digested cases spec pro.doc

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


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"!


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.


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


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-


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=


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


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


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


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


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


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 ;##)


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


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


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"


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.


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


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


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!


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


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.


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


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


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.


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.

digested cases spec pro.doc

Documents