate
child such as( ;1< to bear the surna'e of the father and the 'otherB ;!< to recei/e
support fro' their parentsB and ;%< to be entitled to the legiti'e and other
successional rights. )on/ersely, the adopti/e parents shall, with respect to the
adopted child, enAoy all the bene8ts to which biological parents are entitled such as
support and successional rights.
Petitioner, in her #e'orandu', insists that subsequent e/ents would show
that Aoint adoption could no longer be possible because $ngel :lario has 8led a casefor dissolution of his 'arriage to petitioner in the Cos $ngeles -uperior )ourt.
e disagree. he 8ling of a case for dissolution of the 'arriage between
petitioner and $ngel :lario is of no 'o'ent. =ntil and unless there is a Audicial
decree for the dissolution of the 'arriage between petitioner and $ngel :lario, the
'arriage still subsists. hat being the case, Aoint adoption by the husband and the
wife is required. e reiterate our ruling abo/e that since, at the ti'e the petitions
for adoption were 8led, petitioner was 'arried to :lario, Aoint adoption is
'andatory.
+doption %nder +rticle 33 Ne> Ci5il Code and SC Cir!
No!12 Decree o# +doption cannot 'e "ade solel4 '4 casestudy reports made by a social welfare officer of the court
DEP+RT
$)-(-pouses esiderio -oriano and $urora @ernardo5-oriano, both of who' are
naturali2ed $'erican citi2ens, 8led a /eri8ed petition for adoption of their niece, the
'inor Vhedell @ernardo 0bea. Respondent udge @elen granted the petition after
8nding that petitioner spouses were highly quali8ed to adopt the child as their own,
basing his decree pri'arily on the 8ndings and reco''endation of the - that
the adopting parents on the one hand and the adoptee on the other hand ha/e
already de/eloped lo/e and e'otional attach'ent and parenting rules ha/e been
de'onstrated to the 'inor. :n these considerations, respondent Audge decided
and proceeded to dispense with trial custody. e asserted that the - 8ndings
and reco''endations are contained in the $dopti/e o'e -tudy Report and)hild -tudy Report prepared by the local o7ce of the - through respondent
3l'a P. edaWa.
owe/er, when the 'inor Vhedell @ernardo 0bea sought to obtain the
requisite tra/el clearance fro' the - in order to Aoin her adopti/e parents in the
=nited -tates, the - found that it did not ha/e any record in its 8les regarding
the adoption and that there was ne/er any order fro' respondent Audge for the
8/10/2019 digested cases spec pro.doc
18/39
Page 1of 39
- to conduct a o'e and )hild -tudy Report in the case. urther'ore, there
was no directi/e fro' respondent Audge for the social welfare o7cer of the lower
court to coordinate with the - on the 'atter of the required reports for said
'inorQs adoption.
0--=3(
#ay a decree of adoption be granted on the basis of case study reports 'ade
by a social welfare o7cer of the courtO
R=C0NG(
No. $rticle %% of the )hild and Jouth elfare )ode pro/ides in no uncertain
ter's that(
No petition for adoption shall be granted unless the epart'ent of -ocial elfare,
or the -ocial orE and )ounseling i/ision, in case of u/enile and o'estic
Relations )ourts, has 'ade a case study of the child to be adopted, his naturalparents as well as the prospecti/e adopting parents, and has sub'itted its report
and reco''endations on the 'atter to the court hearing such petition. he
epart'ent of -ocial elfare shall inter/ene on behalf of the child if it 8nds, after
such case study, that the petition should be denied.
)ircular No. 1!, as a co'ple'entary 'easure, was issued by this )ourt
precisely to ob/iate the 'ishandling of adoption cases by Audges, particularly in
respect to the afore'entioned case study to be conducted in accordance with
$rticle %% of Presidential ecree No. 6"% by the - itself and in/ol/ing the child
to be adopted, its natural parents, and the adopting parents. 0t de8niti/ely directs
Regional rial )ourts hearing adoption cases(
;1< to N:0J the #inistry of -ocial -er/ices and e/elop'ent, thru its local agency,
of the 8ling of adoption cases or the pendency thereof with respect to those cases
already 8ledB
;!< to strictly ):#PCJ with the require'ent in $rticle %% of the aforesaid decree . . .
>>> >>> >>>
he -taD $ssistant . ;-ocial orEer< of the Regional rial )ourts, if any, shall
coordinate with the #inistry of -ocial -er/ices and e/elop'ent representati/es in
the preparation and sub'ittal of such case study. . . .
he error on the part of both respondent Audge and social worEer is thus all
too e/ident. Pursuant to )ircular No. 1!, the proper course that respondent Audge
should ha/e taEen was to notify the - at the outset about the co''ence'ent
of -pecial Proceeding No. +*%" so that the corresponding case study could ha/e
been accordingly conducted by said depart'ent which undoubtedly has the
necessary co'petence, 'ore than that possessed by the court social welfare
o7cer, to 'aEe the proper reco''endation. #oreo/er, respondent Audge should
ne/er ha/e 'erely presu'ed that it was routinary for the social welfare o7cer to
coordinate with the - regarding the adoption proceedings. 0t was his duty toe>ercise caution and to see to it that such coordination was obser/ed in the
adoption proceedings, together with all the other require'ents of the law.
