specproc cases

8/9/2019 SpecProc Cases

1/67

Teresista De Leon (administratrix daughter of decendent father) vs. CA (2002)

Short summary: One of the children of the decedent contests the inventorymade by his administratrix sister, saying that some properties of thedecedent were excluded from the inventory and should thus be collated. The

TC ordered the collation of said properties, but the owners (the administratrixand other siblings) contested, saying that these properties were sold to themby their father during the latter's lifetime for a consideration. C held thatthe order of including these properties in the collation is already !nal andunappealable. "C held that the said order was merely an interlocutory order,which does not touch upon the issue of ownership of the said properties, andthus, collation is still premature. The said order is merely an order forinclusion in the inventory of the decedent's estate of the properties in#uestion and not the !nal order contemplated in $%&..

Facts:

Father: Rafae (!)

"other: #aud (!)

Chidren:

$Teresita de eon (administratrix of estate of father% Rafae)

$&streita 'iconde

$Antonio icoas (!) * re+resented ,- surviving s+ouse enaida icoas and the heirs)

$RA"/ C/LA#: o++ositor

*RA"/ fied "/T/ F/R C/LLAT/: Rafae icoas gave some of the +ro+ertiesto his chidren (incuding him) during his ifetime ,- gratuitous tite and administratrixTeresita faied to incude it in the inventor-

1RTC: /RD&R directing Ramon to su,mit +ertinent documents of the aeged transfer %set his motion for hearing 3 notice to +resent registered oners to sho cause h-

their +ro+erties shoud not ,e incuded in the coation

*Ramon fied amended motion for coation% adding severa other ands that ereaeged- not incuded in the inventor- (additiona ots aeged- received ,- Antonio)

1RTC (ov44% 4556 order): granted the motion and ordered that such +ro+erties ,eincuded in the coation and the inventor-


2/67

11Teresita fied "R: 7ro+erties su,8ect to the /rder ere aread- tited in the names ofthe chidren a fe -ears ago (for a consideration) and ma- not ,e coatera- attac9ed ina motion for coation 111D&&D

111Teresita fied "R of the denia% o++osed ,- Ramon

111TC: ordered Ramon to +rove that the dis+osition made ,- Rafae during his ifetime as gratuitous and ithout a consideration

*TC ordered (ov6% 455 /rder) Teresita;s remova as administratrix: C/FLCT ofT&RT

*Teresita contested order:

a. 7ra-ed that she ,e maintained as administratrix

,. 7ro+erties that Ramon anted for coation ,e decared as excusive +ro+erties of

registered oners and not su,8ect to coation111TC denied< a++eaed to CA CA: Affirmed

WON THE NOVEMBER 11, 1994 ORDER ORDERING THE INCLUSION OFTHE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION IN THE INVENTORY OF THE

ADMINISTRATRIX IS FINAL?

NO

-i!" #$%$&' () i)$%&*+*%' *%$%, )* .i)(& () &i#($ i) )(%$ (" **/)$%"0i *. "(i %*$%i$"2 A n- aggrieved +art-% or a third +erson for thatmatter% ma- ,ring an ordinar- action for a fina determination of the conficting caims

-G(%+i( 3" G(%+i(5 The court hich ac=uires 8urisdiction over the +ro+erties of adeceased +erson through the fiing of the corres+onding +roceedings% has su+ervisionand contro over the said +ro+erties% and under the said +oer% it is the court>s inherentdut- to see that the inventor- su,mitted ,- the a++ointed administrator contains a the+ro+erties% rights and credits hich the a re=uires the administrator to set out in hisinventor-. n com+iance ith this dut- the court aso has inherent +oer to determine

hat +ro+erties% rights and credits of the deceased shoud ,e incuded in or excudedfrom the inventor-. #houd an heir or +erson interested in the +ro+erties of a deceased+erson du- ca the court>s attention to the fact that certain +ro+erties% rights or creditshave ,een eft out in the inventor-% it is i9eise the court>s dut- to hear theo,servations% ith +oer to determine if such o,servations shoud ,e attended to or notand if the +ro+erties referred to therein ,eong +rima facie to the intestate%but no suchdetermination is final and ultimate in nature as to the ownership of the said properties


3/67

*7ro,ate court can on- +ass u+on =uestions of tite +rovisiona-% ,ecause:

(4) imited 8urisdiction

(2) =uestions of tite or onershi+% hich resut in incusion or excusion from theinventor- of the +ro+ert-% can on- ,e setted in a se+arate action

*6IMENE7 V CA5 A that the said court coud do as regards said +ro+erties isdetermine hether the- shoud or shoud not ,e incuded in the inventor- or ist of+ro+erties to ,e administered ,- the administrator. f there is a dis+ute as to theonershi+% then the o++osing +arties and the administrator have to resort to anordinar- action for a fina determination of the conficting caims of tite ,ecause the+ro,ate court cannot do so.

WON R98 MA:ES THE DETERMINATION OF THE COURT AS TO

ADVANCEMENTS MADE BINDING ON PERSON RAISING THE QUESTION AND ON THE HEIR? The order invoved here is mere- an interocutor- order somere- +rovisiona. The order mere- incudes su,8ect +ro+erties to the inventor-

* VDA DE RODRIGUE7 VS CA5 the order of excusion (or incusion) is not a finaorder< that it is interocutor- in the sense that it did not sette once and for a the tite tothe su,8ect ots< that the +revaiing rue is that for the +ur+ose of determining hether acertain +ro+ert- shoud or shoud not ,e incuded in the inventor-% the +ro,ate courtma- +ass u+on the tite thereto but such determination is not conclusive and is subjectto the final decision in a separate action regarding ownership which may be institutedby the parties. Ruing on incusion or excusion in the inventor- is not the same as

coation% hich is +remature at that time

*R50.2 shoud ,e inter+reted in context of R50.4

*the order aeged- incuding +ro+erties for coation is mere- an /RD&R /FCL?#/ T@& '&T/R /F T@& TAT& hich is mere- an interocutor-order

-i""$ *) +*&&(i*) "i&& %$#(%$5 no indication that the de,ts of the decedentss+ouses have ,een +aid and the net remainder of the con8uga estate have aread- ,eendetermined% and the estates of the deceased s+ouses at the time fiing of the motion for

coation ere read- for +artition and distri,ution.

EVEN GRANTING THAT THE ORDER WAS FOR COLLATION, IS IT STILL APPEALABLE FOR FAILING TO STATE THE LAW AND THE FACTS UPON WHICH IT WAS BASED? YES


4/67

-C*)"i ;A%VIII14i)= i )($(&(&$ i" ( 3i*&(i*) *. DUE PROCESS5 A void 8udgment isnot entited to the res+ect accorded to a vaid 8udgment% ,ut ma- ,e entire- disregardedor decared ino+erative ,- an- tri,una in hich effect is sought to ,e given to it.7etitioner oud have ,een de+rived of due +rocess as the- oud ,e divested of the

o++ortunit- of ,eing a,e to +oint out in a motion for reconsideration or on a++ea% an-errors of facts and3or a considering that there ere no facts or as cited in su++ort of the assaied /rder of coation.

WON THE ORDER REMOVING TERESITA AS ADMINISTRATRIX IS APPEALABLE? YES

*in fact CA ordered TC to give due course to the notice of a++ea

WON IT IS PROPER TO ELEVATE THE RECORDS OF THE SPECPRO TO CAFOR APPEAL FROM ORDER REMOVING THE ADMINSITRATRIX ISNECESSARY? N*

-))$+$""(%' here a record on a++ea is aoed under the Rues of Court. The courta =uo oses 8urisdiction over the su,8ect of the a++ea u+on the a++rova of the record ona++ea and the ex+iration of the time to a++ea of the other +arties< ,ut retains 8urisdiction over the remaining su,8ect matter not covered ,- the a++ea.

De Leon was the administratix of the estate of his father. De Leon had 4 other siblings. Her brother, Ramon,filed a “Motion for Collation” claiming that their father during his lifetime gae them b! gratuitous title real"ro"erties which De Leon failed to include in the inentor! of their father#s estate. $"on court#s order,Ramon filed an %mended Motion for Collation with su""orting documents. &his new list howeer was thesame as the first one filed exce"t for "ro"erties listed in 'tems ( and ) *stating that a son, %ntonio, receiedcertain real "ro"erties+. &he court issued an rder acting on the %mended Motion for Collation *thedis"uted order in this case+ and instructed De Leon to include certain "ro"erties in the "robate"roceedings. De Leon filed MR stating that the "ro"erties were alread! titled in their names !ears ago and


5/67

that the same cannot be collaterall! attac-ed in a motion for collation. &he R&C denied the motion. De Leonfiled MR but this was o""osed b! Ramon. De Leon filed certiorari with the C%. C% said that the assailedrder became final for failure of "etitioners to a""eal the order.

'$/0 12 the assailed order *for the inclusion of the additional "ro"erties in the inentor!+ became final.*2+.

H/LD0

Contrar! to C%#s ruling, the assailed rder is merel! interlocutor!. $nder the cases cited, an! aggrieed"art!, or a third "erson ma! bring an ordinar! action for the final determination of the conflicting claims.

%s stated in 3arcia s 3arcia, “5should an heir or person interested in the properties of the adeceased person duly call the court’s attention to the fact that certain properties, rights or credits havebeen left out in the inventory, it is likewise the court’s duty to hear the observations, with power to

determine if such observations should be attended to or not and if the properties referred to therein belongPRIMA FACIE to the intestate, but to no such determination is final and ultimate in nature as to theownership of the said properties.”

% "robate court whether testate or intestate, can onl! "ass u"on 6uestions of title "roisionall!. &herationale is stated in 7imene8 s C%0 “ The patent reason is the probate court’s limited jurisdiction and the principle that questions of ownership or title which resulting the exclusion or inclusion from the inventory of the property, can only be settled in a separate action.”

&he assailed rder was erroneousl! referred to as an rder of collation both b! the R&C and the C%.9or all intents and "ur"oses, said rder was a mere order including the sub:ect "ro"erties in the inentor!

*order of inclusion+. &he motion for collation was filed with the "robate court at the earl! stage of the estate"roceedings. &he debts of the decedents were not !et "aid nor the net remainder of the con:ugal estatedetermined. &he issue on collation then was still "remature. %ssuming the rder was a final order, it is ahornboo- doctrine that a final order is a""ealable.

Testate Estate of Hilario RUIZ vs. CA

252 SCRA 541

---rovisional s!ort form f!n"s of t#e estate onl$ covers %i"o% an" c#il"ren &'T (ran"c#il"ren

--- t#ere m!st be a$ment of t#e estate)s "ebts* e+enses of a"ministration* an" ta+es before t#eresi"!e ma$ be "istrib!te" 'R "istrib!tes m!st ost a bon" s!fficient to cover t#e "ebts an" ta+esin roortion to t#eir s#are in t#e in#eritance

Hilario M. Rui8 executed a hologra"hic will naming as his heirs his onl! son, /dmond Rui8, hisado"ted daughter, "riate res"ondent Maria ;ilar Rui8 Montes, and his three grand daughters who were allchildren of /dmond Rui8. &he testator be6ueathed to his heirs substantial cash, "ersonal and real"ro"erties and named /dmond Rui8 executor of his estate.


6/67

Hilario Rui8 died. 'mmediatel! thereafter, the cash com"onent of his estate was distributed among/dmond Rui8 and "riate res"ondents in accordance with the decedentalle >erde"ro"ert!. 'n com"liance, /dmond turned oer the amount of ;B4,@B.@(, re"resenting the balance of therent after deducting ;E,4(.4 for re"air and maintenance ex"enses on the estate.

/dmond moed for the release of ;@A,AAA.AA to "a! the real estate taxes on the real "ro"erties ofthe estate. &he "robate court a""roed the release of ;),)FF .AA. /dmond withdrew his o""osition to the

"robate of the will. Conse6uentl!, the "robate court admitted the will to "robate and ordered the issuance ofletters testamentar! to /dmond conditioned u"on the filing of a bond in the amount of ;@A,AAA.AA. &heletters testamentar! were issued.

;etitioner &estate /state of Hilario Rui8, with /dmond Rui8 as executor, filed an G/x=;arte Motionfor Release of 9unds.G 't "ra!ed for the release of the rent "a!ments de"osited with the ?ranch Cler- ofCourt. &he "robate court ordered the release of the funds to /dmond but onl! Gsuch amount as ma! benecessar! to coer the ex"enses of administration and allowances for su""ortG of the testator


7/67

sustain the "robate court


8/67

FELICIDAD C. PASCUAL died at seventy-one (71) years, femmesole, leaving a s!stantial in"eritan#e $or "er %erlos #ollateral relatives&"o all a''ear disagreea!le to any sensi!le 'artition o$ t"eir &ind$all.

o divide t"e dis'ted estate are $ive () gro's o$ legal "eirs &"i#"in#lde res'ondents Conrado C. Pas#al, a !rot"er o$ t"e de#eased, and*anel C. Dia+, a ne'"e&, son o$ "er sister Caren P. Dia+, and 'etitioner loriosa . alarao &"o is t"e de#edent/s nie#e. "e !loodlines ar0ing t"egro's o$ "eirs are (a) t"e legitiate #"ildren o$ "er late sister Leon#ia P.illaneva, in#lding 'etitioner loriosa . alarao2 (!) t"e legitiate #"ildreno$ "er late sister Caren P. Dia+ in#lding res'ondent *anel C. Dia+2 (#) t"elegitiate #"ildren o$ "er late !rot"er *a#ario Pas#al2 (d) t"e legitiate#"ildren o$ "er late sister *ilagros P. de Leon2 and, (e) t"e de#edent/ssrviving sister Agstia C. Pas#al and !rot"ers Leonardo C. Pas#al andConrado C. Pas#al, t"e latter !eing one o$ res'ondents "erein.

3n 47 *ay 1556 'etitioner loriosa . alarao initiated !e$ore t"eegional rial Cort o$ Para8a%e City s'e#ial 'ro#eedings do#0eted as SP9o. 56-:;1 $or t"e issan#e o$ letters o$ adinistration in "er $avor over t"eestate o$ Feli#idad C. Pas#al. 3n 45 Se'te!er 1556 res'ondent ConradoC. Pas#al and soe o$ "is #o-"eirs, in#lding res'ondent Dia+, $iled &it" t"esae 'ro!ate #ort a 'etition $or 'ro!ate, do#0eted as SP 9o. 56-:14oint

adinistrators o$ t"e estate o$ Feli#idad C. Pas#al. 3n 6 Fe!rary 4:::,C-?r. 4;: o$ Para8a%e City rendered a Decision &"i#" disissed SP 9o.56-:14


9/67

Weighing the pros and cons of the situation, considering the unanimity of choice by

the heirs, of Mrs. Valarao as special administratrix, and the vigorous objection to Mr.

Diaz as co-administrator, not to mention the fact that the heirs on the side of Mrs.

Valarao represent a numerical majority of the legal heirs of the deceased, the Court

believes that it will be to the best interest of the estate and the heirs themselves if Mrs.

Gloriosa Valarao is appointed special administratrix. [3]

3n 45 =ne 4::: t"e 'ro!ate #ort a''roved 'etitioner/s !ondo$ P::,:::.::, and on ; =ly 4::: s"e too0 "er oat" o$ o$$i#e as s'e#ialadinistratriB.

3n 15 =ly 4::: res'ondent Dia+ oved $or re#onsideration o$ "isre>e#tion as s'e#ial #o-adinistrator o$ t"e estate. e #ontested t"eallegation o$ 'etitioner alarao t"at "e "ad !een reiss in "is dties as #o-adinistrator. e #ited as eBa'les o$ "is servi#es t"e #olle#tion o$ rentals$or 'ro'erties in#lded in t"e estate, t"e 'ayent o$ estate taBes and t"e

de'osit o$ a!ot Point !an0 a##ont "eld in trst $or t"eestate !y "i and 'etitioner as #o-adinistrators. es'ondent Dia+ $rt"er alleged t"at >sti#e and e%ity deanded t"at "is gro' o$ "eirs !e alsore'resented in t"e anageent o$ t"e estate.

3n t"e ot"er "and, 'etitioner reiterated t"e alleged n#oo'erative #ond#to$ res'ondent Dia+ in dis#"arging "is tas0s as #o-adinistrator, and at t"esae tie oved t"at "e and "is gro' o$ sy'at"eti# "eirs !e #o'elled tosrrender to "er as s'e#ial adinistratriB t"e !oo0s and re#ords o$ a#or'oration &"ere t"e estate o&ned s!stantial interests.

3n 11 Se'te!er 4::: t"e 'ro!ate #ort denied t"e otion $or

re#onsideration and ordered res'ondent Dia+ and all t"e "eirs to res'e#t t"eat"ority o$ 'etitioner alarao as s'e#ial adinistratriB, es'e#ially !y$rnis"ing "er &it" #o'ies o$ do#ents 'ertinent to t"e 'ro'erties #o'risingt"e estate. Anent t"e #"arges o$ non$easan#e in "is tas0s as #o-adinistrator, t"e 'ro!ate #ort $ond -x x x [respondent] Diaz has not disputed these charges beyond making a mere general

denial, stating that he had been diligent and regular in the performance of his duties

when he was still the estate’s co-administrator. Considering the allegations of both

Manuel Diaz and Gloriosa Valarao and assessing the circumstances surrounding the

case, this Court is of the considered view that the best interest of the estate will be best

protected if only one administrator is appointed for, in that way, conflicting interests

which might work to the detriment of the estate may be avoided.[4]

3n 4 Se'te!er 4::: res'ondents Pas#al and Dia+ along &it" ot"er "eirs oved $or re#onsideration o$ t"e 11 Se'te!er 4::: Order on t"egrond t"at 'etitioner alarao as s'e#ial adinistratriB &as not at"ori+ed todis'ossess t"e "eirs o$ t"eir rig"t$l #stody o$ 'ro'erties in t"e a!sen#e o$ 'roo$ t"at t"e sae 'ro'erties &ere !eing dissi'ated !y t"e, and t"at t"e

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/nov2002/150164.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/nov2002/150164.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/nov2002/150164.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/nov2002/150164.htm#_ftn4


10/67

'ossessory rig"t o$ 'etitioner as s'e#ial adinistratriB "ad already !eeneBer#ised !y "er constructively &"en t"e "eirs on "er side too0 'ossessiono$ t"e estate s''osedly in "er !e"al$. es'ondents $rt"er alleged t"at t"eotion &as 'ending resoltion !y t"e 'ro!ate #ort.

3n 1: 3#to!er 4:::, &"ile t"e otion $or re#onsideration &as 'endingresoltion, res'ondents $iled a 'etition $or #ertiorari nder le ; o$ t"e 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure&it" t"e Cort o$ A''eals, do#0eted as CA-.. SP9o. ;115, to reverse and set aside t"e Orders dated 7 =ne 4::: and 11Se'te!er 4::: inso$ar as t"e 'ro!ate #ort a''ointed only 'etitioner alarao as s'e#ial adinistratriB, and to order t"e a''ointent o$ res'ondentDia+ as s'e#ial #o-adinistrator o$ t"e estate.

3n 1 *ay 4::1 t"e 'ro!ate #ort 'on otion #ited res'ondents $or indire#t #onte't o$ #ort $or re$sing to trn over to 'etitioner alaraodo#ents #overing 'ro'erties !elonging to t"e estate and ordered t"earrested ntil #o'lian#e &it" t"e order to "and over t"e do#ents. "e&arrant o$ arrest &as s!se%ently li$ted !y t"e 'ro!ate #ort a$ter res'ondents 'roised to deliver t"e do#ents.

3n 1 =ne 4::1 res'ondents $iled t"eir s''leental 'etition $or #ertiorari in CA-.. SP 9o. ;115 see0ing 'eranent in>n#tion against t"een$or#eent o$ t"e Orders o$ 7 =ne 4::: and 11 Se'te!er 4::: also ast"ey andated t"e trn over o$ do#ents to 'etitioner alarao.

3n 46 Se'te!er 4::1 t"e Cort o$ A''eals 'rolgatedits Decision reversing and setting aside t"e Order o$ 7 =ne 4::: o$ C-?r.4;:, Para8a%e City, a''ointing 'etitioner alarao as lone s'e#ial

adinistratriB alt"og" t"e fallo o$ t"e CA Decision &as silent on &"et"er t"e'ro!ate #ort s"old also a''oint res'ondent Dia+ as s'e#ial #o-adinistrator o$ t"e estate o$ Feli#idad C. Pas#al.@ "e a''ellate #ort eB'lained t"at sin#et"e "eirs &ere divided into t&o (4) s#ra''y $a#tions, >sti#e and e%itydeanded t"at !ot" $a#tions !e re'resented in t"e anageent o$ t"e estateo$ t"e de#eased, #iting Matias v. Gonzales,@; Corona v. Court of Aeals,@7 and !da. de Dayrit v. Ramolete.@6en#e, t"is 'etition $or revie& on #ertiorari.

Petitioner alarao #lais t"at t"e 'ro!ate #ort did not #oit gravea!se o$ dis#retion &"en it re>e#ted t"e a''li#ation o$ res'ondent Dia+ $or a''ointent as s'e#ial #o-adinistrator o$ t"e estate !e#ase o$ "is

ind!ita!le n#oo'erative attitde to&ards e$$e#tive adinistration o$ t"eestate. S"e also arges t"at diverse interests aong di$$erent gro's o$ "eirsdo not give ea#" o$ t"e t"e a!solte rig"t to se#re t"e a''ointent o$ a #o-adinistrator $ro &it"in t"eir ran0s sin#e it reains t"e dis#retion o$ t"e'ro!ate #ort to designate t"e adinistrators o$ an estate. S"e $rt"er assertst"at as s'e#ial adinistratriB o$ t"e estate s"e 'ossesses t"e at"ority to

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/nov2002/150164.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/nov2002/150164.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/nov2002/150164.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/nov2002/150164.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/nov2002/150164.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/nov2002/150164.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/nov2002/150164.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/nov2002/150164.htm#_ftn8


11/67

deand t"e srrender o$ do#ents 'ertinent to t"e estate inso$ar asne#essary to $l$ill "er andate.