@y respondentQs failure to do so, he 'ay well ha/e wittingly or unwittingly
placed in Aeopardy the welfare and future of the child whose adoption was under
consideration. $doption, after all, is in a large 'easure a legal de/ice by which a
8/10/2019 digested cases spec pro.doc
19/39
Page 19of 39
better future 'ay be accorded an unfortunate child liEe Vhedell @ernardo 0bea in
this case. reading on equally sensiti/e legal terrain, the social welfare o7cer
concerned, respondent 3l'a P. edaWa, arrogated unto herself a 'atter that
pertained e>clusi/ely to the -, her tasE being to coordinate with the - in
the preparation and sub'ission of the rele/ant case study reports, and not to 'aEe
the sa'e and reco''end by herself the facts on which the court was to act.
$)):R0NGCJ, with a stern warning that a repetition of the sa'e or si'ilar acts in
the future shall be dealt with 'ore se/erely by this )ourt, respondent udge $ntonio
#. @elen of the Regional rial )ourt, @ranch %*, of Cingayen, Pangasinan is hereby
)3N-=R3 for /iolating $rticle %% of Presidential ecree No. 6"% and )ircular No. 1!
of this )ourtB and respondent 3l'a P. edaWa, -ocial elfare :7cer 00 of the :7ce
of the )lerE of )ourt, Regional rial )ourt of Cingayen, Pangasinan, is R3PR0#$N3
for /iolating )ircular No. 1!.
Si"%lation o# Birt& Penalt4 o# a p%'lic ocer >&o
registers a c&ild to t&e Ci5il Registr4 not o# t&e c&ildGs
'iological parents!
Sec! 21 +rticle @?? o# Do"estic +doption +ct R%les on
Ci5il Ser5ice +pplied
+non4"o%s 5s! E""a C%ra"en
$.#. No. P5"*5!+49, une 1*, !"1"
acts(
his is an ad'inistrati/e case against 3''a @aldonado )ura'en, )ourt
0nterpreter 0 in the #unicipal rial )ourt of Ri2al in Nue/a 3ciAa, for dishonesty and
falsi8cation of a public docu'ent.
:n 6 #arch !""&, the :7ce of the )ourt $d'inistrator ;:)$< recei/ed an
anony'ous co'plaint charging respondent with falsi8cation of a public docu'ent
and si'ulation of birth.
he co'plaint alleged that respondent registered the birth of a child
supposedly na'ed Rica #ae @aldonado )ura'en in the local ci/il registry of Ri2al,
Nue/a 3ciAa. )o'plainant sub'itted the child?s purported birth certi8cate to
show respondent 'isrepresented that she was the child?s biological 'other and her
husband, Ricardo )ura'en, was the biological father. )o'plainant clai'ed
respondent was, in fact, the child?s 'aternal grand'other. )o'plainant sub'itted
the child?s original birth certi8cate to show that the child?s real na'e was Rinea #ae
)ura'en $quino and that her parents were spouses :lga #ae @aldonado )ura'en
$quino and un $quino. $ccording to co'plainant, respondent included the child as
additional dependent in her inco'e ta> declaration.
0n his Report, 3>ecuti/e udge Rodrigo -. )aspillo of the Regional rial )ourt
;@ranch !4< of )abanatuan )ity /eri8ed that Rinea #ae )ura'en $quino and Rica#ae @aldonado )ura'en were the sa'e child. udge )aspillo con8r'ed that the
child was, in fact, respondent?s granddaughter. he child?s real 'other, :lga, was
one of respondent?s children.
udge )aspillo /eri8ed that on %1 #arch !""6, respondent e>ecuted an
a7da/it for delayed registration of the alleged birth of her child. Respondent
8/10/2019 digested cases spec pro.doc
20/39
Page 20of 39
clai'ed that her supposed child, Rica #ae @aldonado )ura'en, was born on %"
No/e'ber !""+. Respondent?s application was gi/en due course and the supposed
birth of Rica #ae @aldonado )ura'en was registered in the )i/il Registry of Ri2al,
Nue/a 3ciAa under Registry No. !""65+"&. his second birth certi8cate of the child
indicated that the child?s parents were respondent and her husband.
0ssue( hether )ura'en is liable for si'ulation of birth by falsi8cation.
eld(
ith respect to the alleged falsi8cation of the child?s birth certi8cate, we 8nd
respondent guilty of dishonesty and falsi8cation of a public docu'ent. $ birth
certi8cate, being a public docu'ent, ser/es as pri'a facie e/idence of 8liation.
he 'aEing of a false state'ent therein constitutes dishonesty and falsi8cation of a
public docu'ent.
Respondent cannot escape liability by clai'ing that she did not ha/e any
intention to conceal the identity of the child nor cause the loss of any trace as to thechild?s true 8liation to the child?s preAudice. hen public docu'ents are falsi8ed,
the intent to inAure a third person need not be present because the principal thing
punished is the /iolation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth the
docu'ent proclai's.
owe/er, the e>tre'e penalty of dis'issal is not auto'atically i'posed,
especially where 'itigating circu'stances e>ist. $lthough under the schedule of
penalties adopted by the )i/il -er/ice, dishonesty and falsi8cation of a public
docu'ent are classi8ed as gra/e oDenses punishable by dis'issal, the fact that this
is respondent?s 8rst oDense 'ay be considered a 'itigating circu'stance in her
fa/or. he law requires that the 'itigating circu'stance 'ust 8rst be pleaded by
the proper party. @ut in the interest of substantial Austice, we 'ay appreciate the
'itigating circu'stance in the i'position of penalty, e/en if not raised by
respondent.
e thus i'pose on respondent the penalty ne>t lower in degree, which is
suspension for si> 'onths and one day without pay with a stern warning that a
repetition of the sa'e or si'ilar acts in the future shall be dealt with 'ore se/erely.