3n 4; Fe!rary 4::4 res'ondents $iled t"eir Comment on t"e 'etitionalleging t"e a!sen#e o$ s'e#ial reasons to >sti$y a revie& o$ t"eassailed Decision and o$ t"e 'artiality o$ t"e trial >dge in $avor o$ 'etitioner.

e grant t"e 'etition. o !egin &it", t"e 'ro!ate #ort "ad a'le >risdi#tion to a''oint 'etitioner alarao as s'e#ial adinistratriB and to assist"er in t"e dis#"arge o$ "er $n#tions, even a$ter res'ondents "ad $iled a noti#eo$ a''eal $ro t"e Decision disallo&ing 'ro!ate o$ t"e "ologra'"i# &ill o$ Feli#idad C. Pas#al. "is is !e#ase t"e a''eal is one &"ere lti'lea''eals are allo&ed and a re#ord on a''eal is re%ired. @5 In t"is ode o$ a''eal, t"e 'ro!ate #ort loses >risdi#tion only over t"e s!>e#t atter o$ t"ea''eal !t retains >risdi#tion over t"e s'e#ial 'ro#eeding $ro &"i#" t"ea''eal &as ta0en $or 'r'oses o$ $rt"er reedies &"i#" t"e 'arties ay availo$, in#lding t"e a''ointent o$ a s'e#ial adinistrator.@1:

*oreover, t"ere is not"ing &"isi#al nor #a'ri#ios in t"e a#tion o$ t"e'ro!ate #ort not to a''oint res'ondent Dia+ as s'e#ial #o-adinistrator sin#et"e Orders o$ 7 =ne 4::: and 11 Se'te!er 4::: #learly sti'late t"egronds $or t"e re>e#tion. "e re#ords also ani$est t"at t"e 'ro!ate #ort&eig"ed t"e eviden#e o$ t"e a''li#ants $or s'e#ial adinistrator !e$ore#on#lding not to designate res'ondent Dia+ !e#ase t"e latter &as $ond to"ave !een reiss in "is 'revios dty as #o-adinistrator o$ t"e estate in t"eearly 'art o$ "is adinistration. erily, t"e 'ro#ess o$ de#ision-a0ingo!served !y t"e 'ro!ate #ort evin#es reason, e%ity, >sti#e and legal

'rin#i'le nista0a!ly o''osite t"e #ore o$ a!sive dis#retion #orre#ti!le !yt"e s'e#ial #ivil a#tion o$ #ertiorari nder &"i#" t"e a''ellate #ort &as !ondto a#t. Finally, t"e eBtraordinary &rit does not o'erate to reverse $a#tal$indings &"ere eviden#e &as assessed in t"e ordinary #orse o$ t"e'ro#eedings sin#e 'er#eived errors in t"e a''re#iation o$ eviden#e do note!roil >risdi#tional isses.@11

es'ondents #annot ta0e #o$ort in t"e #ases o$ Matias v. Gonzales,@14 Corona v. Court of Aeals @1 and !da. de Dayrit v. Ramolete,@1


12/67

Frt"erore, t"e #ases o$ Matias, Corona and !da. de Dayrit "inge 'on$a#tal #ir#stan#es ot"er t"an t"e in#o'ati!le interests o$ t"e "eirs &"i#"are glaringly a!sent $ro t"e instant #ase. In Matias t"is Cort ordered t"ea''ointent o$ a s'e#ial #o-adinistrator !e#ase o$ t"e a''li#ant/s stats ast"e niversal "eir and eBe#triB designated in t"e &ill, &"i#" &e #onsidered to!e a secial interest deserving 'rote#tion dring t"e 'enden#y o$ t"ea''eal. Gite signi$i#antly, sin#e t"e lo&er #ort in Matias "ad alreadydeeed it !est to a''oint ore t"an one s'e#ial adinistrator, &e $ondgrave a!se o$ dis#retion in t"e a#t o$ t"e lo&er #ort in ignoring t"ea''li#ant/s distin#tive stats in t"e sele#tion o$ anot"er s'e#ial adinistrator.

In Corona &e gave "ig"est #onsideration to t"e eBe#triB/s #"oi#e o$ S'e#ial Adinistrator, #onsidering "er o&n ina!ility to serve and t"e &idelatitde o$ dis#retion given "er !y t"e testatriB in "er &ill, @1; $or t"is Cort to#o'el "er a''ointent as s'e#ial #o-adinistrator. It is also ani$est $rot"e de#ision in Corona t"at t"e 'resen#e o$ #on$li#ting interests aong t"e"eirs t"erein &as not er se t"e 0ey $a#tor in t"e designation o$ a se#onds'e#ial adinistrator as t"is $a#t &as ta0en into a##ont only to disregard or,in t"e &ords o$ Corona, to overs"ado& t"e o!>e#tions to t"e a''ointent ongronds o$ i'ra#ti#ality and la#0 o$ 0ins"i'.@17

Finally in !da. de Dayrit &e >sti$ied t"e designation o$ t"e &i$e o$ t"ede#edent as s'e#ial #o-adinistrator !e#ase it &as or #onsidered o'iniont"at inas#" as 'etitioner-&i$e o&ns one-"al$ o$ t"e #on>gal 'ro'erties andt"at s"e, too, is a #o'lsory "eir o$ "er "s!and, to de'rive "er o$ any "andin t"e adinistration o$ t"e estate 'rior to t"e 'ro!ate o$ t"e &ill &old !e

n$air to "er 'ro'rietary interests.@16

"e s'e#ial stats o$ a srviving s'osein t"e s'e#ial adinistration o$ an estate &as also e'"asi+ed in "ule v.Court of Aeals@15 &"ere &e "eld t"at t"e &ido& &old "ave ore interestt"an any ot"er neBt o$ 0in in t"e 'ro'er adinistration o$ t"e entire estatesin#e s"e 'ossesses not only t"e rig"t o$ s##ession over a 'ortion o$ t"eeB#lsive 'ro'erty o$ t"e de#edent !t also a s"are in t"e #on>gal 'artners"i'$or &"i#" t"e good or !ad adinistration o$ t"e estate ay a$$e#t not >st t"e$rits !t ore #riti#ally t"e na0ed o&ners"i' t"ereo$. And in Ga#riel v. Court of Aeals@4: &e re#ogni+ed t"e distin#tive stats o$ a srviving s'osea''lying as reglar adinistrator o$ t"e de#eased s'ose/s estate &"en &e

#onseled t"e 'ro!ate #ort t"at t"ere st !e a very strong #ase to >sti$yt"e eB#lsion o$ t"e &ido& $ro t"e adinistration.

Clearly, t"e sele#tion o$ a s'e#ial #o-adinistrator in Matias, Corona and !da. de Dayrit &as !ased 'on t"e inde'endent'ro'rietary interests and oral #ir#stan#es o$ t"e a''ointee t"at &ere notne#essarily related to t"e deand $or re'resentation !eing re'eatedly rged!y res'ondents.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/nov2002/150164.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/nov2002/150164.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/nov2002/150164.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/nov2002/150164.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/nov2002/150164.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/nov2002/150164.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/nov2002/150164.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/nov2002/150164.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/nov2002/150164.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/nov2002/150164.htm#_ftn20


13/67

e also rle t"at t"e 'ro!ate #ort in issing t"e Order o$ 11 Se'te!er 4::: did not err in #oanding res'ondents to trn over all do#ents'ertinent to t"e estate nder s'e#ial adinistration and in en$or#ing s#"order !y eans o$ #onte't o$ #ort. "e 'o&ers o$ a s'e#ial adinistrator are 'lainly delineated in Se#. 4, le 6: o$ t"e Rules of Court , vesting 'on"i t"e at"ority to ta0e 'ossession and #"arge o$ t"e goods, #"attels, rig"ts,#redits and estate o$ t"e de#eased and 'reserve t"e sae $or t"e eBe#tor or adinistrator a$ter&ards a''ointed B B B B

Contrary to res'ondents/ assertion, t"ere is not"ing in Se#. 4 re%iring as'e#ial adinistrator to ta0e 'ossession o$ t"e estate only 'on a 'rior $indingt"at t"e "eirs "ave !een &asting 'ro'erties o$ t"e estate &"i#" are in t"eir 'ossession. "e la& eB'li#itly at"ori+es "i to ta0e 'ossession o$ t"e'ro'erties in &"atever state t"ey are, 'rovided "e does so to 'reserve t"e$or t"e reglar adinistrator a''ointed a$ter&ards. Clearly, t"e s'e#ialadinistrator en>oys not erely s!sidiary 'ossession to !e #arried ot &"ent"e "eirs dissi'ate t"e 'ro'erties !t t"e 'riary and inde'endent dis#retiono$ 0ee'ing t"e so t"ey ay !e 'reserved $or reglar adinistration.

*oreover, res'ondents #annot de'rive t"e s'e#ial adinistratriB o$ a##essto and #stody o$ essential do#ents !y arging t"at t"eir 'ossessiont"ereo$ allegedly in !e"al$ o$ 'etitioner is already t"e e%ivalento$ constructive ossession &"i#" #onstittes $ll #o'lian#e &it" t"e'ossessory 'o&ers o$ 'etitioner as s'e#ial adinistratriB nder Se#. 4 o$ le6:. Contrary to &"at res'ondents see to nderstand !y constructive

ossession, t"e rig"t o$ 'ossession &"et"er #"ara#teri+ed as a#tal or

#onstr#tive invaria!ly e'o&ers t"e s'e#ial adinistrator &it" t"e dis#retionat any tie to eBer#ise doinion or #ontrol over t"e 'ro'erties and do#ents#o'rising t"e estate.@41 en#e, even i$ &e are to give #reden#e to t"e t"eoryt"at 'etitioner also "as constructive ossession o$ t"e do#ents alongsideres'ondents/ a#tal 'ossession t"ereo$, res'ondents &old nonet"eless !ender t"e o!ligation to trn t"e over &"enever t"e s'e#ial adinistratriBre%ires t"eir a#tal delivery.

In any event, as &e "ave "eld in De Guzman v. Guadiz ,@44 t"e 'artisan'ossession eBer#ised !y litigants over 'ro'erties o$ t"e estate di$$ers greatly$ro t"e netral 'ossession o$ a s'e#ial adinistrator nder t"e Rules of

Court . Gite o!viosly, &it" t"is distin#tion, t"e 'ossession o$ 'ortions o$ t"eestate !y res'ondents as "eirs ne#essarily eB#ldes t"e 'ossessory rig"t over t"e sae 'ro'erties in"erent in t"e andate o$ a s'e#ial adinistrator.

"e langage o$ Se#. 4, le 6: o$ t"e Rules of Court , also nista0a!lygives a s'e#ial adinistrator t"e dis#retion to ta0e a#tal #stody o$ t"e'ro'erties o$ t"e estate $or t"e 'r'ose o$ 'reserving t"e $or reglar adinistration. "is a''re#iation o$ t"e 'o&ers o$ a s'e#ial adinistrator is

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/nov2002/150164.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/nov2002/150164.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/nov2002/150164.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/nov2002/150164.htm#_ftn22


14/67

$airly evident $ro t"e #o!ination o$ t"e &ords ossession and c$ar%e inSe#. 4, so #" so t"at even i$ &e "ave to #on#ede t"at ossession eansonly t"e $i#titios #stody o$ a t"ing as res'ondents sggest, t"e &ordc$ar%e, i.e., t"e #oitent o$ a t"ing to t"e #are and #stody o$ anot"er,@4 &old e'"asi+e t"e re%ireent o$ a#tal 'ossession o$ t"e 'ro'erties o$ t"e estate &"enever vital a##ording to t"e dis#retion o$ t"e s'e#ialadinistrator. "en ta0en toget"er, t"e &ords ossession and c$ar%eserve to "ig"lig"t t"e $a#t t"at a s'e#ial adinistrator st !e a!le to s!>e#tt"e 'ro'erties o$ t"e estate to "is #ontrol and anageent &"en in "is good

>dgent s#" a#tion is needed. Indeed, t"is nderstanding o$ t"e'ossessory rig"t o$ a s'e#ial adinistrator is indis'ensa!le in $l$illing "isandate to 'reserve t"e 'ro'erties o$ t"e estate ntil a reglar adinistrator is designated, $or $i#tion and illsion #annot stand in 'la#e o$ t"e #on#rete andtangi!le eBer#ise o$ 'ossession i$ "e is to $n#tion e$$e#tively.

Finally, res'ondents #annot diso!ey t"e reasona!le eBer#ise o$ t"eat"ority o$ a s'e#ial adinistrator on t"e d!ios grond t"at t"e order a''ointing 'etitioner alarao as s'e#ial adinistratriB "ad not in t"e eantie!e#oe $inal and eBe#tory !e#ase o$ a 'ending otion $or re#onsideration$iled !y t"e. "e $alla#y o$ t"is reasoning is a''arent, $or an interlo#toryorder is not instantly a''eala!le and t"ere$ore t"ere is no 'eriod nor a#tion toss'end or interr't !y a otion $or re#onsideration2 @4


15/67

t"e estate and in $a#t an o$$i#er o$ t"e #ort. As an o$$i#er o$ t"e #ort, s"e iss!>e#t to t"e s'ervision and #ontrol o$ t"e 'ro!ate #ort and is eB'e#ted to&or0 $or t"e !est interests o$ t"e entire estate, es'e#ially its soot"adinistration and earliest settleent. @45 "atever di$$eren#es t"at ay eBist!et&een t"e "eirs s"all !e ironed ot $airly and o!>e#tively $or t"e attainento$ t"at end. S"e og"t to !e sensitive to "er 'osition as s'e#ial adinistratriBand netral 'ossessor &"i#" nder t"e Rules of Court is !ot" $id#iary andte'orary in #"ara#ter 'on &"i#" a##onta!ility atta#"es in $avor o$ t"eestate as &ell as t"e ot"er "eirs, es'e#ially res'ondents Pas#al and Dia+ inlig"t o$ "er alleged rivalry &it" t"e.

'(#R#)OR#, t"e instant Petition for Revie) is A9ED. "e Decision o$ t"e Cort o$ A''eals dated 46Se'te!er 4::1 in CA-.. SP 9o. ;115, Conrado C. Pascual and Manuel P. Diaz v. *$e +on. R*C of Para,aque City- ranc$ /0- and Gloriosa !.!alarao, is EESED and SE ASIDE. "e Orders dated 7 =ne 4::: and11 Se'te!er 4::: o$ t"e egional rial Cort, ?ran#" 4;:, o$ Para8a%eCity, re>e#ting t"e a''li#ation o$ res'ondent *anel C. Dia+ @: as s'e#ial #o-adinistrator o$ t"e estate o$ Feli#idad C. Pas#al and ordering res'ondentsConrado C. Pas#al and *anel C. Dia+ and all ot"er "eirs &"o ay "ave int"eir 'ossession or #stody 'a'ers, re#ords, #erti$i#ates o$ titles over 'ar#elso$ land, et#., 'ertaining to 'ro'erties o$ t"e estate o$ t"e late Feli#idad C.Pas#al to trn over s#" 'a'ers, re#ords and titles to 'etitioner loriosa .alarao as s'e#ial adinistratriB t"ereo$, are EI9SAED and

AFFI*ED. 9o #osts.

SO ORD#R#D.

[G.R. No. 14**26. )ebr+ar 2-, 2005]UNION %AN O) /(# P(ILIPPIN#S, petitioner, vs. #D"UND

SAN/I%A#$ a! )LOR#NC# SAN/I%A#$ARIOLA, respondents.

D # C I S I O NCALL#O, SR., J .&

?e$ore s is a 'etition $or revie& on #ertiorari nder le


16/67

'ri#e o$ one (1) nit Ford ;;:: Agri#ltral All-Pr'ose Diesel ra#tor. In vie&t"ereo$, E$rai and "is son, Ednd, eBe#ted a 'roissory note in $avor o$ t"e FCCC, t"e 'rin#i'al s 'aya!le in $ive e%al annal aorti+ationso$ P


17/67

"er !rot"er Ednd &as not a''roved !y t"e 'ro!ate #ort, it &as nll andvoid2 "en#e, s"e &as not lia!le to t"e 'etitioner nder t"e >oint agreeent.

3n =anary 45, 155:, t"e #ase &as nloaded and re-ra$$led to t"e C o$ *a0ati City, ?ran#" ;.@1


18/67

t"e de#eased2 and t"e a#tive 'arti#i'ation o$ t"e "eirs, 'arti#larly res'ondentFloren#e S. Ariola, in t"e 'resent ordinary #ivil a#tion &as tantaont to a&aiver to re-litigate t"e #lai in t"e estate 'ro#eedings.

3n t"e ot"er "and, res'ondent Floren#e S. Ariola aintained t"at t"eoney #lai o$ t"e 'etitioner s"old "ave !een 'resented !e$ore t"e 'ro!ate#ort.@17

"e a''ellate #ort $ond t"at t"e a''eal &as not eritorios and "eldt"at t"e 'etitioner s"old "ave $iled its #lai &it" t"e 'ro!ate #ort as'rovided nder Se#tions 1 and , le 6; o$ t"e les o$ Cort. It $rt"er "eldt"at t"e 'artition ade in t"e agreeent &as nll and void, sin#e no valid'artition ay !e "ad ntil a$ter t"e &ill "as !een 'ro!ated. A##ording to t"eCA, 'age 4, 'aragra'" (e) o$ t"e "ologra'"i# &ill #overed t"e s!>e#t'ro'erties (tra#tors) in generi# ters &"en t"e de#eased re$erred to t"e asall ot"er 'ro'erties.M *oreover, t"e a#tive 'arti#i'ation o$ res'ondentFloren#e S. Ariola in t"e #ase did not aont to a &aiver. "s, t"e CAa$$ired t"e C de#ision, viz.WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed Decision of the Regional Trial

Court of Makati City, Branch 63, is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.@16

In t"e 'resent re#orse, t"e 'etitioner as#ri!es t"e $ollo&ing errors to t"eCA

I.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE

JOINT AGREEMENT SHOULD BE APPROVED BY THE PROBATE COURT.

II.THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT THERE CAN BE NO

VALID PARTITION AMONG THE HEIRS OF THE LATE EFRAIM

SANTIBAÑEZ UNTIL AFTER THE WILL HAS BEEN PROBATED.III.

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE

RESPONDENT HAD WAIVED HER RIGHT TO HAVE THE CLAIM RE-

LITIGATED IN THE ESTATE PROCEEDING.IV.

RESPONDENTS CAN, IN FACT, BE HELD JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY

LIABLE WITH THE PRINCIPAL DEBTOR THE LATE EFRAIM SANTIBAÑEZON THE STRENGTH OF THE CONTINUING GUARANTY AGREEMENT

EXECUTED IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER-APPELLANT UNION BANK.V.

THE PROMISSORY NOTES DATED MAY 31, 1980 IN THE SUM

OF P128,000.00 AND DECEMBER 13, 1980 IN THE AMOUNT OF P123,000.00

CATEGORICALLY ESTABLISHED THE FACT THAT THE RESPONDENTS

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/149926.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/149926.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/149926.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/149926.htm#_ftn18


19/67

BOUND THEMSELVES JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE WITH THE

LATE DEBTOR EFRAIM SANTIBAÑEZ IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER UNION

BANK.@15

"e 'etitioner #lais t"at t"e o!ligations o$ t"e de#eased &ere transittedto t"e "eirs as 'rovided in Arti#le 77< o$ t"e Civil Code2 t"ere &as t"s noneed $or t"e 'ro!ate #ort to a''rove t"e >oint agreeent &"ere t"e "eirs'artitioned t"e tra#tors o&ned !y t"e de#eased and assed t"e o!ligationsrelated t"ereto. Sin#e res'ondent Floren#e S. Ariola signed t"e >ointagreeent &it"ot any #ondition, s"e is no& esto''ed $ro asserting any'osition #ontrary t"ereto. "e 'etitioner also 'oints ot t"at t"e "ologra'"i#&ill o$ t"e de#eased did not in#lde nor ention any o$ t"e tra#tors s!>e#t o$ t"e #o'laint, and, as s#" &as !eyond t"e a!it o$ t"e said &ill. "e a#tive'arti#i'ation and resistan#e o$ res'ondent Floren#e S. Ariola in t"e ordinary#ivil a#tion against t"e 'etitionerHs #lai aonts to a &aiver o$ t"e rig"t to

"ave t"e #lai 'resented in t"e 'ro!ate 'ro#eedings, and to allo& any one o$ t"e "eirs &"o eBe#ted t"e >oint agreeent to es#a'e lia!ility to 'ay t"e valeo$ t"e tra#tors nder #onsideration &old !e e%ivalent to allo&ing t"e said"eirs to enri#" t"eselves to t"e daage and 're>di#e o$ t"e 'etitioner.

"e 'etitioner, li0e&ise, avers t"at t"e de#isions o$ !ot" t"e trial anda''ellate #orts $ailed to #onsider t"e $a#t t"at res'ondent Floren#e S. Ariolaand "er !rot"er Ednd eBe#ted loan do#ents, all esta!lis"ingt"e vinculum 3uris or t"e legal !ond !et&een t"e late E$rai Santi!a8e+ and"is "eirs to !e in t"e natre o$ a solidary o!ligation. Frt"erore, t"eProissory 9otes dated *ay 1, 156: and De#e!er 1, 156: eBe#ted !y

t"e late E$rai Santi!a8e+, toget"er &it" "is "eirs, Ednd and res'ondentFloren#e, ade t"e o!ligation solidary as $ar as t"e said "eirs are #on#erned."e 'etitioner also 'ro$$ers t"at, #onsidering t"e eB'ress 'rovisions o$ t"e#ontining garanty agreeent and t"e 'roissory notes eBe#ted !y t"enaed res'ondents, t"e latter st !e "eld lia!le >ointly and severally lia!let"ereon. "s, t"ere &as no need $or t"e 'etitioner to $ile its oney #lai!e$ore t"e 'ro!ate #ort. Finally, t"e 'etitioner stresses t"at !ot" srviving"eirs are !eing sed in t"eir res'e#tive 'ersonal #a'a#ities, not as "eirs o$ t"ede#eased.

In "er #oent to t"e 'etition, res'ondent Floren#e S. Ariola aintains

t"at t"e 'etitioner is trying to re#over a s o$ oney $ro t"e de#easedE$rai Santi!a8e+2 t"s t"e #lai s"old "ave !een $iled &it" t"e 'ro!ate#ort. S"e 'oints ot t"at at t"e tie o$ t"e eBe#tion o$ t"e >oint agreeentt"ere &as already an eBisting 'ro!ate 'ro#eedings o$ &"i#" t"e 'etitioner 0ne& a!ot. o&ever, to avoid a #lai in t"e 'ro!ate #ort &"i#" ig"t delay'ayent o$ t"e o!ligation, t"e 'etitioner o'ted to re%ire t"e to eBe#te t"esaid agreeent.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/149926.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/149926.htm#_ftn19


20/67

A##ording to t"e res'ondent, t"e trial #ort and t"e CA did not err inde#laring t"at t"e agreeent &as nll and void. S"e asserts t"at even i$ t"eagreeent &as volntarily eBe#ted !y "er and "er !rot"er Ednd, it s"oldstill "ave !een s!>e#ted to t"e a''roval o$ t"e #ort as it ay 're>di#e t"eestate, t"e "eirs or t"ird 'arties. Frt"erore, s"e "ad not &aived any rig"ts,as s"e even stated in "er ans&er in t"e #ort a quo t"at t"e #lai s"old !e$iled &it" t"e 'ro!ate #ort. "s, t"e 'etitioner #old not invo0e or #lai t"ats"e is in esto''el.

es'ondent Floren#e S. Ariola $rt"er asserts t"at s"e "ad not signed any#ontining garanty agreeent, nor &as t"ere any do#ent 'resented aseviden#e to s"o& t"at s"e "ad #ased "ersel$ to !e !ond !y t"e o!ligation o$ "er late $at"er.

"e 'etition is !ere$t o$ erit."e Cort is 'osed to resolve t"e $ollo&ing isses a) &"et"er or not t"e

'artition in t"e Agreeent eBe#ted !y t"e "eirs is valid2 !) &"et"er or not t"e"eirsH ass'tion o$ t"e inde!tedness o$ t"e de#eased is valid2 and #) &"et"er t"e 'etitioner #an "old t"e "eirs lia!le on t"e o!ligation o$ t"e de#eased.

At t"e otset, &ell-settled is t"e rle t"at a 'ro!ate #ort "as t"e >risdi#tion to deterine all t"e 'ro'erties o$ t"e de#eased, to deterine&"et"er t"ey s"old or s"old not !e in#lded in t"e inventory or list o$ 'ro'erties to !e adinistered.@4: "e said #ort is 'riarily #on#erned &it" t"eadinistration, li%idation and distri!tion o$ t"e estate.@41

In or >risdi#tion, t"e rle is t"at t"ere #an !e no valid 'artition aong t"e"eirs ntil a$ter t"e &ill "as !een 'ro!ated

In testate succession, there can be no valid partition among the heirs until after thewill has been probated. The law enjoins the probate of a will and the public requires

it, because unless a will is probated and notice thereof given to the whole world, the

right of a person to dispose of his property by will may be rendered nugatory. The

authentication of a will decides no other question than such as touch upon the capacity

of the testator and the compliance with those requirements or solemnities which the

law prescribes for the validity of a will.@44

"is, o$ #orse, 'res''oses t"at t"e 'ro'erties to !e 'artitioned are t"esae 'ro'erties e!ra#ed in t"e &ill. @4 In t"e 'resent #ase, t"e de#eased,E$rai Santi!a8e+, le$t a "ologra'"i# &ill@4


21/67

ot"er 'ro'erties "e ay a#%ire t"erea$ter. In#lded t"erein are t"e t"ree ()s!>e#t tra#tors. "is !eing so, any 'artition involving t"e said tra#tors aongt"e "eirs is not valid. "e >oint agreeent@4 eBe#ted !y Ednd andFloren#e, 'artitioning t"e tra#tors aong t"eselves, is invalid, s'e#ially sosin#e at t"e tie o$ its eBe#tion, t"ere &as already a 'ending 'ro#eeding $or t"e 'ro!ate o$ t"eir late $at"erHs "ologra'"i# &ill #overing t"e said tra#tors.