E! R?T O= /+BE+S CORP;S
$rant o# rit o# /a'eas Corp%s ancillar4 to a Cri"inal
Case Dis"issal o# t&e latter rendered "oot and acade"ic
o# t&e #or"er
D+@?D E! SOv"/ON! ESTEB+N +! T+C+ R!G.R. No. 19"1"*, 19 :ctober !"1"
N+C/;R+J.:
=+CTSPetitioner a/id 3. -o ;-o< 8led the petition for the writs of habeas corpus
and a'paro on behalf of his daughter, #a. 3lena -o Guisande ;Guisande
8/10/2019 digested cases spec pro.doc
21/39
Page 21of 39
)ity to ascertain the actual psychological state of Guisande, who was being chargedwith a non5bailable oDense.
he case arose fro' the following facts. Prior to the institution of the cri'inalproceedings, Guisande was co''itted by -o for psychiatric treat'ent and care atthe #aEati #edical )enter ;##)
8/10/2019 digested cases spec pro.doc
22/39
Page 22of 39
petition for habeas corpus be granted. 0f the respondents are not detaining orrestraining the applicant of the person in whose behalf the petition is 8led, thepetition should be dis'issed.
0n the cases at bar, the question before the )$ was correctly li'ited to whichhospital, the N)# or a 'edical facility of accused?s own choosing, accusedGuisande should be referred for treat'ent of a supposed 'ental condition. 0n
addition, it was procedurally proper for the R) to asE the N)# for a separateopinion on accused?s 'ental 8tness to be arraigned and stand trial.
)ertainly, with the dis'issal of the non5bailable case against accusedGuisande, she is no longer under peril to be con8ned in a Aail facility, 'uch less atthe N)#. 3Decti/ely, accused Guisande?s person, and treat'ent of any 'edicaland 'ental 'alady she 'ay or 'ay not ha/e, can no longer be subAected to thelawful processes of the R) #andaluyong )ity. 0n short, the cases ha/e now beenrendered 'oot and acade'ic which, in the often cited David v. Macapagal-
Arroyo, is de8ned as one that ceases to present a Austiciable contro/ersy by /irtueof super/ening e/ents, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or/alue.
rit o# /a'eas Corp%s Not proper pending Special Ci5il
+ction #or Certiorari 'e#ore t&e Co%rt o# +ppeals t&
Di5ision!
?n t&e "atter o# t&e Petition #or /a'eas Corp%s o# CE+R? $ON+ES and
;?;S
8/10/2019 digested cases spec pro.doc
23/39
Page 23of 39
$ppeals and ;!< petitioner is guilty of foru' shopping because of his failure to state
in the petition that the order granting bail has been ele/ated to the )ourt of $ppeals
and pending before its &th i/ision. hus, we ha/e this case.
0ssue( hether or not the petition for habeas corpus was proper despite of the
pending special ci/il action for certiorari before the )ourt of $ppeals &th i/ision.
eld(
No. hat the present petition has direct and inti'ate linEs with the certiorari
case is beyond doubt as they in/ol/e two sides of the sa'e coin. he certiorari case
8led by the People seeEs to pre/ent the release of Gon2ales and #esa by annulling
the lower court?s grant of bail. he present petition, on the other hand, was 8led in
behalf of Gon2ales and #esa to secure their i''ediate release because the order
granting bail is already e>ecutory. 0n eDect, the petitioner seeEs to i'ple'ent
through a petition for habeas corpus the pro/isional release fro' detention that the
lower court has ordered. he question this i''ediately raises is( can this be done
through a petition for habeas corpus when the /alidity of the grant of bail and the
release under bail are li/e questions before another i/ision of this )ourtO
e belie/e and so hold that his cannot and should not be done as this is
precisely the reason why the rule against foru' shopping has been put in place. he
re'edies sought being two sides of the sa'e coin ;i.e., the release of Gon2ales and
#esa
8/10/2019 digested cases spec pro.doc
24/39
Page 2,of 39
G.R. No. 1*!49&, !9 une !"1"
P3R3V, .(
$)-($tty. $lioden . alaig, ead of the ):#3C3) Cegal epart'ent, was Eilled at
the corner of #. . el Pilar and Pedro Gil -treets, 3r'ita, #anila. 0n/estigationconducted by the #anila Police istrict o'icide -ection yielded the identity of the'ale perpetrator as P:1 $'patuan. )onsequently, P:1 $'patuan was co''andedto the #P istrict irector for proper disposition. CiEewise, inquest proceedingswere conducted by the #anila Prosecutor?s :7ce.
On 1 +pril 200Police -enior -uperintendent Guinto, rendered his Pre5)harge 3/aluation Report against P:1 $'patuan, 8nding probable cause to chargeP:1 $'patuan with Gra/e #isconduct ;#urder< and reco''ending that said P:1$'patuan be subAected to su''ary hearing.