It st !e stressed t"at t"e 'ro!ate 'ro#eeding "ad already a#%ired >risdi#tion over all t"e 'ro'erties o$ t"e de#eased, in#lding t"e t"ree ()tra#tors. o dis'ose o$ t"e in any &ay &it"ot t"e 'ro!ate #ortHs a''roval istantaont to divesting it &it" >risdi#tion &"i#" t"e Cort #annot allo&.@4; Every a#t intended to 't an end to indivision aong #o-"eirs and legateesor devisees is deeed to !e a 'artition, alt"og" it s"old 'r'ort to !e asale, an eB#"ange, a #o'roise, or any ot"er transa#tion.@47 "s, ineBe#ting any >oint agreeent &"i#" a''ears to !e in t"e natre o$ an eBtra-

>di#ial 'artition, as in t"e #ase at !ar, #ort a''roval is i'erative, and t"e"eirs #annot >st divest t"e #ort o$ its >risdi#tion over t"at 'art o$ t"e estate.*oreover, it is &it"in t"e >risdi#tion o$ t"e 'ro!ate #ort to deterine t"eidentity o$ t"e "eirs o$ t"e de#edent.@46 In t"e instant #ase, t"ere is no s"o&ingt"at t"e signatories in t"e >oint agreeent &ere t"e only "eirs o$ t"e de#edent."en it &as eBe#ted, t"e 'ro!ate o$ t"e &ill &as still 'ending !e$ore t"e#ort and t"e latter "ad yet to deterine &"o t"e "eirs o$ t"e de#edent &ere."s, $or Ednd and res'ondent Floren#e S. Ariola to ad>di#ate ntot"eselves t"e t"ree () tra#tors &as a 'reatre a#t, and 're>di#ial to t"eot"er 'ossi!le "eirs and #reditors &"o ay "ave a valid #lai against t"e

estate o$ t"e de#eased."e %estion t"at no& #oes to $ore is &"et"er t"e "eirsH ass'tion o$ t"e inde!tedness o$ t"e de#edent is !inding. e rle in t"e negative. Persingt"e >oint agreeent, it 'rovides t"at t"e "eirs as 'arties t"ereto $ave a%reed to divide #et)een t$emselves and ta4e ossession and use t$e a#ove5descri#ed c$attel and eac$ of t$em to assume t$e inde#tednesscorresondin% to t$e c$attel ta4en as $erein after stated )$ic$ is in favor of "irst Countryside Credit Cor.M@45 "e ass'tion o$ lia!ility &as #onditioned'on t"e "a''ening o$ an event, t"at is, t"at ea#" "eir s"all ta0e 'ossessionand se o$ t"eir res'e#tive s"are nder t"e agreeent. It &as ade

de'endent on t"e validity o$ t"e 'artition, and t"at t"ey &ere to asse t"einde!tedness #orres'onding to t"e #"attel t"at t"ey &ere ea#" to re#eive. "e'artition !eing invalid as earlier dis#ssed, t"e "eirs in e$$e#t did not re#eiveany s#" tra#tor. It $ollo&s t"en t"at t"e ass'tion o$ lia!ility #annot !e givenany $or#e and e$$e#t.

"e Cort notes t"at t"e loan &as #ontra#ted !y t"e de#edent. "e'etitioner, 'r'ortedly a #reditor o$ t"e late E$rai Santi!a8e+, s"old "ave

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/149926.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/149926.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/149926.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/149926.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/149926.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/149926.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/149926.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/149926.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/149926.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/149926.htm#_ftn29


22/67

t"s $iled its oney #lai &it" t"e 'ro!ate #ort in a##ordan#e &it" Se#tion ,le 6; o$ t"e evised les o$ Cort, &"i#" 'rovidesSection 5. Claims which must be filed under the notice. If not filed barred;

exceptions. — All claims for money against the decedent, arising from contract,

express or implied, whether the same be due, not due, or contingent, all claims for

funeral expenses for the last sickness of the decedent, and judgment for money against

the decedent, must be filed within the time limited in the notice; otherwise they are

barred forever, except that they may be set forth as counterclaims in any action that

the executor or administrator may bring against the claimants. Where an executor or

administrator commences an action, or prosecutes an action already commenced by

the deceased in his lifetime, the debtor may set forth by answer the claims he has

against the decedent, instead of presenting them independently to the court as herein

provided, and mutual claims may be set off against each other in such action; and if

final judgment is rendered in favor of the defendant, the amount so determined shall

be considered the true balance against the estate, as though the claim had beenpresented directly before the court in the administration proceedings. Claims not yet

due, or contingent, may be approved at their present value.

"e $iling o$ a oney #lai against t"e de#edentHs estate in t"e 'ro!ate#ort is andatory.@: As &e "eld in t"e vintage #ase o$ Py 6n% C$on% v.+errera@1

… This requirement is for the purpose of protecting the estate of the deceased by

informing the executor or administrator of the claims against it, thus enabling him to

examine each claim and to determine whether it is a proper one which should be

allowed. The plain and obvious design of the rule is the speedy settlement of theaffairs of the deceased and the early delivery of the property to the distributees,

legatees, or heirs. `The law strictly requires the prompt presentation and disposition of

the claims against the decedent's estate in order to settle the affairs of the estate as

soon as possible, pay off its debts and distribute the residue.@4

Persing t"e re#ords o$ t"e #ase, not"ing t"erein #old "old 'rivateres'ondent Floren#e S. Ariola a##onta!le $or any lia!ility in#rred !y "er late$at"er. "e do#entary eviden#e 'resented, 'arti#larly t"e 'roissorynotes and t"e #ontining garanty agreeent, &ere eBe#ted and signed only!y t"e late E$rai Santi!a8e+ and "is son Ednd. As t"e 'etitioner $ailed to

$ile its oney #lai &it" t"e 'ro!ate #ort, at ost, it ay only go a$ter Ednd as #o-a0er o$ t"e de#edent nder t"e said 'roissory notes and#ontining garanty, o$ #orse, s!>e#t to any de$enses Ednd ay "ave asagainst t"e 'etitioner. As t"e #ort "ad not a#%ired >risdi#tion over t"e'erson o$ Ednd, &e $ind it nne#essary to delve into t"e atter $rt"er.

e agree &it" t"e $inding o$ t"e trial #ort t"at t"e 'etitioner "ad nots$$i#iently s"o&n t"at it is t"e s##essor-in-interest o$ t"e Union Savings and

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/149926.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/149926.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/149926.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/149926.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/149926.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/149926.htm#_ftn32


23/67

*ortgage ?an0 to &"i#" t"e FCCC assigned its assets and lia!ilities. @ "e'etitioner in its #o'laint alleged t"at #y virtue of t$e Deed of Assi%nment dated Au%ust /- 191 e8ecuted #y and #et)een "irst Countryside Credit Cororation and 'nion an4 of t$e P$iliinesNM@


24/67

on t"e grond t"at said esoltions &ere issed in a &ay not in a##ord &it"la& and >ris'rden#e.

"e ante#edent $a#ts o$ t"e #ase are as $ollo&sPetitioner $iled S'e#ial Pro#eedings 9o. 1;16 $or t"e Adinistration and

Settleent o$ t"e Estate o$ "is de#eased ot"er Conselo =aero &it" t"eegional rial Cort (C), ?ran#"


25/67

acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, and unless otherwise provided by law or

these Rules, the petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.

If the petitioner had filed a motion for new trial or reconsideration in due time after

notice of said judgment, order or resolution the period herein fixed shall be

interrupted. If the motion is denied, the aggrieved party may file the petition within

the remaining period, but which shall not be less than five (5) days in any event,

reckoned from notice of such denial. No extension of time to file the petition shall be

granted except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15)

days.

Hence, pursuant to the last paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46, the petition may be

dismissed outright. In any case, even if we consider the date of the Motion for

Reconsideration (December 26, 1998) as the date of its filing, the petition would be

late by three (3) days.

WHEREFORE, the petition is denied due course and accordingly DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.@


26/67

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR IS DISCRETIONARY TO THE

APPOINTING COURT, AND THAT BEING AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER

THE SAME IS NOT APPEALABLE NOR SUBJECT TO CERTIORARI .III

THE COURT OF APPEALS HAD DECIDED IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORD WITH

LAW AND ESTABLISHED JURISPRUDENCE WHEN IT SUSTAINED THE

ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT APPOINTING ATTY. ALBERTO Y. BAUTISTA

AS SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE CONSUELO

R. JAMERO, IN THAT:

(A) THE LATE CONSUELO R. JAMERO DIED INTESTATE, LEAVING

NO DEBTS. HENCE, THE APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL

ADMINISTRATOR IS NOT NECESSARY AS IT WOULD ONLY

UNDULY BURDEN OR OTHERWISE EXPOSE THE ESTATE TO

BEING WASTED OR SQUANDERED.

(B) ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT A SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR ISNECESSARY, THE ORDER OF PREFERANCE PRESCRIBED BY THE

RULES IN THE APPOINTMENT OF REGULAR ADMINISTRATOR

SHOULD HAVE BEEN OBSERVED. THUS, THE TRIAL COURT

SHOULD HAVE DESIGNATED THE PETITIONER WHO POSSESSES

BENEFICIAL INTERESTS AS A CO-OWNER OF THE ESTATE,

RATHER THAN ATTY. ALBERTO Y. BAUTISTA WHO IS ONLY A

THIRD PARTY.

(C) ASSUMING, FURTHER, THAT THE DESIGNATION OF ATTY.

ALBERTO BAUTISTA WHO IS A THIRD PARTY IS PROPER, THEAUTHORITY OF A SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR CANNOT BE

EXERCISED IN DEROGATION OF THE RIGHTS OF PETITIONER AS

A CO-OWNER OF THE PROPERTIES FORMING PART OF THE

ESTATE. @;

Private res'ondent Ernesto =aero &"o &as not a 'arty in CA-.. SP9o. :4: $iled "is Coent #ontending t"at in t"e a!sen#e o$ #lear,#onvin#ing and satis$a#tory 'roo$ t"at t"e de#ision is otrageosly &rong,#ons'i#osly ista0en and &"isi#ally arrived at, t"e >dgent o$ t"e CAst !e regarded as $inal, #iting Macaa%al vs. CA- et al .@7 and ustamante-

r. vs. ;&RC .@6

In "is e'ly, 'etitioner 'ointed ot t"at t"e isse on t"e tieliness o$ t"e$iling o$ t"e 'etition $or certiorari &it" t"e CA "as no& !e#oe oot anda#adei# in vie& o$ A.*. Cir#lar 9o. ::-4-:-SC &"i#" too0 e$$e#t onSe'te!er 1, 4:::, aending Se#tion


27/67

reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the

sixty (60) day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion.

. . .

?ot" 'etitioner and 'rivate res'ondent Ernesto $iled t"eir res'e#tiveeoranda. Private res'ondent ?atista, t"e s'e#ial adinistrator designated !y t"e C, $ailed to s!it "is eorand des'ite de noti#eo$ t"e esoltions re%iring "i to do so. Conse%ently, on 3#to!er 4:,4::dgentOorderOresoltion t"at t"e Cort ay issein t"is #ase.@1: o&ever, Atty. ?atista is not relieved $ro 'aying t"e aonto$ t"e Pe#t to certiorari 2 and () &"et"er or not t"e a''ointent o$

a s'e#ial adinistrator is in a##ordan#e &it" la& and >ris'rden#e. As to t"e $irst isse, t"e Cort $inds erit to t"e #lai o$ 'etitioner t"at

A.*. Cir#lar 9o. ::-4-:-SC as "erein %oted earlier, $rt"er aendingSe#tion


28/67

&it"in &"i#" to $ile "is 'etition in t"e CA. "e 'etition $or certiorari &as $iledon A'ril 41, 1555.

o&ever, $ar $ro rendering t"e 'etition in CA-.. SP 9o. :4: ootand a#adei#, as #laied !y 'etitioner, t"e t"ird isse &ill "ave to !e 'assed'on !y t"e CA in t"e 'etition $or certiorari $iled &it" it.

As to t"e se#ond isse, s$$i#e it to !e stated t"at indeed, t"e a''ointento$ a s'e#ial adinistrator is interlo#tory, dis#retionary on t"e 'art o$ t"e Cand non-a''eala!le. o&ever, it ay !e s!>e#t o$ certiorari i$ it #an !es"o&n t"at t"e C #oitted grave a!se o$ dis#retion or la#0 o$ or ineB#ess o$ >risdi#tion. As t"e Cort "eld in Pefianco vs. Moral ,@1 even as t"etrial #ortHs order ay erely !e interlo#tory and non-a''eala!le, certiorari ist"e 'ro'er reedy to annl t"e sae &"en it is rendered &it" grave a!se o$ dis#retion.@1


29/67

*aBiino &as arried to Donata !t t"eir nion did not 'rod#e any #"ildren. *aBiinodied. "e CFI &old s!se%ently isse an 3rder, dated 4 3#to!er 154, a&ardingo&ners"i' o$ t"e real 'ro'erties to Donata.

Donata died on 1 9ove!er 1577. Erlinda, one o$ DonataHs nie#es, institted &it" t"e

C a 'etition $or t"e adinistration o$ t"e intestate estate o$ Donata. Erlinda and "er"s!and, regorio, &ere a''ointed !y t"e C as adinistrators o$ DonataHs intestateestate. Co7rover aroe amo8 Doa7a> 3er ?3e #r:!a :ame! e@:+veo?er3 o9 73ree are: o9 :a!, bae! o 7?o Dee! o9 Doa7o , !ot" dated1 Se'te!er 1577, allegedly eBe#ted in "er $avor !y "er ant Donata. "e ot"er "eirso$ Donata o''osed ErlindaHs #lai.

3n 41 =anary 156, Silverio ?riones (Silverio), a ne'"e& o$ *aBiino, $iled a Petition&it" t"e C $or Letters o$ Adinistration $or t"e intestate estate o$ *aBiino, &"i#"&as initially granted !y t"e C. "e C also issed an 3rder, dated De#e!er156, allo&ing Silverio to #olle#t rentals $ro *aBiinoHs 'ro'erties. ?t t"en, regorio

$iled &it" t"e C a *otion to Set Aside t"e 3rder, dated De#e!er 156, #laiingt"at t"e said 'ro'erties &ere already nder "is and "is &i$eHs adinistration as 'art o$t"e intestate estate o$ Donata. SilverioHs Letters o$ Adinistration $or t"e intestate estateo$ *aBiino &as s!se%ently set aside !y t"e C.

3n *ar#" 1567, t"e "eirs o$ *aBiino $iled a Co'laint &it" t"e C against t"e"eirs o$ Donata $or t"e 'artition, annlent, and re#overy o$ 'ossession o$ real 'ro'erty,do#0eted as Civil Case 9o. CE?-75


30/67

In its De#ision, dated 1: *ar#" 4::;, t"is Cort $ond t"e Petition eritorios and,reversing t"e De#isions o$ t"e Cort o$ A''eals and t"e egional rial Cort (C),disissed t"e Co'laint $or 'artition, annlent, and re#overy o$ 'ossession o$ real'ro'erty $iled !y t"e "eirs o$ *aBiino in Civil Case 9o. CE?-75oyst"e 'res'tion o$ reglarity, and en#o'assed in s#" 'res'tion is t"e order o$'!li#ation o$ t"e noti#e o$ t"e intestate 'ro#eedings. A revie& o$ t"e re#ords $ails tos"o& any allegation or #on#rete 'roo$ t"at t"e CFI also $ailed to order t"e '!li#ation inne&s'a'ers o$ t"e noti#e o$ t"e intestate 'ro#eedings and to re%ire 'roo$ $ro Donatao$ #o'lian#e t"ere&it". 9eit"er #an t"is Cort $ind any reason or eB'lanation as to &"y

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_150175_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_150175_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_150175_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_150175_2007.html#fnt19


31/67

*aBiinoHs si!lings #old "ave issed t"e '!lis"ed noti#e o$ t"e intestate 'ro#eedingso$ t"eir !rot"er.

*oreover, even i$ DonataHs allegation t"at s"e &as *aBiinoHs sole "eir does #onstitte$rad, it is ins$$i#ient to >sti$y a!andonent o$ t"e CFI 3rder, dated 1 =anary

15;:,44

#onsidering t"e natre o$ intestate 'ro#eedings as !eing in rem and t"edis'ta!le 'res'tions o$ t"e reglar 'er$oran#e o$ o$$i#ial dty and la&$l eBer#iseo$ >risdi#tion !y t"e CFI in rendering t"e %estioned 3rder, dated 1 =anary 15;:, inS'e#ial Pro#eedings 9o. 546-.

G.R. No. 146006 )ebr+ar 2-, 2004

OS# C. L## AND AL"A AGGA%AO vs.R#GIONAL /RIAL COUR/ O) U#$ON CI/;

)AC/S& Dr. +veo P. Or7aeE orora7e! 73e P3:e I7era7oa: L9e I+raeComa, I. o +: 6, 1*56. A7 73e 7me o9 73e oma> orora7o, Dr. Or7aeEo?e! e7 ere7 F*0H o9 73e +brbe! a7a: 7o.

O +: 21, 1*0, Dr. Or7aeE !e!. (e :e97 be3! a ?9e F+:aa Sa:8a!o Or7aeEH, 73ree:e87ma7e 3:!re FRa9ae:, oe a! A7oo Or7aeEH a! 9ve ::e87ma7e 3:!re bL8aa Novo F3ere rva7e reo!e7 "a. Dva Or7aeE ?9e, +:aa S. Or7aeE, :am8 73a7 3e o?e!1,0144 P3:7er:9e 3are o9 7o a 3er oJ+8a: 3are 73e e7a7e , o:! a! 3are?73 r837 7o re+r3ae 9avor o9 3ere e77oer ):o Loa A7ae Gro+F)LAGH, re'resented !y 7 re!e7, "erein 'etitioner oe C. Lee. =liana 3rta8e+ 9a:e! 7o

re+r3ae t"e s"ares o$ sto#0 &it"in t"e sti'lated 'eriod, t"s o?er3 73ereo9 ?aoo:!a7e! b e77oer )LAG 7 ame.

3n 3#to!er :, 1551, Sea: A!m7ra7or oe Or7aeE, a#ting in "is 'ersonal #a'a#ityand #laiing t"at "e o&ned 73e rema8 1,0115 P3:7er:9e s"ares o$ sto#0s as "isin"eritan#e s"are in t"e estate, o:! a! 3are ?73 r837 7o re+r3ae a:o 9avor o9 3ere e77oer )LAG, re'resented !y its 'resident, "erein 'etitioner =ose C. Lee. A$ter oneyear, 'etitioner FLA #onsolidated in its nae t"e o&ners"i' o$ t"e P"ilinterli$e s"ares o$ sto#0&"en oe Or7aeE 9a:e! 7o re+r3ae 73e ame.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_150175_2007.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_150175_2007.html#fnt22


32/67

I7 aear 73a7 evera: ear be9ore Fb+7 a:rea! !+r8 73e e!e o9 73e 7e7a7eroee!8 a7 73e Re8oa: /ra: Co+r7 o9 +eEo C7, %ra3 5H, +:aa Or7aeE a!3er 7?o 3:!re, Sea: A!m7ra7or Ra9ae: a! oe Or7aeE, e7ere! 7o amemora!+m o9 a8reeme7 !a7e! "ar3 4, 1*2 9or 73e e@7raJ+!a: e77:eme7 o9 73ee7a7e o9 Dr. +veo Or7aeE, ar77o8 73e e7a7e F:+!8 73e P3:7er:9e 3areo9 7oH amo8 73eme:ve. /3 ?a 73e ba o9 73e +mber o9 3are eara7e: o:!

b +:aa Or7aeE o Ar: 15, 1** F1,014 3areH a! b oe Or7aeE o O7ober -0,1**1 F1,011 3areH 9avor o9 3ere e77oer )LAG.

3n =ly 14, 155, "erein 'rivate res'ondent *a. Divina 3rta8e+QEnderes and "er si!lings("erea$ter re$erred to as 'rivate res'ondents Enderes et al.) $iled a otion $or a''ointent o$ s'e#ial adinistrator o$ P"ilinterli$e s"ares o$ sto#0. "is ove &as o''osed !y S'e#ial

Adinistrator =ose 3rta8e+.

3n 9ove!er 6, 155, t"e intestate #ort granted t"e otion o$ 'rivate res'ondents Enderes et al. and a''ointed 'rivate res'ondent Enderes s'e#ial adinistratriB o$ t"e P"ilinterli$e s"ares o$ sto#0.

O Deember 20, 1**5, Sea: A!m7ra7r@ #!ere 9:e! a +r8e7 mo7o 7o !e:arevo! ab initio 73e memora!+m o9 a8reeme7 !a7e! "ar3 4, 1*2. 3n =anary 5, 155;,s"e $iled a otion to de#lare t"e 'artial nllity o$ t"e eBtra>di#ial settleent o$ t"e de#edentHsestate. "ese otions &ere o''osed !y S'e#ial Adinistrator =ose 3rta8e+.

O "ar3 22, 1**6, Sea: A!m7ra7r@ #!ere 9:e! a +r8e7 mo7o 7o !e:arevo! ab initio 73e !ee! o9 a:e o9 P3:7er:9e 3are o9 7o , &"i#" ove &as againo''osed !y S'e#ial Adinistrator =ose 3rta8e+.