&ile on 21 +pril 200the )ity Prosecutor of #anila reco''endedthat the case against P:1 $'patuan be set for further in/estigation and that thelatter be released fro' custody unless he is being held for other chargesHlegal
grounds$r'ed with the !1 $pril !""* reco''endation of the #anila )ity?sProsecution :7ce, petitioner, who is the wife of P:1 $'patuan, 8led a Petition forthe 0ssuance of a rit of abeas )orpus before the R) of #anila on !! $pril !""*.
:n !4 $pril !""*, R) ordered the issuance of a writ of habeas corpusco''anding therein respondents to produce the body of P:1 $'patuan anddirecting said respondents to show cause why they are withholding or restrainingthe liberty of P:1 $'patuan.
-eeEing the re/ersal of R), the respondents a/erred that the 8ling of thead'inistrati/e case against P:1 $'patuan is a process done by the PNP and this)ourt has no authority to order the release of the subAect police o7cer. hepetitioner countered that the letter resignation of P:1 $'patuan has rendered the
ad'inistrati/e case 'oot and acade'ic. Respondent howe/er stressed that theresignation has not been acted by the appropriate police o7cials of the PNP, andthat the ad'inistrati/e case was 8led while P:1 $'patuan is still in the acti/estatus of the PNP. he R) re/ersed and dis'issed the petition.
0--=3( 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, I66EA6"
3C(he obAecti/e of the writ is to deter'ine whether the con8ne'ent or
detention is /alid or lawful. 0f it is, the writ cannot be issued. hat is to be inquired
into is the legality of a personQs detention as of, at the earliest, the 8ling of theapplication for the writ of habeas corpus, for e/en if the detention is at its inceptionillegal, it 'ay, by reason of so'e super/ening e/ents, such as the instances'entioned in -ection 4 of Rule 1"!, be no longer illegal at the ti'e of the 8ling ofthe application
0n this case, P:1 $'patuan has been placed under Restricti/e )ustody.Republic $ct No. 69&+ ;also Enown as the epart'ent of 0nterior and CocalGo/ern'ent $ct of 199"
8/10/2019 digested cases spec pro.doc
25/39
Page 2of 39
assure the PNP authorities that the police o7cers concerned are always accountedfor.
0n su', petitioner is unable to discharge the burden of showing that she isentitled to the issuance of the writ prayed for in behalf of her husband, P:1$'patuan. he petition fails to show on its face that the latter is unlawfullydepri/ed of his liberty guaranteed and enshrined in the )onstitution.
=! R?T O= +as, her co'panions and #r. Paolo were startled by the loud sounds of so'eone
banging at the front door and a /oice de'anding that they open5up. -uddenly 1+
hea/ily ar'ed 'en forcibly opened the door, banged inside, tied and blindfolded
Ro>as and her co'panions, )arabeo and andoc, then dragged the' inside a /an
parEed outside the house. he ar'ed 'en were all in ci/ilian clothes and were
wearing bonnets to conceal their faces.
$fter about an hour of tra/elling, the /an stopped. Ro>as, )arabeo and
andoc were ordered to alight. $fter she was infor'ed that she was detained for
being a 'e'ber of the )o''unist Party of the Philippines Y New People?s $r'y
;)PP5NP$as was separated fro' her co'panions and was escorted to a roo'
which she belie/ed is a Aail cell fro' the sound of the 'etal doors. ro' there she
could hear the sounds of gun8re, the noise of planes taEing oD and landing and
so'e construction bustle. Ro>as inferred that she was taEen to the 'ilitary ca'p of
ort #agsaysay in Caur, Nue/a 3ciAa.
:n #ay !+, !""9, Ro>as was 8nally released and returned to her uncle?s
house in Tue2on )ity. @efore being release, the abductors ga/e her a cellphone
with a si' card, a slip of paper cantaining an e'ail address with password, a plasticbag containing biscuits and booEs, the handcuDs used on her, a blouse and a pair of
shoes. -he was also sternly warned not to report the incident to the group
Iarapatan or else so'ething bad will happen to her and her fa'ily. -o'eti'e after
her release, Ro>as continued to recei/e calls fro' one of her abductors /ia the
cellular phone gi/en to her. :ut of apprehension that she was being 'onitored and
also fearing for the safety of her fa'ily, Ro>as threw away the cellphone.
8/10/2019 digested cases spec pro.doc
26/39
Page 2.of 39
Ro>as 8ed a petition for writ of a'paro and writ of habeas data.
he )ourt of $ppeals granted her petition for writ of a'paro and writ of
habeas data. owe/er, the appellate court absol/ed the respondents fro' the
petition. er prayer for the return of her personal belongings and for the inspection
order and production order were denied. Ro>as in/oEes he doctrine of co''andresponsibility to i'plicate the high5ranEing ci/ilian and 'ilitary authorities.