3n Agst 11, 1557, t"e intestate #ort denied t"e oni!s otion o$ S'e#ial Adinistrator =ose 3rta8e+ $or t"e a''roval o$ t"e deeds o$ sale $or t"e reason t"at

Under t"e Godoy #ase, sura, it &as "eld in s!stan#e t"at a a:e o9 a roer7 o9 73e e7a7e?73o+7 a Or!er o9 73e roba7e o+r7 vo! a! ae o 77:e 7o 73e +r3aer . Sin#et"e sales in %estion &ere entered into !y =liana S. 3rta8e+ and =ose S. 3rta8e+ in t"eir

'ersonal #a'a#ity &it"ot 'rior a''roval o$ t"e Cort, t"e sae is not !inding 'on t"e Estate.3n Agst 45, 1557, t"e intestate #ort issed anot"er order granting t"e otion o$ S'e#ial

AdinistratriB Enderes $or t"e annlent o$ t"e *ar#" di#ial 'artition o$ estate. "e #ort reasoned t"at

Aggrieved !y t"e a!ove-stated orders o$ t"e intestate #ort, =ose 3rta8e+ $iled, on De#e!er 44, 1557, a 'etition $or #ertiorari in t"e Cort o$ A''eals. "e a''ellate #ort denied "is 'etition,"o&ever, rling t"at t"ere &as no legal >sti$i#ation &"atsoever $or t"e eBtra>di#ial 'artition o$ t"e estate !y =ose 3rta8e+, "is !rot"er a$ael 3rta8e+ and ot"er =liana 3rta8e+ dring t"e'enden#y o$ t"e settleent o$ t"e estate o$ Dr. 3rta8e+, &it"ot t"e re%isite a''roval o$ t"eintestate #ort, &"en it &as #lear t"at t"ere &ere ot"er "eirs to t"e estate &"o stood to !e're>di#ed t"ere!y. Conse%ently, t"e sale ade !y =ose 3rta8e+ and "is ot"er =liana

3rta8e+ to FLA o$ t"e s"ares o$ sto#0 t"ey invalidly a''ro'riated $or t"eselves, &it"ota''roval o$ t"e intestate #ort, &as void.6

Pe77oer oe Lee a! A:ma A88abao Fre!e7 a! ere7ar, ree7ve:, o9 P3:7er:9eH a! )LAG o? rae 73e 9o::o?8 error 9or o+r o!era7o&

/3e Co+r7 o9 Aea: omm77e! 8rave reverb:e #RROR&

BBB


33/67

D. I 9a:8 7o !e:are +:: a! vo! 73e or!er o9 73e 7e7a7e o+r7 ?33 +::9e! 73ea:e o9 3are o9 7o be7?ee 73e :e87ma7e 3er oe S. Or7aeE a! e77oer )LAGbea+e o9 e77:e! :a? a! J+rr+!ee, .e., 73a7 a 3er 3a 73e r837 7o !oe o9 73e!ee!e7> roer7 eve 9 73e ame +!er a!m7ra7o +r+a7 7o Cv: Co!erovo 73a7 oeo o9 3ere!7ar roer7 7ram77e! 7o 73e 3er 73e mome7 o9 !ea73 o9 73e !ee!e7 (A#ede!o vs. A!esais, 417 SCA 15


34/67

Five years later, on *ay 1, 15;6, Feli#isio arried *erry Lee Cor&in, &it" &"o "e "ad a son, o!ias.o&ever, on 3#to!er 1, 1571, *erry Lee, an Aeri#an #iti+en, $iled a Co'laint $or Divor#e !e$ore t"eFaily Cort o$ t"e First Cir#it, State o$ a&aii, United States o$ Aeri#a (U.S.A.), &"i#" issed aDe#ree ranting A!solte Divor#e and A&arding C"ild Cstody on De#e!er 1


35/67

t"e Fili'ino s'ose s"old not !e dis#riinated against in "is o&n #ontry i$ t"e ends o$ >sti#e are to !eserved.

An interested 'erson "as !een de$ined as one &"o &old !e !ene$ited !y t"e estate, s#" as an "eir, or one &"o "as a #lai against t"e estate, s#" as a #reditor. "e interest st !e aterial and dire#t, andnot erely indire#t or #ontingent.

In t"e instant #ase, res'ondent &old %ali$y as an interested 'erson &"o "as a dire#t interest in t"eestate o$ Feli#isio !y virte o$ t"eir #o"a!itation, t"e eBisten#e o$ &"i#" &as not denied !y 'etitioners. I$ s"e 'roves t"e validity o$ t"e divor#e and Feli#isioHs #a'a#ity to rearry, !t $ails to 'rove t"at "er arriage &it" "i &as validly 'er$ored nder t"e la&s o$ t"e U.S.A., t"en s"e ay !e #onsidered as a#o-o&ner nder Arti#le 1


36/67

On 'a2 $#, "#-,3$4 Fermina e5ecuted a 6eed of SelfAd7udication and 8ransfer of

9i&hts3-4 over Lot * in favor of Amelita, who a&reed to assume all the o1li&ations, duties, and

conditions imposed upon Fermina under 'SA Application :o. ;#

x x x

That I, FERMINA A. LOPEZ, of legal age, Filipino, widow of Pedro C. Lopez and a resident ofPort San Pedro, Cebu City, Philippines, am the AWARDEE of Lots Nos. 4, 5, 3-B, 3-C and 6-B,

Sgs-3451 And being the winning bidder at the auction sale of these parcels by the Bureau of

Lands held on May 12, 1982, at the price of P150.00 per square meter taking a purchase price

ofP282,900.00 for the tract; That I have made as my partial payment the sum of P28,290.00

evidenced by Official Receipt No. 1357764-B representing ten (10%) per cent of my bid, leaving

a balance of P254,610.00 that shall be in not more than ten (10) years at an equal installments

of P25,461.00 beginning June 17, 1983 until the full amount is paid.

… the Transferee Mrs. Amelita L. Sola, agrees to assume, all the obligations, duties and

conditions imposed upon the Awardee in relation to the MSA Application No. V-81066 entered

in their records as Sales Entry No. 20476.

… [I] hereby declare that I accept this Deed of Self-Adjudication and Transfer of Rights and

further agree to all conditions provided therein.[5]

Amelita assumed pa2ment of the lot to the %ureau of Lands. She paid a total amountof P$#$,"


37/67

Costs against plaintiff-appellee.

SO ORDERED.[16]

Petitioner sou&ht reconsideration, 1ut it was denied 12 the CA. 3!4

8he crucial issue to 1e resolved in an action for reconve2ance is> 0ho 1etween petitioner and

respondent has a 1etter claim to the landB

Even assuming that Sola acquired title tot eh disputed property in bad faith,only the State can institute REVERSION PROEE!IN"S under Sec# $%$ of

the Public &and 'ct# (hus)

Sec# $%$# 'll actions for reversion to the "overnment of lands of the public

domain or improvements thereon shall be instituted by the Solicitor "eneralor the officer acting in his stead, in the proper courts, in the name of the

Republic of the Philippines#

In other *ords, a private individual may not bring an action for reversion or

any action *hich *ould have the effect of canceling a free patent and thecorresponding certificate of title issued on the basis thereof, suh that the

land covered thereby *ill again form part of the public domain#

Only the Solicitor "eneral of the officer acting in his stead may do so# Since

Sola+s title originated from a grant by the government, its cancellation is amatter bet*een the grantor and the grantee# learly then, 'lvarico has no

standing at all to question the validity of Sola+s title# It follo*s that he cannotrecover the property because to begin *ith, he has not sho*n that he is the

rightful o*ner thereof#

'nent 'lvarico+s contention that it *as the intention of ermina Sola for

'melita Sola to hold the property in trust for him, *e held that if this *asreally the intention of ermina, then this should have been clearly stated in

the !eed of Self-'d.udication e/ecuted in $012, in the !eed of !onation

e/ecuted in $013, or in a subsequent instrument# 'bsent any persuasive

proof of that intention in any *ritten instrument, *e are not prepared toaccept 'lvarico+s bare allegation concerning the donor+s state of mind#

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jun2002/138953.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jun2002/138953.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jun2002/138953.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jun2002/138953.htm#_edn17


38/67

Caro vs "ucaldito

regorio Caro !og"t a 'ar#el o$ land 0no&n as AssessorHs Lot 9o. 1;: $ro'erto e'ilano as eviden#ed !y a Deed o$ Sale@4 dated 3#to!er 41, 15. "e said

lot &as sitated in (itio ?angyan, arrio Calaya, *ni#i'ality o$ 9eva alen#ia, IloiloCity, #onsisting ore or less o$ 17.56


39/67

Possession@6 !e$ore t"e C o$ Iloilo City, &"i#" &as granted in an 3rder @5 dated *ay7, 156e#t lot, and "ad !een in'ossession o$ t"e sae sin#e 15 andOor even 'rior t"ereto in t"e #on#e't o$ o&ner,adversely, o'enly, #ontinosly and notoriosly.M e $rt"er alleged t"at t"e said lot "ad!een de#lared $or taB 'r'oses in "is nae and t"at o$ "is 'rede#essors-in-interest, andt"at t"e #orres'onding land taBes "ad !een 'aid t"ere$or. e #laied t"at AssessorHsLot 9o. 1;: "ad a#tally !een divided into t&o lots, naely, Lot 9o. e#t lot in

$avor o$ S#aldito &as &rong$l and $radlent, s"e "ad no rig"t &"atsoever over t"es!>e#t lot. en#e, as a trstee o$ a #onstr#tive trst,M s"e &as o!liged to retrn t"esae to "i as t"e la&$l o&ner. "e #o'laint #ontained t"e $ollo&ing 'rayerWHEREFORE, it is prayed that judgment be rendered:

1. Ordering the annulment and voiding of the decision of the Bureau of Lands, the free patent

and the Original Certificate of Title No. F-27162 or in the alternative;

2. Ordering defendant to reconvey the ownership and in the event she wrests possession from

plaintiff then, also the possession of Lot 4512 PLS-775 of Nueva Valencia, Guimaras Cadastre,

back to plaintiff;

3. Declaring plaintiff as the lawful owner and possessor of Lot 4512 PLS-775 of Nueva

Valencia, Guimaras Cadastre and ordering the issuance of a free patent or a torrens title in favor

of plaintiff;4. Ordering defendant to pay the plaintiff P50,000.00 as moral damages, P2,000.00 as

attorney’s fees and P2,000.00 as expenses on litigation plus exemplary damages in an amount at

the discretion of this Court.

Plaintiff further prays for such other relief just and equitable in the premises.@14

In "er ans&er &it" #onter#lai, S#aldito inter'osed, as a s'e#ial a$$irativede$ense, t"e $a#t t"at s"e intervened in t"e 'ro#eedings on CaroHs a''li#ation $or a $ree'atent over Lot 9o. e#t land$ro De la Cr+. *oreover, #ontrary to t"e allegations o$ t"e 'etitioner, Lot 9o. 565 andLot 9o.


40/67

Citing t"e #ase o$ Ma8imo v. Court of "irst


41/67

Caro, no& t"e 'etitioner, assails t"e rling o$ t"e a''ellate #ort on t"e $ollo&inggrondsTHAT THE HONORABLE APPELLATE COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR IN HOLDING

THAT PETITIONER HAS NO LEGAL PERSONALITY TO FILE THIS ACTION;

THAT THE HONORABLE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL

INTERPOSED BY PETITIONER ON THE GROUND THAT ONLY THE SOLICITORGENERAL CAN FILE AN ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY ACQUIRED

BY PATENT.@4


42/67

for sales patents thereon# respondents have no personality to file the suit#Neither *ill they be directly affected by the .udgment in such a suit#

OT-O

1556

er!ert Cang, 'etitioner, vs. Cort o$ A''eals and S'oses onald . Clavano and*aria Clara Clavano, res'ondents.

Fa#ts Petitioner and Ana *arie Clavano &ere arried and !egot t"ree #"ildren. Ana*arie 'on learning o$ "er "s!and/s illi#it liaison $ile a 'etition $or legal se'aration &it"aliony 'endente lite &"i#" &as a''roved. Petitioner t"en le$t $or t"e United States&"ere "e sog"t a divor#e $ro Ana *arie. e &as issed a divor#e de#ree andgranted sole #stody o$ t"e #"ildren to Ana *arie, reserving rig"ts o$ visitation at allreasona!le ties and 'la#es to 'etitioner. Private res'ondents &"o &ere t"e !rot"erand sister-in-la& o$ Ana *arie $iled a 'etition $or ado'tion o$ t"e t"ree inor Cang#"ildren. "e trial #ort granted t"e 'etition $or ado'tion. Ana *arie &as t"e only 'arent&"o gives #onsent to t"e ado'tion o$ t"eir #"ildren. "e Cort o$ A''eals a$$ired t"etrial #ort/s de#ision.

Isse "et"er 'etitioner "as a!andoned "is #"ildren, t"ere!y a0ing "is #onsent tot"e ado'tion ne#essary.

ling "e la& is #lear t"at eit"er 'arent ay lose 'arental at"ority over t"e #"ild only$or a valid reason. 9o s#" reason &as esta!lis"ed in t"e legal se'aration #ase.De'rivation o$ 'arental at"ority is one o$ t"e e$$e#ts o$ a de#ree o$ ado'tion. ?t t"ere#annot !e a valid de#ree o$ ado'tion in t"is #ase 're#isely !e#ase t"e $indings o$ t"elo&er #orts on t"e isse o$ a!andonent o$ $a#ts on re#ord. "e 'etition $or ado'tionst !e denied as it &as $iled &it"ot t"e re%ired #onsent o$ t"eir $at"er &"o, !y la&and nder t"e $a#ts o$ t"e #ase at !ar, "as not a!andoned t"e.