0--=3-(
a. hether or not the principle of co''and responsibility shall apply in writ of
a'paroO
b. hether or not the respondents are liable in her abduction and tortureO
c. hether or not her prayer for the return of her personal belongings be
grantedO
d. hether or not her prayer for inspection order be grantedO
e. hether or not the grant of writ of habeas data is properO
R=C0NG(
a. 0t 'ust be stated at the outset that the use by the petitioner of the doctrine
of co''and responsibility as the Austi8cation in i'pleading the public
respondents in her a'paro petition, is legally inaccurate, if not incorrect. he
doctrine of co''and responsibility is a rule of substanti/e law that
establishes liability and, by this account, cannot be a proper legal basis to
i'plead a party5respondent in an a'paro petition. $ccording to r. @ernas,
co''and responsibility, in its si'plest ter's, 'eans the responsibility of
co''anders for cri'es co''itted by subordinate 'e'bers of the ar'ed
forces or other persons subAect to their control in international wars ordo'estic conict. 0n this sense, co''and responsibility is properly a for' of
cri'inal co'plicity. -ince the application of co''and responsibility
presupposes an i'putation of indi/idual liability, it is 'ore aptly in/oEed in a
full5blown cri'inal or ad'inistrati/e case rather than in a su''ary a'paro
proceeding. he ob/ious reason lies in the nature of the writ itself( he writ
of a'paro is a protecti/e re'edy ai'ed at pro/iding Audicial relief consisting
of the appropriate re'edial 'easures and directi/es that 'ay be crafted by
the court, in order to address speci8c /iolations or threats of /iolation of the
constitutional rights to life, liberty or security. hile the principal obAecti/e of
its proceedings is the initial deter'ination of whether an enforceddisappearance, e>tralegal Eilling or threats thereof had transpiredUthe writ
does not, by so doing, 8> liability for such disappearance, Eilling or threats,
whether that 'ay be cri'inal, ci/il or ad'inistrati/e under the applicable
substanti/e law. 0t 'ust be clari8ed, howe/er, that the inapplicability of the
doctrine of co''and responsibility in an a'paro proceeding does not, by any
'easure, preclude i'pleading 'ilitary or police co''anders on the ground
that the co'plained acts in the petition were co''itted with their direct or
indirect acquiescence. 0n which case, co''anders 'ay be i'pleadedUnot
actually on the basis of co''and responsibilityUbut rather on the ground of
their responsibility, or at least accountability.
b. he totality of the e/idence presented by the petitioner does not inspire
reasonable conclusion that her abductors were 'ilitary or police personnel
and that she was detained at ort #agsaysay. irst. 0n a'paro proceedings,
the weight that 'ay be accorded to parallel circu'stances as e/idence of
'ilitary in/ol/e'ent depends largely on the a/ailability or non5a/ailability of
other pieces of e/idence that has the potential of directly pro/ing the identity
8/10/2019 digested cases spec pro.doc
27/39
Page 2of 39
and a7liation of the perpetrators. irect e/idence of identity, when
obtainable, 'ust be preferred o/er 'ere circu'stantial e/idence based on
patterns and si'ilarity, because the for'er indubitably oDers greater
certainty as to the true identity and a7liation of the perpetrators. $n a'paro
court cannot si'ply lea/e to re'ote and ha2y inference what it could
otherwise clearly and directly ascertain. 0n the case at bench, petitioner was,in fact, able to include in her :Der of 3>hibits, the cartographic sEetches of
se/eral of her abductors whose faces she 'anaged to see. o the 'ind of the
)ourt, these cartographic sEetches ha/e the undeniable potential of gi/ing
the greatest certainty as to the true identity and a7liation of petitioner?s
abductors. =nfortunately for the petitioner, this potential has not been
reali2ed in /iew of the fact that the faces described in such sEetches re'ain
unidenti8ed, 'uch less ha/e been shown to be that of any 'ilitary or police
personnel. @luntly stated, the abductors were not pro/en to be part of either
the 'ilitary or the police chain of co''and. -econd. he clai' of the
petitioner that she was taEen to ort #agsaysay was not adequately
established by her 'ere esti'ate of the ti'e it tooE to reach the place where
she was detained and by the sounds that she heard while thereat. CiEe the
)ourt of $ppeals, the -upre'e )ourt are not inclined to taEe the esti'ate
and obser/ations of the petitioner as accurate on its faceUnot only because
they were 'ade 'ostly while she was in blindfolds, but also in /iew of the
fact that she was a 'ere soAourner in the Philippines, whose fa'iliarity with
ort #agsaysay and the tra/el ti'e required to reach it is in itself doubtful.
ith nothing else but obscure obser/ations to support it, petitioner?s clai'
that she was taEen to ort #agsaysay re'ains a 'ere speculation.
c. 0n an order directing the public respondents to return the personal belongingsof the petitioner is already equi/alent to a conclusi/e pronounce'ent of
liability. he order itself is a substantial relief that can only be granted once
the liability of the public respondents has been 8>ed in a full and e>hausti/e
proceeding. $s already discussed abo/e, 'atters of liability are not
deter'inable in a 'ere su''ary a'paro proceeding. @ut perhaps the 'ore
funda'ental reason in denying the prayer of the petitioner, lies with the fact
that a person?s right to be restituted of his property is already subsu'ed
under the general rubric of property rightsUwhich are no longer protected by
the writ of a'paro. -ection 1 of the $'paro Rule, which de8nes the scope
and e>tent of the writ, clearly e>cludes the protection of property rights.
d. he prayer of Ro>as for the grant of the inspection order is equi/alent to
sanctioning a 8shing e>pedition, which was ne/er intended by the $'paro
Rule in pro/iding for the interi' relief of inspection order. $n inspection order
is an interi' relief designed to gi/e support or strengthen the clai' of a
petitioner in an a'paro petition, in order to aid the court before 'aEing a
decision. $ basic require'ent before an a'paro court 'ay grant an
inspection order is that the place to be inspected is reasonably deter'inable
fro' the allegations of the party seeEing the order. hile the $'paro Rule
does not require that the place to be inspected be identi8ed with clarity and
precision, it is, ne/ertheless, a 'ini'u' for the issuance of an inspectionorder that the supporting allegations of a party be su7cient in itself, so as to
'aEe a pri'a facie case. his, as was shown abo/e, petitioner failed to do.
-ince the /ery esti'ates and obser/ations of the petitioner are not strong
enough to 'aEe out a pri'a facie case that she was detained in ort
#agsaysay, an inspection of the 'ilitary ca'p cannot be ordered. $n
8/10/2019 digested cases spec pro.doc
28/39
Page 2of 39
inspection order cannot issue on the basis of allegations that are, in
the'sel/es, unreliable and doubtful.
e. he writ of habeas data was conceptuali2ed as a Audicial re'edy enforcing
the right to pri/acy, 'ost especially the right to infor'ational pri/acy of
indi/iduals. he writ operates to protect a person?s right to controlinfor'ation regarding hi'self, particularly in the instances where such
infor'ation is being collected through unlawful 'eans in order to achie/e
unlawful ends. Needless to state, an indispensable require'ent before the
pri/ilege of the writ 'ay be e>tended is the showing, at least by substantial
e/idence, of an actual or threatened /iolation of the right to pri/acy in life,
liberty or security of the /icti'. his, in the case at bench, the petitioner
failed to do. he 'ain proble' behind the ruling of the )ourt of $ppeals is
that there is actually no e/idence on record that shows that any of the public
respondents had /iolated or threatened the right to pri/acy of the petitioner.
he act ascribed by the )ourt of $ppeals to the public respondents that would
ha/e /iolated or threatened the right to pri/acy of the petitioner, i.e., Eeepingrecords of in/estigations and other reports about the petitioner?s ties with the
)PP5NP$, was not adequately pro/enUconsidering that the origin of such
records were /irtually une>plained and its e>istence, clearly, only inferred by
the appellate court fro' the /ideo and photograph released by
Representati/es Palparan and $lco/er in their press conference. No e/idence
on record e/en shows that any of the public respondents had access to such
/ideo or photograph. 0n /iew of the abo/e considerations, the directi/e by
the )ourt of $ppeals enAoining the public respondents fro' distributing or
causing the distribution to the public any records in whate/er for', reports,
docu'ents or si'ilar papers relati/e to the petitioner?s alleged ties with the)PP5NP$, appears to be de/oid of any legal basis. he public respondents
cannot be ordered to refrain fro' distributing so'ething that, in the 8rst
place, it was not pro/en to ha/e.
$! R%le 103 C&ange o# Na"e %risdiction andS%cienc4 o# E5idence
ROSE?E EO?S+ BR?N$+S BO+NTE a!6!a!
8/10/2019 digested cases spec pro.doc
29/39
Page 29of 39
%. hat the na'e #aria 3loisa appears in all her school as well as in her other public
and pri/ate recordsB and
4. hat her 'arried na'e is #aria 3loisa @. @olante5#arbella.
hus, to pre/ent confusion, #s. @olante prayed that her registered na'e be
changed to confor' to the na'e she has always carried and used.
he trial court ordered respondent, as petitioner, to co'ply with the
Aurisdictional require'ents of notice and publication, and set the hearing on
ebruary !", !""1.
$t the scheduled ebruary !", !""1 initial hearing, the trial court issued an
:rder gi/ing respondent 8/e ;+< days within which to 8le a written for'al oDer of
e/idence to establish Aurisdictional facts and set the presentation of e/idence proper
on #arch !6, !""1.
:n une +, !""1, the branch clerE of court, acting upon the trial courtQse>press #arch !6, !""1 directi/e for a resetting, issued a notice for a uly 1*, !""1
hearing. ollowing another resetting, what actually would be the initial hearing was,
after notice, scheduled on -epte'ber !+, !""1 and actually held. $t that session,
respondent presented and 'arEed in e/idence se/eral docu'ents without any
obAection on the part of petitioner Republic, represented by the :7ce of the
-olicitor General ;:-G
8/10/2019 digested cases spec pro.doc
30/39
Page 30of 39
-ections ! and %, Rule 1"% of the Rules of )ourt prescribe the procedural and
Aurisdictional require'ents for a change of na'e. 0n Republic /. on. udge of
@ranch 000 of the )0 of )ebu, citing pertinent Aurisprudence, non5co'pliance with
these require'ents would be fatal to the Aurisdiction of the lower court to hear and
deter'ine a petition for change of na'e.
-3). !. )ontents of petition. 5 $ petition for change of na'e shall be signed
and /eri8ed by the person desiring his na'e changed, or so'e other person on his
behalf, and shall set forth(
;a< hat the petitioner has been a bona 8de resident of the pro/ince where
the petition is 8led for at least three ;%< years prior to the date of such 8lingB
;b< he cause for which the change of the petitionerQs na'e is soughtB
;c< he na'e asEed for.