G.R. No. 105308, September 25 1998

FACTS:

Anna Marie filed a petition for legal separation upon learning of her husband's

extramarital affairs, which the trial court approved the petition. Herbert sought a divorce


43/67

from Anna Marie in the United States. The court granted sole custody of the 3 minor

children to Anna, reserving the rights of visitation to Herbert.

The brother and sister-in-law of Anna filed for the adoption of the 3 minor children.

Herbert contest the adoption, but the petition was already granted by the court. CA

affirmed the decree of adoption, holding that Art. 188 of the FC requires the written

consent of the natural parents of the children to be adopted, but the consent of the

parent who has abandoned the child is not necessary. It held that Herbert failed to pay

monthly support to his children. Herbert elevated the case to the Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the 3 minor children be legally adopted without the written consent of a

natural parent on the ground that Herbert has abandoned them.

RULING:

Yes.

Article 188 amended the statutory provision on consent for adoption, the written consent

of the natural parent to the adoption has remained a requisite for its validity. Rule 99 of

the Rules of the Court requires a written consent to the adoption signed by the child, xxxand by each of its known living parents who is not insane or hopelessly intemperate or

has not abandoned the child.

Article 256 of the Family Code requires the written consent of the natural parent for the

decree of adoption to be valid unless the parent has abandoned the child or that the

parent is "insane or hopelessly intemperate."

In reference to abandonment of a child by his parent, the act of abandonment imports

"any conduct of the parent which evinces a settled purpose to forego all parental duties

and relinquish all parental claims to the child." It means "neglect or refusal to performthe natural and legal obligations of care and support which parents owe their children."

In this case, however, Herbert did not manifest any conduct that would forego his

parental duties and relinquish all parental claims over his children as to, constitute


44/67

abandonment. Physical abandonment alone, without financial and moral desertion, is

not tantamount to abandonment. While Herbert was physically absent, he was not

remiss in his natural and legal obligations of love, care and support for his children. The

Court find pieces of documentary evidence that he maintained regular communications

with his wife and children through letters and telephone, and send them packagescatered to their whims.

Adoption

/. Cang vs Court of ppeals

etitioner 0erbert Cang and nna 1arie Clavano who were married, begotthree children. uring the early years of their marriage, the Cangcouple's relationship was undisturbed. ot long thereafter, however,nna 1ar ie l ea rn ed o f he r husband's alleged extramarital a2air. nna1arie subse#uently ! led a petit ion for lega l separation which wasgranted. They had an agreement for support of the children andthat nna 1arie can enter into agreements without the written consentof 0erbert. etitioner left for the 3". 1eanwh i l e , t he b ro t he r ands i s t e r4 i n 4 l aw o f nna 1arie !led for the adoption of the 5 minor Cangchildren. 3pon learning of the adoption, 0erbert went bac* to the hilippinesto contest it, but the petition for adoption was granted by the

court.

-ssueCan min or c hi l dren be l ega l ly ado pte d wi tho ut t he writtenconsent of a natural parent on the ground that the latter has abandonedthem6

0eld r t i c l e 7 8 o f t h e 9a m i l y C o d e p r o v i d e s f o r i t sretroactivity :insofar as it does not pre;udice or impair vested or ac #u i redr ig hts in acc orda nce wi t h t he C iv i l Cod e or oth er laws.: s

amended by the 9amily Code, the statutory provision on c onsen t f o rad op ti on no w rea ds r t . /


45/67

forego ing prov is ions of law, the written consent of the natural parent isindispensable for the validity of the decree of adoption.evertheless, the re#uirement of written consent can be dispensedwith if the parent has abandoned the child or that such parent is :insane orhopelessly intemperate.:-n the instant case, records disclose that

petitioner>s c o n d u c t d i d n o t m a n i f e s t a s e t t l e d p u r p o s et o f o r e g o a l l p a re n t al d u ti e s an d re l in # u is h a l l p a re n t alc l a ims ov er h i s children as to, constitute abandonment. hysicalestrangement alone, without !nancial and moral desertion, is nottantamount to abandonment. ?hile admittedly, petitioner wasphys ica lly absent as he was then in the 3nited "tates, he was not remiss inhis natural and legal obligations of love, care and support for his ch ildren .0e maintained regular communication with his wife and childrenthrough let ters and telephone. 0e used to send pac*ages by mail andcatered to their whims.

. Tomasa @da. de Aacob vs. C(resumption of 1arriage)ature of the Case This is a etition for $eview assailing the decision of the C denyingpetitioner>s 1otion for $econsideration

9actsetitioner Tomasa @da. de Aacob claimed to be the surviving spouse ofdeceased r. lfredo B. Aacob and was appointed "pecial dministratix forthe various estates of the deceased by virtue of a reconstructed 1arriage

Contract between herself and the deceased. $espondent edro ilapil on theother hand, claimed to be the legally4adopted son of lfredo, purportedlysupported byan Order issued by then residing Audge Aose . 1oya, C9-,Camarines "ur, granting the petition for adoption !led by deceased lfredoin favor of edro ilapil. edro sought to intervene during the proceeding forthe settlement of the estate of lfredo, claiming his share of thedeceased>sestate as lfredo's adopted son and sole surviving heir. edro li*ewise#uestioned the validity of the marriage between ppellant Tomasa and hisadoptive father lfredo.ppellant claims that the marriage between her andlfredo was solemniDed by one 1sgr. 9lorencio C. Ellana, C=C, -ntramuros,1anila sometime in /%F7. "he could not however present the original copy of

the 1arriage Contract stating that the original document was lost when 1sgr. Ellana allegedly gave it to 1r. Aose Centenera for registration. -n lieu of theoriginal, Tomasa presented as secondary evidence a reconstructed 1arriageContract issued in /%F


46/67


47/67

husband and wife was not disputed in this case, but was in fact evenaccepted, it would follow that the presumption of marriage was not li*elyrebutted.

5. $epublic vs 0ernandeD

K. $epublic vs C

7.

[G.R. No. !8". #arch "$ %00&'

(N THE #ATTER )* THE A+),T()N )* STE,HAN(E NATH- AST)RGAGARC(A

H)N)RAT) . CAT(N+(G$ petitioner .

*acts:

0onorato =. Catindig, herein petitioner, !led a petition to adopt hisminor illegitimate child "tephanie athy storga Larcia. 0e alleged therein,among others, that "tephanie was born on Aune 8, /%%K, that her mother isLemma storga LarciaH that "tephanie has been using her mother>s middlename and surnameH and that he is now a widower and #uali!ed to be heradopting parent. 0e prayed that "tephanie>s middle name storga bechanged to ILarcia,J her mother>s surname, and that her surname ILarciaJbe changed to ICatindig,J his surname.

(ssue:1ay an illegitimate child, upon adoption by her natural father, use thesurname of her natural mother as her middle name6 This is the issue raisedin the instant case.

Rulin/:

"tephanie should be permitted to use, as her middle name, thesurname of her natural mother for the following reasons

9irst, it is necessary to preserve and maintain "tephanie>s !liation withher natural mother because under rticle /


48/67

the Civil Code and 9amily Code. -n fact, the 9amily aw Committees agreedthat “the initial or surname of the mother should immediately precede thesurname of the father so that the second name, if any, will be before thesurname of the mother.”

. SSS 1s A/uas

2. *(RST +(3(S()N

G.R. No. !4!8 5une %2$ %00

6AN+(NG(N 1s. RE,76(C )* THE ,H(6(,,(NES

*acts:

iwata $amos andingin, a citiDen of the 3nited "tates of merica(3"), of 9ilipino parentage and a resident of Luam, 3", !led a petition for

the adoption of minors Blaine iDon $amos, Blma iDon $amos and BugeneiDon $amos who was born on................ The minors are the natural childrenof 1anuel $amos, petitioner>s brother (deceased), and melia $amos4 whowent to -taly, re4married there and now has two children by her secondmarriage and no longer communicated with her children .

(ssue: ?hether or not the petition for adoption is invalid for lac* of consentof the biological mother6

Rulin/:

o. The general re#uirement of consent and notice to the naturalparents is intended to protect the natural parental relationship fromunwarranted interference by interlopers, and to insure the opportunity tosafeguard the best interests of the child in the manner of the proposedadoption. ?hen she !led her petition with the trial court, $ep. ct o.


49/67

CHANGE o NA#E

. [G.R. No. "0%22. #ay 4$ %00%'

#A. 6)7R+ES ARR(ENT)S E6E)S(+A$ or and in 9ehal o her minor

child$ CHAR6ES CHR(ST(AN E6E)S(+A vs. 6)CA6 C(3(6REG(STRAR )* 7E;)N C(T-$ and CAR6)S 3(66ENA )R)N

Facts:

'a. Lourdes ?leosida filed a petition 1efore the 9e&ional 8rial Court of uezon Cit2

seein& to correct the followin& entries in the 1irth certificate of her son, Charles Christian> first,

the surname D%or1onD should 1e chan&ed to D?leosidaED second, the date of the parents weddin&should 1e left 1lanE and third, the informants name should 1e D'a. Lourdes %. ?leosida,D

instead of D'a. Lourdes ?. %or1on.D Gn support of her petition, petitioner alle&ed that she &ave

1irth to her son out of wedloc on 'a2 $, ""$E that she and the 1o2s father, Carlos %or1on,

were never marriedE and that the child is therefore ille&itimate and should follow the motherssurname. 8he petition impleaded the Local 9e&istrar of uezon Cit2 and Carlos ;illena %or1on

as respondents.

:o opposition filed. 98C motu propio dismissed the case.

Issue: 0hether or not corrections of entries in the certificate of live 1irth pursuant to Article $of the Civil Code, in relation to 9ule


50/67

with our rulin& in Republic vs. Valencia provided that the appropriate procedural re/uirements

are complied with. 8he records show that notice and pu1lication were made.

9espondents Carlos ;illena %or1on, the Local Civil 9e&istrar of uezon Cit2 and the Solicitor

+eneral were all furnished with a cop2 of the notice of hearin& to&ether with a cop2 of the

petition. On June $=, ""!, the trial court issued a second order &ivin& the petitioner anopportunit2 to show compliance with the 7urisdictional re/uirements and to present evidence

durin& the hearin& set on Jul2 $-, ""!. 8he fore&oin& satisf2 all the re/uirements of 9ule


51/67

Carlito’s si1lin&s same re/uest to delete the marriedK status of their parents

Carlito’s children date of his and his wife’s marria&e 1e corrected

8he Local Civil 9e&istrar of %utuan Cit2 was impleaded as respondent. 8he re/uired

pu1lication was made.

8he Cit2 civil re&istrar wrote a letter statin& her o1servations and did not mae an2

o17ection.

8he OS+ entered its appearance. @earin& ensued and an additional correction in the 1irthcertificates of Carlito’s children was re/uested to the effect that the first name of their mother 1e

rectified from 'ari1elK to 'arivel.K

98C O96?9> petition was &ranted for all of the re/uested chan&es

9?P%LGC> trial court erred in orderin& the chan&e of the name Carlito John IhoK to CarlitoIhoK for noncompliance with 7urisdictional re/uirements for a chan&e of name under 9ule affirmed 98CE 9ule


52/67

For the chan&e involvin& the nationalit2 of Carlito’s mother as reflected in his 1irth

certificate is a &rave and important matter that has a 1earin& and effect on the citizenship andnationalit2 not onl2 of the parents, 1ut also of the offsprin&.34

Further, the deletion of the entr2 that Carlito’s and his si1lin&s’ parents were marriedKalters their filiation from le&itimateK to ille&itimate,K with si&nificant implications on their

successional and other ri&hts.

Clea

specproc cases

Documents