-3). %. :rder for hearing. 5 0f the petition 8led is su7cient in for' and
substance, the court, by an order reciting the purpose of the petition, shall 8> a
date and place for the hearing thereof, and shall direct that a copy of the order be
published before the hearing at least once a weeE for three ;%< successi/e weeEs in
so'e newspaper of general circulation published in the pro/ince, Z. he date set
for the hearing shall not be within thirty ;%"< days prior to an election nor within
four ;4< 'onths after the last publication of the notice. ;=nderscoring added.t of -ection %, Rule 1"% of the Rules, publication is /alid if thefollowing requisites concur( ;1< the petition and the copy of the order indicating the
date and place for the hearing 'ust be publishedB ;!< the publication 'ust be at
least once a weeE for three successi/e weeEsB and, ;%< the publication 'ust be in
so'e newspaper of general circulation published in the pro/ince, as the court shall
dee' best. $nother /alidating ingredient relates to the ca/eat against the petition
being heard within %" days prior to an election or within four ;4< 'onths after the
last publication of the notice of the hearing.
0t cannot be o/er5e'phasi2ed that in a petition for change of na'e, any
interested person 'ay appear at the hearing and oppose the petition. CiEewise, the
-olicitor General or his deputy shall appear on behalf of the Go/ern'ent. he
go/ern'ent, as an agency of the people, represents the public and, therefore, the
-olicitor General, who appears on behalf of the go/ern'ent, eDecti/ely represents
the public. 0n this case, the -olicitor General deputi2ed the pro/incial prosecutor of
$bra for the purpose of appearing in the trial on his behalf. $s it were, the pro/incial
prosecutor of $bra was fully apprised of the new dates of the initial hearing.
8/10/2019 digested cases spec pro.doc
31/39
Page 31of 39
$ccordingly, there was no actual need for a republication of the initial notice of the
hearing.
urther'ore, during the -epte'ber !+, !""1 initial hearing which, to
reiterate is already outside the 45'onth li'itation prescribed by the Rules, the
pro/incial prosecutor of $bra interposed no obAection as to the genuineness,authenticity, rele/ancy or su7ciency of the e>hibits presented to pro/e the
Aurisdictional require'ents e>acted by the Rules. 0n a /ery real sense, therefore, the
petitioner Republic fully and Enowingly acquiesced in the Aurisdiction of the trial
court. he peculiar circu'stances obtaining in this case and the require'ents of fair
dealing de'and that we accord /alidity to the proceedings a quo.
00. J3-. RespondentQs bare testi'ony, unsupported by any other e/idence,
such as N@0 clearance and Police clearance, is su7cient to grant the Petition for
change of na'e.
he -tate has an interest in the na'es borne by indi/iduals for purposes of
identi8cation, and that changing oneQs na'e is a pri/ilege and not a right.
$ccordingly, a person can be authori2ed to change his na'e appearing in either his
certi8cate of birth or ci/il registry upon showing not only of reasonable cause, or
any co'pelling reason which 'ay Austify such change, but also that he will be
preAudiced by the use of his true and o7cial na'e. urisprudence has recogni2ed
certain Austifying grounds to warrant a change of na'e. $'ong these are( ;a< when
the na'e is ridiculous, dishonorable or e>tre'ely di7cult to write or pronounceB ;bplained that these petitions 'ay be co/ered by R$ 9"4* which
authori2ed city or 'unicipal registrar to correct clerical or typographical errors inthe ci/il registry without need for a Audicial order. hey further a/erred that these
petitions were 8led before the trial court because there was no incu'bent Cocal
)i/il Registrar and the :0)5)i/il Registrar could not act on these petitions. -ince R$
9"4* allows correction of entries without hearing and publication, the trial court
considered the sa'e procedure. he trial court also adopted the procedure in ci/il
cases where the defendant is declared in default and the court renders Audg'ent
based on the pleadings 8led by the plaintiD.
?ss%e
hether trial court still ha/e Aurisdiction o/er petitions on change of na'eand correction of entries.
hether the su''ary procedure prescribed in R$ No. 9"4* should be adopted in
cases 8led before the courts, or should the proceeding under Rule 1"* be followed.
/eld
8/10/2019 digested cases spec pro.doc
33/39
Page 33of 39
uring the deliberation, it was clear that the local ci/il registrar is gi/en the
authority to act on petitions for corrections of entries and change of 8rst na'e or
nicEna'es, yet there was no 'ention that such petition can no longer be 8led with
the regular courts. here was no intent on the part of the law'aEers to re'o/e the
authority of the trial courts to 'aEe Audicial corrections of entries in the ci/il registry.
0t can thus be concluded that the local ci/il registry has pri'ary, not e>clusi/eAurisdiction o/er such petitions for correction of clerical errors and change of 8rst
na'e or nicEna'e.
-ince R$ 9"4* refers speci8cally to the ad'inistrati/e su''ary proceedings
before the local ci/il registrar it would be inappropriate to apply the sa'e procedure
to petitions for correction of entries in the ci/il registry before the courts. he
pro'ulgation of rules of procedure for court of Austice is the e>clusi/e do'ain of the
-upre'e )ourt. #oreo/er, as obser/ed by the :7ce of the )ourt $d'inistrator,
there is nothing in R$ 9"4* and its 0'ple'enting Rules and Regulations that
warrants the adoption of the procedure set therein for petitions before the court
e/en for purposes of e>pediting the resolution of said petitions.
hus, there should be recourse to the procedure prescribed for the courts as
if R$ 9"4* were not enacted at all. 0n other words, the procedure pro/ided in the
Re/ised Rules of )ourt for such petitions re'ains binding and should be followed by
the courts. he procedural require'ents laid down in Rules 1"% and 1"* still ha/e to
be co'plied with.
&en ci5il stat%s a8ects t&e c&anges in t&e entr4 in ci5il
registr4 ad5ersarial proceedings applied * %risdictional
and Notice are essential
REP;B?C O= T/E P/??PP?NES 5s! ;?+N ED+RD E
8/10/2019 digested cases spec pro.doc
34/39
Page 3,of 39
surna'e. 0n the 199*, !""1 and !""4 3lections, respondent ran and was elected as
)ouncilor of Tue2on )ity?s %rd istrict using the na'e =C0$N #.C. ):-33NG.
:n order of @ranch && of the Tue2on )ity R), respondent a'ended his
petition by alleging therein co'pliance with the %5year residency require'ent under
-ection !, Rule 1"%M of the Rules of )ourt.
he notice setting the petition for hearing on No/e'ber !", !""* was
published in the newspaper @roadside in its issues of :ctober %15No/e'ber 6, !""*,
No/e'ber &51%, !""*, and No/e'ber 145!", !""*. $nd a copy of the notice was
furnished the :7ce of the -olicitor General ;:-G parte
@y ecision of anuary *, !""9, the trial court granted respondent?s petition
and directed the )i/il Registrar of#aEati )ity to(
1. elete the entry #arch !6, 19&! in 0te' !4 for $3 $N PC$)3 : #$RR0$G3
: P$R03- Lin herein respondent?s )erti8cate of li/e @irthMB
!. )orrect the entry #$GP$J: in the space for the Cast Na'e of the LrespondentM
to ):-33NGB
%. elete the entry ):-33NG in the space for #iddle Na'e of the LrespondentMB
and
4. elete the entry ul/io #iranda #agpayo, r. in the space for $3R of theLrespondentMZ ;e'phasis and underscoring suppliedB capitali2ation in the originalisting fa'ily relations or in the rights and duties owing
therefro'. 0t does not alter one?s legal capacity or ci/il status.
Rule 1"*, on the other hand, i'ple'ents Audicial proceedings for the
correction or cancellation of entries in the ci/il registry pursuant to $rticle 41! ofthe )i/il )ode. 3ntries in the ci/il register refer to acts, e/ents and Audicial decrees
concerning the ci/il status of persons, also as enu'erated in $rticle 4"* of the
sa'e law.
0n the case at bench, the :-G posits that the con/ersion fro' #$R0CJN to
#3RCJN is not a correction of an innocuous error but a 'aterial correction
tanta'ount to a change of na'e which entails a 'odi8cation or increase in
substanti/e rights. or the :-G, this is a substantial error that requires co'pliance
with the procedure under Rule 1"%, and not Rule 1"*.
$ change of one?s na'e under Rule 1"% can be granted, only on groundspro/ided by law, there 'ust be a proper and co'pelling reason for the change and
proof that the person requesting will be preAudiced by the use of his o7cial na'e. 0n
petitions for correction, only clerical, spelling, typographical and other innocuous
errors in the ci/il registry 'ay be raised. )onsidering that the enu'eration in
-ection !, Rule 1"* also includes changes of na'e, the correction of a patently
'isspelled na'e is co/ered by Rule 1"*. -u7ce it to say, not all alterations allowed
in one?s na'e are con8ned under Rule 1"%. )orrections for clerical errors 'ay be
set right under Rule 1"*.
hus, the petition 8led by #ercadera before the R) correctly falls under Rule
1"* as it si'ply sought a correction of a 'isspelled gi/en na'e. o correct si'ply'eans to 'aEe or set arightB to re'o/e the faults or error fro'. o change 'eans
to replace so'ething with so'ething else of the sa'e Eind or with so'ething that
ser/es as a substitute. ro' the allegations in her petition, #ercadera clearly
prayed for the lower court to re'o/e the faults or error fro' her registered gi/en
na'e #$R0CJN, and to 'aEe or set aright the sa'e to confor' to the one she
grew up to, #3RCJN. he )$ did not allow #ercadera the change of her na'e.
8/10/2019 digested cases spec pro.doc
39/39
Page 39of 39
hat it did allow was the correction of her 'isspelled gi/en na'e which she had
been using e/er since she could re'e'ber.
#ercadera co'plied with the require'ent for an ad/ersarial proceeding
before the lower court. he publication and posting of the notice of hearing in a
newspaper of general circulation and the notices sent to the :-G and the Cocal )i/ilRegistry are su7cient indicia of an ad/erse proceeding. )onsidering that the :-G
did not oppose the petition and the 'otion to present its e/idence e> parte when it
had the opportunity to do so, it cannot now co'plain that the proceedings in the
lower court were procedurally defecti/e. herefore, the ece'ber 9, !""* ecision
of the )ourt of $ppeals is $0R#3.